Thanks Bob
- Thread starter drbrumley
- Start date
- Status
PKevman
New member
That was a great point that was utterly lost in the discussion. Thanks Ktoyou!
S†ephen
New member
I'm all for that one!!!seriously :banana:
You have already said that the form of government is irrelevant... its what government DOES that counts. Why are you not asking the UN to outlaw abortion in the USA?
Did you or did you not say that Ron Paul was pro-abortion state by state because he refused to outlaw abortion at a higher level?
Are you or are you not refusing to try to outlaw abortion at a higher level than the federal government?
You are not being consistent and you are not being honest with yourself. You practice the same strategy as Ron Paul, only at a different level.
So you are not anti-abortion in Timbuktu? Are you willing to allow those people to make their own decision? Is this not precisely why you call Ron Paul "pro-abortion?"
Then why can Ron Paul not fight for the unborn IN HIS STATE because he lives in that state?
Hogwash. You have just as much influence in the UN as your pals in Timbuktu. It is a worldwide governing body. Kevin, its not important whether you're honest with me, but you must be honest with yourself. Its time to be fair and intellectually honest. If Paul is pro abortion state by state, then by your own standards, you are pro-abortion country by country.
PKevman
New member
Stephen said:
I am not certain you fully understood the point he was making. That isn't an insult to your intelligence. I know you're a very intelligent boy. I bet people reading your posts have no clue how old you are. But I think you missed the big point he was making and focused in on something that was incidental to the point.
Abortion today is never the therapeutic type. It doesn't fit with the very term as we understand it. I would suggest you read the rest of that discussion between Turbo and Red77 and you will understand more in depth the points that he was making.
Rather than reply to my comment, you have attempted to alter it. You will notice that I never mentioned outlawing the police. You have addressed a comment I never made.
What I said was that Christians should not use violence against others, nor should they ask a man in a blue uniform to do it for them.
Please direct your response to what was actually said.
S†ephen
New member
I understood the point perfectly and posed a different question.
(thnx for the compliments by the way.)
My research so far has shown that the supreme court has actually banned certain possibilities that would help therapeutic abortions. I'm having a hard time finding the exact name of the law.
PKevman
New member
sopwith21 said:
That's easy. I am not a citizen of the UN, have no say as to who they "elect" or choose for leadership, and have no influence whatsoever what they do. I am a citizen of the USA. And the UN has no right to dictate American law based upon our current political structure, so the ENTIRE argument you have just made is UTTERLY irrelevant. IF the UN had the right to dictate what American law would be, and I as a citizen could influence the UN to force America to make "Do not murder" a law with no exceptions in the USA, then I would be asking the UN to outlaw abortion in America. C'mon Stephen, you're really descending into desparation bud.
sopwith21 said:
Said level of which he is running for Commander-in-Chief of!
Already answered.
sopwith21 said:
If it makes it easier for you to keep telling yourself that, have at it. But it isn't true, and if you took the time to read and understand my answers you would know it isn't true. Instead you're just looking to poke holes and score points. You're sold out to an anti-government and anti-law agenda and you refuse to see anything that stands against that view.
sopwith21 said:
Yes. I am anti-abortion in Timbuktu. But I don't live there and am not a citizen there. I have no influence or decision in what they do. I have a vote and influence in this country that I live in. So please pay attention to the answers and stop asking the same question over and over again in different ways. You will get the same consistent answer from me every time:
MURDER IS WRONG! IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WRONG! IT WILL ALWAYS BE WRONG!
Anywhere. Anytime. Anyone.
sopwith21 said:
Answered above.
sopwith21 said:
He's running for president of ALL of them!
sopwith21 said:
That is what is the hogwash. And your arguments have been refuted completely and utterly on this issue.
S†ephen
New member
I'm sure this will very soon be ripped to shreds but... here it is.
Ron Paul's Abortion Rhetoric
Does Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's strong language about abolishing a woman's right to choose put him at odds with the Libertarian party?
Steven White | August 20, 2007 | web only
In 1981 a Republican congressman declared:
"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."
The name of the congressman? Ron Paul. Yes, that Ron Paul, the long-shot GOP candidate for president running on a platform of pulling out of Iraq and slashing government spending. In 1981, he went on to argue, "Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the 'right' to extinguish individual life."
Lest you think it's just a minor issue for him, consider the obscure fact that Paul has written not one but two books arguing for the necessity of a pro-life libertarianism: 1983's Abortion and Liberty and 1990's Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue. And lest you think he has since changed his views on abortion, ponder what he's saying now. On June 4, 2003, speaking in the House of Representatives, Paul described "the rights of unborn people” as “the greatest moral issue of our time."
