Am I just reading things wrong?

[TrueFreedom]

So far in the top ten threads I see people saying that homosexuals should not be able to adopt children and that women should not be able to get an abortion. Now I am more than a little confused how it is that people that claim to support individual rights and freedom want to place their own views and limitations on the rights of others. The general theme around here has been that "I have the right to do what I want as long as it doesn't harm anyone elses rights". Ok, so if a gay couple decides to adopt a kid, how does that effect you? And we won't get into the question of when life begins bc there is no set answer, but why do individuals here think they can place their own view of morality on others and tell them how to handle their own bodies? Seems kind of Orwelian to me to have a group that says they promote freedom and then want to place their own views on the population at large.

[The One]

I should be able to do whatever I want to do. Others should be able to do whatever I want them to do. I hope this helps to clarify my position.:D

[TrueFreedom]

Perfectly. I appreciate the sarcasm but unfortunately it seems that actually is the view of many here.

[freedom-maniac]

With the case of abortion, having abortion harms the fetus (which we consider to be a person).

As for gay rights, this movement has been largely highjacked by right-wing conservatives, instead of up-wing libertarians, so it doesn't suprise me.

[literatim]

A fetus is an individual and no one has the right to violate its right to life.

There is no such thing as a right to an adoption.

[TrueFreedom]

With the case of abortion, having abortion harms the fetus (which we consider to be a person).

As for gay rights, this movement has been largely highjacked by right-wing conservatives, instead of up-wing libertarians, so it doesn't suprise me.

I'm glad you see the light on the second issue. As far as the first though, you use the term "we" instead of the term "I". I could debate you all day on whether a fetus is a person. It's not your place to pin your definition or view on other people and limit their individual rights to their body.

[TrueFreedom]

A fetus is an individual and no one has the right to violate its right to life.

There is no such thing as a right to an adoption.

"A fetus is an individual ".... says who? Your opinion does not mean that all society must follow it and certainly does not give you the right to take away other's rights.

[literatim]

"A fetus is an individual ".... says who? Your opinion does not mean that all society must follow it and certainly does not give you the right to take away other's rights.

It is human and it has unique individual genetic DNA.

Dehumanization is the first step towards genocide.

[TrueFreedom]

It is human and it has unique individual genetic DNA.

Dehumanization is the first step towards genocide.

Again you give no proof that it is an individual.

Secondly you make no mention of the APA study, a source that more than indicts anything you presented thus far.

Thirdly, Ron Paul said he would have bought the slaves at market price instead of fighting a Civil War. That is pretty damn dehumanizing, putting a price on a person. You gonna start raging against Ron Paul like you are with this rediculous abortion argument....?

[literatim]

Again you give no proof that it is an individual.

I wonder if a similar argument was used in the Ottoman Empire when they were deciding to kill off Armenians. "Prove that the Armenians are individuals".

The question is, can you prove Armenians are individuals or human? I can.


Secondly you make no mention of the APA study, a source that more than indicts anything you presented thus far.

If you say so.


Thirdly, Ron Paul said he would have bought the slaves at market price instead of fighting a Civil War. That is pretty damn dehumanizing, putting a price on a person. You gonna start raging against Ron Paul like you are with this rediculous abortion argument....?

Why would I? I completely agree.

Ron Paul considers the human fetus an individual with all rights thus given to an individual. Using Ron Paul's opinion in your rants, but then going completely against him at the same time. Your hypocrisy is amusing.

[pacelli]

I'm glad you see the light on the second issue. As far as the first though, you use the term "we" instead of the term "I". I could debate you all day on whether a fetus is a person. It's not your place to pin your definition or view on other people and limit their individual rights to their body.

I agree, enough of the "we" bullshit.

[TrueFreedom]

I wonder if a similar argument was used in the Ottoman Empire when they were deciding to kill off Armenians. "Prove that the Armenians are individuals".

The question is, can you prove Armenians are individuals or human? I can.



If you say so.



Why would I? I completely agree.

Ron Paul considers the human fetus an individual with all rights thus given to an individual. Using Ron Paul's opinion in your rants, but then going completely against him at the same time. Your hypocrisy is amusing.


The more and more I talk to you the more I see that you don't really know what you are talking about.

First, If you are comparing a group of living individuals to a fetus as a comparison of what life is, feel free.

