He believes it is the business of state governments to decide whether or not a woman has an abortion?
No. The man is running for president. I have never heard him give an opinion on who should decide, only that the president, congress, and the supreme court shouldn't.
I've heard him and other doctors fear losing their jobs if they refused to perform abortions. Should willingness to kill a fetus be a requirement for all doctors?
I am pro choice and I would not support Ron Paul if I did not believe our society in regards to abortion would greatly improve under his watch.
He believes it is the business of state governments to decide whether or not a woman has an abortion?
No. The man is running for president. I have never heard him give an opinion on who should decide, only that the president, congress, and the supreme court shouldn't.
I've heard him and other doctors fear losing their jobs if they refused to perform abortions. Should willingness to kill a fetus be a requirement for all doctors?
I am pro choice and I would not support Ron Paul if I did not believe our society in regards to abortion would greatly improve under his watch.
He believes it is the business of state governments to decide whether or not a woman has an abortion?
No. The man is running for president. I have never heard him give an opinion on who should decide, only that the president, congress, and the supreme court shouldn't.
Dude, it doesn't work that way. If it's not within the power of the federal government to regulate it, then the right is retained by the states. There's no third option, and declaring that you don't think the federal government should be permitted to regulate it is a completely punk-azz way of declaring that you're okay with state legislatures stepping in and exerting control over womens' bodies. I would respect him a lot more if he would be honest about his position instead of using rhetorical games to take advantage of his supporters' ignorance.
I've heard him and other doctors fear losing their jobs if they refused to perform abortions. Should willingness to kill a fetus be a requirement for all doctors?
Huh? What has that got to do with anything?
I am pro choice and I would not support Ron Paul if I did not believe our society in regards to abortion would greatly improve under his watch.
Dude, it doesn't work that way. If it's not within the power of the federal government to regulate it, then the right is retained by the states. There's no third option, and declaring that you don't think the federal government should be permitted to regulate it is a completely punk-azz way of declaring that you're okay with state legislatures stepping in and exerting control over womens' bodies. I would respect him a lot more if he would be honest about his position instead of using rhetorical games to take advantage of his supporters' ignorance.
So you're of the position that Jonny stated earlier that the states would flat out ban abortions? If Bush and his bench of fools couldn't do it what makes you think the states could, or even would?
I thought Rock a libertarian? I'm surprised he'd go "wow" over the idea that abortion should ultimately reside with, you know, the pregnant person.
I've always suspected that most people who are interested in libertarianism wouldn't be down with the logical results of real principled libertarianism. Such as gay marriage, abortion rights, privatized highway system, anarchy, etc.
Dude, it doesn't work that way. If it's not within the power of the federal government to regulate it, then the right is retained by the states. There's no third option, and declaring that you don't think the federal government should be permitted to regulate it is a completely punk-azz way of declaring that you're okay with state legislatures stepping in and exerting control over womens' bodies. I would respect him a lot more if he would be honest about his position instead of using rhetorical games to take advantage of his supporters' ignorance.
So you're of the position that Jonny stated earlier that the states would flat out ban abortions? If Bush and his bench of fools couldn't do it what makes you think the states could, or even would?
There are quite a few state legislatures that would jump at the chance to ban abortion. Passing a federal ban or overturning Roe Vs. Wade is far more difficult a proposition than, say, South Dakota doing it.
Dude, it doesn't work that way. If it's not within the power of the federal government to regulate it, then the right is retained by the states. There's no third option, and declaring that you don't think the federal government should be permitted to regulate it is a completely punk-azz way of declaring that you're okay with state legislatures stepping in and exerting control over womens' bodies. I would respect him a lot more if he would be honest about his position instead of using rhetorical games to take advantage of his supporters' ignorance.
So you're of the position that Jonny stated earlier that the states would flat out ban abortions? If Bush and his bench of fools couldn't do it what makes you think the states could, or even would?
It's not a "position"; it's a fact. Numerous states have laws outright banning abortions on the books, which would immediately go into effect upon Roe v. Wade being overturned.
As to the latter question, please believe that the clock is ticking on Roe and that if a Republican is elected, it's gone. It's a judicially suspect decision and overturning it only takes one more appointment.
In the event that Roe vs. Wade would get overturned, can states make it illegal to go out of state to get an abortion? Or prosecute a doctor who lives in state but performs abortions out of state?
In the event that Roe vs. Wade would get overturned, can states make it illegal to go out of state to get an abortion? Or prosecute a doctor who lives in state but performs abortions out of state?
I don't really see how either of those things would be possible... although I wouldn't put it past local Bible Belt authorities to give it a shot.
It's not a "position"; it's a fact. Numerous states have laws outright banning abortions on the books, which would immediately go into effect upon Roe v. Wade being overturned.
OK. I've just read a few disturbing articles, one about SD. Maybe later we can discuss something, you know, that the man plans to do while in office. For now I will take a little bit of comfort in knowing he has stated more than a few times that although he may be in favor of overturning Roe, it is not on his agenda.
no, its not like gay marriage where they can choose not to honor it. its like saying cali allows the use of medical marijuana and asking whether nj would prosecute you for doing something legal in cali.
