Ron Paul is pro-choice on abortion, state by state

[Newman]

Anybody that calls Ron Paul "pro-choice" is an idiot that doesn't have his/her facts straight. I am extremely pro-life, and a fan of Ron Paul. The two are not mutually exclusive. And I don't need to repent (due to the fact that I am a fan of Ron Paul), as the ever-so-sure Bob Enyart suggested. Maybe he needs to recant his false words against Ron Paul, who is the sole hope for America.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Anybody that calls Ron Paul "pro-choice" is an idiot that doesn't have his/her facts straight. I am extremely pro-life, and a fan of Ron Paul. The two are not mutually exclusive. And I don't need to repent (due to the fact that I am a fan of Ron Paul), as the ever-so-sure Bob Enyart suggested. Maybe he needs to recant his false words against Ron Paul, who is the sole hope for America.

The sole hope for America is God. Lamentations 3:39-50.

 

[Granite]

Anybody that calls Ron Paul "pro-choice" is an idiot that doesn't have his/her facts straight. I am extremely pro-life, and a fan of Ron Paul. The two are not mutually exclusive. And I don't need to repent (due to the fact that I am a fan of Ron Paul), as the ever-so-sure Bob Enyart suggested. Maybe he needs to recant his false words against Ron Paul, who is the sole hope for America.

Enyart's insistence on attacking Dr. Paul is a sickening and grotesque display and I am still unsure as to what possessed Enyart to set into Dr. Paul with such vigor...

Just bizarre.

 

[drbrumley]

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2007

* Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills stop the federal government from promoting abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting federal funds from being used for population control or ``family planning'' through exercising Congress's constitutional power to restrict federal court's jurisdiction by restoring each state's authority to protect unborn life.

* Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and non-consensual human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within people' hearts and minds, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, where the court usurped the state's authority over abortion.

* One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state's ability to protect unborn life.

* In addition to restricting federal court jurisdiction over abortion, Congress must stop the unconstitutional practice of forcing Americans to subsidize abortion providers. It is not enough to say that ``family planning'' groups may not use federal funds to perform or promote abortion. After all, since money is fungible, federal funding of any activities of these organizations forces taxpayers to underwrite the organizations abortion activities. This is why I am also introducing the Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act. The Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it is ``sinful and tyrannical'' to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent.

* Madam Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of these two bills. By following the Constitution and using the power granted to the Congress by the Constitution, we can restore respect for freedom of conscience and the sanctity of human life.

 

[ghostfox]

If Christians don't believe in abortion, all they have to do IS NOT GET ONE! I don't consider it moral, but I also don't consider it my right to tell other people what to do, and Pauls position makes perfect sense, the states where a majority of people disfavor abortion can ban it, and the other ones can keep doing it if they so choose. Where did Jesus say that it was a believers job to enforce morality on non believers. The religious right at least in America is the Christian equivalent of radical Islam. If these people took over, there would be not alcohol, tobacco, or adult novelty stores between Canada and Mexico.
God bless Ron Paul

 

[Rusha]

If Christians don't believe in abortion, all they have to do IS NOT GET ONE! I don't consider it moral, but I also don't consider it my right to tell other people what to do, and Pauls position makes perfect sense, the states where a majority of people disfavor abortion can ban it, and the other ones can keep doing it if they so choose. Where did Jesus say that it was a believers job to enforce morality on non believers. The religious right at least in America is the Christian equivalent of radical Islam. If these people took over, there would be not alcohol, tobacco, or adult novelty stores between Canada and Mexico.
God bless Ron Paul

It's not just *Christians* that are anti-abortion ... there are others outside of any religion that would also like to see abortions cease to exist or at the very least radically reduced.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

If Christians don't believe in abortion, all they have to do IS NOT GET ONE! I don't consider it moral, but I also don't consider it my right to tell other people what to do,

Suppose we had a resurgence of the Iroquois war-god cult, or the Aztec Huitztliputztli cult, or some other cult which believed periodic blood sacrifices were necessary to strengthen the virility of their cultic Elders, and your wife and children would do the job nicely. Are you sure it's not my right to tell these people not to sacrifice your wife and children to their god Cthulhu?

(Speaking of Mitt Romney -- an easy transition from the subject of false religions -- this essay is pretty funny.)

and Pauls position makes perfect sense, the states where a majority of people disfavor abortion can ban it, and the other ones can keep doing it if they so choose.

Ron Paul is antiFEDERALchoice -- he doesn't want the federal government, or the government of Mexico making the choice for the states. But he's also pro-life, and believes "that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State."

Where did Jesus say that it was a believers job to enforce morality on non believers.

