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

[Newman]

I believe the correct way forward is to try to depolarise the issue.

Yup. That's the only way our government can find an end (not necessarily a solution) to social issues like this. I'm thinking about affirmative action, the gay agenda, suffrage, and the like.

And the fastest, easiest, and most constitutional way to go about it in my (correct :chuckle: ) opinion is through the states.

 

[WizardofOz]

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

Which "laws" are you referring to?

 

[S†ephen]

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.

It is astounding that even a Satanist can see this.

You are an extremely arrogant fellow, just like every other pastor I've ever known,

That tells you a lot about the state of the American church right now.

It is quite sad, and even though I don't agree with his choice I can't really argue with the man for becoming a Satanist.

 

[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?

bump

 

[PKevman]

It is astounding that even a Satanist can see this.



That tells you a lot about the state of the American church right now.

It is quite sad, and even though I don't agree with his choice I can't really argue with the man for becoming a Satanist.

Right. The problem couldn't possibly be Granite, even though the guy's been banned from TOL for arrogant and rude behavior a gazillion times. So are you saying you agree with him that I'm arrogant just like every other pastor he knows? Do you know all of the other pastors he's referring to? C'mon man. You know better. The fact that you say you can't argue with his choice for becoming a Satanist is what is sad to me. You're on my prayer list though my friend.

 

[PKevman]

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.

It is astounding that even a Satanist can see this.

Yet you saw no problem in savaging Bob Enyart and calling him a liar. How did I savage you for telling you it was wrong to call Bob a liar without giving him a full hearing? I would have done the same for anyone I know that isn't a liar and is falsely accused of that.

 

[PKevman]

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

I've responded to you plenty of times. What I said (if you were haflway interested in honesty) was that I wasn't going to respond to your OFF-TOPIC garbage and false accusations. Come up with something intelligent and reasonable to say, or learn how to actually discuss something, and perhaps we can have a discussion.

Why would I be afraid of you? Seriously? That's your own arrogance shining through and the utter hypocrisy of Granite on display yet again.

You are an extremely arrogant fellow, just like every other pastor I've ever known

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You don't know me.

 

[Granite]

Right. The problem couldn't possibly be Granite, even though the guy's been banned from TOL for arrogant and rude behavior a gazillion times. So are you saying you agree with him that I'm arrogant just like every other pastor he knows? Do you know all of the other pastors he's referring to? C'mon man. You know better. The fact that you say you can't argue with his choice for becoming a Satanist is what is sad to me. You're on my prayer list though my friend.

You have a list?:chuckle:

When savaging your brethern's perfectly fine but an attack on a pal of yours riles your fur it's obvious you're indulging in a cherrypicking self-serving hypocritical double standard.

Since Paul's record and opinions are impeccable his critics are left with these kind of unsubstantiated character attacks.

Please, please don't ever accuse me or other skeptics here of "attacking the brethern" or "trying to drive a wedge" between Christians--this is something you guys do all on your own.

 

[YahuShuan]

Yet you saw no problem in savaging Bob Enyart and calling him a liar. How did I savage you for telling you it was wrong to call Bob a liar without giving him a full hearing? I would have done the same for anyone I know that isn't a liar and is falsely accused of that.

Oh, Reeeeeeeeally? Have you done that for Ron Paul BEFORE you brought what you brought? What would Yeshua say to you? I think WE know that, don't WE. Speaking of "dignities" you know nothing about??? Being a "Pastor" I am sure you don't need me telling you which prophecy YOU fulfill, eh.

By now, everybody should have a clue...there is no such thing as a pastor, reverend, preacher, father, bishop, etc...etc...ETC...ALL those are "titles" claimed only by the person wearing them, and they will come to account for them too.

I guess ALL of them ignore the FACT that "none of you have need for a teacher", or maybe they just don't get things like...the number "One"...the words "NONE OF YOU HAVE NEED FOR A TEACHER"...the usuals...none, one, only, NAME...and like would any of us be "under" them? If they KNEW Scripture, then WHY DON'T THEY SPEAK IT TRUE?

Better question is simply this...they DO KNOW and are not teaching true...so why give any creedence to FALSEHOODS? Or those who "revel with them"?

That's like voting for Clinton over and over again, "idn't it"?

Sorry Kevin, but you will always be just Kevin to me. There is ONLY ONE who has any "clout" in MY BOOK. Those titles are not "known" in Heaven. Nor is there ANY "respecter of persons" there. The "respect" should be to Elohim...always and forever...for if you wanted to lead, you really should have served up the truth of all matters...but indeed, holding it back and concealing it with your fellows has truly been weighed in the balances and been found wanton. So, trying to "sway our vite" with "someone elses words" ain't gonna cut it anymore.

Get down off that piece of wood before it self-combusts.

Love you, but I ain't gotta like ya

 

[YahuShuan]

You "preachers" had best remember, HE CAME TO SAVE THE SINNERS, NOT YOU WHO HAVE NO SIN!

Last "off topic" from me in this thread (sorry...but it needed to be said)

 

[Lighthouse]

You have a list?:chuckle:

When savaging your brethern's perfectly fine but an attack on a pal of yours riles your fur it's obvious you're indulging in a cherrypicking self-serving hypocritical double standard.

Since Paul's record and opinions are impeccable his critics are left with these kind of unsubstantiated character attacks.

Please, please don't ever accuse me or other skeptics here of "attacking the brethern" or "trying to drive a wedge" between Christians--this is something you guys do all on your own.

How would you even know if someone is "on of the brethren?" How about you stifle, hypocrite?

 

[S†ephen]

You "preachers" had best remember, HE CAME TO SAVE THE SINNERS, NOT YOU WHO HAVE NO SIN!

