I gotta’ admit that when Ron Paul talks about the issue of life I find myself nodding. In fact, about ninety percent of the time Ron Paul talks I nod my head. The other ten percent though I’m like, “Wait, what?” But this is definitely part of the ninety percent.
HT The Blaze
October 16, 2011 at 4:06 am
Honesty and Integrity count for everything. This man is getting my vote, because he endures the laughter and jeering to his face for the sake of his beliefs. That is being genuine if I ever heard or saw it before.
Phil
October 16, 2011 at 4:26 am
Ron Paul 2012!
He's had my vote since day 1.
October 16, 2011 at 4:39 am
Except that he doesn't think early abortions caused by the MAP matter. I was never a fan, but that sealed the deal for me.
October 16, 2011 at 9:21 am
MAP??? What is happening is that the sword of state aggression that was once wielded against pro-abortion voters has been wrested away from the religious people and is now being used against us. You don't like that and want to aim the sword at people doing what you don't believe is right. That was what Christ warned would happen in living by the sword. Does anyone here doubt that the ultimate agenda of those people is regulated conception and forcible abortion?? Are ANY of these other candidates trustworthy? Ron Paul would put the issue back with the states. Once pagans sacricificed infants and far fewer Christians than we are now changed that by changing the way people THINK. That is happening again, now, because of the Internet. Abortion will crawl back under a rock when it becomes socially unacceptable. That means we have to make the MSM and all their propaganda irrelevant. You vote for who you want to but you'd better think about it and judge the fruit of these people and not just lies they tell to get elected. I'm voting for the one candidate I KNOW will not lie and has the track record to prove it.
October 16, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Pornography is described by the Supreme Court as “… that which titillates the prurient interests of the individual…”
(Material will not be declared obscene unless (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that its predominant theme appeals to a "prurient" interest;(2) it depicts or describes sexual activity in a "patently offensive" manner; and (3) it lacks, when taken as a whole, serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (MILLER V. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419 [1973]).
Mr. Paul has become as a pornographer in order to get his ‘point’ across.
This is a no class move.
Never encourage a fool.
It only leads to more foolishness.
*
October 17, 2011 at 12:16 am
Saint Michael Come To Our Defense,
At least Ron Paul got his point across…
Your cryptic rebuke certainly did not.
Appealing to the Supreme Court for truth on definitions of pornography is like appealing to the Supreme Court for accurate definitions on life or personhood.
October 17, 2011 at 12:26 am
It's an ad that definitely makes you think … but I did wonder whether he just walked on? Or did he go back and try to help that live baby who was tossed in the bucket?
October 17, 2011 at 2:13 am
Matthew,
I'd be interested to know about the other 10% that makes you say, "Wait, what?"
Thanks!
October 17, 2011 at 3:07 am
Roe v. Wade was about getting abortion paid for by the taxpayers. The mid-wife was also the abortionist in most towns across America, and it will go back to that if Roe v. Wade is overturned. The destruction of human existence is diabolic. PC: "I cannot impose God's morality. I will impose the devil's immorality."
Man is our Creator's recreation.
October 17, 2011 at 4:17 am
Good ad, but it makes his position puzzling. How can he understand that there are no rights to defend if we're unwilling to defend the right to life –and then be unwilling to defend the right to life at the federal level? How can a right be inalienable if it exists only on a state by state basis? How can the question of who is a person be a state question? Seems intellectually incoherent to me.
October 17, 2011 at 1:42 pm
I am completely pro-life, too, starting with my experience as an OR nurse.
But, you need to know the 10% of Ron Paul. He's in favor of legalizing prostitution and drug use among other things that just won't work. He will leave a serious void in leadership. Christians and Catholics are not just Americans. We need to remember that.
There are other pro-life candidates who are more responsible on many more issues who can get elected. Vote for one of them!
October 17, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Great ad.
But, will he sign legislation outlawing abortion, or will he leave it up to the states?
October 17, 2011 at 8:15 pm
@Anonymous
MAP — the morning-after pill. Ron Paul on lives prior to implantation:
"So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn't be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice." ~ Liberty Defined
Those "early pregnancies" and new lives matter just as much as yours or mine. And, the notion that there will not be fewer abortions until society changes and laws won't affect the rate of abortion is utter crap. The law is a teacher. Good women who respect the law have abortions these days when they think they have no other choice. There would be far fewer abortions if the laws changed.
Also, I think the notion of the decision about a human being's right to life back to the states is philosophically wrong in the same way it's wrong to have individual states decide about the legality of slavery. Some issues are indeed best decided at the state level (e.g., education,)and I'm squarely against bucking the Catholic social teaching on the principle of subsidiarity, but issues such as true marriage, prostitution, and drug trafficking have consequences that cross state lines and would become a law enforcement nightmare at the state level if each state made up their own rules.
Ron Paul's idea that if we threw these issues back to the states, we'd have more moral laws would have been true once upon a time, but not today. In the state of Maine, we have seen how the pro-gay marriage groups get the percentage of voters closer and closer to their goal every time the issue comes up for vote.
October 18, 2011 at 2:52 pm
The federal government ought to reflect the values that the nation should stand for. The matter of LIFE is a FEDERAL issue.
He ought not leave that up to the states. How many babies would die b/c R.P. would allow the states to decide?
This man's positions disgust me.
October 19, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Marriage & prostitution have always been dealt with at the state level, never the federal level. To this day they are still dealt with at the state level. The only way that would change is if the states ratified a constitutional amendment defining true marriage, or an amendment outlawing prostitution. There is a method in the Constitution that allows for that.
The Constitution does not allow Congress the power to regulate marriage or prostitution (or similar moral issues) in the states; neither does it allow the federal judiciary to do that–which is why Roe v. Wade was such a travesty of justice. It was not just because it legalized the murder of the pre-born, but because it was a usurpation of power by the Supreme Court not allowed by the Constitution.
This is about an understanding of the way the federal government is structured under the Constitution. It would be just as much an abuse of power if Congress passed a federal law or the Supreme Court passed a court opinion requiring all states to criminalize abortion. The Constitution simply does not give the federal branches that power. That power has ALWAYS been reserved to the states (again, until Roe v. Wade). It is the way our republic is set up, and I cannot agree with anyone from either side–liberal or conservative–who would flout the governing document of this nation.