Great find guys, it was good enough that it earned Ron Paul a Second Look on my site.
JX
My new video for you Pauline Catholics.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rm-1CH8nZWw
Eloquent?? He speaks in verses.
Humility?? Saying I don't make those decisions isn't humility...better refresh your memory on what the word means.
Winghunter,
What he said is that under his solution (The Sanctity of Life Act), the issue of abortion would be returned to the States. As such, Federal Officials would not make the decision regarding whether to "throw a pregnant woman in jail for seeking an abortion."
When pressed on this line of questioning (which we all know is classic feminist ideological tripe), he admitted that he doesn't know the answer to that question. When was the last time you heard a politician say that he doesn't know the answer?
Ron Paul is the most passionate and articulate defender of life - and he isn't afraid to speak back to feminists with dopy questions.
The point is that the states should decide this issue as well as the other difficult social questions of our time, rather than forcing a solution on everyone that could not possibly satisfy everyone.
The best place to deal with this and other hard questions is at the most local level.
Subsidiarity is what the Church calls it!
Go Ron Paul!
Concerning Subsidiarity
In this case, if one single state permits abortion then the federal government would need to take care of things. Given the wide spread practice of abortion, I don't think if this power were handed over to the states that even the majority would prohibit abortion. While if it would work, following the principle of subsidiarity, it would be preferable to have abortion be state matter. But since the purpose of government is to secure the rights of individuals and tranquility; a higher form of government that witnesses a lower form of government not addressing these rights would need to step in. I just can't see the states on their own accord all banning the murder of unborn children. Initially it should be addressed at the federal level, and then years later, once the principle is established perhaps defer it to the states. But it won’t work if it's given to the states from the get go.
My concern: A pro-life politician who does not understand that the root cause of the acceptance of abortion is contraception is inadequate. We Catholics really need to vote according to Church teaching without compromise, then we may see the tides turn in all the major issues regarding the culture of death: abortion, euthanasia, gay "rights", fetal stem cell research, etc... The only person running for pres that I've heard show an understanding of this issue and speak out against contraception is Alan Keyes... A solid Catholic. I know many think he's not electable, but in the words of Mother Angelica, "we need to do the ridiculous, then God will do the impossible."
Ed G
The problem with Keyes is that he is a neo-con war monger! What good is it to advance the culture of death through war and then fight it with regard to abortion?
Subsidiarity is the answer. Contra Lincoln and the modern courts, it is the states that are sovereign in our system of government. The federal government was not given any power to address the issue of abortion, so it must be dealt with at the state level. The chances of getting serious restrictions on abortion are better at the state level anyway. Roe v Wade destroyed all the protections for the unborn at the state level, so why leave it to the federal government? If you think a higher level of government needs to step in to right wrongs, wouldn't an international or world government be the answer? Is this what you want?
Ed G,
I agree with you entirely about contraception - when I began looking into this issue for the first time and started to dig into it, my eyes were opened. Without a doubt, contraception is the greatest evil facing our society, because it is the most subtle, its impact is devistating and can be seen in embryonic stem cell destructive research and even climate change.
Ron Paul's We the People Act would undo Griswold as well.
The point is not that the states would immediately ban abortion, the point is that the pressure of pro-lifers will be more effective at the local level.
States in the South will likely be the first to ban abortion and like freedom, it will spread to other states as the feminists arguments are exposed for the lies that they are.
As much as I might agree with what Alan Keyes has to say (other than his war mongering), he is unelectable because he is blinded by pride and arrogance. Christianity is not an idology, but listening to Keyes you might think that it is.
Ron Paul is a very humble man, and his approach recognizes that we have to plug up the leaky vessel that has been flooding our country with social engineering.
Sending this issues back to the states is the most sane policy given the current state of affairs.
I watched Face the Nation this past Sunday also. I watched both Huckabee and Dr. Paul answer the question concerning life. Though Huckabee gave a more viscerally satisfying answer I am convinced that Dr. Paul is correct. By sending the issue to the states, more lives will be saved sooner. Let us ban abortion NOW where we are able.
I'm participating in a month-long Blog Catalog carnival on the subject of "the biggest obstacle to electing the right president", and would love to see you post on the topic. My post on CatholicInside is, thus far, the first in the carnival from a faith perspective (and given what I see here, I suspect that you'd have a very different view than I). If you'd like to participate, please visit http://www.blogcatalog.com/group...olitical-
debate or just put up your post and email me at TLSanders at gmail dot com and I'll add it to the list.
The lady here would do better not opening her mouth. When she does, she just sounds like an idiot. "I don't think that really happens" No. She doesn't think.
I've been a supported of Ron Paul for the past three months and he will be getting my vote even if I have to write his name in. If you want to see how credible a candidate Ron Paul is, just look at how his fellow "republicans" shun him and don't want him included in debates. God Bless Ron Paul, the only true patriot running for president.
Dr. Paul is a no-nonsense responsible individual, a long-term responsible representative, successful medical practioner and would be a fine president. Under his administration everyone, including himself, would be guided by the constitution and bill of rights. Dr. Paul is a statesman.
Ron Paul wants the state to decide *how* to deal with the crime. But the sanctity of life act would establish personhood and tell the state that it *is* a crime.
Huckabee believes the same thing (it's either that or he's a flip flopper). The difference is that Huckabee must rely on a constitutional amendment that defines personhood.
Huckabee says, "Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application ...that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision. ...[I]t should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment"
http://www.rightwingnews.com/int...ws/
huckabee.php
Would some states do like Vermont does when it slaps the wrists of pedophiles? Yup. But I suspect that Ron would be against federalizing the crime of the rape of children.
Vote Ron Paul!
I like Ron Paul's "we the people" idea of removing jurisdiction over abortion from the courts, while at the same time pursuing a just Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ron Paul is a much better candidate than Guiliani but I think Ron Paul has definitely missed the common sense boat when it comes to allowing the morning after pill. It would unquestionably be sinful for any Catholic to support Paul so long as he holds the view that a pill, of which its purpose is to kill embryonic persons, should be legal.
Futhermore, insinuating that scientists should be allowed to experiment upon embryonic persons who are removed from the fallopian tube in ectopic pregnancy is an abomination to life, the principles of life and the constitution.
"Champion of the Constitution?" Who does Ron Paul think he's fooling? He might as well be another John McCain or Mitt Romney.
Ron Paul for President and High King of Ireland and Wales!!!
The embryo would die after he's removed from the fallopian tube. Research on that body should be as moral as research on any corpse. Provided that the parents gave consent and that the remains were properly buried, you could begin to make that argument. (Even so, I won't state for sure that you can).
The morning after pill has another intention... and that is to suppress ovulation. A rape victim, assuming that she was tracking her ovulation, should be able to morally suppress ovulation.
Ron Paul makes the point that legally you would be hard pressed to build a case on a woman who used the pill, because of the lack of evidence. But note how he acknowledges the fact that the personhood of that little embryo by bringing up the pill. Other candidates would never even think to mention any pill as being an abortifacient.
Allan,
I'm unaware that Ron Paul has come out in support of the Morning After Pill. My understanding of this video interview is that he was invoking this case as one difficult to regulate as how can a regulatory body (at the state level) know if the girl was pregnant or not, or if the pill resulted in an abortion? He was not supporting the pill, he was making a point as to the difficulties that this presents.
Also, he didn't say that he supported ESCR on etopic embryos that are unintentionally destroyed. He said that he was "open" to looking at that avenue as a possibility that might be morally acceptable.
Regardless, he doesn't want any of this decided on the national level, he wants it decided on the state level, while defining personhood and life on the national level.
Hope that helps.
Concerning the ecoptic pregnancy: Dr.Paul did NOT say he DID, WOULD use the stem cells for research or APPROVE the use of the stem cells
available in this case.
I watched this video three times.
Dr. Paul understands the Social teachings of the Catholic Church more than most Catholics.
Thank God for the gift of this great man.
Regarding addressing abortion on the national level or locally: Would it be enough just to nominate jurists that were pro-life friendly now only to have pro-choice jurists appointed down the road in an ongoing back and forth on the issue of the sanctity of life? Ron Paul is both a pragmatist in that he pursues the best solution to a problem and an idealist in that he does not waver in the intrinsic principles of life.
Consider St. Paul in the early Church; he did not write letters to the leaders of Roman Empire. Rather, he wrote letters to different communities. His was a mission to spread Christianity in a grassroots effort and spent most of his time writing to small communities.
It behooves us not to realize that the solution is to spread the message and act locally instead of relying just on federal mandate that neither teaches nor changes attitudes regarding the sanctity of life.
I am a former evangelical and longtime prolife leader who is now a Roman Catholic (thanks to Pope John Paul II) and also an open supporter of Ron Paul for president.
The profamily movement is nearly stagnation on many fronts. Federalism is the cure for this logjam. Federalism reflects the Catholic doctrines of subsidiarity and solidarity in the realm of governance.
Ron Paul is the federalist now seeking our support. All loyal sons and daughters of the Church should consider actively supporting Ron Paul as a candidate offering a Natural Law respecting path back to national sanity.
See Ron Paul Rocks at my blog for a collection of arguments for supporting Ron Paul. I would be honored to have my blog included on the role of Catholic Ron Paul supporters herein.
For those familiar with Catholic conditional prophecies on an age of peace, please consider that an age of decentralized monetary and governmental policy is an ideal for an EVANGELIZED society, where the Church and her teachings will flourish. Even for the Natural Law. As globalists and neoconservatives will wane. Ron Paul and others like him are early signs of this age. The alternative is a trend to TYRANNY. Please consider tuning out the mainstream media, right and left, to understand this concept.
In Christ,
Azar
Commenting by HaloScan
