Paul focusing more on Abortion this time?

[jmdrake]

On the flip side...here is something interesting to think about. I don't necessarily agree with it. Abortion is the one issue that I have been conflicted over for years.

If you eat this are you eating a chicken or an egg?

Another reference:

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

If Ron is going to play the faith card and claim government should initiate violence, maybe he can explain how his faith is measured:

Does Ron support murder in the name of religion?

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Maybe Ron would care to elaborate on which laws Jesus abolished?

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Under a Ron Paul presidency should we expect to see the Ark of the Covenant on display in the White House?

Does Ron disagree with this testimony?

Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man."

I say let any Ron who is without sin cast the first stone...

 

[jmdrake]

If Ron is going to play the faith card and claim government should initiate violence, maybe he can explain how his faith is measured:

Does Ron support murder in the name of religion?

Straw man argument. You don't have to appeal to religion to be against abortion. You just have to accept the argument that a fetus is an individual and that as an individual it deserves protection from murder. As for supporting murder of children, that you be your fellow abortionist I've been arguing with who claims that children who are not old enough to express a desire not to be murdered are persons and can be killed by their parents for any reason since he believes parents never kill children.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Straw man argument. You don't have to appeal to religion to be against abortion. You just have to accept the argument that a fetus is an individual and that as an individual it deserves protection from murder. As for supporting murder of children, that you be your fellow abortionist I've been arguing with who claims that children who are not old enough to express a desire not to be murdered are persons and can be killed by their parents for any reason since he believes parents never kill children.

Check your premesis because I did not see you moaning about the article's title:

Ron Paul says being anti-abortion is a Libertarian stance based in faith

Second check your premesis before throwing around the labels because I have clearly articulated my individual position.

I do not advocate abortion.

Nor do I intend on hanging out with the modern day Pharisees whose zest for life does not extend beyond an abortion clinic. (excluding Muslim abortion clinics of course)

Therefore, I do not advocate initiating violence on gentiles because they are gentiles.

I believe life is more profitable than death. I believe a free market of individual actors without any baby distortions will achieve the most good (aka life).

So your holiness, let any Ron without sin cast the first stone.

 

[Sola_Fide]

If Ron is going to play the faith card and claim government should initiate violence, maybe he can explain how his faith is measured:

Does Ron support murder in the name of religion?

Maybe Ron would care to elaborate on which laws Jesus abolished?

Under a Ron Paul presidency should we expect to see the Ark of the Covenant on display in the White House?

Does Ron disagree with this testimony?



I say let any Ron who is without sin cast the first stone...

Ughhh... The way in which you ignorantly pull verses out of their theological, historical, and exegetical context is really sad....and you would be laughed off any messageboard group like Puritanboards who take theology seriously.

I am going to go out on a limb and say you've never read a systematic theology in your life, right? Well, that is where I would start, because you are either ignorant of the basics of covenant theology or you are intentionally misinterpreting everything you read. I bet its the former.

 

[cheapseats]

It makes sense to flex the social conservative values muscle if you want to win the GOP primary...

...and lose the General Election.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ughhh... The way in which you ignorantly pull verses out of their theological, historical, and exegetical context is really sad....and you would be laughed off any messageboard group like Puritanboards who take theology seriously.

I am going to go out on a limb and say you've never read a systematic theology in your life, right? Well, that is where I would start, because you are either ignorant of the basics of covenant theology or you are intentionally misinterpreting everything you read. I bet its the former.

skipping this post because it lacks proof of claim... obviously it's author missed the chapter on evidence... which is a shame because one claiming the ignorance of another should easily be able to demonstrate the difference between execution of law and grace.

p.s. for the fourth time no less... does your outrage extend beyond an abortion clinic?

 

[cheapseats]

Ya I'm not sure what changes he should make.

He should embrace INTELLECTUAL HONESTY AND SPIRITUAL CONSISTENCY, and keep his trap shut on Abortion.

Perhaps something along the lines of:

I HAVE MADE MY PRO-LIFE SENTIMENTS CLEAR OVER THE YEARS. I WILL NOT ALLOW ANOTHER ELECTION TO BE DERAILED NOR THE CITIZENRY TO BE AGAIN DIVIDED OVER THIS OH SO RELIABLE WEDGE ISSUE . . . PARTICULARLY WHEN WE ROUTINELY BLOW STRANGERS TO KINGDOM COME IN FARAWAY LANDS WITHOUT BATTING AN EYE OR LOSING ONE MOMENT'S SLEEP.

