Thanks Bob

[PatriotBeliever]

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



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!

Constitutional amendment would be great, but it requires a super majority of both houses of congress and a super majority of the states. So again, the states have to approve the power you speak of. And amendment would be slow to say the least. Sanctity of Life Act takes effect as soon as it is passed. States could then outlaw it. And an amendment could still be sought while the states are allowed to outlaw it.

 

[Granite]

Constitutional amendment would be great, but it requires a super majority of both houses of congress and a super majority of the states. So again, the states have to approve the power you speak of. And amendment would be slow to say the least. Sanctity of Life Act takes effect as soon as it is passed. States could then outlaw it. And an amendment could still be sought while the states are allowed to outlaw it.

I don't think Kevin understands how the process of amending the constitution actually works.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

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?

Yes it would be good, but again it's an amendment.

...and it says the same thing that the Sanctity of Life Act but in weaker terms with it's use of words like "unborn". Kinda vague and thus the right tot lifers there want another amendment, which will probably not happen.

 

[S†ephen]

Constitutional amendment would be great, but it requires a super majority of both houses of congress and a super majority of the states. So again, the states have to approve the power you speak of. And amendment would be slow to say the least. Sanctity of Life Act takes effect as soon as it is passed. States could then outlaw it. And an amendment could still be sought while the states are allowed to outlaw it.

Good truthful post.

 

[sopwith21]

For the precious few who actually want to know anything about Ron Paul, here is one Baptist's view.

 

[sopwith21]

Satanic forms of government

Redundant phrase.

Government has been given to Satan. It belongs to him (Matt 4:5-7). It does his killing, his stealing and his bidding on earth. It is his first, best and primary tool for all his work. "Satanic form" of government is redundant. There is no other form. If you want to see Satan, in person, face to face, go to your local courtroom or state house. He'll smile and wave at you. Most Christians will smile and wave back, willingly ignorant of their personal, intimate alliance with Satan himself.

Christians pretend as if they look to God to supply their needs, but when it comes to church licensing they get it from Satan. When they need protection from the latest scare tactic, the ask Satan to provide it. When they need financial help, they ask Satan to steal it from their neighbors and give it to them. When they want to travel, they ask Satan for permission and the proper papers.

Those who want government to supply their needs are Christian in name only. The government belongs to Satan. It was given to him. That is one of the few things on which Jesus and Satan clearly agreed.

 

[sopwith21]

CLAIMING to be a born again Christian does not make someone a born again Christian.

Claiming that someone is a pro-abortion secular humanist does not make someone a pro-abortion secular humanist.

 

[sopwith21]

No place, and at no time will I approve of or support murder or anyone who would support murder.

Do you support the aggressive invasion of a nation that did not attack and had no will or capacity to attack us; an invasion that is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis who wanted nothing more than to be left alone?

I believe that taking a life for any reason other than biblical capital punishment or self defense is murder. If you believe that, too, then I suggest we apply that same standard in all areas.

 

[PKevman]

Do you support the aggressive invasion of a nation that did not attack and had no will or capacity to attack us; an invasion that is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis who wanted nothing more than to be left alone?

I believe that taking a life for any reason other than biblical capital punishment or self defense is murder. If you believe that, too, then I suggest we apply that same standard in all areas.

Do you know that your own son completely annihilated this argument, and I'm not sure he even realized it?

But I'll ask YOU a question and see how you answer:

If your next door neighbor is beating his 2 year old to death with a baseball bat is it right for you to apply force to stop him? Or would you be interefering with his rights? Would you be willing to give your life or fight him to the death to stop him from killing his 2 year old child? Remember that he has NO WILL OR DESIRE TO ATTACK YOU!

Interested in your answer, and hope you will remove political considerations from the equation when you answer. It's not a trap question, it's a worldview question.

 

[S†ephen]

Do you know that your own son completely annihilated this argument, and I'm not sure he even realized it?

That is a direct twisting of what I said and you asked me the question TELLING ME you would not use it in a political context.

The argument is totally valid Mr. K and this post is an upsetting perversion of what I said.

 

[PKevman]

I believe that taking a life for any reason other than biblical capital punishment or self defense is murder.

Do you really? Self defense? What if someone is attacking your wife and kids? That's not self defense, and they aren't attacking YOU!

What if they are attacking myself and my family? Would you defend us to the point of giving your life? I would do that for you and your family unequivocably. I would also do it for the stranger next door if he was innocent and being attacked. I would do it for the innocent 2 year old next door if his dad was beating him to death with a baseball bat!

 

[PKevman]

That is a direct twisting of what I said and you asked me the question TELLING ME you would not use it in a political context.

The argument is totally valid Mr. K and this post is an upsetting perversion of what I said.

And I'm asking your dad to remove the political considerations as well. The MORAL PRINCIPLES are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than the political ones.

Politics is earthly, temporary. Worldviews affect far more than politics. They affect the eternal soul.

I didn't say I wouldn't USE it in a political context. I asked you to consider the question MINUS political considerations! Why would your answer change when politics comes into the equation? Is it any less wrong to stop your neighbor from brutally murdering his 2 year old?

 

[sopwith21]

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.