Secondly, I do say so. The APA study completely takes a dump on the small scale flakey study you posted. Your argument has no merit and you cannot debate the APA study on face value so you ignore it.

Thirdly, there is no hypocracy. Those who know me on these boards know that I do not agree with a lot that Ron Paul does (although I do agree on others), but his Civil War policy is disgustingly dehumanizing, yet I find it funny that you in one breath can support Ron Paul and in the second condemn someone else for dehumanizing. How many posts have you made on this board talking about Paul's dehumanizing civil war policy? I'm betting zero.

Unless you can actually debate the facts and present a study that has more than six subjects and a dog as it's base, this is rediculous and a waste of time.

[Rangeley]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I see those as two separate sorts issues. If two people would be suitable for adopting someone, I definitely see that as preferable to a child being without a family. I don't know that there is a "right to adopt," wouldn't that imply anyone who wanted to adopt would have to be able to? It's just an issue of whether you view homosexuality in the adoptive parents as something harmful to the kids. I don't consider it to be.

Meanwhile, abortion is an issue where it effects the life of another - the fetus. Regardless of your religious or spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof) on the issue of when life "really" begins or the soul enters the body, scientifically speaking there is no debate. It begins at conception.

[TrueFreedom]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I see those as two separate sorts issues. If two people would be suitable for adopting someone, I definitely see that as preferable to a child being without a family. I don't know that there is a "right to adopt," wouldn't that imply anyone who wanted to adopt would have to be able to? It's just an issue of whether you view homosexuality in the adoptive parents as something harmful to the kids. I don't consider it to be.

Meanwhile, abortion is an issue where it effects the life of another - the fetus. Regardless of your religious or spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof) on the issue of when life "really" begins or the soul enters the body, scientifically speaking there is no debate. It begins at conception.

scientifically speaking there is no debate. It begins at conception....I whole heartedly disagree with this and would love to see what scholarly source you have that makes this distorted claim.

[Rangeley]

It isn't based on a study, it's simple biology. Do you have a study that shows the first cell formed is not alive? I would be interested to see it.

[TrueFreedom]

The argumentation is based around whether or not a fetus is a human. You merely saying, "oh I don't need a study bc it's simple biology" does not make it 1. true or 2. simple biology. A matter of fact, I tend to think it is neither of those. And there are many studies out there that agree that fertilized genetic material is not a human life.

[Rangeley]

I'm not waving around studies, because I am not the one using the spectre of studies as my argument. You are right though, me saying it's simple biology doesn't make it so. As I said, I would be interested to see your case against the first cell formed at conception being alive. As I would be interested in seeing your case against it being a human cell.

[lucius]

So far in the top ten threads I see people saying that homosexuals should not be able to adopt children and that women should not be able to get an abortion. Now I am more than a little confused how it is that people that claim to support individual rights and freedom want to place their own views and limitations on the rights of others. The general theme around here has been that "I have the right to do what I want as long as it doesn't harm anyone elses rights". Ok, so if a gay couple decides to adopt a kid, how does that effect you? And we won't get into the question of when life begins bc there is no set answer, but why do individuals here think they can place their own view of morality on others and tell them how to handle their own bodies? Seems kind of Orwelian to me to have a group that says they promote freedom and then want to place their own views on the population at large.

I believe that I should be able to go down to my local convenience store and buy a 'jumbo-ten pack' of crack cocaine if I am so inclined. But I am not going to say that that action is a ‘positive life-choice’. And I would be vehemently opposed to any sort of inculcation of children during their public indoctrination/schooling towards that sort of degenerative life-choice.

What people do with their property in the privacy of their own home is their business. But the key-stone to the whole gay movement and the sexual revolution of the sixties in general, was based upon Rockefeller Foundation funded junk-science done by a pedophile named Kinsey, which was pointed out by the 1954 United States Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Hearing, known as the Reece Committee.

This degenerative gay lifestyle is policy agenda, ie. promoted by the elite. This social engineering is being vectored into our society. It is applied eugenics: generally don’t have children, a reduced lifespan and easier to control.

[Rangeley]

I believe that I should be able to go down to my local convenience store and buy a 'jumbo-ten pack' of crack cocaine if I am so inclined. But I am not going to say that that action is a ‘positive life-choice’. And I would be vehemently opposed to any sort of inculcation of children during their public indoctrination/schooling towards that sort of degenerative life-choice.

