[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: Ron Paul is okay with early term abortions and the abortion pill. Will 'principled pro-lifers' still support him? Ron Paul is okay with early term abortions and the abortion pill. Will principled pro-lifers' still support him? Dr. Ron Paul's presidential campaign webpage, captioning him as "A Pro-Life Champion", states in part: Dr. Paul's experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn't also advocate respecting the God-given right to life-for those born and unborn. .... The strength of love for liberty in our society can be judged by how we treat the most innocent among us. It's time to elect a President with the courage and conviction to stand up for every American's right to life." But in a recent CNN interview, Piers Morgan asked some legitimate questions seeking clarification about Paul's views. In the interview, Paul concedes that if a woman was raped, an early form of abortion would be okay (i.e., preventing implantation of the conceived fetus to the uterine wall via hormone shot). Paul says that he'd give her a "shot of estrogen". He adds at the conclusion of the discussion that "I won't satisfy everybody there", knowing that many of his supporters are ardent pro-lifers who want to outlaw abortion and the morning after pill alltogether. Granted, fertilization does not necessarily occur immediately after intercourse (though it could). So immediately following a rape, a woman could or could not be have conceived a human child. So if life begins at conception, according to the pro life view, is it not wrong to kill, or even potentially kill, an innocent child? Principled pro-lifers insist that abortion is wrong even in that instance, and they are correct. Paul's answer, while politically correct, is disappointing. He is rationalizing abortion depending on the circumstance. Abortion advocates have always used "the case of rape or incest" as an avenue for convincing the American public, even those who tend to disfavor abortion, to support continued legal abortion. Paul is using this same logic in his replies to CNN. When speaking to pro-life groups and seeking their donations and votes, why doesn't Paul say that he opposes abortion "except in the case of rape or incest"? Because he knows that they wouldn't accept that position. If abortion is truly murder, (which it is), Christians can not compromise on this fact. Thus, Paul is being disingenuous when claiming that he is against abortion. The fact is that, Ron Paul is only against abortion most of the time, but not all of the time. Which brings me to the main point. Do you want to support a man who thinks that abortion is okay sometimes? I certainly do not. This speaks to a man's character. A truly good and decent man would never advocate killing an unborn innocent, regardless of the stage. Thus, I am hereby effectively revoking my endorsement of Ron Paul for President of the United States. You see, PRINCIPLES MATTER. There are absolutes. Not everything is 'relative'. There are black and whites. There is such a thing as right and wrong. There is such a thing as good and evil. And advocating killing an unborn baby, even in the early stages, is just evil. I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for a man who promotes something evil. In a recent interview with Jay Leno, Ron Paul admitted that he is not against the "morning after pill" and that he prescribed a lot of birth control during his career. That is precisely what eugenecist ghoul George H. W. Bush promoted throughout his disreputable career, along with others in the establishment who promoted population reduction and destruction of the family. The charade known as the national elections are for the most part, theatre to keep the masses distracted. Most of the Republican candidates who've been babbling about abortion for fourty years never had any genuine intent or desire to outlaw it. Furthermore, even those who claim to be against abortion, such as Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, all endorse many other wicked policies and are nothing but warmongering police-state promoting creeps. Paul on the other hand, has a stellar record of promoting good policies of anti-war and limited government. He has stated many times that he wants to spread the message of liberty, and that his campaign works to that effect. Paul's supporters often agree that "even if Paul doesn't win, he still wins!"(?) by getting the message out there. But if his goal is not really to win and to merely spread messages, then what sort of message is Ron Paul sending by compromising on the issue of abortion? A very bad message indeed. Below is a clip from the CNN interview and a portion of the transcript. I know some will say that I am 'extreme' and that we have to 'compromise' and take what we can get. That is garbage. I don't want any of them. Good luck America, you will need it. MORGAN: Here's the dilemma, and it's one I put to Rick Santorum very recently. I was surprised by his answer, although I sort of understood from his belief point of view that he would come up with this. But it's a dilemma that I am going to put to you. You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped -- and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen. But if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated? PAUL: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen or give them -- MORGAN: You would allow them to abort the baby? PAUL: It is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it, it's a little bit different story. But somebody arriving in an emergency room saying, I have just been raped and there is no chemical -- there's no medical and there's no legal evidence of a pregnancy -- MORGAN: Life doesn't begin at conception? PAUL: Life does begin at conception. MORGAN: Then you would be taking a life. PAUL: Well, you don't know if you're taking a life either, because this is an area that is -- but to decide everything about abortion and respect for life on this one very, very theoretical condition, where there may have been a life or not a life. MORGAN: But here's the thing: although it is a hypothetical, it does happen. People do get raped and they do get impregnated. And sometimes they are so ashamed by what's happened that weeks go by before they may even discover they are pregnant. They have to face this dilemma. And they are going to have a president who has a very, very strong view about this. PAUL: [continues...]"....They are talking about a human life. So a person immediately after rape, yes. It's a tough one. I won't satisfy everybody there.... " RELATED: Ron Paul Pressed On Abortion In The Case Of Rape Ron Paul On 'The Tonight Show': I Prescribed Birth Control, Would Not Ban Plan B http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/ The New Yorker: Ron Paul's Abortion Problem Ron Paul's statement regarding the Personhood USA pledge Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge - A further clarification and discussion Cult of personality: Ron Paul on 9/11 conspiracies (in chronological order) August 24th, 2010: Ron Paul endorses government line on 9/11, and also throws in an endorsement of the government's absurd Oklahoma City Bombing story (along with some sympathy for Jews) http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1008/23/acd.01.html Ron Paul: Israel "OUR BEST FRIEND" Ron Paul: "I believe that Israel is one of our most important friends in the world. And the views that I hold have many adherents in Israel today. Two of the tenets of a true Zionist are "self-determination" and "self-reliance." Four years after Ron Paul's "Trotsky Memo", vote fraud continues unchallenged FREEMASONRY: Their God is the devil A month after Ron Paul directly debunked rumors and said there is Absolutely �No Deal� with Romney, his own campaign chairman says the opposite, claiming Ron would be open to a compromise or VP slot. (Why would someone running for president in a primary concede defaeat and accept a VP slot?!:) CBS NEWS: For Ron Paul, winning isn't everything Time Magazine Chimes in on Ron Paul-Mitt Romney "Secret Deal" Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 50.
#50. To: Artisan (#0)
Ron Paul on 9/11 conspiracies (in chronological order) He ain't perfect but I don't know of anybody who is. Even though I believe he's not infallible on all of his views about 9/11, still he supports further investigation of it. I can't disagree when he states (in the second video below) his concerns that, if people have lost confidence in the government (Ex: the Warren Commission on JFK), what would another investigation by the government (rather than the people themselves) accomplish if it just validated/covered up the first investigation? Ron Paul Supports 9/11 Investigation WeAreChange.org reporters confronted Ron Paul in the spin room during the New Hampshire primaries. He discusses the draft, endless war, a new 9/11 investigation, the emerging North American Union and spreading the "Ron Paul Revolution"... Ron Paul Wants A New 9/11 Investigation 03/25/08 Ron Paul was a guest on Coast To Coast AM with George Noory from 1 - 2 AM on March 25, 2008. During questions a disingenuous Neocon named Joe called in to ask Ron Paul about his supporters believing in "conspiracy theories". This was similar to what CNN did during the debates. Ron Paul answered and said while he did not believe the Government did 9/11 he was not satisfied with the investigation and would like a new investigation into 9/11. At lewrockwell.com, August 24, 2004: The 9-11 Commission Charade by Rep. Ron Paul, MD But what exactly is going on here? These hearings amount to nothing more than current government officials meeting with former government officials, many of whom now lobby government officials, and agreeing that we need more government! The current and past architects of the very bureaucracy that failed Americans so badly on September 11th three years ago are now meeting to recommend more bureaucracy. Why on earth do we assume that former government officials, some of whom are self-interested government lobbyists, suddenly become wise, benevolent, and politically neutral when they retire? Why do we look to former bureaucrats to address a bureaucratic failure? The 9-11 Commission report is several hundred pages worth of recommendations to make government larger and more intrusive. Does this surprise anyone? It was written by people who cannot imagine any solution not coming from government. One thing you definitely will not see in the Commission report is a single critique of our interventionist foreign policy, which is the real source of most anti-American feelings around the globe.
There are no replies to Comment # 50. End Trace Mode for Comment # 50.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||