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

[Turbo]

Politics is full of candidates who tell people just what they want to hear.

Exactly! Candidates who say they are "personally opposed" to abortion but don't want to recriminalize it are trying to sucker pro-lifers into supporting them even though they are "pro-choice" on child-killing.

Would you care to go out on a limb and tell us who you support?

Alan Keyes. But even if Alan Keyes were not running, and Ron Paul were the "most pro-life" candidate, I would not vote for him. Any candidate who believes that any level of government has the prerogative to legalize abortion is disqualified from consideration.

Who is the federal government to say that states don't have the option to stop child killing?

The federal government has no such authority. (No government does.) God forbids murder and delegated the responsibility to punish every murderer to governing authorities. And the U.S. constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life without due process, nor denied equal protection under the law. Its preamble even states that the Constitution was establish to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

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

It's not an option, it's a duty.

What is the status quo regarding abortion again?

Abortion is legal in every state.

What was the status quo prior to Roe v. Wade? Several states had already passed laws legalizing and regulating abortion.

What would be the status quo if Roe v. Wade had been overturned this morning? Abortion would still be legal in most if not every state, thanks in large part to all the "pro-life" abortion regulations that state that abortion is illegal unless (the the mother signs an informed consent form/the parents are notified/the mother waits 24 hours), and then the baby can be killed.

Did God give government the authority to outlaw all abortion?

YES! God has commanded that every murderer should be put to death, and governing authorities are supposed to act as His ministers, protecting the innocent by punishing criminals.

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?

Absolutely not! God has never granted any government the authority to legalize child-killing.

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.

Are you aware that Ron Paul drafted a bill that said that states should be free to outlaw or merely regulate and/or limit (that is, legalize) abortions without any interference whatsoever from the federal government? If you are not aware, I can dig up where the bill is quoted on these forums.

Is that your position as well?

 

[Vine&FigTree]

"Separate and Equal Station"

"Separate and Equal Station"

Did God give the federal government the authority to outlaw all abortion?

YES! God has commanded that every murderer should be put to death, and governing authorities are supposed to act as His ministers, protecting the innocent by punishing criminals.

The governments of Mexico and China are "God's ministers," are they not? Did God give those governments the authority to amend the Colorado state Constitution, or to invade Colorado in order to stop abortions or punish abortionists?

The Declaration of Independence says that the United States are (notice the use of the plural verb)

Free and Independent States; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

This means the states have "assumed a separate and equal station among the Powers of the earth," and Britain, Mexico and China have no authority to write or re-write the criminal codes in these united States.

When the states created the federal government, they delegated authority to that government only in a few "enumerated" areas. Abortion is not one of those areas enumerated in the federal Constitution.

Does God give His "ministers" the right to take an oath to support a Constitution and then break that oath by usurping powers not belonging to them? If God's "ministers" in the US Federal Govenment have the right to invade the states in violation of the Constitution, why not the "ministers" in Mexico or China?

If, as you say, "God has commanded that every murderer should be put to death, and governing authorities are supposed to act as His ministers," then this applies to China and Mexico regarding abortionists in Colorado. Surely (under your theory) God's "ministers" in the Mexican government have the right (the duty!) to build a police station in Denver and a courtroom to arrest and try abortionists in Colorado under Mexican law, extending to the falsely accused all the rights (if any) under the Mexican constitution.

And that would also mean that since there are over 135,000 abortions committed every day around the world, the "ministers" in the US Federal Government are falling behind in their responsibilities to end forced abortion in China and punish the guilty in other nations around the world.

I think your interpretation of the Bible is as flawed as your interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[Frank Ernest]

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

Revelation 6:12-17.

 

[Granite]

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

This is big government pragmatism and slavish devotion to caesar, nothing more. Seems that after years of frustration some pro-lifers are starting to become what they beheld: When in doubt, just get the government to fix our problems.

 

[YahuShuan]

If you want to get rid of abortion, the FIRST STEP is to get the control out of the hands of the FEDS, then it is fairly easy for the people in the individual States to take care of the rest in two year increments

Ron Paul's got my vote. And I prayed for Yah to raise a candidate that would make "RIGHT RULINGS". We won't be able to put down abortion any other way...right now.

Seems to me, that keeping it, allowing it to remain, in the FEDS hands is the abominable negligence at this point in time.

