[drbrumley]

Originally Posted by Delmar

I heard he says he won't go third party again. What do you think?

He more than likely won't. I think this is his final stand.

[Granite]

Keep in mind a lot of people who oppose Paul's candidacy aren't exactly constitutionalists...

[Lighthouse]

I don't see anywhere that Bob called Ron Paul a sodomite child-killer. He just said that the US would be crawling with them if we used the laws Ron Paul is proposing.

[Granite]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

I don't see anywhere that Bob called Ron Paul a sodomite child-killer. He just said that the US would be crawling with them if we used the laws Ron Paul is proposing.

Don't you think the country's crawling with them already?

[Vine&FigTree]

The only candidate in last night's Republican Debate that is pro-life is Ron Paul.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20071130.html

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Vine&FigTree

The only candidate in last night's Republican Debate that is pro-life is Ron Paul.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20071130.html

So Alan Keyes wasn't there.

P.S.
Wanting the federal government to have no say if a state decides not to outlaw abortion is not pro-life.

[Vine&FigTree]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

So Alan Keyes wasn't there.

No, he wasn't, but is he pro-life? He has said:

Originally Posted by Alan Keyes

I MAKE an exception only for the physical life of the mother. Given the unalienable right to life (i.e., self-preservation) I see no way in
principle to avoid making this exception. I would ACCEPT the rape and incest exceptions only as a matter of political necessity if that is the best legislation we could achieve at the time. I see no grounds in principle for making these exceptions, but as a matter of political
prudence it would be suicidal for the pro-life movement to reject these people.
Source: Letter to David Quackenbush Jun 30, 1995
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ala...s_Abortion.htm

Ron Paul, on the other hand, has said this:

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the
American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record
demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an
abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a
pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as
beginning at conception, HR 1094.
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 have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used
for so-called “population control.”
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore
protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience
has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read
my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there
cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are
protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in
observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

Ron Paul appears to me to be more consistently pro-life than Alan Keyes.

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

P.S.
Wanting the federal government to have no say if a state decides not to outlaw abortion is not pro-life.

So "pro-life" means taking a solemn oath to God to abide by the Constitution and then breaking that oath? Frankly, I don't want the federal government to have any more "say" than it does. Nor do I want the Mexican Government to have a say in what the states do about abortion. Nor the "North American Union."

[Jefferson]

Vine&FigTree:

That quote from Keyes allowing for abortion in cases of rape or incest was way back in 1995. Keyes has since repented of that view.

[drbrumley]

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Vine&FigTree:

That quote from Keyes allowing for abortion in cases of rape or incest was way back in 1995. Keyes has since repented of that view.

He has? Evidence of such would be appreciated.

[Nick M]

Originally Posted by Vine&FigTree

So "pro-life" means taking a solemn oath to God to abide by the Constitution and then breaking that oath? Frankly, I don't want the federal government to have any more "say" than it does. Nor do I want the Mexican Government to have a say in what the states do about abortion. Nor the "North American Union."

How is being anti abortion breaking an oath to abide by the Constituion. Show me the article that says it is lawful, or Congress can not limit murder of the unborn, or abortion for those that are in favor of said murder. That constitutional right does not exist. It is case law, which in and of itself is a violation of the constitution. Article one states, all legislateive power shall be in Congress.

[Vine&FigTree]

Lighthouse had originally said, "P.S. Wanting the federal government to have no say if a state decides not to outlaw abortion is not pro-life."

I replied: "So "pro-life" means taking a solemn oath to God to abide by the Constitution and then breaking that oath?" Now Nick M asks:

Originally Posted by Nick M

How is being anti abortion breaking an oath to abide by the Constituion.

Not being anti-abortion, but asking the federal government to overrule state law on abortion - that's what violates one's oath to support the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Nick M

Show me the article that says it is lawful, or Congress can not limit murder of the unborn,

This is one of the most elementary features of our Constitution. The federal Congress cannot make shoplifting, burglary, smoking marijuana, or even murder a crime in any of the 50 states. If Colorado makes abortion or euthanasia or Jew-gassing legal -- that is, the government of Colorado refuses to punish anyone for doing those things -- the federal legislature cannot pass a law requiring Colorado to punish them. Our Constitution makes the federal government a limited government of "enumerated powers."

Originally Posted by Nick M

That constitutional right does not exist. It is case law, which in and of itself is a violation of the constitution. Article one states, all legislateive power shall be in Congress.

Note the legislative powers which are reserved to the States. Check out the 10th Amendment and the link above. Pay close attention to what Madison said in Federalist 45.

Being "pro-life" does not mean adovcating a federal dictatorship. Keeping one's oath to abide by the Constitution does not make one pro-abortion.

Ron Paul is -- hands down -- THE most pro-Constitution AND the most anti-abortion candidate running for President.

[YahuShuan]

Originally Posted by Vine&FigTree

Lighthouse had originally said, "P.S. Wanting the federal government to have no say if a state decides not to outlaw abortion is not pro-life."

I replied: "So "pro-life" means taking a solemn oath to God to abide by the Constitution and then breaking that oath?" Now Nick M asks:Not being anti-abortion, but asking the federal government to overrule state law on abortion - that's what violates one's oath to support the Constitution. This is one of the most elementary features of our Constitution. The federal Congress cannot make shoplifting, burglary, smoking marijuana, or even murder a crime in any of the 50 states. If Colorado makes abortion or euthanasia or Jew-gassing legal -- that is, the government of Colorado refuses to punish anyone for doing those things -- the federal legislature cannot pass a law requiring Colorado to punish them. Our Constitution makes the federal government a limited government of "enumerated powers."Note the legislative powers which are reserved to the States. Check out the 10th Amendment and the link above. Pay close attention to what Madison said in Federalist 45.

Being "pro-life" does not mean adovcating a federal dictatorship. Keeping one's oath to abide by the Constitution does not make one pro-abortion.

Ron Paul is -- hands down -- THE most pro-Constitution AND the most anti-abortion candidate running for President.

I'm going to have to agree with V&FT, upon the ponderance of all the candidates, Paul is the only one I would trust to bring, or even try to bring, our Constitution back to order. If we don't, the people of the land aren't going to stand what we get for not "voting the Constitution". It don't matter who is in what party, what matters is the stands they have taken and the consistency thereof, and...WHO will give the "Right ruling" that will make the Constitution works as the designers intended. And as also do "We the People".

[Ktoyou]

I have a question; say one of these candidates is elected in the primary, would you not vote for him and let someone like Hillary Clinton or John Edwards become president?

[Turbo]

Originally Posted by Ktoyou

I have a question; say one of these candidates is elected in the primary, would you not vote for him and let someone like Hillary Clinton or John Edwards become president?

Yes.

1) Voting for a candidate who condones child killing profanes God, no matter how much more wicked the other candidate is. We should not do evil that good might come of it. We should not vote for a Nazi because he promises to kill fewer innocent people than the Stalinist he's running against.

2) The Republican Party has become increasingly liberal. If we vote for whoever they nominate, just so long as that candidate is a smidgeon less liberal than the Democrat he is running against, then we give them no incentive for nominating worthy candidates. They will continue to nominate wicked candidates, wooing "swing voters" in the middle while taking our votes for granted. The only way I can think of to pull the Republican party back to the right is to stop voting for their liberal pro-abortion candidates. Finding a right-wing third-party candidate to vote for is better than not voting at all, because then there will be a record of how many right-wingers were dissatisfied with the Republican candidate.

3) When a liberal Democrat is in office, the Republican politicians and the Christian leaders oppose their liberal agenda at every turn. But those same people will go along with the same liberal policies if they are put forth by a Republican because he's "our guy." We will call him "pro-life" no matter how much he undermines the personhood of the unborn, no matter how many "exceptions" he sites where he thinks abortion should be permissible, and he can even say that a state should get to decide whether abortion is legal. He will still be labelled "pro-life.

For example, George W. Bush has consistently stated, even before he was elected to his first term, that he thinks abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. When South Dakota recently had a referendum on its ballot to make all abortion illegal, Bush campaigned against it because it did not reflect his position. Yet Christians leaders identify Bush as "pro-life." James Dobson even calls Bush our most pro-life president ever.

Another example: Justice Scalia pledges that while he would overturn Roe v. Wade, he would also strike down its opposite: a law that would make abortion illegal in all states. He openly states that he thinks the people within a state should get to decide whether abortion is legal in that state. Yet Christians are deaf to this and they constantly label him as pro-life just because he disagrees with Roe v. Wade.

The same goes for Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. They are all pro-choice by state, and they are legal positivists who undermine the personhood of unborn babies. But since they were appointed by Republicans, they are labeled "pro-life." They give a ruling detailing several ways in which a baby can be slaughtered without violating the so-called partial-birth abortion ban (which never had the hope of saving a single child's life), and the Christian pro-life movement celebrate it as a victory.

We have been voting Republican for the past generation and as a result we have seven Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, and zero pro-life justices. And in general, Christians have no idea because our leaders keep telling them otherwise.

[Vine&FigTree]

Originally Posted by Ktoyou

I have a question; say one of these candidates is elected in the primary, would you not vote for him and let someone like Hillary Clinton or John Edwards become president?

It would be better for Hillary to be elected President than any Republican except Ron Paul. I've explained why here:

http://ConservativeChristiansforHillary.com