[ I had thought that Ron Paul was pro-life. Was I wrong about that? ]
He is but he wants the states to decide for themselves cause that is what the constitution prescribes
He is but he wants the states to decide for themselves cause that is what the constitution prescribes
Ron Paul has NEVER been pro-life; at best he is "personally opposed" to abortion, but pro-choice-by-state.
Either the baby being killed is a person or it isn't. If the baby is a person, his or her rights are protected under the Constitution. If the baby is not a person, what EXACTLY is it? Is there some evidence that it might turn out to be a giraffe or something?
The Constitution DOES NOT give each state the power to decide who is and isn't a person, any false notion of that is nullified by the 14th Amendment. The personhood-by-state experiment has already been tried once before in America and the result nearly destroyed the Republic.
No, it does NOT.
The exact opposite is true:
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
What part of "no person," and "no State," and "any person," and "EQUAL PROTECTION," do you, and Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney, fail to understand?
“He is but he wants the states to decide for themselves cause that is what the constitution prescribes”
WHERE?
If that were the case, slavery would be legal in some states, but not others.
The Tenth Amendment is not the only amendment.