Ron Paul for President 2012

It is morally illegal to take away ones life without their consent. That is essentially murder. People are punished by law if convicted guilty. Abortion violates natural rights as a human being. This statement made by my opponent supports my case entirely. It is morally wrong to kill a human being without there consent; however what happens when two the survival of one life conflicts another. Ron Paul's abortion policy does not answer this question, rather it states that the life of the child be valued above the rights of the mother thus upholding immorality as defined by my opponent as it takes away ones life {the mothers} to save another. Since Paul's abortion plan does not fully answer the question of why should we value one life{the child's} over another{the mother}. If nothing else abortion should be left to the state whether abortion is legal/ illegal in their state. This also conflicts with my opponent's position as it states that Ron Paul should not have the power to decide on an issue so controversial and influential. As Ron Paul said "Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it's academic to talk about civil liberties if you don't talk about the true protection of all life. So if you're going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. While i agree with some aspects of this statement, we must take in account that taking away the ability to decide on an issue that affects ones life in such a drastic level, is also taking away there civil liberty. In valuing the babies life over the mother, we are essentially devaluing the meaning of liberty. Either way, stating that one cannot perform abortion even in cases where it is necessarily to save ones life is also taking away ones liberty. "I was reading The Revolution by Ron Paul on the flight back to Seattle. I thought it was apropiate to state the federal involvment in abortion is unconstitutional since its a state issue. The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. [1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people. Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " If this is so, then why is Ron Paul's policy to completely eradicate abortion? While my opponent states that Ron Paul wants this power to go to the state, he provided no evidence to support this claim. I on the other hand provided multiple sources supporting the idea that he wants to eradicate all abortion. Please read my first and second speeches. "Your attempts to refute my statement "As for bringing our troops home. This is an excellent solution to resolve hostility because of our meddling affairs in other countries. " Ones again, it is impossible to avoid hostility with other countries as we are a power nation and as such must act as a power nation in terms of global activities. VOTERS 1. I met my burden of prove by showing the flaws in Ron Paul's policy. 2. My opponent did not properly address my 17th amendment argument {he simply brushes over it} 3. My opponent did not address the my issue of economic turmoil if troops were brought back 4. My opponent did not attack my global power argument 5. My opponent did not attack my foreign policy argument. 6. My opponent did not provide evidence supporting his key argument in abortion 7. My opponent's inactivity 8. My opponent did not meet his burden of prove in showing that Ron Paul is the best candidate. This involved showing us that Ron Pauls policy was better than other candidates policy (compare).