Thread: Liberals and Paul happy with gender based abortion.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1666115659001/

Good segment on Bill O'relliy talking about how a bill making it illegal to KNOWINGLY abort a baby cause of gender was shot down by liberals.....What doesn't surprise me is that Ron Paul voted no on this as well....Again shows to me he is pro Abortion and has always been so.

I'm not a particularly big Ron Paul supporter but he pretty much always votes no.

He wasn't supporting abortion there. He was supporting state rights and the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Wagner

I'm not a particularly big Ron Paul supporter but he pretty much always votes no.

He wasn't supporting abortion there. He was supporting state rights and the Constitution.

I agree.

This is why I'm a Republican and not a Libertarian. Although in principle Paul is right, most of what the government does is unconstitutional. The Democrat Party has ignored the Constitution to force their agenda for over 100 years now, and it's dumb to let them use that tool but not it yourself when the opportunity arises to reverse their agenda. Adhering to Libertarian principles in Congress is like using Marquess of Queensbury rules when your opponent picks up a knife.

Ron Paul is opposed to the federal government dictating the policy on abortion - either for or against. He feels it should be left to the states to decide individually. You know, that pesky 10th amendment.

At least Darwin is on the side of conservatives (parents who abort their own children are an evolutionary dead-end). Its ironic since many conservatives don't believe in evolution.

For my own personal morality, aborting a fetus because its the 'wrong' gender is wrong. That doesn't mean the federal government should be regulating our opinions - which is what this legislation is in effect doing.

Originally Posted by Wagner

I'm not a particularly big Ron Paul supporter but he pretty much always votes no.

He wasn't supporting abortion there. He was supporting state rights and the Constitution.

He doesnt always vote no. He voted to send troops to war. He votes what he believes and he believes Apparently thinks it is Okay to kill babies because of gender.....The 6 other republicans who voted with him are scumbags as well.

Text of legislation - Full Text of H.R. 3541: Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012 - GovTrack.us

In reading this it occurs to me that the law already forbids an FFL from transferring a firearm to a prohibited person and puts a lot of heat on that FFL to exercise due diligence in determining whether that transferee is prohibited or not but, when it comes to abortion, it seems to be a free for all.

It is unfathomable to me that we can generally get a consensus in congress to injure the rights of law abiding citizens but, for some fucked up reason, it's damned near impossible to get them to take steps against criminals. You have got to be fucking kidding me!!!!

For fucks sake people, if I kill a guy because he's black or gay or because I hate men it's a hate crime but if I do the same to a fetus it's no problem? Seriously? I mean, isn't that at least a little bit fucked up?

Originally Posted by Wagner

I'm not a particularly big Ron Paul supporter but he pretty much always votes no.

He wasn't supporting abortion there. He was supporting state rights and the Constitution.

Yep. He's vehemently against abortion, an exception to what's often presumed to be a libertarian position (pro-choice). IIRC, he even supports the transvaginal ultrasound bills, which certainly is contrary to a traditional libertarian position. IIRC, he regularly gets a 0% or near 0% from pro-choice groups on ratings on the topic.

That said, he follows what he thinks is the Constitution's mandates as part of his oath and duty in an official capacity, whether that be for or against what he'd prefer to do.

Originally Posted by Wagner

I'm not a particularly big Ron Paul supporter but he pretty much always votes no.

He wasn't supporting abortion there. He was supporting state rights and the Constitution.

"States rights" my ass!

The idea that one person or group of people can kill another based on something as innocuous as gender or race is inhuman and even if you happen to be so callous as to believe that a fetus isn't human the very idea that such selection is in any way justifiable is reprehensible.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Text of legislation - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c112zEWRz3:e17678:

In reading this it occurs to me that the law already forbids an FFL from transferring a firearm to a prohibited person and puts a lot of heat on that FFL to exercise due diligence in determining whether that transferee is prohibited or not but, when it comes to abortion, it seems to be a free for all.

It is unfathomable to me that we can generally get a consensus in congress to injure the rights of law abiding citizens but, for some fucked up reason, it's damned near impossible to get them to take steps against criminals. You have got to be fucking kidding me!!!!

For fucks sake people, if I kill a guy because he's black or gay or because I hate men it's a hate crime but if I do the same to a fetus it's no problem? Seriously? I mean, isn't that at least a little bit fucked up?

The issue--or roadblock--however one wishes to see it--is the obligation to the Constitution and the binding interpretations thereof. The bill IMO seems to clearly run afoul of Roe and its progeny. Prohibiting criminals from being in possession of firearms has been held to be constitutional under 2A jurisprudence, so that can be legislated. To the contrary, this bill runs afoul of Roe and its progeny. Politicians have, in their official capacity, a superior obligation to enact Constitutional legislation.

It could be tailored to fit within it, such as banning that practice within the parameters of permitted prohibition of abortion under that progeny, though, concerning viable foetuses. But this IMO is just another grandstanding event by the House that IMO has wasted their time since 2010 with passing little and, when they do, is usually just gimmickry. This stunt is similar to the 'ban sharia law in OK' stuff in that it wishes to paint a obvious shallow stunt of falsely claiming that if you oppose this bill that you favour race and gender abortions. One could easily spin it the flip sides to claim that the sponsors and supporters favour non-gender and race based abortions, e.g. convenience, Down's Syndrome, etc, by not making their bill comprehensive on banning abortion. In fact, IMO it speaks ill of people who claim to be opposed to abortion on principle to misuse this serious topic for cheap stunts.

