The Only Pro-life Candidate

[misereremi]

(I agree with your points Aloysius. A Sanctity of Life Act? That's just unheard of these sides. IF ONLY we had Dr Ron Paul running for Prime Minister! That gentleman makes a lot of sense to me. )

[dairygirl4u2c]

an act is be more political than anything. not that that's bad. i suppose a const amendment would simply die and perhaps not draw much fan fare. a passed law though again would draw attention. it'd probably be enjoined within hours of being passed by a circuit court.

it does give the USSC something to fight about, but it's clear that if precedent is followed, that the law would fast die.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]There is only one thing that really bugged me about Ron Paul's supposedly extreme Pro-Life position.
I was watching the Republican Presidential Debates and a question about abortion came up from a YouTube question:[/size]
[quote name='Youtube Question']In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with, and what should her punishment be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?[/quote]
[size=1]So Ron Paul gives his answer where he states that he believes each state should decide the penalty by themselves, but he didnt really answer the question as to the womens punishment. So the host asks again:

COOPER: Should a woman be charged with a crime?

PAUL: I don't personally think so. I'm an O.B. doctor, and I practiced medicine for 30 years, and I of course never saw one time when a medically necessary abortion had to be done.




?????????????????????? You dont think so??????????????????????????


So the girl who asked the question (who is a liberal) posted another video later on responding saying she figured that type of answer would come about.
She called in inconsistent and didnt understand why the women wouldnt be charged. Its not like doctors go out ASKING door to door if a woman wants an abortion...the women go to the doctor.
Its as much the woman's fault as it is the doctor's (though it is true the woman its the one PHYSICALLY doing the killing.)

But I agreed with her. It IS inconsistent to be so pro-life, yet when faced with the question of penalty, the women can get off scott free??
Its murder...doesnt matter if your the doctor or the mother. You kill the baby, you are a murderer.
Ron Paul disappointed me.
[/size]

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1430862' date='Dec 7 2007, 07:42 PM']ron pauls constituional stuff like i said i often a cop out. it's his interpretation of it usually.

the right to bear arms shouldn't be impied to say assualt rifles and murder weopons should be allowed as ron paul espouses. for one, they wouldn't have thought about murder weopons, and even if it was around then, would they be expected to say arms only for hunting and self defense and king of england and your own etc etc. is ron paul putting the burden on congress to make an encyclopedia of the constitution? be reasonable. yet a clueless conservative would say "yeehuck, it says ther that guns b allowed" (ron paul also says allowing murder weopons wouldn't change anything because they're already freely accessible. but, this is rationalization, because it surely does prevent wide spead use of them, even if not completely preventing)[/quote]
Actually, it's the gun-control liberals who "re-interpret" the Second Amendment to mean other than what it says.
"The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." - It's pretty straightforward.

Your spiel about "murder weapons" makes no sense. Guns could be used as murder weapons back then, just as they can now. (And a lot of things other than guns can be used as murder weapons too, of course). Murder itself was and is illegal, and has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. And if a weapon can be used for self-defense or for killing deer or bear, obviously it is capable of being used for murder. The framers of the Constitution were not too dumb to have thought of that!

And the Second Amendment begins: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ."
A militia was a group of free citizens bearing arms who could be called on to fight an attacker - think the Minutemen.
This means obviously, that the people have the right to keep and bear arms that can be used to fight off a military agressor - such as an army, or terrorists.
Of course, in the 18th century, military muskets were not substantially different from the weapons used for hunting, but the reference to the militia makes it clear that it is not just daddy's huntin' rifle that is being protected. It's obviously referring to weapons that can be used to repel an armed military aggressor, which in todays world would, of course, include military assault rifles.

The right to hunt was never an issue at the time, and the framers would not have made the second amendment to the constitution simply to deal with hunting rights. (For most of the people living on farms and on the wilderness frontier, hunting arms would be an unquestioned necessity, and PETA and the animal-rights crowd did not yet exist).

But what the heck do I know - I'm just a "clueless conservative."

Edited December 11, 2007 by Socrates

[Norseman82]

[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1432667' date='Dec 10 2007, 10:09 PM'][size=1]There is only one thing that really bugged me about Ron Paul's supposedly extreme Pro-Life position.
I was watching the Republican Presidential Debates and a question about abortion came up from a YouTube question:[/size]

[size=1]So Ron Paul gives his answer where he states that he believes each state should decide the penalty by themselves, but he didnt really answer the question as to the womens punishment. So the host asks again:

COOPER: Should a woman be charged with a crime?

