Topic: What do you think of Ron Paul's stance on abortion?
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago#14,955
im interested to hear what you guys think
if Ron Paul was elected President he would promote a bill called the Sanctity of Life Amendment which would define life as beginning at conception (as a scientific statement of fact, not political opinion), repeal the Supreme Court decision made during Roe v Wade that legalized abortion at the Federal level, and allow for state voting on the issue of abortion on demand every year and every trimester.
I agree with Ron Paul's stance that Roe v Wade is unconstitutional
3
30%
I disagree, the Federal government should decide these things for me
4
40%
lol abortion
3
30%
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later[^][v]#262,881
Oh come on mountainman, you should be pro-choice! The statist scum would be forcing people to have babies under this!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^][v]#262,883
@previous (B)
but wouldn't mountainman be pro-life so there would be more lolis?
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#262,884
@previous (A)
Maybe. His love of little girls might just outweigh his love of libertarianism.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^][v]#262,885
A President cannot "repeal" a Supreme Court decision. Jesus Christ.
Is there anything Ron Paul or his supporters have ever said that's not fucking retarded?
(Edited 57 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^][v]#262,886
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc) > A President cannot "repeal" a Supreme Court decision.
You're right, but his bill can remove the issue of abortion from Federal jurisdiction which would make the decision null.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#262,888
@previous (A)
Holy fuck, no it can't. You can't legislate around Supreme Court decisions. This is a serious separation of powers problem and honestly the most retarded fucking thing I've heard all week.
You do realize Roe v. Wade was actually about a Texas state law, right? Not a federal one? What kind of "federal jurisdiction" are you talking about, exactly?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^][v]#262,896
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
Maybe that explains why the Sanctity of Life Amendment has never passed since it's inception in 1995...
So how does a Supreme Court decision get changed? Does the Supreme Court have to change it themselves?
Roe v Wade was about a Texas state law but the decision made by the Supreme Court restricts any state from making any law regarding abortion.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#262,942
> So how does a Supreme Court decision get changed? Does the Supreme Court have to change it themselves?
Yes, they have to overturn it. You can still have a law limiting abortion in specific instances if there's a compelling state interest in doing so, it's just outright bans on the practice without exception that are considered to violate due process/right to privacy.
> Roe v Wade was about a Texas state law but the decision made by the Supreme Court restricts any state from making any law regarding abortion.
Yes, the thing is that's exactly what the Supreme Court does and is supposed to do. It happens every time they rule a law unconstitutional and was written into the Constitution as a check on legislative power. I don't understand how Ron Paul can seriously advocate for this shit while claiming to support Constitutional limits on government power.
This is just pandering.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#262,947
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
Well, he is desperate for votes. He can't win it with just stoners and rednecks.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#262,952
@previous (B)
But i'm a redneck AND a stoner, and after reading this i'll never vote for ron paul. He's just too funny looking.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#262,955
@previous (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
There you go. He's alienating a lot of his core demographics here.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#262,960
@262,942 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc) > This is just pandering.
I agree, but I wonder if this is doing more to help or to hurt his chances of election.
I don't believe that this bill would ever pass Congress even with Ron Paul as President pushing it, especially if you are correct in saying that there is no possible way to legally make null the decision made during Roe v Wade. It hasn't passed in the 16 years that various people have introduced and re-introduced it, and the fact that Ron Paul wouldn't Veto it doesn't really mean a lot if the bill never even makes it through Congress.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#262,962