Stupid comparison. There is no depression now, and it is hard for me to find time to care about such things. But I also find it hard to care if people are murdering each other on the streets of LA. I care a little more if people are killing each other on the south side of Chicago, and care a lot if it is happening down the street from me. The point is that we elect our government to preserve the rule of law so that we can feel protected in the preservation of our own rights; and this requires that all citizens are protected. So I don't really care whether others people might get murdered, except that I don't want it to happen to me- so I support the rule of law. Same thing with abortion. I don't care if "some promiscuous coed gets an abortion," but I am happy that it didn't happen to me.
Do you want the federal government involved in preserving the rule of law in your neighborhood or do you prefer your municipal law officials.?
That is a good question. I suppose I support the founders' idea of a universally enforced Constitution, with everything not specifically enumerated there left to the states. So it then depends on your interpretation of the Constitution. Evidently, Ron Paul believes it to be outside the scope of the Constitution, so should be left to the states to decide. Either way, the question of abortion is an important one, and should not be trivialized as a "silly social issue" akin to gay marriage or the like.
I agree that calling abortion a silly social issue was a poor choice of words. I was out of line on that one.
RP: >In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks >to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094. Legislating morality will fail every time. >I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would >negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability >of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to >protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending >federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional >republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the >unborn. I don't mind it being a state issue. No one is perfect, but I'm still on board with RP. JB
It is no more a moral issue than murder. It is a legal issue of determining at what point an individual has the protection of law. Everyone agrees it should be illegal to kill an infant in the crib a day after birth. Most agree it is wrong a day before birth, and no one can decide the on what day between conception and birth it becomes wrong to kill the fetus. (Can anyone here tell me this day?) Ron Paul is merely trying to be as careful as possible when dealing with a very sensitive and uncertain issue. It is prudent to be cautious when considering issues of life and death.
It looks like Ron Paul is generating a lot of buzz, he has raked in more then 2.8 million dollars so far today. He may actually set a record.
Hoff: >Ron Paul is merely trying to be as careful as >possible when dealing with a very sensitive >and uncertain issue. And you know this how? One could believe that it is a states right issue for all sorts of reasons other than the above. He may be totally convinced that protectable life begins right at conception and is standing up for what he believes rather than being "as careful as possible". Also, perhaps you are right, but I'd like to see something to support your position other than just your assertion. >It is prudent to be cautious when considering >issues of life and death. Agree, but I don't consider it "prudent" to draw the line at a sperm and an egg in a laboratory sample dish a millisecond after fertilization. JB
You are correct. I don't know exactly what Paul thinks about this issue. I only assume that Paul is a reasonable man, and as a reasonable man, shows prudence with regards to issues of life and death. On the other hand, he might just be against abortion because the pope told him to be. But I prefer to think the former. Incidentally, if the line between being an individual with rights and being a lump of cells is not a millisecond after fertilization, when is it? This is the quintessential question of the abortion debate.