-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ban on Gender Abortions FAILS in HOUSE Today
- Thread starter LadyEagle
- Start date
Regardless of what Paul says about the constitution, he often votes for...and against... pro abortion legislation while claiming to be pro life.
I call that in inconsistent.
He also claims to be against all earmarks, but is one of the biggest earmarkers in Congress.
I call that hypocritical.
Yet you never look into what he says, only what others say he does.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.
Not true.
But if what he does belies what he claims to be, I'll go with his actions. Every time.
So he voted in favor of a ban on partial birth abortions and against a ban on gender based abortions. Hardly what I'd call consistent.
Last edited by a moderator:
freeatlast
New Member
People may not like Ron Paul's political stance, but I seriously doubt that anyone could point to any politician who has stuck to their core beliefs any more then Ron Paul. It is one thing to reject him because of his beliefs, but altogether something else to accuse him of not being what he claims. If he has failed in one area of his beliefs then every other politician has failed in a hundred. There is just no compression between his holding to his core standards and the rest of the field which you never know what they hold to from one day to the next.
Paul is a huge hypocrite.
Sometimes I don't think Paul knows what his "core beliefs" are. His votes and actions are often contrary to what he says he believes.
You keep saying this but provide no examples. Please provide examples.
Pay attention.
Let's assume I wasn't paying attention and am not able to find where you have provided the examples. Can you repost them for me or refer me to them please?
Paul won't vote for a sham bill that is going to hurt more than it helps. Like his views, or don't like them, he is completely consistent. Even his most ardent detractors admit this.
That is simply false. Paul has never, EVER claimed to be for earmarks. He has continually insisted that all money should be earmarked, and that the president should not get one penny of money that is not specifically designated.
This particular bill in question, would not have stopped a single abortion, but WOULD have instituted the first ever "thought" crime. It was nothing but a silly Republican political ploy, and Paul was right to vote against it.
Yet he voted for the pb abortion ban...and that is consistent? How?
I guess you just have to be a paulbot to understand.:smilewinkgrin:
Even when his words are put in front of you, you don't read them.
I read how he voted. What I'm wondering is if you have his votes on the partial birth abortion ban and the gender based abortion issue mixed up.
He clearly voted for one, just as you've shown, and clearly did not for the other. How is that consistent?
Last edited by a moderator:
His vote on this bill does not make him pro-abortion. He even says his vote is against his better judgement, and writes a pretty good explanation. If that isn't good enough, vote for Romney, who actuall HAS flip-flopped on abortion. Yeah, you can trust him.
So voting against your better judgement is consistent? Why didn't he vote against his better judgement in this bill, which would essentially be a partial birth abortion as the child could be as old as 20 weeks?
I didn't say it did, but it does make him inconsistent.
What part of "impossible to enforce" do you guys not understand ?
My final word on the subject is I agree with Dr. Paul's vote, I support it, find it to be well thought-out, consistent with his statements (I think he explained his P/B vote well, even if it seems out of line with his him) that the federal gov't has no business making abortion law, and I hope this kind of silly pandering is not what the new republican majority plands to implement as policy.
Last edited by a moderator:
His position on federal government involvement in abortion is also inconsistent. He says he wants no federal involvement , but wants the federal government to define when life begins and the states to follow that guideline.
Sorry. He just can't have it both ways.