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

[PKevman]

Pass Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act" which would IMMEDIATELY overrule Roe v. Wade, freeing states to stop abortion. No longer will the federal government have the power to strike down anti-abortion laws in the states. Simple.

Why would any Christian oppose this? I don't know, but many on this thread do.

Overruling Roe v. Wade at this point would be like trying to stop the first rock after an avalanche has already begun. Surely you understand this logic. There are so many laws on the books now that Roe v. Wade would only be the tip of the iceberg. What needs to happen instead is ONE law striking down all others:

Murder will not be permitted or excused in any state, province, territory, or stretch of land that wants to call itself part of the United States of America. Join the real fight!

 

[PKevman]

Murder will not be permitted or excused in any state, province, territory, or stretch of land that wants to call itself part of the United States of America. Join the real fight!

Ron Paul doesn't have the courage to take a stand like the one mentioned above. He views the TYPE of government that we have as more important than the RESULTS of that government. Ron Paul would defend the right of the states OVER the right of the unborn.

 

[Newman]

There are so many laws on the books now that Roe v. Wade would only be the tip of the iceberg.

Right! And each state abolishing abortion is the rest of the iceberg (or avalanche).

Of the presidential candidates that have the most chance of winning the general election, I think that Ron Paul would be the best for eradicating baby killing.

 

[PKevman]

Of the presidential candidates that have the most chance of winning the general election, I think that Ron Paul would be the best for eradicating baby killing.

I'm sorry Newman but I just don't see it.

 

[kmoney]

Of the presidential candidates that have the most chance of winning the general election, I think that Ron Paul would be the best for eradicating baby killing.

Not completely eradicating baby killing, because there's no chance that all 50 states would outlaw abortion. But it would potentially lessen the baby killing because I think it'd be easier to get the abortion issue back to the states where at least some of them would outlaw abortion than passing an amendment getting rid of Roe v. Wade.

 

[kmoney]

Doc, Vine&Fig
Let's say I buy the premise that Amendment 14 is not valid. Congress, Every US President in recent years, and SCOTUS accept it as valid! Where do we go from here?

I assume you're talking about the first section where it says that no state shall deprive any person of life. Am I right? If so, does that Amendment, or anywhere in the Constitution for that matter, define what a "person" is? And if you can just use the 14th Amendment, why is Keyes proposing an amendment that defines personhood to be at conception?

 

[kmoney]

doc, question for you....

Ron Paul has the Sanctity of Life bill which states the following:

"(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency;"

But then the same bill does say individual states can continue to allow abortion. Does that contradict the 14th amendment, which says that no state shall deprive a person of life?

 

[Granite]

: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.

Oh. You were chastising him. How big of you.

If you "prefer" to talk to someone in private, do so.

You're a silly, arrogant man with next to zero in the way of anything substantial. I have nothing to do with the wedges you christers drive between each other. Quite frankly, pastor, you pew grovelers attack and cannibalize (this is your body; all of that is your blood) each other without any outside help.

Your slavish devotion to Bob Enyart aside, you are incapable of anyone criticizing the man without you taking it personally. You make an outstanding lapdog, and I am sure Enyart appreciates your vapid moral support.

 

[koban]

Why have you turned into such a whiny little complainer lately? Girlfriend leave you?

 

[Lighthouse]

HE has revealed that he doesn't want anything to do with government.

Right. God has no desire to be involved with law and order. He just wants anarchy.

 

[PKevman]

Your slavish devotion to Bob Enyart aside, you are incapable of anyone criticizing the man without you taking it personally. You make an outstanding lapdog, and I am sure Enyart appreciates your vapid moral support.

Granite you act so stupid that if a monkey was born with half a brain it would be smarter than you sometimes. I'm not "slavishly devoted" to Bob. That is quite possibly the most ignorant thing you've said yet. I suggest you take a step back, take a deep breath, and reevaluate your moral values. You offer nothing but continual, mindless idiocy.

Myself and others in this thread have been discussing actual issues. You've charged in hurling idiot comments like the one above only because you think you can continue to get away with it. I won't respond to anything else you say unless it is directly on topic.
I don't care what you say, you'll eventually cross the line and get tossed (like you have so many times before).
If I see someone I know isn't a liar accused of being a liar I'll stand up for them every time, REGARDLESS of who it is. Grow up and get a life man.

NOW back to our regularly scheduled debate.

 

[fourcheeze]

No Bob preaches the Word rightly.

I failed to see any real application of the Word to the situation under discussion. Rather than that it seemed to me to be quite a lot of bluster, of the kind that you get when people are so convinced in their gut that they are right, but can't find any real justification, that they'll throw in all manner of quasi-emotional nonsense in the hope that everyone else doesn't notice the thinness of their argument.

Please note, I have no axe to grind here - I'm British and didn't really even know who Ron Paul was until about a week ago, and I have no particular political interest in who wins the USA presidency. I'm just going on the arguments put forward here.

God has revealed in His Word how a government should be run.

Feel free to show me a verse or two which apply to this situation, because I really can't think of any.

 

[PKevman]

Feel free to show me a verse or two which apply to this situation, because I really can't think of any.

