Thanks Bob

[Mystery]

Many countries allow abortions. Would you support the invasion of all those countries?

How is it different then going after Hitler?

 

[PatriotBeliever]

How is it different then going after Hitler?

It's not a bad question. Of course Hitler was actively invading other countries as well as killing his own people.

 

[drbrumley]

How is it different then going after Hitler?

Great question!

The ONLY reason we went after Hitler was because he was at war with us. He attacked our ships and sunk them, attacked our soldiers, and Germany declared war. Other than that, there was no other reason to fight Hitler.

 

[kmoney]

How is it different then going after Hitler?

I'll take that as a "Yes" from you.

 

[Mystery]

I'll take that as a "Yes" from you.

 

[Mystery]

Great question!

The ONLY reason we went after Hitler was because he was at war with us. He attacked our ships and sunk them, attacked our soldiers, and Germany declared war. Other than that, there was no other reason to fight Hitler.

I was hoping to get that answer.

At what point do you cut off accountability?

You can answer this too, PatriotBeliever.

 

[Delmar]

Alright I'll try and get to these in one reply.

This is the default strategy whenever the Constitution is brought up. Hypothetical scenarios like this show a lack of logic when compared to the fact that abortion is forcibly legal in every state right now so to say "what if" one, two or forty-nine legalized it, you are pointing out the flaw in not following the Constitution by your answer. Let's see what's worse, legal abortion in 50 states or in a few states? At least I would have a choice to move to a state that outlawed abortion. As it stands now, I am forced by the federal government to live in a state that sanctions abortion, if I wish to remain in America.



This is what everyone here should be asking themselves. I'll take a crack at it. The founding fathers were of the opinion that we needed a federal government to provide national defense and protect the most basic of rights, life included. That being said, they were also of the strong opinion that all central governments tend to gravitate outside of any bounds and therefore they were adamant about restricting the federal government's power and authority. The constitution is a restriction on federal power first, not an enabling document. It was never intended to tell the individual how to live or to try and control people at all. Those men were coming out of the control of a tyrannical government and were well aware of the evil that man is capable of when wielding the power of government.

We the people created the government here.

Congress and the Judiciary are not equal powers as outlined in the Constitution. This is the point of H.R. 300
See this nice little blog about this very subjecthttp://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ron_paul_and_an_interesting_approach_to_the_abortion_issue/

Our Constitutional law was based on alot of things, not the least of which was scripture and Judeo-Christian values.



This is misstating the problem as well as the solution. the states were never the problem. Ultimately the lack of morality of man was couple with a blatant disregard for the laws that already existed. Texas could have been allowed to outlaw abortion but the court overstepped and the Congress allowed them to. Vesting more power in the federal government sets more president that the federal government is powerful enough to define life and thus undefine it again at will.



Who in the federal government? Not the court, it has spoken.
the Sanctity of Life Act states clearly that human life is recognized at conception and goes on to define it from conception to death.


Exactly. See why I'm homeschooling my youngins too? Stephen is a smart dude.


I'm sorry, the full text of H.R. 2597 says no such thing. It strikes at the heart of the problem quickly, the Supreme Court having already proven it will overstep it's authority and define an unborn child as not human. That authority is revoked in the bill the only way it can.



The funny thing is that many Libertarians would say the same thing of Ron Paul. He's also been a Republican for many years, in and out of Congress. There almost is nowhere for a man like him to go if he must agree with every platform of any party.



very well stated.



All good answers



EXACTLY



Not so because the "authority" was the Supreme Court. The Legislature has the Constitutional authority to turn this around and H.R.2597 does just that. Your statement about the "belief" of the three branches that congress does not have the authority is an assumption. Plus the Constitution, trumps wrong "beliefs".



What a great response. Why don't we invade every evil nation. Yea that's scriptural isn't it. of course we would have to invent even more money (or borrow even more) that we do not have to continue our current interventions. Not to mention we would have to institute the draft earlier that our impending Iran invasion will require. Hey, lets just do it, I don't see anything stopping us... the Constitution has been left out of this equation long ago.



I can't believe that one is still going, Jesus made it clear that the adulterous woman should not be killed for her sin, legal or not, those of you molding the scripture's intended meaning are taking an awful lot of liberty with the Word. Jesus flat out was showing the woman love and grace pure and simple. He was not dealing with government authority at all. And whether he was "breaking" Roman or Jewish law is debatable but yes, he was bucking the twisted legal system all along the way.

One last thing on the whole "kill homosexuals" debate here, you are all a little off about this as the death penalty is a state issue and no one here has mentioned it in your comparisons and calling for a death sentence on homosexuals. So once again the argument all of you pro-federal authority folks are using is inconsistent. Abortion, then, like any other murder should be treated that way, based on your argument, at the state level. I'm sure someone will now go back to something like "what is California legalizes it, would Ron Paul stop the CA murder of babies, by force." Just be consistent.

