Post Reply
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
Switch to Forum Live View The Only Reasonable Position on Abortion and the Federal Government.
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 10:08AM #21
watcher59
Posts: 1,606

To answer your second question: probably none of the other candidates will actually veto any spending bill that funds abortions.


Given that Michelle Bachman's political career started as a pro-life activist, I think we can be reasonably sure she will veto public funding of abortion. While Mr. Paul is my first choice as our next president, Ms. Bachman is looking like a good choice if she should win the nomination.

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 10:54AM #22
simonzur
Posts: 3,660

Jun 25, 2011 -- 2:31PM, Erey wrote:


 “Life comes from our creator, not our government. Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty.”


Many women will tell you that having a baby will ruin their life and liberty, not protect or save it.  Just a thought. 



And, what of the life and liberty of the child growing within her womb?  Who speaks for their life and liberty if not those who do not support a choice when it comes to the life of the unborn?


I hate abortion but I am pro-choice.  It sounds like Paul does not want to quibble about the right to abortion only he wants to prevent the government paying for it.  If a woman wants an abortion she pays for it herself or gets somebody else to cover the bill.  That is not unreasonable in my mind.



First, I am not sure how the self defeating paradox of your first statement can be logically resolved.  I do not understand how a person can both hate something and support it at the same time.


Second, I do not think that abortion is ever a quibbling matter; however, Ron Paul's position is that it is not a federal matter in any case, and that it should be left up to the States by Congressional action to prohibit SCOTUS from ruling on this matter as provided by Article III of the Constitution.


However, I really want to move beyond this whole conversation of should a woman have the right to an abortion or not.  What I want to move to is convincing women to not get pregnant in the first place, to not take risks, to be responsible with their birth control.  And yes, to be selective about who you have sex with and under which circumstances.


 




No arguments from me here, but I think we would like to move passed the argument of whether it is a right or not for the opposite reasons.

"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."~ The Revelation
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 10:58AM #23
simonzur
Posts: 3,660

Jun 25, 2011 -- 1:53PM, JohnQ wrote:

Jun 25, 2011 -- 1:12PM, simonzur wrote:


Rep. Paul explained, “Life comes from our creator, not our government. Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty.”

FULL ARTICLE

Is there a more reasonable statement that can be made by social conservatives? 

Given that Ron Paul has also given his word (see full article) that he will veto any spending bill that provides funding for "Planned Parenthood", is he not the Pro-Life candidate from which all other Republican candidates must turn in shame? 

Who, among the other candidates, do you believe will actually veto ANY spending bill that provides funding for abortions?

Simon




There is no government funding for abortions.  The Hyde Amendment makes that not possible.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment


Funding for Planned Parenthood goes for family planning guidance, cancer testing for females, prenatal care, etc......NOT for abortions.   Cutting funding for Planned Parenthood will if anything, increase abortions, as well as increase the number of babies that will not be cared for appropriately by their parents.  As well as take away much needed medical care for many females.


IMO, your priorities are misplaced.




When we were children, our parents used to play "peekaboo" with us.  In this game, the child believes that the parent cannot see them when they cover their eyes, but when we grow up we leave this kind of childish thinking behind us.


If the government gives money to an organization that provides abortions, ostensibly for other services, those funds that would normally have been diverted from abortions to those services are not necessarily diverted.  Pro life advocates do not close their eyes to the shell games and think that they do not exist for that reason.

"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."~ The Revelation
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 11:00AM #24
simonzur
Posts: 3,660

Gotta run.  I will get to the others later today, God willing. 


Simon

"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."~ The Revelation
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 7:16PM #25
simonzur
Posts: 3,660

Jun 25, 2011 -- 4:51PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:


Jun 25, 2011 -- 2:31PM, Erey wrote:


 “Life comes from our creator, not our government. Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty.”


Many women will tell you that having a baby will ruin their life and liberty, not protect or save it.  Just a thought. 


I hate abortion but I am pro-choice.  It sounds like Paul does not want to quibble about the right to abortion only he wants to prevent the government paying for it.  If a woman wants an abortion she pays for it herself or gets somebody else to cover the bill.  That is not unreasonable in my mind.


