PDA

View Full Version : CNSNews: RRon Paul Joins March for Life




Bradley in DC
01-24-2008, 11:00 AM
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080124a.html

Ron Paul Joins March for Life
By Penny Starr
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
January 24, 2008

( CNSNews.com ) - Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was the only GOP presidential candidate to make an appearance at the 35th annual March for Life on Tuesday, the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision giving women the right to abortion on demand.

Paul got an enthusiastic reception from the crowd, with many marchers waving Ron Paul signs and banners.

Dr. Paul, an OB/GYN, said he has delivered more than 4,000 babies and that in medical school he "quickly learned" that "when I dealt with a pregnant woman I always had two patients."

"The debate about when life begins should not be a debate," Paul said. "Let me assure you that all life begins at conception." Hear Audio

"You cannot defend liberty without defending life," he said.

Paul, who has 4.6 percent support nationally in poll averages, according to Real Clear Politics, is outspoken about Roe v. Wade as it relates to states' rights. He was a sponsor of H.R. 300, for instance, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life.

Paul also wrote legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception (H.R. 1094).

The name of another presidential hopeful was evoked during the pre-march rally when Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) spoke to the crowd, telling them that unborn children are "the most persecuted minority in the world today." Hear Audio

"On Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama criticized Americans for both our moral deficit and our empathy deficit and called on us to be our brothers' and sisters' keepers," Smith said. "Can Sen. Obama not see, appreciate, or understand that the abortion culture that he and others so assiduously promote lacks all empathy for unborn children be they black, white, Latino or Asian?

"Why does dismembering a child with sharp knives, pulverizing a child with powerful suction devices, or chemically poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals fail to illicit so much as a scintilla of empathy, moral outrage, mercy or compassion by America's liberal elite?" said Smith.

"Abortion destroys the lives of our brothers and sisters, and the pro-abortion movement itself is the quintessential example of the empathy deficit," he said.

austinchick
01-24-2008, 11:24 AM
"Paul, who has 4.6 percent support nationally in poll averages, according to Real Clear Politics, is outspoken about Roe v. Wade as it relates to states' rights. "

are they talking about Polls that don't include Ron Paul's name??

AzNsOuLjAh27
01-24-2008, 11:45 AM
I hate his stand on this....

steph3n
01-24-2008, 11:53 AM
I hate his stand on this....

Not that we need to know about it here, move on and let your state decide.

IRO-bot
01-24-2008, 12:03 PM
Not that we need to know about it here, move on and let your state decide.

+1

ddoggphx
01-24-2008, 12:04 PM
I hate his stand on this....

I love his stand on this.

Mini-Me
01-24-2008, 12:04 PM
I hate his stand on this....

Because you're really, really pro-life, or really, really pro-choice? That's the thing - I can't even tell, because people on both sides condemn Ron Paul for not being extreme enough. Leaving it to the states is the best idea ever - not only is it more Constitutionally sound, it will allow people to finally start focusing on other issues in the general election. So many people are single-issue voters with respect to abortion, and because it is such a polarizing issue, keeping it at the federal level is one of the reasons why our politicians are permitted to get away with so much in every other area (because regardless of what else they've done or plan to do, people will vote for them solely because they're pro-life and the other candidate is not, or solely because they're pro-choice and the other candidate is not). In other words, the issue of abortion being decided at the federal level is part of what is tearing our country apart.

Bradley in DC
01-24-2008, 12:54 PM
"Paul, who has 4.6 percent support nationally in poll averages, according to Real Clear Politics, is outspoken about Roe v. Wade as it relates to states' rights. "

are they talking about Polls that don't include Ron Paul's name??

Well, you could just check RCP if you wanted, but obviously they're not including averages of things that don't exist. I guess it's more fun to just baselessly promote whatever canard you like--hiding our head in the sand doesn't win us any delegates though. ;)

AzNsOuLjAh27
01-24-2008, 01:48 PM
I love his stand on this.


you know that arguement, if a girl gets raped, and she becomes pregnant does have to live threw the suffering of child birth, and put 9 months of having a baby in you from a man who you raped you?

Or if the girl doesn't know she's pregnant, and she's in school. and having a child may ruin the rest of her life.

I think the burden of abortion should be put on the parents responsible for the baby.

ddoggphx
01-24-2008, 03:41 PM
you know that arguement, if a girl gets raped, and she becomes pregnant does have to live threw the suffering of child birth, and put 9 months of having a baby in you from a man who you raped you?

Or if the girl doesn't know she's pregnant, and she's in school. and having a child may ruin the rest of her life.
.


Your first comment is a valid argument that can be debated, though I don't agree with it.

Your second argument is everything that is wrong with the pro-choice movement.

The only way I see agreements is in life of a mother vs. life of a child.

I believe 100% that the 14th amendment should apply to unborn children based on a concept of "non-intervention viability" of their lives. If left untampered with, they will be born and receive the rights due under the 14th.

Thus, I view abortion as a human rights violation, and while freedom to choose what you do with your body is something I believe in, you can not "choose" to violate the human rights of another. Life trumps choice. That is why the mother's life argument I see agreement with, given it is a life vs. life argument and not a life vs. choice.

In a nutshell. Let the states decide it currently, but at some point in our history, if we make it that long, I firmly believe abortion will be a human rights violation on the unborn child.

misterbig
01-24-2008, 03:45 PM
I have no problem destroying an embryo that consists of just one fertilized cell. In fact, two, four, or even eight cells, not a problem. I would have no remorse I mean come on its just a few cells.

Rights of the mother > rights of a handful of cells.

Of course as the number of cells grows, I would be increasingly hesitant to hold this position.

But damn, is destroying a few hundred cells so bad? Versus being forced to accept years of unwanted economic expense? Hmm...