Ron Paul Supporters. Please Wake Up.

[BG45]

Ron Paul is our new Phatmass Mod?

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1332447361' post='2405508']
lolrighttoprivacy
[/quote]

So you're a libertarian who doesn't believe in a right to privacy?

[Papist]

How is denying someone an abortion a violation of her right to privacy?

[4588686]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1332452246' post='2405551']
How is denying someone an abortion a violation of her right to privacy?
[/quote]

Not arguing the case law. But whether you believe the case law is well reasoned it is the case law and the President does not have the power to change that.

[elizabeth09]

How can someone[color=#282828] accept that abortion is ok, but be against the morning after pill?[/color]

[XIX]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332447038' post='2405505']
Why Catholics continue to allow the republican party to dupe them into believing that any substantive anti-abortion action is going to take place on the federal level is beyond me.
[/quote]
Honestly, have you even been reading the phorum? Or do you just read what you expect to read? You may find a few exceptions (probably you won't even find that), but the vast majority of us are convinced that the GOP will do practically nothing when in power. We all either

a) Vote third party, or
b) Vote for a GOP we can't stand, just because the Dem (in this case Obama) is 10x worse.
c) A bunch of us like Ron Paul, but it has nothing to do with his stance on abortion, other than being able to tolerate it in light of his dramatically libertarian views.

There are many naive Catholics out there, but I don't think you find too many of them on this phorum. I don't get why pro-life voters get singled out for falling for the lies, when practically every other issue is the same. Hasan, maybe it's just me, but it seems like a lot of people around here have become hostile towards you. A lot of your posts have a "can't tell if trolling" feel to them. Not because you are non-Catholic or because you disagree, but because you come up with "arguments" that just don't make sense, that come across as intellectually dishonest.

That's probably harsh, but I don't know of another way to put it. It's just difficult to take you seriously. As a guy who loves to constantly examine and re-examine my beliefs, I find it remarkably aggravating to encounter non-Catholics who seemingly can't put together two honest sentences in a row. I'd love to spar with you, but when you come at us with "Catholics still think GOP will end all abortion" argument, it gives away where you are really coming from.

Edited March 22, 2012 by XIX

[XIX]

sry

Edited March 22, 2012 by XIX

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332447038' post='2405505']
Ron Paul couldn't end abortion even if he wanted to. Abortion is a right guaranteed by the Constitution's Privacy protections. Maybe you dislike that but that has been the consistent ruling of the court for almost half a century now. Roe v. Wade occurred under the Burger court (nominally conservative) and was continually reaffirmed under the Rehnquist court (actually conservative). It still has yet to be overturned despite the current USSC being the most conservative in half a century. The President does not have the power to end abortion. Neither does the congress. Most of the anti-abortion legislation of substance (that is, legislative attempts to bully women into conforming to Christian attitudes concerning abortion) is occurring at the state level, where the USSC has given state government more discretion in attempting to hamper women from accessing abortion services.

Why Catholics continue to allow the republican party to dupe them into believing that any substantive anti-abortion action is going to take place on the federal level is beyond me. They have, however, done a beaver dam fine job of convincing many Catholics to turn their back on the social justice aspects of their faith in the irrational hope that somehow by electing a pro-life President they are conforming to the moral demands of their Church, despite the President's impotence on this matter.
[/quote]
Ron Paul's We the People act would overturn Roe v. Wade by a majority vote in the congress, because the congress actually does have a balance to the power of the Federal Court--it can limit the Federal court's jurisdiction. not the president, but the legislature with the support of a president, could indeed get rid of Roe v. Wade tomorrow.

but the Republicans don't get behind such constitutional legislation, because it's much better to gain power by keeping the pro-life movement hostage over the appointment of justices.

anyway, no one anywhere in the legislature or running for the executive branch, and no justice of the judicial branch, is going to ban the contraceptive pill or the plan B pill, which effectively contains the same kinds of hormones and junk so it's actually kind of hard to ban one without the other (if you ban it specifically they just change the formula and rebrand it, so long as contraceptive pills are legal, a plan B type pill will be possible), so while Ron Paul may be wrong to be more like Aquinas on issues of abortion than we might like him to be given the current theology as informed by modern science, I don't see this as a disqualifying issue. because he supports all of the practical steps that could practically work towards illegalizing abortion in this country: stripping Federal Courts of jurisdiction so that states are free to illegalize it, and supporting a Constitutional Ammendment so that states begin to have to illegalize it to varying degrees.

[4588686]

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1332453692' post='2405560']
Honestly, have you even been reading the phorum? Or do you just read what you expect to read? You may find a few exceptions (probably you won't even find that), but the vast majority of us are convinced that the GOP will do practically nothing when in power. We all either

a) Vote third party, or
b) Vote for a GOP we can't stand, just because the Dem (in this case Obama) is 10x worse.
c) A bunch of us like Ron Paul, but it has nothing to do with his stance on abortion, other than being able to tolerate it in light of his dramatically libertarian views.

There are many naive Catholics out there, but I don't think you find too many of them on this phorum. I don't get why pro-life voters get singled out for falling for the lies, when practically every other issue is the same. Hasan, maybe it's just me, but it seems like a lot of people around here have become hostile towards you. A lot of your posts have a "can't tell if trolling" feel to them. Not because you are non-Catholic or because you disagree, but because you come up with "arguments" that just don't make sense, that come across as intellectually dishonest. [/QUOTE]

How is this intellectual dishonest?