PAUL: I don't personally think so. I'm an O.B. doctor, and I practiced medicine for 30 years, and I of course never saw one time when a medically necessary abortion had to be done.
?????????????????????? You dont think so??????????????????????????
So the girl who asked the question (who is a liberal) posted another video later on responding saying she figured that type of answer would come about.
She called in inconsistent and didnt understand why the women wouldnt be charged. Its not like doctors go out ASKING door to door if a woman wants an abortion...the women go to the doctor.
Its as much the woman's fault as it is the doctor's (though it is true the woman its the one PHYSICALLY doing the killing.)

But I agreed with her. It IS inconsistent to be so pro-life, yet when faced with the question of penalty, the women can get off scott free??
Its murder...doesnt matter if your the doctor or the mother. You kill the baby, you are a murderer.
Ron Paul disappointed me.
[/size][/quote]

From what I understand, prior to Roe, the big punishment was reserved for the "doctors", not the women, if you are looking for legal precedent.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Your spiel about "murder weapons" makes no sense. Guns could be used as murder weapons back then, just as they can now. (And a lot of things other than guns can be used as murder weapons too, of course). Murder itself was and is illegal, and has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. And if a weapon can be used for self-defense or for killing deer or bear, obviously it is capable of being used for murder. The framers of the Constitution were not too dumb to have thought of that![/quote]

surely they intended that people have murder weopons. you misinterpret my clear meaning. if you put yourself in the framers shoes... what would you say if you wanted to protect gun rights but in the back of your mind wasn't intent on mass murder weopons? you'd still say what they said. this is because they weren't trying to make an encyclopdeia or be defining everything. would you expect them to say "right to bear arms for hunting king of england self defense but not for mass murder" i don't think you'd expect that, it's putting an undue burden on the framers to make an encyclopedia out of it, which is not what the const is intended to do. what i just said as per uses of guns etc is what i could think of, there's surely other things that should be considered, showing they too wouldn't be expected to htink of it all.

you do have a good point about guns and militias. but anyway, if you give the reading a natural intent perspective, assault rifles would not have been included. especially if we consider they did not know of them. the burden should not be on the person advocating assault rifles to have the constititon clarified. as a policy argument, if we're going to change the const on policy, i'd say no one needs an assault rifle and a regular gun is sufficient as the USA is pretty safe, and if we decide we're not then we can change it.

also, by your logic, a mass murderer should have access to assault rifles, afterall.... that's what the constiatuion "says". this is just an other example of a nuance i hand't thought of until i edited it. these things are not things they'd think of. do you advocate murderers who are released having access to mass murder weopons?

(plus and everyone knows they made it vaque enought that people'd agree in theory and have to have it settled later, that's how laws in general are made. and especially something like the constitution. plus the bill of rights was an afterthought when they wrote the const, as they thought fundamental rights were clear, but they thought they should put some fundamental rights down)

i think it's also important that when congress makes laws, hte states are represented. it's true we have to protect minority interests in the state, but if it's a reasonable interpretation, which is what i've been pointing out i think and what you have too, then congress should be deferred to, rational basis review the court calls it. after all, the truest conservative position would say the judiciary shouldn't be the one saying what things mean and legislating, it should be the state by their representatives, when it's within reason and reasonably disputable.

Edited December 11, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

...

Edited December 11, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'd also say a well regulated militia. regulated. those in reserves like a militia can pass a not-psycho test and have the guns.

also, where would you draw the line for bearing arms? are gernade launchers ok? atomic weopons in gun form? how would you draw the line?
i can see as reasonable interpretation an assault rifle, but i wonder where you draw the line for other mass murder weopons.

edit:
[quote]the burden should not be on the person advocating assault rifles to have the constititon clarified.[/quote] that should be minus the "not".

Edited December 11, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[CrossCuT]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1432701' date='Dec 10 2007, 11:24 PM']From what I understand, prior to Roe, the big punishment was reserved for the "doctors", not the women, if you are looking for legal precedent.[/quote]
[size=1]Well I dunno.
I was hoping he'd say something about how it is MURDER and anyone who commits or aids in murder should be punished.
But I guess since the way the question was asked, he didnt have to say that. BUT STILL!

"I dont personally think so..."




