Posted on 06/01/2012 12:02:30 PM PDT by ElIguana
ACN Staff) The House of Representatives failed to pass a bill that would ban sex selective abortions on Thursday. Although a majority voted in favor of the bill (246-168), the measure reqired a two-thirds majority vote to pass. Many may be under the impression that the final vote tally was along party lines; however 20 Democrats actually voted in favor of the ban and shockingly, seven Republicans votes against banning sex selective abortions. Those Republicans were...
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativeamericaonline.blogspot.com ...
Not one of his voting positions are pro-life, it’s that simple.
Paul is not pro-life, and your defense is not either.
Agreed.
Now for some facts........
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D. (R-Tx) Introduces Three Pro-Life Bills
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/912300/posts
Ron Paul the only person in congress willing to actually do what it takes to stop the murder of the unborn, and have a plan to do so.
Really?
He voted against banning sex section abortions.
He voted against banning the transportation of minors across state lines without parental permission.
He voted in favor of abortion pills for rape victims.
Not one of those is pro-life.
Ok, I read those.
They do not have to do with life issues, they do have to do with his kvetching about using funds for abortion.
What I have stated is how he actually voted.
If you actually read the bills he sponsored and how he voted and why you might actually see the light. The guy is the most pro-life bar none in congress and has laid out a plan as President to stop abortion in the US. Name one other congrescritter who even comes close.
One of the main reason I support Ron Paul is because he will actually do what is needed to stop the murder of children in the womb. I have been fighting against abortion since 1985 and would not support any pro abortion candidate. Which brings me to the question, you going to vote Romney who is pro abortion?
Stop the spin and bullshite about Dr. Paul and get your head outa your arse.
No?
Then your argument, while well intentioned, doesn't hold water.
Period.
Ron Paul - “A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does—through state laws.
“To summarize my views—I believe the federal government has a role to play,” said Paul. “I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.”
“I don’t see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues,” Paul said. “The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a ‘Federal Department of Abortion.’ Does anyone believe that will help life? We should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.
“As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts,” said Paul. “This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state.”
How could he be more pro life????
Then why did he vote the way he did?
The votes are not pro-life, I am not sure why you are defending them.
In the bills, as the information you presented, Paul is not talking about life he is talking about funding.
No, I am not voting for Romney because he is a stink’n liberal.
One of Paul’s past proposals that completely makes your statement nonsensical...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czdthgauZGA
He’s been consistent in his opposition to any Federal funding for Planned Parenthood, abortion, etc... If the rest of the GOP had voted with him, Planned Parenthood would be an ugly footnote in our Nations history and no more.
Sorry, I really thought I read in the Constitution something about life, I guess I was wrong. Oh, well.
The votes are as I stated, Paul voted that way and they are not pro-life, no matter how much other stuff you bring up, those votes are not pro-life.
In the interest of consistency, I dont see how anyone truly in favor of “abortion on demand” could be against the idea of a sex selective abortion.
Please dont get me wrong, I am not in any way supporting this abhorrent practice, just pointing out that for someone who is “pro-choice” to come out against abortion for this reason is logically indefensible.
The whole drumbeat for these folks since 1973 is that a woman has a “right” to an abortion, regardless of reason. If she doesn’t feel ready to support the kid, or isn’t ready to change her lifestyle, or is opposed to conceiving on a thursday, or whatever, we are told its none of our damn business what goes on in her womb....and dont try legislating your blasted morality on her...her choice, shut up, period.
But now some of these same “champions of women’s rights” (vomit) are now wanting to legislate morality when it manifests it self in a way that is contrary to THEIR value system, which just goes to prove a point. Dont EVER believe that they dont have a values system, or that they believe that there is no absolute morality. This truly tips their hand...do what you want until it offends US, then we want government in the womb all day every day.
I saw this fight coming, but didn’t think it would be over gender. I anticipated this happening if sexual preference was ever discovered to be genetic in nature. Once that happens, its only a matter of time, be it 5 minutes or 50 years, before there is a neo-natal test. Then the fur would start to fly because the pro-gay crowd will see the writing on the wall that lots of hetero couples wont want gay kids, and fearing extinction, move to outlaw “hate abortions” and the pro-choice crowd will violently oppose. If that ever happens, it will be time to pop some popcorn and watch the democratic party implode.
The votes are as I stated, Paul voted that way and they are not pro-life, no matter how much other stuff you bring up, those votes are not pro-life.
You were wrong. Murder is a State statute.
The votes in question exceeded Congresses just power. Sorry you can’t seem to grasp that fact.
In order for your argument to hold water, states would have to have a “right” to alienate the unalienable right to life, and no obligation to do the first thing that government exists to do.
Your prescription is the death of constitutional republican self-government.
“How could he be more pro life????”
According to some on this thread, he should ignore the Constitution and do what they want him to do. Damn the consequences...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.