So if you are raped and need an abortion you should have to move?

Abortion referendum fails to pass in Mississippi — RT

The controversial referendum that let voters in Mississippi redefine what constitutes personhood was voted down yesterday, in what pro choice advocates are celebrating as a victory for women’s rights.

Voters had to weigh in on whether the Mississippi’s Bill of Rights should define a “person” as existing from moment of conception, wording which could have caused abortions to be equated as murder, legally, and stood to sideline other commonplace medical practices.

Initiative 26, or the “personhood initiative,” was lauded by anti-abortion advocates as a major step in outlawing the practice. Nationally, the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v Wade legalized abortion from coast-to-coast. Should the personhood initiative been agreed on, however, abortion and some contraceptives could have been made illegal across the state.

Why even have a United States? Why not just make every state a country?

well if you look @ it in the perspective of anti-abortionists, whats inside is considered a life, so yeah.... what right do you have to kill another person because someone else raped you? (looking at it from that perspective)

and the Ron Paul view that was posted doesn't bar women who were raped from abortions


you have to be able to look at situations from different perspectives; you can't just be one sided when you're considering arguments




as for having to switch states thats how it used to be in the US (not that long ago) and it caused a great deal of problems/inconvenience for those who wanted abortions but.... /shrug only because imo abortions aren't a necessity for life... (rofl no pun intended)

Obama was really good at getting people pumped up. He had a brilliant campaign. His problem was, he won.

I have really come to believe that he never expected to. He barely showed up in the senate, sponsored a bill or two and suddenly he's president?

Don't get me wrong...I started to get excited by him too. But his jig was up as soon as he started announcing his appointments to the various offices.

"I'm not going to go with the establishment!"

Except for the following appointments that were in Bush's administration and Clinton's. The Bush ones were like, :fuckthatshit::facepalm:

"We're not going to appoint lobbyists to cabinet posts"

Well, except for these ones, and this guy, and shit! we has got to have this guy....

Oh, and then the economy dies, and he spends his first year on a health care system that apparently no one wants. Honestly...go universal or leave it as is. So you wasted a valuable year. And then lost control of the house.

And the economy got worse.

Then you cleared out GM shareholders through bankruptcy, and gave half the company to the fucking union. :fulloffuck::seriously:

So this is what happens when you Jimmy Carter it up. You set the stage for Reagan.

At this point, they are even more fucked, because he's been sticking it in the ass end now for 3 years, and whatever republican gets the nom, from what I've seen in the debates is destined to be worse. The only guy that makes any sense is Ron Paul, and shit, if you didn't like the changes Obama made, then that dude is gonna curl your hair.

Life begins at conception think about that. Abortions can be necessary to save a mothers life. so yes they can be a necessity for life. Giving states more rights is just passing the buck on tough dissensions. Instead of taking a stand on an issue Ron Paul will just pass it on to the states. Abortion is just one issue. Right now just like in Canada if you are born in the US you are a US citizen. Some states states believe if your parents are illegal that would make you illegal. Giving states more rights would a person a legal citizen in some states and have them deported in others.

Look at whats happening in Alabama: Alabama red-faced as second foreign car boss held under immigration law | World news | guardian.co.uk

If Ron Paul is elected hundreds of thousands of public and private sector jobs will be lost and that's a fact.

Yup. That's the idea.

yes... indeed but those are so very very rare especially in this day and age; if you were to make the argument that its necessary for 0.5% of the population and so it would be necessary for all then we may as well make cocaine, heroin, etc etc necessary for all

regardless i havent seen anyone suggest denying abortions for these cases... not since the 60s?


also us being Canadians of course we wouldn't agree with how America runs.. we've never been keen on States/mini-countries but its the core of the USA
so you have to understand that to get why State rule over Federal is so important for Americans

Did you read this: Abortion referendum fails to pass in Mississippi — RT

yes but that initiative doesn't have anything to do with whether a woman can/can't have an abortion if their life is in peril because of pregnancy

that initiative simply regards personhood

but what you may be missing here is that this issue was put to a vote for the state and the states citizens voted against it (58% voted against it).. a state where abortion is basically shunned and where groups like the KKK still thrive

Mississippi only has 1 abortion clinic

If a fetus us regarded as a person having an abortion would be considered murder. This is just of the many reasons why Ron Paul would be bad for America.

that doesn't mean that in those situations women wouldn't be allowed to abort

its just like canada abortion was illegal until trudeau allowed it for women solely in those situations


Ron Paul would simply allow states to choose just like how states are allowed to choose now (hence this vote that you are citing) but even if personhood was defined as such it doesnt mean that women facing situations as discussed wouldnt be allowed to abort

that's why there are always clauses "fine print" * etc etc

Stated are not allowed to choose. If the referendum would have passed The federal government would have got involved just like they are with Arizona's imagination laws. This would have ended up in the supreme court. The Supreme court has already decided on the right to have an abortion. The referendum and the following aftermath would just be a big waste of tax payers money. If states laws trumped the supreme court it would cause total cause in the legal system.

yeah... just like California and marijuana....

but ur missing the point or just not choosing to drop it and nitpicking about things that have nothing to do with anything

The federal can crack down on California anytime it wants but it won't because many democrat supporters are pro marijuana. The Democratic party is pro choice and would fight Mississippi or any other state. Giving states more rights is just one of the many terrible idea's coming from Ron Paul.