Other such quotes aren't hard to find. On March 29, 2005: " I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society." Jan. 31, 2006: "The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court." On that note, he has referred to a "federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn." Just before the Ames straw poll, he came out with an Iowa ad touting his pro-life credentials, although in slightly more subdued terms: "I find it difficult not to defend a life a minute before birth just as I would defend that life a minute after birth. To me, it's recognizing the importance of life."
And for Paul, that's a deeply personal concern. His prior job as a doctor -- he has delivered over 4,000 babies -- plays an important role. In his New York Times Magazine profile of Paul, Christopher Caldwell writes: "He remembers seeing a late abortion performed during his residency, years before Roe v. Wade, and he maintains it left an impression on him. 'It was pretty dramatic for me,' he says, 'to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.'"
Apparently it was dramatic enough to cause Paul to author H.R. 1094, a bill that declares that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception," a standard Christian Right viewpoint. While Paul has written, "I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena," this faith, in conjunction with his traumatic residency experience, seems to have left him deeply troubled by abortion in a way organizations like Focus on the Family would no doubt find familiar. "Many talk about being pro-life," Paul continued. "I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn."
But how to do this? Paul is also a fervent federalist, which puts him somewhat at odds with the über-pro-life movement that wants to abolish abortion rights nationwide. "I think we ought to return the issue to the states so that local opinions could better determine the specific regulations concerning this deeply personal issue," Paul said in an interview earlier this year. He previously argued that this is necessary to create "a pro-life culture," because federalization "has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens." Accepting this, he explained, means "we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues." On Nov. 17, 2005, he introduced H.R. 4379, the We the People Act, which would remove contested cultural issues like abortion from the jurisdiction of federal courts. On Feb. 6, 2006, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. The congressional session ended without any further action.
Perhaps in part because of his stance on abortion, Paul has been referred to as a "selective libertarian." The Libertarian party's platform -- Paul was their 1988 candidate for president -- declares, "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration." Kept out of the matter entirely? Sounds more pro-choice than a lot of Democrats and certainly out of step with Paul's professed views on the issue.
But maybe not. Not all government is created equal, it turns out. Shane Corey, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee, said in a phone interview, "Pro-life libertarians -- I'm one of them -- understand and feel that children in the womb should have the same rights and liberties that we enjoy." Pro-life and pro-choice libertarians ,Corey continued, agree that "it's not an issue for the federal government to address." The Libertarian party's official position is support of repealing Roe v. Wade and leaving abortion "remanded to the states." Paul's view, it happens, is pretty much the party line: It's okay to restrict abortion at the state level, just not the federal one. Respect for the rights of state government trumps the rights of women.
Ron Paul's staunch opposition to the Iraq War has won him surprising accolades from parts of the left frustrated with the Democratic party's resistance to removing the U.S. presence from Iraq. But even Paul's anti-war views aren't liberal. They're just old-fashioned isolationism. And when it comes to reproductive rights, sometimes it's hard to distinguish him from the broader Republican party he claims to fight so hard against. He may want to let states decide morality, but what happens when states decide to tell women they can't make their own decisions with their doctors? Just last year, South Dakota started down that path. Liberals were rightfully outraged, because they understand certain rights are too important to be subject to popular vote. But for Paul, if anti-choice conservatives in South Dakota had succeeded, it would have been considered a victory: one step toward creating a pro-life nation, not from the top down, but one community at a time.
Ron Paul's Abortion Rhetoric
Does Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's strong language about abolishing a woman's right to choose put him at odds with the Libertarian party?
Steven White | August 20, 2007 | web only
In 1981 a Republican congressman declared:
"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."
The name of the congressman? Ron Paul. Yes, that Ron Paul, the long-shot GOP candidate for president running on a platform of pulling out of Iraq and slashing government spending. In 1981, he went on to argue, "Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the 'right' to extinguish individual life."
Lest you think it's just a minor issue for him, consider the obscure fact that Paul has written not one but two books arguing for the necessity of a pro-life libertarianism: 1983's Abortion and Liberty and 1990's Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue. And lest you think he has since changed his views on abortion, ponder what he's saying now. On June 4, 2003, speaking in the House of Representatives, Paul described "the rights of unborn people” as “the greatest moral issue of our time."
