On Mandated Transvaginal Ultrasound?

[specsaregood]

It's not acceptable to kill obviously..but it's acceptable to kill the doctor?

I didn't say that. You implied that it would be ok if there was a "net gain for society". you straight up said that one life is worth more than another.

[Massachusetts]

I didn't say that. You implied that it would be ok if there was a "net gain for society". you straight up said that one life is worth more than another.

I know you didn't say that. I was responding to Eduardo..

[specsaregood]

I know you didn't say that. I was responding to Eduardo..

Well I figure he'd say something about "eye for an eye". Personally, I don't think killing is really acceptable in either case; but in this situation the only life that is completely innocent is the fetus.

[Wags]

Might I suggest we not get on the topic of abortion? I noticed there are already several existing threads on it. We should focus on the issue of the mandate, and on what Ron Paul's stance on that is. If you want to relate views of abortion to the mandate, I see no problems with that. Just don't derail off if you can help it.

Arguing over a flawed premise. The government should not be involved in the relationship between your doctor and you. And it certainly has no right to put a gun to everyone's head and steal money to enforce this provision, nor does it have the right to put a gun to our heads again to pay for these procedures.

Government mandates are wrong. I oppose them.

I should note that I believe the question Ron answered was about a Texas bill, and Ron said something like "it always should have been a state issue".

Well, here's the quote from washingtonpost so that we're clear:

WEST COLUMBIA, South Carolina — When GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul was asked today about Tuesday’s federal court ruling upholding an aggressive new sonogram law in his home state of Texas, the congressman said the requirement that women seeking an abortion first get a sonogram “should always have been a Texas state position.’’

This is why I have a problem. They never used the word transvaginal to describe the sonogram, and all other sources are derived from the washingtonpost site... and those other sources are a lot more biased than that site, trying to perpetuate an image of someone who is allowing his religious beliefs to override what he'd actually do as president. I know that's definitely not the case. To me, it's difficult to tell what's going on without seeing an actual video of him speaking his views. If we are to believe that he is consistent, then I believe he only meant an abdominal ultrasound should be required. But again, it's difficult to tell. They asked him this question in January, around when Texas and Virginia were deliberating on the transvaginal ultrasound to be required for patients seeking abortions.

So even if legislation on the transvaginal ultrasound is left to the states to deal with... that's still government mandating something invasive, is it not? It's just smaller, localized government. I suppose that's the best way to handle it for now... if the people are upset, they can act to overturn it just as soon. Moral issues are left to the states, but I have a hard time dealing with Ron Paul possibly supporting the mandate in his own state. As I said, it would just pile one crime on another. I don't see it as the proper method to discourage women from killing their unborn children. There are better ways to go about that which don't violate someone else's rights.

[specsaregood]

and those other sources are a lot more biased than that site, trying to perpetuate an image of someone who is allowing his religious beliefs to override what he'd actually do as president. I know that's definitely not the case.

I disagree. His religious beliefs are fundamental to what he would do as president as he would use it as a guide. eg: just because the president can now legally kill anybody he wants without any oversight, he wouldn't do that because his moral compass guided by his religious beliefs say that is wrong.

[eduardo89]

I know you didn't say that. I was responding to Eduardo..

Well I figure he'd say something about "eye for an eye". Personally, I don't think killing is really acceptable in either case; but in this situation the only life that is completely innocent is the fetus.

"eye for an eye" I see as vengeance, which I disapprove of. I do believe in justice, however. I believe that those who premeditatively take an innocent life, as is the case in abortion have lost the right to live. The Bible gives civil authorities (Romans 13) the authority to impose punishment on those who commit evil.

The fact that I believe in the death penalty doesn't mean I take it lightly. I believe in its just and equitable application and, unfortunately, many times that has not been the case. I believe that life is sacred, and that when a person, wantonly and premeditatedly takes the life of another person, they have forfeited their right to continued life. And when they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, they should be executed.

We also are told, in Romans 13:4, that the civil magistrate bears not the sword in vain. In the original Greek language the word used there for “sword” is the same word used for the type of sword used to execute Roman citizens who were found guilty of capital crimes. Clearly, the Apostle Paul, inspired by God’s Holy Spirit, is granting to the civil magistrate the use of lethal force as one of the options available to punish those who do evil--in the case of domestic criminals, the police force, and in war, the military.

Obviously ultimate justice will came after death, but that does not mean imperfect justice should not be doled out on earth.

[eduardo89]

I disagree. His religious beliefs are fundamental to what he would do as president as he would use it as a guide. eg: just because the president can now legally kill anybody he wants without any oversight, he wouldn't do that because his moral compass guided by his religious beliefs say that is wrong.

That's right.

“I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.”

-Ron Paul

[Wags]

I disagree. His religious beliefs are fundamental to what he would do as president as he would use it as a guide. eg: just because the president can now legally kill anybody he wants without any oversight, he wouldn't do that because his moral compass guided by his religious beliefs say that is wrong.

Let me reword that then. His religious views are not imposing upon his political beliefs, because his political beliefs primarily reflect the constitution. I understand that his beliefs influence his character, but that's not what I was referring to. Whether he believes in evolution or not is irrelevant to what he'd do as president, and you'll never see him pushing his personal beliefs on others. To give a contrast, Santorum wants to ban abortion on the federal level due to his religious beliefs. Though he has to admit that the states deal with moral issues, he is not willing to concede that abortion be handled by the states. He wants a federal ban; states have no say. His religious beliefs would be imposing on his legislation. This is not the same case with Ron Paul.

Straight from the man himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL6CK...eature=related