Thanks Bob

[PKevman]

It is ridiculous to argue that the federal government can or will outlaw abortion when it did the absolute opposite, legalized it when it was already illegal, and has done everything it can to keep it legal and regulate the killing, regardless of which party has controlled any branch.

I agree that the Democommies and Retardicans are both wicked and Godless parties. We need some serious governmental reform in our country. The wicked pro-sin Libertarian party is not the answer.

There is no excuse for that and to keep thinking that is where abortion will be outlawed is to stick one's head in the sand.

No we need reform. We need Biblical Christians in office. Ones who have the courage to stand against their wicked parties if necessary to do what is right.

At least at the state level, we the people have a little influence over the legislatures where we could truly make it difficult in our states for the minority to legalize it.

Why do you think that the majority would get things right? The majority is going to hell. The majority rejects Jesus Christ. The majority approved of Bill Clinton and his wickedness. The majority is almost never right. Not at a federal level, and not at a state level.

Look at the culture of Rome. The majority approved of putting Christians to death. Heck the majority approved of putting CHRIST to death! The leaders continued to do it to appease the majority. This is the mindset that our country has fallen to. That whatever the people want is going to be right.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

The abortion issue is addressed about half way through this vidieo.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1l0e5Q2nGA

A very good interview. But keep it in context. You have to ignore about half of it to get the view many of are arguing here against Paul's position.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Abortion, you've said you'd like to make it impossible for the federal government to regulate abortion, which would, in effect, I guess, negate Roe v. Wade.

REP. RON PAUL: Yes, it would, because I think that's a state issue.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And then the states would be able to do away with abortion.

REP. RON PAUL: That's right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I mean, in effect, would you like to see abortion banned everywhere? Or what's your position on that?

REP. RON PAUL: I'd like to ban the federal government intervention in abortion. So since I've only been a federal official -- a congressman and then running for the presidency -- I say that we should keep our hands out of it.

And there are some extreme circumstances that I may not even endorse but I recognize that we're always arguing about it. The states, they should deal with it, because they're difficult. The more difficult an issue is, the more local the solution ought to be.

Once you get into a difficult problem, and then you have one monolithic answer, like Roe v. Wade, then you come up with a solution where the courts legislate and allow abortion to be done a minute before birth, and I can get paid for doing one of those, yet a girl, because she throws her baby away, we arrest her for murder. There's something awfully inconsistent about that.

And I have so much legal responsibility as a physician, if I do harm to the fetus, I can be sued. So the fetus has legal rights, but we should figure that out at the state level on the extreme circumstances and not legalize abortion at any time during pregnancy, which is essentially what the Supreme Court did.

Understand that the reality of Paul's position prior to 1973 proved effective. Since then the position many of you are taking has proven to be the problem.

Read the transcript, Ron Paul recognizes the problem where it exists currently, in the federal court's assumed jurisdiction and he is right in wanting to remove it from the court's jurisdiction. Why would you expect the fox to be even capable of guarding the hen house, especially if the fox has allowed hens to be killed decades?

 

[PatriotBeliever]

I agree that the Democommies and Retardicans are both wicked and Godless parties. We need some serious governmental reform in our country. The wicked pro-sin Libertarian party is not the answer.

I Agree

No we need reform. We need Biblical Christians in office. Ones who have the courage to stand against their wicked parties if necessary to do what is right.

I Agree

Why do you think that the majority would get things right? The majority is going to hell. The majority rejects Jesus Christ. The majority approved of Bill Clinton and his wickedness. The majority is almost never right. Not at a federal level, and not at a state level.

Look at the culture of Rome. The majority approved of putting Christians to death. Heck the majority approved of putting CHRIST to death! The leaders continued to do it to appease the majority. This is the mindset that our country has fallen to. That whatever the people want is going to be right.

I have not said the majority, I stated that at the state level, we can better influence this and just about every other issue. The federal government and legal abortion that exists now proves this, we have no representation due to many factors, the founders new this was a danger.

