genuineoriginal
New member
Don't do it.
It is a trap designed to allow governments to pass a measure that "regulates the ... provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions".
Alan Keyes' Personhood Speech at Colorado RTL
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Don't do it.
It is a trap designed to allow governments to pass a measure that "regulates the ... provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions".
Do you have the full text that Ralphie refuses to share with us?
genuineoriginal
New member
nope, but I read the text that he wants passed
Don't you think that Ralphie is overly hesitant when it comes to revealing the name of the bill or who sponsored it?
The text that he copied and pasted sounds familiar:
"define human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception, "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency. Amend the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction from reviewing cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions."
Well I'll be darn, that sure looks like Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act", which we have discussed numerous times before.
I understand why Ralphie didn't want to give up the name of the bill or it's sponsor, because good Christian conservatives like Alan Keyes have shot it down because of this:
"The Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state."
As I mentioned to Ralphie on numerous occasions in other threads, the state would also NOT be required to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jursidiction of that state, and as it was mentioned earlier in this very thread:
"the Sanctity of Life Act would overturn Roe v Wade, but it would not have any effect on the state laws that exist. For abortion to become illegal after the act was passed, the state would have to then pass a law eradicating all the laws they have that make abortion legal."
Here is the best answer for dealing with abortion, which was also posted earlier in the thread:
"Keyes is willing to sign an executive order his first day in office, not only overturning Roe v Wade, but also overturning every other single law that states have accumulated since before Roe v Wade."
Give me a Christian conservative like Alan Keyes any day over a Libertarian like Ron Paul.
genuineoriginal
New member
I asked, and wasn't answered.
Is he running in 2012, and if so what party affiliation?
I just wanted to point out Ralphie's typical sneaky ways of pushing Ron Paul's flawed agenda.
I highly doubt that Alan Keyes is running for POTUS this time around. I haven't followed him closely to see if he's pursuing any political office.
He's a good man and if I have to lower my principles in order to vote for someone just because they're on the Republican ticket, this wouldn't be the first time I wrote someone's name in who isn't running.
WizardofOz
New member
I only included this portion of it for a reason. Forget the entire act, would you support passage of the following:
Can you answer even if maybe in a week or two? :juggle:
| define human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception, "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency. Amend the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction from reviewing cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. |
Can you answer even if maybe in a week or two? :juggle:
the barbarian is organizing a write in campaign
How about I give it to you now Ralphie?
Obviously Ron Paul and his lemming Paulbots are state righters for a good reason: selfishness.
It the federal government were to outlaw abortion, by not giving any state the so-called "right" to murder the unborn in their respective state via majority rule, just think of the other things that the big bad nasty federal government might do:
1) Make 'marriage' between two people of the same gender illegal.
2) Make the states follow federal drug laws, meaning that you couldn't legally dispense crack cocaine out of the trunk of your car if your state decided to legalize it.
3) Put an end to widespread pornography and close down the multi billion dollar business.
Boy Ralphie, the fed's really take all of the fun out a Libertarian's life don't they?
Remember: "Our constitution was made ONLY for a moral and religious people", not a bunch of baby murderers, homosexuals, drug addicts and SMUT peddlers.
WizardofOz
New member
"IF the federal government were to outlaw abortion"
It hasn't and it won't. Keep sitting on your hands though. Keep crossing your fingers. Your apathy is endearing.
It hasn't and it won't. Keep sitting on your hands though. Keep crossing your fingers. Your apathy is endearing.
I've made it quite clear that a nation that ejoys and/or tolerates the 3 other sins that I mentioned in my earlier post has no intention of outlawing abortion.
In fact, it would be a political death sentence if any Presidential candidate made it a priority during his or her campaign.
That's how far we've sunk into the moral hellhole that America has become.
Thank a Libertarian for that.
This is an old clip...but Keyes makes Obama look like an atheist in this portion of a debate.
| Alan Keyes v. Obama | |