Why is it so hard to choose?
[/size]

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1432702' date='Dec 11 2007, 12:29 AM']surely they intended that people have murder weopons. you misinterpret my clear meaning.[/quote]
You contradict yourself - in the post I originally responded to, you said the framers [b]would not have [/b] thought about "murder weapons. (And "clear meaning" in any of your garbled posts is a joke!)
[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1430862' date='Dec 7 2007, 07:42 PM']the right to bear arms shouldn't be impied to say assualt rifles and murder weopons should be allowed as ron paul espouses. [b]for one, they wouldn't have thought about murder weopons[/b], and even if it was around then, would they be expected to say arms only for hunting and self defense and king of england and your own etc etc.[/quote]

[quote]if you put yourself in the framers shoes... what would you say if you wanted to protect gun rights but in the back of your mind wasn't intent on mass murder weopons? you'd still say what they said. this is because they weren't trying to make an encyclopdeia or be defining everything. would you expect them to say "right to bear arms for hunting king of england self defense but not for mass murder" i don't think you'd expect that, it's putting an undue burden on the framers to make an encyclopedia out of it, which is not what the const is intended to do. what i just said as per uses of guns etc is what i could think of, there's surely other things that should be considered, showing they too wouldn't be expected to htink of it all..[/quote]
Amendments are not carelessly added to the U.S. Constitution without serious and careful thought beforehand (at least not in the early years).
It would have never crossed any of the founder's minds that a gun might conceivably be used as a murder weapon?? Give me a freaking break!
(but they would be used only for "hunting King of England"?!) LOL - All I can say is I'm glad the founders obviously gave much more thought to what they wrote than you do!
Honestly, what are you even trying to say here??

"Arms" means arms -weapons (and often, "arms" refers specifically to to military combat weapons).
And obviously (suppose this means I can be dismissed as an "obviously" conservative) arms by their very nature can kill, and be used as a murder weapon.

The People of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms, but they do not have the right to use them murder. A murderer, by his crime, forfeits his various rights and freedoms, and should be locked away.
If someone uses a firearm to murder someone, this does not mean the people's constitutional right to keep and bear arms should be taken away, any more than if someone murders someone with a kitchen knife or a hatchet, these items should be banned by the government.

[quote]you do have a good point about guns and militias. but anyway, if you give the reading a natural intent perspective, assault rifles would not have been included. especially if we consider they did not know of them. the burden should not be on the person advocating assault rifles to have the constititon clarified. as a policy argument, if we're going to change the const on policy, i'd say no one needs an assault rifle and a regular gun is sufficient as the USA is pretty safe, and if we decide we're not then we can change it.[/quote]
As I've said, "arms" means simply "weapons," and assault rifles are clearly under the category of "arms."
Arms have constantly been evolving and being invented through human history - from clubs and rocks to swords to crossbows to muskets to assualt rifles - so there is no need to change the Constitution every time a new kind of gun is invented.

While things may seem "pretty safe" now, if our citizenry was under attack by either foreign invaders, or a government gone tyrannical, we wouldn't last that long with only hunting rifles and shotguns.

While it seems radical now, the American founders invisioned a nation of free citizen-soldiers who were capable of defense, and mobilizing against an enemy when threated. This was what the "militia" was about, as opposed to just having a standing army.
This put power in the hands of the people, rather than just the central government and the standing army.

[quote]also, by your logic, a mass murderer should have access to assault rifles, afterall.... that's what the constiatuion "says". this is just an other example of a nuance i hand't thought of until i edited it. these things are not things they'd think of. do you advocate murderers who are released having access to mass murder weopons?[/quote]
As I've said earlier, mass-murders should be locked up and not have access to anything. If they are still a danger to society, they should not be released.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1432813' date='Dec 11 2007, 12:52 PM']i'd also say a well regulated militia. regulated. those in reserves like a militia can pass a not-psycho test and have the guns.

also, where would you draw the line for bearing arms? are gernade launchers ok? atomic weopons in gun form? how would you draw the line?
i can see as reasonable interpretation an assault rifle, but i wonder where you draw the line for other mass murder weopons.

edit:
that should be minus the "not".[/quote]
The Second Amendment says the right of the People to keep and bear arms [b]shall not be infringed[/b] - plain and simple. Nothing about psychological tests and such (the idea of which our founding fathers would likely have balked at).

While I';ve talked to libertarians who interpret the 2nd Amendment to include nukes and bio-weapons, I'd draw the line at anything that kills and destroys indiscriminately ("weapons of mass destruction"). However, I'd say any weapons capable of taking out specific military attackers should be allowed (including grenade launchers).