Your allusion to the cultural condition of Rome and America are correct, I agree. And that is the best case for why always trusting your government, especially the federal government to deal with issues like the right to life and liberty is misplaced. This is the take of the founding fathers as well and is why the constitution is very specific as to the authorities given to the federal government. All others are "reserved for the States respectively, or to the people"
One of the saddest facts is that when this is debated, people will eventually begin to blame the faultiness of our Constitution. Although it is by no means a perfect contract, it was the best ever devised and based on Christian principles and the Bible and it outlines the liberty we have in Christ and endowed to us by God. But it is readily ignored for the Christian silver bullet of legislated morality. And in that is the seed for prospects much scarier. We see where leaving it in the Supreme Courts hands will get us. One more time, say it with me, abortion is currently legal in all 50 States. The Sanctity of Life Act reverses the effects of Roe v. Wade now and allows States to owtlaw it once again, like Texas should have been allowed to do but the Roe ruling prevented. You will get more of the same.

My question to you is: IF a state decides NOT to ban abortion and continues to allow abortion to occur, WHAT do you think should happen? Does the federal government THEN have the right to stop it from killing unborn children within its borders?

Also, a follow up question to get you thinking along this line: IF a state passes a law that says it is ok to rape women or own black people, would you say that it is within its right to do this, and that the federal government should NOT interfere with what that state wants to do?

Apply your question to the present. Why not demand this right now? Should pro-life officials not be send in the troops right now to save unborn lives? Should those of you proposing these hypothetical scenarios not be demanding your government send in armed soldiers to stop abortions? What is the difference in them doing it against a federal ruling vs. against a state law? These scenarios creep into this debate as if there is no better reason, like constitutional restraint, not to mention that the problem is out of control federal power, something the founding fathers foresaw, not a state that wants to kill babies. Right now, in the real world, baby murder is legal in every state, according to your federal judiciary and enforced by every other part of your federal government. So we should be more concerned with what a state, or two, or half of them "might" do? This is completely inconsistent.

Stephen my friend, the states don't have the right or the authority to decide whether "Do not murder" is right or wrong. No government or subdivision of government has that right. The federal government should do everything within its power to stop the killing of unborn children. The states are a subdivision of the government, and have no right to decide this issue. It should be overturned and decided as a national law all at once.

Here we begin to understand some of the misconceptions we have been plagued with over generations of erosion, me included as I used to assume the same things. The states are not subdivisions of the federal government. State sovereignty still exists and is completely protected by the constitution. To think otherwise is why so many are confused about the sovereignty of each man and woman, which one carries naturally from the other. This is the very thing that you are endowed with by God himself. The association with the state and your federal government are agreements as laid out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, agreements between the federal government, the states and the people. To espouse otherwise is to venture consider the idea that the government owns the people, which is undeniably not the case.

Besides, if what you state, that no government or subdivision of government has right to decide whether do not murder is right or wrong, then what are we doing talking about the federal government doing what it already has done the opposite of? Again, we have legal abortion nationwide, right now.

 

[elected4ever]

The 14th amendment already recognizes the unborn as a person. So saying that in law is nothing new. Recognizing the viability of the life of the unborn is nothing new. Such facts are readily observable. It is the fact that a person and or life must be born in order to have viability in law.

We can recognize both person hood and life of the baby in the womb and that person and life in the womb has no more standing in the courts than your family dog. That is why the PBA act is such a travesty. It said absolutely nothing that was not true before it was pasted. It protects nothing. That person or life in the womb must be born to have standing in American law. The Ron Paul approach does nothing to secure the rights of the unborn. It codifies the present law in place and the lower state courts are still obligated to uphold the 14th amendment. It just removes judicial review of the lower court decisions. The baby must be born to to enjoy the protections of the court.


PS> Ron Paul has already stated that one size does not fit all and that he was opposed to a constitutional amendment that would give standing to the unborn a court of law. I cannot support this position.

 

[Granite]

E4E, since when was it the burden of the federal government to protect the rights of the unborn? By what mandate does the fed have the purpose of protecting individual rights?

 

[elected4ever]

E4E, since when was it the burden of the federal government to protect the rights of the unborn? By what mandate does the fed have the purpose of protecting individual rights?

The Federal government was established to defend the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure the blessings of liberty for all. The question is, should we extend those rights to to the unborn. The constitution does not at this time and I think it should.

