Posted on 12/16/2011 9:06:03 AM PST by Brookhaven
Ron Paul wants to be pro-life but is officially pro-choice state by state, and so contradicts himself and wrongly assumes that states' rights supersede human rights, concluding that a state like California has the right to permit abortion. But the right to life is God-given so there can be no 'right' to decriminalize child killing.
Ron Paul is Pro-Choice state by state with all of these observations fully documented below:
- opposes a national ban on the dismembering of unborn children
- claims the states may decide if they want to permit the killing of children
- has not acknowledged that human rights trump states' rights
- legislates as though rights come from the state and not from our Creator, thus
- believes the states have the right to permit genocide and commit holocaust
- claims that killing children in the womb cannot "conceivably" violate the U.S. Constitution
- believes the state is the ultimate authority, superseding God's enduring command, Do not murder
- defends the killing of any of the very youngest babies including those conceived in rape through his "exceptions"
- is essentially a Libertarian (small godless government) but runs as a Republican for greater visibility
- The Libertarian Party promotes legalized abortion, pornography, adultery, crack cocaine, suicide, euthanasia, and prostitution
- Ron Paul uses Libertarians for financial and political support but doesn't warn them about their party's gross immorality
Paul's SANCTITY OF LIFE ACT Elevates States' Rights Over Human Rights: From the text of Ron Paul's bill, "...the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review... any case arising out of any statute... on the grounds that such statute... regulates... the performance of abortions..."13 Ron Paul's legislation would violate a fundamental principle of governance by removing the protection of inalienable human rights from the jurisdiction of the courts. By his theory, a state like California has the right from the Constitution to allow the intentional killing of unborn children, but actually those children have a right to life from their Creator. Because the Creator trumps California and the Constitution, and the right to life is inalienable. It is wrong to give aid and comfort to any jurisdiction of government suggesting that they would be free from interference if they permit genocide within their borders. Ron Paul's so-called Sanctity of Life legislation is illegitimate because abortion cannot be a right: neither a woman's, nor parents, nor a states' rights issue.
Paul Defends Killing Kids with Chemical Abortifacients: In his own book, Ron Paul wrote:
"So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice." -Ron Paul, Liberty Defined47
Human Rights Supersede States' Rights: At the museum beneath the St. Louis Arch a plaque presents a quote from Stephen A. Douglas. This Democratic politician championed states' rights.9 No state though has sufficient authority to nullify the God-given inalienable rights to life and liberty. His states' rights view led Douglas to claim that the people of a territory should decide the slavery question by themselves.
Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it's errors. Like Ron Paul today and abortion, Stephen Douglas believed his Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 would thereby "remove the contentious slavery issue from national politics, lest it threaten to rip the nation apart, but it had exactly the opposite effect."10 The extent of destruction from doing wrong is difficult to fathom.
Ron Paul and Douglas reject the truth that human rights trump states rights. And in 1858 the latter said, "I look forward to a time when each state shall be allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is not my business, but its own; if it chooses to abolish slavery, it is its own business, not mine. I care more for the great principle of self-government, than I do for all the Negroes in Christendom."11 This parallels Paul's claim that, "a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid" as compared to Roe.12 Ron Paul puts his supporters in the awkward position of siding with Douglas, and wrongly claiming that states' rights supersede the God-given inalienable rights of life and liberty.
If states have the right to permit the systematic killing of children, as in Paul's view, then they would also have the right to deprive any other class of citizen of life and liberty. But as a University of Denver law student argued with a professor during a 2008 American Right To Life event, "If a state has the authority to nullify rights, then rights aren't rights, are they?" Thus states' have no such right, neither to define one class of living human being as nonpersons, nor to decriminalize murder, for human rights supersede states' rights.
Their ranking system puts Ron Paul in "Tier 4". That's the same rank they give to Mitt Romney and Donald Trump.
I had always heard Ron Paul was pro-life, and assumed he was. This article has changed my mind. Ron Paul is anti-abortion in the same way Stephen Douglas was anti-slavery. Against the practice at a personal level, but perfectly willing to accept its legalization, as long as it is the state legalizing the practice.
This article also points out a major flaw in Ron Paul's understanding of the Consititution: Ron Paul does not understand the idea of God given unalienable rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The above quote from The Declaration of Independence is the foundational idea of our entire system of government. Our individual rights come not from a piece of paper, a government, or a mutal agreement among men; but from an entity that is at a higher level than all of them: God. And, that our rights are "unalienable". Unalienable simply means that something cannot be seperated from a person under any circumstances. In this case it means our God given rights cannot be sperated from us by any person or entity--not the federal government, not any state government, nobody.