 

[S†ephen]

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

No it isn't!

Yes, it is.

Stephen Dale: STOP!
Ron Paul has been proven wrong repeatedly and so have his views,

No they have not. You and others make false claims against him and then claim to have defeated him.

and you support him.

Proudly. Every Christian here should.

You have slandered a good man's name when you have repeatedly called Pastor Bob a liar and you've called him evil.

Bob should be able to take his own medicine. So should everyone else.

I call on you to repent for this.

Not until I see solid proof that there is a better realistic hope for this country than Ron Paul.

I've known you most of your life, and I will tell you again that this is not acceptable.

I humble myself before God, and the list ends there.

(That's actually a quote from the Alamo film, I've always wanted to say it. )

You don't know Ron Paul from Adam.

I don't know Bob from Adam either, but according to you I should support him. There's a massive inconsistency here.

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!

Would "I'm sorry you are wrong and lying about a good man Mr. Enyert." Be ok?

I can change my tone, not the facts, and Bob, and you, and Lighthouse, and everyone else who is against Ron Paul is being arrogant about it, why are you chastising me?

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.

I HAVE!

I have done so over and over and over again. But until I am hateful, prideful, and post garbage like half the other Christians on this forum you and all the others will say the same things. I have looked, read, and watched. I have given all of it a fair and polite hearing. The only way you will be happy is if I am a clone like the rest. And that is something I refuse to be.

Your mind was closed to the truth on this issue from the moment you joined TOL, and so was your dad's.

No more than yours was Mr. Kevin.

You are a wonderful man whom I respect, but if we must be frank about the truth here then read the above again.

 

[Granite]

Stephen, hafta say you're doing a fine job, but your discussion with Kev is going nowhere. He seems unable to speak rationally about what he perceives as an "attack" on Enyart (which is rich considering Enyart's MO).

 

[S†ephen]

Stephen, hafta say you're doing a fine job, but your discussion with Kev is going nowhere...

Thanks.

And I know, it's called compassion.

 

[YahuShuan]

Once a "pulpiteer" always a "pulpiteer"...must be something about the elevation of that piece of wood? I dunno?

 

[kmoney]

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.

If the life of the unborn is already protected by the constitution, why is Keyes proposing an amendment to the constitution to define personhood at conception?

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?

Ok as in I don't think I need to repent (so I guess the second choice you gave).

 

[kmoney]

I asked this question in another thread but I'll ask it here too....

Assuming Keyes' amendment about personhood would be passed, would Roe v. Wade have any bearing? Would RvW still have to be overturned? Or would the amendment supercede it? Same with Ron Paul's bill.

 

[PKevman]

I've known you most of your life, and I will tell you again that this is not acceptable.

I humble myself before God, and the list ends there.

I never said anything about humbling yourself before anyone other than God. Don't you think that humbling yourself before God would mean treating His children with a modicum of respect? You treat Satanists like Granite with more respect than you do a Christian like Bob who holds the positions he holds based upon Biblical principles as opposed to his own whims of conscience like Granite. That I don't get, because you've always been a respectable young man.

Treating others with respect has nothing to do with "humbling yourself before them". You should humble yourself before God, and at the same time realize that God gives grace to the humble.

Would "I'm sorry you are wrong and lying about a good man Mr. Enyert." Be ok?

I can change my tone, not the facts, and Bob, and you, and Lighthouse, and everyone else who is against Ron Paul is being arrogant about it, why are you chastising me?

No. "I'm sorry Bob for calling you a liar based upon my wrong understanding of government and how God would like for a government to be run." Would be the right thing to do.

 

[elected4ever]

:rotfl:

 

[WizardofOz]

Don't you think that humbling yourself before God would mean treating His children with a modicum of respect? You treat Satanists like Granite with more respect than you do a Christian like Bob who holds the positions he holds based upon Biblical principles as opposed to his own whims of conscience like Granite.

Um, why is OK for Bob to do this to Ron Paul? Is it OK for Bob to imply Paul is godless, when Paul is a man of faith? Is there a "hypocrite" similey?