I think I can get on board with legalization to the point that Vancouver or California has reached but not sure how I feel about how it happens in Colorado, which allows dispensaries to operate on a for-profit basis. They're non-profit everywhere else.

Manic if you want to use one feeble point to argue against all the good that RP brings. I hope you open your eyes one day. Rape will be the last thing on your mind if Iran war starts.

If that's the only reason you want Ron Paul, the fear mongering has worked.

giving states more power isnt something inherrent to Ron Paul its inherrent to the United States and none of your points? About abortion has shown that Ron Pauls views are wrong...

As for war with Iran and fear mongering... I think you're confused... Ron Paul doesn't want war.... The "fear mongering" of the USA is very real when 1) you've got examples of them going to war with whatever pleases them 2) when the otner candidates have a good chance of beating Obama and they're crying "killllllllllllllllllllllllllll iran"
Posted via RS Mobile

I saw let them then.

Let's see...Iraq and Afghanistan. The Soviets tried to take out Afghanistan, and went bankrupt. 20 years later the states tries the same thing and....went bankrupt.

You took 2 poorly defended countries and bombed the shit out of them. You were there for 10 years. Countries both, btw, that are a huge mess now, you didn't accomplish your goals, and will probably fall into civil war.

So yeah, roll that out to Iran. They'll fucking cut you in your sleep. By sheer numbers, you may take over the country, but the same thing will happen, they'll pick you off one by one until you can't take it anymore and quit.

It's ridiculous...you aren't even allowed to take the spoils of war and have it paid for, and you need to rebuild before you leave, so it costs you even more.

Pointless.

I think that US might be extending a bit of itself, but the idea of having a world police is a way of ensuring we progress in a right path.

Yes, people would argue what is the right path yada yada yada... but the thing is this, we live in a world where it is impossible to exclude yourself (country) to the others. See what happens to North Korea, its people are starving to death and its economy in crap state.

Thus, for a country with military power like the US, it is absolutely essential for them to enforce that we advance the world in diplomacy talks rather than just pure craze of self-interest. Do any of you want to have a world war every few decades because of countries with different interest?

As far as presidential candidates, I don't think the size of US govt is the problem. The problem is that the govt is interfering too much with the market. They allow huge corporations to exist even their business model is proven to not work. This act eliminates the possibilities for young and new minds to enter any business and improve them. Before any new business can get anywhere, they would simply be shot down by corporation's $$$. If that didn't work, corporation would simply make the policy maker on their side by either altering the law or bring so many lawsuits to new corporations in dispute like patents to block them out.

This is not how a free market economy should work. And it's sad that we allow our govt to do sth like this and argue it as "at the best interest of our people".

The United States is the worst offender!

Being the leader of a developed country isn't about the benefit of the country. It's for the benefit of your friends and yourself, so that you can stay in power to enjoy the benefits.

If they really were willing to do what it takes to make the country better, the States or Euro would of done what Canada did 20 years ago. Take it up the ass, and put in austerity measures.

**note Canada did have a benefit of a healthy trading partner @ that time. Still, they took it and we took it as Canadians and came out better because of it. Or we'd be like belgium by now.

Sorry to take a dump on your face but RP doesn't sell fear, he sells solutions. All the other candidates are the ones selling you more terrorism fear to trade in civil liberties for more police state. If you can't see that you should politely stfu as you have no clue what RP stands for.

Their constant election cycle really doesn't help any. Every 2 years they have a national election, and so every 2 years, they lose basically a year to campaigning, those years alternate between "everything fucking stops" and "some business continues"

Even now, with the pay roll tax cut, its election engineering. The republicans promised they wouldn't link 2 separate issues into a must pass bill-but did it anyway. It was too tempting not to link the pay roll tax cut and the keystone project.

Here...you want the tax cut for the minions in the middle class, that's fine but we want a decision on keystone. Either, you piss off the middle class or you piss off your environmental friends that form your base. Have fun! Or, you turn down the project, and we hammer you on jobs for a year.

Shit...NONE of this is about $1000 for working citizens, and all about "how do I keep my seat?"

I mean, we have fundamental flaws in our election system as well. Basically, we live in an elected dictatorship. The conservatives have a majority. Why does the opposition even show up?

But at least the campaigning stops for awhile.

You clearly have no idea on what RP preaches as well.
Big gov/power corrupts ALL. Hence the need for smaller state control themselves. IIRC in the 20th century government has killed 200 million. (60 million alone in china) Do you really think a few small states having skirmishes are going to have that kind of a death toll? REALLY?

If a big army goes around patrolling the world how do they fund themselves? Certainly at the expense of everyone else. It just doesn't work.

I think the world is starting to say that they have no interest in having the US police them.

And make no mistake, they may say its for democracy and freedom, but a handy side issue is its always in the americans self-interest.