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 more reasonable statement that can be made by anyone.  Paul's statement is  an eloquently simple statement of truth.  There is no rebuttal.

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

From the actual statements from Ron Paul in the article,"I  will veto any spending bill that  contains funding for Planned  Parenthood, facilities that perform  abortion and all government family  planning schemes."  He does not clearly promise to cut all funding to PP but to those PP clinics which perform abortions (a minority today);  he also vaguely wants to end all"government family planning schemes."  What he means by that I am not certain; if he means to cut all federal funding to support family planning he does a great disservice to not only the women using such programs but our society as a whole.  The most vulnerable families, least able to afford either extra children or ,medical costs are the target.  There would be an increase in births but only among the indigent and working poor, as well as an increase in illegal substandard abortions and their expensive complications.  All of this will be paid for by society.

Jun 25, 2011 -- 2:09PM, Christianlib wrote:

No, the only REASONABLE position is that what happens between a woman and her doctor is private, and none of your effing business.

CL,

Wherever Government funding is is involved, in any matter, the Government will have strings attatched to that money. Therefore the Government will not fund abortion without regulating how that money is to be spent, otherwise it is poor stewardship of public monies.

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. 

Most on the pro life side will tell you we will begrudgingly give up the life of the mother, argument but the remainder of abortions should be criminalized.  There are no laws that need changing, only a bad law to be repealed that allows it (RvW). 

 The law clearly states taking a life is murder.  It is no more complicated than that, you need no further legislation than that.

Jun 25, 2011 -- 2:23PM, Roodog wrote:

Jun 25, 2011 -- 2:09PM, Christianlib wrote:

No, the only REASONABLE position is that what happens between a woman and her doctor is private, and none of your effing business.

CL,

Wherever Government funding is is involved, in any matter, the Government will have strings attatched to that money. Therefore the Government will not fund abortion without regulating how that money is to be spent, otherwise it is poor stewardship of public monies.

I made no comment as to funding.

That's a Red Herring.