Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristopherV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Urbano_Macchi said:
There is no way that any person who honestly reads the Constitution in the context of when the 14th Amendment was written would come to the conclusion that personhood included unborn children. That was clearly not the intent of the equal protection clause. Scalia is stating the correct constitutional law position…
Click to expand...
I wish more pro-lifers would think this through. I don’t think you really mean this. You are saying that you agree with the essence of Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe v Wade that removed equal protection of the laws from unborn persons…that the unborn aren’t persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. Scalia also agrees with Blackmun on this point.

The phrase “any person” is used in the 14th Amendment. The phrase is broad and all-encompassing. The intent was equal protection of the laws. States are prohibited from deliberately protecting one type of person and denying that same protection to another type of person.

The Amendment could have been drafted by giving a long list of persons they intended to cover…sick persons, old persons, unborn persons, black persons, brown persons, Irish American persons. If their intent was equal protection of the laws for all, this approach would have been risky since any type of person not on the list would not be protected. I’m sure you’re not arguing that used car dealer persons aren’t protected. Even though they didn’t exist when the 14th Amendment was drafted.

The phrase “any person” was used. And no exceptions were given in the Amendment. To argue that unborn persons are excluded is to argue that born persons are protected and unborn persons are not protected…unequal protection. This is the problem with Roe v Wade.
 
miguel said:
I wish more pro-lifers would think this through. I don’t think you really mean this. You are saying that you agree with the essence of Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe v Wade that removed equal protection of the laws from unborn persons…that the unborn aren’t persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. Scalia also agrees with Blackmun on this point.

The phrase “any person” is used in the 14th Amendment. The phrase is broad and all-encompassing. The intent was equal protection of the laws. States are prohibited from deliberately protecting one type of person and denying that same protection to another type of person.

The Amendment could have been drafted by giving a long list of persons they intended to cover…sick persons, old persons, unborn persons, black persons, brown persons, Irish American persons. If their intent was equal protection of the laws for all, this approach would have been risky since any type of person not on the list would not be protected. I’m sure you’re not arguing that used car dealer persons aren’t protected. Even though they didn’t exist when the 14th Amendment was drafted.

The phrase “any person” was used. And no exceptions were given in the Amendment. To argue that unborn persons are excluded is to argue that born persons are protected and unborn persons are not protected…unequal protection. This is the problem with Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...
WHat the court said is that it wasn’t the court’s purview to determine personhood, it was the Congress’ responsibility to legally define this. Ron Paul has submitted the “Sanctity of Human Life” Act 3 times to the House, which would legally give personhood status to the unborn from the moment of conception. The House let it die in committee each time. The Democrats are that committed to killing babies that they will let NOTHING stand in the way of abortion, even by legally recognizing what science already has, that life, and personhood, begins at conception.
 
pnewton said:
He has already announced he is not running for Congress this year so he can put his efforts into his presidential bid. He will have my vote, as he always has.
Click to expand...
That’s very sad news. Ron Paul has been a wonderful representative for us.

In the primaries, Texas usually doesn’t matter. But the time the Texas primaries are held, someone already is clearly the nominee. The good part of that is I can vote for whoever I want without worrying that my vote will help a pro-abort. :o
 
Urbano_Macchi said:
…We should actively be working to amend the Constitution to protect the rights of the unborn, but it’s fantasy to read into the Constitution what we want to see.

We know that the four conservative Catholic members of the Supreme Court, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts will probably take the correct constitutional position regarding abortion. That is, abortion is not in the constitution, and should be left to the states. If such a view were to become the law of the land, we would expect many states to outlaw abortion completely, and the rest of the states would probably pass laws greatly restricting abortions.
Click to expand...
You’re right. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion is a form of murder. Other forms of murder are not mentioned in the Constitution either. The 14th Amendment mentions “any person” as the object of Constitutional protection. States are prohibited from denying “any person” in their jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws. Laws protect persons from criminal acts. The 14th Amendment implicitly prohibits states from protecting white persons from the crime of murder but not protecting black persons from the crime of murder. This is unequal protection of the laws. Protecting born persons from the crime of murder and not protecting unborn persons is also unequal protection of the laws.

It’s our Constitution. It’s our fundamental law. We have to know it and cherish it in our hearts. If we want equal protection restored to unborn persons, we (prolifers) must stop letting politicians of either party, or our favorite judges play us about what very simple words mean. The worst lie of Roe v Wade is that the unborn aren’t persons and therefore aren’t Constitutionally protected. We have to reject that lie every day it persists.

Or nothing will change.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
…and John McCain would have gooten trounced in the 2008 election if it weren’t for Sarah Palin bringing life back into his campaign…
Click to expand...
John McCain got trounced anyway, and it didn’t matter that he had Sarah Palin on his team.
 
