Radical pro life group advocates invading Canada to stop abortion!

[jmdrake]

Ok. That's not exactly what they said. But it's far more honest than how they treat Ron Paul. Here is a quote from their website.

h ttp://prolifeprofiles.com/paul
# Murder State By State: States prosecute murder. They do not have the right to decriminalize murder. Because states justly prosecute kidnapping and theft, it does not then follow that they have the authority to legalize kidnapping and stealing. Ron Paul promotes a confused view of states' rights that suggests that the federal government can apathetically look the other way if the states authorize the killing of innocent human beings.39 God gives no country, no state, no county, no city, nor any subdivision of government permission to authorize or even to tolerate the intentional killing of the innocent. The federal and state relationship is irrelevant to the "legalization" of abortion. If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify even invasion.

So using their own logic, since Canada allows abortion, since abortion is the same as "legalized killing" of a class of people, and since such legalized killing "would justify even invasion", then an invasion of Canada is justified.

Further any state which allows someone to kill in self defense is subject to invasion. After all, just because someone is coming at your wife with a knife doesn't make that person "guilty of a capital crime".

Yes I'm being ridiculous and over the top. But line by line every charge from these charlatans that try to pass themselves off as "pro lifers" is far more ridiculous.

[ChaosControl]

Well not really any different than all the people who wanted to invade iraq because of saddam torturing and killing people there.

So its not like its unheard of.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

the whole abortion debate pisses me off. For example a man killing a pregnant woman is usually double homicide, but abortion is perfectly legal.

[tpreitzel]

Ok. That's not exactly what they said. But it's far more honest than how they treat Ron Paul. Here is a quote from their website.

h ttp://prolifeprofiles.com/paul
# Murder State By State: States prosecute murder. They do not have the right to decriminalize murder. Because states justly prosecute kidnapping and theft, it does not then follow that they have the authority to legalize kidnapping and stealing. Ron Paul promotes a confused view of states' rights that suggests that the federal government can apathetically look the other way if the states authorize the killing of innocent human beings.39 God gives no country, no state, no county, no city, nor any subdivision of government permission to authorize or even to tolerate the intentional killing of the innocent. The federal and state relationship is irrelevant to the "legalization" of abortion. If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify even invasion.

So using their own logic, since Canada allows abortion, since abortion is the same as "legalized killing" of a class of people, and since such legalized killing "would justify even invasion", then an invasion of Canada is justified.

Further any state which allows someone to kill in self defense is subject to invasion. After all, just because someone is coming at your wife with a knife doesn't make that person "guilty of a capital crime".

Yes I'm being ridiculous and over the top. But line by line every charge from these charlatans that try to pass themselves off as "pro lifers" is far more ridiculous.

Although the US Constitution (legal) doesn't directly address the issue of abortion, the DOI certainly does imply the outlawing of abortion through the clause, "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", with life naturally assuming the highest precedence.

Although not legally binding, the DOI is more important than the US Constitution because the DOI forms the rationale of the US Constitution's existence.

One this singular, particular issue of abortion, I see a legitimate rationale from the DOI for intervention at the federal level to prevent mass murder. With that said, do I want the federal government to intervene in the affairs of the states? No, but the states have ratified the US Constitution so they should be obeying the intention of the DOI as a result, i.e. outlawing mass murder of the innocent and defenseless unborn. Hence, the state constitutions should reflect the importance of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" clause.

Now, as far as this particular group, they certainly see their allegiance to God as taking the higher precedence over governments. If our particular government, e.g. the US government and the states were following the words and intent of the US Constitution, this group's main complaint would be relegated to county and city decisions. By extension, if the counties and cities were following the intent of the state and federal constitutions, we wouldn't have abortion or its backlash at all. The real problem lies in the fact that the clause "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property)" isn't being followed at ANY level of government!

BTW, I'm not justifying this group's indifference to civil law. Rather this group should be working to restore the proper balance of power and understanding of the Declaration of Independence and its derived document, the US Constitution, at ALL levels of government.

[jmdrake]

Sorry for the late reply. I had forgotten about this thread until I looked it up for another reason.

ChaosControl: You'll get no argument from me about the rational (or lack there of) for invading Iraq.

tpreitzel: Don't forget that Dr. Paul did vote for federal restrictions on late term abortion. (The nutjobs who are attacking him on this issue actually try to use that against him since he criticized elements of the bill. But they criticize elements of the bill themselves). Now let's be a little honest about our own history. The man who penned the words "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was a slave owner himself. And while the record suggests Jefferson didn't mistreat his slaves (aside from sleeping with them), the life of the slave was not protected under the law. Should it have been? I think so. But the fact that it wasn't undercuts the idea that the drafters of the DOI expected federal enforcement of everything imaginable. (In fact there was no federal government at the time).

Now perhaps you think that all abortions should be seen the same. It's all "life". But there's no national consensus on that. If there was then people would be more concerned about in vitro fertilization. Multiple embryos are implanted at once with the hope that some will take and some will die. (I actually know a woman who went through the process and said she was relieved that some of her embryos died because she didn't want to be faced with the decision of selective abortion so that some could survive.)

In order to achieve the goal you seek, you need consensus on the definition of "life". Force feeding a definition from the federal level is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. A constitutional amendment along those lines is clearly impossible. And if the groundswell was strong enough to ratify a constitutional amendment, then it would also be strong enough to pass local pro life statutes in most states should Roe v. Wade be overturned. So rather than attacking politicians who want to return the abortion question to the states, pro life activists should (and most of them are) be applauding those efforts and in the meantime gearing up to take the fight to the state level where they have a good chance of winning.

[jkr]

the slaughter of the innocents continues...

[Cowlesy]

Lake Erie is frozen over.

We could invade via snowmobiles and half-tracks, heck probably even deuce-&-a-halfs.

Prepare the invasion force.

[jmdrake]

Cowsley: LOL. Maybe are Olympic athletes are an advanced scouting party? ;)

jkr: Yep. It's continuing. And the quickest way to stop it (IMO) is to overturn Roe and take the battle to the states where it's winnable.

[Elwar]

http://www.impawards.com/1995/posters/canadian_bacon.jpg