By Dr. Ron Paul
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=152
....Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I have introduced the Taxpayer's Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.
The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at the time, at the expense of the rights of others.
Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues altogether....
The Immorality of Tax-Payer Funded Abortion
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Bro. Curtis, Jul 28, 2009.
Page 1 of 2
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
-
-
I shall keep an eye on HR 1233.
-
Bro Curtis,
That is an excellent article, and agree 100%. The only thing I would add is that who pays for abortion, (ie the taxpayer vs another instrument) is only the start. Stopping it is the ultimate goal regardless of who pays. I think sending the issue to the states would put a dent into it.
One has to wonder how long the Lord is going to put up with it, as it has continued unabated under both parties for 36 years. Thank the Lord that there is the rare politician like Ron Paul left amongst a band of thieves. (both parties) -
-
Forcing me to pay for killing Iraqis is also immoral. Bottom line is, if we don't like govt decisions we can vote them out.
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
That's a completely different issue. The constitution does allow congress to declare war, to protect our interests. None of the wars we are involved in now fit into this category, thanx to the bi-partisan decision to allow Bush, (as well as Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan & Clinton) to ignore it is the issue there. We did vote them out, I hear, yet we remain, even expanding into Pakistan now, with plans for Darfur, & other regions. I would think you'd be just as outraged at these, if you were being truthful.
Abortion funding is not the same thing. -
To the person who started the topic:confused on your stance
not to be preachy but here is a link
http://www.ontheissues.org/Brian_Schweitzer.htm
http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Brian_Schweitzer
The Issues
Schweitzer adheres to the Democratic Party line in supporting abortion rights and environmental regulation and opposing free-trade deals..(29)And he bucked the George W. Bush administration as much as any governor. When Bush pushed through the USA Patriot Act, expanding domestic spying powers, Schweitzer pardoned 78 Montanans who were arrested during World War I under a Patriot Act-forerunner, the national sedition act, simply for criticizing the federal government.(30) He also requested that Bush bring Montana National Guardsmen home from Iraq so they could fight summer forest fires.(29)
But Schweitzer is more conservative than his party’s rank-and-file on economic and social issues like gun control, the death penalty, lower taxes and balanced budgets.And he harbors an innate distrust of the federal government, pushing back against what he sees as an overly intrusive federal government.(29)
I accept that you voted for him and he could very well be the best man, my point is you and others are so over the top on the abortion issue, yet you seem to get a pass from those who are quick to use it as a hammer.
Why is that?? -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
I don't believe I am that nasty, I also don't believe you have seen me single out anyone on the abortion issue. Both parties have done little to stop this.The Chuck Baldwin vote would have taken care of that. I am against tax-payer funded abortion, but I never called anyone a "baby-killer". I think Palin is a good role model for the pro-life position, but McCain was more of the same.
As far as this....
-
I know nothing about the governor of Montana, but one thing for sure, if Bush was going to fight a war in Iraq, he should have authorized the proper strength of active duty personnel to fight the war, and not used the National Guard and Reserves as his main fighting force. That is not their purpose. -
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
I see. So you pick and choose which illegal wars you will support.
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
-
-
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
You should start the thread L.E. asked you to, so we coule discuss it, in ernest. If you really don't want to talk about the war, you shouldn't bring it up.
-
It's called deflecting the argument away from the real issue at hand. Folks are really good at that. Comparing the killing of US citizens within our borders to a war in a foreign land is just shameful.
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Page 1 of 2