What people do with their property in the privacy of their own home is their business. But the key-stone to the whole gay movement and the sexual revolution of the sixties in general, was based upon Rockefeller Foundation funded junk-science done by a pedophile named Kinsey, which was pointed out by the 1954 United States Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Hearing, known as the Reece Committee.

This degenerative gay lifestyle is policy agenda, ie. promoted by the elite. This social engineering is being vectored into our society. It is applied eugenics: generally don’t have children, a reduced lifespan and easier to control.
Wouldn't this be premised around the idea that homosexuality is a choice?

[literatim]

The more and more I talk to you the more I see that you don't really know what you are talking about.

If that is what you think, you are more than welcome to ignore my posts.


First, If you are comparing a group of living individuals to a fetus as a comparison of what life is, feel free.

You say they are individuals without actually giving me the information on what an individual actually is.

Ah, but they aren't just individuals, they are living individuals. So a fetus isn't living? So you believe the fetus is a piece of inorganic matter?


Secondly, I do say so. The APA study completely takes a dump on the small scale flakey study you posted. Your argument has no merit and you cannot debate the APA study on face value so you ignore it.

Again, if you say so. I never debated the study as I am not a psychiatrist and I have not read the study which was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry.


Thirdly, there is no hypocracy. Those who know me on these boards know that I do not agree with a lot that Ron Paul does (although I do agree on others), but his Civil War policy is disgustingly dehumanizing, yet I find it funny that you in one breath can support Ron Paul and in the second condemn someone else for dehumanizing. How many posts have you made on this board talking about Paul's dehumanizing civil war policy? I'm betting zero.

I don't consider freeing slaves dehumanizing. In fact, I think Ron Paul's suggestion would have been a lot more humane than both a bloody war that killed hundreds of thousands and bribing slaves with freedom if they fought in that war..


Unless you can actually debate the facts and present a study that has more than six subjects and a dog as it's base, this is rediculous and a waste of time.

I am still not sure why you are talking about studies in your very own thread in which no studies have been posted.

[TrueFreedom]

If that is what you think, you are more than welcome to ignore my posts.



You say they are individuals without actually giving me the information on what an individual actually is.

Ah, but they aren't just individuals, they are living individuals. So a fetus isn't living? So you believe the fetus is a piece of inorganic matter?



Again, if you say so. I never debated the study as I am not a psychiatrist and I have not read the study which was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry.



I don't consider freeing slaves dehumanizing. In fact, I think Ron Paul's suggestion would have been a lot more humane than both a bloody war that killed hundreds of thousands and bribing slaves with freedom if they fought in that war..



I am still not sure why you are talking about studies in your very own thread in which no studies have been posted.

I see you completely missed the point. It was not the freeing of slaves that is dehumanizing, it is putting a price tag on them. Paul said he would buy the slaves at "market value" (how rediculous is that) and then set them free. That is dehumanization to the max.

[literatim]

I see you completely missed the point. It was not the freeing of slaves that is dehumanizing, it is putting a price tag on them. Paul said he would buy the slaves at "market value" (how rediculous is that) and then set them free. That is dehumanization to the max.

Not ridiculous at all since slavery was an economic force in the south compared to the north which was being industrialized. Ron Paul didn't put a price on them, the slave market did.

[TrueFreedom]

Not ridiculous at all since slavery was an economic force in the south compared to the north which was being industrialized. Ron Paul didn't put a price on them, the slave market did.

You really have no clue what you are saying do you? First off the industrialization of the north vs. slavery in the south has nothing to do with dehumanization. Paul would have put a price on people. He would have went to the slaveowner and said, hey i'll buy this person for 20 bucks. That is dehumanizing as shit.

Secondly, it's stupid. Where would the money come from to buy the slaves? Subsidize it? What makes you think the slaveowner would sell? Why the hell would they sell their free labor? They wouldn't, it's stupid. Not even if they got a profit would they sell their slaves because it would wreck their economic future long term. Really man, read a book.

[literatim]

You really have no clue what you are saying do you? First off the industrialization of the north vs. slavery in the south has nothing to do with dehumanization. Paul would have put a price on people. He would have went to the slaveowner and said, hey i'll buy this person for 20 bucks. That is dehumanizing as shit.

So all those people during the days of slavery who bought slaves simply to set them free were a bunch of heartless bastards?