From God:

Exodus 20:13: 13 “You shall not murder."

Ez. 13:29: "And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies?”

 

[Delmar]

Pass Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act" which would IMMEDIATELY overrule Roe v. Wade, freeing states to stop abortion. No longer will the federal government have the power to strike down anti-abortion laws in the states. Simple.

Why would any Christian oppose this? I don't know, but many on this thread do.

Like it or not, the Constitution specifically states that the SCOTUS interprets the constitution! Said interpretation of the Constitution can never be overruled by legislation. You are just being silly!

 

[fourcheeze]

From God:

Exodus 20:13: 13 “You shall not murder."

Ez. 13:29: "And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies?”

I know this is hard for you, because you believe very passionately about abortion, but murder and how your country happens to be organised from a government point of view are really two different things.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Like it or not, the Constitution specifically states that the SCOTUS interprets the constitution!

That was Marbury v Madison (1802). SCOTUS ruled so, but original intent was that SCOTUS should apply the Constitution, not interpret it. (That word "interpret" can get one in a lot of trouble. Roe v. Wade for instance.)

Said interpretation of the Constitution can never be overruled by legislation. You are just being silly!

Yes, it can. SCOTUS can review its own rulings and overturn them. Congress has the power to limit jurisdiction.

 

[PKevman]

I know this is hard for you, because you believe very passionately about abortion, but murder and how your country happens to be organised from a government point of view are really two different things.

No it's really not. You seem pretty reasonable. Please follow this line of reasoning: IF an individual's right to life is violated, NO OTHER RIGHT can be exercised. So we have no real liberty or rights if the right to life is removed.
IF the government is unwilling to protect the most innocent among them at all costs, then no matter what the FORM of government (or as you put it how it is organized) we hold it needs to be rejected!

 

[Granite]

Granite you act so stupid that if a monkey was born with half a brain it would be smarter than you sometimes. I'm not "slavishly devoted" to Bob. That is quite possibly the most ignorant thing you've said yet. I suggest you take a step back, take a deep breath, and reevaluate your moral values. You offer nothing but continual, mindless idiocy.

Myself and others in this thread have been discussing actual issues. You've charged in hurling idiot comments like the one above only because you think you can continue to get away with it. I won't respond to anything else you say unless it is directly on topic.
I don't care what you say, you'll eventually cross the line and get tossed (like you have so many times before).
If I see someone I know isn't a liar accused of being a liar I'll stand up for them every time, REGARDLESS of who it is. Grow up and get a life man.

NOW back to our regularly scheduled debate.

Kev, you won't respond to anything I say because you're a coward. Quit kidding yourself.

You and others here are indulging in inaccurate attacks on a fine, decent man, and what makes it worse for you is the fact that you're savaging a fellow Christian--and see zero problem with what you're doing. Your hypocrisy and arrogant self-righteousness is well beyond pathetic, and so's the way you try to dent how good I feel and ignore what I say.

You are an extremely arrogant fellow, just like every other pastor I've ever known, and distorting the reputation and opinions of a man like Dr. Paul is downright disgraceful. As you have zero sense of shame, coupled with your arrogance, I do not expect you to realize this.

 

[fourcheeze]

No it's really not. You seem pretty reasonable. Please follow this line of reasoning: IF an individual's right to life is violated, NO OTHER RIGHT can be exercised. So we have no real liberty or rights if the right to life is removed.
IF the government is unwilling to protect the most innocent among them at all costs, then no matter what the FORM of government (or as you put it how it is organized) we hold it needs to be rejected!

Following on from your (also very reasonable) line of argument, see if you can follow mine

1) Although you might believe that the unborn individual's right to life is more important than a form of government, I'm sure I can (and probably you can) conceive of a form of government with which you would be unhappy in any circumstances. I would certainly be unhappy with any form of government which did away with the ability of the electorate to remove that government, because although the present "benevolent dictator" did all the things we want, we don't know what the next one will do. I'm only trying to show here that the form of government is important and needs to be taken into consideration, and so the answer is not black and white on this issue.

2) The means by which you suggest the individual's right to life is restored can easily be overturned by the same method, unless on the way it achieves some kind of consensus.

3) Abortion is a very contentious issue. It seems to me that the more hard line someone appears on it, the more difficult it is going to be for them to get the widespread general support they would need to win a presidential election. If they did go all out and win, and then go on to make such wholesale changes, it's quite possible for their successor to win the next election purely on the back of overturning what their predecessor did (see point 2).

I believe the correct way forward is to try to depolarise the issue. People who are pro-life stereotype those who are not as being murderers. People who are pro-choice stereotype those who are not as wanting to infringe a woman's right to do what she wants to with her body.

In fact, neither of these stereotypes are true. Pro-choice people do not believe (generally) that murder is a good thing, pro-life people don't (usually) want to remove the rights of the individual. The whole argument only hinges on where you believe life starts, and where you believe human rights start and finishes.

I believe that's why these sorts of debate are better done out of the glare of a high profile election.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes, it can. SCOTUS can review its own rulings and overturn them. Congress has the power to limit jurisdiction.

That's not by legislation, Frank.