LogFAQs > #218407

LurkerFAQs ( 06.29.2011-09.11.2012 ), Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear
Topic List
Page List: 1
TopicWhy is the media ignoring Ron Paul? (stolen practically verbatim from Reddit)
yoshifan823
08/16/11 12:17:00 PM
#53:


PrinceReva posted...
It's ironic that you support the "liberty" of the people, because by allowing the states to decide, you may end up removing a right that people already have, simply by letting people (or worse, legislators) vote on the issue. People shouldn't vote on this, because while it is somewhat a moral issue, it's much more of a safety issue, and allowing the people to vote on safety issues sets a dangerous precedent.

So, instead of leaving the issue up to 50 states to decide individually, it should be all-or-nothing at the federal level? And that's okay because for the moment it's legal nationwide? I mean, with the GOP on the prowl it could just as easily be outlawed, and then what would you be saying? Depending on your stance it could be "Yes, the federal government has solved this injustice!" or "****! The federal government just trampled on another personal choice and liberty of the people!"

I'd sooner take the 50 states to decide and take the hike to the next state over if it came down to it.


Of course, the only way it could be outlawed is by someone bringing a lawsuit to the Supreme Court that questioned the legality of abortion as a whole, and the Court would have to say that it's illegal. It's not a legislation thing any more. And there are plenty of states who are trying to limit/discourage it, just look at Texas. They now require an ultrasound before an abortion (hope you have health insurance!), and there are plenty of states putting limitations on the procedure.

Right now, abortion is just a dogwhistle for Republican candidates to attract the religious right. "Those Democrats love abortion, and we plan to stop it", nevermind that they can't actually stop it, just restrict it. Granted, Ron Paul being president I don't think would make things any worse on this front, simply because he wouldn't actually *do* anything about it, but the goal is to fix it, not to ignore it. (and by fix, I mean limit the amount of limitations that can be put on the procedure, because there shouldn't be things like ultrasounds required before an abortion can take place)
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1