Originally Posted by Wagner

I'm not a particularly big Ron Paul supporter but he pretty much always votes no.

He wasn't supporting abortion there. He was supporting state rights and the Constitution.

Yeah but see the OP doesn't understand the Constitution, nor has he ever read it. In addition the idea of "Federalism" apparently has no meaning to him, nor does the original intent of Federalism, as laid out in the Constitution, by the Founders, mean a damn thing to him.

Apparently he believes that the Federal government should be involved in every murder, rape, and theft case in the United States as well.

Oh wait a minute, murder, rape, and theft are CRIMES that are all dealt with at the LOCAL and STATE level because the States have the police powers, per the 10 AMENDMENT to deal with such things. The Federal government does not, hence why the Federal government DOES NOT DEAL WITH IN ANY WAY, MURDER, RAPE, OR THEFT occurring at the local level, the city, county, and State, however, does.

Last time I checked, abortion is murder.

What the OP doesn't understand is, as I've explained 1,000,000,000,000 times already with regard to Paul and the abortion issue, is that Paul several decades ago (and numerous times over those decades) has tried to pass a bill called the "Sanctity of Life Act" which would instantly strip the Supreme Court of ANY jurisdiction over the issue of abortion INSTANTLY MAKING ROE VS WADE NULL AND VOID. This would mean the Federal government has no say in abortion either way, meaning that the States, which once again are CONSTITUTIONALLY the only ones that can deal with crimes like murder (abortion), rape, theft, etc, would be able to actually ban abortion on their own, SAVING MILLIONS OF UNBORN FETUSES EVERY YEAR. The majority of States, especially in the South and other conservative areas would create anti-abortion laws rather quickly if Roe v Wade could be gotten rid of. The Sanctity of Life Act would do just that.

Good luck arguing that with the OP though.

Originally Posted by lutherf

"States rights" my ass!

The idea that one person or group of people can kill another based on something as innocuous as gender or race is inhuman and even if you happen to be so callous as to believe that a fetus isn't human the very idea that such selection is in any way justifiable is reprehensible.

The point is: the federal government has no power to act in that area (murder for whatever reason, random or otherwise) at all, unless the Constitution is amended. Just like liberals say "40 million are going without healthcare on the streets and millions are dying, therefore we must have universal healthcare, single payer, right now, who cares what the Constitution says, it's a moral obligation", you can't just say "I don't care what the Constitution says, let's just pass an unconstitutional bill anyway because it's a "moral obligation" and be serious about constitutional division of powers. The Feds do not and are not supposed to deal with murder, either way, either allowing it no matter what or prohibiting it no matter what, it is a State issue. And in fact, if the States could act on it (they can't because of Roe v Wade), many millions of fetuses would be saved every year.

Lutherf, what would be better:

Abortion: Safe, legal, and rare
vs
Abortion: Unsafe, illegal, and common

I realize right now what we have is: Safe, legal, common.

However, a history of humanity shows that abortions have been practiced for thousands of years, and a study/studies showed that 1.2 million illegal abortions were taking place annually in 1968 in the US.

If outlawing it doesn't make the problem better ... then is the proper course of action to outlaw it?

In relevance to this thread: Some people think the proper course is to let each state decide how to regulate/legislate it instead of the federal government. It would certainly be the constitutionally allowed route.

Originally Posted by lutherf

"States rights" my ass!

The idea that one person or group of people can kill another based on something as innocuous as gender or race is inhuman and even if you happen to be so callous as to believe that a fetus isn't human the very idea that such selection is in any way justifiable is reprehensible.

This whole topic (abortion) is reprehensible, as are the people who support it.

I don't see how you can have any conversation about this topic with such people and not find their rationalizations reprehensible.

"I've decided to abort my fetus because it's a girl."

"Oh, you're carrying a baby girl?"

"No, no. Nothing like that. It's just a female fetus, not a baby girl. This fetus isn't human, it only has the potential to be human."

I'll tell you what man. The "Greatest Generation" may have been great at war and factory work, but they were lousy fucking parents breeding the "I, Me, Mine Generation".

They saved Europe and Asia but ruined America.

It's almost enough to make you wanna kick a Guadalcanal veteran in his reumatic old knees.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

This is why I'm a Republican and not a Libertarian. Although in principle Paul is right, most of what the government does is unconstitutional ... Adhering to Libertarian principles in Congress is like using Marquess of Queensbury rules when your opponent picks up a knife.

I have little to add to this thread but a couple of observations. First, it is interesting that one guys vote has so much attention because of his Libertarianism. Second, how else is one supposed to be right other than in principle? You admit the guy is right in principle but do not explain, as you imply, how he is wrong? Third, does adhering to Libertarian principles in Congress as you imply, leave one at a disadvantage?

If one acts according to sound principles is disadvantageous, on what basis is one to act?