Thanks Bob

[PKevman]

THEN LET'S DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

Ok, what do you want to do? Would you want to travel to China and try to fight abortion over there, where people are NOT free and where they do NOT in fact have a choice in the matter? Where you are NOT a citizen, and where you would be jailed or even killed for speaking your mind?

Or do you want to fight it here at home where you have a vote, a voice, an influence, and an opportunity to do something? I believe you wouldn't be here fighting for and defending Ron Paul as a candidate if you hadn't already made your choice between here and China.

It boils down to helpless and innocent people being deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Abortion is murder and "Do not murder" needs to be binding law for every state, every territory, and every province that would want to be considered a part of the United States of America.

 

[PKevman]

And this is where God hangs His head. Granite flipped on me but I still would love to change his views. But I won't insult them, he doesn't deserve that, no one does. And if they are insulted we can't wonder they don't like Christians.

God doesn't hang His head when Christians stand up for truth. What Bible are you reading buddy?

You think God hangs His head when someone says this:

Abortion is murder, and it's wrong and should be against the law in every state. That is the standard that needs to be applied unilaterally. I care not what you think politically if you cannot agree with that.

You cut out the first part of my quote.

 

[PKevman]

And this is where God hangs His head. Granite flipped on me but I still would love to change his views. But I won't insult them, he doesn't deserve that, no one does.

Do you believe that Jesus should be our example? If so, can you show that Jesus did NOT insult people's wrong views?

 

[S†ephen]

Ok, what do you want to do? Would you want to travel to China and try to fight abortion over there, where people are NOT free and where they do NOT in fact have a choice in the matter? Where you are NOT a citizen, and where you would be jailed or even killed for speaking your mind?

Or do you want to fight it here at home where you have a vote, a voice, an influence, and an opportunity to do something? I believe you wouldn't be here fighting for and defending Ron Paul as a candidate if you hadn't already made your choice between here and China.

THANK YOU! You see how absurd this has gotten? It's just absurd to say Ron is pro abortion state by state. He is following Constitutional bounds and fighting abortion the best he can under our constitution. The same as you are fighting abortion here the best you can given your circumstances. It doesn't mean that you're pro abortion, it means you are being practical and consistent.

 

[PKevman]

Anyone with a rational mind would see that to liken Ron Paul's position on letting states choose to abort or not to abort to China is a weak argument.

Ron Paul is running for the President of the UNITED States of America. That's all 50 states.

As president, he would have equal influence over all 50 states.

None of us have the same influence, pull, vote, or voice in China that we do no matter WHICH of the 50United States we are in.

I will repeat this until it is acknowledged. That it continues to get ignored is further evidence that those who are ignoring it are desparately clinging to a bad argument that they think bolsters their view on politics and government.

 

[S†ephen]

You cut out the first part of my quote.

Because it was your view. That was all. No insults, no jabs.

The second part was vindictive and unnecessary.

You only lower yourself to his level when you do that.

I managed to make him mad enough without flinging an insult.

 

[S†ephen]

Anyone with a rational mind would see that to liken Ron Paul's position on letting states choose to abort or not to abort to China is a weak argument.

Ron Paul is running for the President of the UNITED States of America. That's all 50 states.

As president, he would have equal influence over all 50 states.

None of us have the same influence, pull, vote, or voice in China that we do no matter WHICH of the 50United States we are in.

I will repeat this until it is acknowledged. That it continues to get ignored is further evidence that those who are ignoring it are desparately clinging to a bad argument that they think bolsters their view on politics and government.

Wrong! he is bound Constitutionally the same as you are bound geographically. It is a perfectly rational argument. To use his influence to outlaw abortion would be the wrong way to accomplish the right thing.

 

[PKevman]

He is following Constitutional bounds and fighting abortion the best he can under our constitution.

Then why wouldn't he fight for "Do not murder" to be a law within our Union?

In the constitution, Congress is given the power to execute the laws of the Union. So if "Do not murder" were made national law for every state in the Union, the president and the congress would be bound to enforce that law.

 

[S†ephen]

In the constitution, Congress is given the power to execute the laws of the Union.

Where. Show me please.

 

[PKevman]

Stephen Dale, of the president, the constitution says:

he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Once again, the principle is very simple. If "Do not murder" were the binding law for the United States of America, there would be NO PROBLEM with the President assuring that law was faithfully executed.

 

[PKevman]

Where. Show me please.

Sure:

Article 1 Section 8:


Section 8 - Powers Granted to Congress

Scan down and you will find:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

 

[S†ephen]

Then why wouldn't he fight for "Do not murder" to be a law within our Union?

In the constitution, Congress is given the power to execute the laws of the Union. So if "Do not murder" were made national law for every state in the Union, the president and the congress would be bound to enforce that law.

What is the union? The union is the collection of states. And section 8, the section you're referring to gives congress the power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union. So, Congress has permission to call forth the militia to enforce the laws of individual states. It can't make a national law on its own then enforce it.

 

[PKevman]

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided [that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and] that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

This gives the Congress the right to make a constitutional amendment abolishing abortion. The President has the authority to:

recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper

I want a President who will think "Do not murder" is proper, and will use all of his authority to fight for a constitutional ammendment BANNING abortion!

 

[PKevman]

Too bad we cannot follow Ireland's example with the 8th Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. Do you know about that one Stephen Dale?

 

[Granite]

Aren't you being a hypocrite again Granite? Wasn't it you that said I should address YOU if i had anything to say to you?

