Baldwin: Congressman Paul Right on Abortion Issue

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Sep 27, 2007.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    From Chuck Baldwin's column:

    "For example, pro-life congressmen such as Ron Paul of Texas are not "acceptable" to many conservative Christians, because Paul actually wants to honor his oath of office to "support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which means he is not prepared to cede to the federal government that which the Constitution has given to the states. This means that Paul understands that the proper way to handle the abortion issue is to pass a "Sanctity of Life" bill, which would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies (thereby giving them complete governmental protection under the law) and would exempt the issue from the jurisdiction of the Court. This would have the effect of immediately overturning Roe v. Wade and ending abortion-on-demand as we know it. However, not only did the entire Republican leadership in both houses of Congress and President George W. Bush not support Dr. Paul when he introduced such a bill, neither did the leaders of the Religious Right.

    In fact, as a whole, the Religious Right continues to ignore Ron Paul's candidacy, even though he would probably be the best friend that conservative Christians ever had in the White House. Alas, however, there seems to be a giant disconnect in the thinking of many conservative Christians as to the primacy of constitutional government and how it relates to religious liberty. As a result, many conservative Christians continue to support big government policies, when they are promulgated by Republicans."

    - www.vdare.com/baldwin/070925_giuliani.htm
     
  2. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great post, KenH.
     
  3. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, very good post. As I understand it, had this law passed, each state would decide the issue.
     
  4. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    And we would already be seeing an extremely drastic decrease in the number of abortions in this country.

    Yet, so many continue to push for their delusional dream of a constitutional amendment, which will never happen and only plays to the emotions of people, while containing no substance and no real chance of succeeding.

    So, Ron Paul is not pro-life because he wants to make an actual, real change right now, and others are pro-life simply because they claim to be while knowing full well that a constitutional amendment has as much chance to be passed as does rolling back the 15th Amendment.

    I submit that Ron Paul is actually the only true, pro-life candidate running for President.
     
  5. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Admittedly, he is brilliant at times, but his bent toward legalizing drugs, permanently poisons his candidacy. Libertarianism relies on man being good. Man is not good: Legalizing illegal drugs, thinking man will not abuse them, is folly. Another way to say it is, let man choose for himself his poison, and give him a broader choice. folly
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) Not true. Libertarianism is not based on theology. Our Founding Fathers recognized the evil that is in man and set up our system of government so that men in government could do the least amount of damage to personal freedom.

    2) It is not true that libertarians think that man will not abuse drugs, or sugar, or fat, etc. Libertarianism correctly advocates that it is none of the government's business what you place in your body.
     
  7. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Libertarianism relies on man being free. Conservatism relies on man being good. Albeit through govt regulation, but good nonetheless. Or did you forget that we're not the social conservatives?
     
  8. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    The issue of abortion should not be left to the states. The wholesale slaughter of unborn children is a crime against humanity that should not be given room for it anywhere in these United States. It is a horrific suggestion that any state in America should be allowed to do this. If this happens ever, the sacrificing of children at the alter of women's choice will be moved to the sacrificing children at the alter of the constitution. Let us as Christians be careful that we do not bow before the constitution instead of the one true and living God.

    Anyone who would give room for this to happen in any state is not truly pro-life.
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fine. Then using your definition I am not pro-life. That's fine by me.
     
  10. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294

    Such a bill would have my full support.

    Did the so called "leaders" (I recognize no one in such a role) of the "religious right" speak out against the bill, fail to support it, or actively work against it?
     
  11. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    100% agreed. To say this bill or Ron Paul is pro abortion because it gives the rights to states is flawed thinking for the following reasons.
    1. It greatly reduces abortions, more than any phoney Republican President or Congress has done. It is funny that it is only an issue at election time.

    2. We as Christians can fight within each state that allows abortion just like on the national level now. Lots of states will ban it right off the bat. It seems the battle will be much easier on a local level.


    Mr 2 Timothy 2:1-4, if you do not like the way the Constitution is written, you can either use your freedom in this nation to change it, or you are welcome to move to a country that has a different form of government.
     
  12. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
     
  13. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==I think Alan Keyes and Mike Huckabee are truly pro-life. The problem with Keyes, though I strongly support him, is that he is too low on the radar screen. Huckabee, though honest, is not far from Bush. I would submit that other than Keyes, Paul is the only TRUE CONSERVATIVE on the ticket.
     
  14. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Anyone who would support a status-quo candidate like Fred Thompson is not truly pro-life (see, two can play that game).