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think your line drawing is arbitrary for weopons of mass destruction. but i guess mine isn't much less arbitrary.
i'm against weopons of mass destruction too. they're not as indiscriminate as what you're against but it's still the same idea. besides, those weopons that kill indiscriminately can be used wisely too, and the constitution says you're to allow the right to bear arms.....
and it doesn't make any distinctions about criminals....
"that's what it says"
what a joke.
if it's a reasonable debate, the question is what's good policy. if you were against assault rifles and mass murder wopons and thought it was allowed by the constitution, you'd have my respect. if you're only claiming the constitution says what you think, it's a cop out when it's reasonably disputed.

i might have been sloppy in my first post with murder weopons etc i don't know. i did say self defense was what they'd allow, the framers, which is a murder weopon, so i'm not against that. i definitely said in the second post, mass murder weopons is what i'm against, so if you are in capable of understanding it, as you continued to do in your last post, then that's your problem.
also i made allowances for militias too. but, you didn't really respond to it. you just acted like i said militias with big guns shouldn't exist. if you only go by the text of the constittution, i'm allowing for "regulated militias", and you're the one reading in to it by saying everyone should be able to have mass murder weopons. you might contend back in the day everyone had guns and those same guns were used by militias, but times have changed, and the guns used by militias do not have to be, and should not be, the same as allowed for regular people.
you have a way with avoiding issues.

plus if you allow people to have pistols rifles etc, but not assault rifles and mass murder weopons, the constitution is still being technically followed. they can bear arms, that's what they'd be doing. this is just a techincal argument, but it's no less absurd than claiming right ot bear arms means everything for everyone.

Edited December 12, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1433301' date='Dec 12 2007, 01:21 PM']i think your line drawing is arbitrary for weopons of mass destruction. but i guess mine isn't much less arbitrary.
i'm against weopons of mass destruction too. they're not as indiscriminate as what you're against but it's still the same idea. besides, those weopons that kill indiscriminately can be used wisely too, and the constitution says you're to allow the right to bear arms.....
and it doesn't make any distinctions about criminals....
"that's what it says"
what a joke.[/quote]
I sincerely doubt things like "biological weapons" can be used wisely. There is a difference between arms which can be used to take out an attaker, and things which just cause indiscriminate death (like "germ warfare").

And convicted criminals do lose their freedoms. That's the nature of law enforcement. They are locked up, and in the days of the American founding, murderers were usually hanged.

[quote]if it's a reasonable debate, the question is what's good policy. if you were against assault rifles and mass murder wopons and thought it was allowed by the constitution, you'd have my respect. if you're only claiming the constitution says what you think, it's a cop out when it's reasonably disputed.

i might have been sloppy in my first post with murder weopons etc i don't know. i did say self defense was what they'd allow, the framers, which is a murder weopon, so i'm not against that. i definitely said in the second post, mass murder weopons is what i'm against, so if you are in capable of understanding it, as you continued to do in your last post, then that's your problem.
also i made allowances for militias too. but, you didn't really respond to it. you just acted like i said militias with big guns shouldn't exist. if you only go by the text of the constittution, i'm allowing for "regulated militias", and you're the one reading in to it by saying everyone should be able to have mass murder weopons. you might contend back in the day everyone had guns and those same guns were used by militias, but times have changed, and the guns used by militias do not have to be, and should not be, the same as allowed for regular people.
you have a way with avoiding issues.

plus if you allow people to have pistols rifles etc, but not assault rifles and mass murder weopons, the constitution is still being technically followed. they can bear arms, that's what they'd be doing. this is just a techincal argument, but it's no less absurd than claiming right ot bear arms means everything for everyone.[/quote]
What exactly is a "mass murder weapon"?
And the Second Amendment said the right of "[b]the People[/b]" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not just those in militia. In the Constitution, "the People" always refers to U.S. citizens. And "[b]not be infringed[/b]" means not impeded or limited in any way.

It is not me, but you, who are making the Constitution say what you want it to say.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1429676' date='Dec 4 2007, 11:44 PM']Ron Paul.

who's surprised?

here's some random baptist guy explaining it:
[url="http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin415.htm"]http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin415.htm[/url]

Ron Paul understands that Congress can overturn Roe v. Wade. President Ron Paul would put that on the agenda for congress to do. The Sanctity of Life Act, proposed by Ron Paul, is the only really pro-life initiative in Washington; and all the other candidates, even those who are nominally pro-life, have ignored it.

Ron Paul is the only hope against the abortion holocaust. I repeate: the ONLY hope. He is the only one who will insist upon congress discussing the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade by congressional law. Perhaps for the first two years of his presidency, the democrats will be a majority in congress and he won't get very far. But if he is seen actively promoting this for those two years, a that whole voter bloc that put Bush into office twice based on moral issues like abortion will no longer be disenchantized with the empty promises of the candidates who just use the term "pro-life" to win votes, and might have a vested interest in putting people into congress who would support this initiative.

