Can Ron Paul win?

[Ghosty]

Paul is certainly not stronger than Santorum on the pro-life issues. Paul in fact would most likely oppose making abortion illegal on a national level. His strict adherence to the most restrictive role of the federal government is seemingly more important to him (based on his voting record) than the rights of the unborn, as his **56% rating by the National Right to Life Committee **shows.
issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm.
Here **he advocates for the abortion pill **:
dailypaul.com/180123/can-no-longer-support-ron-paul-morning-after-pill

Pro-lifers have to realize the playing field is changing on protecting life. In 2009 Planned Parenthood distributed 1,537,180 abortion pill prescriptions, up from 131,638 just 9 years earlier.
No politician should be considered Pro-Life who supports keeping the abortion pill legal.
**Paul also supported Cynthia McKinney **who has a 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL, Planned Parenthood and Pro-choice America
conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/19/ron-paul-endorsed-a-pro-abortion-candidate-for-president-instead-of-a-pro-lifer/

He certainly is not the strongest pro-life candidate.

Have you read the work in question? Ron Paul did not advocate the use of the morning-after pill. He simply pointed out that people can easily take a pill that side-steps bans on abortion, and therefore abortion is a moral question and not a strictly legal one. He is saying that the values of society must change if abortion is to be stopped, since laws only make for policing, and very-early pregnancies can’t be policed.

Seriously, read what he actually wrote. He’s not saying “can” in an advocating manner, but rather as a statement of fact, as in “she physically can murder her child”. Remember, this is the man who has pushed the Sanctity of Life Act (warning: PDF) which would define personhood as beginning at conception, rendering the Roe v. Wade decision obsolete without needing to appoint new judges and rendering the Federal Courts unable to render rulings regarding laws dealing with abortion. This would effectively mean that the killing of a human after conception would fall under the murder statutes of the states.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

The Secretary of Defense came out yesterday and said that it is unacceptable for Iran to have nukes.

Yes, this is one more thing that Romney, Gingrich, and Obama share in common. I don’t want to vote for Obama in 2012, so why do most Republican candidates seem to want to skirt so close to the views of his administration?

I’m not buying into the fear machine about nukes. It’s non-sense when the Left uses it, and it’s non-sense when the Right uses it. There’s no preventing countries from wanting nuclear weapons; you might as well try to eliminate gunpowder. There will always be an arms-race, as there always has been in the past. You can’t eliminate the desire for more up to date weapons, but you can work to eliminate the impetus for using them.

Peace and God bless!

 

[The_Rock]

Yes, I understand his position and I read the document and listened to his responses in the debates. He won’t support national laws putting reasonable restrictions (outlawing the abortion pill, transporting minors across state line to avoid abortion restrictions etc.) on abortion because he believes it is not the role of the federal government or the laws may be ineffective.

If a personhood amendment is not passed in the next presidential cycle (nearly all the Republican candidates support it) a Paul presidency would leave us with a leader who would oppose other restrictions because it is “not the role of the federal government” or the law may be ineffective.

He says using the abortion pill is a personal moral choice. I believe the Church would argue that NOT making the abortion pill legal would be the only moral societal choice.

No state has the right to do what is morally wrong (legalizing abortion). Paul would leave it up to the states.

 

[Ghosty]

Yes, I understand his position and I read the document and listened to his responses in the debates. He won’t support national laws putting reasonable restrictions (outlawing the abortion pill, transporting minors across state line to avoid abortion restrictions etc.) on abortion because he believes it is not the role of the federal government or the laws may be ineffective.

He’s correct on both counts. That doesn’t mean he’s against regulating abortion; he said in his book that he thinks states should regulate it.

If a personhood amendment is not passed in the next presidential cycle (nearly all the Republican candidates support it) a Paul presidency would leave us with a leader who would oppose other restrictions because it is “not the role of the federal government” or the law may be ineffective.

A personhood amendment is not needed, at least not right away. All that would be needed immediately is the Sanctity of Life Act which would instruct the Federal courts to regard personhood as beginning at conception. This would overturn Roe v. Wade immediately, and then a Personhood Amendment could be worked on. Incidentally, Ron Paul proposed the Sanctity of Life Act in 2005 when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency; where was the Republican Party in passing the SOLA then?

He says using the abortion pill is a personal moral choice. I believe the Church would argue that NOT making the abortion pill legal would be the only moral societal choice.

Perhaps you don’t understand what the morning after pill is (this isn’t meant as a snide remark at all, because most people who don’t work in medicine don’t) so let me clear this up. The morning after pill is simply a high dose of a standard birth control pill chemical (estrogen and progestin) (read about using standard birth control as “morning after pill” here and here.). If the morning after pill is not available, taking a high dose of a standard birth control pill will suffice to cause the same effects (prior to the wide-spread availability of the morning after pill it was typically suggested to simply take a high dose of standard birth control pills; I know this because I was a sexually active teenager with a girlfriend who took birth control pills).

The birth control pill is recognized as a legitimate medication even by the Catholic Church, though not for the purposes of birth control. You simply can’t prevent the taking of the birth control pill in high doses as a “morning after pill” unless you ban “birth control pills” all together. Seeing as even the Catholic Church doesn’t suggest such a thing that is a tall order indeed. Since this medication is readily available, and not morally forbidden, one can’t legally prevent its use as an abortifacent because it’s literally impossible to police. That’s all Ron Paul is saying, and he’s pointing out that the only way to prevent its use in these circumstances is a moral change in society, something he is absolutely correct about.

No state has the right to do what is morally wrong (legalizing abortion). Paul would leave it up to the states.

He would also have passed a law that would make “personhood” begin at conception according to Federal Court interpretation, but the Republican Party that controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency didn’t put it through. The states are the ones that prosecute murder, and Ron Paul would have conception be the starting point of applying murder laws.

Peace and God bless!

 

[The_Rock]

The birth control pill is recognized as a legitimate medication even by the Catholic Church, though not for the purposes of birth control. You simply can’t prevent the taking of the birth control pill in high doses as a “morning after pill” unless you ban “birth control pills all together”. Seeing as even the Catholic Church doesn’t suggest such a thing that is a tall order indeed. Since this medication is readily available, and not morally forbidden, one can’t legally prevent its use as an abortifacent because it’s literally impossible to police. That’s all Ron Paul is saying, and he’s pointing out that the only way to prevent its use in these circumstances is a moral change in society, something he is absolutely correct about.

!

You could outlaw the pill for the purpose of birth control, it would then not be widely available . I do believe the Church would support such a law. The Church allows the use of the pill in very limited medical circumstances and never for contraception. So to say it is “not morally forbidden” is incorrect 99.9 % of the time. Certainly the morning after pills spicifically designed to prevent implantation should be opposed vigorously.

Also, just because something is hard to police does not mean it is legitimate to make it legal.

I am convinced that it is going to take a direct Divine intervention to save our country at this point. As mother Teresa said “A country which kills its own children has no future”

 

[Ghosty]

Outlawing the pill for birth control wouldn’t work at all. My highschool girlfriend was prescribed the pill for severe cramps before she was sexually active. Any doctor could do the same under any circumstances and it would be impossible to police.

As for making legal that which can’t be policed, I recommend reading up on the Church’s approach towards prostitution throughout history, espescially Aquinas’ and Augustine’s take on the matter.

Peace and God bless!