    Seriously though, Fred Thompson is Bush all over again (and I mean that). If Thompson were to get into office he would do about as much to end abortion as Bush has done (ie...very little). He would grow the size of government and spend more money we don't have to spend. But Thompson, like Bush, goes out and says the right things, pretends to be the right man, and Christians swarm to him like flies to raw meat. That is sad because it reflects a frightening lack of discerment in the modern Christian community (as does the popularity of Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, Paula White, and TD Jakes). When is the Church going to wake up and realize that we have been dupped by the Republican Party? When are we going to realize that we have been played, sold a bill of goods, and taken advantage of by these political liars in that party? These decievers go out, throw us a carrot or two, and we run after them. That is sad, and something the church should never be doing. We should demand much more than what we are getting. You want to get our votes? You must, and I mean must, have a plan that would end as many abortions as possible as soon as possible and we must see that you are serious about doing it. The US Constitution will never be ammended to ban abortion, the support is simply not there. However if abortion is given to the states, more than a few would ban it out right. That would cut out large numbers of abortions. Then we could start working on the other states. How? With the Gospel and with Education. The two together turn people pro-life real quick.

    I am tired of Christians who seem to think that the Federal Government is the answer to all of America's problems. Folks, the Federal Government cannot solve ANY of America's problems!!! If it could have eight years of Reagan and Bush would have done a lot to solve those problems. However things are worse now than ever. What does that mean? It means that the Federal Government is not the answer. Christians need to stop falling for the lie of "good" big government. There is no such thing as "good" big government. There is only BAD big government.
     
  15. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    There are a lot of reasons to criticize the President but the abortion issue isn't a legitimate complaint. When Clinton was in office he vetoed the Partial Birth abortion ban. The President signed it into law. He cannot make it go away all by himself. And it is unrealistic to think he could.

    I am curious how you have come to the conclusions you have about FT?
     
  16. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    And niether is RP.
     
  17. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's fine by me, also.
     
  18. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree 100% with your post. Maybe I did not state that well. The inference was made that both the bill and Ron Paul were pro abortion by the bill giving the power to allow or not allow abortion to the states.
     
  19. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    I liked Keyes before the whole Illinois Senate race thing.

    Huckabee's flaw, as with the rest of the field of Republican candidates, Dr. Paul excepted, is that they think a hawkish approach to war must be followed. Huckabee ruined himself for me during his go between with Dr. Paul that we must maintain the course in Iraq simply because the current administration has led us there. It worries me that he doesn't believe we should correct the mistakes that we make, but rather make greater mistakes on top of those to make the former mistakes seem like partial truths.

    As Dr. Paul said, when we make a mistake, as with this foreign policy, we should correct it, not stay the course just for the sake of saving face. How many men and women must die in order for America to save face? It is sad to me that Dr. Paul either seems to be the only Republican candidate who gets that, or is the only one brave enough to tell all of us that we made an error and it needs to be fixed. Surely the others realize, and maybe even agree with, what Dr. Paul is saying. I just don't think they have the guts to stand up against the pary leadership. They're more concerned with winning the nomination. Unfortunately, there is no way on earth (unless Hillary and Obama are caught on video together sacrificing African babies to a fifty foot tall, golden idol of Paris Hilton while chanting "We love Osama bin Laden and Adolf Hitler") that the Republican nominee is going to win the general election with the Iraq policy which they are all espousing. It's just not gonna happen. Gov. Huckabee says it's not about winning elections. My question is, then why are you running?

    In all my political science courses, I learned that everything else is secondary to getting elected. Why is that? Because if a politician does not get elected, then it doesn't matter what any of his ideas or beliefs are. He won't be able to implement them.

    That said, if you all really want an abortion amendment, a gay marriage amendment, etc, etc, you sure go about it in a peculiar way. Is the war in Iraq worth sacrificing all of those other beliefs and hopes for you all? You realize that the war is the reason the Republicans lost power last year. Without that war, the Democratic party was teetering. The Republicans could have had a super-majority this last Congress and passed so many of your pet projects. Yet, for the sake of an ill-planned, over-budget, occupancy in a country most Americans couldn't find on a black & white world map if it was highlighted in bright yellow with a blinking nameplate, you all have cost your own party any gains it had made in Congress and with the American people over the last 20 or so years.

    Congratulations on destroying the party we all fought so hard to build.
     
  20. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==I am glad Bush signed that however since partial birth abortion is not the major form of abortion and since it is something most people oppose, I don't see that as a brave move by Bush. He was playing it safe. He has done little to nothing to actually cut the number of abortions or end it all together.

    ==I have watched him. He is the typical fluff Republican candidate.
     

Share This Page

Loading...