China is a member of the United Nations and holds a permanent seat on the Security Council. The UN is centered in New York and it is just as easy for you to call NY or go to NY as it is to call or travel to DC.

It is true that you cannot elect anyone in China. However, it is also true that you cannot elect even a single Supreme Court justice. But you do, in fact, have the opportunity to try and outlaw abortion on a far wider, international basis. In fact, it could be argued that your individual influence with the UN is actually greater because they receive very little direct contact from individual citizens, while the federal government is drowning in tens of thousands of calls each day.

Your ability to influence China via the UN is only marginally less than your ability to influence the Supreme Court via the federal government with your 1 in 300 million vote.

The US Supreme Court justices are appointed by the very same president who also appoints our ambassadors, yet you never concern yourself with finding out who Alan Keyes would appoint to this position... even though the ambassador he appoints to the UN could help stop abortion in China and around the world.

You do, in fact, have an opportunity to fight abortion worldwide yet you make no attempt to do so. By your own standard this makes you pro abortion country by country and guilty of the same thing for which you condemn Ron Paul.

 

[PKevman]

If you saw your neighbor repeatedly beating his 2 year old child with a club, would you be RIGHT to use FORCE to stop him from doing so? Please answer the question without regard to the political issues.

Of Course. I say this with absolutely no regard to political issues.

And you were right. Because you have a moral compass given to you by the Holy Spirit, and He has revealed to you the truth when the worthless by comparison subject of politics is removed from the equation!

Now if you apply that same answer to your political worldview, it changes your worldview on politics DYNAMICALLY!

 

[PKevman]

China is a member of the United Nations and holds a permanent seat on the Security Council. The UN is centered in New York and it is just as easy for you to call NY or go to NY as it is to call or travel to DC.

It is true that you cannot elect anyone in China. However, it is also true that you cannot elect even a single Supreme Court justice. But you do, in fact, have the opportunity to try and outlaw abortion on a far wider, international basis. In fact, it could be argued that your individual influence with the UN is actually greater because they receive very little direct contact from individual citizens, while the federal government is drowning in tens of thousands of calls each day.

Your ability to influence China via the UN is only marginally less than your ability to influence the Supreme Court via the federal government with your 1 in 300 million vote.

The US Supreme Court justices are appointed by the very same president who also appoints our ambassadors, yet you never concern yourself with finding out who Alan Keyes would appoint to this position... even though the ambassador he appoints to the UN could help stop abortion in China and around the world.

You do, in fact, have an opportunity to fight abortion worldwide yet you make no attempt to do so. By your own standard this makes you pro abortion country by country and guilty of the same thing for which you condemn Ron Paul.

Really? Am I running for president of the world? Am I running for president of the United Nations?

Your argument DOES NOT HOLD WATER!

 

[PKevman]

Ron Paul is running for president of the United States of America. He should support ONE LAW as it relates to murdering the innocent for every state in the United States of America! That law is DO NOT MURDER!

It's that simple.

If I had some way, some means of getting DO NOT MURDER passed as worldwide law I would be fighting tooth and nail to do so.

I could have sworn we were on the same side on this critical issue.

 

[sopwith21]

Do you really? Self defense? What if someone is attacking your wife and kids? That's not self defense, and they aren't attacking YOU!

Aha! You are hereby awarded one Technical Victory Point and heartily congratulated.

As a husband and father, I am the protector of my children and wife. My children, because they belong to their parents and my wife, because she delegates to me her right to protect herself. When I exercise this right to protect those who belong to me and have designated me as their protector, this cannot be accurately termed "self" defense. So you are absolutely correct.

And, of course, it makes absolutely no difference since Iraq does not belong to the United States and Iraq never delegated their self defense rights to you or me. And the 4 million Iraqis we have made homeless and the 1.2 million we've killed hardly consider us as their "protectors."

So back where we started. Killing innocent American babies is rejected as foul, evil murder, while killing innocent Iraqi adults is accepted as "collateral damage" on a holy crusade to bring them a democracy that they never asked for.

 

[sopwith21]

Really? Am I running for president of the world? Am I running for president of the United Nations?

Your argument DOES NOT HOLD WATER!

But you did not address the issue -

You could, in fact, push for a wider ban on abortion but you do not ... and that's apparently okay. When Ron Paul does not push for a wider ban on abortion, you condemn him.

That is a double standard.

 

[S†ephen]

And I'm asking your dad to remove the political considerations as well. The MORAL PRINCIPLES are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than the political ones.

Politics is earthly, temporary. Worldviews affect far more than politics. They affect the eternal soul.

I didn't say I wouldn't USE it in a political context. I asked you to consider the question MINUS political considerations! Why would your answer change when politics comes into the equation? Is it any less wrong to stop your neighbor from brutally murdering his 2 year old?

YES!!!!

Because in politics we aren't talking about good people.

We are talking about one parent beating up their kid going over and telling another parent to stop beating their kid.

It's hypocritical.

 

[sopwith21]

If I had some way, some means of getting DO NOT MURDER passed as worldwide law I would be fighting tooth and nail to do so.

You do have a means addressing abortion on a wider scale, yet you do not exercise it. Yet when others adopt the same principle, you condemn them.