We're speaking of abortion, and the Sanctity of Life Act allowed for states to make their own laws regarding abortion including allowances for not criminalizing it at all.
Not exactly. The Constitution already allows the states to decide. The Sanctity of Life Act kills the power of the godless courts to make abortion legal in every state. That's all it does.
And don't forget about desperation.
However, I do believe it could lead to a reduction in women getting pregnant in the first place. But probably only a slight reduction.
Again, some people are going to do it. I think some would reconsider.
Then there is the fact that if it is legal anywhere within the states people who want it to be legal in the state in which they live if it is not will be lobbying for it, and we could end up right back where we are because of the slippery slope which we will be going down when they make exceptions for rape and/or medical emergencies.
Yeah, unless you want to destroy the 1st amendment, people could lobby for legal abortion even if it was illegal in every state.
So, would you agree with a personhood amendment to the US Constitution?
Yes, assuming it was worded correctly (ie. in a manner that does not undermine the principles of secession or create a Federal abortion police.)
Also, what are your thoughts on the fact that said amendment could eventually be repealed? [See: prohibition]
The Constitution requires 3/4ths of the states to repeal an amendment. If that many people want to do something, they're going to do it whether they technically are allowed or not. Heck, you've already got gross violations of the Bill of Rights despite their not technically being repealed in the constitutional manner.
I don't really know what to say to this. Yeah, its possible, what's your point?
So, things like Waco or the FLDS you think State Troopers could have, and should have, handled those?
I think they should have been left alone. Although immoral, I see no reason polygamy should be legally regulated, particularly by the Federal Government. As for Waco, I honestly haven't researched the situation personally... I know what other people who I respect have said about it, but I honestly don't know personally, so I might be able to be convinced.
Also, do you oppose the idea of something like the FBI? As in, would you disband it if you had the power to run the government as you saw fit [hypothetically speaking, of course]?
Yes.
You never know. You could fight for it to happen and may be surprised.
Much like Ron Paul, I ultimately do support a human life amendment, but its not the only political issue I focus on either. That said, the tricky thing about abortion, particularly earlier term abortion: opposition to it requires a belief in human exceptionalism, which usually cannot exist in secular humanistic thinking. So honestly, I think we need to kill the public schools first before that would even be a possibility.
Or the US will fall like Rome and somebody better could take over.
The US is Rome, so it will likely fall in the same way. I doubt a better government will replace it, although, our opinions may differ somewhat with regards to what "better" government is. Although I certainly think yours would be better than what we have.
I understand that. Which is why I argue that if they are not going to fix it they should at least uphold it as it is and this means there are many things they cannot do, even things I want the government to do, without amendments.
Agreed.
I'm just pointing out that even now people are willing to cross state lines to get an abortion because of the regulations in their own states, or because the next available butcher coming to their locale will be there too late for them to do it legally.
Yep.
That's what an embargo is, right?
Of course this wouldn't keep them from being able to send someone to pick stuff up, I suppose.
I don't support embargoes.
I can almost agree with this, but the question remains, what would happen if we defaulted?
We would never be able to borrow again, which IMO is a good thing. I'm not totally sure what else. I doubt anyone would actually attack the US.
Our leaders have dug us a very deep pit, admittedly.
What's wrong with Evangelical Christians killing those who deserve to die?
I honestly haven't figured out an interpretation of Romans 13 with which I am completely comfortable yet, so I'm not sure.
And I take this to mean you have no problem with what happened to Gadaffi... Am I correct?
I honestly don't remember what happened. I do think it was wrong for the US to get involved in the rebellion in any way, but otherwise, I honestly don't care what happens over there... at least as a citizen of the United States rather than at a personal level.
The NSA is probably watching. I don't want any viewing FBI agents or such thinking that I am actually advocating what would legally be considered the murder (*cough*) of abortion doctors. I am not.
In the theoretical realm, however, at least from a criminal justice perspective, I would say that it is impossible to truly murder a murderer (Only to execute such) and therefore I would pardon people who specifically targeted abortion doctors (Although, I'd still punish abortion clinic bombers because they also kill any innocent unborn children that may be in the clinic. Even if they're about to be aborted anyway, killing an innocent person that is about to be murdered by someone else is still murder.)
If there is not an imminent or immediate threat to life, limb, property or liberty then no civilian should ever have the right to execute justice, in any manner. Also, in most cases wherein no person is being harmed or about to be the best course of action is to call the police and tell them everything you saw as long as there is an actual crime that they recognize as such.
So calling the police on an abortionist is not an option as it is not currently recognized as a crime.
That said, I see opposition from God against such vigilantism [no threat or harm in the moment] in the Bible, so even if cannot make sense of it at the time I still oppose it while I seek His wisdom for that stance on His part.
In such as this, however, it seems to me that God's stance is that if someone is unaware what they are doing is a crime because the government doesn't recognize it as a crime then they cannot justly be punished for it. Neither could they be punished retroactively if it becomes criminalized for doing it before such time.
I agree with not punishing retroactively in most cases. I think the ex post facto provision of the US constitution should be amended to allow for ex post facto punishment in two cases: government officials who have committed treason against the constitution (By passing or voting for any laws which violate such, to be punished in proportion to how seriously their violation were) and abortion doctors, since they knew full well they were committing murder and did it anyway.
Of course, changing the laws in question is more important than punishing retroactively...
I certainly do. That ban saved absolutely no lives.
Funny that when I told a family member recently that I would have voted against that law (Since it was a Federal law) they tried to tell me I would be responsible for the people that died because of that decision...
I don't know the details about PBA bans and what they do. Personally, I'd probably vote for them at the state level because banning any abortion procedure, from a deontological perspective, is better than legalizing all of them. At least in that case, some murderers will be punished.
But its still a pathetic law, and one of the most pathetic excuses to destroy federalism and the US constitution that I have ever seen. It would be kind of like a law, in a country where infanticide is legal, to prohibit killing infants with a knife. Well, OK, I'd support that, seeing as that makes at least one method of killing babies illegal, but its still pathetic, the goal should be to ban baby killing period.
Why do you not support the federal government stepping in if the state does not criminalize that which is defined as a crime in the Constitution?
We disagree on our interpretation of the 14th amendment. I also would argue that the 14th was improperly ratified, but I'm willing to assume that this is not the case for the sake of argument.
Yes. It is aCW who does not.
I assumed so, I was just making sure.
aCW assumes I actually support every sin imagineable, including ones I have said should be illegal.
Why not? Compromise on sin is sin.
For curiosity, do you apply that to every sin, or only certain ones? For instance, would you embargo every country that didn't punish homosexuality by execution? Would you embargo every country that had liberal/libertarian drug laws? Countries that don't protect the right to own firearms? (This actually matters more than abortion does, freedom CANNOT be maintained in any fashion without firearms.) Exc?
Or only for abortion/murder?
As for my reason why not, because I believe that any attempt to control what another country does in its borders ultimately leads to war and ultimately one world government.
