Ron Paul Holding Steady at 0%

You're the one who posted a thread about supposed low pollers who won, and leaders who lost :laugh:

I don't consider Rudy a serious candidate, as he long ago lost my support.

 

You may be the only person in these United States who doesn't consider Giuliani to be a serious candidate.

 

That other thread is not very accurate, and very misleading, some of those bills had othere things hidden in them, which is why Paul didn't vote for them for Constitutional reasons. Ron Paul is the only candidate running who has actually introduced legislation to negate Roe v. Wade, other candidates and politicians like GWB who claim to be pro-life use the "smoke screen" of the PBA ban as their pro-life flag, but the PBA ban will not save a single life, but simply tells the doctors to use a modified procedure to kill the baby.

 

That's a convenient way to hide a poor record.

Don't know what's misleading. The vote tallys are public record.

The Constitution guarantees a right to life. It's unfathomable for someone to vote pro-choice and say it's constitutional. It's logically inconsistent to offer "legislation to negate Roe v. Wade" and claim that isn't Federalism.

Look, Paul has some good things to say. But his inconsistency on life, immigration, etc. makes me wonder.

 

Could you provide a link to this legislation, that does this?

 

It is federalism. Ron Paul is a very strong supporter of federalism.

Main Entry: fed·er·al·ism Pronunciation: \ˈfe-d(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1787 1 aoften capitalized : the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units — compare centralism b: support or advocacy of this principle2capitalized : Federalist principles

- http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/federalism

 

http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/partial-birth-abortion-ban-ruling

http://www.covenantnews.com/enyart070424.htm

 

Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty

..........

 

I should've said centralism instead. It was late

 

Interesting opinion from this minister. However, I still see nothing in the legislation that suggests other ways to do the abortion as you asserted. You quoted the maj op, with commentary. That's not the text of the legislation.

I'm not defending the act. I'm just questioning your assertion.

 

The bill bans "partial-birth abortion," and it legally defines a partial-birth abortion as any abortion in which the baby is delivered "past the [baby's] navel . . . outside the body of the mother," OR "in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," BEFORE being killed. The complete official text of the bill being signed by President Bush, is here: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/partial_birth_abortion_Ban_act_final_language.htm


Sec.1531 instructs the "doctor" to make sure and kill the child before "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother". Or "in the case of breech presentation", make sure the child is killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother". (Actual text of SB S.3 in quotes)

With toothless restrictions like that, it is highly unlikely that even a single life will be saved. The only thing this will do is to make sure all the children are killed before the "entire fetal head" or the "fetal trunk past the navel" is showing. We waited thirty years for this?


I am glad that they did drop section 4 from the version that passed the Senate, it had this included in it:


"the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and such decision should not be overturned".

Im saddend by the fact that that 48 Republican Senators, including every one of them who ever told us they were pro-life, put their name on a bill that says; Roe v. Wade was "appropriate" and "should not be overturned".

It's a good thing that we had some wise members of the House, like Ron Paul, who took section 4 out of the final bill before it went to the President to be signed into law. Here is what Ron Paul had to say about The Partial Birth Abortion Ban when he voted for it:

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.


The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

 

Individuals who claim to be conservative, then turn right around and are Bush apologists, or would vote for Giuliani, McCain, or Romney have zero credibility.

 

It would seem the only polls that Paul does score high on are non-scientific and have no real system of accountabilty that allows multiple votes from individuals.

 

So who do you suggest we support for President next year?

 

I'm not suggesting anyone right now because it is too early in the cycle and not many are looking like they are worth supporting. Personally, i like Huckabee, but i'm not sure if i'm ready to support even him right now.

But i don't see what this has to do with my point which is Ron Paul's polling numbers...look at the major scientific polls done by polling groups; Ron Paul is at or near the bottom. But if you see an online poll or text poll that has no accountability (like you are voting on American Idol) Ron Paul is always on the top.
Am i wrong? If i am, show me a major poll by a professional pollster where Ron Paul is leading.

 

You are not wrong technically. The point I was trying to get across is that the three leaders for the Republican nomination (Giuliani, McCain, and Romney) have no credibility, and it is a given that no Democrat does. It would be a good thing for this country for someone to come out on top that at least has a shread of decency to him or her.

 

And with that i do agree.

 

I agree, too. We need someone who is consistently conservative. Maybe one will emerge.

 

JGrubbs, I don't share your opinion that this bill instructs doctors to find another way to commit infanticide. Could the language be better? Sure. The whole legislation could be better. And ergo, my criticism of people like Paul, et.al., who are good at sound bytes and website blurbs but not actual legislation.

If he, by his own admission, supposedly supports bills that are sometimes flawed, why does he not more consistently support pro-life legislation? That question still remains. No amount of double-speak can change that.

 

It's not just my opinion, may Pro-life experts share the same opinion, and any "baby butcher" can read the legislation and understand that he or she can still kill the babies as long as he doesn't deliver up to the navel first. Even Dr. Dobson is on the record as saying that he now believes the PBA ban will not save a single life.

Are you choosing to ignore the various pieces of legislation that Dr. Paul has introduced in Congress, like the one that defines human life as beginning at conception, or the one that would nullify Roe v. Wade? You simply found a handfull of legislation that you are using to accuse him of being pro-abortion, while ignoring his Pro-Life record.