Postmode

This site has some more information about Ron Paul’s position on drugs and the legalization of such. Go Ron Paul!

And it seems to me that this also happens to make some number of individuals very wary (I’m talking in your general direction, Christa…) But in spite of this (to many) politically unattractive belief, I consider Ron Paul to be among the most attractive candidates to both side of the divide between pro-lifers and pro-choicers.

A lot of the discussion about abortion for the last ten to twenty years has focused on questions of what the national government should do about abortion. A lot of naive (and generally ignorant) members of both sides have a tendency to think that we should seek to have anti-abortion, pro-life presidents. Unfortunately, we are seeking unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, means to pursue our goal of eradicating abortion. The President does not have the right to make laws pertaining to abortion, although he is given the power to enforce laws put into place by Congress. This power does not put the President in a position to constitutionally affect any of the medical standards in relation to abortion.

What most advocates of the pro-life cause fail to understand is that if we seek to eradicate abortion, this requires our support in two particular areas. First, we need to understand that legal power relating to the health, life, and well-being of citizens does not belong to the national government. Health, life, and well-being are legal domains of the states. Thus, we need to ramp up our support for states rights, and actively protest any interference in this right at the level of the national government. Also, we need to encourage and support proponents of pro-life laws in our state governments, and particularly those who have the authority to make these decisions. Second, we cannot abandon this to the state governments and expect for the public to move in the right direction. If we seek to see people behaving in a sanctified way, it only makes sense that we would seek to see people be justified and atoned for by the blood of Christ. Both the sorts and amounts of people that we see embracing a consistent ethic of human life will of course, as time goes on, increase because God is establishing the kingdom of heaven over and against the kingdom of the earth. But Christendom has taken a rather weak and apathetic approach to accomplishing this as time goes on. In both the Protestant and Catholic traditions, we have done far too little to preach the Gospel everywhere we go, and so it is no surprise that we are failing to see changes occur in our culture.

Coming back to the issue of the Presidency and its relation to abortion, I believe that Ron Paul is the best candidate for achieving this goal. He ought to have a strong appeal not only to Christians and the associated fringe groups who adhere to pro-life standards, but I suspect he will have just as much of an appeal to those who are generally liberal. While he doesn’t support abortion - he’s avidly against abortion - the confusion in thinking that he has any power over the making of laws relating to this, once cleared up, will allow those who are pro-choice to understand that his position, at least from the start, holds no threat to them. It just helps us to put things into a proper perspective. So, while all of the other candidates are off bragging about their desire to pass laws that will further restrict abortion, Ron Paul will not change this to make conditions worse (worse from a pro-choice perspective, that is) than they already are. But as I said above, if we seek legal reform of the system as it is, this requires that we move to a view that respects a states’ right to deny abortion to its citizens. Moving back to a system more closer to the Constitution as it concerns state rights will at least put pro-lifers in a place to see this happen, while decreasing the feeling of threat that seems to cause many among the pro-choice camp to disavow most socially conservative candidates. The uniqueness of this position is this: it doesn’t threaten either side. By shifting to a proper view of state rights and limits on the national government, we have not decided one way or the other for or against abortion - which means the question is just as open at the state level as it was at the level of the national government.

As a social conservative who favors limited national government, I support Ron Paul because of the strength of this position. It puts me in a place to adhere to my values and advance my values, and it puts pro-lifers on good terms with pro-choicers because we have not treaded on their treasured ground. If you haven’t considered Ron Paul as a candidate for the 2008 Republican spot, I strongly encourage you to do so.

One other thing. Regardless of who you support, please realize that your vote does make a difference. If you want to see America continue its downward path, refuse to be active in politics. It makes a difference whether or not you vote. And furthermore, it is important that if you choose a particular party to represent you that you vote not only in the general election where we choose the next President of our country, but that you also vote in the primaries to choose who will represent your party. It is a good idea to affiliate yourself with one of the two major parties - Republican or Democrat - because Independents don’t really receive much support. The majority of the votes will, in fact, go to the two Republican and Democrat candidates. So I would recommend that you choose to affiliate with a party, and that you therefore are active in the primaries for that party. Primaries are the election in which a party determines who will be its representatives in the election. Again disregarding your choice of candidate, if you stand for certain values and want to see those at work in our government, you need to vote for a candidate that closely represents those views and make sure that they receive the support of the party you are affiliated with.

You can register to vote by going to Ron Paul’s site (http://www.ronpaul2008.com) or by going to Rock the Vote (http://www.rockthevote.com).

All I ask is that you make a conscientious decision concerning the candidate you seek to support, and that you support this candidate not only in the general election, but also in the primaries in your state. When we become apathetic, we constrain ourselves to the decisions of others who may or may not disagree with this. I don’t know about you, but I’m not OK with that.

Some of the people I know have concerns about Ron Paul being for the decriminalization of drug use. Aside from the rather tacit fact that our nation’s current drug policy isn’t doing anything to reduce drug use or use-related crimes - in fact, both drug use and crimes related to drug use have largely increased - there is also good evidence to suggest that decriminalizing drug use and having state-run usage centers actually decreases the amount of drug-related crime. Even though this might increase the number of people using, these people who do start using because of the increased ease of attaining the drug would be in a place where they could be easily treated and helped instead of staying underground.) Ron Paul’s policy is to put the power to police drugs back into the hands of the state governments, and I am all for this, because it gives states the freedom to manage health issues pertaining to their citizens.

There is good evidence that 1) state-run treatment facilities that facilitate usage will help addicts and society in the long run, and 2) that the policing of drug use is better run by the states anyway since they are going to be more in tune with their local situation and will be able to more effectively handle it. In addition to all of this, some new research is suggesting that refusing to imprison for marijuana use or sale could dramatically reduce the amount of people in prisons without adversely affecting the good of the public.

Have you considered Ron Paul for president? He’s the best candidate in my opinion: both faithful to the Constitution and the antithesis of the criminals who have run our government for the past eight years. He, I think, will be able to restore trust in political leaders that has been lost by Bush & Co. Check him out! I also have a YouTube channel with clips of Ron Paul that you can check out. Some good stuff there! See a listing below.

The Sabbatarian, antiliquor, and antisex attitudes usually attributed to the Puritans are a nineteenth-century addition to the much more moderate and wholesome view of life’s evils held by the early settlers of New England.

- Carl Degler (HT: Rick Shenkman of History News Network; quoted in “Top 10 Myths About Thanksgiving”)

The retrieval of embryonic stem cells from human fetuses or embryos raises ethical problems for those who oppose abortion or believe that a fetus or embryo has a special moral status.
- Ronald Munson, Intervention and Reflection 8th Ed. (2008) (HT: James Krueger)

Now tell me this: What exactly do we believe is so special about the fetus? The central claim of many who are opposed to abortion is that the fetus really has a human life, and really is made in the image of God. We believe that murder of an adult individual is no different from the murder of a out-of-womb infant or an unborn child. What special moral status are we conferring on the fetus? If anything, it’s the murderers of millions of children who wish to confer some special moral status on both the unborn fetus/embryo and as well on the mother or those who can benefit from the development of research on the use of stem cells. It is they want to say that the fetus/embryo has no rights (so it has a special moral status - that is, its moral status is somehow decidedly different from those who are outside of womb) and they want to say that those who live in the world outside of the womb are so special that they can pillage and cannibalize human life to whatever end they shall please. Is it any surprise that the “discussion” of this sort of thing can get nowhere? Is it any surprise, when individuals like Mr. Munson like to twist words and manipulate language to make themselves sound as if they are in the right and it is we who are against abortion who are so unreasonable?