S†ephen
New member
That is really the core of the argument. Paul is not pro choice and Enyart told a flat out lie. Paul is trying to present a different (more constitutional) system.
Ron Paul is pro-choice on abortion, state by state
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
That is really the core of the argument. Paul is not pro choice and Enyart told a flat out lie. Paul is trying to present a different (more constitutional) system.
Vine&FigTree
Member
I agree totally. Ron Paul is pro-life and pro-Constitution, and Bob Enyart seems to be anti-Ninth Commandment; he's guilty of slandering a good man's reputation.
http://KevinCraig.us/enyart-paul.htm
S†ephen
New member
Ron Paul violates 5th and 14th amendments, undermines Constitution
Ron Paul violates 5th and 14th amendments, undermines Constitution
On today's BEL radio show, I read from the post of a Libertarian Party candidate running for a U.S. House seat in Missouri who criticized me for exposing Ron Paul as being pro-choice, state by state.
Like Paul (and like John Kerry, etc.), many of his supporters here appear to be personally against abortion, but willing to allow the states to systematically murder innocent children. Unlike Kerry, a major claim of Paul's (and his supporters') is that he will uphold the Constitution. Pro-lifers around the country are now exposing even this as false. To get the vote of conservative Christians, Ron Paul uses rhetoric referring to abortion as murder, and giving lip service to the right to life of the fetus, claiming that he believes that a fetus is not just tissue, but a living human being. However, it turns out this represents his "personal view." When it comes to law, Paul states that the federal government should tolerate any state that legalizes abortion. Of course, the Constitution forbids such genocidal apathy. The federal government has the obligation to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
And the Fifth Amendment:
A perverse official could deny that a black person or a child, is a person. But supposedly, Ron Paul, as in his own Sanctity of Life bills, would have the federal government declare that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." And then in the most obvious hypocrisy against both God's law and even the Constitution, Ron Paul argues, and as head of the Executive branch he would put into law:
Creep.
-Bob Enyart
(At KGOV.com, we expose the liberal in the conservative!)
Ron Paul violates 5th and 14th amendments, undermines Constitution
On today's BEL radio show, I read from the post of a Libertarian Party candidate running for a U.S. House seat in Missouri who criticized me for exposing Ron Paul as being pro-choice, state by state.
Like Paul (and like John Kerry, etc.), many of his supporters here appear to be personally against abortion, but willing to allow the states to systematically murder innocent children. Unlike Kerry, a major claim of Paul's (and his supporters') is that he will uphold the Constitution. Pro-lifers around the country are now exposing even this as false. To get the vote of conservative Christians, Ron Paul uses rhetoric referring to abortion as murder, and giving lip service to the right to life of the fetus, claiming that he believes that a fetus is not just tissue, but a living human being. However, it turns out this represents his "personal view." When it comes to law, Paul states that the federal government should tolerate any state that legalizes abortion. Of course, the Constitution forbids such genocidal apathy. The federal government has the obligation to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
And the Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
A perverse official could deny that a black person or a child, is a person. But supposedly, Ron Paul, as in his own Sanctity of Life bills, would have the federal government declare that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." And then in the most obvious hypocrisy against both God's law and even the Constitution, Ron Paul argues, and as head of the Executive branch he would put into law:
"any State has the right to deprive any unborn person of life, for any reason, and by my own hypocritical oath as a doctor, and now by my pledge as a presidential candidate, I will not enforce the 5th or 14th amendments of the very constitution I claim to support, because my lust for power supersedes any other commitment I claim, whether to our man-made constitution or to God's command, Do not murder." -Ron Paul (on Truth Serum)
Creep.
-Bob Enyart
(At KGOV.com, we expose the liberal in the conservative!)
Does Ron Paul believe the states should choose whether or not to outlaw abortion.
..nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Wow, think about how far the supreme court has strayed to deny the states right to protect the unborn.
Wow, think about how far the supreme court has strayed to deny the states right to protect the unborn.
It's not an issue of "rights." It's an issue of the Constitution saying it's illegal for anyone, state or federal, to abort. The Constitution doesn't give states the right to protect the unborn. It says that no one has the right to kill the unborn. There's a difference.
No it wouldn't. It specifically allows the states to choose for themselves, and disallows the federal government to stop them from doing either. If this bill is enacted, and a state decides not to outlaw abortion, then no one will have the authority to stop them.
Even if I don't agree 100% with how Ron Paul has chosen to define the issue, I will still vote for him because I think he can do much to break the structure of corruption and immorality in the current system, that I see both the left and right as being just as much a part of.
Yes it does. The problem is that evil people wanted to define the unborn as not being people, just like they used to define blacks as not being people.
CRASH
TOL Subscriber
Right here;
..nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In the 5th and 14th amendments.
The process of childbirth and pregnancy wasn't visible back then, so knowledge of prenatal development was really meager. It is easy to deny the personhood of the zygote of the embryo in its early stages because it is tiny and not visible.
Like I said, the constitution didn't go out of its way to define the unborn as people, probably because the didn't foresee that abortion would become such an enormous issue.
Like I said, the constitution didn't go out of its way to define the unborn as people, probably because the didn't foresee that abortion would become such an enormous issue.
I am very pro-life.
From 2002 and 2003 I was actually part of a ministry that visited many hundreds of college campuses and highschools spreading the prolife message. I have confronted and talked to THOUSANDS of people about it, despite being attacked, mocked, and arrested. The issue means a lot to me.
From 2002 and 2003 I was actually part of a ministry that visited many hundreds of college campuses and highschools spreading the prolife message. I have confronted and talked to THOUSANDS of people about it, despite being attacked, mocked, and arrested. The issue means a lot to me.
If it means that much to you, why are you against someone making a law that makes it illegal, across the board, and doesn't allow each state to choose for itself?
What would be so wrong with a Constitutional amendment that defined the unborn as people from the moment of fertilization?
What would be so wrong with a Constitutional amendment that defined the unborn as people from the moment of fertilization?
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
The Federal Government was delegated certain and specific powers and duties under The Constitution (Articles I-IV). All other powers, rights and duties are reserved to the States or the People (10th Amendment).
The Federal Government was delegated certain and specific powers and duties under The Constitution (Articles I-IV). All other powers, rights and duties are reserved to the States or the People (10th Amendment).