Printable View
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8[/YOUTUBE]
Right from the old horses mouth. He dodges a bit but ya know where he's coming from. NOWHERE does he state that the states would be able to perform legal abortions. Pay close attention to the comment on the day after pill located at 3:20.
Have a good one!:s4:
Technology advancement is going take "embryonic stem cell" research off the debating table.
He is for or against abortion ? I don't know.
He is personally against abortion, but he doesn't support the federal government involvement in the matter citing constitutional reasons. Jeez...What a dictator!
Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America
SURE he isn't........from your site:
Life and Liberty
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
Ron Paul 2008 â?º Issues â?º Life and Liberty
Have a good one!:s4:
gotta love Dr. No!Quote:
Originally Posted by 420izzle
So are you pro-life now or where do you stand..........LMAO!!Quote:
Originally Posted by pisshead
Have a good one!:s4:
Man you guys sure do dig to try and find any kind of negativity about this man that you can. Who care if he is against abortion it is his personal choice as well as with all the other candidates that are pro life this is ridiculous! There are a lot more bigger issues than the personal opinions on Pro life/choice. I may not agree with everything he says like abortion, but as far as I can tell he is the only damn man solid enough up there. He has the guts to say what he thinks. He is not in the pockets of any special interest groups, and to me that is a huge plus for him. I don't understand what you people are so scared of? Are you afraid of change? Do you like big government? Do you enjoy your money just going right back into the pockets it came from? If you don't agree with him fine, but for god's sake please stop bringing this into the debate! He is not the only one running who is pro life! Hell the earmarks are better than this dead argument.
I love Dr. Paul. I can't stop myself and feel compelled to spread his message far and wide. I don't understand the haters either...
I don't hate Ron Paul, but do we really want to risk the return of coathangers, and back alley medical care, for women who need abortions?Quote:
Originally Posted by 420izzle
So you're saying RP is the only candidate who supports pro life? What do you mean by "need abortions"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
This is one of the major issues....if you've watched any of the debates I'm sure you know that. What's wrong with posting his view point on this issue with a vid to back it up?Quote:
Originally Posted by epxroot
There's another thread."Create a President" in a sticky.....sure would be nice to see where a few of ya really stand.
Have a good one!:s4:
There is nothing wrong with posting this, but I don't think it's fair to just single him out as the only baby killer running. I will be posting in "Create a President" fo sho!!! =)Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
Who needs abortion? We could start with rape victims. There are other reasons, including medical and economic ones. Under his leadership, Ron Paul supports banning abortion - and any person who assists them would be liable for criminal prosecution, resulting in confinement to prison if convicted of receiving or performing an abortion. The people of this country deserve better.Quote:
Originally Posted by epxroot
LOL...that's NON-baby killer.Quote:
Originally Posted by epxroot
Can't wait to see your reply on the other thread.....just nice to see where people actually stand without the copy and paste.:thumbsup: Where some in here are far right on some issues they are far left on others.....
Have a good one!:s4:
Yes you're right Non Baby killer!!! =) Getting ready for work so I 'am kinda in a huryy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
Work?? Hell, I was just ready to fire one up.:D I'll make sure to take a toke for ya.Quote:
Originally Posted by epxroot
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
All of a sudden, abortion is the biggest problem and biggest issue in society? I think not. The benefits of having Paul in office will far outweigh these minor drawbacks. Common sense says stem cell research (which I support vehemently. I am also strongly pro-choice) will one day occur somewhere in this world, and this research, if not performed by the US, will eventually be able to benefit US citizens, but Ron Paul will make many changes within the belly of the beast that no other politician seems to be willing to make. I see him as one of those rare revolutionaries that hasn't yet been labeled as a terrorist by the majority of the "civilized" world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
@:20 RP- "I consider abortion an act of violence"
@:30 RP - "All acts of violence are handled by state law"
@:51 RP- "therefore it should be handled at the state level and I don't want the federal government to do it"
Then goes on talking about not using tax money to fund abortions
I would support eliminating Roe vs Wade and I'm pro choice. If you look at the "We the People act", Paul was trying to bar federal courts from interfering in state matters. This includes abortion. If Texas wants to ban it, let them, and the feds should have no say. If Massachusetts want to legalize up to 9 month abortions while supporting gay marriage, let them, and again the feds should have no say. Now if you feel abortion should be legal and you live in Texas, your always free to move elsewhere. Ron maybe pro-life but he wouldn't hold a gun to your head telling you no. Same with marijuana, no federal law should require it to be legal or otherwise.
You can try to twist it however you want but the interview is a fact. Taking out lil' bits and twisting the information don't change that at all. He considers life to begin at conception and even classified the day after pill as a form of abortion that could be prosecuted under state law....Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimzum
Have a good one!:s4:
He's not twisting a thing. You keep pounding his personal opinions to use against the guy, but the point your quoted poster is making is that he's not instituting these personal opinions into federal law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--
(1) the Congress declares that--
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
GovTrack: H.R. 2597: Text of Legislation
He sure is trying like hell to do it though..........
Have a good one!:s4:
I'd sure the hell appreciate that!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
Just because a state has "authority" does not mean it has to be enforced. California state and local police generally leave medical marijuana dispensaries alone. Yet marijuana is illegal in the eyes of the feds regardless. You need to allow states to fine tune what laws there voters want enacted, like Prop. 215 in CA. Else whats the point of having states if everyone walks and talks the same? You and me both know that America is too diverse in our values/morals/whatevers that just because it might be a good idea in one state doesn't make it right in another. What if Massachusetts tried to force gay marriage on every other state? What if DC tried to ban handguns at a national level? Maybe Nevada can push for nationwide legal prostitution. Ron doesn't want to ban abortions at a national level, just to give states and their voters the right to vote on issues. The biggest part of Paul's abortion views that I agree with is the fact he wants to bar federal funds from subsidizing clinics and hospitals for the purpose of abortion.
P4B why did you omit the whole text of section 2(a)?
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
That's not the way it reads from the link:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimzum
GovTrack: H.R. 2597: Text of Legislation
I try to keep the copy and paste honest.......this is dated June 6,2007.
I don't know how it would be handled on a state level. If the Fed determined, by this bill, would it be considered murder? Surely federal funds for hospitals that did this practice, or hired doctors that did, would be cut off.
Have a good one!:s4:
Well Said Sir! And when I said: Haters of Dr. Paul, I mean those like pyscho4bud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimzum
LMAO! So if ya don't agree with ones politics all of a sudden you hate the individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by 420izzle
Still waiting for few of ya to show us how you feel about issues instead of the usual ramble......http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/...president.html
Have a good one!:s4:
Sorry P4B you are right. For some reason or another when I went to govtrack it had showed me HR 1094, not the one you referenced. They are both the same really but HR 2597 came out a few months later. Very minor changes. I don't understand the reasoning behind summiting the same thing twice in less then a 4 month period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
HR 1094 VS. HR 2597
He probably had a new earmark to include with it........j/k
Really though, I've found that these things are constantly being revised........must be to try to bring in more votes would be my guess.
This isn't his only one pertaining to this issue though.....just the only one that I've really looked at. Maybe you could find something else a bit less damning on the issue?
Have a good one!:s4: