Thanks Bob

[Lighthouse]

Some will and some won't. Just like they did before. At least states then had the ability to illegalize it (and at least most states did, indeed, prohibit abortion outright, something you totally overlooked). States can't even do that much these days, nor do you seem interested in giving any state the ability to do as much. You'd rather make this a federal matter, which is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.

Yes, 29 states did not have legal abortion. However, any law that would allow abortion to be legal anywhere is a bad law. And if it is federally mandated that abortion is illegal in all cases, and that law cannot be repealed, then that is a good law. It doesn't allow for any state to legalize abortion. However, the idea that a law can't be repealed in this country doesn't work, because this country is built on a sandy foundation, where the laws change with the wind.

 

[Granite]

Yes, 29 states did not have legal abortion. However, any law that would allow abortion to be legal anywhere is a bad law. And if it is federally mandated that abortion is illegal in all cases, and that law cannot be repealed, then that is a good law. It doesn't allow for any state to legalize abortion. However, the idea that a law can't be repealed in this country doesn't work, because this country is built on a sandy foundation, where the laws change with the wind.

The law can always be repealed and always should be. Stop living in that fantasy world of yours where no law can ever be changed (which is, incidently, an extremely foolish conceit).

Your slavish devotion to greater federal power's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to abuse of federal power.

 

[Lighthouse]

The law can always be repealed and always should be. Stop living in that fantasy world of yours where no law can ever be changed (which is, incidently, an extremely foolish conceit).

Your slavish devotion to greater federal power's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to abuse of federal power.

My devotion is to a Constitution that limits the federal power to what is enclosed in the Constitution, and a Constitution that can't be changed, because the federal government, or anyone else, doesn't like it. Of course, that only works if the Constitution is correct to begin with. Which it would be if men didn't ignore God.

 

[Granite]

My devotion is to a Constitution that limits the federal power to what is enclosed in the Constitution, and a Constitution that can't be changed, because the federal government, or anyone else, doesn't like it. Of course, that only works if the Constitution is correct to begin with. Which it would be if men didn't ignore God.

An unchanging constitution is necessary as times and nations change. Ask eighteen year old voters, or people who can drink, or black folks...

 

[Lighthouse]

An unchanging constitution is necessary as times and nations change. Ask eighteen year old voters, or people who can drink, or black folks...

I think you meant to say "changing" instead of "unchanging." Those last two should never have been an issue. And voting is the root of the wickedness of our governmental setup.

 

[Granite]

I think you meant to say "changing" instead of "unchanging." Those last two should never have been an issue. And voting is the root of the wickedness of our governmental setup.

I meant exactly what I said, and you know it. Those issues shouldn't have been moral dilemmas but they were because of the fallible natures of men. Having an unchanging system of law is its own form of tyranny.

 

[Lighthouse]

I meant exactly what I said, and you know it. Those issues shouldn't have been moral dilemmas but they were because of the fallible natures of men. Having an unchanging system of law is its own form of tyranny.

Not if those laws are right.

 

[Granite]

Not if those laws are right.

"Right" of course changes, and an unchanging law that happens to crimp your life is, of course, something that would send you howling in protest. It's a two edged sword, pal. You're too stubborn to admit your fantasy world is unfeasible and unrealistic. Ain't my problem.

 

[Lighthouse]

"Right" of course changes, and an unchanging law that happens to crimp your life is, of course, something that would send you howling in protest. It's a two edged sword, pal. You're too stubborn to admit your fantasy world is unfeasible and unrealistic. Ain't my problem.

You're too stubborn to admit that one day God will rule, and you'll be left in the cold. Until you go to the Lake of Fire, of course. Then it won't be cold.

 

[Granite]

You're too stubborn to admit that one day God will rule, and you'll be left in the cold. Until you go to the Lake of Fire, of course. Then it won't be cold.

This is just an idiotic and childish response on your part. When you care to discuss government and politics like an adult, get back to me. Right now you're acting like the spoiled brat you usually are.

