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

[YahuShuan]

I'm pleased to return the favor. Your insanity provides me with a lot of chuckles, too. Of course, all those people who have been expecting Judgement day to come during their lifetimes all of these many years were just dumb. You, on the other hand...

Undoubtedly. I'm not a Christian, nor do I pretend to be.

Better than you, apprently.

Many of them did, I'm quite sure. What of it? The majority were Christian, then as now. Those who worked to shape this nation in its infancy did so with the express intention of not creating a nation that was dominated by one faith or creed.

Your words seem to indicate otherwise.

So my "sickness" is not being part of some unreal "otherworld" that can't be experienced except by those who believe? Thanks, but I'll pass on that "cure" of yours if it produces mental decay like you display.


A tisket, a tasket, my very own Hell basket! Your inability to deal with different viewpoints indicates the inflexibility of mind that is one of the classic hallmarks of insanity. Your delusional interpretation of history (Many of those who struggled to form our nation were also right-handed. Does this mean that America is a nation for right-handers and our laws should reflect that?) to further your xenophobic ideals is a pretty good symptom, too. Maybe you should go talk to someone about this (and I mean someone tangible- not an angel that appears in a shower of twinkies or something).

There is no dignity responding to you for Him, so I won't. He WILL. And your eyes will fall from their sockets when He takes His Dignity back. He WILL get what HE PAID FOR with great pains in His flesh. Whether the object of His affections receive love, or destruction, is totally up to them. But He showed His love and you all threw it away, and made this world the evil place it is. You WILL pay the prices that HE renders.

 

[YahuShuan]

Eze 11:12 “And you shall know that I am יהוה, for you have not walked in My laws nor executed My right-rulings, but have done according to the rulings of the gentiles which are all around you.” ’ ”

That's all that needs to be said. Except this. Plastic, I shake the dust from your mouth off my shoes, repentance and forgiveness is your only move. Take it to Him, Yahuweh of Hosts the Almighty Creator of ALL THINGS, The Name of His Son is Yeshua, now it is between you and Him. It is Him you have offended, I'm just a servant. And that's the last drop of oil you get from me. "Kiss the Son lest HE be angry!" You were warned. Your blood is off my hands.

 

[YahuShuan]

More of what I have been warning you all about...

More of what I have been warning you all about...

Pentagon: The internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy "weapons system".

Dear Friends, Writers and Fighters,

The subject article by Brent Jessop was just brought to my attention for which I am much appreciative. This is a scary reporting of the contents of a DOD document titled “Information Operation Roadmap Part 3, 30 Oct.2003” that was released by a freedom of information request. Access Jessup article at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7980

 

[YahuShuan]

Here, have some more, and start paying attention yourselves!

Here, have some more, and start paying attention yourselves!

Liberal group opposes recognition of our religious heritage!

Dear Adrian,

If you are tired of the liberals trying to rid our country of its rich religious history, here is your opportunity to take a stand!

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has begun a campaign to defeat a resolution proclaiming the first week in May as "American Religious History Week." Remember, this is a non-binding resolution, not a bill before Congress.

Representative Randy Forbes of Virginia has introduced a resolution proclaiming the first week in May as "American Religious History Week."

The resolution, H. Res. 888, declares its two-fold purpose: "Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as 'American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on American's history of religious faith."

Please contact your U.S. representative and urge him or her to co-sponsor H. Res. 888.

Americans United and other liberal groups are trying with all they have to get this resolution killed. Don't let them. Take a stand!

Take Action


Click here to send the e-mail to your representative.
Please send your e-mail, and forward it to your family, friends, members of your church, etc.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

There is no dignity responding to you for Him, so I won't. He WILL.

Translation: I can't come up with a meaningful or convincing reply so I'll respond with vague and ridiculous threats of the boogeyGod coming to you.

And your eyes will fall from their sockets when He takes His Dignity back. He WILL get what HE PAID FOR with great pains in His flesh. Whether the object of His affections receive love, or destruction, is totally up to them. But He showed His love and you all threw it away, and made this world the evil place it is. You WILL pay the prices that HE renders.[/COLOR]

:rotfl:
The Divine is not your german shepherd to sic on those who disagree with you, but thanks for the good thoughts.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Eze 11:12 “And you shall know that I am יהוה, for you have not walked in My laws nor executed My right-rulings, but have done according to the rulings of the gentiles which are all around you.” ’ ”

That's all that needs to be said. Except this. Plastic, I shake the dust from your mouth off my shoes, repentance and forgiveness is your only move.

