Thread by Brookhaven.
Ron Paul wants to be pro-life but is officially pro-choice state by state, and so contradicts himself and wrongly assumes that states' rights supersede human rights, concluding that a state like California has the right to permit abortion. But the right to life is God-given so there can be no 'right' to decriminalize child killing.
Ron Paul is Pro-Choice state by state with all of these observations fully documented 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 enduring command, Do not murder
- defends the killing of any of the very youngest babies including those conceived in rape through his "exceptions"
- is essentially a Libertarian (small godless government) but runs as a Republican for greater visibility
- The Libertarian Party promotes legalized abortion, pornography, adultery, crack cocaine, suicide, euthanasia, and prostitution
- Ron Paul uses Libertarians for financial and political support but doesn't warn them about their party's gross immorality
Paul's SANCTITY OF LIFE ACT Elevates States' Rights Over Human Rights: 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 Ron Paul's legislation would violate a fundamental principle of governance by removing the protection of inalienable human rights from the jurisdiction of the courts. By his theory, a state like California has the right from the Constitution to allow the intentional killing of unborn children, but actually those children have a right to life from their Creator. Because the Creator trumps California and the Constitution, and the right to life is inalienable. It is wrong to give aid and comfort to any jurisdiction of government suggesting that they would be free from interference if they permit genocide within their borders. Ron Paul's so-called Sanctity of Life legislation is illegitimate because abortion cannot be a right: neither a woman's, nor parents, nor a states' rights issue.
Paul Defends Killing Kids with Chemical Abortifacients: In his own book, Ron Paul wrote:
"So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice." -Ron Paul, Liberty Defined47
Human Rights Supersede States' Rights: At the museum beneath the St. Louis Arch a plaque presents a quote from Stephen A. Douglas. This Democratic politician championed states' rights.9 No state though has sufficient authority to nullify the God-given inalienable rights to life and liberty. His states' rights view led Douglas to claim that the people of a territory should decide the slavery question by themselves.
Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it's errors. Like Ron Paul today and abortion, Stephen Douglas believed his Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 would thereby "remove the contentious slavery issue from national politics, lest it threaten to rip the nation apart, but it had exactly the opposite effect."10 The extent of destruction from doing wrong is difficult to fathom.
Ron Paul and Douglas reject the truth that human rights trump states rights. And in 1858 the latter said, "I look forward to a time when each state shall be allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is not my business, but its own; if it chooses to abolish slavery, it is its own business, not mine. I care more for the great principle of self-government, than I do for all the Negroes in Christendom."11 This parallels Paul's claim that, "a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid" as compared to Roe.12 Ron 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 the systematic killing of children, as in Paul's view, then they would also have the right 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 To Life 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 living human being as nonpersons, nor to decriminalize murder, for human rights supersede states' rights.
Two thread by me.
The “slippery slope” is often derided as a logical fallacy. But when one of the leading advocacy groups for euthanasia in Belgium posts an article entitled “Euthanasie: tijd voor de volgende stap, Euthanasia, time for the next step”, it’s hard not to think that it may not be so illogical after all.
The Humanistisch-Vrijzinnige Vereniging (Humanist-Liberal Association) complains that eligibility for euthanasia is far too restrictive. At the moment, only people with unbearable suffering can be euthanased. This leaves out people in irreversible comas, people with dementia, people with irreversible brain diseases and people who are under 18. This is manifestly unfair, the HVV contends.
However, this is not just a private initiative. In November Wim Distelmans, the chairman of the official Federal Committee on Euthanasia, released an open letter to Prime Minister Elio Di Rupo asking him to re-open a national debate on euthanasia. (At the time, Di Rupo was pulling a government together (this took 589 days) but now he is officially prime minister.) He and eight colleagues, like the HVV, have asked the Belgian government to update its 2002 euthanasia law. The proposed changes include these provisions:
Institut Européen de Bioéthique, Dec 6
______________________________________________________________
Euthanasia is not just a lethal act, but a deadly ideological appetite–one that is never satiated. Once killing is unleashed as a solution to suffering, activists will always want more. Always. As I have written before, they remind me of the man killing plant in Little Shop of Horrors, growing ever larger and constantly yelling, “Feed me!”
Latest of so many cases in point: Belgian activists have a petition out to open euthanasia to minors and to force all doctors to be complicit in killing by creating a duty to refer to a death doctor if they are not willing to personally euthanize. Here is the Google translation of the petition, linked here in, I think, Flemish:
The Right to Euthanasia: Time for the Next Step. Euthanasia possible, even for those not aware, and who is a minor:
Through this petition we want the federal government, federal parliament seats and all democratic parties insist that the euthanasia during the next legislature will be expanded and refined. We ask the following enhancements:
• Since the advance [euthanasia request] is always revocable, is a time limit of five years obsolete. It is desirable to remove the time limit. The municipalities that the declarations of intent to register must already requires the parties to automatically notify the imminent expiration of the deadline.
• If the advance euthanasia was registered, its existence must be included on the chip of the electronic ID card.
• A referral qualify for the duty doctor who refuses euthanasia.
• Assisted suicide should be enrolled in the law on euthanasia.
• It must be ensured that hospitals that work with public money, the application of the legislation is not in the way.Furthermore, we urge the law to expand:
• In people with irreversible brain disease or dementia, who previously wrote a living will.
• To minors within the current law, without prejudice to the definition of ‘euthanasia’ (the explicit and considered the request of the patient), and without an age limit to build.
“The next step,” that is the key. Note, it isn’t the “final” step. That’s because there never is a final step.
Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?
Ron Paul declares himself to be an expert, or even a “scholar,” of the Constitution, and unfortunately, his sycophants agree. They are as bad, or if not, worse than the Obamabots.