First of all, my comment was not specifically about phatmassers it was about Catholics in general, although I should have instead said politically pro-life Christians. Second, I find your premise a little difficult to take seriously since we are currently posting on a thread dedicated to dissuading Catholics from voting for Ron Paul because of his refusal to take an unequivocal stance on abortion. Voting for abortion makes sense on a state level since there has been real, anti-abortion legislation passed on a state level. It makes very little sense for the federal Presidency since he really has little to no say about abortion. Many Catholics complain about the attempts of the GOP to woo them during the Presidential race with pro-life promises yet again and again I see here and elsewhere injunctions to remember to 'vote pro-life' during the Presidential races.

[QUOTE] That's probably harsh, but I don't know of another way to put it. It's just difficult to take you seriously. As a guy who loves to constantly examine and re-examine my beliefs, I find it remarkably aggravating to encounter non-Catholics who seemingly can't put together two honest sentences in a row. I'd love to spar with you, but when you come at us with "Catholics still think GOP will end all abortion" argument, it gives away where you are really coming from.
[/quote]

And where am I 'really' coming from? I don't usually take insults seriously as I have a 'sticks and stones' attitude towards words. But you calling me a liar is a charge of a certain level that I think it merits you presenting some evidence as I really don't take that particular insult lightly.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Hasan

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1332454137' post='2405567']
Ron Paul's We the People act would overturn Roe v. Wade by a majority vote in the congress, because the congress actually does have a balance to the power of the Federal Court--it can limit the Federal court's jurisdiction. not the president, but the legislature with the support of a president, could indeed get rid of Roe v. Wade tomorrow. [/QUOTE]

They can limit the court's jurisdiction but how would they use this to overturn Roe v. wade?

[QUOTE] but the Republicans don't get behind such constitutional legislation, because it's much better to gain power by keeping the pro-life movement hostage over the appointment of justices. [/QUOTE]

I agree

[QUOTE] anyway, no one anywhere in the legislature or running for the executive branch, and no justice of the judicial branch, is going to ban the contraceptive pill or the plan B pill, which effectively contains the same kinds of hormones and junk so it's actually kind of hard to ban one without the other (if you ban it specifically they just change the formula and rebrand it, so long as contraceptive pills are legal, a plan B type pill will be possible), so while Ron Paul may be wrong to be more like Aquinas on issues of abortion than we might like him to be given the current theology as informed by modern science, I don't see this as a disqualifying issue. because he supports all of the practical steps that could practically work towards illegalizing abortion in this country: stripping Federal Courts of jurisdiction so that states are free to illegalize it, and supporting a Constitutional Ammendment so that states begin to have to illegalize it to varying degrees.
[/quote]

I agree. Ron Paul is 8/10th of the way to a purists position on abortion and the area he disagrees with you all on isn't anything that he would have the power to change anyway.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Hasan

[Aloysius]

[quote]They can limit the court's jurisdiction but how would they use this to overturn Roe v. wade?
[/quote]

[url="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr539/text"]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr539/text[/url]
[quote]
SEC 3 LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).[list]
[*]
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation and
[*]
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
[/list]

[/quote]
[quote]
Sec. 7 CASED DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.

Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.[/quote]

BAM. pass that legislation, and Roe v. Wade is a moot point.

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1332456924' post='2405602']
[url="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr539/text"]http://www.govtrack..../111/hr539/text[/url]



BAM. pass that legislation, and Roe v. Wade is a moot point.
[/quote]

Interesting. I have to go but it's something that will be interesting to think over.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332451412' post='2405546']
So you're a libertarian who doesn't believe in a right to privacy?
[/quote]
You don't read many libertarian works, do you?

Sorry. That's kind of snarky, isn't it?

Well, the right to privacy excuse from the Supreme Court is laughable. Rather than attempt to prove it's a right through strict language, they invented an implied right to privacy. It's the right to not have someone invade your property that would protect you. If your body is your property, and the unborn child is the mother's body, then there's no right to prevent abortion.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Winchester

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1332457292' post='2405605']
You don't read many libertarian works, do you?
[/quote]

Not really. I'm going to read The Road to Serfdom sometime this summer but I really haven't read much.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Hasan

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1332456924' post='2405602']
[url="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr539/text"]http://www.govtrack..../111/hr539/text[/url]



BAM. pass that legislation, and Roe v. Wade is a moot point.
[/quote]

I mean, I think this is an awful idea (no offense). And I would say that even if this were designed to promote social issues that I support. I think it would completely undermine our system of government and would mean the end of the judiciary of substance.

[i][color=#282828]Sec. 7 CASED DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.[/color]

[color=#282828]Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.[/color][/i]

[color=#282828]What is the precedent for Congress having this authority? I think this is the most constitutionally suspect part. The rest is also suspect, in my opinion, because of the way it attempts to limit jurisdiction. I'm not sure how congress can limit what cases the court can hear based on what rational the court might use to rule on that case. Interesting. Still not sure what I think of it but I'd be interested in hearing your throught if you can expand on it. [/color]