Does Ron Paul "rejects the personhood of the tiniest humans"?
Does Ron Paul "rejects the inalienable, God-given right to life of the unborn."
Does Ron Paul "believes the unborn are people who have the right to life."?
Does Ron Paul "sin against God in his apathetic position of allowing the states to murder children."
Is Ron Paul "qualified to teach Sunday School"?

Treating others with respect has nothing to do with "humbling yourself before them". You should humble yourself before God, and at the same time realize that God gives grace to the humble.

Treating others with respect, being humble; these are characteristics of Bob? Call the kettle black much? The hypocrisy of this thread is unparalleled.

No. "I'm sorry Bob for calling you a liar based upon my wrong understanding of government and how God would like for a government to be run." Would be the right thing to do.

"Wrong understanding of government"? Says who? Says you? Says Bob?:kookoo: Bob did indeed make intellectually dishonest statements and Stephen pointed out these falsehoods. I applaud Stephen for it. Could you now tell us "how God would like for a government to be run?"

Does this have something to do with the thread? If you feel I should butt out because this is a one-on-one conversation; then you two should air your dirty laundry with PM. You have failed to make a single point not based on conjecture or hypocrisy. Why not quote scripture to display how "God would like for a government to be run." Instead of this "I'm right, your wrong" posturing.

Have you come up with a plan to nullify Roe v Wade? Has Bob? Has Keyes? Who's apathetic?

 

[Granite]

If the life of the unborn is already protected by the constitution, why is Keyes proposing an amendment to the constitution to define personhood at conception?


Ok as in I don't think I need to repent (so I guess the second choice you gave).

The arrogance behind calling someone to repent--especially when it's based on a politician they support--is really stunning. "Repent"? Sure, I'll do that just as soon as I'm done chewing this bucket of broken glass.

I understand passion in politics, but the presumption behind this exhortation is jaw dropping.

 

[Lighthouse]

I asked this question in another thread but I'll ask it here too....

Assuming Keyes' amendment about personhood would be passed, would Roe v. Wade have any bearing? Would RvW still have to be overturned? Or would the amendment supercede it? Same with Ron Paul's bill.

The amendment would overturn Roe v. Wade and all the other un-Godly pro-abortion laws that "limit" and "regulate" abortion.

 

[fourcheeze]

No. "I'm sorry Bob for calling you a liar based upon my wrong understanding of government and how God would like for a government to be run." Would be the right thing to do.

This is just plain confusing. Does Bob have some special revelation for the rest of us as to how government should be run? Has God told Bob to tell us that he prefers highly centralised monolithic governments over more dispersed distributed ones? Does this just relate to the government of the USA or does it apply to any country?

 

[Granite]

This is just plain confusing. Does Bob have some special revelation for the rest of us as to how government should be run? Has God told Bob to tell us that he prefers highly centralised monolithic governments over more dispersed distributed ones? Does this just relate to the government of the USA or does it apply to any country?

Yes, it would seem Kev is certainly putting Enyart on a pedestal to say the very least.

If Enyart's nose is twisted over this he could ask for an apology himself. Kevin seems to think the reverend needs some kind of assistance.

 

[PKevman]

Yes, it would seem Kev is certainly putting Enyart on a pedestal to say the very least.

If Enyart's nose is twisted over this he could ask for an apology himself. Kevin seems to think the reverend needs some kind of assistance.

:dizzy:
I was chastising the son of a friend, a young man whom I have known most of his life for his arrogant behavior in calling a good man a liar. Quite frankly, I would have preferred to talk with him about it privately, but because his post was on display for everyone I responded here. I'll tell you something though Granite. You are NOT discussing anything here that is of value.

All you are trying to do is drive wedges between brethren to make yourself feel better about the Godless idealogy that you have embraced. Nobody here is putting Bob on a pedestal, and that is a stupid thing to say.

 

[PKevman]

This is just plain confusing. Does Bob have some special revelation for the rest of us as to how government should be run? Has God told Bob to tell us that he prefers highly centralised monolithic governments over more dispersed distributed ones? Does this just relate to the government of the USA or does it apply to any country?

No Bob preaches the Word rightly. God has revealed in His Word how a government should be run. My comment was to Stephen Dale, as he asked if saying "Sorry that you're a liar Bob" would be an acceptable apology. Obviously that isn't. What would be an acceptable apology would be "Sorry Bob for calling you a liar based upon my misunderstanding of how God wants governments to be run".