He could add:

Moreover, someone with strong libertarian convictions DOESN'T TRY TO CRAM HIS BELIEFS DOWN OTHER PEOPLE'S THROATS.

 

[jmdrake]

Check your premesis because I did not see you moaning about the article's title:

Ron Paul says being anti-abortion is a Libertarian stance based in faith

Why should I "moan" about the title? Why should you moan? I believe that preemptive war is morally wrong too, that doesn't mean that I can't argue against it from a utilitarian point of view. Faith comes into play when it comes to abortion because so far science hasn't answered the question of "When does a fetus become a person". We know that a fetus has brain waves within 40 days and can feel pain before the first trimester is out. Does that "prove" we're talking about a person? Well it's still debatable. You can make a "faith" decision to assume "Yes it is a person and deserves protection" or assume "We don't know enough, so the right to kill this legal 'non-person' should be paramount."

Second check your premesis before throwing around the labels because I have clearly articulated my individual position.

Not in this thread. And I don't go around reading what every poster said in every other thread. The argument you were making was a pro abortion argument.

I do not advocate abortion.

Right. The old "I'm not for abortion, I just want people to be able to have them whenever they want" argument. Ok. Anyway, you were distorting Ron Paul's position.

Nor do I intend on hanging out with the modern day Pharisees whose zest for life does not extend beyond an abortion clinic. (excluding Muslim abortion clinics of course)

That's nice. Neither would I. Neither would Dr. Paul. So that's an irrelevant point. One of the things that brought me to the pro life position is Ron Paul's consistency. He's pro life when it comes to abortion, and pro life when it comes to being against elective war.

 

[cheapseats]

I disagree man! Rand had to constantly announce and reconfirm his pro-life views.

HAD to? No choice? Another hapless VICTIM of politics? He MUST play the game?

 

[jmdrake]

...and lose the General Election.

Just like Ronald Regan lost the general elect.....oh wait a minute....Regan won on a pro life platform! Really, if Ron won the primary, and lost the general election over abortion, then this country deserves the financial ruin that's coming.

 

[jmdrake]

He should embrace INTELLECTUAL HONESTY AND SPIRITUAL CONSISTENCY, and keep his trap shut on Abortion.

Perhaps something along the lines of:

I HAVE MADE MY PRO-LIFE SENTIMENTS CLEAR OVER THE YEARS. I WILL NOT ALLOW ANOTHER ELECTION TO BE DERAILED NOR THE CITIZENRY TO BE AGAIN DIVIDED OVER THIS OH SO RELIABLE WEDGE ISSUE . . . PARTICULARLY WHEN WE ROUTINELY BLOW STRANGERS TO KINGDOM COME IN FARAWAY LANDS WITHOUT BATTING AN EYE OR LOSING ONE MOMENT'S SLEEP.

He could add:

Moreover, someone with strong libertarian convictions DOESN'T TRY TO CRAM HIS BELIEFS DOWN OTHER PEOPLE'S THROATS.

Your argument is self contradictory. Yes Ron has made his position on abortion clear. That's why he MUST stick with it. You think his opponents aren't going to bring up his position and beat him over the head with it? The only way to deal with controversial positions you've taken in the past is head on.

 

[Sola_Fide]

skipping this post because it lacks proof of claim... obviously it's author missed the chapter on evidence... which is a shame because one claiming the ignorance of another should easily be able to demonstrate the difference between execution of law and grace.

p.s. for the fourth time no less... does your outrage extend beyond an abortion clinic?

Like I said, from what you posted, you don't understand covenant theology in the slightest. If you understood covenant theoloy, it would be easier to understand why the law was one way in the Mosaic economy and why it is another way in the new covenant of grace, taking the general equity of the law into account.

You don't understand the purpose of the law. Not only do you not understand the purpose, but you don't understand its division between ceremonial, moral, and civil. Furthermore, you don't understand the fullfilment clauses. You don't know what was fullfilled or why it was fullfilled...and what remains binding today.

