Comment: Absolutely NOT

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Facinating (see in situ)

Absolutely NOT

you said: "Ron Paul is defiantly a Pro Life guy. But he knew enough to keep this issue out of the government."

Excuse me but Ron Paul sponsored Sanctity of Life Acts in 2005, 2007 2009 and 2011 which would have established life at conception at a Federal Level and would give the states the right to protect life.

Here is the 2011 link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1096:

Please, know what you are talking about before you try to place your words on Ron Paul. You might also be interested in knowing that Ron Paul said: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em...

What that means is that it is not a matter of protecting choice. It is a matter of protecting Liberty.

What right does anyone have to choose the preemption of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the pre-born who has not given concent?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

your words: "I see camps for pregnant women, to assure they give the fetus all chance at survival; after all, the pre natal period is the most critical. Perhaps the government should round up all women as soon as they get pregnant, it’s just good sense. I doubt anyone on this site can doubt that the government is capable of such a thing."

are a rediculous straw man argument. In that case you are saying the government will need to round everyone living being up to ensure they are not murdered. Or how about the children who have already been born. Their lives are protected, maybe you are saying they need to be rounded up?

...