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.
Ron Paul understands foreign policy far better than Obama or any of the neocon would be's, and it's called peace through "diplomacy".
You know, like when Kennedy negotiated with the Russians to take their missiles out of Cuba?
The days of preemptive bombing and killing innocents to force regime change are over.We can't afford it, financially or morally.
Only a complete fool thinks that you can employ "diplomacy" effectively with Islamofascist terrorists.
Ron Paul is totally ignorant of the long, long history of terrorism and fundamentally does not understand how the mind of the Islamofascist works. He is the ONLY potential GOP nominee that MIGHT make me vote for Obama. I'd have to think long and hard about that vote.
Ok, no material from the site is posted here, the good reasons are still there for those interested to read and learn more about Paul and a few of many reasons why Paul is Not the answer, please stay on topic.
This information is deceptive. In particular the one that states....
2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.†This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392
Ron Paul is in favor of repealing Roe vs. Wade because these types of decisions should be up to each individual state, and not federal government.
People who know and understand the Constitution of the United States of America understand that this is how it is SUPPOSED to be. He is simply trying to bring back what our founding fathers intended from the very beginning.
I support him 100 percent and I will vote for him if he makes the ticket.
20yrsinBranson
It is nothing more than a way around Row vs Wade, and it is not Pauls idea, the idea has been pushed for a long time by the right-to-life movement. I disagree with the idea, this is a medical procedure that should be an option for ALL American women, not just those in states that support her right to chose. That said, I would Happy to put the entire issue before the American People and let them vote on it, with the stipulation that no matter what the results, thy stand in place for at least 50 years. Are you game?
Ron Paul is in favor of repealing Roe vs. Wade because these types of decisions should be up to each individual state, and not federal government.
This is not entirely true. Roe vs Wade was the United States Supreme Court's most notorious (so far) move to usurp the legislative process. Ron Paul quite strongly disagrees with the notion that the Supreme Court had any business at all ruling in this case.
There are some cases that are clear cut. Things like blatant racial or religious discrimination.
From a judicial point of view, the abortion issue is absolutely loaded with problems. The clearest and most obvious problem: You two people, the mother and the unborn baby, that have rights that need to be protected. The mother's right to opt out of the pregnancy vs the baby's right to live.
When the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to define if and when an unborn baby has human rights, that was the point where they quite blatantly usurped power the Constitution does not give them and never intended for them to have.
It is also a completely unique instance: The Supreme Court took it upon themselves to define when a human being begins to have human rights. I'm completely baffled. Where did they get such god-like dictatorial powers?
Let's look at other comparable examples of rights. When do you have the right to use tobacco products and imbibe alcohol? This right is defined by each individual state (though the federal government strong-armed the states into all writing the age of 21 or alcohol into law. Tobacco varies.) When do you have a right to marry? This too varies by state. Most say 18 years old, but allow for younger ages with parental consent. In Nebraska the legal age of marriage is 19 and in Mississippi it's 21. All of them have age limits for marriage with parental consent, which is 15 or 16 in most cases, but in Massachusetts you can marry with parental consent at age 12.
So it is left to the states to set the time-frame for when those rights are granted. But the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to set the decide when the most important right of all -- the right to life -- is granted to a human baby. The Supreme Court determined that a mother has a right to abortion "until viability," a point in time "to be determined by the abortion doctor." After viability a woman could still obtain an abortion for health reasons, which the Court defined broadly to include psychological well-being.
So the doctor, a person who is stands to make money by proceeding and loses money if the abortion doesn't happen -- this person gets to decide when the baby has the right to live. Lovely! You have built-in exemption loophole "for psychological reasons." Any good lawyer could use that wording to justify performing an abortion the day before the baby is due.
In process of time, the legality of abortion landed in the neighborhood of 28 weeks. The earliest premature birth in which the baby survived was 21 weeks and 6 days -- so the 28 week timeframe is obviously controversial. As medical science continues to improve, viability becomes a moving target. If one baby survives at 18 weeks, then does that mean viability (and the basic human rights associated with it) should changed to 18 weeks? If one baby survived that early, then why not others?
Now let's take a step back here. The Supreme Court effectively created law. They took it upon themselves to establish as law that an unborn baby does not necessarily have any rights, but that the unborn baby does gain rights -- then they stamp the word "viable" on those rights and punt the "when" to be determined by somebody else. That is the crux of the matter: They established the law of the land. That is not their job.
Where does the United States Constitution grant them this right?? If you ask Ron Paul, he'll tell you they had no business ruling on the matter and should have left the entire issue in the hands of state governments.