Last "off topic" from me in this thread (sorry...but it needed to be said)

then put it in pm.

that was inexcusable.

 

[WizardofOz]

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

Bump

Which "laws" are you referring to Kevin?

Back your stance instead of simply attacking the stance of others. Don't attack someone's plan unless you have a better one!

 

[fourcheeze]

Yet you saw no problem in savaging Bob Enyart and calling him a liar. How did I savage you for telling you it was wrong to call Bob a liar without giving him a full hearing? I would have done the same for anyone I know that isn't a liar and is falsely accused of that.

I think it would be nice if people did stop calling each other liars. I would like to hope that I can make the assumption that the vast majority of people here are sincere, even if I fundamentally disagree with them. Even if that is proven to be wrong sometimes I think it's still worth giving each other the benefit of the doubt.

Personally I would rather point out what appear to be inconsistencies, and might express the apparent cynicism of a person's views. and allow someone the right to either own up or defend themselves.

I also think that it's right to allow the same courtesy to politicians. I'm sure they at least start off as normal people, although maybe power does corrupt. Ron Paul may be no different in this regard, but I still haven't heard a decent substantive argument for him being pro-abortion, and quite a lot of evidence to suggest that he isn't.

 

[WizardofOz]

I think it would be nice if people did stop calling each other liars. I would like to hope that I can make the assumption that the vast majority of people here are sincere, even if I fundamentally disagree with them. Even if that is proven to be wrong sometimes I think it's still worth giving each other the benefit of the doubt.

Personally I would rather point out what appear to be inconsistencies, and might express the apparent cynicism of a person's views. and allow someone the right to either own up or defend themselves.

I also think that it's right to allow the same courtesy to politicians. I'm sure they at least start off as normal people, although maybe power does corrupt. Ron Paul may be no different in this regard, but I still haven't heard a decent substantive argument for him being pro-abortion, and quite a lot of evidence to suggest that he isn't.

My own personal #:first: post of the day! I hope this message resonates.

 

[kmoney]

I'll open this question up for anyone...

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?

 

[WizardofOz]

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?

I think you are catching a glimpse of the genius which is Ron Paul's long-term strategy to undermine legalized abortion.

Sanctity of life act + 14th amendment = no abortions. Just don't tell the whole country; it's still a secret. They would never support him if they figured this out.

IMO - Paul is the only politician with a plausible plan to nullify Roe v Wade; while at the same time using the constitution (through the Sanctity of Life Act) to define person-hood as starting at conception; which would in turn make any abortion a violation of the Constitution. I'm sure Keyes supporters will tell you Paul is pro-choice and that Keyes has a more effective (yet nonexistent) strategy.

 

[kmoney]

I think you are catching a glimpse of the genius which is Ron Paul's long-term strategy to undermine legalized abortion.

Sanctity of life act + 14th amendment = no abortions. Just don't tell the whole country; it's still a secret. They would never support him if they figured this out.

IMO - Paul is the only politician with a plausible plan to nullify Roe v Wade; while at the same time using the constitution (through the Sanctity of Life Act) to define person-hood as starting at conception; which would in turn make any abortion a violation of the Constitution. I'm sure Keyes supporters will tell you Paul is pro-choice and that Keyes has a more effective (yet nonexistent) strategy.

So even though the bill says states could still regulate abortion, that's not true because the bill outlaws abortion with it's definition of personhood??

 

[Vine&FigTree]

I'll open this question up for anyone...

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?

Where does the bill say individual states can continue to allow abortion? I see this:

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Dr. Paul has issued this Statement in Support of State ‘Right to Life’ Amendments

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul, an OB/GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, issued the following statement in support of state efforts to pass "Right to Life" amendments:

"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

"Under our Constitution, the states have the duty to protect citizens against murder, and protecting the unborn from having their right to life violated is no exception.

"I find it unconscionable that the Supreme Court overrules states when they pass pro-life legislation. As president, I will fight to end this judicial tyranny.

"Many talk about being pro-life. In Congress, I am the lead sponsor of HR 2597 the ‘Sanctity of Life Act’ and a similar bill, HR 300 the ‘We the People Act.’ Both bills would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation that protects life. My bills could pass by a simple majority vote and allow states such as Michigan and South Carolina to end abortion immediately.

"I challenge every candidate who claims to be pro life to support these bills to get the Supreme Court out of the life issue so states can quickly and constitutionally protect the unborn."

Does this sound like someone who is pro-abortion? I see nothing here that encourages states to reject their duty to protect life. The whole idea is to make it possible for the states to protect the unborn.

What's missing from Ron Paul's bill is a call for the government of Mexico to invade any state that fails to protect the unborn. Also missing is a call for the federal government to invade any state that fails to protect the unborn -- and for the same reason. On the day after the Constitution was ratified and went into effect, New York, Mexico, Virginia, and France were all on the same level of jurisdiction "as Free and Independent States," with the 13 American States "separate and equal ... among the Powers of the earth" (quotes from the Declaration of Independence). Those states did not give the federal government (which they created) any power over the ordinary criminal laws of the states. Nor did they give the government of Mexico any such power.

The 14th Amendment only gives power to Congress -- not the President -- to act when any state denies blacks the right to enter into contracts, testify in court, etc. That's all the 14th Amendment was originally intended to do. To go beyond the original intent of the framers is most dangerous:

http://KevinCraig.us/14thAmendment.htm

 

[kmoney]

Does this sound like someone who is pro-abortion? I see nothing here that encourages states to reject their duty to protect life. The whole idea is to make it possible for the states to protect the unborn.

Has anyone said he is pro-abortion? I've seen people call him pro-choice state by state, but not pro-abortion.