In the event that Roe vs. Wade would get overturned, can states make it illegal to go out of state to get an abortion? Or prosecute a doctor who lives in state but performs abortions out of state?
these would both likely be deemed unconstitutional.
In the event that Roe vs. Wade would get overturned, can states make it illegal to go out of state to get an abortion? Or prosecute a doctor who lives in state but performs abortions out of state?
these would both likely be deemed unconstitutional.
In the event that Roe vs. Wade would get overturned, can states make it illegal to go out of state to get an abortion? Or prosecute a doctor who lives in state but performs abortions out of state?
these would both likely be deemed unconstitutional.
meaning they are clearly unconstitutional but may be deemed otherwise by "conservative" judges.
In the event that Roe vs. Wade would get overturned, can states make it illegal to go out of state to get an abortion? Or prosecute a doctor who lives in state but performs abortions out of state?
these would both likely be deemed unconstitutional.
meaning they are clearly unconstitutional but may be deemed otherwise by "conservative" judges.
In the event that Roe vs. Wade would get overturned, can states make it illegal to go out of state to get an abortion? Or prosecute a doctor who lives in state but performs abortions out of state?
these would both likely be deemed unconstitutional.
meaning they are clearly unconstitutional but may be deemed otherwise by "conservative" judges.
In the event that Roe vs. Wade would get overturned, can states make it illegal to go out of state to get an abortion? Or prosecute a doctor who lives in state but performs abortions out of state?
these would both likely be deemed unconstitutional.
meaning they are clearly unconstitutional but may be deemed otherwise by "conservative" judges.
You mean like abortion?
Huh?
Bobo is apparently an originalist who would put even Scalia to shame; in his world, all that is not explicitly permitted by the Constitution is forbidden.
In the event that Roe vs. Wade would get overturned, can states make it illegal to go out of state to get an abortion? Or prosecute a doctor who lives in state but performs abortions out of state?
these would both likely be deemed unconstitutional.
meaning they are clearly unconstitutional but may be deemed otherwise by "conservative" judges.
You mean like abortion?
Huh?
Bobo is apparently an originalist who would put even Scalia to shame; in his world, all that is not explicitly permitted by the Constitution is forbidden.
Read my above post before you go spouting off, my man.
Comments
Sounds fair to me.
I'm pro-choice (not necessarily pro-abortion)
That's ridiculous and flippant.
It's an individual choice.
how about we allow each state to vote on whether women can vote. but women can't vote in that one.
OK....I agree.....should there be any regulation on it whatsoever??
Age of the woman....term of pregnancy??
I'd love to hear your specific view on how abortion should be handled in our society.
No and no.
Wow
No. The man is running for president. I have never heard him give an opinion on who should decide, only that the president, congress, and the supreme court shouldn't.
I've heard him and other doctors fear losing their jobs if they refused to perform abortions. Should willingness to kill a fetus be a requirement for all doctors?
I am pro choice and I would not support Ron Paul if I did not believe our society in regards to abortion would greatly improve under his watch.
That's not very outrageous.
Dude, it doesn't work that way. If it's not within the power of the federal government to regulate it, then the right is retained by the states. There's no third option, and declaring that you don't think the federal government should be permitted to regulate it is a completely punk-azz way of declaring that you're okay with state legislatures stepping in and exerting control over womens' bodies. I would respect him a lot more if he would be honest about his position instead of using rhetorical games to take advantage of his supporters' ignorance.
Huh? What has that got to do with anything?
Let's have some facts, rather than "beliefs".
Apparently it is to subscribers of Rock-a-Logic.
I am confident that Rock-a-Logic affords a means of reconciling this apparent disconnect.
So you're of the position that Jonny stated earlier that the states would flat out ban abortions? If Bush and his bench of fools couldn't do it what makes you think the states could, or even would?
I've always suspected that most people who are interested in libertarianism wouldn't be down with the logical results of real principled libertarianism. Such as gay marriage, abortion rights, privatized highway system, anarchy, etc.
There are quite a few state legislatures that would jump at the chance to ban abortion. Passing a federal ban or overturning Roe Vs. Wade is far more difficult a proposition than, say, South Dakota doing it.
It's not a "position"; it's a fact. Numerous states have laws outright banning abortions on the books, which would immediately go into effect upon Roe v. Wade being overturned.
As to the latter question, please believe that the clock is ticking on Roe and that if a Republican is elected, it's gone. It's a judicially suspect decision and overturning it only takes one more appointment.
I don't really see how either of those things would be possible... although I wouldn't put it past local Bible Belt authorities to give it a shot.
I don't understand why people want no regulations on abortions. Well, what kinds of regulations are we even talking about, I guess?
My stance -- only in cases of incest, rape, and when the mother's or infant's life is in danger.
OK.
these would both likely be deemed unconstitutional.
Yeah, that would be the 10th amendment, I think.
meaning they are clearly unconstitutional but may be deemed otherwise by "conservative" judges.
You mean like abortion?
Huh?
Bobo is apparently an originalist who would put even Scalia to shame; in his world, all that is not explicitly permitted by the Constitution is forbidden.
Read my above post before you go spouting off, my man.