Ron Paul Repeats Commitment to Overturning Roe v. Wade

LifeNnews.com ^ | August 8, 2007 | Steven Ertelt

[CenTexConfederate]

Ron Paul Repeats Commitment to Overturning Roe v. Wade Abortion Ruling

by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor August 8, 2007 Lawton, IA (LifeNews.com) -- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul restated his commitment on Tuesday to overturning the landmark abortion decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions. He said he would work to overturn the Supreme Court ruling if he is nominated as the Republican candidate for president and elected to the White House.

Paul said he was pro-life and would make reversing the decision a top priority.

He also said that more people should be exposed to what abortion does to an unborn child and women who have them.

“The country should see what is happening and when they see the violence of abortion and what it really means, maybe they too would change their attitude about abortion,” said Paul.

Paul, a Texas congressman, also said he would make sure that taxpayer funds are not used to pay for abortions and explained that his training as a gynecologist taught him that human life is valuable.

"Life is sacred. The most obscene thing government could do is to ... use your money to commit abortion," he said to loud applause.

[Sun]

Duncan Hunter has introduced his personhood at conception bill, year after year, but if both Hunter and Paul are trying this, kudos to both of them.

[Sun]

If you read my post more carefully, I said that Paul was pro-life, but I STILL have a huge problem with this:

From this site,
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999

AGAIN, parents should make decisions about their minor children.

Libertarians have crazy “logic” sometimes.

[Rudder]

But you strike me as just another Big Government “Conservative.”

You're whistling in the dark (that means you're full of it, right up to your eyeballs.) In other words, you couldn't be further from the truth. Get the picture, liberal?

[dcwusmc]

Here’s the RP solution to abortion: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878515/posts#17

Now go play in traffic and leave the grownups alone.

[John Leland 1789]

Frankly, parents should NOT have available the option of abortion for their minor children, and it is NOT good for them to have an abortion. If the parents cared about their minor children, they would not have them in a situation where having sex is possible. And if they cared about their minor children, they would labor with sweat and tears in the area of training the mind set and morality of their children from infancy to make immoral practices repugnant to them.

So, some will say, “John, you have no right to impose your family’s standards on anyone else’s family.” Of course, that would be a ridiculous remark, unless the remarker were to name a family under which my standards have been imposed. I gave principle. I imposed nothing. Of course, a sane person will realize that recommending one’s standards (that is what an opinion is), is what FR is all about. Without the “I think,” “I believe,” “This is what we should do” on these threads, there would be no threads.

[dcwusmc]

Bugger off. You have no idea what you are saying. No need to respond. I have no more to say to you.

[Sun]

From this site,
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999

So Paul thinks states’ rights should trump parents’ rights. Libertarians really get confused sometimes.

Ron Paul is a nice man, but he is a libertarian, and they sometimes go off-the-wall on various issues.

And Ron Paul doesn’t understand Jihad.

Two choices:

1) Convert

2) Die (not very pro-life)

[End Times Crusader]

Why don’t you address the facts? Your boy Ron cares more about shrimp than he does about the unborn or our troops.

[Rudder]

...too many big gov’t “conservatives” want their slice of the federal pie.

That's one thing you said that has merit, but Paul ain't the man. He's been whistling in the dark and no one is listening--he's a wimp. You guys seem to think that Govt. is the answer to abortion yet you decry Govt.

Makes no sense to me. Does this make sense to you?

[Sun]

Parents can’t watch their minor children every minute, and if something happens, groups like Planned Parenthood should not be allowed to take them to have abortions.

But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, Ron Paul would have groups like Planned Parenthood take the children to have an abortion, whether the parents like it or not.

From this site,
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999

[Rudder]

Duncan Hunter has introduced his personhood at the age of conception...Sounds just a little obscene the way you put it.

[Sun]

Here’s where Hunter tops Fred Thompson (but they both did very well), by this conservative group:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878433/posts

[Rudder]

No need to respond. I have no more to say to you.

Ahh, snookey poo. You can't dish it out and you can't take it. You're the one who started the ad hominum crap, not me.

[Sun]

Is this better?

“OT-Duncan Hunter On The Importance Of Human Life From Conception

RenewAmerica Forum,

snip

“1. Right to Life Amendment:
I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.”

http://www.renewamerica.us/forum/?date=070402&message=21

[End Times Crusader]

Paul’s a hypocrite. He votes against keeping minors from getting abortions because he’s says it is unconstitutional, but he supports fed gov dollars for the shipping industry which the last time I checked is also unconstitutional.

[George W. Bush]

Why don’t you address the facts?

Why don't you just bite me, newbie?

Someone who joins up just to start trolling on day one isn't very interesting. And your attempt to change the subject to an earmark Ron Paul voted against and which has not been funded is completely irrelevant.

How desperate and hysterical the Ron-bashers have become.

[End Times Crusader]

that should be shrimping industry not shipping

[dcwusmc]

Ron Paul votes no on such things because they are NOT THE LEGITIMATE province of FedGov. Period. And parental rights trump state prerogatives except in CLEAR cases of abuse. Further, libertarians are far more CONSISTENT in their beliefs than, say, someone like you, who believes that FedGov can ignore the limits placed on it by the Constitution when such panders to YOUR concerns... but then EVERYONE ELSE gets their turn and soon enough there is no more Constitution and we have nothing but the police state we never wanted.

I think Dr. Paul might just offer the jihadists the same options I would: Crawl back under your rock and leave decent folks alone or your so-called 12th imam is gonna have to find his way out of the radioactive cesspool your precious Rock has become... and with it your religion, which is based on the “infallibility” of that Rock.

But regardless, if we allow our Constitution to be treated as toilet paper by all and sundry, then it won’t matter a lot WHAT the jihadists do... we’ll have done worse to ourselves. Too many well meaning dupes (perhaps like you) seem to want to let FedGov do anything they want, usurp any power they choose, if only they grant you the ILLUSION of safety... and it’s ONLY an illusion. Without the boundaries set by the Constitution, we will have a fedgov that is so out of control, not even the Muzzies could make it worse. Too many priorities are way too misplaced and that does not bode well for this once-great nation so blessed by God at one time.

[endthematrix]

Thread hijacking...

[Sun]

I know the Constitution quite well; in fact, I have it right by my computer on lovely parched paper, and I see that the Tenth Amendment, while a very important amendment, is not the ONLY amendment. If it were, the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be null and void.

Libertarians have a messed up view of the Constitution at times, and I really realized that when I read the Libertarian Party platform.