Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because those laws follow the guideline that only the mother has the right to end her pregnancy, just as only the mother can decide to abort.
And laws like that should be nation wide, not state by state. You shouldn't be considered a murderer in one state and not another. By the flip of a coin you either are or you aren't....that is not right.
Now, a question for you. If a fetus is a person, a child, why can't you deduct them as a dependent on your income taxes?
Those laws are not written with the mother in mind. Like previous posts had pointed out, you are not reading(or comprehending.)
Well, then you don't support the 10th amendment, and you should focus more time voting in congressional representation that supports this view.
But it still avoids the question, and it also demonstrates a bit of feminism in tone. The father has no say, after the woman agreed to or even provoked consensual acts? Come on now, you're just not being fair minded here.
As to your rebut, no birth certificate. The government always rules in favor of the double negative by its nature, and not by law or best interests of the people, unless it believes that it can generate more revenue on paper. This is a fiscal issue that you bring up, and not a moral one. This logic would open the debate to apples and orange comparisons, and ask for the same consistency. I would say in this case, it is very consistent with what should be done. In my opinion, nobody should be able to deduct dependents from your income taxes. I have my own, and before I knew how economics works(not what I was mislead to believe by my biased professors), I also deducted my children, but I no longer do based on my own principles. At least I have the option to opt out in some form, if I disagree.
In Section 8 it says Congress shall have the power to "Coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin"..
It says nothing about Congress shall have the power to create a fiat currency out of paper.
Ron Paul would not misrepresent what is in the Constitution.
Where does it say only gold and silver? It doesn't. All what you posted says what Congress has the power to do regarding coining and regulating the value. Mentions nothing about what method or what materials to use.
Where does it say only gold and silver? It doesn't. All what you posted says what Congress has the power to do regarding coining and regulating the value. Mentions nothing about what method or what materials to use.
A1,S10,p1,c4
Section. 10.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Those laws are not written with the mother in mind. Like previous posts had pointed out, you are not reading(or comprehending.)
Well, then you don't support the 10th amendment, and you should focus more time voting in congressional representation that supports this view.
But it still avoids the question, and it also demonstrates a bit of feminism in tone. The father has no say, after the woman agreed to or even provoked consensual acts? Come on now, you're just not being fair minded here.
As to your rebut, no birth certificate. The government always rules in favor of the double negative by its nature, and not by law or best interests of the people, unless it believes that it can generate more revenue on paper. This is a fiscal issue that you bring up, and not a moral one. This logic would open the debate to apples and orange comparisons, and ask for the same consistency. I would say in this case, it is very consistent with what should be done. In my opinion, nobody should be able to deduct dependents from your income taxes. I have my own, and before I knew how economics works(not what I was mislead to believe by my biased professors), I also deducted my children, but I no longer do based on my own principles. At least I have the option to opt out in some form, if I disagree.
Life isn't fair....the father has no say because he does not have to carry the pregnancy in his body....he does not have to suffer like the woman does. Women can die during childbirth......men aren't the ones risking their life by carrying a pregnancy....why should they get to make any decisions concerning the pregnancy?
It is not fair that women are the only ones who have to give birth either....what do you suggest we do about that to make it fair?
No birth certificate = not a person in the eyes of the law/government. Don't you see the hypocracy here?
Life isn't fair....the father has no say because he does not have to carry the pregnancy in his body....he does not have to suffer like the woman does. Women can die during childbirth......men aren't the ones risking their life by carrying a pregnancy....why should they get to make any decisions concerning the pregnancy?
It is not fair that women are the only ones who have to give birth either....what do you suggest we do about that to make it fair?
No birth certificate = not a person in the eyes of the law/government. Don't you see the hypocracy here?
You see birth as a burden, I wonder how some of the mothers here who are proud of their children feel about that. Yes it can be a pain in the ass, but nothing worthwhile is easy. Before I go any further on your first paragraphs, I'm not a sexist, so I wont engage in this type of sexist talk. If you want to be a feminist, that's fine, but don't ask me to stoop to this level of discussion, and please don't act like you speak for all women or men.
And again, like I put in bold print for you. Your latter argument is on a basis of fiscal integrity, not moral. Re-read, try again.
You see birth as a burden, I wonder how some of the mothers here who are proud of their children feel about that. Yes it can be a pain in the ass, but nothing worthwhile is easy. Before I go any further on your first paragraphs, I'm not a sexist, so I wont engage in this type of sexist talk. If you want to be a feminist, that's fine, but don't ask me to stoop to this level of discussion, and please don't act like you speak for all women or men.
And again, like I put in bold print for you. Your latter argument is on a basis of fiscal integrity, not moral. Re-read, try again.
Women have the right to view childbirth however they want to.
I may love the color pink.....you may hate it.....that doesn't make either one of us right or wrong.
Section. 10.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
The US government cannot force citizens to accept green paper things as a way of resolving debts. If I stipulate that I am to be paid back in 1 gold coin to someone in writing, I will not accept anything else including green paper things. That potential debtor is not forced to sign the papers I've laid out. They can go to someone else and take out a loan to be paid back in green paper things if they want.
Show me in the Constitution where the US government requires me to accept fiat currency to resolve a debt.
Oh, and....
Quote:
Farmers also generally favored paper money because it tended to create an economic climate of rising commodity prices relative to other goods, thereby increasing their real income.
Fail. Your real income isn't increased by debasing the currency.
Last edited by summers73; 09-09-2011 at 11:16 AM..
I'm pro-choice albeit male so I admit my passion on this issue is not the same. I've seen anti-choice (if you will) POTUSs from 73-77, 81-93 and 01-09 and R v W has endured. That's twenty + years of the 38 years or so, that RvW has been in existance. States have tested it, but not the POTUS. I've come to the conclusion that the POTUS has no say/influence (some argue he/she does, some argue he/she doesn't, I don't know), or it is too minor an issue to spend time on. If the latter is true, it is an issue that has never been more minor than it will be with whomever inherits this mess in 2012.
I certainly don't agree with Paul on everything. Like I said, I'm pro-choice. I'm also not wild about going back to a gold/precious metal standard and inevitable deflation though it is a sound money system and we need to stop the current fiat system now.
Ask yourself these 2 questions:
1. Is the candidate really a threat to the issue(s) I'm so impassionate.
2. Is an issue or two so endeared I'm willing to sacrifice the big picture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