Unless there's some other candidate out there who proposes signing an Executive Order which nullifies Roe v. Wade (the way the Emancipation Proclamation nullified the Dred Scott Decision), this is the best hope for America.

There is no other pro-life choice that will do a darned thing to give to the people the power to illegalize abortion. And that is really the only thing that can be done in this country: give the people the power to illegalize it by giving the states that power. A large portion of the Red States would illegalize it nearly altogether, many of the red states woul illegalize it with exceptions. The fight would become a winnable one... it is not a winnable fight, however, until congress legislates against Roe v. Wade.[/quote]
Oh dear, I thought you were smarter than this. Ron Paul is neither a viable candidate nor the best candidate for President.
On the most rudimentary political level, his very unwillingness to make political compromise on his key issues leads him to actually inhibit Conservative progress in this country. That's not how you do things in the US Congress. Read the Club for Growth's assessment of the man.
The very fact that Ron Paul is supported primarily by the same class of people who supported Howard Dean assures his doom in the primaries. These folks are mostly college-age idiots or conspiracy-addled nitwits who will happily put up stupid cardboard signs around the city but forget to register to vote.
Ron Paul is a libertarian-leaning Republican, and what that means is that on the important moral issues he believes that if people vote to enact it then it's ok. Homosexual marriage? Ok if the community allows it. Abortion? Ok if the community allows it. His personal opposition to these things means precisely nothing.
His ideas about the Middle East are not only stupid and outmoded but dangerous for our national interests. Perhaps dangerous for the lives of American citizens.
How you could support Ron Paul without a bong in one hand is beyond me.

Want to waste time pining for the man who should win but won't? Fred Thompson. He's got the right ideas about federalism and our foreign policy.

[Aloysius]

Again, no debate should be about whether they're viable or not, not when you're talking about who you should vote for. All that does is to serve to sustain a system which keeps the people's voice out of the subject.

Anyway, this topic is about Paul's pro-life policies, not his foreign policy or viability as a candidate.

[quote]Ron Paul is a libertarian-leaning Republican, and what that means is that on the important moral issues he believes that if people vote to enact it then it's ok. Homosexual marriage? Ok if the community allows it. Abortion? Ok if the community allows it. His personal opposition to these things means precisely nothing.[/quote]
You've obviously not read anything Paul has ever said on these matters. He's extremely against abortion, sees it as an absolute affront against liberty. He doesn't think the government should be in the marriage business either way (which is totally in line with Catholic teaching).

[quote]The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.[/quote]

You cannot fight Ron Paul by fighting the stereotypical "libertarian".

I've seen the Club for Growth's assessment of him. I've cited it as a fair assessment in comparison to some people's unfair smear campaigns. I understand their problem with his uncompromising principals. But I disagree with them about what is needed in a President, we need a president who is going to be uncompromising on constitutional principals.

The thing is: every congressman should be as uncompromising on these issues as Ron Paul is. If they are not, then they are violating the Tenth Amendment. That's all Ron Paul is doing, following the law: the law says that anything not granted to the congress by the Constitution shall be left to the states or to the people, so Ron Paul votes against anything that the Constitution does not permit the congress to do.

But in any event, Ron Paul is uncompromisingly against Abortion, and the only one with real solutions proposed that would actually effectively start to illegalize abortion in this country.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='misereremi' post='1432483' date='Dec 10 2007, 09:06 PM'](I agree with your points Aloysius. A Sanctity of Life Act? That's just unheard of these sides. IF ONLY we had Dr Ron Paul running for Prime Minister! That gentleman makes a lot of sense to me. )[/quote]

I've been thinking about this. How do you suppose his politics would look if they were 'translated' into the British political system? We don't have a codified constitution over here, and we're too small a country for local councils to make their own decisions about matters arising from important political issues. Do you think he would throw his whole support into the House of Commons and campaign for the abolition of the Lords? I suspect that he might, and that would be a bad thing for anyone who uses Catholic principles as a guide to voting - the Lords are currently an effective check on many of the more outrageous proposals that get through the Commons. (That tentative bill on 'assisted suicide' that was put forward a few years ago is the prime example.) Yet the Lords aren't elected to their positions, and I can see that being a problem for Ron Paul. As our political system is quite different, it's not really possible to tell what sort of a candidate he would be in a British setting.