Follow this chain:
Matthew 5:17-20
Micah 4:1-4
Psalm 149:5-9
I don't believe in capital punishment or government prisons, but I do believe I have the right to "impose morality on non-believers" in many circumstances:

• I have an unbelieving maid or butler -- I impose Christian morality on my domestic apprentices
• I have an unbelieving employee in my busiess, who refuses to work and follow my orders -- I impose Christian morality on my employees as long as they remain my employees
• If I'm a teacher, I'm going to impose Christian morality on my students

When Christians run all the schools, businesses, roads, and media, we will have "imposed" Christian morality on the country without firing a shot.

The religious right at least in America is the Christian equivalent of radical Islam. If these people took over, there would be not alcohol, tobacco, or adult novelty stores between Canada and Mexico.

It won't be because we took up arms (or hacked off arms) but because unbelievers want to participate in a social order which is prosperous and blessed by God, so they pretend to be something they're not.

Psalm 18:44
At the hearing of the ear they hearken to me,
Sons of a stranger feign obedience to me,

Psalm 66:3
Say to God, `How fearful [are] Thy works,
By the abundance of Thy strength,
Thine enemies feign obedience to Thee.

Psalm 81:15
Those hating Jehovah feign obedience to Him,
But their time is –– to the age.

Deuteronomy 33:29
O thy happiness, O Israel! who is like thee?
A people saved by Jehovah,
The shield of thy help,
And He who [is] the sword of thine excellency:
And thine enemies are subdued for thee,
And thou on their high places dost tread.’

2 Samuel 22:45
Sons of a stranger feign obedience to me,
At the hearing of the ear they hearken to me.

Proverbs 14:19
The evil have bowed down before the good,
And the wicked at the gates of the righteous.

Force and threats of violence are not necessary to create and maintain a Godly society: just nagging (Deut 6:6-9).

God bless Ron Paul

God will bless Ron Paul as long as Dr. Paul puts God's Law ahead of federal law.

 

[WizardofOz]

I don't think Bob Enyart is saying Paul is pro-choice personally. What I do think he's saying is that Paul is pro-choice state by state. What does Paul want to do? Does he want to give the power to the states? The power to choose to have abortion or outlaw it? If so, that's where they get the label pro-choice state by state. Is Paul personally pro-life? Sure. But he would allow states to choose otherwise.

You must be like me; you give people the benefit of the doubt. I had to re-read the OP just to be sure Enyart really wrote what I thought he did. I understand where you are coming from - but I am not buying the spin he is selling.

Bob outright lied about Paul's stance. I think S†ephen did a great job out outlining the false comments Enyart made in this post . It's just Bob calling the kettle black - I'm wondering if it's something he does often.

 

[kmoney]

If Ron Paul was in power, would states have the choice to either keep abortion legal or outlaw it? If you answer yes to that, then I don't know why saying Paul is pro-choice state by state is so offensive. I haven't really read much of what Bob has said about Ron Paul so maybe he's saying more than that, but I don't find that particular label for Paul that bad, or inaccurate. Right now the choice is in the hands of each individual person (women anyway), Paul would put the choice in the states hands.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

If Ron Paul was in power, would states have the choice to either keep abortion legal or outlaw it? If you answer yes to that, then I don't know why saying Paul is pro-choice state by state is so offensive. I haven't really read much of what Bob has said about Ron Paul so maybe he's saying more than that, but I don't find that particular label for Paul that bad, or inaccurate. Right now the choice is in the hands of each individual person (women anyway), Paul would put the choice in the states hands.

Right now the choice is in the hands of the federal government (specifically, the nine justices of the Supreme Court {some would say 5 of them}). The Supreme Court forces all 50 states to be pro-ABORTION. Ron Paul is pro-life, and he wants to CHANGE that by getting his "Sanctity of Life Act" passed which declares

1. The unborn are persons with a right to life from conception:
2. each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State
3. the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review any case arising out of any statute on the grounds that such statute (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--abortions

This would only encourage states to be pro-life. It would not move a single state in a pro-abortion direction.

Do you think anyone who identifies herself as "pro-choice" is in favor of this bill? Not a single one.

What motivates a person to describe a bill like this, written by a person who is boldly pro-life, as a "pro-choice" bill rather than "pro-life?"

There is only one answer: the desire to destroy the good name of another Christian; to divide the Body of Christ; to undercut support among Christians for the candidate and for his legislation.

Ron Paul on Abortion:

I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society.

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty.

Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves.

What Pro-Choice People say:

Paul also says that abortion is the tool by which the State achieves "a program of mass murder". A staunch pro-lifer who writes books on the topic in his spare time, he thinks States should decide the matter (read: allow states to overturn decisions like Roe v. Wade to allow new laws to protect the rights of what the Christian right calls "unborn people"). Under Paul's proposal, States could conceivably pass laws that bar women from obtaining abortions, including in cases of rape or incest, and even when the woman's life is at risk. Any person that values the right of any woman to choose what she will and will not do with her own body should take caution – Paul is to the extreme right of the political spectrum on this issue. I understand that Presidents do not decide abortion policy, but we have yet to see what Bush's Supreme Court appointments will yield in terms of abortion rights in the years to come. Any presidential candidate that would move to allow States to eradicate women's rights doesn't deserve the attention and praise he's getting from the Left.