Urbano_Macchi said:
Go nuts; at least my opinion is supported by facts whereas the opinion that Ron Paul is electable is supported by…hope?
Click to expand...
I can not even agree with your use of the word “fact”. By the way, for those who have been slamming on Ron Paul as unelectable, do you ever have any success with such negative tactics? Issues aren’t enough, I guess.
 
miguel said:
It’s our Constitution. It’s our fundamental law. We have to know it and cherish it in our hearts. If we want equal protection restored to unborn persons, we (prolifers) must stop letting politicians of either party, or our favorite judges play us about what very simple words mean. The worst lie of Roe v Wade is that the unborn aren’t persons and therefore aren’t Constitutionally protected. We have to reject that lie every day it persists.
Click to expand...
The Constitution is not perfect, and it is definitely NOT a Christian, let alone a Catholic document. I do not “cherish” the Constitution, I obey it because it is the supreme law of the land. A fair reading of the text of the Constitution, taking into account the historical background of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, makes it quite clear that abortion is neither outlawed, nor is it protected. Abortion was well known at the time that the 14th Amendment was adopted. And yet, in all the discussions about the adoption of the amendment, no one ever believed that it would have the effect of outlawing abortion from the moment of conception. No one who adopted the amendment had that understanding of the words, nor did anyone for two hundred years after its adoption. Be aware that only modern science has made it perfectly clear that life begins at conception.

Let me be clear. I believe all abortions should be banned, and that human life begins at the moment of conception. However, the Constitution does not say when personhood begins, and indeed there are parts of the Constitution which strongly suggest that personhood, as understood by the Founders and authors of the 14th Amendment, begins at birth. It is a matter of being honest with ourselves and with our history to recognize that the Constitution does not protect life from conception.

Instead of trying to read into the Constitution something that is clearly not there, we should be working to appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, thus opening the way for States to start banning and limiting abortions. That is the only realistic option to give the unborn greater legal protections.
 
pnewton said:
I can not even agree with your use of the word “fact”.
Click to expand...
It’s a fact that Ron Paul was obliterated in the 2008 Republican primaries. This fact strongly suggests that we will see a repeat performance in the 2012 Republican primaries.
By the way, for those who have been slamming on Ron Paul as unelectable, do you ever have any success with such negative tactics? Issues aren’t enough, I guess.
Click to expand...
My concern is defeating Obama. Electability is an issue.
 
Urbano_Macchi said:
It’s a fact that Ron Paul was obliterated in the 2008 Republican primaries. This fact strongly suggests that we will see a repeat performance in the 2012 Republican primaries.

My concern is defeating Obama. Electability is an issue.
Click to expand...
And who do you say is the ‘electable’ candidate then?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
And who do you say is the ‘electable’ candidate then?
Click to expand...
Honestly, if I were to bet on it, I’d say Obama would be getting a second term.

However, Romney or Perry give us the best chance of beating him.
 
Urbano_Macchi said:
Honestly, if I were to bet on it, I’d say Obama would be getting a second term.

However, Romney or Perry give us the best chance of beating him.
Click to expand...
While I just decided today to look closer at Perry, I can say there is no way I would vote for Romney. If I find that Perry ‘flipped’ back and forth on the abortion issue, I won’t vote for him either.

I trust Ron Paul is truly a pro-life candidate and I will not vote for anyone I feel is playing politics with any issues just for the sake of pandering to a bloc of voters.
 
I like Ron Paul but problem is with electorate. Present runners leave Perry looking to be the Republican favorite.
My hope is that Marco Rubio will challenge President Obama in 2012. Though I don’t desire to give him up as Florida senator, I think he’d have a shot, is reletively young for conservatives and has launched an exploritory committee.
 
I would really like to see Condoleeza Rice as the GOP nominee.
 
Urbano_Macchi said:
It’s a fact that Ron Paul was obliterated in the 2008 Republican primaries. This fact strongly suggests that we will see a repeat performance in the 2012 Republican primaries.

My concern is defeating Obama. Electability is an issue.
Click to expand...
Whatever. We will nominate another COuntry Clubber who wil do nothing, on a grand scale, about abortion. Nothing has happened in the last 30 years, all of the things that have been tried have been temporary and overturned by either SCOTUS or by Executive Order. But go ahead, find the “electable” guy so I can poke fun at his lame attempts to pacify the conservative base.
 
Well, I like Rick Santorum. He is pro-life!!!
Click to expand...
Why did he campaign for the pro-abortion Specter against a pro-life Tommey, very likely contributiing to Specter’s victory in a very tight election?

Pro-life views and words are nice. Pro-life actions are better. Does Santorum have pro-life convictions? Probably, but they are not as dearly held as his Republican party convictions. His own actions say so.
 
ishii said:
Vote for Ron Paul, take away votes from the Republican nominee, help Obama win re-election, then Obama can give us two more pro-abortion supreme court justices guarenteeing abortion on demand for another 40 years. Good job guys!

Ishii
Click to expand...
You would think on a Catholic Site that you wouldn’t have this kind of Disingenuous/Fallacious attack on the most Pro-Life Candidate in the Race
facebook.com/ProLifersForRonPaul
 
ishii said:
If he got the nomination, I believe it would guarentee Obama re-election. If he runs as a 3rd party candidate (because he has no chance of getting the nomination), it would take away votes from the GOP candidate.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Who cares what you ‘believe’… you’ve already shown yourself to be a deceiver.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top