 

[Lighthouse]

This is just an idiotic and childish response on your part. When you care to discuss government and politics like an adult, get back to me. Right now you're acting like the spoiled brat you usually are.

:baby:

 

[S†ephen]

Yes. I am anti-abortion in Timbuktu. But I don't live there and am not a citizen there.

Nor is Ron Paul from Indiana. But the federal government is allowing abortion here and Ron is trying to change that.

According to what you've said, even if there is no massive governing body over everything, shouldn't you be trying to ban abortion all over the world no matter what? Each country has its individual government, why don't you try to work through that?

 

[PKevman]

Nor is Ron Paul from Indiana. But the federal government is allowing abortion here and Ron is trying to change that.

Ron Paul currently works for the USA and is running for president of the USA. Last I checked, Indiana was still a member of the USA. We are one country. To liken our states to 50 separate countries is not supporting you or your dad's arguments in the least. I read what your dad said to my wife, and asked her what she thought. She said, "Because I don't live in other countries, I live here." And that is exactly the common sense response to the argument you follow with (which is just what your dad asked me but repackaged).

According to what you've said, even if there is no massive governing body over everything, shouldn't you be trying to ban abortion all over the world no matter what? Each country has its individual government, why don't you try to work through that?

I am a citizen of the United States of America. I have a vote and a voice as a voting member of society. Further than that, I have influence here because I live here. If I had influence anywhere in the world where I could stand against abortion, I would do it. Abortion is wrong no matter where it is practiced, but realistically I can't have any impact in China unless I go there and become a citizen. To compare China to California is LUDICROUS! If I went to California, I would still be in my HOME country, the United States of America.

I honestly don't know why you guys want to persist with this argument. It's been slapped around and beaten quite badly.

 

[PKevman]

Each country has its individual government, why don't you try to work through that?

Why do you not walk down the street and buy your groceries from a market in Shanghai?

You MUST NOT be for markets in Shanghai! Or maybe you believe you are better than their markets, and that is why you won't walk down the street to the market in Shanghai and get your groceries......

 

[PKevman]

Do not murder is wrong and always will be wrong. In any time zone. In any geographic location. That's the standard.

 

[S†ephen]

From Wikipedia: Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.

Question: If Ron Paul if fighting this hard to get control of abortion out of Federal hands why do we think he won't do anything when it comes to the states. The man watched an abortion happen (see wikipedia also) and fights like a banshee against it.

Ron Paul is not going to let abortion continue. He's fighting it as hard as possible and no one on the forum has enough sense to see that he is trying to keep the fight in Constitutional bounds.

Do you guys honestly think that he'll just let the states slide after all the work he's done against abortion on the Federal level.

Good Grief. :sigh: :vomit:

 

[PKevman]

Do you guys honestly think that he'll just let the states slide after all the work he's done against abortion on the Federal level.

Wouldn't interfering with the states be using the force of the government against them which is what you have been decrying?

 

[S†ephen]

Wouldn't interfering with the states be using the force of the government against them which is what you have been decrying?

YES! EXACTLY!

If this man is so anti abortion why would he allow the choice to go to the states?

Answer: He knows it will solve the problem.

 

[Jefferson]

YES! EXACTLY!

If this man is so anti abortion why would he allow the choice to go to the states?

Answer: He knows it will solve the problem.

Either that or he's just shirking the responsibility of addressing the abortion issue off to another branch of government just like every other spineless politician does. The congressmen, mayors and governors say, "It's a federal issue." And all the cowards in the federal branches say, "It should be a states issue." Pass the buck. Pass the buck. Pass the buck. Now Ron Paul is doing the same thing.

 

[PKevman]

YES! EXACTLY!

If this man is so anti abortion why would he allow the choice to go to the states?

Answer: He knows it will solve the problem.

Fine (and please know that I actually agree with Jefferson), but SUPPOSING you are right, what in history proves the states will all choose rightly?
In fact history shows the exact opposite.

I would like to know something further though. Do you and your dad believe that we should be the United States of America, and what does that mean to you?