 

[sopwith21]

I am not going to argue with you.

There is no argument to conduct. The constitution does not grant a right to abortion. If it does, post it here. You won't and you can't, and the 14th Amendment has as much to do with this topic as does the man on the moon.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

The 14th amendment already recognizes the unborn as a person. So saying that in law is nothing new. Recognizing the viability of the life of the unborn is nothing new. Such facts are readily observable. It is the fact that a person and or life must be born in order to have viability in law.

We can recognize both person hood and life of the baby in the womb and that person and life in the womb has no more standing in the courts than your family dog. That is why the PBA act is such a travesty. It said absolutely nothing that was not true before it was pasted. It protects nothing. That person or life in the womb must be born to have standing in American law. The Ron Paul approach does nothing to secure the rights of the unborn. It codifies the present law in place and the lower state courts are still obligated to uphold the 14th amendment. It just removes judicial review of the lower court decisions. The baby must be born to to enjoy the protections of the court.


PS> Ron Paul has already stated that one size does not fit all and that he was opposed to a constitutional amendment that would give standing to the unborn a court of law. I cannot support this position.

I agree with you 100% on the Partial Birth Abortion "ban" and the recent court ruling "upholding it", which Bob Enyart rightly calls a "manual". It is complete regulation. But nowhere in the PBA Act is there any language confirming in law when human life begins, according to law.

In the case of the Sanctity of Life Act, HR 2597, the very first declaration is "...The Congress finds that life exists from conception." and commences to legally declare that "human life" legally exists from conception regardless of condition, race etc. That "secures the rights of the unborn" which is reiterated several times within the bill. The bill only removes abortion from the jurisdiction from the Supreme Court because that is who created the fiat law legalizing abortion in the firs place after that.

Your "one size fits all" assertion is simplistic at best, but your claim that Ron Paul stated

that he was opposed to a constitutional amendment that would give standing to the unborn a court of law

is false. In fact he has stated his support for it...
from his 2003 paper "Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle" http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr060403b.htm

State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.

Also see video interview with David Brody on CBN: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/254048.aspx

No where does he state that he opposes an amendment, he actually has said on at least several occasions that that would be "o.k." or something to that effect. But where has he actually opposed an amendment? He is approaching it in the most effective manner by attacking the sickness at the root of the problem, the courts where it was twisted to begin with.

We pro-lifers have talked about it, stood on a sidewalk one hour every year about it, some have even been active at the abortionists facilities, what has it done? There are as many abortions today as there has ever been. Show any other active leader at the federal level that has introduced any solution towards actively removing the current legalized travesty. I know of only Ron Paul and his legislation (current) H.R. 2597 and H.R. 300. Know matter what you can list as flaws, they at least strike the current law of the land, Roe v. Wade.

It's election time and everyone wants to talk big on ending abortion but it's all rhetoric until they prove it. Only one person is doing anything within his constitutional power to actually end abortion as we know it, mandated by the court. Ron Paul

 

[sopwith21]

the states don't have the right or the authority to decide whether "Do not murder" is right or wrong. No government or subdivision of government has that right.

Then why do you continually ask them to make that very decision?

The states are a subdivision of the government

That is false. The states actually predate the existence of the federal government and have never been subdivisions of it.

My question to you is: IF a state decides NOT to ban abortion and continues to allow abortion to occur, WHAT do you think should happen?

Gee... that sounds strangely familiar. Isn't that precisely what is now happening with our failed, illegal strategy at the federal level? You are asking the wrong question. As long as we ask the wrong questions, we are guaranteed to get the wrong answers.

Does the federal government THEN have the right to stop it from killing unborn children within its borders?

The federal government has no rights whatsoever. Rights belong to individuals.

IF a state passes a law that says it is ok to rape women or own black people, would you say that it is within its right to do this

Stop trying to assign rights to governments. Governments do not have rights, individuals do.

There are Christians on this forum who are activists who risk arrest, and public contempt to stand outside abortion clinics and reach young ladies with the Gospel. They attend Pastor Bob's church among others. Would you say those Christians are among those you mention above?

