Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wideawake

Abortion is not a liberal or conservative issue it is more of a moral/bioethics issue. There are liberals who are pro-life and conservatives who are pro-choice. I personally oppose abortion and if my state legislature decides to ban it that will be the right thing to do. However, I absolutely abhor the idea that a constitutional amendment could be passed which would ban the practice in all 50 states, never mind the wishes of the persons in the individual states.

To me, using a federal law to mandate abortion be illegal everywhere in the country is no different than using a federal law to mandate that civilian firearms ownership will now be illegal. By the way, neither of these ideas will go over well if you attempt them and are likely to spike mass resistance and non-compliance.

I am certainly no fan of Paul, but it is nice to see that there is a candidate in the race who actually stands up for state’s rights, which after all, was the platform of Goldwater in ‘64 and the platform that elected Reagan. It was all about state’s rights, and the idea that Washington should not have a say on the internal affairs of the respective states. It distresses me that there are many people in this country primarily evangelicals, who have carried their love of big government with them as the switched parties and now seek to use big national government in order to force upon the entire country their ideal of society, even though parts of the country clearly don’t want it.

I don’t buy the idea that there is such a thing as big government conservativism, unfortunately, fewer and fewer people agree with me.


41 posted on 08/07/2007 12:31:01 PM PDT by AzaleaCity5691
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: AzaleaCity5691
Abortion is not a liberal or conservative issue it is more of a moral/bioethics issue.

If upholding the inalienable right to life that the Founders declared as they asserted our independence isn't part of American conservatism, then the word has absolutely no meaning.

However, I absolutely abhor the idea that a constitutional amendment could be passed which would ban the practice in all 50 states, never mind the wishes of the persons in the individual states.

If you abhor the idea of Constitutional amendments, then you abhor the Constitution.

To me, using a federal law to mandate abortion be illegal everywhere in the country is no different than using a federal law to mandate that civilian firearms ownership will now be illegal.

(1)A constitutional amendment is more than a garden variety federal law: it is part of the Constitution.

(2) I assure you that there is a difference between murdering an unborn child and owning a handgun.

(3) Instituting a amendment banning civilian firearm ownership would be the revocation of part of the Bill of Rights: the Constution was ratified on the strength of the Bill of Rights - revoking one of them would indicate a Constitutional crisis.

By the way, neither of these ideas will go over well if you attempt them and are likely to spike mass resistance and non-compliance.

There was mass resistance and non-compliance when, perfectly constitutionally, Kansas decided to enter the Union as a non-slaveholding state.

That doesn't make it all right to ignore the Constitution.

I am certainly no fan of Paul, but it is nice to see that there is a candidate in the race who actually stands up for state’s rights, which after all, was the platform of Goldwater in ‘64 and the platform that elected Reagan. It was all about state’s rights, and the idea that Washington should not have a say on the internal affairs of the respective states.

Perhaps Paul is campaigning on a states' rights platform.

Goldwater and Reagan certainly didn't emphasize this: they campaigned on a platform of lower federal taxes, standing up to international Communism and reaffirming traditional values.

And I'm not sure how you can say that you would abhor an Amendment to the Constitution and yet support states' rights. An Amendment to the Constitution is a deliberate act of the several states of the Union exercising their rights.

Banning murder isn't "big government." Evangelicals routinely vote for candidates who advocate cutting taxes, paring down bureaucracies - especially the public education bureaucracy, and advocating the rights of the several states to determine their priorities.

Evangelicals do not, as a rule, support big government.

66 posted on 08/07/2007 12:56:36 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: AzaleaCity5691
I absolutely abhor the idea that a constitutional amendment could be passed which would ban the practice in all 50 states, never mind the wishes of the persons in the individual states.

I'm probably the biggtest states' rights, Tenth Amendment person here, but the Constitution requires teh Federal government to protect life. It prohibits the taking of any human life without due process. Since a fetus, even an embryo, is genetically one of us, i.e., human, it is thus protected by the Constitution.

98 posted on 08/07/2007 2:20:06 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: AzaleaCity5691
I don’t buy the idea that there is such a thing as big government conservativism

Ther eisn't. There is, however, the pragmatic realization that it has taken many yeas to build this monster and we can't get rid of it overnight. I just wish any of the GOP candidates were committed to moving the ball in our direction, to actually beginning the process of making the Federal government smaller.

100 posted on 08/07/2007 2:22:13 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson