Abortion and the Centralization of Power
In his latest column Ron Paul describes how the “pro-choice” agenda not only kills unborn life, but also distorts the market and puts private health care providers at risk. He also points out how the centralization of power under one administration plays into the hands of future administrations which will be able to abuse that increased authority to commit further mischief.
Restricting Freedoms and Choices
by Ron Paul
As the financial sector continues its tailspin despite efforts to bail out Wall Street, among the few gainers in recent stock trading have been those companies looking for a new “shot in the arm” with government funding from the next administration.
With its strident rhetoric toward reestablishing the so called “pro-choice” agenda, the incoming administration has threatened a whole host of policies that would not only reduce restrictions on abortion, but would actually force people who wish to avoid participating in the procedure to support it.
As a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies I am very disturbed by the continued efforts of those on the left to establish absolute rights to abortion. However, even more distressing is the notion that taxpayers should be forced to subsidize life-ending procedures such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
In addition to the news that those who will benefit from federally-funded stem cell research have seen an uptick in their financial position as a result of the election, comes news from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that many health care facilities under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church may be shut down as a result of the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” for refusal to perform abortions.
Not only does this Act seem to have growing support in Congress, the President-elect and his Administration have indicated support for this legislation. Since many people cast their votes in a way that they believed would help to improve and increase availability of health care, this is an ironic twist.
Of course, the government takeover of health care began a long time ago, but we should be wary of how far that takeover will go if more private providers are forced out of the marketplace. If enacted, The Freedom of Choice Act and the potential for increased federal funding of embryonic stem cell research will go to show that the incoming Congress and Administration are far more dedicated to a government takeover than they are to affordable and available health care. Moreover, these approaches show no real concern at all for the free choices of taxpayers and health care providers who wish to be free from giving assistance to immoral activities.
These facts should also serve to remind social conservatives that they are better to leave the legislative remedies for important social issues at the level where they constitutionally belong, namely at the discretion of state and local officials. The centralization of power that seemed so attractive to many conservatives just a few years ago no longer seems pleasant at all in light of a more liberal-minded majority in both Houses of Congress and the White House.
This should be a good lesson for future conservative majorities, namely that the centralization of power never results in anything more than the most temporary of “gains” for those who are committed to traditional moral principles, and the power one administration consolidates for itself must inevitably be handed over to the next administration, which will use that increased power for its own agenda.
Print This Post
This is one of those rare occasions I must disagree with Dr. Paul. As an atheist and rational person, I don’t believe that abortion is “life-ending” in the sense that it is murder. A cluster of cells is clearly not a human being and should not be entitled to the rights of a human being. We don’t bestow human rights to cows and chickens, yet I would say that they are far more sentient than a few-week-old embryo. However, I do totally agree that taxpayers should not be forced to support any agenda or procedure that they find morally repugnant, which, unfortunately, is essentially impossible under Big Government.
[Reply]
Papatya replies:
November 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Piggy,
A “pro-choice” atheistic THANK YOU!
[Reply]
Bryan replies:
November 18th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
aren’t you a cluster of cells?
[Reply]
Darren replies:
November 18th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I’m not a cluster of cells. I don’t know a single person that is.
[Reply]
Gary replies:
November 18th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
why can’t life begin at conception? people always make the case that a baby (”fetus”) can’t take care of itself. a new born baby can’t take care of itself, a 5 month old can’t take care of themselves, a two year old can’t take care of themselves, heck, i know some adults who can’t take care of themselves.
BTW, we are all hypocrites. it’s OK for a woman to have an abortion, but if you killed a pregnant woman and the baby (”fetus”) died too, you would be charged with TWO counts of murder. so we legislate morality for convenience.
it’s probably time to stop playing the “rape and incest” card too, both together are a very, very small percentage of all abortions, the rest are just a cruel method of birth control.
people care more if you drowned a litter of puppies, and i’m sure you get a stronger reaction. just ask the animal rights activists who counted every cockroach on the Men in Black set when it was filmed.
sad commentary on today’s society. a cockroach is worth more than an unborn child.
[Reply]
Brock replies:
November 20th, 2008 at 1:27 am
“it’s probably time to stop playing the “rape and incest” card too”
Is it? Aren’t the rules of the land supposed to protect the minority from the majority. Personally I do not disagree with the ratification of the 14th admendment which allowed the Supreme Court to decide to make a ruling on this issue.
And just so you know life began, as our knowledge best estimates, about 2 billion years ago. And that’s only taking Earth into account. It’s a continual cycle. We must protect people from physical harm. The situation may be a catch 22 but I am going to side with the pregant woman making the final decision on whether or not she keeps the baby. And I certainly am not going to force her into trial to prove, and then seek criminal charges for her if she does not ask for them to be sought. The whole Sanctity of Life idea is just as hypocritical as any of the “infant can’t care for itself” argument. For if their is Sanctity in Life, then damn us all for not trying to save cancer cells.
[Reply]
gary replies:
November 20th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
yes, i believe it is time to stop using the card. to use the argument against abortion when rape and incest are a very small percent, what about everyone else? the only possible really compelling reason to justify or rationalize an abortion would be if either the mother or child were going to die anyway. but even then, who should have the right or authority to make even that decision?
isn’t abortion really a matter of convenience and birth control than about a woman’s right? can’t we in this country learn to take responsibility for our own actions rather than justify the killing of another person because we say we’re not ready?
guys need step up to the plate with their responsibility too, because it takes two and that’s their child as well. i think a lot of guys want abortion rights so they don’t have to worry about having a child and being tied up in a relationship with the mother or the baby, so it’s easier to tell her to have an abortion and even pay for it.
abortion from my standpoint appears to be the ultimate in selfishness, not wanting to take responsibility for our own actions and live with those consequences. but why should we, when we have the option to legally kill our own offspring in order to avoid a lifetime of ????
who exactly are we protecting here? isn’t the minority the one who can’t stand up for themselves? how did it get to be the selfish mother or father, wanting the right not to be inconvenienced? certainly we are not protecting the unborn child, who has no voice and can’t be asked what they want.
sanctity of life you say? we are not talking about eradicating a disease, this is about a human being. a living breathing person. protecting from physical harm? has anyone researched what an abortion does physically to a woman?
please, please don’t legislate beliefs on me or those who may disagree with a particular viewpoint masking it with the rights of the minority. we already do enough of that in this country, as a matter of fact, we’ve mastered that one. and if I don’t believe in someone’s cause, i shouldn’t be called a bigot or intolerant. why can’t i simply say i don’t hold that same belief? btw - i don’t call them names because they don’t believe what i believe.
and we shouldn’t force clinics to do things they don’t believe in. next thing coming is that there will be a law that forces a shoe salesman to sell plumbing supplies.
oh yeah, nobody actually knows when life began, since none of us were actually there when it started. it’s pretty much a WAG by scientists and suddenly it becomes fact by virtue of the media telling us so. it may or may not be true, but we certainly can’t even call it our best estimate. not enough data to do even that.
[Reply]
Brock replies:
November 20th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Just remeber one simple last thing. Making abortion illegal does not stop abortions from happening. My agreement with abotrion has nothing to do with whether or not I think it is the best choice. It has to do with the reality of the situation. And yes abortion used as birth control is a horrible thing, but I am not about to make young women in this country into criminals for making a terrible mistake, and am not about to take a woman to court to have to prove that something so terrible happened to her that I would give her my blessing. God gave ius choices, man gives us law. We do have to draw lines and like I said when it comes to young scared woman I am not going to condemn them to jail or hell for this action. I would certainly support educating them to prevent abortions, but if we’re going to get all righteous on life I think we need to draw the line a bit further and I don’t think you’d like me telling you that you have to be a vegetarian because you are a murderer otherwise.
Andrew replies:
November 19th, 2008 at 10:57 am
“This is one of those rare occasions I must disagree with Dr. Paul. As an atheist and rational person, I don’t believe that abortion is “life-ending” in the sense that it is murder. A cluster of cells is clearly not a human being and should not be entitled to the rights of a human being. We don’t bestow human rights to cows and chickens, yet I would say that they are far more sentient than a few-week-old embryo. However, I do totally agree that taxpayers should not be forced to support any agenda or procedure that they find morally repugnant, which, unfortunately, is essentially impossible under Big Government.”
You’re a tower of hypocrisy. Life ending in the sense that is murder, would be to end some life that has been living. Living as in a profusion of cells. Cells as in an embryo. To end an embryo, IS LITERALLY to end a human beings life. Because the stage of an embryo, is what, one stage in an entire life of a human being. Do not agree and disagree, you godless demon.
[Reply]
Frank replies:
November 29th, 2008 at 11:52 am
PIGGY! So, we must all pay for what you believe and disregard our own beliefs. Freedom? of Choice?
[Reply]
PIGGY , your cluster of cells must have aborted the “rational” gene,as life began when a cell evolved out of the ocean & crawled onto the land and evolved into, YOU…According to your hero DARWIN..
[Reply]
Dr. Paul, I have admired you greatly over the last two years for your courage for telling the truth, but this is one of the rare times I disagree with you. While I agree with your asessment of abortion being federally funded as being wrong, I do not equate stem cell research to abortion. One is a fetus and the other is nothing but a cell. In fact any woman that tries to get help to get pregnant technically has these cells thrown away as well. Why not research it, to find possible cures for some spinal cord injuries or for cancer research? To me every one of your arguments seems very rational and extremely logical, except for this one.
[Reply]
Dave G replies:
November 21st, 2008 at 3:21 am
Agreed. I could take a few cells from someones arm, and no one would say that is a fully conscious being. In theory you could grow any cell in the body into a embryo. All the embryos they use are just a few cells that lack a nervous system (have no sense of pain or consciousness) or the ability to survive.
We also kill tons of sentient/intelligent animals every day for food, which often suffer greatly their whole life. Isn’t that much more reprehensible? The embryos they use are from clinics that have tons of them, and will otherwise just be thrown away. Thus, it makes sense to use them to help actual people that are suffering with diseases.
[Reply]
Donna replies:
November 25th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Ken:
Lately, there has been much information made available as to the viability of using adult stem cells, AS WELL AS discussion that embryonic stem cells do not produce the result that researchers initially thought they could produce. Therefore, it is crucial when discussing the benefits of stem cells that you differentiate between adult and embryonic cells.
The problem with using embryonic stem cells regardless of whether or not using them will work is that those that perform abortions have found another opportunity to make money. The motivation behind these pro right entities should be evaluated by everyone attempting to argue the abortion issue. Human life is not a commodity to be used for selfish gain; just as slavery is something many of us abhor. It would be insightful to look into the many products that are made from aborted fetuses.
Initially, the right to abortion was pushed to create safer standards of abortion in lieu of “back alley” abortions. That hasn’t actually happened as many young girls and women have either lost their lives or have had subsequent problems either getting pregnant later on or with their health.
Abortion has callused the hearts of people toward the value of human life whether it be a tiny baby or an elderly individual.
[Reply]
Here’s the bottom line… Its irrelevant weather you disagree with him on this topic or if you support him simply because his ultimate stance on this topic, as most, is that it should be dealt with on the state level, without federal interference. Therefore if you disagree with how, lets say, Wisconsin deals with the abortion or stem cell research… there’s always Illinois. If you disagree with Tennessee there’s always Oregon. This is one of the biggest issues, that too many things are dealt with on the federal level.
Also although I am an atheist and am pro choice, I understand where Ron is coming from. In his book he described his first experience with an abortion as all doctors in the field have to witness one. Ron described that early on abortions were not as “sophisticated” as today. He witnessed an abortion from a woman 6 months pregnant. The doctors placed the baby in a bucket and set it in the corner, he said he could hear the baby trying to breath and cry and everyone in the room pretended it was not there. That’s messed up.
I guess I look at it with a more agnostic stance as one could argue the morals on either side for eternity.
[Reply]
Jolene replies:
November 18th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Well said Dan.
[Reply]
Thanks, I don’t think we should argue amongst ourselves. Weather religious or atheist, weather pro-choice or pro-life. The answer lies in limited government. You cannot oppress others with your view. We’re all here because we want a freer nation.
Ron Paul Is My Leader
[Reply]
Thank you Dr. Paul. I appreciate your support of life and elucidation of non-centralized governing principles. I also applaud your prescient perspectives on on the financial system, justified by the current debacle. As a traditional social and fiscal conservative and Republican loyalist, I find myself reaching out for new political direction and focus. You are helping in that journey.
[Reply]
Once again you are right on the money Dr. Paul. What an odd argument made on the pro-abortion side. If life doesn’t begin at conception, when is a woman pregnant. Also, it is ok to partially deliver a baby then stab it in the back of the head with surgical scissors but if you “abuse” a dog you go to jail. This seems odd.
[Reply]
Gid replies:
November 18th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
The world is corrupt, and this extends to every corner of human thought due to the fallen nature of man.
Man is fallen. Mans beliefs and morals are corrupt. Any system made by his hands will be, invariably, also corrupt.
This is why we need a savior, but that’s besides the point.
Life begins at conception. PERIOD. There is no questioning that as soon as that sperm enters the cell, a person begins to grow who will eventually become independent of the mother (except in the instances of unfortunate accidents and abortion).
It truly is a perversion of rational thought which allows a women to take her childs life into her own hands by aborting it for purely selfish reasons.
EVERY SINGLE REASON FOR ABORTION IS SELF-CENTERED. PERIOD. It doesn’t matter if the pregnancy was a result of incest, rape, or consensually accidental. If the mother was really a caring person, she would not terminate a babies life, but grant it mercy and allow it to grow into the life that it would, after 9 months or so, eventually become.
The fact is, people are corrupt through greed and selfishness. Abortion is rationalized only on grounds of selfishness alone. Jesus Christ would never have aborted his baby, no matter how cruely the pregnancy might have come about. And that my friends, is what we call LOVE.
We as caring loving people must stand up and defend the rights of innocent unborns.
And yes, this means taking power away from the corrupt Fed.
[Reply]
concerned.citizen replies:
November 20th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Gid,
Your passion for the unborn is commendable.
One thing, I have to point out though, and hopefully without taking away from your desire to speak for and to defend those who cannot speak for themselves is your statement about “every single reason for abortion” beign self-centered.
Abortion, like everything else, can be used for good or bad. I believe it’s original intent was to save lives. For example, a co-worker of mine had an ectopic pregnancy. She was so excited to be pregnant, and had welcomed the baby on the way with love and anticipation. Because an ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg lodges itself to and develops inside of the fallopian tube, instead of within the uterus, my co-worker and the life developing inside of her would have both died if the pregnancy was not terminated. Basically, within weeks of discovering she was pregnant, she had no choice but to undergo the life-saving procedure.
I understand that you were referring to the arguments that people make for ELECTIVE abortions, and rightly so. But, for people who need an abortion in order to live, I would hate for them to have taken offense to an otherwise legitimate stance.
[Reply]
I continue to be in agreement with Dr. Ron Paul - this time on the matter of medicine, of prenatal care and protection of life…as well as the right to refrain either as a patient or as a tax-paying citizen.
I understand that this “matter of medicine” is also a moral issue, but in the public forum, has been treated with arbritrary law whereby the beginning of life is legislated without basis(or through reason) - but is out of expediency or what is practical…best for the public…
At stake is not just the loss of individual freedom to refrain (from partcipating at some level) but, in the bigger picture, the value of human life in general. Legalized abortion is a gateway to the wholesale devaluing of an individual’s life - of human life!
[Reply]
Thank you so much, Dr. Paul. Like the posters above me have said, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life is irrelevant in the debate over the proper balance of power between the States and the federal government. The Constitution does not empower the federal government to commandeer tax money for the subsidization of abortions or any other medical procedure for that matter, much less the running of an entire health care system.
The pro-choice/pro-life debate should take place within States and local communities. I challenge anybody to look me in the eye and honestly tell me that the values of, say, California are the same as the values of South Carolina. What works for one community does not work for another, and there is no shame in recognizing and embracing the truly federal system of our Founders, one of free, sovereign, and independent States, with different values, different goals, and different aspirations.
The underlying theme of a federal system of government is one of tolerance: we must tolerate the constitutional activities of one State without imposing other States’ or the federal government’s values on the former, lest the entire system be destroyed.
[Reply]
I agree with Ron Paul that abortion should be left up to each state, and personally I also agree with him on the Pro-life stance.
My question is this; at what point is there a difference between aborting an eight month old “cluster of cells”, versus having that “cluster of cells” early at eight months then dumping it into the garbage bin at the local gas station?
Well, at least Ron Paul has a stance on this topic, while our current president, when asked by Reverend Rick Warren, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” responded with “Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
It’s above his pay grade to have a sense of moral values?
[Reply]
Dan Beaulieu replies:
November 19th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I agree
Like I said above, I have a more agnostic stance on the abortion topic you can argue either side for eternity and I am not about to.
But Ron made a great point in his book that made me think. There was a case where a woman claimed the unborn baby was a parasite and it was agreed that abortion can be justified to alleviate the host; because it was leeching off her body and demanded a lot of resources. Then Ron made the point that after a baby is born, isn’t it even more of a parasite? Isn’t more demanding of resources? Since its still a parasite after birth that means we can still kill it, even after a few months?
I thing Ron would be a good leader because unlike other presidents he doesn’t think that we should all agree with him. That everything should be dealt with on the state level.
[Reply]
concerned.citizen replies:
November 20th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Sahrie,
Your statement further solidifies our need for a President whose desire to inject truth and conviction into leadership and provide workable solutions, far outweigh a candidate’s (in this case a President-elect’s) desire to be popular. We want answers, good direction, not more of the same–rhetoric without results.
[Reply]
Let’s try to be rational. Even if stem cell research and abortion are not directly linked, we know that corporations will benefit from stem cell research just as multinationals have benefitted from biotechnology, food animal cloning, and other potentially disastrous alterations to our food supply.
Stem cells are harvested from aborted fetuses. Eventually, if taxpayers are funding abortions, then women may get paid to get pregnant and abort to sell the fetals cells.
Furthermore, how much more medical technology do we need to extend life and perform complex surgeries that are expensive and the patient often requires repeat surgeries and prohibitive drugs to recover or prevent rejection of transplants.
How long are people supposed to live so we can be “compassionate”? And if everyone lives extended, expensive lives, will the “ship” sink from being overloaded?
Remember Governor Lamm’s courageous comment. Some people do have an obligation to die and not steal resources from regenerative successive humans. Let’s get back to nature, and allow our metabolic and digestive systems to evolve along with the evolution of our food supply naturally. And let’s require normal medical therapies that are reasonable.
Big medicine, multinational food factories, unnatureal “foods” — they are a part of a greedy minset of multinationals and the “compassionate’ are aiding and abetting by encouraging unfettered abortions which facilitate biotechology of humans and their sources of sustenance. Food animals and plants now — what next?
[Reply]
kate replies:
November 19th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
you can get stem cells from cadavar brains, cause a stem cell is a stem cell it doesnt matter where it comes from so i dont know why ppl think it has to come from a fetus.
[Reply]
concerned.citizen replies:
November 20th, 2008 at 11:36 am
At the risk of sounding far-fetch, or worse, I have to wonder if the government’s plan to begin habitating the moon in 2020, and all of this long-time, planning and implementation of bio-foods, bio-people, techno-life are interconnected. Logically, morally, etc. it makes no sense to destroy human life and cultivate from it. Especially when the actual count of cures from stem cell research is as follows: 73 from adult stem cell research (moral, effective science), while embryonic stem cell research (death in the name of science) = 0!
Elective abortion and risky IVF procedures (not referring in any sense to fertility procedures that do not jeopardize life), should be viewed as inhumane practices in the first place, and not provide justification for further misuse of human life.
[Reply]
Dave G replies:
November 21st, 2008 at 3:33 am
No, they get embryonic stem cells from left over embryos at in vitro fertilization clinics (for those women who have trouble getting pregnant). They always make extra embryos in case it takes a few tries to get the women pregnant. There are a huge amount of these frozen embryos that mostly end up being thrown away. They do not get them from an aborted fetus’, but from a very early stage when the embryo is just a few cells. Abortions occur much later, and at that stage there is a full fetus, not just a clump of cells. There is a big difference between a fetus (which has developed organs and can feel pain/sensation, and a ball of cells).
[Reply]
I am a social conservative and Christian so respectively I disagree with the pro-choice faith. I agree Dr. Paul that my tax dollars should not go towards the death of human cells and fetuses no matter the cause of such a pregnancy or the expected positive results from the scientific studies. The decision powers should remain within the state and local jurisdictions, not with the feds. However, many states are on the liberal side or shifting to the left of center because our nation and our people are moving away from God and the teachings from the Bible. I don’t have the solution. But I am one voice and I voted for change. Both the Democrat and Republican Parties no longer represent my conservative belief system. Thank you Dr. Paul for educating me on the sick status of America and informing me that there is a political party that does represent conservatives and our constitutional republic. Even though I was one of the few that voted for Chuck Baldwin from the Constitution Party I voted my heart this year and I am not going back to the Republican Party.
[Reply]
Dan Beaulieu replies:
November 19th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
You said: “I voted my heart this year and I am not going back to the Republican Party.”
How silly, its time to break the paradigm. There is only individual integrity. Do your research and choose a person not a party. Ron Paul hardly acts the way most (recent) republicans do though this is the party he belongs to. The answer doesn’t lie in which party you choose. It lies in the integrity of the person you choose. Get out of that black and white paradigm its half the problem.
Look at a persons background, the way they voted. I’ve never voted republican nor have I voted democrat. Then Ron Paul came. I didn’t vote republican for the primaries. I voted Ron Paul.
Sorry if I sound offensive but this paradigm has to be stopped.
[Reply]
concerned.citizen replies:
November 20th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Dan,
You make a great point. Taking it a bit further, discrimination in all aspects, not just politically, would be drastically reduced, almost to the point of non-existence (there are always those, though, for the sake of hating change, who would perpetuate it) if we viewed each person as an individual, as opposed to some basis of race, color, sexual orientation, etc.
We need to get rid of labels.
As a person who is racially and colorwise very mixed, I don’t have to choose just one, and am able to see things more objectively that way. Politically, I don’t claim a party, but choose according to who makes the most sense. Although, I am a woman who prefers men, I don’t go around introducing myself as, “Hi, my name is D-, and I’m a heterosexual”. Religiously, I believe that God is sovereign, as our forefathers collectively agreed upon, and collectively based our foundational documents, laws, and everyday lifestyle model after, but do not claim any specific religion (i.e. - Catholic, Protestant, etc.).
When we fall into the trap of labelling ourselves and others we begin to draw dividing lines and become disunified, defending our similarly labelled group or stance moreso than defending what is true. Having pre-judged someone by tagging that person with a label is biased, and simply put, leads to complacency, since our decisions and thinking are already made for us. Rather than listening and researching (since it’s common knowledge that the mainstream media is only going to feed us their agenda-ridden perspective, as opposed to the true perspective), and forming opinions based on our efforts, not presupposed assumptions. Also, we all know that once we discover the truth, and it is usually, for the most part, not popular opinion, then we would risk being shunned, or at minimum, mocked, for sharing our findings in forums such as this (online discussion), at work, school, even amongst friends and family.
And, you’re right when you say that it must stop. And, might I add, its abolishment would be dependent on each individual making that choice, and a few brave ones, such as Dr. Paul and those of us who support him, to lead that charge.
[Reply]
David Knollhoff replies:
November 20th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Dan Beaulieu - you make a good point on my posting the other day. Let me clarify my posting. I did more than vote for the Constitution Party. I voted my heart this year after a very a thorough and lengthy examination of the presidential choices I had. And by the way, I did vote for Dr. Paul in the Texas Republican Primary because I thought he was the most qualified invidual America has to be president at this time and place for our nation. If Dr. Paul would have received the Republican nomination I would have voted for him as president and not Chuck Baldwin this presidential election year. So Dan I have done my due diligence, and I will not go back to the Republican Party unless such party members move to the right - way right of center - and are able to prove their conservative values by their political record. So my paradigm can not be stopped because I currently have the freedom to chose who I want to. Based on your final statement, I certainly hope you don’t vote for those that do want to stop the communication of paradigms. By the way you have paradigms - maybe I should call for the stop of yours!
[Reply]
It’s unfortunate, even anti-Christ, that Christian America ignored Christ and excommunicated women abandoned in the community to fend for themselves (John 8:1-8). It’s the blasphemous Christian communities of 19th century America who cursed our nation by picking up stones of law to condemn women who used abortion to hide the shame of the damned Christians. But anti-Christ Christianity’s abortion laws are in the courts now, and it’s not only righteous that anti-Christ Christianity’s abortion laws damn us all with the CHOICES Christians are responsible for (Rom 3:19; 1Cor 15:51,56), but the pathetic church still refuses to reform and continues to cry for more laws against abortionists who are now an open movement of anti-Christ Christianity’s making, instead of a secretive defence avoiding religious spit.
Ron Paul’s individual adherence to his Hippocratic Oath from 4th century B.C. is commendable and in contrast to the tramp church’s worship of law, but he is correct.
What is the government doing by financing abortion costs the slut church is responsible for (Hosea 4:6-9)?
[Reply]
Dan Beaulieu replies:
November 19th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
That’s because a lot of people don’t believe in fairy tales.
[Reply]
Roger W. Davis (Retired U.S.Army) replies:
November 19th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Good point, Dan.
People either know what they say they believe (Eph 4:4-6) or become others’ inventory for the shelf (2Pet 1:20-21; 2:1-3).
[Reply]
I admire Dr. Paul’s stance here, but disagree with the desire of some supporters to outlaw abortion altogether. Dr. Paul says he is against legislation that would “actually force people who wish to avoid participating in the procedure to support it.” I agree. But by the same token shouldn’t we then respect the very large portion of the country that is for maintaining abortion rights. Like it or not, vast numbers of Americans want abortion to be legal. If you truly value freedom and limited government you must acknowledge the freedom inherent in legalized abortion. Legal abortion is not mandatory abortion. Illegal abortion legislates morality based on the disputed opinion of some, and just like Dr Paul said, “force(s) people who wish to avoid participating in the procedure to support it”(the “procedure” being childbirth here). Taking away a choice from citizens is not progressive.
Also to play devil’s advocate, if a fetus is alive, then shouldn’t it get a tax credit?
[Reply]
Dan Beaulieu replies:
November 19th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
[Reply]
The following is an initiative to reduce the number of Abortions in Australia, by providing support for pregnant women (especially those at risk), and raising the profile of the harmful side of abortion (the information about abortion in the public domain here in Australia is completely skewed toward the pro-abortion camp). The rate of abortions is currently around 1/5, and in one state here in Oz, the state goverment has just passed a law that would requires doctors, who for conscience sake don’t want to do abortions, to refer the patient on to doctors who will provide an abortion. Late term abortions are now effectively legal in that same state, too.
The website that is wanting to make a positive alternative in this area is:
http://www.freemoneyfornewlives.com.au/
Akos
[Reply]
I think that “actually force people who wish to avoid participating in the procedure to support it.” includes forcing doctors that follow their Hypocratic Oath (a contract that they are legally bound to, no?) to murder little babies.
Christianity says ‘conception = soul enters’, judiasm says ’soul when born… partial births don’t count’.
http://www.freewebs.com/welt-politik/index.htm
[Reply]
Abortion —————–> Euthanasia
[Reply]
Some people on here say the issue is Federal control/state control and not about individual stance on the pro-life/pro-choice debate. On the contrary, individual stance on the issue is just as important as governmental legislation over it, if not more so. After all, is it not the views and will of “we the people” that is supposed to direct legislation?
I’m not going to say “I believe”, because it’s a tragedy of society that terminating the growth of an un-born life is even a legal issue at all. How selfish have we become that we think it’s our choice what to play with human life?
Life is to be treated with reverance, not disdain. And that’s exactly what abortion entails. It isn’t even a matter of pro-life/pro-choice. Let’s call apples apples, it’s a matter of self-lessness/selfishness.
However, the real fact remains that, however unfortunate, it is a legal issue now, and that the federal government is way to big and involved in our lives, and the rest of the world. Restricting the abortion laws to the state level is definitely a start in the right direction, along with the host of other issues.
I find Ron Pauls logic spot-on. Here’s a man who really does his research and abides in consistency.
[Reply]
concerned.citizen replies:
November 20th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Gid,
Here, here.
FYI - did you know that the same arguments for abortion were the same arguments that slave owners used to justify slavery? The arguments about it being an owner’s right to choose, and so on.
There’s so much that we can learn from history–right and wrong–and ways to rectify or proceed for best results. That’s another thing I admire and notice about Dr. Paul–he knows his history, and implements it in a way that is beneficial to the American people, which, in turn, benefits neighboring and allied nations.
[Reply]
Gid replies:
November 20th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Concerned Citizen, that is interesting that you pointed that out, as I have never thought of the two in direct conjuction like that.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a big supporter of the right to chose, but only when that right does not impede on the very existence or else dictate the quality of someone elses life. I am very much a supporter of “live and let live”.
A persons fate should never be legislated into the hands of another, such as an unborns life in the hands of a mother, or the life of a slave in the hands of a foreman.
Abortion is in direct opposition to the consitution and the right to life, so in order to get it legislated, the proponents of abortion had to manipulate the people and the courts through symmantics alone.
It should be common sense that an unborn baby is a growing life that will eventually become an independent person. However, they have skewed the logic by trying to dictate when a human actually becomes a human.
I don’t really care what the arguments in favor of abortion are. The fact remains that it is a self-centered abomination that seeks to devalue to merit of human life.
I too, am glad that my parents didn’t abort me. I wonder if the supporters of abortion feel the same way, or if they would rather have been aborted? At what point in history did the Golden Rule become less than a rule?
[Reply]
i came from a fertilized egg. how about you guys?
[Reply]
davy replies:
November 19th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
yeah, i’m pretty happy that my mom didn’t abort me. i didn’t have the most privileged childhood, but i’m still glad to be here.
[Reply]
I would like to give some advanced information form a spiritual text called A Course In Miracles. We are not cells, we are not bodies. These bodies are illusions they are not our Identity. We are spirit/love. These bodies are not real and so aborting does not kill anything. To quote Dr Gerald Jampolski ” life and the body are not the same, life and love are the same.
[Reply]
Some of you guys are pretty dogmatic. I understand that you strongly belief that abortion is murder and life is sacred, whether from a religious standpoint or a moral one, or both. But I don’t understand how you can act outraged or surprised that other people do not share your viewpoint. Some people think all life is equally sacred and would say you shouldn’t chicken’s eggs are a form of abortion. Some people don’t think human life is intrinsically sacred in the first place. There are a whole host of opinions on this moral issue, and the fact of the matter is you shouldn’t want the federal government to legislate on either side of it.
A lot of you seem to truly think that your pro-life stance is more than a personal expression of morality, and that the government should legislate it, yet express shock and outrage that hardcore pro-choicers want the very opposite. I think Dr. Paul would agree, it’s best if the federal government doesn’t pick sides in moral debates.
[Reply]
Art -
Gerald G. Jampolsky M>D> is obviously an idiot… and supporting his brethen at the abortion clinics.
BeingJe wish - he believes that ‘the spirit only enters the body after the baby is fully-born’ (’Partial birth abortions do not count to those people’).
That is one of the reasons why about 85% to 95% of abortionists (abortion performing clinitians) areje wish. As Christians find the concept repugnant and ‘murder’. It is also interesting that manyje wish abortionists refuse to do abortions on jewish babys/mothers.
Jerry Jampolsky is obviously following in what Yuri Bezmenov (K GBdefector) stated was the plan for ‘demorilization’ in International Communism taking over the USA.
Look up ‘Yuri Bezmenov on Youtube… for his famous interviews..
also a supplimentary site: http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2008/07/mind-control-course-in-miracles.html
The Prime Minister of Australia is now seeking to force Australia into communism proper with communisms ‘regionalisation’/’salami tactics’… creating the ‘Asia-Pacific Union’ - The US will be next with communist BarackHusseinObama (Who is according to his Indonesian School records an Indonesian Citizen and Muslim (hence too his name). Look up Barry Soetoro on the internet!
[Reply]
The differences between an unborn child and an otherwise born person are summed up by the acronym SLED: Size, Level of development, Environment, and Dependency. None of these are adequet reasons to deny the unborn child personhood.
No one would say that a newborn baby is inhuman because he is smaller, less developed, in a different environment, or more dependant on other people than a six year old, but that’s where pro-abortion logic takes us. It’s arbitrary de-humanization so people can irresponsibly and immorally have their children executed.
They’re not just performing procedures on unwanted blobs of tissue, they’re murdering unborn babies by the million and it should be stopped. I don’t care if you’re a professing Christian or not, you should be indignant about babies being murdered.
[Reply]
And Jake is right about people that think there’s no difference between babies and chicken eggs. Denial that human beings are made in the image of God and therefore have intrinsic value is, I think, at the root of this issue.
The logic is very simple, unborn human beings are human beings. When we kill unborn human beings, we’re killing a human being. Is there anything wrong with killing a human being? If so, on what basis do we determine that there is something wrong with it? Animals are alive too; and what about vegetation and microbes, they’re also living. How do we prevent the holocausts that occur when we breathe in and step on the grass?
Rebellion agianst God results in moral absurdity. I recommend Christ and repentance; fixes all the fuzzy logic and comes with eternal benefits.
[Reply]