Defense for abortion being left up to states?

[MRoCkEd]

Does anyone have a link to Ron Paul's position on abortion where he concludes it must be left to the states. I think it was from his book but I don't have a copy on me. It was like "people who say we shouldn't leave it up to the states because they might make the wrong decision is like saying we need world government" or something. Thanks

[MRoCkEd]

/\

[acptulsa]

Not sure but I'd strongly suspect that Ron Paul's position on the subject is entirely predicated on the Tenth Amendment.

[M House]

If this turns into an abortion debate, I'm going to hit my head against this desk to make it go away.

[Theocrat]

Congressman Paul wrote a book in 1983 entitled Abortion and Liberty. Although I haven't read the book yet, I think that would be a good place to search for his defense of abortion being left to the States.

[acptulsa]

If this turns into an abortion debate, I'm going to hit my head against this desk to make it go away.

The off switch will make the debate go away. As for the desk, if you want it to go away give it to me!

[Theocrat]

If this turns into an abortion debate, I'm going to hit my head against this desk to make it go away.

[M House]

Abortion debates here usually can be summed into this

1. Killing babies is bad
2. Having unwanted kids is bad
3. Contraceptives are bad
4. Having sex is bad

.......what do people do: have sex, kids, and abortions anyway.

[MRoCkEd]

Congressman Paul wrote a book in 1983 entitled Abortion and Liberty. Although I haven't read the book yet, I think that would be a good place to search for his defense of abortion being left to the States.

Hmm. He mentions leaving it up to the states but actually seems to support a constitutional amendment in that.

Constitutional provision should never have been
necessary, but now it is. Without this change in the Constitution,
the division and dissension in the country over abortion will get
worse. If we cannot achieve a clear-cut protection of all human
life, in-utero as well as extra-utero, all life and liberty will be
undefendable and the disintegration of our free society will
accelerate. And yet merely changing the law, if not accompanied
with a similar change in attitude, recognizing the value of life in a
moral sense, would not achieve its intended purpose. It could even
serve to precipitate more division and dissension. We cannot deny
constitutional protection to the unborn, but we should not be
complacent and think that this in itself solves the problem. The
problem is fundamentally moral, not legal. The Constitution by
itself cannot establish the proper moral attitude of a nation. The
real change will not be achieved by the politicians, but must come
from our moral and religious philosophers.

[Kludge]

If your belief is that abortion is murder, you should be working to ban it on the federal level. I'd be a bit surprised if Ron Paul would permit states to legalize murder (not that I believe it's murder...)

[nobody's_hero]

If your belief is that abortion is murder, you should be working to ban it on the federal level. I'd be a bit surprised if Ron Paul would permit states to legalize murder (not that I believe it's murder...)

Not necessarily. No where in the Federal Constitution is the issue of murder mentioned. It was left to the states to handle such cases, as well as probably 99% of criminal offenses.

[The_Orlonater]

Abortion debates here usually can be summed into this

1. Killing babies is bad
2. Having unwanted kids is bad
3. Contraceptives are bad
4. Having sex is bad

.......what do people do: have sex, kids, and abortions anyway.

+1

It's a little game we play.

[torchbearer]

federalism.