Ron Paul State Right To Abort The Unborn – Video
***EDIT- Some may be playing dumb. Others truly don’t get the implications. Let me make it simple. When you say the federal government can’t protect the unborn because of states rights, then you are saying the rights of the state are more important than the rights of the unborn. I don’t care how much Ron Paul says he values life. This is the logical outworking of his thinking. No amount of insults, rhetoric or Ron Paul kool-aid from the kool-aid factory can deny the logical out working of his belief on this issue.*****
Let’s keep this simple and to the point.
Ron Paul says he is committed to protecting life. Link
He says he has a sanctify of life amendment bill proposed. He seems to say he’s for putting it in to law. Link
Yet here he says he wouldn’t push it as president. Link
Here he says he’s not interested in getting the federal government involved at all. Link
Here he admits that some right to life people don’t agree with him because he believes it should be left to the states. Link (4:39)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RSlwgukHqY
P.S.
One Paul supporter already replied on Youtube with.
Keep Twisting… He doesn’t believe in Abortion, but he knows if he were President he does not have the constitutional authority to enforce it.
There is no twisting going on. Presidents can push legislation as president. He admits he has his own legislation. Yet he says he wouldn’t push it. There is no twisting going on.
One Paul supporter on Twitter just said.
@ConservativesNt Ron Paul is the most pro-life candidate there is:
No see he’s really not. Saying this over and over won’t make it true. Other candidates don’t believe a state has the right to abort the unborn. Thus making them stronger on the issue.
Yet another Paul supporter on Youtube replied with.
Well it is up to the states, and technically the people thereof, so I do not see the controversy. He is pro-life however the Federal Government has no right to rule on this issue.
No this is untrue. With this mentality slavery would still be legal and minorities still wouldn’t have some freedoms. When the state clearly violates rights, someone needs to step in. States don’t have the right to destroy life like this.
Another Paul supporter on Facebook said.
This is ridiculous. The very first chapter of his book “Liberty Defined” condemns abortions, but doesn’t support a federal regulation on it. Ron Paul believes you have to protect life if you want to protect liberty. That’s the same reason he’s against undeclared wars.
I really don’t care how eloquently he writes or speaks on the topic. The constitution doesn’t say the states have more rights than the people. Ron Paul is pro-state, he’s not pro-life.
Still another says on Twitter.
@ConservativesNt ’Jane Roe’ now known as Norma McCorvey, who converted to the Pro-life cause in the 90s supported Ron Paul in 2008
So! That still doesn’t negate the fact that Paul puts states rights over human rights. If the state won’t stand for the rights of men, then the federal government must step in to secure those rights.
And even more from the kool-aid factory on Twitter.
@ConservativesNt Many pro-lifers endorse Ron Paul.
@ConservativesNt Ron Paul was a doctor, a committed Christian, and a very pro-life person. He would want to repeal Roe vs. Wade.
Do you get the feeling that they think the more the chant the more mantra, the more it will make the truth go away?
Here’s the truth once again. Ron Paul says the federal government can’t step in to protect the unborn, because of ‘states rights’. This in fact means he believes states rights are higher/above/more important than human life. Thus Ron Paul is NOT committed to protecting life. He’s committed to protecting states rights over the life off the unborn. I don’t care how much kool-aid you drink.
9 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
Conservatives Network featured in...
in his book Liberty Defined, he advocates terminating early Pregnancies with Day after pill
Hmm is there a way you can verify that? Page number?
I’m all in favor of aborting neocon chicken hawks, no matter what trimester.
If you believe that this should be a federal issue, you’re not a conservative. Abortion is no more of a federal issue than murder, rape, robbery, etc.
And if you want to call me pro-abortion or a liberal, I am not only a pro-lifer but support reclassifying abortion as capital murder. As in both mother and abortionist get the death penalty for premeditated homicide.
So if a state says it’s ok to murder an innocent helpless life in the womb, then no one can step in and stop the state?
Sounds like the south’s logic on slavery. States say slavery is ok, so federal government can’t step in and stop it.
If a state says it’s ok to put you in a concentration camp, I guess under your logic you’d be held captive without hope of the federal gov’t helping you.
You are indeed a sicko murderous liberal.
Look, I’m not here to tell you to vote for Ron Paul. I just don’t see how you can call yourself a conservative and support an expansive view of the 14th amendment since the 14th and a bad interpretation of the 9th gave us Roe v. Wade and the 14th continues to give us all sorts of bad rulings. Our founding fathers didn’t want the federal government deciding intrastate governmental issues like what you are going on about precisely because they knew that central governments tend to be socially corrupt. Is that not what happened with Roe. v Wade? Prior to that, abortion was almost universally illegal. Almost. It wasn’t illegal in New York and some other states. Yet social conservatives did demand it be outlawed by the federal government via constitutional amendment because social conservatives used to be wary of federal intervention.
Because the constitution says we all have the right to liberty and life. How can a conservative think the state is allowed more rights than a helpless baby?
The Declaration of Independence says that, not the Constitution. Second, you have no problem with murder being handled at the state level, right? Well in NY, it’s a felony to kill someone who you catch trying to steal your car (that is to say you didn’t immediately feel threatened by their actions). In Louisiana you have a right to use deadly force to stop them. Which of these states’ murder statute would you see become the official murder statute for all fifty states? To most of the blue states, Louisiana’s murder statute actually legalizes murder; to many of us in the red states, NY’s pre-Roe abortion law legalized murder. Yet social conservatives pre-Roe had no intention of federalizing the issue because they rightly understood that the federal government has always been at best neutral to social conservatism, and at worst a vehicle for ramming liberalism down the throats of the states and their people.
You’re passionate about this, which is good, but you cannot let the good that is ending abortion destroy another extremely important good which is ensuring that the federalist structure of the United States is protected. That structure is what reins in the power of the federal government to be used as a vehicle to annihilate the far more conservative local civic culture of most American communities.
That’s because all states are against murder you dingbat. If there were states that advocated for murder, of course the feds would have to step in and protect the helpless.
Your dingbat worship of states rights enables the oppression of the weak. Dingbat.