Kerry Lee Morgan Debates Bob on States' Rights

[aCultureWarrior]

Hypothetically, how would that federal law (amendment) come about?

By persuading 8 of those 20 states mentioned above to join the other 30 pro-life states to ratify the Constitution.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/110810

(The article is not my endorsement of Rick Perry, it only shows a way to legislate two important issues of the day).

 

[Frayed Knot]

States have a duty to protect innocent life. They do not have the right to decide whether or not an innocent life should be murdered.

Do they have the duty to decide what an "innocent life" deserving of protection is? That is, after all, the central question here.

Are puppies that are routinely euthanized at shelters, deserving of protection? They're certainly innocent lives. If you ask me, a puppy's life is far more deserving of protection than a 10-week old human fetus.

Murder is a violation of the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

It is? Where does it say that?

 

[WizardofOz]

By persuading 8 of those 20 states mentioned above to join the other 30 pro-life states to ratify the Constitution.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/110810

(The article is not my endorsement of Rick Perry, it only shows a way to legislate two important issues of the day).

:idea: -OR-

The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception, "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."

It was reintroduced with similar text by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2005 in the 109th United States Congress, 110th United States Congress, and 111th United States Congress.

source

It is? Where does it say that?

Murder by the US Government is covered by the 5th Amendment "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Beyond that, you took the bait intended for aSeattleConserv.....

 

[Granite]

Are you talking about Ron Paul?

What kind of "Christian" wouldn't even acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin? Notice that Congressman Paul doesn't attempt to use Scripture as his argument, he uses his own opinion, kinda like moral relative atheists do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

What kind of "Christian" would run as a candidate for President for a politcal party that wants to legalize things such as recreational drug use, prostitution and suicide; and keep things such as pornography, abortion and homosexuality legal? This so-called "Christian" admits to being a lifetime member of that Party as well.
http://www.lp.org/platform

What kind of "Christian" who is also an elected official doesn't acknowledge Romans 13:4, but instead votes against God's Word, as Congressman Paul did here:
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=18423&posts=1

Hi ASC. May you take a long walk off a short pier.:loser:

The world would be better off without you.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

:idea: -OR-

The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception, "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."

It was reintroduced with similar text by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2005 in the 109th United States Congress, 110th United States Congress, and 111th United States Congress.

source

"The Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state."

Which also means that they would have the authority to allow abortion to continue; an amendment to the Constitution would prohibit that.

Someone tell Congressman Paul that the value of a innocent human life shouldn't depreciate just because you crossed a state line.

 

[WizardofOz]

"The Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state."

Which also means that they would have the authority to allow abortion to continue; an amendment to the Constitution would prohibit that.

Someone tell Congressman Paul that the value of a innocent human life shouldn't depreciate just because you crossed a state line.

You missed the important part: "The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood as beginning at conception, "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."

Legal personhood at conception. :duh: