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

[Vine&FigTree]

Missouri Libertarian Responds to Bob Enyart

Missouri Libertarian Responds to Bob Enyart

On today's BEL radio show, I read from the post of a Libertarian Party candidate running for a U.S. House seat in Missouri who criticized me for exposing Ron Paul as being pro-choice, state by state.

I have responded here to Bob's response to my criticism.

 

[Lighthouse]

well, it matters not what a liberal thinks.

It does if they have decided to redefine the meaning of conception so that life is only protected from the moment the fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall.

 

[Granite]

The argument boils down to the glorification of central federal authority or the defense of decentralized government.

Pro-lifers are rapidly becoming ideologically indistinguishable from the "big government" liberals they criticized for years.

Paul is a fine, decent, upstanding man and candidate, and almost predictably, he's attracted the ire of Bob Enyart and the rest of the monarchists here. Talk about an unintended badge of honor for the good doctor.

 

[Turbo]

The argument boils down to the glorification of central federal authority or the defense of decentralized government.

Pro-lifers are rapidly becoming ideologically indistinguishable from the "big government" liberals they criticized for years.

BZZZT!


We pro-lifers adamantly supported the recent effort in South Dakota's re-criminalize abortion, and are currently supporting state-level personhood amendments in Colorado and elsewhere.

But at the same time, we condemn any state law that legitimizes abortion.


We also condemn the federal government for mandating that abortion should be legal in every state.

But at the same time, we encourage the federal government to repent and uphold the unborn's God-given and Constitutionally protects right to life.


Here's how it works:

Legalizing and regulating abortion: bad.
Criminalizing abortion: good.
The level of government doing either: irrelevant.​

Paul is a fine, decent, upstanding man...

...said the Satanist.

No state has the right to legalize and regulate the slaughter of the innocent. Ron Paul doesn't get that, and neither do you.

If you want to champion states' rights, consider focusing on a "right" that doesn't involve slaughtering the innocent.

 

[Granite]

BZZZT!


We pro-lifers adamantly supported the recent effort in South Dakota's re-criminalize abortion, and are currently supporting state-level personhood amendments in Colorado and elsewhere.

But at the same time, we condemn any state law that legitimizes abortion.


We also condemn the federal government for mandating that abortion should be legal in every state.

But at the same time, we encourage the federal government to repent and uphold the unborn's God-given and Constitutionally protects right to life.


Here's how it works:

Legalizing and regulating abortion: bad.
Criminalizing abortion: good.
The level of government doing either: irrelevant.​

...said the Satanist.

No state has the right to legalize and regulate the slaughter of the innocent. Ron Paul doesn't get that, and neither do you.

If you want to champion states' rights, consider focusing on a "right" that doesn't involve slaughtering the innocent.

The efforts in South Dakota in Colorado are admirable and the way the system should work. Federal intervention isn't necessary--unless legislative coercion by the feds appears the only viable solution to some people.

(For the record I also think C.S. Lewis was a fine upstanding gent as well and that Margaret Sanger was a monster.)

 

[Vine&FigTree]

"Turbo?"

"Turbo?"

BZZZT!

"Turbo?" As in "Floyd R. Turbo?" Your hero is Turbo??

 

[Clete]

Clete,

1st, I apologize for the "stupid" remark. You are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination.

2nd, please tell me how in the world I am arguing for the lesser of two evils? How is allowing the States' to outlaw it more evil then trying in vain to get the Federal Government to do the same? Please don't tell me the Federal Government is the main government of this nation.

It isn't more evil, it is less evil or perhaps just as evil. Either way, neither the states, nor anyone else, should have have the right to make such decisions - period.

Ron Paul supports the idea that the states should get to decide for themselves whether it is okay to kill innocent babies. I therefore do not support Ron Paul and neither should you.

(Apology accepted, by the way! :thumb: )

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

That is really the core of the argument. Paul is not pro choice and Enyart told a flat out lie. Paul is trying to present a different (more constitutional) system.