This is not entirely true. Roe vs Wade was the United States Supreme Court's most notorious (so far) move to usurp the legislative process. Ron Paul quite strongly disagrees with the notion that the Supreme Court had any business at all ruling in this case.
There are some cases that are clear cut. Things like blatant racial or religious discrimination.
From a judicial point of view, the abortion issue is absolutely loaded with problems. The clearest and most obvious problem: You two people, the mother and the unborn baby, that have rights that need to be protected. The mother's right to opt out of the pregnancy vs the baby's right to live.
When the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to define if and when an unborn baby has human rights, that was the point where they quite blatantly usurped power the Constitution does not give them and never intended for them to have.
It is also a completely unique instance: The Supreme Court took it upon themselves to define when a human being begins to have human rights. I'm completely baffled. Where did they get such god-like dictatorial powers?
Let's look at other comparable examples of rights. When do you have the right to use tobacco products and imbibe alcohol? This right is defined by each individual state (though the federal government strong-armed the states into all writing the age of 21 or alcohol into law. Tobacco varies.) When do you have a right to marry? This too varies by state. Most say 18 years old, but allow for younger ages with parental consent. In Nebraska the legal age of marriage is 19 and in Mississippi it's 21. All of them have age limits for marriage with parental consent, which is 15 or 16 in most cases, but in Massachusetts you can marry with parental consent at age 12.
So it is left to the states to set the time-frame for when those rights are granted. But the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to set the decide when the most important right of all -- the right to life -- is granted to a human baby. The Supreme Court determined that a mother has a right to abortion "until viability," a point in time "to be determined by the abortion doctor." After viability a woman could still obtain an abortion for health reasons, which the Court defined broadly to include psychological well-being.
So the doctor, a person who is stands to make money by proceeding and loses money if the abortion doesn't happen -- this person gets to decide when the baby has the right to live. Lovely! You have built-in exemption loophole "for psychological reasons." Any good lawyer could use that wording to justify performing an abortion the day before the baby is due.
In process of time, the legality of abortion landed in the neighborhood of 28 weeks. The earliest premature birth in which the baby survived was 21 weeks and 6 days -- so the 28 week timeframe is obviously controversial. As medical science continues to improve, viability becomes a moving target. If one baby survives at 18 weeks, then does that mean viability (and the basic human rights associated with it) should changed to 18 weeks? If one baby survived that early, then why not others?
Now let's take a step back here. The Supreme Court effectively created law. They took it upon themselves to establish as law that an unborn baby does not necessarily have any rights, but that the unborn baby does gain rights -- then they stamp the word "viable" on those rights and punt the "when" to be determined by somebody else. That is the crux of the matter: They established the law of the land. That is not their job.
Where does the United States Constitution grant them this right?? If you ask Ron Paul, he'll tell you they had no business ruling on the matter and should have left the entire issue in the hands of state governments.
I disagree with your arguement, but I do give you codos for well thought out post, and to boot I actually believe they were your own words.
Ok, no material from the site is posted here, the good reasons are still there for those interested to read and learn more about Paul and a few of many reasons why Paul is Not the answer, please stay on topic.
I disagree with your arguement, but I do give you codos for well thought out post, and to boot I actually believe they were your own words.
LOL, yes indeed, my own words. If you have to have an opinion on any topic, you should always base your opinion on facts.
And bear in mind that while I'm anti-abortion, that wasn't my point at all. All I'm saying is that the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to decide when a human being is granted human rights. The core issue when you're talking about abortion is the rights of the unborn child.
No sane person on either side of the issue wants to take away freedoms or rights from women. I know that the Pro Choice movement likes to invoke the stereotype that Pro Lifers are just woman haters, but their just blowing smoke up our collective posteriors.
The reason the Pro Life movement is passionate about this issue is because the woman's right to abort is violating another human being's right to live. If it did not trample all over our most basic and essential right as human beings, abortion would be a complete non-issue.
Some people like to invoke God and hellfire to make their point. I think it's completely unnecessary. You don't need to bring God into the conversation at all. Doing so just makes the Pro Life lose credibility and validate the Pro Choice characterization that they are a bunch of insane religious fanatics. (Truth of the matter is, there are plenty of atheists who are strongly Pro Life.)
At the most basic level, all human rights can be summed up as follows: "Your right to swing your fist around ends when it comes in contact with my nose." In other words, you should have the right to choose to do as you please as long as you are not harming another person in the process.
I applaud the Supreme Court for repeatedly standing up for human rights over the course of the court's existence. I'm just baffled that they would rule on an issue involving conflicting human rights and then legislating the terms of how and when human rights begin. That's not their job, nor is it found anywhere in the US Constitution.
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.