Also, no it is nothing like what you said. A law would be passed in the Congress that would set the slaves free and then compensate the slave owners for their market value.


Secondly, it's stupid. Where would the money come from to buy the slaves? Subsidize it? What makes you think the slaveowner would sell? Why the hell would they sell their free labor? They wouldn't, it's stupid. Not even if they got a profit would they sell their slaves because it would wreck their economic future long term. Really man, read a book.

Taxation, of course, much cheaper than a civil war.

You assume the slave owner would have a choice.

[libertea]

I see you completely missed the point. It was not the freeing of slaves that is dehumanizing, it is putting a price tag on them. Paul said he would buy the slaves at "market value" (how rediculous is that) and then set them free. That is dehumanization to the max.

If I were kidnapped, I would not at all feel de-humanized if someone paid the ransom. I would feel re-humanized. How would your feel? Look at who is putting the "price tag". The person paying the ransom?

[TrueFreedom]

So all those people during the days of slavery who bought slaves simply to set them free were a bunch of heartless bastards?

Also, no it is nothing like what you said. A law would be passed in the Congress that would set the slaves free and then compensate the slave owners for their market value.



Taxation, of course, much cheaper than a civil war.

You assume the slave owner would have a choice.

Oh well this just makes a boatload of sense! I'm an idiot for assuming the slave owners would have a choice. So you are not giving them a choice, but forcing them. I got it. I'm absolutely certain they would just go right along with that idea without a fight. Pure genius.

Oh, so now it's ok to raise taxes too right. So we are going to raise taxes, while forcing slave owners to turn over slaves. And according to you they are just going to hand them over. This takes the cake.

And no I never called anyone a heartless bastard, but yes put a price on human life is dehumanization.....something you did not refute. Secondly, it doesn't matter if Paul would do it or the Congress would, it's still just as bad.

So tell me again how you will force the slaveowner to sell the slave, his free labor, without a war....I would LOVE to hear this one!

[TruthisTreason]

So far in the top ten threads I see people saying that homosexuals should not be able to adopt children and that women should not be able to get an abortion. Now I am more than a little confused how it is that people that claim to support individual rights and freedom want to place their own views and limitations on the rights of others. The general theme around here has been that "I have the right to do what I want as long as it doesn't harm anyone elses rights". Ok, so if a gay couple decides to adopt a kid, how does that effect you? And we won't get into the question of when life begins bc there is no set answer, but why do individuals here think they can place their own view of morality on others and tell them how to handle their own bodies? Seems kind of Orwelian to me to have a group that says they promote freedom and then want to place their own views on the population at large.

Gay and abortion issues should be left to the states to decide. In my eyes, I don't want abortions, gays marrying, gays raising kids, etc... It's a personal choice. I have no more intentions of forcing my own views on them, than they have intentions of forcing their views on me.

Now, the advantage of having states vote this out, is we can vote with our feet.

[literatim]

Oh well this just makes a boatload of sense! I'm an idiot for assuming the slave owners would have a choice. So you are not giving them a choice, but forcing them. I got it. I'm absolutely certain they would just go right along with that idea without a fight. Pure genius.

Well, if the majority of people in the House and Senate voted yes and then the President signed. They wouldn't have any choice but to free them or face punishment. Every other 1st world nation in history got rid of slaves this exact way, so I don't see why you think it couldn't be possible.


Oh, so now it's ok to raise taxes too right. So we are going to raise taxes, while forcing slave owners to turn over slaves. And according to you they are just going to hand them over. This takes the cake.

Who said I was against taxation?


And no I never called anyone a heartless bastard, but yes put a price on human life is dehumanization.....something you did not refute. Secondly, it doesn't matter if Paul would do it or the Congress would, it's still just as bad.

It is the owner putting the price, not the buyer.


So tell me again how you will force the slaveowner to sell the slave, his free labor, without a war....I would LOVE to hear this one!

You do know that the majority if people weren't slave owners?

[TruthisTreason]

Secondly, it's stupid. Where would the money come from to buy the slaves? Subsidize it? What makes you think the slaveowner would sell? Why the hell would they sell their free labor? They wouldn't, it's stupid. Not even if they got a profit would they sell their slaves because it would wreck their economic future long term. Really man, read a book.

You could read up on Jefferson. He was going broke feeding all of his slaves, because they became unproductive. If that isn't an incentive to get rid of them, I don't know what is.