It would be easier for people to respond to you if you responded to people individually. Plus we really discourage posts of that length.

 

[drbrumley]

I was hoping to get that answer.

At what point do you cut off accountability?

You can answer this too, PatriotBeliever.

What does that mean? Hitler accountable to whom?

 

[Mystery]

What does that mean? Hitler accountable to whom?

Certainly you believe that there is accountability, correct?

Your children are accountable to you. You are accountable to your boss, your Pastor, your city government, state government, federal government, correct? Do you think that leaders of countries have no accountability?

 

[drbrumley]

Certainly you believe that there is accountability, correct?

Of course.

Your children are accountable to you. You are accountable to your boss, your Pastor, your city government, state government, federal government, correct? Do you think that leaders of countries have no accountability?

While true in most respects, exactly who was Hitler accountable to? Accountable to God, absolutely. Other than that, who?

 

[Mystery]

While true in most respects, exactly who was Hitler accountable to? Accountable to God, absolutely. Other than that, who?

I think that everyone is our neighbor, no matter whether they are next door, across the world, or on the internet. We are not only accountable to those in authority but also to come to the rescue of those who are oppressed or suffering injustice. Do you disagree?

 

[drbrumley]

I think that everyone is our neighbor, no matter whether they are next door, across the world, or on the internet.

Kind of Utopian, but ok.

We are not only accountable to those in authority

Really? People are only in authority over you if you let them. And if they deserve that respect.

but also to come to the rescue of those who are oppressed or suffering injustice.

I can agree with that to an extent.

Do you disagree?

No except for what I mentioned

 

[Mystery]

If your neighbor was systematically killing his children, what would you do?

If your neighbor was systematically killing his other neighbor's children, what would you do?

 

[PatriotBeliever]

It would be easier for people to respond to you if you responded to people individually. Plus we really discourage posts of that length.

You're right, I'll do better

 

[PatriotBeliever]

I was hoping to get that answer.

At what point do you cut off accountability?

You can answer this too, PatriotBeliever.

Hitler only became accountable to the US when we had been attacked and then the congress actually voted for a declaration of war as required by the Constitution.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Certainly you believe that there is accountability, correct?

Your children are accountable to you. You are accountable to your boss, your Pastor, your city government, state government, federal government, correct? Do you think that leaders of countries have no accountability?

I'm afraid that you progressively leave the context with your list there. We are not the government's children, property or employees and we definitely are not the parents of the world because we are the United States. Unfortunately many neo-conservatives believe this and their policy reflects such.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

I think that everyone is our neighbor, no matter whether they are next door, across the world, or on the internet. We are not only accountable to those in authority but also to come to the rescue of those who are oppressed or suffering injustice. Do you disagree?

The premise sounds great but this is completely unrealistic. Explain how a country could follow this logic. How does this apply to the abortion issue in America and the person who would be president.

Actually this is very revealing. This explains how the few here that are so opposed to Ron Paul think. He has pointed out over and over the United States' failed foreign policies and how to fix it. We already are broke and going into more extreme debt to countries like China with what little nation building, policing and entanglements we are involved in now, for the "right reasons", and have attempted in the past. Yet somehow people still can push the ideas you have, somehow neglecting to acknowledge that there is no way to do it without selling ourselves out. This is very relevant to what you have stated in your hypothetical question.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

If your neighbor was systematically killing his children, what would you do?

If your neighbor was systematically killing his other neighbor's children, what would you do?

Where is this happening? On a desert island? In their house next door but behind walls and hidden? Is this a laboratory? Stop.

You see, no one in their right mind would say they would do nothing. Such hypothetical comparisons to the government authority and abortion problem can be irrelevant to the true issue. This can not be used properly to make the point, I'm sorry. It is not the situation being discussed. You are dealing in people's emotions in a particular, unrelated situation that you have invented.
Pro-abortionists do this by stating something like "well, if somehow you knew already that the baby was going to die before birth and aborting it would save the mother, Mary whom you knew was going to later give birth to Jesus, would you be for the abortion?... huh?" That's forcing a fictional answer and gluing it to the point you wanted to make. Please, to keep adding to the hypothetical to steer someone to the answer you want is exhausting. Leave that tactic to those without truth to stand on.

 

[Mystery]

Hitler only became accountable to the US when we had been attacked and then the congress actually voted for a declaration of war as required by the Constitution.

So the Constitution is the only thing that determines your level of commitment between doing what is right, and doing what is wrong? If the Constitution changes, then so do you?

 

[Mystery]

I'm afraid that you progressively leave the context with your list there. We are not the government's children, property or employees and we definitely are not the parents of the world because we are the United States. Unfortunately many neo-conservatives believe this and their policy reflects such.

I see, so if you choose to rape your neighbor, then the government has no authority to hold you accountable? Not the federal, state, or city? Who does? No one?