It is not "more constitutional" to allow the states the deprive innocent babies of their lives.

 

[Granite]

Yet again, the flip side of this argument doesn't seem to occur to anybody.:doh:

Righting a wrong with another wrong seems to be the epitome of cold, brazen pragmatism.

 

[Clete]

I agree totally. Ron Paul is pro-life and pro-Constitution, and Bob Enyart seems to be anti-Ninth Commandment; he's guilty of slandering a good man's reputation.

http://KevinCraig.us/enyart-paul.htm

You agree that the states should be able to deprive people of their lives without due process?

 

[Vine&FigTree]

You agree that the states should be able to deprive people of their lives without due process?

When Ms.Mommy kills her baby, that is not an example of the State of Colorado depriving someone of her right to life. That's Ms.Mommy depriving someone of her right to life. If Bobby Joe Jones steals Clete's car, that is not an example of the State of Colorado depriving someone of his right to property.

If a federal official who has taken an oath to support the Constitution feels that the State of Colorado is not punishing Ms.Mommy rapidly enough or severely enough for killing her baby, and arrests MsMommy and executes her, that federal official has violated his oath of office. The federal government has no jurisdiction over this incident.

 

[PKevman]

Yet again, the flip side of this argument doesn't seem to occur to anybody.:doh:

Righting a wrong with another wrong seems to be the epitome of cold, brazen pragmatism.

That is because the "flipside" as you call it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

Follow me here Granite:

States rights (as supported by Ron Paul and Libertarians) means that the states have the right to decide whether abortion is legal or not and the federal government has no say so in the matter at all.

So if they decided that it is legal, according to Ron Paul and you that is a good thing because you suppose they have followed the "right process".

What a wicked and stupid way of thinking of things.

 

[PKevman]

When Ms.Mommy kills her baby, that is not an example of the State of Colorado depriving someone of her right to life. That's Ms.Mommy depriving someone of her right to life. If Bobby Joe Jones steals Clete's car, that is not an example of the State of Colorado depriving someone of his right to property.

If a federal official who has taken an oath to support the Constitution feels that the State of Colorado is not punishing Ms.Mommy rapidly enough or severely enough for killing her baby, and arrests MsMommy and executes her, that federal official has violated his oath of office. The federal government has no jurisdiction over this incident.

So WHO should have jurisdiction over this incident?

If two cities have a fight within the state, who's to say they shouldn't have their own governments? The state would be a hypocrite if they enforced anything on the city for the same reasons that your logic says the federal government has no jurisdiction over the state.

If two towns have a fight within the state, who's to say they shouldn't have their own governments?

And on and on down the spiral would go.

What if Mr. Jones decides to kill his neighbor in cold blood because he let his doggie go poo in his yard? IF the government you envision is put into place, what right would the states have to prosecute Mr. Jones?

 

[Vine&FigTree]

So WHO should have jurisdiction over this incident?

Do you know the answer to your own question in 1777? Before the Constitution was ratified, just after the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were 13 states and no federal government at all. So who had jurisdiction?

Now, the Constitution is ratified, and who obtained jurisdiction over this issue? The answer could not be clearer: the states would not have ratified the Constitution if it transferred their authority over these issues to the newly-created federal government. It's really simple.

If two cities have a fight within the state, who's to say they shouldn't have their own governments? The state would be a hypocrite if they enforced anything on the city for the same reasons that your logic says the federal government has no jurisdiction over the state.

If two towns have a fight within the state, who's to say they shouldn't have their own governments?

The constitutional answer is: not the federal government, unless the states expressly delegated their right to jurisdiction over this issue to the feds in the Constitution. If the states did not delegate their authority to the federal government, then the 10th Amendment (and the whole constitution, really) says the powers remain with the states. This is the doctrine of "enumerated powers."

What if Mr. Jones decides to kill his neighbor in cold blood because he let his doggie go poo in his yard? IF the government you envision is put into place, what right would the states have to prosecute Mr. Jones?