Other such quotes aren't hard to find. On March 29, 2005: " I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society." Jan. 31, 2006: "The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court." On that note, he has referred to a "federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn." Just before the Ames straw poll, he came out with an Iowa ad touting his pro-life credentials, although in slightly more subdued terms: "I find it difficult not to defend a life a minute before birth just as I would defend that life a minute after birth. To me, it's recognizing the importance of life."
And for Paul, that's a deeply personal concern. His prior job as a doctor -- he has delivered over 4,000 babies -- plays an important role. In his New York Times Magazine profile of Paul, Christopher Caldwell writes: "He remembers seeing a late abortion performed during his residency, years before Roe v. Wade, and he maintains it left an impression on him. 'It was pretty dramatic for me,' he says, 'to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.'"
Apparently it was dramatic enough to cause Paul to author H.R. 1094, a bill that declares that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception," a standard Christian Right viewpoint. While Paul has written, "I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena," this faith, in conjunction with his traumatic residency experience, seems to have left him deeply troubled by abortion in a way organizations like Focus on the Family would no doubt find familiar. "Many talk about being pro-life," Paul continued. "I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn."
But how to do this? Paul is also a fervent federalist, which puts him somewhat at odds with the über-pro-life movement that wants to abolish abortion rights nationwide. "I think we ought to return the issue to the states so that local opinions could better determine the specific regulations concerning this deeply personal issue," Paul said in an interview earlier this year. He previously argued that this is necessary to create "a pro-life culture," because federalization "has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens." Accepting this, he explained, means "we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues." On Nov. 17, 2005, he introduced H.R. 4379, the We the People Act, which would remove contested cultural issues like abortion from the jurisdiction of federal courts. On Feb. 6, 2006, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. The congressional session ended without any further action.
Perhaps in part because of his stance on abortion, Paul has been referred to as a "selective libertarian." The Libertarian party's platform -- Paul was their 1988 candidate for president -- declares, "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration." Kept out of the matter entirely? Sounds more pro-choice than a lot of Democrats and certainly out of step with Paul's professed views on the issue.
But maybe not. Not all government is created equal, it turns out. Shane Corey, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee, said in a phone interview, "Pro-life libertarians -- I'm one of them -- understand and feel that children in the womb should have the same rights and liberties that we enjoy." Pro-life and pro-choice libertarians ,Corey continued, agree that "it's not an issue for the federal government to address." The Libertarian party's official position is support of repealing Roe v. Wade and leaving abortion "remanded to the states." Paul's view, it happens, is pretty much the party line: It's okay to restrict abortion at the state level, just not the federal one. Respect for the rights of state government trumps the rights of women.
Ron Paul's staunch opposition to the Iraq War has won him surprising accolades from parts of the left frustrated with the Democratic party's resistance to removing the U.S. presence from Iraq. But even Paul's anti-war views aren't liberal. They're just old-fashioned isolationism. And when it comes to reproductive rights, sometimes it's hard to distinguish him from the broader Republican party he claims to fight so hard against. He may want to let states decide morality, but what happens when states decide to tell women they can't make their own decisions with their doctors? Just last year, South Dakota started down that path. Liberals were rightfully outraged, because they understand certain rights are too important to be subject to popular vote. But for Paul, if anti-choice conservatives in South Dakota had succeeded, it would have been considered a victory: one step toward creating a pro-life nation, not from the top down, but one community at a time.
S†ephen
New member
Paul is strongly pro-life, and calls himself an "unshakable foe of abortion". He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling a late abortion performed during his residency, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”[101] During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing legal rights.[102]
Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue".[103]
Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[104] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[77] In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.[105]
In order to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade," Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a "barbaric procedure". He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court's precedents in these areas to no longer be binding.[106] He once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.”[107]
Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling a late abortion performed during his residency, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”[101] During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing legal rights.[102]
Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue".[103]
Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[104] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[77] In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.[105]
In order to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade," Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a "barbaric procedure". He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court's precedents in these areas to no longer be binding.[106] He once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.”[107]
So, before Roe v. Wade, how many states allowed abortion?
19, huh? So what makes anyone think the states are going to make it illegal if Ron Paul gets his way, and it becomes a states issue again?
Some will and some won't. Just like they did before. At least states then had the ability to illegalize it (and at least most states did, indeed, prohibit abortion outright, something you totally overlooked). States can't even do that much these days, nor do you seem interested in giving any state the ability to do as much. You'd rather make this a federal matter, which is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.
elected4ever
New member
That is why a state must be obligated to the basis of life for the unborn when considering due process. No state should be allowed to restrict due process to any person born or unborn.
- Status