Skip to comments.Bill Johnson: Rand and Ron Paul's Positions on Abortion "Worse Than Blackmun"
Posted on 10/19/2009 11:42:10 AM PDT by mnehring
Bill Johnson: Rand and Ron Paul's Positions on Abortion "Worse Than Blackmun"
Seems he is advocating the opposite, the moral foundation of LIFE, something a state should have no control over. A State’s rights doesn’t supersede an individual’s rights- especially the very right of existence.
Now, I will admit I am for using the State by State approach on the issue in addition to Federal in order to make a dent in it, but to subvert individual rights to the State or any form of government does go against our foundation.
(pinging Eternal Vigilance on this as we’ve had some good debates on the issue- he is a Federal approach person, I’m a fusion of federal and state approach person.)
The Paul’s position (if Rand concurs with his father) would be the more constitutionally-sound response to the abortion issue.
If Roe v Wade is overturned...it will mean that the states, not the Feds, would make the laws regarding abortion (which was the way it was before Roe)
I know that the senior Paul is against abortion on moral grounds (he is an obstetrician)....but wants each state to determine abortions legality
I wouldn’t say Bill Johnson is a slimy weasel, he does support the pro-life position and without seeing this, we wouldn’t know if Rand had a different position as his father (thus my comment in #1). Based on this, it sounds like Rand has a good view on it and is better than his father on the issue.
Bad argument. Matters of due process or Constitutional rights relate to *government* action (except for slavery, but we have a Constitutional amendment that explicitly addresses that). If a woman using her own money hires a private "doctor" to murder her baby, that's not the government violating anyone's rights, it the mother & her hitman. Now, *should* state governments legally protect unborn children from such? Yes, absolutely... but that doesn't make it a federal matter. Abortion should be prohibited at the state level, just like a thousand other things that the federal government should stay out of.
I’m a fusion simply because I find it effective. We know what is required for a Constitutional amendment- 2/3rds States, 2/3rds Congress, etc, so in stead of throwing it all in initially for a Constitutional amendment, start it with State’s outlawing it, that way, you have a barometer of when you can successfully pull the federal trigger.
Exactly how I think as well. This pretty much guarantees the fed being an agent of the states like it should be.
It does make it a federal matter in that now, the federal government recognizes it as a right, thus, violating the Constitutional protections of, for example due process. In other words, the Federal Government recognizes the right of an individual's life to be taken without due process. You are correct, it shouldn't be, however, the reality is it is and thus, in partiality, it must be dealt with as such. To just say 'leave it up to the states' gives an implication that State's rights (or that of any government entity) supersedes individual rights.
Which is a problem because any government's (be it State or Federal) power should never supersede an individual's rights. It is why the 10th Amendment starts out with The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... This comes after very clear restrictions on the government interfering with individual rights (life the most fundamental of all). You can't argue that 'states should decide it is legal' if the legality is a violation of the US Constitution. It is a game of philosophy ignoring the practical aspect that an individual's right of existence is being sanctioned to be taken away.
Is it helpful to hold true to your principles and in the process become completely irrelevant to the political debate that might advance your agenda? Arguing that Roe v. Wade is an example of flawed legal reasoning and should be overturned moves the political situation in a direction that pro-life Americans should support. From there the debate takes on a different dynamic at which point Ron Paul would likely support most restrictions on abortion. Believing that state legislatures, not the Federal Government, should define what constitutes 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, or justifiable homicide; does not mean support for murder.
So get Roe overturned, return it to the states, and then work within the states (and maybe, decades from now, an amendment).
We aren’t arguing on that, the difference is when some politicians try to just say it is a ‘state’s right to decide’. (see a couple of previous to this one)
Interesting that he didn’t state his own position here. Are we to assume that it’s a continuance of the losing battle to force pagan America to be restrained by the heartland’s definitions of moral behavior?
Just an FYI:
I am a firm believer that life starts at conception. Since 1973 when abortion became legal (Roe vs. Wade), approximately 50 million abortions have been performed. That is greater than 4,000 abortions per day. Partial birth abortion is one of the most evil practices on our planet. There is a living, breathing, human being murdered every time that act is performed.
There is so much grief that strikes the mother of an aborted baby. Adoption allows the mother and child to live life. Ronald Reagan once said, “The only people for abortion are people already born.”
Marriage is between one man and one woman. I believe it is a sacred bond that implies more than a commitment between two people. There is a moral fabric that should line a marriage. If we allow marriage between a couple other than a man and woman, we open the door to other marital designs that will tear that moral fabric.
I don’t know much about him, but he also seems to be a strong Conservative. (I don’t have a dog in this hunt).
Sauce? I assume you meant source? LOL..
No, it's not tricky. We human beings who want what we want regardless of what's real try to make it "tricky".
There is absolutely no scientific doubt that a human life is created at conception. The only thing we have, then, is a philosophical debate on when it is okay to kill another human being. Personally, I think our founding fathers would say it is never right to kill an innocent human being (i.e. one not found guilty of some crime worthy of capital punishment).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.