Comment: I admire Ron Paul for his adherence to the Constitution ...

(See in situ)


I admire Ron Paul for his adherence to the Constitution ...

and his sharing the vision of the individualistic Founder's vision of liberty...

However as much as I agree with him regarding limited government, sound money, free market and non intervention in foreign policy...

I think he has allowed his religious beliefs to interfere with his judgment when it comes to issues of scientific fact such as the case for the universe being here for 13.7 billion years, the absence of the supernatural, the truth of the evolution of all living things, the right of a pregnant woman to determine whether to carry her pregnancy to term or to end it based on her own decision and her own reasons as her right as a human being takes precedence over a microscopic fertilized ovum which is just a potential and not an actual human being.

Ron Paul approved a message which characterized himself as a "consistent" advocate of individual freedom so he should be defending the right of a grown woman to make her own decisions and pursue her own happiness rather than to impose his religious convictions on her using the power of the State to forbid her.

Gary Johnson does advocate for a woman's right to choose although his shortcoming is that he uses a cost benefit analysis in deciding government policy rather than human rights and non intervention which is the libertarian approach.

The GOP ignored both Gary Johnson and Ron Paul during the debates. The main stream media abhors Ron Paul because their owners rub elbows with the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank who would see the end of their gravy train scam of control of the currency from which they reap huge profits from loaning money to the Treasury.

Jefferson and Jackson knew this and put an end to national banks in their day. Romney still doesn't get it and Obama is all to willing to see the country destroyed in order to establish his version of utopia.

I would want to hear Ron Paul come to his senses and admit that a microscopic fertilized ovum which cannot be seen without a microscope is not a person! It has no rights at all as it is just a single mindless cell which does have the potential to become a person but until it does it is merely a potential not an actual human being. Rand Paul also errs in referring to abortion as killing children. A first trimester abortion does not kill a child nor a baby rather an embryo or a fetus still a potential and not yet an actual human being.

No Man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill that need.