My mouth is not dusty. It has not been anywhere near your shoes- I don't have that particular kink.

Take it to Him, Yahuweh of Hosts the Almighty Creator of ALL THINGS, The Name of His Son is Yeshua, now it is between you and Him. It is Him you have offended, I'm just a servant. And that's the last drop of oil you get from me. "Kiss the Son lest HE be angry!" You were warned. Your blood is off my hands.[/COLOR]

You are as arrogant as you are stupid. You think an offense against you is an offense against the creator of the universe. See you around, chum...............p!

 

[YahuShuan]

My mouth is not dusty. It has not been anywhere near your shoes- I don't have that particular kink.


You are as arrogant as you are stupid. You think an offense against you is an offense against the creator of the universe. See you around, chum...............p!

Not at all, I said quite the opposite, because the Creator of the Universe is my Father, what is against HIM is also against me, but that doesn't matter what is against me, what matters, is HIM to ME, and ME to HIM. Too hard for you to grasp huh. And you call me stupid? You're just giving me vindication for taking my peace back and rendering the dust from my shoes...

Luk 10:5-12 “And whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ “And if indeed a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest on it; and if not, it shall return to you. And stay in the same house, eating and drinking whatever with them, for the labourer is worthy of his wages. Do not move from house to house. And into whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat whatever is placed before you, and heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The reign of Elohim has come near to you.’ And into whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your city which clings to us, we wipe off against you, but know this, that the reign of Elohim has come near to you.’ And I say to you that it shall be more bearable for Seḏom in that Day, than for that city."

I am not going to render such a verdict upon all the people here there are too many houses, so I rendered it upon "your house"...BECAUSE OF YOUR MOUTH NOT RECEIVING. It is a righteous verdict, you should repent to Yahuweh, and His Son, it is THEIR VERDICT, I just did what I was told now didn't I

You will soon learn what you have done. When I came here I gave my peace to all the houses here, you should learn when to listen, 'cuz you sure don't know when to shut up.

 

[YahuShuan]

NOTE: After finding out Ron Paul's stance on defence of Israel, I drop and recant, and repent of, any and all support that I had for him as a viable candidate to be President of this Country.

 

[WizardofOz]

Keyes is willing to sign an executive order his first day in office, not only overturning Roe v Wade, but also overturning every other single law that states have accumulated since before Roe v Wade.

the Sanctity of Life Act would overturn Roe v Wade, but it would not have any effect on the state laws that exist. For abortion to become illegal after the act was passed, the state would have to then pass a law eradicating all the laws they have that make abortion legal.

‎"Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not." - Ron Paul

‎"I believe the federal government has a role to play. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence." - Ron Paul

 

[drbrumley]

NOTE: After finding out Ron Paul's stance on defence of Israel, I drop and recant, and repent of, any and all support that I had for him as a viable candidate to be President of this Country.

:yawn:

Just for the record, here is some reading material for you.

"They can take care of themselves," Paul, who has called for reduced U.S. foreign aid generally, said at the time. "Why do we have this automatic commitment that we're going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel?" Commenting on that issue in the Haaretz interview, Paul said: Two of the tenets of a true Zionist are 'self-determination' and 'self-reliance'." "We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her avowed enemies. How does that help Israel? And in return, we act like her master and demand veto power over her foreign policy," he said.

 

[drbrumley]

Keyes is willing to sign an executive order his first day in office, not only overturning Roe v Wade, but also overturning every other single law that states have accumulated since before Roe v Wade.

Hate to break it to you Brandon, but signing statements are not law.

the Sanctity of Life Act would overturn Roe v Wade, but it would not have any effect on the state laws that exist. For abortion to become illegal after the act was passed, the state would have to then pass a law eradicating all the laws they have that make abortion legal.

Think Wiz took care of that question for you. Anymore questions?