If they are among those who support a failed, illegal attempt at getting the federal government to act outside its limited authority, yes. Good intentions are not a substitute for good actions. Their strategy has failed miserably, even by their own standards. Their dependency on the federal government is sinful and shameful. They are creating a federal monster that serves satan rather than God.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

The 14th amendment already recognizes the unborn as a person. So saying that in law is nothing new. Recognizing the viability of the life of the unborn is nothing new. Such facts are readily observable. It is the fact that a person and or life must be born in order to have viability in law.

I'm with sopwith21, not sure what your trying to say about the 14th amendment.

 

[sopwith21]

The wicked pro-sin Libertarian party is not the answer.

You cannot call libertarians "pro-sin" without calling Jesus "pro-sin."

Jesus gave people the freedom and liberty to make their own decisions. When he met the Samaritan woman with five husbands, he did not ask the government to outlaw her actions and assault her with armed state agents. He used peaceful persuasion and permitted her to make her own decision. Did that make Jesus "pro-sin?"

When Jesus spoke with the Pharisees, he did not try to pass legislation against their wickedness and make a new law to disband their party. He did not use armed government agents to kick their door in and arrest them. He used peaceful persuasion and allowed them the right to be wrong. Did that make Jesus "pro-sin?"

Libertarians are no more "pro-sin" than Jesus. They believe in using peaceful persuasion rather than government-sponsored violence. They believe in allowing people to make their own decisions before God. They act as Jesus acted.

Using government violence and threats to prevent people from making sinful decisions is un-Christ like. Jesus did not practice such violence. He stood against homosexuality, but he did not sponsor legislation to outlaw it... would you call Jesus "pro-homosexual?"

It is a national embarrassment that such tactics have infiltrated our churches and turned us into something that Jesus despised, and its time for Christians who support government force to take a long look in the mirror and ask if Jesus will say to them, "Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity... I never knew you.!"

 

[Granite]

The Federal government was established to defend the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure the blessings of liberty for all. The question is, should we extend those rights to to the unborn. The constitution does not at this time and I think it should.

Man is born entitled to such rights. Even the Declaration says as much. The federal government's role is to protect and provide national security and a national infrastructure, nothing more. To paraphrase an old wag, a government big enough to declare your personhood's big enough to take it away.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

sopwith21, careful, everyone is "pro-sin" compared to Jesus. But I understand your point. I must however point out, not to take from your example but to add to it, for others a key difference. Jesus lived in a dictatorial "democracy". We in America live in (what originally anyway) was a representative republic. In our unique system of government we have a completely different responsibility. God gives the rights, government recognizes those rights and man exercises them without intruding on anyone else's rights. If the government or any individual steps out of that recognized understanding of where rights originate, we are expected to right the problem. We the people are, to the point of abolishing it and starting over, remember the Declaration of Independence. Rome did not have this ideology or provision for it's people. Cesar was god, equal to the thousands that the government "allowed" it's people to worship.

 

[PKevman]

You cannot call libertarians "pro-sin" without calling Jesus "pro-sin."

Jesus gave people the freedom and liberty to make their own decisions. When he met the Samaritan woman with five husbands, he did not ask the government to outlaw her actions and assault her with armed state agents. He used peaceful persuasion and permitted her to make her own decision. Did that make Jesus "pro-sin?"

When Jesus spoke with the Pharisees, he did not try to pass legislation against their wickedness and make a new law to disband their party. He did not use armed government agents to kick their door in and arrest them. He used peaceful persuasion and allowed them the right to be wrong. Did that make Jesus "pro-sin?"

Libertarians are no more "pro-sin" than Jesus. They believe in using peaceful persuasion rather than government-sponsored violence. They believe in allowing people to make their own decisions before God. They act as Jesus acted.

Using government violence and threats to prevent people from making sinful decisions is un-Christ like. Jesus did not practice such violence. He stood against homosexuality, but he did not sponsor legislation to outlaw it... would you call Jesus "pro-homosexual?"

It is a national embarrassment that such tactics have infiltrated our churches and turned us into something that Jesus despised, and its time for Christians who support government force to take a long look in the mirror and ask if Jesus will say to them, "Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity... I never knew you.!"

