Persevering:Sarah, I haven’t said that Ron Paul is personally for abortion, but neither is Jimmy Carter! If he is truly pro-life, then how can he refuse to call abortion murder? (See John Stossel’s interview with Ron Paul)
As to who to vote for, if you don’t believe in voting for the lesser of two evils, then your argument isn’t valid. If you do believe in voting for the lesser of two evils, then the 2 best options are Huckabee or Romney (both of whom I have great concerns about).
If abortion shouldn’t be against federal law, then why should murder be against federal law? And if not murder, why not euthanasia? If euthanasia is left for the states to decide, then before you get to be in your 70’s and 80’s you better move to a state that does ban it. Because inevitably there will be states that do not ban it, and if you live in one of those states, you could be starved to death because someone thinks that you don’t have a quality of life worth living.
I believe in states rights (i.e. federalism), but there are rights that the federal government has the duty to protect. As I said in my article, one of the reasons the founders stated for writing the U.S. Constitution was to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” If innocent life is not protected, then the blessings of liberty cannot be secured for our posterity.
I’ll just respond here to some of the things you mentioned in your post on “Abortion and the Election” rather than doing 2 separate posts.
Just because federal agents mess things up sometimes when dealing with drug raids etcetera, doesn’t mean we should just legalize illegal drugs. That doesn’t fix the problem, it just ignores it. If you allow it to be decided by the counties, then there will be counties that don’t ban illegal drugs, and so the drug dealers will just move across the county line and set up operations there. So then there would be even more drugs in the country, because drug dealers won’t be restrained at all in those counties that don’t ban it.
We don’t have to give the federal government the authority to ban abortion; it already has that authority. And that does not give them the authority to endorse it, any more than their authority to ban murder gives them the authority to endorse murder.
This ended up longer than I planned on, but I think this is a really important issue to consider.
Yes, it is an important issue, and one that I am afraid will be a dividing point in many Christian circles as the election nears.
I confess, I do not know why he would say that it is not murder, for it surely is. He has stated clearly that life begins at conception. I'll have to look into it. I just watched the actual live interview, and did not hear him say anything about abortion.... Maybe I missed it. I'll check again later. :)
What would happen if some counties had drug laws and some did not? Yes, the drug dealers would move to a different county. There would be counties where "Those people" lived. If they were caught in our county, they would be punished. You can not make a morel issue legal or not! The Federal government has bo right telling us what we are or are not to do with our own bodies. If you are saying taht, then it has the right to say that I will someday have to give my child shots. "Because it will protect them" You open up a huge book that would be very hard to close. Does drug use affect anyone but the drug user? (Besides his family. Or possibly DUI, which is punished) Then why should it be banned? Some drugs that are illegal could be used for good purposes. It is God's Creation, and has a useful purpose.
After I posted yesterday, I had thought of the fact that, for some voting for Ron Paul would be voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Therefore, as you say, my reasoning does not have any validity. :)
No-the Federal government does not have the right to punish murder. There should be no Federal death penalty. That is reserved for the state.
As for euthanasia, when we get to that point (Which I know is coming on very rapidly) we are at the point of Nazi Germany. I have no answer for you on that right now, as just today I learned what it was. :) (Yes, I am slightly naive)
Huckabee is not an option. If Huckebee gets in, he will be going down the exact same path that Bush is. In a few years, our "Free" country will be turned over to the UN (Who is not Pro-Life for sure!) and we will have a world government. McCain is not an option either. If he can not run his own family, how on earth does he expect to run a nation?
Honestly, we should be more concerned about what Senators and Respresentatives get in, than the President. Just a 2/3 vote can pass. :)
The pro-life issue is a very hard one, because the Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. The world we live in is surely not a morla and religious people! Our nation is so far from where our Founding Fathers meant it to be, and from where God would be pleased with it, that it is no wonder things come to such a point. Though we all may not agree on all things, the remnant of God's people that are left must continue on the straight and narrow. The only chance for our country is for the families, and the churches to be rebuilt! Revolution must start from the inside. Strengthen your own families, that they may endure the hard times that are inevitably coming. (I am not nescessarily speaking about the end times) And that they will be a light to a dark world.
~Sarah~