Like I say, a good systematic theology would bring these pieces together for you so you understand how the covenants relate and apply.

 

[cheapseats]

Good. I'm glad he is focusing on it.

Because it will assure his LOSS, thereby protecting him from abuse heaped on presidents?

Or because it helps you ignore-read-that-live-with the TANGIBLE CARNAGE IN THE MIDDLE EAST - THE LIVING, BREATHING HUMANS WHO ARE STEADILY SLAUGHTERED BY AMERICANS, WITH AMERICAN WEAPONRY, TO SERVE AMERICAN AGENDAS?

 

[jmdrake]

HAD to? No choice? Another hapless VICTIM of politics? He MUST play the game?

What "game" would you have Rand play? Run away from his own views and lose the election just to please you?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Faith comes into play when it comes to abortion because so far science hasn't answered the question of "When does a fetus become a person".

And does faith answer this question?

Did not the great teacher Jesus explain, there is no salvation in the bible?

That said... reread the scripture in previous post about who helped who give birth. I don't think it is an isolated concept in scripture.

But people who have the law written on their hearts and in their minds do not rely on the bible.

My heart tells me abortion is wrong. My heart also tells me initiating violence against another person is wrong. My mind tells me I am not wise enough to judge.

Right. The old "I'm not for abortion, I just want people to be able to have them whenever they want" argument. Ok. Anyway, you were distorting Ron Paul's position.

Distort did I?

Ron Paul, the conservative congressman from Texas known for his small-government beliefs rooted in Libertarianism, told an audience Monday in Iowa that government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women.

 

[jmdrake]

Because it will assure his LOSS, thereby protecting him from abuse heaped on presidents?

Or because it helps you ignore-read-that-live-with the TANGIBLE CARNAGE IN THE MIDDLE EAST - THE LIVING, BREATHING HUMANS WHO ARE STEADILY SLAUGHTERED BY AMERICANS, WITH AMERICAN WEAPONRY, TO SERVE AMERICAN AGENDAS?

Yeah, just like Ronald Regan lost won twice and Rand Paul lost won by a landslide. You're not even making sense from a self interested point of view. Focusing on abortion is a way for Ron to honestly shore up conservatives during the primary on an issue he agrees with them on. During the general he can make the case about how his respect for life is consistent.

 

[cheapseats]

Your argument is self contradictory. Yes Ron has made his position on abortion clear. That's why he MUST stick with it. You think his opponents aren't going to bring up his position and beat him over the head with it? The only way to deal with controversial positions you've taken in the past is head on.

Point me to ONE THING Ron Paul has ever taken "head on"?

Pray tell, why DID he allow his freshly unambiguous, boldly decisive ABOLISH The Fed become the anemic, mamby-pamby, soulless AUDIT The Fed? Do YOU feel better if The Fed is audited by ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT?

If he wants to brace for meeting challenges head on, he should be working on his anti anti-Semite rhetoric. 'Cuz the anti-Semite charge WILL come, and it WILL find traction.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Like I said, from what you posted, you don't understand covenant theology in the slightest. If you understood covenant theoloy, it would be easier to understand why the law was one way in the Mosaic economy and why it is another way in the new covenant of grace, taking the general equity of the law into account.

You don't understand the purpose of the law. Not only do you not understand the purpose, but you don't understand its division between ceremonial, moral, and civil. Furthermore, you don't understand the fullfilment clauses. You don't know what was fullfilled or why it was fullfilled...and what remains binding today.

Like I say, a good systematic theology would bring these pieces together for you so you understand how the covenants relate and apply.

Skipping this post for it is also lacking proof of claim... please get back with me after you hit the chapter on evidence to substantiate those claims...

 

[cheapseats]

Yeah, just like Ronald Regan lost won twice and Rand Paul lost won by a landslide. You're not even making sense from a self interested point of view. Focusing on abortion is a way for Ron to honestly shore up conservatives during the primary on an issue he agrees with them on. During the general he can make the case about how his respect for life is consistent.

To what purpose, "shore up conservatives during the primary" if it will cost him the General?

To what purpose, pander to those who already AGREE with them? What, if he DOESN'T pander to hypocritical Abortion Hysterics, they'll vote Democrat?