Ok Lighthouse, maybe you care to answer:

Here's the entire link, I specifically liked this part:

"If Rep. Paul believes that "life begins at conception" and therefore agrees with the core reasoning of the Personhood movement that all human beings should be considered legal persons with rights, then why would the 14th amendment's clear requirement that states grant equal protection to all persons not apply to making sure that state criminal codes protect the lives of born and unborn persons equally? Rep. Ron Paul would surely agree that if a state decided to decriminalize the killing of all human beings over 70, that state would be violating 14th amendment's equal protection clause, would he not?"
http://www.personhoodusa.com/personhood-usa-rep-ron-paul-re-pledge

So murder would be illegal per federal law, but enforcement of those laws would be up to the respective states.

Let me think how the left wing legislators of WA State would punish abortion doctors:

"Guilty as charged: $25 fine!"

Because if you actually read the 14th amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

You will see EXACTLY what it says. Read Section 1 very carefully. All persons what? As much as you and I agree 100% with each other that a fetus is a person, a fetus is not born. I'm sorry but that is a fact. So Ron Paul is EXACTLY right. The 14th amendment was not made to cancel out the 10th amendment. That is a straight truth. Life begins at conception is accurate, but to give 14th amendment protections to a fetus is dumb. This would create chaos within the court systems. We better make sure the I's are dotted and the T's crossed. I say nullify the 14th to include provisions for the unborn, and you and I will stand side by side. Until then. You are letting emotion cloud your judgement on this issue.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Bumping to point out how Bob Enyart is completely wrong on this issue, and how drbrumley is completely correct, for those who haven't been paying attention.

Implicit in Lighthouse's comment regarding an executive order is the mentality that the President of the United States is a King. We've seen through the regimes of Bush and Obama that to make the President a King is harmful to freedom in America.

If the President can executive order this, he can executive order anything else as well.

And, as horrifying as 56 million murders is, it is not horrifying enough to surrender freedom for the entire country.

I stand with Ron Paul on this issue. He is no more "Pro-choice state by state" than America would be "Pro-choice, country by country" if they didn't invade Canada, the UK, and all their other allies that allow this. Its ridiculous, and a smokescreen. The question of at what level murder should be prosecuted and the question of whether murder should be prosecuted are different questions entirely.

If California and New York legalize murder, its on their heads. But right now, you've got fanatics like Enyart, Lighthouse, and others like them (And, I make this comment in the context of politics, so no personal offense is intended) who are willing to keep abortion legal throughout the entire country rather than pass a law like the Sanctity of Life Act. Unknowingly, you guys are the ones supporting abortion here, not people like me or Ron Paul.

 

[Granite]

This kind of deliberate cheap shot against a good, decent man is classic Enyart.

 

[Christian Liberty]

This kind of deliberate cheap shot against a good, decent man is classic Enyart.

One of the reasons that I have never been a fan of Enyart.

I'm gonna see if I can get him to answer me here...

 

[chatmaggot]

Bumping to point out how Bob Enyart is completely wrong on this issue, and how drbrumley is completely correct, for those who haven't been paying attention.

Implicit in Lighthouse's comment regarding an executive order is the mentality that the President of the United States is a King. We've seen through the regimes of Bush and Obama that to make the President a King is harmful to freedom in America.

If the President can executive order this, he can executive order anything else as well.

And, as horrifying as 56 million murders is, it is not horrifying enough to surrender freedom for the entire country.

I stand with Ron Paul on this issue. He is no more "Pro-choice state by state" than America would be "Pro-choice, country by country" if they didn't invade Canada, the UK, and all their other allies that allow this. Its ridiculous, and a smokescreen. The question of at what level murder should be prosecuted and the question of whether murder should be prosecuted are different questions entirely.

If California and New York legalize murder, its on their heads. But right now, you've got fanatics like Enyart, Lighthouse, and others like them (And, I make this comment in the context of politics, so no personal offense is intended) who are willing to keep abortion legal throughout the entire country rather than pass a law like the Sanctity of Life Act. Unknowingly, you guys are the ones supporting abortion here, not people like me or Ron Paul.

Have you ever even watched or listened to Bob's messages on abortion?

I would encourage you to watch:

This

This

and

This

 

[Lighthouse]

Bumping to point out how Bob Enyart is completely wrong on this issue, and how drbrumley is completely correct, for those who haven't been paying attention.

Implicit in Lighthouse's comment regarding an executive order is the mentality that the President of the United States is a King. We've seen through the regimes of Bush and Obama that to make the President a King is harmful to freedom in America.

If the President can executive order this, he can executive order anything else as well.

