Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ron Paul - ProLife Profiles

Ron Paul - ProLife Profiles

Ratings: (0)|Views: 27|Likes:
Published by PRMurphy
Ron Paul's legacy is apparent. When politicians run for mayor and they are asked about children being dismembered in the womb they reply that abortion is not a matter of city statute. When politicians run for governor they say abortion is a federal issue. When they run for president they say abortion is a state issue. They pass the buck. Ron Paul style.
Ron Paul's legacy is apparent. When politicians run for mayor and they are asked about children being dismembered in the womb they reply that abortion is not a matter of city statute. When politicians run for governor they say abortion is a federal issue. When they run for president they say abortion is a state issue. They pass the buck. Ron Paul style.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: PRMurphy on Feb 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/27/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
Ron Paul
U.S. Representative (R-Texas)Tier 4 - Personhood Never
Ron Paul wants to be pro-life but is officially pro-choicestate by state, and so contradicts himself and wronglyassumes that states' rights supersede human rights,concluding that a state like California has the right topermit abortion. But the right to life is God-given sothere can be no 'right' to decriminalize child killing.Source: ProLife Profileshttp://prolifeprofiles.com/ron-paul-abortion 
y
 
Ron Paul is Pro-Choice
state by state with all of these observations fullydocumented below:- opposes a national ban on the dismembering of unborn children- claims the states may decide if they want to permit the killing of children- has not acknowledged that human rights trump states' rights- legislates as though rights come from the state and not from our Creator, thus- believes the states have the right to permit genocide and commit holocaust - claims that killing children in the womb cannot "conceivably" violate the U.S.Constitution- believes the state is the ultimate authority, superseding God's enduringcommand, Do not murder- defends the killing of any of the very youngest babies including those conceivedin rape through his "exceptions"- is essentially a Libertarian (small godless government) but runs as a Republicanfor greater visibility- The Libertarian Party promotes legalized abortion, pornography, adultery, crackcocaine, suicide, euthanasia, and prostitution- Ron Paul uses Libertarians for financial and political support but doesn't warnthem about their party's gross immorality
y
 
O
pposed to National Ban on Abortion
:
 
"While Roe v. Wade is invalid, afederal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid."1 2 3 
y
 
Pro-Choice by State
: Some people are "pro-choice" for each woman; some are"pro-choice" for the parents; and some are "pro-choice" for each state. No onehas the right to kill a child. Yet those who are "pro-choice" at some level thinkthey have found a way around God's enduring command, Do not murder.- Women's Rights: Many who think they're supporting women's rights claim it should be legal to kill the child if the woman agrees.
 
- Parents' Rights: Many who think they're supporting parents' rights claim it should be legal to kill the child if the father also agrees.- States' Rights: Many who think they're supporting states' rights, including RonPaul, claim it should be legal to kill the child if the state agrees.
y
 
States Prosecute But Cannot Decriminalize Murder:
States prosecutemurder. They do not have the right to decriminalize murder. Because states justly prosecute kidnapping and theft, it does not then follow that they have theauthority to legalize kidnapping and stealing. Ron Paul promotes a confused viewof states' rights that suggests that the federal government can apathetically lookthe other way if the states authorize the killing of innocent human beings.42 Neither God nor the U.S. Constitution gives to any state, county, city, nor anysubdivision of government permission to authorize or even to tolerate theintentional 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.
y
 
Ron Paul is Guilty of a 19-State Revisionism
: Paul writes, "Roe vs. Wade...ushered in the age of abortion."4However with that evidently false revisionist history, Paul is behaving like a populist arguing then that it is reasonable to fight abortion only at the state level. He claims that the federal government is thewrong jurisdiction for such efforts because it was the federal U.S. Supreme Court that legitimized abortion with Roe v. Wade.5Against that error stands thehistorical reality that the states began de-criminalizing child killing with 19 statespermitting abortion for various reasons in the seven years before Roe (MS, CO,CA, OR, NC, NY, AK, HI, WA, FL, AL, AR, DE, GA, KS, MD, NM, SC, VA) includingNew York which allowed "elective" abortion on demand through six months.6 7 8 
 
y
 
H
uman Rights Supersede States' Rights
: At the museum beneath the St.Louis Arch a plaque presents a quote from Stephen A. Douglas. This Democraticpolitician championed states' rights.9No state though has sufficient authority tonullify the God-given inalienable rights to life and liberty. His states' rights viewled Douglas to claim that the people of a territory should decide the slaveryquestion by themselves. Those who don't learn from history are destined torepeat it's errors. Like Ron Paul today and abortion, Stephen Douglas believedhis Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 would thereby "remove the contentious slaveryissue from national politics, lest it threaten to rip the nation apart, but it hadexactly the opposite effect."10The extent of destruction from doing wrong isdifficult to fathom. Ron Paul and Douglas reject the truth that human rightstrump states rights. And in 1858 the latter said, "I look forward to a time wheneach state shall be allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slaveryforever, it is not my business, but its own; if it chooses to abolish slavery, it is itsown business, not mine. I care more for the great principle of self-government,than I do for all the Negroes in Christendom."11This parallels Paul's claim that,"a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid" ascompared to Roe.12Ron Paul puts his supporters in the awkward position of siding with Douglas, and wrongly claiming that states' rights supersede the God-given inalienable rights of life and liberty. If states have the right to permit thesystematic killing of children, as in Paul's view, then they would also have theright to deprive any other class of citizen of life and liberty. But as a University of Denver law student argued with a professor during a 2008 American Right ToLife event, "If a state has the authority to nullify rights, then rights aren't rights,are they?" Thus states' have no such right, neither to define one class of livinghuman being as nonpersons, nor to decriminalize murder, for human rightssupersede states' rights.
y
 
Paul's SANCTITY
OF
LI
FE
ACT
E
levates States' Rights
O
ver
H
umanRights
: From the text of Ron Paul's bill, "...the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review... any case arising out of any statute... on the grounds that such statute... regulates... the performance of abortions..."13 14Ron Paul's legislation would violate a fundamental principle of governance by removing theprotection of inalienable human rights from the jurisdiction of the courts. By histheory, a state like California has the right from the Constitution to allow theintentional killing of unborn children, but actually those children have a right tolife from their Creator. Because the Creator trumps California and theConstitution, and the right to life is inalienable. It is wrong to give aid andcomfort to any jurisdiction of government suggesting that they would be freefrom interference if they permit genocide within their borders. Ron Paul's so-called Sanctity of Life legislation is illegitimate because abortion cannot be aright: neither a woman's, nor parents, nor a states' rights issue.
y
 
7
.4 Million Children Aborted by Ron Paul's Policy
: In 1997 Ron Paulassumed his current seat as U.S. Representative from Texas' 14th District.15TheExceptions Calculator documents that during his seven terms through the end of 2011, pharmaceutical and surgical abortionists will have killed 7,413,084 childrenby the actual policies, and therefore the approval, of Ron Paul.16 

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
PRMurphy added this note
Why does Ron Paul hate babies? #tcot #wcot #sgp #tlot #teaparty #rnc #gop
PRMurphy added this note
Ron Paul should not give a false sense of security to a state which legitimizes genocide #tcot #wcot #sgp #tlot #teaparty #rnc #gop
PRMurphy added this note
Babies killed by the actual policies and approval of Rep Ron Paul 7,413,084 #tcot #wcot #sgp #tlot #teaparty #rnc #gop
PRMurphy added this note
Process does not trump principle. Yet Paul undermines the most fundamental moral principles when he claims that abortion is a states' rights issue.
PRMurphy liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->