The statements I made were general statements about Satanists. You certainly made no attempts to discuss the statements themselves, but then you turn around and do what you said I was doing. Figures.

I will give you this. You are right. I have stubbornly stuck my heels in and you will NEVER see me surrender on the fundamental principle of DO NOT MURDER. No exceptions. No place, and at no time will I approve of or support murder or anyone who would support murder.

It doesn't matter to me what anyone says. Abortion is murder, and should be against the law anywhere and everywhere.

Yes, INCLUDING CHINA Stephen!

The statements were pointless and contributed nothing to this thread, and seemed a curious waste of your time (and everyone else's, for that matter).

You're being an emotional knee jerk reactionary at this stage and you've done nothing more than appeal to situational ethics to support broader federal power. Once again, I do not expect someone as infatuated with his own rhetoric as you are to ever understand the problem with this.

The means you'd use--or fantasize about--to end abortion are temporary, would fix nothing, and are a carte blanche for greater government control. Cute. Real cute.

You've turned what could have been a real interesting discussion into the Pastor Kevin Show, and that's an incredible bore. This entire thread got run into the ground the second you and other people here decided a rational discussion wasn't possible. This is not the attitude the pro-life movement needs amongst pro-lifers, and it's exactly this kind of garbage that certain zealots thrive on.

 

[PKevman]

I managed to make him mad enough without flinging an insult.

You made him mad when you put "Christian" on your profile.

Hey you might want to watch out for THIS thread. :chuckle:

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Abortion has never ceased being the topic, and neither has our position ceased to be DO NOT MURDER! To say that those who are against Ron Paul and who do not believe his ideas are the answer do not care about truth is idiotic at best. Your attempt to use emotionalism to win an argument has fallen just as flat as your attempt to label a good and Godly man as a liar.

I labeled no one. I pointed out that Bob Enyart calls Ron Paul a "secular humanist". That is a slanderous lie, for about the third time. And Ron Paul as well as myself believe in not murdering. And some here have made it more than clear that they are nor interested in truth. Emotionalism? My wife would tell you I'm incapable. Have any examples where I have displayed "emotionalism"?

It's always going to seem that way when you agree with someone idealogically. However, he would be the first to tell you that we have answered his points and rebuttals with points and rebuttals of our own. I've known the young fella practically his whole life, and I know he's a smart guy. I'd just like to win him and his dad (who are some of my favorite people in the world) out of those views. You aren't helping in that endeavor, but the good news is they are smart guys. You're only trying to poison the well.

Their views are correct. "Winning" them out of what is right would be wrong. Your opinions on much of this are noble and I used to think much the same way. Studying the founding fathers and the their documents, especially in the light of scripture, is what brings one to our "views". Your good friends are on the right track.

Have you no shame? All you are trying to do is flatter him. The truth is that you're wrong, you've been shown how wrong you are, and you are relying on a young teenage boy to do what you cannot because of how horribly wrong you are.

You are joking right? And talk about emotionalism. Oh my.
It was a compliment where one was due. And my arguments, in case you had not noticed, are mostly centered around Ron Paul and his obvious pro-life position.
No one has shown how wrong I am about the subject. That is your desire I'm sure, but the subject is Ron Paul being or not being pro-life.

The only thing you have attempted to show is that you desire a dictator to do the "right thing" the wrong way. We have continually had to drag the discussion back into the context of the American representative system.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Abortion is murder, and it's wrong and should be against the law in every state. That is the standard that needs to be applied unilaterally. I care not what you think politically if you cannot agree with that.

And that is why a return to pre 1973 constitutional federalism is the answer as prescribed by our system of government before the court overstepped their constitutional limits. One more time, it is legal in every state right now because of the federal government ignoring the constitution and the public not knowing any better.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

It boils down to helpless and innocent people being deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Abortion is murder and "Do not murder" needs to be binding law for every state, every territory, and every province that would want to be considered a part of the United States of America.

and in the United States of America, this is done at the state level like every form of murder. You federal government has already proven it's inability to handle this properly, how difficult is this to understand?

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Anyone with a rational mind would see that to liken Ron Paul's position on letting states choose to abort or not to abort to China is a weak argument.

Ron Paul is running for the President of the UNITED States of America. That's all 50 states.

As president, he would have equal influence over all 50 states.

None of us have the same influence, pull, vote, or voice in China that we do no matter WHICH of the 50United States we are in.

I will repeat this until it is acknowledged. That it continues to get ignored is further evidence that those who are ignoring it are desparately clinging to a bad argument that they think bolsters their view on politics and government.

It is not a "view" it is a fact. The president will not have the power you are implying here. He will be commander and chief of the military but not the people.

The abortion issue is only here due to a Judiciary out of control and a legislature that has never had the guts to reel it back (aside from Paul's legislation). Ron Paul will do this, but he will do it constitutionally period. That is the fact. The presidency you hope for cannot exist in America. A president powerful enough to make the states and the people do what is right. It would be nice if one position could be trusted with that kind of power but as the founders knew from history, no one can be given that power. That is what you are wishing for. Thank God it has not happened because once your pro-life president leaves office and a Hillary, or whomever, came in there would be nothing from stopping them from changing to another nationwide legalization of unborn murdering. With that kind of power, what would keep such a "president" from claiming permanent residence in the White House? This actually happens in other countries. It must not happen here, no matter how good the intentions. It was a balance of power for a reason.
Abortion must be stopped the right way, and some kind of fantasy limited dictatorship is not the answer.