Stephen, who gave the Mosaic law to Israel? Who is better able to determine what a Godly government should look like? God or man?

Is it your position then that Jesus did not support the death penalty for homosexuals? If so, can you provide the Scripture that explicitly states that Jesus supported the abolishment of the Mosaic Law during his earthly ministry?

I submit that you will find the opposite. Jesus supported and upheld the Law throughout His earthly ministry in Israel.

 

[PKevman]

My question to you is: IF a state decides NOT to ban abortion and continues to allow abortion to occur, WHAT do you think should happen?

Gee... that sounds strangely familiar. Isn't that precisely what is now happening with our failed, illegal strategy at the federal level? You are asking the wrong question. As long as we ask the wrong questions, we are guaranteed to get the wrong answers.

It's really not a wrong question. Let me ask you this, what should be the foundation of government? Do you remember when you asked me what I was looking for from a president and from our government? Do you remember what I said? Righteousness. I think that righteousness should be the foundation of the government, and that God gave us clear instructions how to build a righteous government in His Word. It has nothing to do with being by the people, of the people, and for the people. Because the people are sinful and wicked and will rebel against God and make clauses and provisions for their sins within the laws of the land. And that is what we have seen occur. I agree 100% that the government is flawed and wicked. I just believe the solution is a bit different than what you think it is. Getting men to repent and turn their hearts to God is what is going to save our country. And only that.

My position is that neither the state, NOR the federal government NOR THE PEOPLE should have the right to decide if "You shall not murder" is right or wrong. That is something that God has already decided and made clear. :think:

 

[Jefferson]

I think Sopwith21 needs a good introduction: He's an author, a sportscaster, and a man who is well known.

Hmmm. A well known sportscaster in my hometown. TV or radio?

 

[PKevman]

Hmmm. A well known sportscaster in my hometown. TV or radio?

He has done both. He primarly does work on ESPN2 broadcasting racing now.

 

[Nick M]

Nick, "authority is for those on top, in all areas"? Where does that stop for you? I know where the founding fathers stood, they had a "line in the sand". Do you? Where is it?
And exactly which other areas do you mean? Are you talking about privacy, religion, education, self defense, etc.? Who has the authority over these areas, I mean after God, of course. Can a president tell you where, when and how you can worship, send your kids to school, what you do in your home, whether or not and how you can protect yourself from an armed gunman?

Just wondering where it starts and stops for you.

What do you think government is for? After you answer that, we will move on.

Once the issue is back at the state level where it belongs, the state courts can also do it at any time... and many of them are waiting, right at this instant, to do so. The only thing stopping them are the Christians on this forum.

So you are pro-choice then? How sad you support the right of a state to murder unborn babies,if that state chooses.

 

[PKevman]

Using government violence and threats to prevent people from making sinful decisions is un-Christ like. Jesus did not practice such violence. He stood against homosexuality, but he did not sponsor legislation to outlaw it... would you call Jesus "pro-homosexual?"

I would not consider Jesus pro-homosexual. I would consider Him pro-God (He is God after all-a truth I know you believe) and pro-death penalty. Further God said:

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

And Jesus reiterated something that many Christians utterly miss:

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matt 5:17-19

That Jesus utterly and completely supported the Mosaic Law can be seen throughout the Gospels with even a casual reading. But here are further verses for you to consider:

45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.

When Jesus says "Depart from me" who is He saying it to?

23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7:23

 

[elected4ever]

There are so many side bar issues being brought up i just wonder where to begin.

First of all our opinion has nothing to do with what the law actually says. Government is actually a function of men and every government is by its nature a product of fallen man. So all government is flawed and to expect anything else outside the reign of Christ is just day dreaming and not dealing with reality. We must deal with what is here and now and the conditions that exist here and now.

Legally it does not matter if the unborn is alive or dead. Legally it does not matter if the unborn is a person or not.. What matters is the fact that the life has to be born and the person has to be born in order to have legal standing. Show me one place where the constitution says otherwise. That is the cold hard facts. Ron Paul's bill does nothing to change that. It does not matter according to law as to whether life exist or that the unborn is declared a person. There is no standing for the unborn in a court of law until the unborn life or the unborn person is born.