ZNet |U.S. | Don't Believe the Hype (Ron Paul is Not Your Savior) [left-wing, pro-abortion magazine]

Pro-choicers don't call Ron Paul "pro-choice state by state"; why would a Christian?

More here:

http://kevincraig.us/paul-abortion.htm

 

[drbrumley]

I love Bob, but can't agree to this. The problem is Bob inadvertantly is taking the Pro choice position by using the federal government with its' unchecked power and doing the same thing the pro choicers do. I am a Floridian first before an American. What matters to me is in Florida first. And when the Collective (The Borg reference) shoves their rules upon me that even isn't biblical, I am to take it. :nono: I don't think so

 

[WizardofOz]

If Ron Paul was in power, would states have the choice to either keep abortion legal or outlaw it? If you answer yes to that, then I don't know why saying Paul is pro-choice state by state is so offensive. I haven't really read much of what Bob has said about Ron Paul so maybe he's saying more than that, but I don't find that particular label for Paul that bad, or inaccurate. Right now the choice is in the hands of each individual person (women anyway), Paul would put the choice in the states hands.

It's a trap Kmoney. The type of spin Enyart is using is effective in ensnaring people into taking part in arguments they cannot win. He is a word smith and makes statements like this in order to seem truthful; while making intellectually dishonest statements all the way through the entire opening post. Is the heading in and of itself true? It could be spun that way so he can debate against anyone who takes issue with the statement itself; which he hopes people will do when calling his show. Is it a mis characterization? Yes, but I doubt Enyart cares. Is it intellectually dishonest? I think so, but again, I am beginning to think that Bob doesn't care about that either.

I challenge you to either read the OP and see if you can find any outright dishonest statements (which S†ephen did well). While the headline could be spun as truthful; Bob made the mistake of making downright untruthful statements in the OP itself in an attempt to defend his cleverly spun statement on Paul's stance.

I haven't really read much of what Bob has said about Ron Paul so maybe he's saying more than that

That's the problem - he said a lot more; most was dishonest at worst or was severe spin at best.

Anybody that calls Ron Paul "pro-choice" is an idiot that doesn't have his/her facts straight.

That about sums up my opinion on this.

 

[kmoney]

Ok, I finally read the opening post and I agree it's over the top and I don't agree with it. However, if only looking at the label "pro-choice state by state", I still don't see how it's that bad or inaccurate. Personally Paul is pro-life and would probably love to have all 50 states vote that way, but the fact remains that he leaves the choice up to the states. And I'm saying that as a Ron Paul fan and someone who is far from being Enyart apologist (in case someone thought I was just trying to defend Bob or bash Ron Paul).

 

[Newman]

If Christians don't believe in abortion, all they have to do IS NOT GET ONE! I don't consider it moral, but I also don't consider it my right to tell other people what to do, and Pauls position makes perfect sense, the states where a majority of people disfavor abortion can ban it, and the other ones can keep doing it if they so choose. Where did Jesus say that it was a believers job to enforce morality on non believers. The religious right at least in America is the Christian equivalent of radical Islam. If these people took over, there would be not alcohol, tobacco, or adult novelty stores between Canada and Mexico.
God bless Ron Paul

Although I respect your fanhood of Ron Paul, I completely disagree with you. Jesus doesn't have to tell me to stop abortion. I know that killing babies is wrong and that I cannot stand idly by while people are tearing unborn babies apart in their mother's womb. This has nothing to do with a religious bias, the teachings of Christ, or anything of that nature. This has to do with what is innately ethical and a part of human progress.

 

[Turbo]

Ok, I finally read the opening post and I agree it's over the top and I don't agree with it. However, if only looking at the label "pro-choice state by state", I still don't see how it's that bad or inaccurate. Personally Paul is pro-life

So what? Many pro-choice politicians claim that they are "personally pro-life" but that they don't want to impose their "personal view" on others.

and would probably love to have all 50 states vote that way, but the fact remains that he leaves the choice up to the states.

Who is Ron Paul to say that states have the option to allow child-killing?

God did not give any government that authority. God did not give Ron Paul that authority. And Ron Paul certainly is in no position to grant states that authority.

And I'm saying that as a Ron Paul fan and someone who is far from being Enyart apologist (in case someone thought I was just trying to defend Bob or bash Ron Paul).

You should repent of being a "fan" of someone who advocates that any government has the authority to legalize child-killing.

Be a fan of Christ first.

 

[kmoney]

So what? Many pro-choice politicians claim that they are "personally pro-life" but that they don't want to impose their "personal view" on others.

