Posted on 03/05/2008 1:35:29 PM PST by samrig
Ron Paul is pro-choice state by state: "While Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." 1-31-06. ... If Ron Paul lived in Berlin in 1944 and had said, "While killing Jews is invalid, a federal law banning the holocaust across all of Germany's 16 states would be equally invalid," his wicked claim would be immediately obvious to most people, but abortion has so dehumanized babies that even pro-lifers are vulnerable to lies that promote tolerance of the slaughter.
(Excerpt) Read more at kgov.com ...
This is exactly what this site needs. One more ron paul thread. thanks.
I knew he was pro-choice. That’s why I couldn’t understand why some Catholics were backing him since the Catholic Church does not support abortion at all.
Please forgive a stupid question, but where do you draw the line?
For example, consider self-defense. If you kill someone whom you reasonably perceived as a threat, when you could have escaped the threat altogether, some states will call that murder and some will not. Or if an abused wife kills her sleeping husband, some states may call that murder and some may not.
In both scenarios you run into the possibility that one group of states is allowing "murder", at least in the opinion of other states. Or conversely, you face a situation where some states are prosecuting people for what is a legitimate exercise of their right to defend themselves.
Do the Feds need to step in and establish the rules for self-defense in state criminal trials?
By and large I agree that a state which allows abortion seems to violate the Equal Protection Clause. But is there a clear and workable rule that permits the Feds to step in when they are needed, without giving them a blank check to completely override the States' traditional authority over criminal matters?
How do you figure? Congressman Paul believes abortion should be illegal. He just believes the laws against it need to come from a Constitutional amendment or from the States, and not from Congress.
He may be incorrect in his Constitutional interpretation or his strategy, but that doesn't make him pro-choice.
Where in the world did you ever get the idea that he’s pro-choice?
Peple oppose Paul for a varietyof reasons, but life certainly isn’t one of them, and never has been. It’s so plainly cut and dried that I just had to respond to the misinformation on this thread.
Absent a Constitutional Amendment, it's the right thing to do. Better that then letting the judicial activism of Roe continue to rule the day.
The right to life doesn’t come from man’s will, or constitutions. It comes from God. And if it doesn’t apply on every square inch of American territory, we’ve abandoned the principle that our liberty rests on.
If you see liberty slipping away, whether slowly sinking and sagging, or with a crash, look to the foundations.
Ever heard of federalism, dipwad?
<< Why are you worried about, Paul, he’s out? >>
Is he out? Or is he aiming at being the right’s Ralph Nader?
Welcome to the forum, and I agree with you. It’s unconstitutional for some states to have legalized killing of persons. We need a Life at Conception Act or a Life Amendment. I’ll take either. I just want abortion ended.
The Libertarian party does support these things which are contrary to Christian worldview. It’s a shame we are called puritans now for opposing that list of things.
I am frustrated by the number of people that think states should be allowed to deny people of their unalienable right to life, yet claim we are the ones that don’t understand the Constitution. That is its most basic tenet!
They don’t want to understand.
I was puzzled about that as well.
I suppose not. I feel sorry for the original poster because some werequite rude to him which was unecessary. I hope that he/she sticks around Free Republic.
“I am frustrated by the number of people that think states should be allowed to deny people of their unalienable right to life, yet claim we are the ones that don’t understand the Constitution. That is its most basic tenet!”
They have been brainwashed by faux conservatives who have sold them faux federalism.
Bingo. Nor do we need to count on the promises of candidates to appoint pro life judges and wait and hope that they keep their promises when the time comes. Oh, but if this law was passed then what would the GOP have to hold over the pro life voters to ensure their votes?
Let’s not forget the national right to life industry. They received millions of dollars in donations to support and help pass a partial birth abortion ban that will not save the life of a single unborn child. They would also lose a lot of their funding.
http://www.covenantnews.com/rudd031126.htm
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.