Now get real with the crapola. Faith != logic
Don't bring a red herring to a discussion about faith.
LOL. That's a straw man. I never said faith = logic. But logic can be applied to faith. Further it's a false choice to claim that if someone talks about faith they cannot apply logic. You can apply logic to anything. For example, some evolutionary biologists now believe that "faith" evolved as a biological advantage.
so let me get this straight. I did not create this thread pushing this agenda of division. I did not create the thread the other day that mirrored this thread pushing the agenda of division on the same exact points I am making in this one....
yet you are going to pounce on me?
how about you direct that criticism where it belongs...
I expect the media to distort what Ron Paul says. Don't you? Anyway, if you feel like I "pounced" on you, I'm sorry. And I will correctly attack the right target. The LA Blogger grossly distorted what Ron Paul said to the point of hyperbole.
1. Set the article straight so I don't feel like arguing my position to counter the violent right.
or...
2. Explain how "protect life" means a non-believer would be able to have an abortion and not have violence initiated against them from the violent right.
Another false choice. Again I bring you back to the question of someone's home and his toddler. Do you agree with the others that think there should be no laws against murder of toddlers because we don't want the government "initiating violence" against someone for what they do in the "privacy of their own home"?
I don't think the government has a right to have total control over someone's home. But I do agree that society has a role to protect the weak. Controlling everything in the home would mean the government being able to come in and say exactly what you could bring into your house and do in your house because you
might hurt your child. Controlling everything that happens in the womb means the government could control everything a woman ate, drank or did for 9 months because she
might hurt her fetus. So that's why what the article said was distorted. Most reasonable people (even those who are pro abortion) would be aghast at the idea that a parent could kill their toddler because we don't want the government controlling private homes. Likewise most reasonable people (even those who are pro life) would be aghast at the idea that governments should have total control over everything that happens in the home because a baby
might die. The LA Blogger was using hyperbole to make Ron Paul's position sound unreasonable.
I have read Ron Paul's legislation. I flat out disagree with Ron Paul on this point. And if Ron Paul is going to play the "faith" card you can damn sure bet I am going to talk all day long about the gun in the room. I make no exception for the gun in the room... not even a Ron Paul I admire."
If the role of government is protector vote Saul instead of Paul. At least Saul crushed his enemies before just marching home.
You can disagree with his position all you want. Just don't distort it, or quote those who do.