All I'm doing is trying to clarify what Bob is saying. Bob doesn't seem to be talking about Paul's personal beliefs, and I think that's what some people are thinking.

Who is Ron Paul to say that states have the option to allow child-killing?

God did not give any government that authority. God did not give Ron Paul that authority. And Ron Paul certainly is in no position to grant states that authority.

Yes, we all know you want a monarchy and the US has a wicked form of government.

You should repent of being a "fan" of someone who advocates that any government has the authority to legalize child-killing.

Be a fan of Christ first.

OK.

 

[WizardofOz]

So what? Many pro-choice politicians claim that they are "personally pro-life" but that they don't want to impose their "personal view" on others.

Politics is full of candidates who tell people just what they want to hear. Would you care to go out on a limb and tell us who you support?

Who is Ron Paul to say that states have the option to allow child-killing?

Who is the federal government to say that states don't have the option to stop child killing? Who is Ron Paul to say that states have the option to stop child-killing? What is the status quo regarding abortion again?

God did not give any government that authority. God did not give Ron Paul that authority. And Ron Paul certainly is in no position to grant states that authority.

Did God give government the authority to outlaw all abortion? You seem to want to play both sides of the debate here. Did God give the federal government the right to declare that states cannot outlaw abortion?

You should repent of being a "fan" of someone who advocates that any government has the authority to legalize child-killing.

Be a fan of Christ first.

Roe v Wade "legalized" abortion; not Ron Paul. Again, what's the statue quo?

The foe of pro-lifer's is Roe v Wade - a precedent Ron Paul has sought to undermine more than any other candidate since its ruling became law.

How is your candidate going to overturn Roe v Wade?

 

[Turbo]

All I'm doing is trying to clarify what Bob is saying. Bob doesn't seem to be talking about Paul's personal beliefs, and I think that's what some people are thinking.

You are correct.

(Although, as a general rule, I don't trust politicians who claim they are "personally opposed" to abortion if they believe it is ever legitimate to legalize it.)

Yes, we all know you want a monarchy and the US has a wicked form of government.

Eh? That has nothing to do with this discussion. Even our Constitution, despite its flaws, protects the right to life of the unborn. Any law, whether federal, state, county, city or whatever that allows unborn babies to be killed is unconstitutional (and of course, ungodly). There is no "state right" to decide whether it shall be legal to kill innocent children.

OK.

OK, as in you will no longer count yourself as a "fan" of Ron Paul?

Or OK, as in whatever, I'm blowing you off, Turbo?

 

[PKevman]

Paul rejects the inalienable, God-given right to life of the unborn.

That is a lie.

No it isn't.

He rejects the personhood of the tiniest humans. He betrays his supposed commitment to the Constitution by refusing to uphold its commitment to our posterity

That is a lie.

No it isn't!

Paul sins against God in his apathetic position of allowing the states to murder children. And to the extent that Paul knows in his heart that abortion is wrong, to that extent he is also a traitor to his nation, and even its Constitution, lusting after power instead of standing for the right to life of the vulnerable. Ron Paul is not qualified to teach Sunday School, let alone lead a nation.

That is a lie. His position is not apathetic it is Constitutional. You are a traitor to your nation Mr. Enyert. You support a government much more massive than the Constitution ever would have allowed. You sir, should repent.

That is a lie. I call on you to repent Mr. Enyart. You have told a lie and slandered a good mans name. You have been proven wrong repetitively and yet you persist in your evil. You should publicly apologize and I call on YOU to repent.

Stephen Dale: STOP!
Ron Paul has been proven wrong repeatedly and so have his views, and you support him. You have slandered a good man's name when you have repeatedly called Pastor Bob a liar and you've called him evil.

I call on you to repent for this. I've known you most of your life, and I will tell you again that this is not acceptable. You don't know Ron Paul from Adam. I know Bob Enyart and I know he's a good man. You should be ashamed of yourself. Someone recently accused me on this forum of being evil, and you told them that you know me and suggested they give me a full hearing. I suggest the same for you with Bob. You've done the same thing. You are a very young man, and you should not be approaching an elder in such an arrogant and haughty manner. Seriously!

Bob is right dead on about Ron Paul and about the Libertarians. It's too bad that you utterly refuse to consider anything that he has to say. I imagine you haven't listened to any of the shows or links that are constantly posted in this forum. You've listened to Ron Paul, but you refuse to give the other side of the debate a full and fair hearing.

Your mind was closed to the truth on this issue from the moment you joined TOL, and so was your dad's. I love ya both as my friends and people I used to live next door to, and friends of my family. But you're so dead wrong on this issue and it would not be love for me to let you continue on and on like this.

 

[PKevman]

When Jesus comes back there will be a lot of Libertarians ashamed for the stances they took against Biblical righteousness.