
Dr. Ron Paul is out with a statement today in favor of restoring the right to life to the U.S. Constitution:
"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
"Under our Constitution, the states have the duty to protect citizens against murder, and protecting the unborn from having their right to life violated is no exception.
"I find it unconscionable that the Supreme Court overrules states when they pass pro-life legislation. As president, I will fight to end this judicial tyranny.
"Many talk about being pro-life. In Congress, I am the lead sponsor of HR 2597 the ‘Sanctity of Life Act’ and a similar bill, HR 300 the ‘We the People Act.’ Both bills would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation that protects life. My bills could pass by a simple majority vote and allow states such as Michigan and South Carolina to end abortion immediately.
"I challenge every candidate who claims to be pro life to support these bills to get the Supreme Court out of the life issue so states can quickly and constitutionally protect the unborn."



.jpg)



I respect the views of all people. I just hope that they respect mine.
As concerns this topic, an assumption is made on which the rest hangs. That the embryo is human and "alive". Many hold just that view. Many don't.
The trouble is that the anti-abortion topic is founded on religious belief - mostly Roman Catholic - and I don't happen to think that's sufficient justification for such far reaching and dare I add, interfering legislation.
But to me the biggest problem is one that is not being faced. It is this: why is abortion being contemplated?
I guess the most significant reason is that it concerns teenage girls wanting to rid themselves of a mistake. This is a huge topic and deserves far more legislative interest than that of stopping abortion.
But my original argument still stands: it is interference based on religious belief. And this is essentially unsound.
Posted by: richard | December 31, 2007 5:12 PM | Permalink to Comment