[TrueFreedom]

Well, if the majority of people in the House and Senate voted yes and then the President signed. They wouldn't have any choice but to free them or face punishment. Every other 1st world nation in history got rid of slaves this exact way, so I don't see why you think it couldn't be possible.



Who said I was against taxation?



It is the owner putting the price, not the buyer.



You do know that the majority if people weren't slave owners?

You still make no sense.

Ok so you say, Congress and President agree and the slaveowners will turn them over or face punishment. So what happens when the slaveowners say "Screw you, we are keeping our free labor." What is the punishment? (Alex, I'll take bloody civil war for 1000)

Who said you were against taxation? Well I assumed since you are on a Ron Paul forum you would be opposed to raising taxes (seeing how Ron has never voted for a tax increase) especially on something that is dehumanizing and forces things on others.

No you are wrong again, the spending bills come from the Congress. They would set the amount of money spent, meaning they would set the price of slaves. A matter of fact Ron mentioned specifically negociating the market price for the slaves.

But again, I want to know what this punishment will be when the slaveowners told the North to shove it.

[TruthisTreason]

You still make no sense.

Ok so you say, Congress and President agree and the slaveowners will turn them over or face punishment. So what happens when the slaveowners say "Screw you, we are keeping our free labor." What is the punishment? (Alex, I'll take bloody civil war for 1000)

No you are wrong again, the spending bills come from the Congress. They would set the amount of money spent, meaning they would set the price of slaves. A matter of fact Ron mentioned specifically negociating the market price for the slaves.

But again, I want to know what this punishment will be when the slaveowners told the North to shove it.

Mostly speculation. There was never any offer to BUY the slaves. There was never any law passed making slavery UNCONSTITUTIONAL before the War. How can we be sure what some would have done? Most fighting in the south DIDNT OWN SLAVES. The ones that did, had to BUY them, they were an "investment" into production of whatever they were producing. Would you just give away your investment if it wasn't against the law to keep that investment?

[tonesforjonesbones]

Slaves were VERY expensive to keep. They housed them, fed them and doctored them. it is a damn LIE that the slaves were beaten...there might have been a random event...but who in their right mind would destroy their productivity? I have visited "slave quarters" here in the south...believe me, they were not mistreated. I would say the mistreatment was even owning others...but there were indentured servents...etc..and have been since the beginning of time. The War of Northern Aggression was not about human rights...nope. It was about high tariffs imposed on the south by the north, (first and formost economics) , a handful of abolitiionists riling people up because they were afraid of SLAVE POWER , in other words, they believed the south intended to expand slavery to include EVERYONE, and the polecat Lincoln, who like Obama, had no experience, and who promised the industrial north that if they elected him, he would raise the tariffs on the agricultural south through the roof,. The New England politicians hated that the slaves were given ANY worth as people because it aided the south in having MORE representation in congress...and of course, the new midwestern states wanted slavery..which would have tanked any power the northern states had in congress...and they hated that fact. We're gettin MORE white guilt in this thread. Throw OFF the chains of white guilt! Tones

[TruthisTreason]

Slaves were VERY expensive to keep. They housed them, fed them and doctored them. it is a damn LIE that the slaves were beaten...there might have been a random event...but who in their right mind would destroy their productivity? I have visited "slave quarters" here in the south...believe me, they were not mistreated. I would say the mistreatment was even owning others...but there were indentured servents...etc..and have been since the beginning of time. The War of Northern Aggression was not about human rights...nope. It was about high tariffs imposed on the south by the north, (first and formost economics) , a handful of abolitiionists riling people up because they were afraid of SLAVE POWER , in other words, they believed the south intended to expand slavery to include EVERYONE, and the polecat Lincoln, who like Obama, had no experience, and who promised the industrial north that if they elected him, he would raise the tariffs on the agricultural south through the roof,. The New England politicians hated that the slaves were given ANY worth as people because it aided the south in having MORE representation in congress...and of course, the new midwestern states wanted slavery..which would have tanked any power the northern states had in congress...and they hated that fact. We're gettin MORE white guilt in this thread. Throw OFF the chains of white guilt! Tones

+1

[literatim]

You still make no sense.

