Ron Paul is Passionately 100% PRO-LIFE

[The Proservative]

Throughout the past few months, working on uniting fellow Ron Paul Revolutionaries, it has come to my attention that there are a few of us that do not fully understand the depth of Ron Paul's TRUE stance on the PRO-LIFE BATTLE, and are in fact, themselves, Pro-Abortion. To help shed some light on where exactly Ron Paul stands on Abortion, please refer to the following link:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric

Excerpt: "Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

In fact, Dr. Paul feels so STRONGLY about his PRO-LIFE conviction, he has introduced BILL H.R. 1094 to the House floor in Feb. 2007:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1094

This bill declares, that according to the Constitution:
"(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state ."

In keeping 100% pure and true to Dr. Ron Paul's message of freedom, being a Proservative to us means that you are 100% behind Ron Paul's platform of being PRO-LIFE. Not many other groups supporting Ron Paul can say that, especially Pro-Abortion Libertarians. This is one of the MAIN reason Ron Paul would NOT CONSIDER running as a Libertarian.

The bottom line is that we are, as Dr. Ron Paul is as well, first and foremost a PRO-Life Movement and will be working hard to promote the FULL and COMPLETE Ron Paul message of FREEDOM, including the Freedom's of the unborn, beginning at conception.

I hope that this email clarifies Ron Paul's strong conviction on being PRO-LIFE, and ours, as a Proservative Movement, fighting one of our countries greatest battles, our modern-day Civil War: the War on Abortion.

[sophocles07]

Link?

[crazyfingers]

"Pro-Abortion"? Give me a break. I'm personally pro choice but I agree with RP that Roe V Wade is in violation of state's rights and should be overturned.

[yongrel]

http://www.southparkfiles.com/art/SP609.gif

[The Proservative]

"Pro-Abortion"? Give me a break. I'm personally pro choice but I agree with RP that Roe V Wade is in violation of state's rights and should be overturned.

Did you see where RP compares Abortion to the Holocaust?

[crazyfingers]

Did you see where RP compares Abortion to the Holocaust?

You think this movement is small now, just wait until all of the "pro-abortion" people leave.

[ARealConservative]

I agree with Dr. Paul.

I also truly respect how he tries to not alienate those that disagree...........

[The Proservative]

You think this movement is small now, just wait until all of the "pro-abortion" people leave.

One step back, ten steps forward.

[crazyfingers]

One step back, ten steps forward.

Uh huh...yeah good luck taking back this country with less than 50% of the population.

[The Proservative]

I agree with Dr. Paul.

I also truly respect how he tries to not alienate those that disagree...........

Running as President, sure, he has to try to appeal to a large audience. Also, as the President really doesn't hold any sway on what should and will be a state right, RP really didn't speak about his PRO-Life views too much in his presidential race.

I'm not at all "alienating", but just trying to educate. Many RP supporters really don't know the extent of his Pro-LIfe views, I'm just now learning how deep that rabbit hole goes. He wrote 2 entire books on the subject and his Pro-Life views, thought that was worth a post.

[The Proservative]

Uh huh...yeah good luck taking back this country with less than 50% of the population.

We'd have millions more if you didn't advocate killing our offspring, fellow Americans.

[crazyfingers]

We'd have millions more if you didn't advocate killing our offspring, fellow Americans.

Yes because if I don't think it should be outlawed I must certainly advocate it. I don't think heroin should be illegal either but I'm not advocating people do it. I just realize that when you outlaw something that is in demand it doesn't disappear, it just goes underground -- resulting in many unintended consequences.

I guess I'm just pro freedom, not anti freedom like you seem to be.

[yongrel]

We'd have millions more if you didn't advocate killing our offspring, fellow Americans.

Stop being melodramatic.

[The Proservative]

Stop being melodramatic.

Is Ron Paul being melodramatic? :
"... Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder"

[yongrel]

Is Ron Paul being melodramatic? :
"... Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder"

Yes.

[The Proservative]

Yes because if I don't think it should be outlawed I must certainly advocate it. I don't think heroin should be illegal either but I'm not advocating people do it. I just realize that when you outlaw something that is in demand it doesn't disappear, it just goes underground -- resulting in many unintended consequences.

I guess I'm just pro freedom, not anti freedom like you seem to be.

RP = Anti-Freedom? Go figure...

[The Proservative]

Yes.

OK, I'll take that :)

It's possible that I am being melodramatic as well, but you can't say I wasn't in great company. ;)

[ARealConservative]

Is Ron Paul being melodramatic? :
"... Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder"

yes.

He is a politician. So when you hear him talking about printing money out of thin air, and other things, it's ok to roll your eyes a little bit.

We know what he means, but we also should be able to recognize the point has been dressed up for maximum splash.

[crazyfingers]

RP = Anti-Freedom? Go figure...

No because he takes the state's rights position, which is Constitutionally sound.

Let me guess, you're against condoms and the morning after pill as well? The anti-choice people sure seem to hate abortion but then make proposals that are only going to increase the number of them that take place.

[The Proservative]

No because he takes the state's rights position, which is Constitutionally sound.

Let me guess, you're against condoms and the morning after pill as well? The anti-choice people sure seem to hate abortion but then do nothing to lessen the number of them that take place.

Did you read RP's "Sanctity of Life" bill? He saying abortion is murder according to the Constitution, and a "person", as stated in the Constitution, is defined as a life beginning at conception. So anywhere in the Constitution is says "person", replace with "unborn baby from conception". That's RP's stance, amend the Constitution to include the unborn.

Why would we be against condoms? How is that abortion? You must have your politics confused with your religion.

[sophocles07]

Have you seen this video?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6639224569643469282&q=the+view+ron+paul&ei=WeM1SNGNKpXk4AKj7_HdCQ&hl=en

[John E]

I am pro-choice and believe in pro-choice because the government (state or federal) is not in a position where it can decide what is in the best interest of an individual and/or family -- PERIOD. And isn't that the very center of the libertarian argument?



The anti-choice people sure seem to hate abortion but then do nothing to lessen the number of them that take place.

Too true! How much time, energy and resources have been wasted in the pro-choice / pro-life arguments? What if that time, energy and resources were invested in better s-x education and the prevention of unplanned pregnancies and teen pregnancies?

[ARealConservative]

I am pro-choice and believe in pro-choice because the government (state or federal) is not in a position where it can decide what is in the best interest of an individual and/or family -- PERIOD. And isn't that the very center of the libertarian argument?

No. The center is non-aggression and a child's best interest is to live.

[Bradley in DC]

The guy delivered 4,000 babies, think about it. :)

[The Proservative]

Have you seen this video?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6639224569643469282&q=the+view+ron+paul&ei=WeM1SNGNKpXk4AKj7_HdCQ&hl=en

Great video, thanks.

Didn't want to debate Abortion issue, just make clear Ron Paul's strong Pro-Life .position.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

So, would Ron Paul support a bill banning abortion, altogether? I have always understood that he would like the issue decided on a state-by-state basis...

[ARealConservative]

So, would Ron Paul support a bill banning abortion, altogether? I have always understood that he would like the issue decided on a state-by-state basis...

I don't think so.

An amendment might get his approval though. :D

But seriously, I don't see his agenda being to restore the constitution as only the first step in a bigger wish list. He talks about fixing the problems caused by later amendments, but not proposing anything new.

[majinkoola]

I am pro-choice and believe in pro-choice because the government (state or federal) is not in a position where it can decide what is in the best interest of an individual and/or family -- PERIOD. And isn't that the very center of the libertarian argument?

That same argument could be used for euthanasia. If a severely handicapped child is a burden on the family, it's their choice to murder it. If that viewpoint isn't taken, the burden of proof is on the pro-abortion people to prove that life does not exist.

And people bring up how it's hypocritical for Republicans to be against abortion and for the death penalty, when there have been numerous instances of the death penalty being applied wrongly. I think the reverse is true, and that people who are pro-abortion and anti-death penalty are being hypocritical. There isn't 100% solid proof showing the moment when life exists, that is debatable. So I don't think legalizing fatal aggression against what could possibly be a live human should be legal.

RP's decision to attack the doctors who perform the operations would end a lot of abortions. Why would someone risk going to jail for a whole lot of years over this?

And to crazyfingers, way to lump pro-life people with religious zealots. Classy way to discuss an issue.

Luckily, this is not a concern anyway. The extent of what he would do is move the power over this issue to the states, which is what everyone wants either way.

[crazyfingers]

And to crazyfingers, way to lump pro-life people with religious zealots. Classy way to discuss an issue.

Luckily, this is not a concern anyway. The extent of what he would do is move the power over this issue to the states, which is what everyone wants either way.

Uh huh...I'm the one who is not being classy...it can't possibly be the people who keep calling pro-choice people "pro-abortion".

And apparently leaving it up to the states is not enough for some people. They have to try and push others with varying viewpoints out of the movement, instead of building on what we have in common like RP does.

[The Proservative]

I don't think so.

An amendment might get his approval though. :D

But seriously, I don't see his agenda being to restore the constitution as only the first step in a bigger wish list. He talks about fixing the problems caused by later amendments, but not proposing anything new.

What RP is actually trying to do with his Bill is define "person" as including an unborn child at conception. Once this is passed, the unborn then are provided equal protections as a "person", American citizen, under the Constitution...no amendment required :)

It goes without saying, RP is an extremely smart and honorable person.

[The Proservative]

TThere isn't 100% solid proof showing the moment when life exists, that is debatable. So I don't think legalizing fatal aggression against what could possibly be a live human should be legal.

Again, not to debate this issue, but putting this out there as a "what-if".

What if, in 20 years from now, we have the technology to determine without a shadow of a doubt, that life begins at conception?

How do future generations of Americans look back on this period as? Would this not be considered the largest mass genocide, in not only American history, but in the entire human history? And not caused by an external enemy, but by our own hand...

Just throwing that out there...

[Sandra]

LIFE! Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness! The first word is LIFE!!!!! ... Declaration of Independence.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

What RP is actually trying to do with his Bill is define "person" as including an unborn child at conception. Once this is passed, the unborn then are provided equal protections as a "person", American citizen, under the Constitution...no amendment required :)


In that case, why does Congressman Paul have so many pro-choice supporters?

[Sandra]

In that case, why does Congressman Paul have so many pro-choice supporters?

Because he is for states rights to make that decision. Not federal government.

[majinkoola]

Uh huh...I'm the one who is not being classy...it can't possibly be the people who keep calling pro-choice people "pro-abortion".

Well, you could characterize anything as being pro-choice. I could call someone who advocated the legalization of euthanasia as pro-choice. I'm for the legalization of drugs, but I don't do them, yet I call myself pro-drug. It avoids confusion.

Again, you didn't respond to my comment about the hypocrisy of being against the death penalty and for legalizing abortions. Generally the argument against the death penalty is that innocent people are sometimes unjustly killed. And that you'd rather let 100 guilty people live than see one innocent person die. So unless you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that life does not exist in the womb, the same argument can be applied.

[1000-points-of-fright]

What if, in 20 years from now, we have the technology to determine without a shadow of a doubt, that life begins at conception?

I don't need any new technology. With fertilization comes a unique human DNA sequence. Hence, life begins at conception. That being said, I'm still pro-choice. I just don't try to sugarcoat it in order to make myself feel better. I know exactly what it is and I think it is a necessary option.

As far as the fight over the abortion goes, I think both sides place too much importance on it. It's not the most pressing issue our society has.

[The Proservative]

As far as the fight over the abortion goes, I think both sides place too much importance on it. It's not the most pressing issue our society has.

In all fairness, that is usually how those who support abortion see the issue...as an "issue" regarding a women's "right to choose".

Americans, such as myself AND Ron Paul, who know abortion is murder, tend to view Abortion as more than just an "issue"...it's a life and death PROBLEM, an injustice of the greatest magnitude.

And, to us Pro-Life Patriots, if "Liberty and Justice For All" is to be more than just a "cool" bumper sticker slogan, we ALL must have Liberty and Justice, especially our unborn, indefensible fellow American brethren.

Again, not a discussion on Abortion, as there really is no true discourse between Life and Death. This is just an explaination as to why Pro-Lifers see this as more than just an "issue".

Any good debaters can argue either side of an "issue" with ease, and in the end create a balanced argument for and against, although both sides may not be correct. If we argue taxes, as Ron Paul does:

Ron Paul: No Income Tax: give us our money to do with what we know is best for our family
Federalist: We need Income Tac to fund the many beneficial programs the government offers (flawed, but ok...)

Equal arguments, weights.

Now Abortion:
Ron Paul: Abortion in any form, past conception is murder
Pro-Abortion: It's a women's right to choose to have an abortion, to do what she wants with her body

NOT equal arguments, weights. A murder on one hand, a women's choice on the other. If pro-life is right, murder. If pro-abortion right, a woman lost a right to choose in one instance in her life (still not clear on what the choice is). ONE CHOICE != MURDER - unjustifiable

But there it is...no sway, just logic. It's not an equal, logical argument.

This is why you will never have a "logical" a discussion over Abortion, is why this is our country's modern day Civil War.

[JK/SEA]

You think this movement is small now, just wait until all of the "pro-abortion" people leave.


Then they were'nt really RP supporters.

Thats the problem with sheeple. If they can't have their 'pet' issues front and center they scurry like c-roaches to the next lying SOB that strokes them.

For Liberty.

[ARealConservative]

What RP is actually trying to do with his Bill is define "person" as including an unborn child at conception. Once this is passed, the unborn then are provided equal protections as a "person", American citizen, under the Constitution...no amendment required :)

It goes without saying, RP is an extremely smart and honorable person.

He has actually explained this legislation.

As long as Roe v Wade exists, he will do what he can to undermine it.

He doesn't like giving the federal government the power to define life, but he views the status quo is even worse.


ps states can and do kill people (with due process)

[1000-points-of-fright]

In all fairness, that is usually how those who support abortion see the issue...as an "issue" regarding a women's "right to choose".

No, that's how you see those who "support abortion". There are a lot of single issue voters on both sides.

[Melissa]

Well, you could characterize anything as being pro-choice. I could call someone who advocated the legalization of euthanasia as pro-choice. I'm for the legalization of drugs, but I don't do them, yet I call myself pro-drug. It avoids confusion.

Again, you didn't respond to my comment about the hypocrisy of being against the death penalty and for legalizing abortions. Generally the argument against the death penalty is that innocent people are sometimes unjustly killed. And that you'd rather let 100 guilty people live than see one innocent person die. So unless you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that life does not exist in the womb, the same argument can be applied.

I will jump in as you don't seem to get it we are not for abortion if we are pro choice we are just for others to determine what is in thier best intertest. I had a daughter at 16 so abortion is not for me so I am pro life but I have to be pro choice for others as it not my right to tell others what to do but I can be against the death penalty as that is killing someone for sure as for pro choice I am not killing anyone as I have decided to take on my responsiblity so I get so mad when people say if you are pro -choice you are pro abortion --I know that people that usually say that are not looking for real honest answers from the other side but looking to bash others thoughts

[brandon]

When I get married I am going to impregnate my wife every month and force her to abort. I am going to store all of the fetuses in jars. An entire room of my house will be the "fetus room" The walls will be lined with the jarred fetuses. Then I am going to have one son and allow him to live. Whenever he acts out of line, I will punish him by sending him to the fetus room. In the fetus room he will reflect on just how lucky he is.

[ARealConservative]

When I get married I am going to impregnate my wife every month and force her to abort. I am going to store all of the fetuses in jars. An entire room of my house will be the "fetus room" The walls will be lined with the jarred fetuses. Then I am going to have one son and allow him to live. Whenever he acts out of line, I will punish him by sending him to the fetus room. In the fetus room he will reflect on just how lucky he is.

Good luck getting married.

With this attitude, I shudder to think what your bride will look like. :rolleyes:

Of course...once you enter high school, your outlook might change.

[sophocles07]

When I get married I am going to impregnate my wife every month and force her to abort. I am going to store all of the fetuses in jars. An entire room of my house will be the "fetus room" The walls will be lined with the jarred fetuses. Then I am going to have one son and allow him to live. Whenever he acts out of line, I will punish him by sending him to the fetus room. In the fetus room he will reflect on just how lucky he is.

hahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahaha

O that eeezzzz grotesque!

[brandon]

Good luck getting married.

With this attitude, I shudder to think what your bride will look like. :rolleyes:

Of course...once you enter high school, your outlook might change.

lol i'm just joking (if you couldn't tell)

[The Proservative]

When I get married I am going to impregnate my wife every month and force her to abort. I am going to store all of the fetuses in jars. An entire room of my house will be the "fetus room" The walls will be lined with the jarred fetuses. Then I am going to have one son and allow him to live. Whenever he acts out of line, I will punish him by sending him to the fetus room. In the fetus room he will reflect on just how lucky he is.

Brother, that is nasty, although I have to admit, in a very creative kind of way. You could very well be the next Steven King. :)

"The Hall of Abortion"

[AFM]

Proservative is a fucking asshole

[sophocles07]

What is the pro-life position on "what to do once it's illegal"? That is, you know it's going to cause the whole thing to go underground--as it always does when you outlaw something--and that it won't stop the practice, just make it clotheshanger-style dangerous and amateur; what kind of extended thought is there on the question?

[Ozwest]

Most women are "pro abortion," and anti-life. They are incapable of making their own decisions.

It is important that reproduction be "legislated."

Let's keep it "swept under the rug."

Then we can all feel better.

[majinkoola]

What is the pro-life position on "what to do once it's illegal"? That is, you know it's going to cause the whole thing to go underground--as it always does when you outlaw something--and that it won't stop the practice, just make it clotheshanger-style dangerous and amateur; what kind of extended thought is there on the question?

The same argument can be extended to rape then. Why should rape be illegal? It just causes the thing to go underground - as it always does when you outlaw something- and that it won't stop the practice, just make it so that rapists are more likely to kill their victim after the rape.


I will jump in as you don't seem to get it we are not for abortion if we are pro choice we are just for others to determine what is in thier best intertest. I had a daughter at 16 so abortion is not for me so I am pro life but I have to be pro choice for others as it not my right to tell others what to do but I can be against the death penalty as that is killing someone for sure as for pro choice I am not killing anyone as I have decided to take on my responsiblity so I get so mad when people say if you are pro -choice you are pro abortion --I know that people that usually say that are not looking for real honest answers from the other side but looking to bash others thoughts

I am not killing anyone? Well I guess it would be the doctor, but to say conclusively that he or she is not killing someone means that you have proof that a life does not exist in the womb. You do not.

The arguments you guys are using can be extended to a number of crimes that you think should be legislated against. Like rape and murder. The burden of proof is on you to prove that life does not exist.

Because if you admit that life does exist and yet abortion should be legal, then the same arguments that you are using about "reproductive rights" can be extended to illegal acts a father or mother does to a child. Meaning if a parent decides to kill a child, or rape a child, that is their decision and the state should have nothing to do with it.

[Ozwest]

The same argument can be extended to rape then. Why should rape be illegal? It just causes the thing to go underground - as it always does when you outlaw something- and that it won't stop the practice, just make it so that rapists are more likely to kill their victim after the rape.



I am not killing anyone? Well I guess it would be the doctor, but to say conclusively that he or she is not killing someone means that you have proof that a life does not exist in the womb. You do not.

The arguments you guys are using can be extended to a number of crimes that you think should be legislated against. Like rape and murder. The burden of proof is on you to prove that life does not exist.

Because if you admit that life does exist and yet abortion should be legal, then the same arguments that you are using about "reproductive rights" can be extended to illegal acts a father or mother does to a child. Meaning if a parent decides to kill a child, or rape a child, that is their decision and the state should have nothing to do with it.

Ummm...

Rape and murder should be illegal.

Otherwise...

Tell me where you live, and I'll come smite you.

hehe

[majinkoola]

Way to avoid my argument. They same argument you are using could be applied to rape and murder, that's why it is not a valid argument.

Because assume life exists in the womb. Then if you advocate the legality of harming the life in the womb, what is the difference between that and the legality of harming the life two minutes later outside of the womb?

But keep sidestepping my point...it just makes me more confident that you have nothing to refute that.

[Ozwest]

Way to avoid my argument. They same argument you are using could be applied to rape and murder, that's why it is not a valid argument.

Because assume life exists in the womb. Then if you advocate the legality of harming the life in the womb, what is the difference between that and the legality of harming the life two minutes later outside of the womb?

But keep sidestepping my point...it just makes me more confident that you have nothing to refute that.

I am perfectly clear on Ron Paul's position.

I happen to disagree with it.

I wish he were was President.

Don't get carried away.

I believe in the "Separation of Church and State," and so does the Dr.

[sophocles07]

The same argument can be extended to rape then. Why should rape be illegal? It just causes the thing to go underground - as it always does when you outlaw something- and that it won't stop the practice, just make it so that rapists are more likely to kill their victim after the rape.

So you’re equating forcing sex on someone with a woman who probably has no money to raise the child, or even pay for his arrival into world, etc etc. What if a woman addicted to crack is pregnant? Do we allow a crackbaby to be born? You’re simply skirting the issue and reducing a complex situation to fit a narrow political position.

I'm not saying abortion shouldn't be illegal; I'm saying that you can't just outlaw it to make yourself feel good, then do nothing to stop the social situation that causes most women to get abortions. (There are obviously exceptions to this, I've known a well-off suburban woman to get an abortion within the first month, but that's not the predominant situation I'd assume.)

[majinkoola]

So you’re equating forcing sex on someone with a woman who probably has no money to raise the child, or even pay for his arrival into world, etc etc. What if a woman addicted to crack is pregnant? Do we allow a crackbaby to be born? You’re simply skirting the issue and reducing a complex situation to fit a narrow political position.

I'm not skirting the issue, and this argument you brought up fits right into what I was saying. If the argument that you used, regarding a woman who has no money to raise the child, or a woman addicted to crack, is the reasoning as to why abortion should be illegal, that same argument could be applied to a live baby. Say a woman has the baby, but has no money. Or that the baby is mentally handicapped. The same argument you just made could be used as reasoning for ending that baby's life. What is the difference?

Now the difference could be that life exists outside of the womb but not inside the womb, OK. And that would be a legitimate argument. But the burden of proof is on you.

To Ozwest, I agree with separation of church and state as well. This has nothing to do with that. But again, you couldn't attack the position, so you tried to attack the person with that comment. Nice.

[sophocles07]

I'm not skirting the issue, and this argument you brought up fits right into what I was saying. If the argument that you used, regarding a woman who has no money to raise the child, or a woman addicted to crack, is the reasoning as to why abortion should be illegal, that same argument could be applied to a live baby. Say a woman has the baby, but has no money. Or that the baby is mentally handicapped. The same argument you just made could be used as reasoning for ending that baby's life. What is the difference?

So you’re suggesting adoption once the baby is born?

Who is to pay for the mother’s time during the later months of pregnancy if she cannot?

As to the mentally handicapped/deformed or babies born addicted to drugs...who is to handle this? The mother is obviously unfit.


Now the difference could be that life exists outside of the womb but not inside the womb, OK. And that would be a legitimate argument. But the burden of proof is on you.

My concern here is not to argue about when life begins.

[Ozwest]

Say...

A woman is pregnant, and has her finger on the trigger...

A nuclear bomb will destroy Albuquerque.

Would you save the baby... Or torture her for the nuclear code sequence?

Bloody Yanks... Lighten up.

[majinkoola]

So you’re suggesting adoption once the baby is born?

Who is to pay for the mother’s time during the later months of pregnancy if she cannot?

As to the mentally handicapped/deformed or babies born addicted to drugs...who is to handle this? The mother is obviously unfit.

The reason I brought this up, is that you obviously do not advocate the legality of killing of babies outside of the womb, no matter what condition they are in. But yet you advocate the legality of killing of what could possibly be babies inside the womb to prevent future hardship on the babies/mother. That is hypocritical; the same argument could be made to advocate the killing of infants to prevent future hardship on the child/mother.

I see no reason why the baby's possible future should have anything to do with its rights in the womb. That makes no sense.

I'm not saying there aren't valid arguments in favor of abortion. They all hinge on whether life exists or not. Yours is not valid, unless you also advocate the legality of killing babies outside the womb.

[sophocles07]

The reason I brought this up, is that you obviously do not advocate the legality of killing of babies outside of the womb, no matter what condition they are in. But yet you advocate the legality of killing of what could possibly be babies inside the womb to prevent future hardship on the babies/mother. That is hypocritical; the same argument could be made to advocate the killing of infants to prevent future hardship on the child/mother.

So you consider an unformed fetus the equal to a 3 year old? He has not breathed yet in the world and he’s equal to a 3 year old?

I suppose you have to at some point bring in these kinds of comparisons.

[Ozwest]

God forbid!

The world is not perfect. You cannot legislate perfection.

Let women decide for themselves

Get on with your lives and stop being drama queens.

[majinkoola]

So you consider an unformed fetus the equal to a 3 year old? He has not breathed yet in the world and he’s equal to a 3 year old?

I suppose you have to at some point bring in these kinds of comparisons.

Aha...this is where the defining of life becomes involved. It is required from every valid pro-choice argument.

I can make the comparison of a baby one minute before birth to a baby one minute after birth. Usually people will not maintain that there is a difference between those two, and will say that a baby one minute before birth should have the same rights. But that a baby must be able to live viably outside the womb to have those rights. However, that point itself can be debated as babies can now be born months earlier than they could 200 years ago and survive due to better technology. So the date of real viability is unknown.

[sophocles07]

Aha...this is where the defining of life becomes involved. It is required from every valid pro-choice argument.

I can make the comparison of a baby one minute before birth to a baby one minute after birth. Usually people will not maintain that there is a difference between those two, and will say that a baby one minute before birth should have the same rights. But that a baby must be able to live viably outside the womb to have those rights. However, that point itself can be debated as babies can now be born months earlier than they could 200 years ago and survive due to better technology. So the date of real viability is unknown.

Can we get back to the original question: what are you going to do about these mothers’ situations, etc. so that they are not giving birth to babies with no money to raise them, or going through the pregnancy without anyway to support themselves?

That was my original point. I’m not pro-choice (though I do have mixed feelings on this), I just find it a little irresponsible to say you are pro-life without thinking about the complexities of “what to do after you outlaw it.”

Give me some answers.

[Ozwest]

Ummm...

Why don't you do the same that most 1st world countries do?

Support single mothers.

That would be a constructive way to reduce abortion.

[sophocles07]

You don't consider that welfarism?

[Kade]

Throughout the past few months, working on uniting fellow Ron Paul Revolutionaries, it has come to my attention that there are a few of us that do not fully understand the depth of Ron Paul's TRUE stance on the PRO-LIFE BATTLE, and are in fact, themselves, Pro-Abortion. To help shed some light on where exactly Ron Paul stands on Abortion, please refer to the following link:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric

Excerpt: "Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

In fact, Dr. Paul feels so STRONGLY about his PRO-LIFE conviction, he has introduced BILL H.R. 1094 to the House floor in Feb. 2007:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1094

This bill declares, that according to the Constitution:
"(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state ."

In keeping 100% pure and true to Dr. Ron Paul's message of freedom, being a Proservative to us means that you are 100% behind Ron Paul's platform of being PRO-LIFE. Not many other groups supporting Ron Paul can say that, especially Pro-Abortion Libertarians. This is one of the MAIN reason Ron Paul would NOT CONSIDER running as a Libertarian.

The bottom line is that we are, as Dr. Ron Paul is as well, first and foremost a PRO-Life Movement and will be working hard to promote the FULL and COMPLETE Ron Paul message of FREEDOM, including the Freedom's of the unborn, beginning at conception.

I hope that this email clarifies Ron Paul's strong conviction on being PRO-LIFE, and ours, as a Proservative Movement, fighting one of our countries greatest battles, our modern-day Civil War: the War on Abortion.

Thanks for that clarification. That would make it much simpler to run-off the large amount of pro-choice intellectuals who have gathered on his side. He should make that clearer.

What is this garbage and do we need to go here?

[Ozwest]

You don't consider that welfarism?

Semantics.

Corporate fascism irritates me.

[sophocles07]

Semantics.

Corporate fascism irritates me.

I don't follow your response.

[Kade]

Semantics.

Corporate fascism irritates me.

I agree, which is odd...

Religion.
Debt.
Corporate fascism.
Oil.
Welfare system.


These are the five shames. This is our country's legacy so far this century.

[Ozwest]

I don't follow your response.

Democrats or Republicans..

America is a Corporate fascist State.

[majinkoola]

Can we get back to the original question: what are you going to do about these mothers’ situations, etc. so that they are not giving birth to babies with no money to raise them, or going through the pregnancy without anyway to support themselves?

That was my original point. I’m not pro-choice (though I do have mixed feelings on this), I just find it a little irresponsible to say you are pro-life without thinking about the complexities of “what to do after you outlaw it.”

Give me some answers.

Again, you could use the same mothers' situations argument to advocate the legality of killing live babies. Period. Any time any of those type of arguments are brought up, that refutes it.

But anyway, I think that being poor is preferable to being dead. Most people, except those who commit suicide from being poor, agree with me. This just isn't an argument.

Regarding what I'm going to do about these situations? There's a lot of options of what to do with the babies after they are born. There's places, such as the fire station where I live, where moms can drop off babies within the first week or so of their lives, no questions asked, then adoptive parents are found. So even if they weren't able to arrange an adoption beforehand, that's an option.

And there's certainly a much larger supply of parents willing to adopt a baby than there are newborns that aren't wanted. I know a couple who adopted 8 different children and they're all great people. There's a ton of people who are willing to do this. This, again, is not a concern.

Regarding a pregnant woman needing help during childbirth, I'm 100% positive that she went to almost any church, she would get the financial help she needed to make it through childbirth.

[Ozwest]

Spend endless hours labeling women as "baby killers," drone on about "gay rights," and keep playing the religious "deliverence" song.

The rest of the world is moving on...

[Kade]

But anyway, I think that being poor is preferable to being dead. Most people, except those who commit suicide from being poor, agree with me. This just isn't an argument.


When you get just one fetus to agree with you on this point, I'll change my opinion. Until then, I hear Wendy's doesn't freeze their meat.

[majinkoola]

Sorry you don't have the faculties to reasonably to discuss something, Ozwest, that's sad.

You can't understand that some people use reason to determine their political positions rather than following a straight "liberal" or "conservative" line.

What is the rest of the world moving onto? If you're talking about Europe, I guess you mean bankruptcy and/or eventual civil war? I would rather the country not move in those directions.

[sophocles07]

Again, you could use the same mothers' situations argument to advocate the legality of killing live babies. Period. Any time any of those type of arguments are brought up, that refutes it.

Ok, let's say we don't kill them. That's the presupposition in the question I'm asking.


But anyway, I think that being poor is preferable to being dead. Most people, except those who commit suicide from being poor, agree with me. This just isn't an argument.

You need to visit the ghetto down the street from my house.


Regarding what I'm going to do about these situations? There's a lot of options of what to do with the babies after they are born. There's places, such as the fire station where I live, where moms can drop off babies within the first week or so of their lives, no questions asked, then adoptive parents are found. So even if they weren't able to arrange an adoption beforehand, that's an option.

I wasn't aware fire stations did that.


You've given some pretty good answers. All I was asking for is that.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Sorry you don't have the faculties to reasonably to discuss something, Ozwest, that's sad.

You can't understand that some people use reason to determine their political positions rather than following a straight "liberal" or "conservative" line.

He is making the completely reasonable observation that the USA is behind the rest of the civilized world in civil rights matters, and attributes this to religious influence in government, which is the polar opposite of reason.


What is the rest of the world moving onto? If you're talking about Europe, I guess you mean bankruptcy and/or eventual civil war? I would rather the country not move in those directions.

Since when? Europe has been peaceful and prosperous for a long time, they've learned a lesson or two from clerical fascism the United States has yet to receive.

[Ozwest]

Sorry you don't have the faculties to reasonably to discuss something, Ozwest, that's sad.

You can't understand that some people use reason to determine their political positions rather than following a straight "liberal" or "conservative" line.

What is the rest of the world moving onto? If you're talking about Europe, I guess you mean bankruptcy and/or eventual civil war? I would rather the country not move in those directions.
Are you joking?

You elect the politicians.

They ignore you.

Great Democracy. You are a fool.

You need to travel.

[majinkoola]

When you get just one fetus to agree with you on this point, I'll change my opinion. Until then, I hear Wendy's doesn't freeze their meat.

That argument could be used for a baby outside of the womb who can't talk. There's no use discussing this with you or Ozwest, you don't use logic.


You need to visit the ghetto down the street from my house.

I realize the ghetto sucks. But nobody in this country is poor relative to the rest of the world now or in history.


You've given some pretty good answers. All I was asking for is that.

Thanks for reasonably discussing this. Some people can't.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

That argument could be used for a baby outside of the womb who can't talk. There's no use discussing this with you or Ozwest, you don't use logic.

So why can't you defend it any more? What you are saying is intended to cause moral outrage, not to appeal to logic.

[majinkoola]

Are you joking?

You elect the politicians.

They ignore you.

Great Democracy. You are a fool.

You need to travel.

I'm in Scotland right now. I've traveled across Europe. And the US is not a democracy, it's a republic. We don't like mob rule.

And I'm absolutely not joking about Europe. I know what I've seen. The welfare system cannot last. Pensions are going to be taking up larger and larger parts of the budget, while the economies (at least in the more developed areas, Eastern Europe is different) are stagnant. Oh, and the people who are paying into the system are shrinking. Taxes can't go up much any more. Something's gotta give.

[Kade]

That argument could be used for a baby outside of the womb who can't talk. There's no use discussing this with you or Ozwest, you don't use logic.


How is that logic? It rather sounds like emotion. Logically, I could say that humans are animals, and until they obtain that which differentiates them from other animals, they are no different than, say, Wendy's unfreezed hamburger meat. That's logic, and it implies to a baby outside the womb... all arbitrary.

I don't believe that, but I also don't believe that the fetus has an inherent value that is greater than the woman's way of life or her biological freedom and choice.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

I'm in Scotland right now. I've traveled across Europe. And the US is not a democracy, it's a republic. We don't like mob rule.

There's no substantiative difference. The USSR called itself a republic, and it correctly used the term which just means rule by the public.

[majinkoola]

So why can't you defend it any more? What you are saying is intended to cause moral outrage, not to appeal to logic.

How is not logical to say that a baby inside the womb 1 minute before birth is essentially the same as a baby outside the womb 1 minute after birth? That is completely logical. The argument is intended to show these types of arguments for abortion are not valid unless you agree that killing a live baby should be legal.

And I can defend this argument against logic, not against nonsensical quips.

[sophocles07]

I'm in Scotland right now. I've traveled across Europe. And the US is not a democracy, it's a republic. We don't like mob rule.

Democracy is a blanket term.

There is Republican Democracy and Direct Democracy and Socialist Democracy, etc. All of these are rule "by the people," but have different ways of applying the idea.

[Ozwest]

So why can't you defend it any more? What you are saying is intended to cause moral outrage, not to appeal to logic.

Nobody wants innocence to suffer.

Do you have a license on moral outrage?

[Minestra di pomodoro]

How is not logical to say that a baby inside the womb 1 minute before birth is essentially the same as a baby outside the womb 1 minute after birth?

Because if you can argue that the baby inside the womb 1 minute before birth is essentially the same as a baby outside the womb 1 minute after birth you can argue for 2 minutes inside the womb, 3 minutes inside the womb, et al. The line has to be drawn arbitrarily somewhere, and you can apply the same logic to drinking and age of consent laws.

[Ozwest]

Sorry mate.
Wrong quote.

Meant for Manjinkoola.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

//

[majinkoola]

Because if you can argue that the baby inside the womb 1 minute before birth is essentially the same as a baby outside the womb 1 minute after birth you can argue for 2 minutes inside the womb, 3 minutes inside the womb, et al. The line has to be drawn arbitrarily somewhere, and you can apply the same logic to drinking and age of consent laws.

OK, you argue that way. Then why should the line be drawn at birth. What makes a baby inside the womb have any less value than one outside the womb?

And I never said I agreed to drinking or age of consent laws.



I don't believe that, but I also don't believe that the fetus has an inherent value that is greater than the woman's way of life or her biological freedom and choice.

That statement means 1 of 2 things. Either you do not believe that a live baby has as much inherent value as a woman's way of life, or you believe that a baby inside the womb does not have life. I don't think you'd agree to the first point, so again, the debate comes back to the existence of life.

And there's certainly a difference between a democracy and a republic, if the rules of a Republic are followed. In the country's history there's been some glaring exceptions, but that's because the gov't didn't follow the rules.

I don't really know what you were responding to, Ozwest.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

OK, you argue that way. Then why should the line be drawn at birth. What makes a baby inside the womb have any less value than one outside the womb?

It's not independent of the mother.

[majinkoola]

It's not independent of the mother.

It could live independently of the mother though.

[Kade]

That statement means 1 of 2 things. Either you do not believe that a live baby has as much inherent value as a woman's way of life, or you believe that a baby inside the womb does not have life. I don't think you'd agree to the first point, so again, the debate comes back to the existence of life.

I don't. Using the word "baby" for emotional appeal is noted. It is still a cluster of living cells, without the ability to feel pain, express emotion, or act in any other way than what you wouldn't expect of any other animal. At later stages of development, this argument might come under greater scrutiny. But within the first three months, it is truly a closed deal. Sorry.

[sophocles07]

And there's certainly a difference between a democracy and a republic, if the rules of a Republic are followed. In the country's history there's been some glaring exceptions, but that's because the gov't didn't follow the rules.

You're missing the point. Demomcracy is an UMBRELLA TERM meaning "governance by the people." There are obviously many ways this can be executed.

The OED defines it as:


Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.

A "Republic" just means according to OED:


A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation.

That's why you'll find Jefferson use the term "democracy" many times if you read his writings.

[majinkoola]

I don't. Using the word "baby" for emotional appeal is noted. It is still a cluster of living cells, without the ability to feel pain, express emotion, or act in any other way than would you would imagine any other animal doesn't. At later stages of development, this argument might come under greater scrutiny. But within the first three months, it is truly a closed deal. Sorry.

Well, I was referring there to a baby outside of the womb. I don't think most people call that a fetus.

And I could see the argument for within the first three months. That's a lot more reasonable than the one Minestra is trying to make, which is completely arbitrary.

[majinkoola]

You're missing the point. Demomcracy is an UMBRELLA TERM meaning "governance by the people." There are obviously many ways this can be executed.

The OED defines it as:



A "Republic" just means according to OED:



That's why you'll find Jefferson use the term "democracy" many times if you read his writings.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It is defined in some places as majority rule, which is not what this country is about, especially at the federal level.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It is defined in some places as majority rule, which is not what this country is about, especially at the federal level.

What at the federal level isn't subject to majority rule?

[majinkoola]

What at the federal level isn't subject to majority rule?

The rights granted in the Constitution, which was ratified by a unanimous number of the states. Now, as I said before, much of the Constitution is wrongfully neglected, but that's just because they're not following the rules. Which can be done in any political system.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

The rights granted in the Constitution, which was ratified by a unanimous number of the states. Now, as I said before, much of the Constitution is wrongfully neglected, but that's just because they're not following the rules. Which can be done in any political system.

The rights granted in the Constitution are not static, they can be denied to any person or group of persons if the majority decides to amend the constitution and pass say the Federal Marriage Amendment. Even if it were static, there are clauses for the revocation of many rights, "in times of rebellion" and so forth.

[majinkoola]

The rights granted in the Constitution are not static, they can be denied to any person or group of persons if the majority decides to amend the constitution and pass say the Federal Marriage Amendment. Even if it were static, there are clauses for the revocation of many rights, "in times of rebellion" and so forth.

Since when could a majority amend the constitution?

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Since when could a majority amend the constitution?

1787?

[majinkoola]

1787?

A majority does not equal a 2/3 vote.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

A majority does not equal a 2/3 vote.

Semantics.

[majinkoola]

Not really. It takes a 2/3 vote + getting by the president or a 3/4 vote, plus a majority vote of the Supreme Court. Takes a lot more than getting a simple majority.

[Ozwest]

It's always a good idea to force people to do something.

That usually works.

I don't know about you, but I welcome authority. Not.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

I was not speaking of a majority in mathematical terms, and I suspect you weren't either. In all systems of democratic government, if the people want political change, they will get it, for better or for worse, else they would not be democratic governments. The United States is not an exception to this.

[majinkoola]

I agree, Ozwest. If there were no law against murder or rape, that would be a great idea. We shouldn't allow force to be used against murderers or rapists. :rolleyes:

[Ozwest]

I agree, Ozwest. If there were no law against murder or rape, that would be a great idea. We shouldn't allow force to be used against murderers or rapists. :rolleyes:You have already used that argument.

It is mute.

[majinkoola]

Fine, I'll use a better one. How does gov't collect taxes for the socialist system you advocate? Force. So you do welcome that authority, don't you?

[Minestra di pomodoro]

I agree, Ozwest. If there were no law against murder or rape, that would be a great idea. We shouldn't allow force to be used against murderers or rapists. :rolleyes:

Would you use force against mothers to prevent them from performing abortions?

[majinkoola]

Would you use force against mothers to prevent them from performing abortions?

No, the doctors.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

No, the doctors.

In countries where doctors and persecuted, the demand is fulfilled by the black market; do it yourself kits and such. If a woman performs an abortion on herself, what should be her sentence?

[Ozwest]

Fine, I'll use a better one. How does gov't collect taxes for the socialist system you advocate? Force. So you do welcome that authority, don't you?

Nice one.

You reckon I'm a socialist?

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Nice one.

You reckon I'm a socialist?

abortion = socialism, obviously

[Ozwest]

I'm a Capitalist'

And I'm sure I could teach you some things.

[majinkoola]

Nice one.

You reckon I'm a socialist?

You're for gov't paid health care. Respond to my point. You do advocate the use of force in paying for that, there's no other way it would take place. I'm not letting you off the hook for this one.


In countries where doctors and persecuted, the demand is fulfilled by the black market; do it yourself kits and such. If a woman performs an abortion on herself, what should be her sentence?

I would not be for prosecuting the pregnant woman. I know that will be followed with how it's dangerous for them. Well if they're willing to take that risk, they'll have to live with the consequences.

[majinkoola]

abortion = socialism, obviously

I never said; way to attack the person, not the message. There are plenty of pro-choice Libertarians. Ozwest is not one of them.

[Ozwest]

You're for gov't paid health care. Respond to my point. You do advocate the use of force in paying for that, there's no other way it would take place. I'm not letting you off the hook for this one.



I would not be for prosecuting the pregnant woman. I know that will be followed with how it's dangerous for them. Well if they're willing to take that risk, they'll have to live with the consequences.

Yes, I'm the kind of guy that responds to force.

I'm a socialist.:D

[majinkoola]

Yes, I'm the kind of guy that responds to force.

I'm a socialist.:D

Again, you can't answer to my point because you know you're being inconsistent. You do advocate authority using force if it the force is used to get revenue for gov't health care. So you're for the forced redistribution of wealth. Socialism.

[majinkoola]

Yes, I'm the kind of guy that responds to force.

I'm a socialist.:D

Do you pay taxes? Probably. Would you pay taxes if the gov't did not back it up with force? No. So, you respond to force.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Yes, I'm the kind of guy that responds to force.

I'm a socialist.:D

Sexually? I like where this thread is going.

[Ozwest]

Get health care away from the Fed, and turn it over to states and communities.

Negotiate outcomes with drug companies and medical practitioners.

You may call that socialism.

I call it enterprise bargaining...

[majinkoola]

Get health care away from the Fed, and turn it over to states and communities.

Negotiate outcomes with drug companies and medical practitioners.

You may call that socialism.

I call it enterprise bargaining...

So if a person in a state does not want to pay for health care and does not pay their taxes, what would you do? Umm...force them to pay for it. Otherwise, nobody would pay taxes. Again, inconsistent.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

So if a person in a state does not want to pay for health care and does not pay their taxes, what would you do? Umm...force them to pay for it. Otherwise, nobody would pay taxes. Again, inconsistent.

I would revoke their citizenship, because their citizenship relies on an implicit agreement to obey the laws of the country you are participating in, including the tax code.

[Melissa]

I would not be for prosecuting the pregnant woman. I know that will be followed with how it's dangerous for them. Well if they're willing to take that risk, they'll have to live with the consequences.

see this is where you lose me and I have to stay pro choice-- you would not prosecute the women but you would the doctor even though he could do it more safely then the mother can --so again in these arguments someone has to suffer all pro-choice people are saying is let the woman and her family decide who is to suffer instead of the government

[majinkoola]

I would revoke their citizenship, because their citizenship relies on an implicit agreement to obey the laws of the country you are participating in, including the tax code.

OK...so why would that matter, unless future force was used?

[Ozwest]

So if a person in a state does not want to pay for health care and does not pay their taxes, what would you do? Umm...force them to pay for it. Otherwise, nobody would pay taxes. Again, inconsistent.

Not a problem. In or out.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

OK...so why would that matter, unless future force was used?

Force doesn't have to be used. They would just be denied the rights they have as citizens, no force needed. If they attempted to take those rights and privileges, while not a citizen, that would be theft, which would require use of force, but that is not guaranteed.

[Ozwest]

If I have a superannuation program for my employees.

I can negotiate a better outcome for 100 employees vs. one.

That's business...

[majinkoola]

see this is where you lose me and I have to stay pro choice-- you would not prosecute the women but you would the doctor even though he could do it more safely then the mother can --so again in these arguments someone has to suffer all pro-choice people are saying is let the woman and her family decide who is to suffer instead of the government

Again, the last part of your argument can be used as reasons for the killing of children. The not attacking the mother part is me personally. There are people who argue for it...I don't support that because I think it would be too difficult to prove beyond doubt.

[majinkoola]

Force doesn't have to be used. They would just be denied the rights they have as citizens, no force needed. If they attempted to take those rights and privileges, while not a citizen, that would be theft, which would require use of force, but that is not guaranteed.

Which "rights and privileges" are you talking about?

[majinkoola]

If I have a superannuation program for my employees.

I can negotiate a better outcome for 100 employees vs. one.

That's business...

There wouldn't be a need for negotiation. The free market would bring the prices down.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Which "rights and privileges" are you talking about?

Socialized services, such as the protection of the police and firefighters. Judicial services, such as the enforcement of personal contracts. The right to hold title to property.

[AisA1787]

There wouldn't be a need for negotiation. The free market would bring the prices down.


because no one negotiates in a free market...

[Ozwest]

There wouldn't be a need for negotiation. The free market would bring the prices down.

I would negotiate an outcome for my employees with the insurance provider.

Get the picture, or are you dim.

Free marketeer... My ass.

[majinkoola]

Socialized services, such as the protection of the police and firefighters. Judicial services, such as the enforcement of personal contracts. The right to hold title to property.

Socialized services like the police and firefighters would not exist without the use of force. The right to hold property is a natural right. You can only deny that by using force. The judge is an authority who uses force to effect decisions.

Again, force is used. I'm not saying it's wrong, but Ozwest is saying authority and force is wrong. You have to be a full-blown anarchist to take that viewpoint, which he is not.

[majinkoola]

because no one negotiates in a free market...

Yeah, how about you don't come into the middle of a discussion? I meant negotiation by the states. Context is your friend.


I would negotiate an outcome for my employees with the insurance provider.

Get the picture, or are you dim.

Free marketeer... My ass.

Resorting to name calling again...brilliant!

Why do health plans need to be provided for my the state or employer? Nixon had the federal gov't forced that onto companies.

Why can't the free market produce good health insurance policies, as it does with life insurance?

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Socialized services like the police and firefighters would not exist without the use of force.

No they don't, if by that you mean their funding, which I said existed with the implicit threat of force, not actual force.


The right to hold property is a natural right.

What is a "natural right"? A right given by God? No, it is a right granted by government, which it can revoke at any time. It's sad sometimes, but that's what happens when you don't value a contract! If the state didn't have the power to transfer property, there would be no real estate business.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Why can't the free market produce good health insurance policies, as it does with life insurance?

They are good plans, from the viewpoint of the corporations that provide them. They provide maximum profits. For the consumer though, the plans are terrible, and people die as a result of denied claims. Only an exceptional few people (lawyers) can make informed decisions when it comes to health insurance.

[majinkoola]

No they don't, if by that you mean their funding, which I said existed with the implicit threat of force, not actual force.

It does exist by force. If the police is self-funding, as it is in some areas, then they use force to make you pay for it when you don't obey one of their laws. If it exists by taxes, we go back to the argument I made before.




What is a "natural right"? A right given by God? No, it is a right granted by government, which it can revoke at any time. It's sad sometimes, but that's what happens when you don't value a contract! If the state didn't have the power to transfer property, there would be no real estate business.

Rights are not granted by government. The people grant the government rights to take actions, not the other way around. And how would there not be a real estate business?

[Minestra di pomodoro]

It does exist by force. If the police is self-funding, as it is in some areas, then they use force to make you pay for it when you don't obey one of their laws. If it exists by taxes, we go back to the argument I made before.

You don't advocate the use of force against lawbreakers, then?


Rights are not granted by government. The people grant the government rights to take actions, not the other way around. And how would there not be a real estate business?

Rights ARE granted by government. There would not be a real estate business because anyone who could get their bodies onto any land would not be able to be removed because the government couldn't use "force".

[majinkoola]

They are good plans, from the viewpoint of the corporations that provide them. They provide maximum profits. For the consumer though, the plans are terrible, and people die as a result of denied claims. Only an exceptional few people (lawyers) can make informed decisions when it comes to health insurance.

I agree that the healthcare plans provide maximum profits for the corporations. That's what all business is about, maximizing profit.

So what you basically just said was that people are too stupid to decide health insurance for themselves. And they should be forced to pay for a health care plan that they might not want. I don't agree with that. If people want to be stupid, don't want to have health care, that's their life. I'm not going to use the state as an authority to force them to do something unless they take aggression toward someone else.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

So what you basically just said was that people are too stupid to decide health insurance for themselves.

That's not a nice way to put it, but do you deny this? It makes for good politics, this populist appeal, but it does not make good sense. You are pitting one person of average intelligence against a team of public relations experts, lawyers, and doctors.


And they should be forced to pay for a health care plan that they might not want.

Yes


I don't agree with that.

Oh?


If people want to be stupid, don't want to have health care, that's their life.

It isn't. People do not choose to be stupid, it's their social condition that makes them so. The more intelligent people should help the stupid people because we have a common humanity and the public's interest is not served by letting these people die for the corporations.

[majinkoola]

You don't advocate the use of force against lawbreakers, then?



Rights ARE granted by government. There would not be a real estate business because anyone who could get their bodies onto any land would not be able to be removed because the government couldn't use "force".

I do advocate the use of force against lawbreakers, you missed my point. Ozwest was making the claim that all force and authority was bad, and my point was that he advocates the use of force in some situations. I was stating that he was inconsistent, which he was.

Again, I'm not saying that the gov't should never use force. I'm not an anarchist.

And there could be a real estate business without the gov't being involved in allowing private property. If a person trespasses on your property and they won't leave, that is an aggressive act toward you. Then the gov't would be justified in using force to make that person leave.

[majinkoola]

That's not a nice way to put it, but do you deny this? It makes for good politics, this populist appeal, but it does not make good sense. You are pitting one person of average intelligence against a team of public relations experts, lawyers, and doctors.



Yes



Oh?



It isn't. People do not choose to be stupid, it's their social condition that makes them so. The more intelligent people should help the stupid people because we have a common humanity and the public's interest is not served by letting these people die for the corporations.

I have to go right now, I'll be back in awhile. But post what you just said where most RP supporters can see it and see the response you get. That's against pretty much everything this campaign is about, which is freedom.

[Ozwest]

I agree that the healthcare plans provide maximum profits for the corporations. That's what all business is about, maximizing profit.

So what you basically just said was that people are too stupid to decide health insurance for themselves. And they should be forced to pay for a health care plan that they might not want. I don't agree with that. If people want to be stupid, don't want to have health care, that's their life. I'm not going to use the state as an authority to force them to do something unless they take aggression toward someone else.

Have you owned a business?

Do you have an accountant, Lawyer?

Have you been sued. audited?

[majinkoola]

That's not a nice way to put it, but do you deny this? It makes for good politics, this populist appeal, but it does not make good sense. You are pitting one person of average intelligence against a team of public relations experts, lawyers, and doctors.

That's an indictment of our judicial system, not the free market.


It isn't. People do not choose to be stupid, it's their social condition that makes them so. The more intelligent people should help the stupid people because we have a common humanity and the public's interest is not served by letting these people die for the corporations.

Wow. Just wow. I never thought I'd see that kind of talk posted on RPF, ever. I agree intelligent people should help stupid people. I just don't believe that the guns of the gov't should be used to force people to receive "help."

The public's interest? Have you heard of something called individual rights?

What's really naive of you is to think that the states won't be corrupted by these same corporations (which, by the way, only exist with the help of the State). Why wouldn't they?

I'm basically defending libertarian thought now (and yes, there are many principled pro-life libertarians), which was not the point of this thread. You have some reading to do. I recommend Healing Our World by Mary Ruwart. It's on her website. Might change your mind about some things.

[SeanEdwards]

I'm so confused about this issue. I don't know what to think.

On one hand, I don't think I agree with the idea of a woman killing her unborn child simply because she doesn't feel ready to be a mom. That excuse doesn't work for men, so I don't see why it should work for women.

On the other hand, I'm totally in favor of human cloning, genetically modifying embryos, stem cell research, you name it. I'm mega gung-ho for that mad scientist shit.

I guess for me it depends on the reason for messing around with the fetus/embryo. Motive matters.

[G-Wohl]

Ron Paul has a personal view on abortion, but it's his political view that's important. He is following the law when he says that Roe V. Wade is illegal, and he is following the law when he says that the federal government has absolutely no say in any way regarding abortion, especially in our constitution.

I'm pro choice, and I can really respect this point of view, because it's the only correct view. Your personal issues aside (these views are delegated to the states, as per the constitution), the federal government has no right to be involved in the argument. Under the proper method, states would decide which is best for them, and people would decide where to move thusly if the abortion question is important to them. This is the view Ron Paul follows, and this is the view any libertarian should follow. It's extremely un-libertarian to advocate any pro-life OR pro-choice legislation. Ron Paul's bill was introduced to advocate for HIS interpretation of the constitution, in order for further related legislation to be contextualized. It was not an effort to further a pro-life establishment within the federal government's control - there's a huge difference.

[majinkoola]

Ron Paul has a personal view on abortion, but it's his political view that's important. He is following the law when he says that Roe V. Wade is illegal, and he is following the law when he says that the federal government has absolutely no say in any way regarding abortion, especially in our constitution.

I'm pro choice, and I can really respect this point of view, because it's the only correct view. Your personal issues aside (these views are delegated to the states, as per the constitution), the federal government has no right to be involved in the argument. Under the proper method, states would decide which is best for them, and people would decide where to move thusly if the abortion question is important to them. This is the view Ron Paul follows, and this is the view any libertarian should follow. It's extremely un-libertarian to advocate any pro-life OR pro-choice legislation. Ron Paul's bill was introduced to advocate for HIS interpretation of the constitution, in order for further related legislation to be contextualized. It was not an effort to further a pro-life establishment within the federal government's control - there's a huge difference.

I certainly agree with this - it's also in the political interest of whoever the Libertarian candidate is to take this point of view, because it appeals to pretty much everyone.

[ARealConservative]

You have already used that argument.

It is mute.

:D

[Christianalwaysg124RP]

Whether you are pro choice or pro life, can't we all agree there shouldn't be government funded abortions? Especially government funded abortions from money of people who are opposed to the idea. Can't we all also agree with Ron Paul that it is a state issue, not one to be of the federal level?


"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."- Thomas Jefferson- Virginia Decleration of Religious Liberty-1777

[Meatwasp]

Again, you could use the same mothers' situations argument to advocate the legality of killing live babies. Period. Any time any of those type of arguments are brought up, that refutes it.

But anyway, I think that being poor is preferable to being dead. Most people, except those who commit suicide from being poor, agree with me. This just isn't an argument.

Regarding what I'm going to do about these situations? There's a lot of options of what to do with the babies after they are born. There's places, such as the fire station where I live, where moms can drop off babies within the first week or so of their lives, no questions asked, then adoptive parents are found. So even if they weren't able to arrange an adoption beforehand, that's an option.

And there's certainly a much larger supply of parents willing to adopt a baby than there are newborns that aren't wanted. I know a couple who adopted 8 different children and they're all great people. There's a ton of people who are willing to do this. This, again, is not a concern.

Regarding a pregnant woman needing help during childbirth, I'm 100% positive that she went to almost any church, she would get the financial help she needed to make it through childbirth.
+100

[DriftWood]

Throughout the past few months, working on uniting fellow Ron Paul Revolutionaries, it has come to my attention that there are a few of us that do not fully understand the depth of Ron Paul's TRUE stance on the PRO-LIFE BATTLE, and are in fact, themselves, Pro-Abortion. To help shed some light on where exactly Ron Paul stands on Abortion, please refer to the following link:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric

Excerpt: "Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder."

In fact, Dr. Paul feels so STRONGLY about his PRO-LIFE conviction, he has introduced BILL H.R. 1094 to the House floor in Feb. 2007:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1094

This bill declares, that according to the Constitution:
"(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state ."

In keeping 100% pure and true to Dr. Ron Paul's message of freedom, being a Proservative to us means that you are 100% behind Ron Paul's platform of being PRO-LIFE. Not many other groups supporting Ron Paul can say that, especially Pro-Abortion Libertarians. This is one of the MAIN reason Ron Paul would NOT CONSIDER running as a Libertarian.

The bottom line is that we are, as Dr. Ron Paul is as well, first and foremost a PRO-Life Movement and will be working hard to promote the FULL and COMPLETE Ron Paul message of FREEDOM, including the Freedom's of the unborn, beginning at conception.

I hope that this email clarifies Ron Paul's strong conviction on being PRO-LIFE, and ours, as a Proservative Movement, fighting one of our countries greatest battles, our modern-day Civil War: the War on Abortion.

I think this is the one issue where RP supporters disagree with RP most. My personal take on it mights sound a bit cold and calculated.. but abortion can not be compared to slavery or genocide simply because a featuses has very little power to enforce their "rights". They are at the mercy of the mother. For there to be laws to protect the fetus, the state in a sense has to claim ownership of the mother and her body. If you ask me that is a great violation of her rights. Compared to the fetus the mother has a lot of power to fight for her rights.

Slaves and other repressed adult human groups have a lot of real power, all adult humans have the power to fight back. Slave owners probably started fearing the slaves and the consequences of miss-treating them, blowback is a b**ch. You simply cant keep people down for to long. Cattle on the other hand can be kept down and have few right because they have very little power to fight back. Maybe if they learned how to use a gun, the whole world would start treating cows as they do in India.

Genocide and war in general is wrong because its pretty much impossible to kill all of the "enemy".. todays abusers are tomorrows victims, and vice versa. Call it bad karma.. but revenge is real thing.

Children (even young ones) are given rights, because they hold the power to remember and revenge mistreatment. A fetus does not remember, and few survive the mistreatment of being aborted. Fetus have very limited powers to fight back. The few that survive usually end up having severe disabilities.. which means that their power to revenge misstreatment are more limited. Also the fact that they would have to fight their own mother probably makes the power issue even worse.

(Side tracking.. When it comes to the people in middle east, few people in the west gave a damn about their rights until they proved that they have the power to revenge. Now politicians and people in general think twice about how their actions affect the people in the middle east. In this way 911 and the failure in Iraq might bring some good in the long run. The west might start treating the East with mutual respect and fear.)

This kind of rationalizing of morality based on its consequences.. rather than on some fundamental rights might sound very cold. But i think a better world is one where politicans are practical rather than idealistic. Lots of practical suffering has resulted from idealistic thinking leaders and their policies in the past. (for example, communism sounds like a good idealistic and moral idea.. but its practical consequences make it a really bad idea)

Cheers

[TurtleBurger]

I think this is the one issue where RP supporters disagree with RP most. My personal take on it mights sound a bit cold and calculated.. but abortion can not be compared to slavery or genocide simply because a featuses has very little power to enforce their "rights". They are at the mercy of the mother. For there to be laws to protect the fetus, the state in a sense has to claim ownership of the mother and her body. If you ask me that is a great violation of her rights. Compared to the fetus the mother has a lot of power to fight for her rights.

Slaves and other repressed adult human groups have a lot of real power, all adult humans have the power to fight back. Slave owners probably started fearing the slaves and the consequences of miss-treating them, blowback is a b**ch. You simply cant keep people down for to long. Cattle on the other hand can be kept down and have few right because they have very little power to fight back. Maybe if they learned how to use a gun, the whole world would start treating cows as they do in India.

Genocide and war in general is wrong because its pretty much impossible to kill all of the "enemy".. todays abusers are tomorrows victims, and vice versa. Call it bad karma.. but revenge is real thing.

Children (even young ones) are given rights, because they hold the power to remember and revenge mistreatment. A fetus does not remember, and few survive the mistreatment of being aborted. Fetus have very limited powers to fight back. The few that survive usually end up having severe disabilities.. which means that their power to revenge misstreatment are more limited. Also the fact that they would have to fight their own mother probably makes the power issue even worse.

(Side tracking.. When it comes to the people in middle east, few people in the west gave a damn about their rights until they proved that they have the power to revenge. Now politicians and people in general think twice about how their actions affect the people in the middle east. In this way 911 and the failure in Iraq might bring some good in the long run. The west might start treating the East with mutual respect and fear.)

This kind of rationalizing of morality based on its consequences.. rather than on some fundamental rights might sound very cold. But i think a better world is one where politicans are practical rather than idealistic. Lots of practical suffering has resulted from idealistic thinking leaders and their policies in the past. (for example, communism sounds like a good idealistic and moral idea.. but its practical consequences make it a really bad idea)

Cheers

Wow, that's really wild. By that logic, if a person wants to commit a rape, he should do 3 things: a) choose a petite woman that is less likely to be able to put up a fight. b) perform the act in such a way that no one will witness it. c) kill the woman afterwards and carefully destroy all evidence. If all of these steps are followed successfully, then we can argue that the rapist has done a morally good thing. On the other hand, if he fails and gets caught, then he has done evil. Sorry, that definition is too flawed to have any value at all.

[DriftWood]

Wow, that's really wild. By that logic, if a person wants to commit a rape, he should do 3 things: a) choose a petite woman that is less likely to be able to put up a fight. b) perform the act in such a way that no one will witness it. c) kill the woman afterwards and carefully destroy all evidence. If all of these steps are followed successfully, then we can argue that the rapist has done a morally good thing. On the other hand, if he fails and gets caught, then he has done evil. Sorry, that definition is too flawed to have any value at all.

Okay, im probably being a bit "wild" just to get a response.. but i still think this idea has some merit..

It feels (intellectually) unsatisfying when people say that something is immoral because there are these inalienable rights, without an explanation where these rights come from, or what created them, or how we know that they are real. It also (intellectually) unsatisfying to say that something is moral simply because it feels right. But why do we feel it? (God is no intellectually satisfying explanation)

There must be a natural and logical reason behind it all.. Maybe the reason is the consequences..

Imagine a world where people got their morality from feelings.. and another one where people got their morality from this kind of consequence rationalization. I think you would have a hard time tell which was which. It seems to me that this kind of rationalization would result in a very similar morality as the feelings based one.

So your rape or murder scenario would fail the consequences rationalization test for the same reason that violence in general against adults or children would fail.. Violence against adults and children in general has very bad consequences, not just for the victims but also the attacker. Violence against insects or animals in general has fewer bad consequences for the attacker. And thats probably why they are felt as less immoral.

Dont get me wrong.. I'm not advocating psychopathic behavior or anything.. I'm just saying that the reason we feel something is wrong is probably because doing this something has bad consequences for us in general. Because we can not predict the future consequences of any act perfectly, we have to examine acts in general instead of a case by case. From a darwinian perspective morality and social feelings and behavior is an advantage to survival. I'm trying to get at whats behind the feelings, why some things are felt to be immoral and others not. Why? I think that if we define morality by simply saying that something is moral if it feels right. Then we have done very little, as we still don't know why we feel the things we feel. If we try and define morality by saying that anything that goes against "peoples right to self ownership" is immoral.. then we still have said very little. Where do these ethical rules and rights come from? We simply feel that they are right. But we don't understand why we feel them to be begin with.

I think rights come from power to enforce them. When we feel that something we do is wrong its probably just nature telling us that there is some serious risk of blowback down the line. We are stepping on someone that has the power to hurt us.

Cheers

[Ozwest]

I love Ron Paul. Worship him.

But, you don't have to agree with all his stances.

We are not clones, but individuals.

Ron would respect that...

[Meatwasp]

Like I said before most pro choice people are fine with it unless they are in the womb.

[Ozwest]

Like I said before most pro choice people are fine with it unless they are in the womb.

That would be because pro-choice people are blood-sucking vampires, devoid of empathy, and baby killers.

For sure... For sure...

[TurtleBurger]

So your rape or murder scenario would fail the consequences rationalization test for the same reason that violence in general against adults or children would fail.. Violence against adults and children in general has very bad consequences, not just for the victims but also the attacker. Violence against insects or animals in general has fewer bad consequences for the attacker. And thats probably why they are felt as less immoral.


The problem with that is, people don't act "in general". There are specific consequences to specific actions. Yes, in general if you rape or murder someone there is a reasonable chance that you will be caught and punished. However, there are precautions a specific person can take (such as those I listed) that will mitigate that risk, but do not release a person from what are traditionally known as moral restraints.
Also consider the opposite. People perform actions considered morally "good" that carry great personal risk to the actor (such as rescuing a child from a burning building). This shows that concepts of morality are developed quite independently of possible consequences to the actor.

[Ozwest]

The problem with that is, people don't act "in general". There are specific consequences to specific actions. Yes, in general if you rape or murder someone there is a reasonable chance that you will be caught and punished. However, there are precautions a specific person can take (such as those I listed) that will mitigate that risk, but do not release a person from what are traditionally known as moral restraints.
Also consider the opposite. People perform actions considered morally "good" that carry great personal risk to the actor (such as rescuing a child from a burning building). This shows that concepts of morality are developed quite independently of possible consequences to the actor.

Sorry mate,

But their is a fine line between being a libertarian, and a sociopath.

Haven't read the rape precautions. But...

My concept of "morality," may differ to your's.

[nickcoons]

It feels (intellectually) unsatisfying when people say that something is immoral because there are these inalienable rights, without an explanation where these rights come from, or what created them, or how we know that they are real. It also (intellectually) unsatisfying to say that something is moral simply because it feels right. But why do we feel it? (God is no intellectually satisfying explanation)

You may be interested in Objectivism; a moral philosophy created from reason.

[Meatwasp]

That would be because pro-choice people are blood-sucking vampires, devoid of empathy, and baby killers.

For sure... For sure...

Well you nailed it right on the head as when I was young that is exactly what we thought. The pro choice propaganist decided that they would brain wash the sheeple on wrong is right with a womans choice. They are the same people who wanted to control population.

[Ozwest]

Meatwasp,

You can't legislate this.

Stop being the High Priest of morality.

[Meatwasp]

Meatwasp,

You can't legislate this.

Stop being the High Priest of morality.

Well I don't have balls so I guess I am a high priestess.
Ha!

[Ozwest]

Well I don't have balls so I guess I am a high priestess.
Ha!

My sincere apologies.:D

[TheTyke]

The argument is probably going in circles at this point, but...

The way I see it, "choice" is only when you don't violate someone else's rights. So for the government to stay out of marriage, drugs etc. is appropriate. Those are choices that are freely made, and if damage is done, it is to yourself.

The issue changes completely the choice you make affects someone against their will. Is is the purpose of government defend people's rights... force should be used to keep people from being robbed of their life or property.

Abortion is a rights issue. You may not intentionally deprive a human being of their life. It doesn't matter if the reason is economic, social, or whatever. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if this person happens to be in your house, your car, or your body. Motive or location arguments are superfluous and mere emotional appeals that have no basis in reason.

The only argument that can be made is "when does a human being begin"? Several "pro-choice" folks on this thread already agreed it's at conception. For proof of this scientific fact, I recommend reading this webpage. (http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html)

-------------------------------------------

My conclusion is: Human rights are to be protected by law. Any human's life should be protected.

Furthermore, understand that being Free requires responsibility. Understand that if you make a bad business decision, or even have poor luck in business - you deal with the problem. You don't get bailed out by taking money and property from others (in form of taxes). You don't rob others to fix your problem, however it occurred.

It is acceptable to get aid that is freely given by charity - not by coercive force. There are many, many volunteer organizations to help women with these situations.

But violating others rights to solve your problems is flat out against the tenets of a free society, and that's exactly what abortion does.

[JohnMeridith]

I'm more of a pro choice guy, but would never want my mate or even my one night stand(not having those anymore) to get an abortion. I guess its really easy to see where RP's thoughts came from(which I'm probably repeating an earlier comment) with the story he told in his book. I don't know how anyone could want to perform and abortion procedure over and over, especially like the one RP described in his book. I guess I could relate it to watching a cow getting slaughtered and then ordering a hamburger.

[Christianalwaysg124RP]

Not really. It takes a 2/3 vote + getting by the president or a 3/4 vote, plus a majority vote of the Supreme Court. Takes a lot more than getting a simple majority.

That's why, if you read the founding documents, they spoke against the idea that 51% out rules 49%.

[DriftWood]

You may be interested in Objectivism; a moral philosophy created from reason.

Yes, I'll pick up Atlas Shrugged at some point, when i can find a proper bookshop (im traveling Asia's backwaters at the moment.. hard to find any books worth reading.. been keeping an eye out for the manifesto.. no luck. Obama's and Clinton's books has found their way over here though)

Cheers

[DriftWood]

The problem with that is, people don't act "in general". There are specific consequences to specific actions. Yes, in general if you rape or murder someone there is a reasonable chance that you will be caught and punished. However, there are precautions a specific person can take (such as those I listed) that will mitigate that risk, but do not release a person from what are traditionally known as moral restraints.
Also consider the opposite. People perform actions considered morally "good" that carry great personal risk to the actor (such as rescuing a child from a burning building). This shows that concepts of morality are developed quite independently of possible consequences to the actor.

Yes i agree we dont act in general. Every action is specific. But we might feel in general. The moral feelings that keep us out of harms way. The paranoid feeling we might get from stealing, even though we are pretty certain that we will not get caught. The regret we might feel when cheating, even though we think noone will find out. We might get away with it once or a couple of times, but in the long run the odds are against us. So these kinds of moral feelings can be general in nature and still be useful.

Then there is the self sacrificing behavior where a parent risks his life for his child. That might be rationalized by some darwinian urge to save ones own offspring.. but risking your own life to save a person you dont know.. hmm that is a bit trickier to rationalize. I'll try.. It might be a high risk darwinian gamble, a hero if he survives will probably rize in the social ranking in his community. Maybe its like in the movies, the hero gets the most beautiful girl in town. I wonder how common these kinds of heroic actions are when the person is certain there is no audience that will see it or hear abut it.

Cheers

[TurtleBurger]

Then there is the self sacrificing behavior where a parent risks his life for his child. That might be rationalized by some darwinian urge to save ones own offspring.. but risking your own life to save a person you dont know.. hmm that is a bit trickier to rationalize. I'll try.. It might be a high risk darwinian gamble, a hero if he survives will probably rize in the social ranking in his community. Maybe its like in the movies, the hero gets the most beautiful girl in town. I wonder how common these kinds of heroic actions are when the person is certain there is no audience that will see it or hear abut it.

Cheers

I think it's more empathetic than any direct benefit of the heroic action. If it was me or my child in that burning building I would hope someone else would come to the rescue, so when I'm in the situation to save someone from a fire I'll do it. I would prefer to live in a culture where people save each other from fires and I'm willing to contribute to that.

[nickcoons]

Yes, I'll pick up Atlas Shrugged at some point, when i can find a proper bookshop

It's an interesting story, definitely; but it is fiction, and won't really give you the picture. You might be interested in some more brief online, but non-fiction, information. Here's a good place to start:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32-408-FAQ_is_Objectivism.aspx

Ayn Rand also wrote a few non-fiction books, mentioned on the page linked above.

[The_Orlonater]

I don't. Using the word "baby" for emotional appeal is noted. It is still a cluster of living cells, without the ability to feel pain, express emotion, or act in any other way than what you wouldn't expect of any other animal. At later stages of development, this argument might come under greater scrutiny. But within the first three months, it is truly a closed deal. Sorry.

+1

I'm one of the few pro-choice Libertarians. Call us "evil," "blood thirsty,",or even "Baby killers." You guys are being way too dramatic honestly. It's a personal issue, I don't even think the State should be involved. Who cares, it doesn't affect YOUR life. This goes the same way with gay marriage, big deal, you see two people of the same sex kissing? Grow up, some people are gay.

[Kade]

+1

I'm one of the few pro-choice Libertarians. Call us "evil," "blood thirsty,",or even "Baby killers." You guys are being way too dramatic honestly. It's a personal issue, I don't even think the State should be involved. Who cares, it doesn't affect YOUR life. This goes the same way with gay marriage, big deal, you see two people of the same sex kissing? Grow up, some people are gay.

The original libertarian position was strongly pro-choice, until the the movement was hijacked by defecting Republicans. Not it's gone "socially right".

[ChristianAnarchist]

Dr. Paul's view on life is, I think, largely due to his profession as an Ob/Gyn. I think even the most diehard "abortion rights" person would have a change of heart if they were in on the procedure where a child is sucked out of it's "home" and chopped into pieces. Indeed, most of these same people who go through a miscarriage at any stage, feel remorse at the loss of the child.

We do not, however, need to alienate those who have a misguided perception of what abortion is. We would do better to kindly educate them a little at a time. Shouting matches and confrontation convinces no one...

[The_Orlonater]

True, it is a disgusting sight, but if you want to do it, I don't care.

[familydog]

Dr. Paul's view on life is, I think, largely due to his profession as an Ob/Gyn. I think even the most diehard "abortion rights" person would have a change of heart if they were in on the procedure where a child is sucked out of it's "home" and chopped into pieces. Indeed, most of these same people who go through a miscarriage at any stage, feel remorse at the loss of the child.

We do not, however, need to alienate those who have a misguided perception of what abortion is. We would do better to kindly educate them a little at a time. Shouting matches and confrontation convinces no one...

You haven't lived until you've seen a human skull get punctured and the brains sucked out by a vacuum. A collapsed skull is truely a unique sight.

[Kade]

You haven't lived until you've seen a human skull get punctured and the brains sucked out by a vacuum. A collapsed skull is truely a unique sight.

I concur. So is a punctured intestine through the fallopians (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/views/03essa.html?ei=5124&en=a866eb4f19d8a37e&ex=1370232000&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1214591994-kuZl9kRGvH1FJ3zv0tcGRg).

[micahnelson]

+1

I'm one of the few pro-choice Libertarians. Call us "evil," "blood thirsty,",or even "Baby killers." You guys are being way too dramatic honestly. It's a personal issue, I don't even think the State should be involved. Who cares, it doesn't affect YOUR life. This goes the same way with gay marriage, big deal, you see two people of the same sex kissing? Grow up, some people are gay.

Seeing or not seeing something doesn't make it a non issue.

Because of my health, I will never be drafted- but I oppose a draft.

The termination of life and the sexual interaction of two individuals is of no relation- and it makes it appear as though you assume all anti-abortionists are that way because they are closed minded, bigoted, or authoritarians.

If a person has a right to life, it has to start at some point. Most would say abortion at 9 months is wrong, but how is it different? At what stages of human development do people have civil rights?

Today they have none until they are outside of the womb, and retain them unless they cross the government. They may lose them as they become older, especially with mercy killings etc. I don't seek to criminalize suicide, but somehow I don't think people with terminal illness will be given many other options when they start costing the state money.

The act of arbitrarily determining when someone is or is not human based on stage of development, class, wealth, skin color, sexual activity, religious belief, etc has been one of the ways that great human tragedies occur.

For that reason, I support the defense of life at all stages from the moment any human life begins (the moment it is scientifically provable) to the moment a person has been declared dead by a medical professional.

This definition of life is the natural definition, if we allow it to be defined by the government any other way it will be done for political expediency.

[Kade]

Seeing or not seeing something doesn't make it a non issue.

Because of my health, I will never be drafted- but I oppose a draft.

The termination of life and the sexual interaction of two individuals is of no relation- and it makes it appear as though you assume all anti-abortionists are that way because they are closed minded, bigoted, or authoritarians.

If a person has a right to life, it has to start at some point. Most would say abortion at 9 months is wrong, but how is it different? At what stages of human development do people have civil rights?

Today they have none until they are outside of the womb, and retain them unless they cross the government. They may lose them as they become older, especially with mercy killings etc. I don't seek to criminalize suicide, but somehow I don't think people with terminal illness will be given many other options when they start costing the state money.

The act of arbitrarily determining when someone is or is not human based on stage of development, class, wealth, skin color, sexual activity, religious belief, etc has been one of the ways that great human tragedies occur.

For that reason, I support the defense of life at all stages from the moment any human life begins (the moment it is scientifically provable) to the moment a person has been declared dead by a medical professional.

This definition of life is the natural definition, if we allow it to be defined by the government any other way it will be done for political expediency.



http://www.christianthinker.net/images/starving.jpg


Pro-lifers, supporting the sanctity of cell life until it's finally old enough to suffer.



I think your claim to support life after birth is spurious, at best. When I see less suffering from conscious humans, then you folks can whine and cry about cellular blastocysts.

[micahnelson]

Pro-lifers, supporting the sanctity of cell life until it's finally old enough to suffer.

I think your claim to support life after birth is spurious, at best. When I see less suffering from conscious humans, then you folks can whine and cry about cellular blastocysts.

Are you saying that because there is suffering in life, people shouldn't be born?

That smacks of Eugenics to me, especially when the government sanctions the termination of certain lives at certain times, but protects life in other stages.

The suffering in this world may lead you to decide not to become responsible for a child, but it doesn't give you a right to destroy life you have already created.

[Kade]

Are you saying that because there is suffering in life, people shouldn't be born?

That smacks of Eugenics to me, especially when the government sanctions the termination of certain lives at certain times, but protects life in other stages.

The suffering in this world may lead you to decide not to become responsible for a child, but it doesn't give you a right to destroy life you have already created.

I'm saying we should focus on the living. You and I go into this enough at work, you know my feeling about your idea that life begins at conception, and I feel I have adequately refuted that nonsense.

[micahnelson]

I'm saying we should focus on the living. You and I go into this enough at work, you know my feeling about your idea that life begins at conception, and I feel I have adequately refuted that nonsense.

I am focusing on the living... but thats fine. If anyone else wants to play the role of "Kade" in this debate feel free to hop in. I did go over my inbox limit last time we had this discussion- so perhaps its better to keep it off the mail sever.

[Kade]

I am focusing on the living... but thats fine. If anyone else wants to play the role of "Kade" in this debate feel free to hop in. I did go over my inbox limit last time we had this discussion- so perhaps its better to keep it off the mail sever.

Nobody wants to take the role of the Social Pariah. Regardless of how useful I actually am...:cool:

[micahnelson]

Nobody wants to take the role of the Social Pariah. Regardless of how useful I actually am...:cool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

I keed I keed.

[Kade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

I keed I keed.

Ouch. That was good! Of all the insults I've endured here, that one, from my friend even, was the best.... methinks I've influenced you too much. :cool:

*silenced*

[micahnelson]

I have to give you a little credit for walking into it, it was a team effort.

[Kade]

I have to give you a little credit for walking into it, it was a team effort.

You should join the anti-Kade mob brewing, they need help in their flames (because they don't appear to want to debate reasonably)... the concentrated effort of these fools is a little more than an emotional bowel movement.

[micahnelson]

I think you feel like the world is against you. If the world consisted of about two dozen forum members on website- you'd be right.

I think most people here are just still really depressed about the campaign and are waiting for something to do beside bitch at each other all day.

[Kade]

I think you feel like the world is against you. If the world consisted of about two dozen forum members on website- you'd be right.

I think most people here are just still really depressed about the campaign and are waiting for something to do beside bitch at each other all day.

Well, they give me something to do... I haven't stopped my personal campaign... The Stop Hannity Express.

[micahnelson]

I actually am starting to feel bad for Hannity. I realize I have an overabundance of sympathy, but I think he actually believes what he is saying, but could understand the larger implications if it was explained to him in a private setting.

People like Rush know the score, and they are spin doctors.

Listening to Hannity is like listening to the young child of a racist parroting racially charged hatred. I disagree wholeheartedly, but I don't hate him- I hate the people that made him. I think hes a manufactured man.

[Kade]

I actually am starting to feel bad for Hannity. I realize I have an overabundance of sympathy, but I think he actually believes what he is saying, but could understand the larger implications if it was explained to him in a private setting.

People like Rush know the score, and they are spin doctors.

Listening to Hannity is like listening to the young child of a racist parroting racially charged hatred. I disagree wholeheartedly, but I don't hate him- I hate the people that made him. I think hes a manufactured man.

What a great book title...

"The Manufactured Man

How Sean Hannity ruined the American Dream"

[micahnelson]

What a great book title...

"The Manufactured Man

How Sean Hannity ruined the American Dream"

Sean Hannity, broadcaster. A show barely alive. Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first moronic man. Sean Hannity will be that man. Louder than he was before. Louder, Duller, Vapid-er.

[familydog]

I concur. So is a punctured intestine through the fallopians (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/views/03essa.html?ei=5124&en=a866eb4f19d8a37e&ex=1370232000&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1214591994-kuZl9kRGvH1FJ3zv0tcGRg).

I don't see how partial birth abortion is relevent to this.

[The_Orlonater]

Are you saying that because there is suffering in life, people shouldn't be born?

That smacks of Eugenics to me, especially when the government sanctions the termination of certain lives at certain times, but protects life in other stages.

The suffering in this world may lead you to decide not to become responsible for a child, but it doesn't give you a right to destroy life you have already created.

If your child was going to have down syndrome, would you allow it to live the rest of it's life like that? Making you stressed out and raising your kid until you die,or would you rather abort it and avoid that? And yes they can figure out if your child will have a terminal illness about 3 months after pregnancy.

[DriftWood]

My take on the abortion issue. A fetus does not own itself as it has no way to enforce its self ownership. So someone else has to own it. Either the mother, or the state. Saying that killing a fetus should be illegal, is saying that the state owns the fetus. The fetus has no actual relationship with the state, or any other person except the mother. So i think the mother, not the state should be considered the owner of the fetus.

A born child on the other hand is not only owned by the mother, as the baby is already part of society, and lots of people have come into contect with it, and have formed somekind of relationship to it. You might say that this relationship has the form of "protector - protected" or "owner - owned". So killing a born child in this sense is wrong because it violates the "property rights" of the owners.

This is abit disturbing if you take it to its limits. A mother who keeps her pregnancy secret and kills the kid after birth would not violate anyone elses claims to ownership of the child. If we still are to make such things illegal, then we have to accept that the state has some ownership of the child. We cant "half arse it", and say that the child owns iteself without it having any actual power to enforce its self ownership, an we cant say that a parent or the state owns the child, but only has the right to protect it but not the right to hurt it. Religious people can get around this problem, by saying that god owns the child, and that killing the child in a sense is a violation of gods rights. Howeever that to me just seems like another cop out.. as god does not have the powers to enforce its lawes or the power to protects its property. (God does not protect childeren from violence.. as childeren die from violence and starvation all the time without god having the power to stop it. People or the state on the other hand actually have some actual power to protect childeren. There really can be no rights, no laws, no authority without someone with the power to enforce them.)

I think we just have to accept that mothers own their fetuses more than the state does, simply because the mother has more real power over the fetus than state does.

Cheers

[jon_perez]

Excerpt: "Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law."Does a less than 3 month old embryo already count as a "certain class of human being" ?

[roshie]

Does a less than 3 month old embryo already count as a "certain class of human being" ?

Certain social class? Debatable. Certain form of human, yes.

I personally think we should be politically pro choice with a strong movement of encouraging +educating pro-life. No need for government controlling what we do or can't do.

[ManyMylesHolmes]

One thing that is completely missing from this thread (and the larger abortion in liberty discussion) is the issue of what is and is not practical.

It's outrageous to say that we'd have millions more people in this country if abortion were illegal. Does anyone really believe that it would reduce the number of abortions by that much? I can't imagine it would cause more than a 5% decline, and I can even imagine garage abortions being easier to find in some cases than navigating the health care system. It would be a tremendous industry!

The point is, we ALL want to reduce the number of abortions, and I think a lot of us can imagine a world where there are very, very few. Like nearly every other major improvement to society, this will not be achieved through government.

I respect Dr. Paul's position tremendously, and do not believe he is wrong. Yet, in my state, I would want abortion to be legal, healthy, easy, and inexpensive. At the same time, I would want contraception, education, sexual liberty, and strong leadership from powerful and compelling feminist minds to be everywhere that young women (and men) look.

Rather than arguing about whether we can legislate our way out of this problem, we should be out on the streets helping young women who are having a difficult time.

[muh_roads]

Abortion should be fought thru economics. Increase the standard of living for people. Abolish taxes & fiat money. The main reason why people have first term abortions is because they know they can't afford to support the child. And they can't afford to eat for two to carry to term.

We won't grow our movement by thinking the government should have supreme rule and force in this category, yet be against government anywhere else.

[SeanEdwards]

My take on the abortion issue. A fetus does not own itself as it has no way to enforce its self ownership.


Self-ownership requires the ability to enforce self-ownership? So, if I enslave you and put you in chains that you can not break, does that mean you lose your right to self-ownership, since you can not, on your own, enforce your right to self-ownership?

Or if you fall unconscious, or into a coma, and are no longer able to object, does that mean it is legitimate for me to take your property, or your life? "Hey, he didn't say no when I asked if I could have his kidneys, so it's all good."



So someone else has to own it. Either the mother, or the state. Saying that killing a fetus should be illegal, is saying that the state owns the fetus.


It's illegal to kill your dog, but the state doesn't own your dog. And if you doubt me, I have two words: Michael Vick.



The fetus has no actual relationship with the state, or any other person except the mother. So i think the mother, not the state should be considered the owner of the fetus.


There is no ownership of human beings, no matter what their state of development or consciousness! Duh!



A born child on the other hand is not only owned by the mother, as the baby is already part of society, and lots of people have come into contect with it, and have formed somekind of relationship to it. You might say that this relationship has the form of "protector - protected" or "owner - owned". So killing a born child in this sense is wrong because it violates the "property rights" of the owners.

This is abit disturbing if you take it to its limits. A mother who keeps her pregnancy secret and kills the kid after birth would not violate anyone elses claims to ownership of the child.

This stuff your posting is totally illogical and crazy.

When an adult person murders another adult person, and the state prosecutes the murderer, it's not because the state "owned" the victim, and the murderer deprived the state of its "property". The prosecution occurs because the murderer violated the victim's self-ownership. This is true even if the victim was unconscious or sleeping at the time of the murder and didn't object to being murdered. The prosecution has nothing to do with the state owning people. It happens because society created government to enforce laws.

Roe V. Wade is a mere intellectual excuse that attempts to obscure the violent act of abortion under a cloak of privacy rights. It is not moral, or even logical. It is legal obfuscation that attempts to justify an outcome that the judges desired. Basically, the judges turned off their logic and reasoning, because logic and reasoning inevitably lead to protection for the unborn, and protecting the unborn would have created a society that those justices found offensive.

This pattern of self-lying is evident even in the language that abortion supporters use. Calling themselves pro-choice, as opposed to pro-baby-murder, which is what they really are. But nobody wants to think of themself as a baby murderer, even if that's what they are. So they make up cute little mental walls to shield themselves from the uncomfortable reality of what they are doing. "It's not a baby being aborted, it's a fetus, a lump of tissue. It's part of the woman's body." Nevermind that the fetus is genetically distinct from the mother, and if it's cells were transplanted into the mother her body would immediately reject them as it would reject any foreign cells. No, we don't want to talk about that. Let's talk instead about "reproductive FREEDOM" and "women's RIGHTS".

Rank hypocrisy and self-delusion is what it is. They should at least have the moral courage to face up to their acts. "Yeah I killed that nasty little fetus. How dare that parasite think it could grow in my sniz, and make demands on MY money! I don't play that way!"

P.S. I think it's worth mentioning that I'm a pretty militant atheist/agnostic, who generally despises bible-thumpers. I arrived at my anti-abortion opinion without resorting to any holy scripture bullshit. All it took was honest contemplation and an understanding of liberty.

[SeanEdwards]

And yes they can figure out if your child will have a terminal illness about 3 months after pregnancy.

Actually they can find out earlier than that. I think it's routine for IVF clinics to screen embryoes for defects before implantation. All they have to do is remove one cell from the developing embryo and analyze the DNA of that cell.

http://ivf-amman.com/images/IVF/embryo.jpg

[SeanEdwards]

you know my feeling about your idea that life begins at conception, and I feel I have adequately refuted that nonsense.

You refuted the empirical observable reality of the universe? That's a neat trick, that until now I thought required a profoundly stupid eyes-shut bible-thumper. Congratulations to you for expanding my understanding of the depths of human stupidity.

[nickcoons]

P.S. I think it's worth mentioning that I'm a pretty militant atheist/agnostic, who generally despises bible-thumpers. I arrived at my anti-abortion opinion without resorting to any holy scripture bullshit. All it took was honest contemplation and an understanding of liberty.

As a fellow atheist, I'm glad to hear that religion and other such supernatural absurdities had no bearing on your conclusion. Along those same lines, you may interested in this read:

http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm

[josephadel_3]

I don't think so.

An amendment might get his approval though. :D

But seriously, I don't see his agenda being to restore the constitution as only the first step in a bigger wish list. He talks about fixing the problems caused by later amendments, but not proposing anything new.

It was on his website or still is. He has stated a universal ban on abortion is just as unconstitutional as a universal court ruling in favor of abortion across the entire nation.

[josephadel_3]

What is the pro-life position on "what to do once it's illegal"? That is, you know it's going to cause the whole thing to go underground--as it always does when you outlaw something--and that it won't stop the practice, just make it clotheshanger-style dangerous and amateur; what kind of extended thought is there on the question?

Exactly why RP doesn't support a universal outlaw of abortion through a constitutional amendment. His logic is, grassroots pro-life groups can do a lot more "damage" at the local and state level, like what happened in South Dakota a few years ago. Abortion is not a constitutional issue. Therefore, there should be no court ruling referencing the constitution in universal national support of abortion.

[andrewh817]

Probably the one issue I disagree with on Ron Paul's part but It's one of those issues that is not very important to me. If some teenage girl gets knocked up it might even be better for her to accept the responsibility