And, as horrifying as 56 million murders is, it is not horrifying enough to surrender freedom for the entire country.

I stand with Ron Paul on this issue. He is no more "Pro-choice state by state" than America would be "Pro-choice, country by country" if they didn't invade Canada, the UK, and all their other allies that allow this. Its ridiculous, and a smokescreen. The question of at what level murder should be prosecuted and the question of whether murder should be prosecuted are different questions entirely.

If California and New York legalize murder, its on their heads. But right now, you've got fanatics like Enyart, Lighthouse, and others like them (And, I make this comment in the context of politics, so no personal offense is intended) who are willing to keep abortion legal throughout the entire country rather than pass a law like the Sanctity of Life Act. Unknowingly, you guys are the ones supporting abortion here, not people like me or Ron Paul.

At what point have any of us ever protested a law that would actually save lives?

Our arguments have always been, "we support the saving of lives, but we still feel laws that only save some do not go far enough."

Now, does Ron Paul believe the states should have the right to choose whether not abortion is legal within their borders?

 

[Christian Liberty]

At what point have any of us ever protested a law that would actually save lives?

You opposed the Sanctity of Life Act. If you really don't believe that would have saved any lives, you aren't paying attention/

Our arguments have always been, "we support the saving of lives, but we still feel laws that only save some do not go far enough."

I've never seen you make that argument.

Now, does Ron Paul believe the states should have the right to choose whether not abortion is legal within their borders?

No, but he does believe that its not the job of the Federal Government to force them to make it illegal.

A tricky distinction, but an important one.

The Sanctity of Life Act acknowledges reality, that life begins at conception. It leaves the decision of how to deal with that reality to the states.

Let me ask you a question.

Do you support going to war with every country that legalizes abortion?

If not, are you therefore "Pro-choice, nation by nation" on abortion?

 

[Lighthouse]

You opposed the Sanctity of Life Act. If you really don't believe that would have saved any lives, you aren't paying attention/

It is my firm belief that not a single life would be saved if a pregnant woman could just go one state over, or even move, to a state wherein it is legal to kill their child.

I've never seen you make that argument.

You haven't been here very long.

No, but he does believe that its not the job of the Federal Government to force them to make it illegal.

How is that not the same thing?

Of course, I agree that the fed has no right to force them to make it legal, either. And if the Act were passed I would celebrate any state that criminalized it.

A tricky distinction, but an important one.

I'm waiting...

The Sanctity of Life Act acknowledges reality, that life begins at conception. It leaves the decision of how to deal with that reality to the states.

And I am disappoint.

The reality is that abortion is murder, and no entity has any right to deal with that reality in any other way than to deal with it as it is. No entity has the right to legalize murder.

Let me ask you a question.

Do you support going to war with every country that legalizes abortion?

If not, are you therefore "Pro-choice, nation by nation" on abortion?

You don't know me very well.

Under the government I advocate I would certainly advocate declaring war of some sort on any nation wherein abortion is not criminalized.

But your attempt at claiming one is pro-choice nation by nation simply by not advocating an active invasive occupational war on any nation wherein abortion is "legal," is a failure from the outset.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It is my firm belief that not a single life would be saved if a pregnant woman could just go one state over, or even move, to a state wherein it is legal to kill their child.

Its true that some people would do that, but I don't think everyone would do that. Crossing state lines isn't always quite that easy.

Under the government I advocate I would certainly advocate declaring war of some sort on any nation wherein abortion is not criminalized.

How are you defining "War"?

I guess you want war on basically the entire western world? Ironically, the Muslims theocracies that most "conservatives" want to go to war against would wind up being your allies.

 

[Lighthouse]

Its true that some people would do that, but I don't think everyone would do that. Crossing state lines isn't always quite that easy.

I've never had a problem.

How are you defining "War"?

Not necessarily actively aggressive. Think "Cold War" for instance. Then there are embargoes and just plain refusals to do any business, of any sort, whatsoever, with any of them.

I say this because it would not always be practical to have active war, especially not with all of the countries currently allowing abortion.

I guess you want war on basically the entire western world? Ironically, the Muslims theocracies that most "conservatives" want to go to war against would wind up being your allies.

I wouldn't make them allies just because they agreed on this one point, or any other. There is enough disagreement that they would still be enemies, but not necessarily ones with whom we would, or should, go to war.