However, I really want to move beyond this whole conversation of should a woman have the right to an abortion or not.  What I want to move to is convincing women to not get pregnant in the first place, to not take risks, to be responsible with their birth control.  And yes, to be selective about who you have sex with and under which circumstances. 


Last I looked at the numbers it was reported that 85% of women with unwanted pregnancies reported  not using  birth control at all or used it improperly.  That right there is a significant population of women that never had to get pregnant in the first place and with the right messages and encouragement to make the right choices might never get pregnant in the first place. 


There will always be the pregnant rape victim or the faulty birthcontrol but those are a very small minority of all unwanted pregnancies.   There is alot we can do to reduce abortion in this country without changing the laws. 




Erey, not only do I find nothing to argue with in this post of yours, but I agree with every word of it.


I believe that indeed, Paul (and many Libertarians) feel that abortion should be legal simply because it is a privacy issue, and further that government should not fund it (if for no other reason than too many paying taxes do not wish to pay for it). That is my belief, and I also agree with Paul's eloquent statement regarding what the government is charged with performing for the benefit of the people.




Ron Paul does not believe that abortion should be legal, and he does not consider it to be a privacy issue because it involves the life of an unborn child.  Ron Paul's statement about the role of government being to protect life and liberty is, in this context, aimed toward protecting the life and liberty of the child.


Simon

"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."~ The Revelation
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 7:21PM #26
simonzur
Posts: 3,660

Jun 25, 2011 -- 7:15PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Jun 25, 2011 -- 1:12PM, simonzur wrote:


Rep. Paul explained, “Life comes from our creator, not our government. Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty.”

FULL ARTICLE

Is there a more reasonable statement that can be made by social conservatives? 




No, because while life comes from the creator, liberty does not. Liberty comes from government. It is bestowed by government. If liberty came from God as Paul says, then it would have been there even while it has been banned in history. But it wasn't. Thus it comes from government, not from God.




I think your logic is a bit faulty here.  The fact that governments past have prevented or hampered liberty does not necessarily mean that God did not intend for man to have liberty.  Isaiah 52 makes it clear to me that God wants man to have liberty, and the only question for me is what kind of liberty does God desire for man.


Simon

"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."~ The Revelation
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 7:22PM #27
simonzur
Posts: 3,660

Jun 25, 2011 -- 7:36PM, Christianlib wrote:


Why is it that those who most loudly proclaim, "liberty comes from God," so often then try to immediately use their doctrines of God to deny liberty to certain of their fellow citizens?





Would you care to be a little more specific?

"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."~ The Revelation
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 7:27PM #28
simonzur
Posts: 3,660

Jun 26, 2011 -- 10:08AM, watcher59 wrote:


To answer your second question: probably none of the other candidates will actually veto any spending bill that funds abortions.


Given that Michelle Bachman's political career started as a pro-life activist, I think we can be reasonably sure she will veto public funding of abortion. While Mr. Paul is my first choice as our next president, Ms. Bachman is looking like a good choice if she should win the nomination.




She may be a good second choice, but I have a couple of problems with her.  I think she is weak on scaling back the government and the military industrial complex.  She grates against me because she is so loud.  She is too self-promoting.  She tried, and continues to try, to co-opt the Tea Party.

"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."~ The Revelation
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 8:59PM #29
watcher59
Posts: 1,606

Jun 26, 2011 -- 7:27PM, simonzur wrote:


Jun 26, 2011 -- 10:08AM, watcher59 wrote:


To answer your second question: probably none of the other candidates will actually veto any spending bill that funds abortions.


Given that Michelle Bachman's political career started as a pro-life activist, I think we can be reasonably sure she will veto public funding of abortion. While Mr. Paul is my first choice as our next president, Ms. Bachman is looking like a good choice if she should win the nomination.




She may be a good second choice, but I have a couple of problems with her.  I think she is weak on scaling back the government and the military industrial complex.  She grates against me because she is so loud.  She is too self-promoting.  She tried, and continues to try, to co-opt the Tea Party.





I don't know that she is even a good second choice. She's my third. You make some valid points. But, I believe anyone who tries to co-opt, rather than align with, the Tea Party doesn't understand the movement. My point was, this issue is particularly dear to Ms. Bachman. I don't believe she would have a second thought about de-funding subsidised abortion.

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook