Ban on Gender Abortions FAILS in HOUSE Today

[mandym]

The fed should be involved in all laws that protect life.

 

[webdog]

The vote is consistent with Dr. Paul's stance that the federal government should not be involved in abortion laws.

This is just smoke & mirrors. I'm not sure why people are more offended by this than regular abortions. I guess it does give certain people a chance to look down their noses.

The main responsibility of the federal government is to protect the lives of those within its borders.

It is also gender discrimination as targus pointed out already. This is very much a federal AND state issue.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So should we make murder a federal crime ?

Also, I thought conservatives were supposed to REJECT federal laws designed to "protect" people from discrimination.

I see consistency from Dr. Paul, but not from his critics.

 

[mandym]

So should we make murder a federal crime ?

Also, I thought conservatives were supposed to REJECT federal laws designed to "protect" people from discrimination.

I see consistency from Dr. Paul, but not from his critics.

Whatever. This is not just discrimination. to suggest that is to twist the issue. This is life and death.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Twist the issue ? LOL. You guys are the ones who brought up discrimination.

So I guess yer not answering my question. I get that a lot from people, here.

 

[mandym]

Twist the issue ? LOL. You guys are the ones who brought up discrimination.

So I guess yer not answering my question. I get that a lot from people, here.

I am sorry do you not understand that the end result is the death of a child?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I'll try again.

Should murder be a federal, or state crime ?

 

[mandym]

I'll try again.

Should murder be a federal, or state crime ?

Ok well your question must have gotten lost in all your discrimination talk. And abortion should be a federal crime.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Ok well your question must have gotten lost in all your discrimination talk. And abortion should be a federal crime.

Mandy, yer being nasty for no reason. You brought up the discrimination, not me. I expect honest debate from you. I am shocked you can't do it now.

Should murder be a federal crime ?

 

[targus]

Mandy, yer being nasty for no reason. You brought up the discrimination, not me. I expect honest debate from you. I am shocked you can't do it now.

Should murder be a federal crime ?

Hi Curtis, I brought up discrimination in response to FAL's assertion that abortion was not a constitutional issue.

Since the Constitution does prohibit discrimination based on gender then sex selection abortion would be a constitutional issue.

I don't see sex selection abortion as worse than other abortions - all abortion is murder and sin.

I do see the attempted legislation as a potential crack in the wall of the "abortion is a woman's right" argument however and for that reason valuable.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Hi Curtis, I brought up discrimination in response to FAL's assertion that abortion was not a constitutional issue.

Since the Constitution does prohibit discrimination based on gender then sex selection abortion would be a constitutional issue.

I don't see sex selection abortion as worse than other abortions - all abortion is murder and sin.

I do see the attempted legislation as a potential crack in the wall of the "abortion is a woman's right" argument however and for that reason valuable.

I see an expensive noondoggle, impossible to enforce. And we should not accept the absolute constitutionality of discrimination laws, just because they were wedged into it. Discrimination laws discriminate.

I would like to see a bill to overturn Roe v Wade. I'm sure that would be signed by Dr. Paul.

 

[targus]

I see an expensive noondoggle, impossible to enforce. And we should not accept the absolute constitutionality of discrimination laws, just because they were wedged into it. Discrimination laws discriminate.

I would like to see a bill to overturn Roe v Wade. I'm sure that would be signed by Dr. Paul.

I am not so sure that Ron Paul would sign a bill overturning Roe V Wade.

To begin with congress can not overturn a Supreme Court decision. All that Congress could do would be to pass a bill making abortion illegal.

And I suspect that Ron Paul would say that any bill making abortion illegal would not be consititutional since abortion is not an area specified in the Constitution.

Perhaps a bill that said that abortion is a States issue?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

You are correct.

The spirit of my post was to say if a chance came to remove any federal laws concerning abortion, I am quite sure Dr. Paul would be a supporter.

And I meant to say "Boondoggle"..... I have a bad case of fat fingers, today.

 

[JonC]

The bottom line is that the bill was “to prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes.” The concern here has more to do with anti-discrimination than it does with abortion. It implies that the murder of a child is not relevant when compared to the motives behind the murder and, I believe, diverts from the abortion issue. It is a disgusting bill because it suggests “yes – of course you can kill your child, as long as it is for your interests and instead of discriminating against the child.”

 

[freeatlast]

Hi Curtis, I brought up discrimination in response to FAL's assertion that abortion was not a constitutional issue.

Since the Constitution does prohibit discrimination based on gender then sex selection abortion would be a constitutional issue.

I don't see sex selection abortion as worse than other abortions - all abortion is murder and sin.

I do see the attempted legislation as a potential crack in the wall of the "abortion is a woman's right" argument however and for that reason valuable.

No, the constitution does not forbid gender or sex discrimination.
http://www.newser.com/story/108928/scalia-constitution-doesnt-prohibit-sex-discrimination.html

 

[freeatlast]

The bottom line is that the bill was “to prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes.” The concern here has more to do with anti-discrimination than it does with abortion. It implies that the murder of a child is not relevant when compared to the motives behind the murder and, I believe, diverts from the abortion issue. It is a disgusting bill because it suggests “yes – of course you can kill your child, as long as it is for your interests and instead of discriminating against the child.”

Agreed :thumbsup: and it is also an unconstitutional bill. Without an amendment to the constitution this is a states issue not a Federal government issue.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The bottom line is that the bill was “to prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes.” The concern here has more to do with anti-discrimination than it does with abortion. It implies that the murder of a child is not relevant when compared to the motives behind the murder and, I believe, diverts from the abortion issue. It is a disgusting bill because it suggests “yes – of course you can kill your child, as long as it is for your interests and instead of discriminating against the child.”

Agreed. :thumbsup:

 

[billwald]

This legislation makes as much sense as hate crime legislation - none. It requires mind reading and self-incrimination to enforce. Should your MD be required to read you your rights?

 

[freeatlast]

This legislation makes as much sense as hate crime legislation - none. It requires mind reading and self-incrimination to enforce. Should your MD be required to read you your rights?

Agreed! :thumbsup: Not to mention that it goes beyong the legality of the Federal government to make such a law if you hold to the constitution.

 

[Robert Snow]

The only thing positive about this is that it in an odd sort of way makes a vote for Mitt Romney seem more justified.

Is this the same Romney that supported abortion in Massachusetts?