The states would have all the rights they had before the Constitution was ratified, minus the ones they gave to the newly-created federal government. If the states retained total jurisdiction over "fights" between cities, then the states could theoretically let the cities "duke it out." Unless the states gave authority to the federal government, the federal government has no authority.

Abortion, grand theft auto, and kidnapping are state issues.

 

[Clete]

When Ms.Mommy kills her baby, that is not an example of the State of Colorado depriving someone of her right to life. That's Ms.Mommy depriving someone of her right to life.

Of course it is.
The state has given her permission to deprive someone of their right to life.
The government (state and/or federal) is just as culpable for murder in the case of abortion as it would be if it legally permitted racial lynchings.
It is the government's responsibility to protect a person's right to due process. If someone intentionally takes the life of another without due process that someone is guilty of murder and it is the government's responsibility to prosecute and punish the murderer. If the government abdicates that responsibility then it becomes party to the murder.

If Bobby Joe Jones steals Clete's car, that is not an example of the State of Colorado depriving someone of his right to property.

It would be if the state of Colorado made it legal to take my car without my permission.

If a federal official who has taken an oath to support the Constitution feels that the State of Colorado is not punishing Ms.Mommy rapidly enough or severely enough for killing her baby, and arrests MsMommy and executes her, that federal official has violated his oath of office. The federal government has no jurisdiction over this incident.

He should! All states are under the authority of the Federal Government and it is under the legal authority of the Constitution of the United States which demands that the government, the Federal and State Government, protect the right to due process under the law.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[drbrumley]

All states are under the authority of the Federal Government and it is under the legal authority of the Constitution of the United States which demands that the government, the Federal Government, protect the right to due process under the law.

And here is the heart of the matter. All states are under the authority of the Federal Government? Now, where in the Constitution does it say this? Wow, just staggering that a slave would happily say this, who doesn’t even realize he’s a slave (thanks to decades of government school brainwashing).

 

[Clete]

And here is the heart of the matter. All states are under the authority of the Federal Government? Now, where in the Constitution does it say this? Wow, just staggering that a slave would happily say this, who doesn’t even realize he’s a slave (thanks to decades of government school brainwashing).

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which 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."​

And the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."​

 

[Vine&FigTree]

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which 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."​

And the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."​

What you're advocating is that any time the federal government believes that a state is not punishing someone who deprives another of "life, liberty or property" -- which encompasses the entire criminal code of every state -- that the federal government has the right to swoop down and (ultimately) to "nationalize" the entire state government system.

This is not the system that the states created when they ratified the Constitution.

You're not thinking like a constitutional lawyer, you're thinking like a demagogue. You think you have "The Voice of Virtue." That voice always leads to terror and totalitarianism.

Congressman Ron Paul on Abortion

Bob Enyart Slanders Ron Paul

 

[drbrumley]

The 14th Amendment? Are you kidding me.

Let's see, they voted on this amendment in 1865, after the War of Northern Aggression. The Southern states rejected it, along with the border states, and as you SHOULD know, it wasn't ratified. The Party at the time in charge, the Republican Party, put the entire South under military rule under the Reconstruction Act of 1867. The reason that law was passed according to the Republicans in the North was to to compel by force the South to vote for the amendment "at the point of a bayonet." Some freedom there huh? In which, President Andrew Johnson said that this act was "absolute despotism." You in favor of despotism Clete?

The South eventually voted to ratify this amendment, not under their free will, but under coercion. And soon after that Clete, two Northern states-Ohio and New Jersey, withdrew their vote because of the disgusting UnConstitutional actions of Republicans who dominated the Federal Government at the time. Of course, those slimeballs, again not under the Constitution, ignored this and declared the amendment ratified.

Hardly something you should be proud of supporting Clete.

 

[drbrumley]

And Bob says this 14th amendment is Judeo-Christian. Rightttttttttt Bob.