No he's not. How about you actually read the link instead of just the part that CaseClosed took out of context in a way that wildly distorted its meaning?

And that's exactly what this is. It's about tossing the decision to the states. As it is, the pro-choice values are being pushed on everyone, he's just trying to stop that, not push his own.

Probably the same as what he's supporting in the bill you linked. He would support local communities deciding whether or not this was okay for their community rather than having that decision made at a federal level.

Paul's quote about Lawrence v. Texas earlier in this thread make it pretty clear that he does not support Griswold and would prefer it to be overturned. Or did, at least, in 2003.

He didn't.

It's not even doing that. It's just allowing states to keep their funds from funding it if they want to.

1) Do you believe you are not allowed to leave the US? You totally are.

2) OK, but what if even better we let that document be amended, and then at one point added "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." to it? Good times, right?

No, just no. Do you really not understand what you're supporting here? This isn't about abortion at that point, it's about you believing that democracy is only okay so long as people are voting for what you want them to vote for. There is not some objective truth here where you are just right. It's your BELIEF vs. their BELIEF. Currently your BELIEF is being imposed on others.

Imagine if it were the other way around and abortion was banned at the federal level. The level of oppression that pro-choice people would be under in such a system is exactly where the pro-life people are at now. To impose laws centrally that go against what people would choose for their own local communities is the very essence of tyranny, even when you think those laws they'd choose for themselves are tyrannical, stupid and evil.

The simple fact is that you are not some objective, omniscient godlike person who should have the authority to tell people that their beliefs are tyrannical, stupid and evil and then forcibly restrict them from living under their beliefs. You're just another person yourself, and even if your beliefs are more enlightened, as I'd certainly agree to myself, you completely lose the high ground once you take to forcing those beliefs on others.

When it comes to issues where people have such strong disagreement, decentralization is the only morally supportable option. For either side to hold sway over the other at a centralized level is far more tyrannical than people choosing for themselves which path to follow at a local level. Stop trying to impose your beliefs on people who don't even live near you. Would you support invading all the Muslim countries in the world to convert them to your religious beliefs (or lack of)?

exactly. every single issue that the population is close on, like 40-60%, should be left up to the states because of this. this way instead of shutting out 40-49% of the population they can at least go to a different state.

the issue at hand is irrelevant

Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever.

To bring everyone else up to speed, Alex is for some reason bringing back this gem of an argument:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...ng-bad-793075/

Like that thread never happened? lol

wrong! isn't it obvious that A is in fact the best way to take them away? just because we happen to agree with the outcome A favors in this case doesn't change that. what if it changes it's mind? what if it's tyrannical on another issue?

Sometimes states are just living in the dark ages and the will of the majority needs to be imposed.

Huh? I linked it and quoted a section of it. I am not sure how context changes it at all. If you support federal funding of basic medical services then you would have a problem with Ron Paul. I think federal funding for family planning organizations is a good thing. I am not trying to get libertarians to do a double take on Ron Paul, but others might be interested in this information.

this is legit...i am considering being convinced by this argument

the argument is irrelevant to prolife people as it equates ownership of organs to ownership of another's life. It also doesnt distinguish between when a baby/fetus can be legitimately killed.

how do already born babies differ?

again, how does the argument not apply to already born babies?

also, you can't change your will midway. if i invite you on a plane, i own the plane and everything on it, and i decide to evict you, there is no way for you to survive otherwise, can i just throw you off the plane? they are all my resources that are needed for you to feed off of. Do i have to keep you onboard for the remainder of the journey?

CBS/NYT National Poll
10/19 - 10/24
455 Likely Voters

Cain 25
Romney 21
Gingrich 10
Paul 8
Perry 6
Bachmann 2
Santorum 1
Huntsman 1

This is the worst that Perry and Bachmann have ever done in a poll.

I do not support anything like this. Stop with the strawmanning, you race baiting scum.

The only thing that happened there was that you hijacked into an irrelevant discussion like you do constantly and should have been banned for long ago. I do not in any way support segregation of any sort, so just stop.

agree with Zygote on the first bit but not the second bit. if I promised to marry simeone, then changed my mind, am I still obligated to marry? that's silly. the human will is inalienable and changes from moment to moment.

meh if you own the plane, and should I not trust you, simply make a performance bond alienating X$ to Y who is trusted, and give it to my estate if I should die on your plane due to you throwing me out, or the engines were full of fail, or whatever. you know, contractually.

WHAT YOU QUOTED WASN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT FEDERAL FUNDING!

The reason the context matters is that it wasn't even talking about banning funding at all! Maybe you need to read it again to see what it actually says! The law is to make it legal for states to ban funding if they wish for their state, it doesn't actually ban anything in itself.

If someone offers a trade, leave abortion up to the states in exchange for bringing the troops home and ending top-end wall street welfare and ending the war on drugs, I don't see how you can't possibly snap call. People want to complain about pragmatism, well here's a pragmatic choice. Adjusting abortion policy a couple of years down the road will be a lot easier than recovering from the damage that will be caused by continuing the failed policies of empire. It's not even close.

Making THIS the dealbreaker issue is on the order of digging your heels in over $30 million in NPR funding or whatever.

FlyWf busy going for the Trolley Award I see.

yeah people just *act* like because he's wrong on this that it's a deal breaker. either that or they are just single issue voters anyway.

besides, leaving it up to the states is the right move hypothetically.

divorce is an implied possibility in marriage. divorce does not equate to killing either. if you can change your mind also, then what is to say you can't abandon a 1 second old baby?

im not arguing for anything other than consistency.