Several of the founding fathers opposed adding a bill of rights to the Constitituion. They argued that if you enumerated a subset of unalienable rights in the Constitution, eventually people would come to view this as a comprehensive list of our rights, instead of just a subset. That is exactly the trap Ron Paul has fallen into.
Paul, in his abortion positions, continually argues that the federal government has no role in protecting the life of the unborn, because the right to life is not specificly enumerated in the Constitution. He fails to grasp that the right to life is a God given unalienable right, and that federal government was specificly established to protect each individual's God given unalienable rights.
Ron Paul's position on the states and abortion also highlights the fact that he doesn't grasp the idea of God given unalienable rights. Paul's arguement that abortion should be regulated at the state level includes the idea that it would be constitutionally within each states right to legalize abortion if it chose to do so.
Our unalienable rights were given to us by God, and no entity below the level of God has the right to violate or take away those unalienable rights. Paul fails to grasp that a state has no authority to eliminate a person's God given unalienable rights by statute.
After examining Ron Paul's positions on abortion and the Constitution, it's now clear to me that his positions and constitutional philosophy are different that what I had thought. Soecificly, Ron Paul doesn't correctly grasp the concept of God given unalienable rights.
Claiming “states rights” on abortion is like claiming “states rights” on slavery.
Well, Paul did claim the Union should have just bought all the slaves.
I’ve continually heard that Ron Paul was pro-life, and I haven’t looked into it much until now. The reality looks very different.
What’s really disturbing is that Ron Paul clearly doesn’t get the concept of God given ulaienable rights. Our entire system of government is based on this single idea—it really is what makes America different from every other country in the world—and Ron Paul doesn’t get it.
Ron Paul has always been an extremist libertarian, meaning “I can do whatever the hell I like, no matter how kookie or evil it is!”
If I choose to kill babies or enslave blacks, that’s my business, especially if I can mobilize enough like-minded people to push it through under the principle of “state’s rights.”
No basic moral principles.
I think the Founders understood that a free people can only remain free if they uphold certain basic moral principles and inalienable, God-given rights.
Freedom is of basic importance, but freedom entails responsibility: to family, neighbors, country. Not just personal convenience.
Thanks Brookhaven.
Thank you for posting a well written summary on Pauls true position. He is not PRO-LIFE.
I would be willing to say that if someone asked him is states should sterilize (as was done in early 20th Century)the “unfit” for reproduction. Paul would agree with it.
We are working our way back to the dark ages after all. Paul would shove us over the cliff. Anyone that didn’t see how absolutely crazy he is last night frankly is hopeless.
Are Iowans so heathenistic that they would actually vote for this sick man.
.................................
“Three generations of imbeciles is enough,” declared Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1927 Supreme Court case, Buck v. Bell, that enshrined involuntary sterilization of the “feebleminded” — the long-sought goal of eugenicists — as the law of the land.
The three generations in the case, Carrie Buck, her mother, Emma, and daughter, Vivian, it turns out weren’t imbeciles; Carrie was an average student and Vivian, taken from her mother and placed in the home of the family whose nephew had fathered her, made the honor role once in her short life.
“Buck earns a place in the legal hall of shame not only because Holmes’ opinion was unnecessarily callous but also because it was based on deceit and betrayal,” writes legal historian Paul Lombardo of Georgia State University in Atlanta, in his just-released book, Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell. Scientists and lawyers, including Carrie Buck’s defense attorney, conspired against her, Lombardo finds in old records.
Eugenics started with British scientist Francis Galton’s 1869 book Hereditary Genius, where he argued his cousin Charles Darwin’s discovery of “natural selection,” the process by which creatures with genetic traits supporting survival out-reproduced other members of their species, meant bad news for humanity, thanks to civilization. Without natural selection to remove the congenitally rotten from the gene pool, argued Galton, statistics suggested that virtue and smarts would be trampled by the over-breeding of less wonderful folks.”
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2008-11-16-eugenics_N.htm
America was "state's rights on slavery" until we passed a constitutional amendment which clarified the issue.
Likewise, we can't overturn the states' right to regulate abortion without a constitutional amendment, which I totally support. Existing law does not sufficiently establish life as being present prior to birth.
