Posted on 10/19/2007 12:23:35 PM PDT by uxbridge
Are you dim? First you demonstrate an ignorance of the US Constitution and then justify that by demonstrating an ignorance of the peer reviewed science.
Here, let me help. The right to life is an individual right, not a collective right that the state (be it the feds or the states) can give or take away as they please. The constitution requires both the feds and the states to protect the rights of the individual.
You are out there where the birds can't fly because of a lack of O2 amigo.
Sorry, just showing you the mile that liberals will take with that inch you just gave them. Conservative lust for federal power always gives birth to a liberal bastard.
Your views are butt ignorant whether they come from a leftist or a rightist, the constitution says what it says, the right to life is about as absolute as a right gets. Yes, the state has the power to deprive you of that right after due process but the state also has the duty to protect that right. What the hell is the matter with you that you think states can countenance murder?
Article 1, Section 8, Subsection 3 (regulate commerce w/ foreign nations)
Article 2, Section 2, Subsection 2 (power to assign treaties w/ foreign nations)
Article 6, Subsection 2 (all treaties made are to be honored)
If the federal government can override states and make abortion a federal issue, based on the premise it robs innocents nationwide of life, let’s take a look at what else also kills innocents in every state, according to the government you just handed power to:
* A gun in the home
* Secondhand smoke
* Lack of universal health care
* Parents who don’t take a government-mandated parenting course
Do we really want guys from California and Massachusetts taking your “federalize abortion” argument and telling Texans they now can’t smoke within 50 feet of a child? I guarantee you they’ll be fighting with each other to see who sponsors that bill. Liberals LOOOOVE taking conservative legislation and using it against them.
I contribute to pro-life causes, wear my Precious Feet and drop off diapers to crisis preganancy centers. I want abortion ended, but I don’t want to create a new host of horrors. Just call it what it is — murder — give it back to the states and prosecute it as murder.
When will conservatives realize that every time they empower the federal government to enforce their views, they’re giving liberals a tool to enforce theirs.
-
liberals don’t need any ‘tools’ from conservatives. The constitution isn’t going to sit there and protect itself if people want to elect liberals.
It’s not that I want a strong federal govt but I want a balance between fed, state, the ‘mob rule’ and corporations so that one group doesn’t screw the rights of others.
It doesn’t help when you grease the skids. Expanding the power of the federal government to win a conservative battle is like injecting yourself with cancer hoping it kills your cold.
Absolutely none of those you cited authorize Congress to take American tax dollars and bestow them on a foreign country for humanitarian purposes or as essentially bribes.
Foreign aid is commerce? Foreign aid is a treaty meaning approved by 2/3 of the Senate?
You are going to have to do much better than that.
There may well be certain “costs of doing business” associated with foreign commerce, but that is not foreign aid.
Hint: The authorization ain’t there.
great so you’d have a weak government, let the muslims take over and we’d be all live under sharia. ok gotta go now
THAT'S RIGHT! BECAUSE IF PAUL'S ELECTED TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO MARCH HERE AND ENSLAVE THE UNBORN BABIES AND USE THEM FOR ENERGY LIKE THE BABIES IN THE MATRIX MOVIE! PAUL'S A KOOK!
ROFL - I’m just resorting to the very conspiracy kookery the Paul bashers accuse Paul supporters of engaging in.
Yes! You’re proving my point. Those ARE ignorant statements, but they’re precisely what the government you want to empower is thinking.
If conservatives use the power of the federal government to ban abortion in every state, liberals will be lining up for miles to use that precedent to also federally ban guns in homes, ban secondhand smoke, mandate federal health insurance, etc. After all, most voters agree all those kill children, too.
End abortion, but do it in a way that at least leaves behind a free country. Don’t go the liberal route
You know those laws would've been shot down by some liberal POS judge anyway, the two pro-life bills Paul voted against. Paul was right to vote against them.
Trying to insinuate that Paul is somehow pro-abortion in spite of overwhelming evidence otherwise means that rationale has been thrown out the window in favor of seeing Paul defeated at all costs.
..again, I’m not saying Paul is pro abortion, as I’ve said over and over, I’m sure he is pro-life, it just doesn’t seem to be a priority for him..
How exactly does “get abortion out of the federal courts and enact 50 state bans” translate into “President Osama bin Laden will cut the heads off women caught reading?”
“Foreign aid is related to commerce as it guarantees the mutual relationship security”
Give me a break. I guess you also believe the interstate commerce clause allows the Feds to regulate everything under the Sun as well.
On it's face, that is extraodinarily stupid.
Did I misunderstand you?
I know the thread is about abortion but you made a sweeping statement that is flat out wrong.
Abortion is another matter. There are certainly constitutional means to apply the 5th and 14th Amendments to the unborn. Congress could simply pass a law that defines persons to include the unborn. Or a constitutional amendment could be passed.
Barring that, the abortion issue would fall to the states in it's entirety once the execrable Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton were overturned. BArring that we remain where we are today, that being the SCOTUS holding that babies can be murdered until the last toe passes the birth canal at any age.
Given the fact that you seem to think anything that explodes the power of the federal government is practically mandated by the Constitution, and that there seems to be no such thing as state soverignty, I find it ironic that you’re asking that question.
Yes, you are correct. Congress could simply pass a law that defines persons to include the unborn, or a Human Life Amendment could be passed.
My problem is that you’re telling the federal government can take over any issue where a majority of Congress says one state’s laws threaten life. Do you realize what that leads to?
When will conservatives realize that the liberals and bureaucrats they love giving power to don’t think like them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.