A lot of people are against Ron Paul as a presidential candidate because of his foreign policy. A lot of that number will even express that they are against Ron Paul solely because of his foreign policy. They say that it is too isolationistic in its formulation.
I have the mind to object to such an objection. The video below gives some expression to that. This is my main protestation though: As a nation that slaughters its unborn by the millions each year, who are we to be jaunting around the world putting our guns up other people’s noses and telling them what to do. If we want to be the “defenders of freedom” on the international scene (assuming that is a legitimate policy), then we must first defend it within our own boarders by protecting the womb.
3 comments:
Should we not also consider Ron Paul's beliefs that illegal drugs should be legal, that homosexuality, polygamy, etc. is okay, or do we ignore that because he says he is pro-life?
Nony: This is a commentary on America's hypocritical infatuation with foreign intervention (interference?), not Paul's platform.
Ok, then, so on the other issue –
What in the world do you mean by “protecting the womb”?
A giant, national symbolic womb of some sort??
…So apparently a giant singular, symbolic nation that possesses a symbolic national womb and “slaughters it’s unborn”......
Good grief somebody needs a reality check!!!!
Wombs are possessed by individual (female) citizens. How in the world do we represent and defend “freedom” by abolishing individual reproductive freedom??
Keep in mind this is includes the freedom to carry a child to full-term birth as well.
It is NOT limited to just “slaughter!” or “abortion!” as your morbid religious fantasy imagines – but it could become that if reproductive CHOICE is legislated away from individual “wombs” (CITIZENS).
Post a Comment