The Roe v Wade decision, in a nutshell, was that the word “person” in the 14th Amendment does not refer to *biological* persons but only to *legal* persons - that is, individuals to whom the government gives Constitutional protections.
The Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott that Constitutional protections did not apply to Blacks and that Blacks thus did not have legal standing to be heard by any court. The Dred Scott decision was that though Blacks are unquestionably human, they are not recognized as having legal status under the laws; they are, in effect, “human livestock”.
The 14th Amendment is the only place where the Constitution gives legal protection and equality under the law to all persons. And since it was ratified, Blacks have been treated as having legal status under the law. But if the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to all *biological* persons then it never applied to Blacks, because the Dred Scott ruling was that though Blacks are *biological persons”, they are NOT “legal persons”.
If the 14th Amendment only gives equal protection and due process to “legal persons”, then states are all free to do whatever they want in regards to any biological humans who are not recognized by the Constitution as being “legal persons” - including both pre-born children and Blacks.
So yes, you are absolutely right. If the states can decide whether fetuses have any legal rights, they can also decide whether Blacks have any legal rights. Both classes, according to Roe v Wade, are outside of the protections of the 14th Amendment.
Actually, look at my post #10. If Roe v Wade is correct and the 14th Amendment only applies to *legal* persons, then none of the Constitution applies to either fetuses or Blacks. So while it is illegal to have a *legal* person be subject to “involuntary servitude”, no Blacks are considered *legal* persons so the prohibition on slavery doesn’t include Blacks as slaves.
IOW, if Roe v Wade is correct (or binding, even), then any state in this country can allow Black slavery. Just like they can allow the killing of pre-born children. Or the killing of any other biological person who is not explicitly acknowledged in the Constitution as being a “legal person”. Who’s next? Women? Jews? Handicapped people? Dissenters? If Roe v Wade is binding, then any of those groups could be defined out of *legal* personhood by any state in the country.
You can't just trash the Constitution and the concept of limited government every time some urgent agenda item comes along. I agree, abortion is a life-or-death urgent issue. But you can either handle it within the framework of the rule of law, or you become lawless yourself. Dr. Paul is quite correct in being pro-life (with a LONG track record of personal evidence in support), WITHIN the context of the U.S. Constitution.
By your logic if I can rally 51% support to establish death camps and kill everyone who disagrees with me, then it is OK to do so, so far as the Constitution is concerned. I suggest you take another look at the 9th and 10th Amendments.
But it cannot be up to the "law" to determine when life begins - that would be just as much basic biology as the human status of blacks.
THAT was the problem back then, and it's certainly part of the problem now - some things are true no matter what the law or the Supreme Court says.
If the majority enacted a law that stated "Notary Sojac" is not human and thus is not entitled to any rights, it wouldn't mean squat because it defiies logic and truth (like legalized abortion or slavery).
The ninth and tenth amendments in no way countenance the alienation of the unalienable right to life. You’re very much mistaken.
Every stated principle upon which this republic was founded, every stated purpose of our Constitution, and the explicit, imperative requirements of that Constitution are that every innocent life be provided with equal protection. There is no deviation from that to be found.
That's as may be, but we only get to imprison people (even abortionists) after due process of law.
The 14th Amendment gives equal protection and due process to all “persons” so that states cannot deny either equal protection or due process to any “person”.
Do you believe that the Constitution should give equal protection and due process to every biological person, or do you believe that some states should be able to decide which biological persons to give protections to and which to deny protections to?
Roe v Wade said that only *legal* persons count as “persons”, and nobody can be a *legal* person before birth.
At this point any state could MANDATE abortion just like they mandate immunizations, and the only Constitutional “rights” that would possibly be violated are the “property rights” of the parents who claimed to “own” the child in the womb, because the Roe v Wade court ruled that states cannot give legal status to pre-born children.
Their only rationale for allowing government involvement in abortion at all is what they claimed was a vested state interest in “potential life”. IOW, they consider the government to be part-owners of any potential life.
I trust the good sense of the American people, acting through their legislators or through the constitutional amendment process, to deal with abortion just as they have dealt with murder, rape, arson and other crimes against life.
Reversing Roe in what way?
Sounds to me like Ron Paul would want to reverse it by saying it was up to the states to decide which biological persons are 14th-Amendment “persons” and which are not.
Does that sound either pro-life or Constitutional to you?
The states have their own laws on every other crime against life. This seems to work OK without Federal interference. And it worked OK with respect to abortion for one hundred and eighty six years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.