Ok so you say, Congress and President agree and the slaveowners will turn them over or face punishment. So what happens when the slaveowners say "Screw you, we are keeping our free labor." What is the punishment? (Alex, I'll take bloody civil war for 1000)

Congress and Senate represent the South as well as the North.


Who said you were against taxation? Well I assumed since you are on a Ron Paul forum you would be opposed to raising taxes (seeing how Ron has never voted for a tax increase) especially on something that is dehumanizing and forces things on others.

We are overly taxed and our income is being taxed which I oppose.


No you are wrong again, the spending bills come from the Congress. They would set the amount of money spent, meaning they would set the price of slaves. A matter of fact Ron mentioned specifically negociating the market price for the slaves.

Whenever did I say spending bills didn't come from Congress?

One way would be to write a bill that would set the level based the current market price and the number of slaves on the market.


But again, I want to know what this punishment will be when the slaveowners told the North to shove it.

There were slave owners in the North as well. The slave owners would have to tell the Congress to shove it, not just the North. The punishment could be anything.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Lincoln AND Grant owned slaves. They didn't release them until the 13 amendment came about...they didn't even release them at the time of the Emancipation Proclaimation. TONES!

[zach]

It sucks that you can't live your own life without having to listen to others' bullshit because they don't like your choices or way of living.
I live my life, you live yours. End of story unless what we do negatively affects each other personally. We're all in the same struggle by trying to have a happy life.

If you don't like a certain idea or action, then don't do it. You don't need to whine how awful it is when someone else does it because each of us have different perspectives on what really is good for us.

What's wrong with freedom?

[TruthisTreason]

What's wrong with freedom?

http://msa4.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/_george-bush-flag.jpg

[TruthisTreason]

Lincoln AND Grant owned slaves. They didn't release them until the 13 amendment came about...they didn't even release them at the time of the Emancipation Proclaimation. TONES!
Good point, also worth noting:
The Emancipation Proclamation, hypocritically enough only freed the slaves in the south, not the north.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well, when white folks decide to be proud of who they are and honor our traditions and history...we can take our country back. The Constitution is for all people...not just select groups. tones

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Now I am more than a little confused how it is that people that claim to support individual rights and freedom want to place their own views and limitations on the rights of others. The general theme around here has been that "I have the right to do what I want as long as it doesn't harm anyone elses rights".

I'm only going to address the issue of abortion, since I think the matter of gay marriage and adoption are not anybody's concern, least of all the State's. Whatever two (or more) people do together, as long as they are not harming other individuals is none of anybody's business.

The undeniable fact is that an Embryonic Human (a fetus) is still a human being. In other words, they are members of genus **** and species Sapiens subspecies Sapiens. They have the same type of DNA as we do and are therefore pre-politically in possession of inalienable rights, not the least of which is Life. Whether they are Self-Aware or not is irrelevant. Otherwise, you can simply start offing anybody that isn't classified as Self-Aware (the mentally retarded, for example, or the Criminally Insane). The US Supreme Court, which is not in any way, shape or form, composed of people who can make a determination as to when Life begins did so in contravention of all Common Sense. They set a demarcation line and determined that Some People Have Rights, While Other People Do Not. Roe vs Wade is the 20th Century's answer to Dredd Scott.

[Danke]

You still make no sense.



literatim is making perfect sense, you just can't see it.

[cheapseats]

literatim is making perfect sense, you just can't see it.

Perfection is not the realm of man.

Literatim makes a SORT of sense, a type. Literatim makes perfect sense to those with like-minded sensibilities.

What a great many don't see is that there are as many ways of seeing a thing as there are people looking.

[CaseyJones]

I'm only going to address the issue of abortion, since I think the matter of gay marriage and adoption are not anybody's concern, least of all the State's. Whatever two (or more) people do together, as long as they are not harming other individuals is none of anybody's business.

The undeniable fact is that an Embryonic Human (a fetus) is still a human being. In other words, they are members of genus **** and species Sapiens subspecies Sapiens. They have the same type of DNA as we do and are therefore pre-politically in possession of inalienable rights, not the least of which is Life. Whether they are Self-Aware or not is irrelevant. Otherwise, you can simply start offing anybody that isn't classified as Self-Aware (the mentally retarded, for example, or the Criminally Insane). The US Supreme Court, which is not in any way, shape or form, composed of people who can make a determination as to when Life begins did so in contravention of all Common Sense. They set a demarcation line and determined that Some People Have Rights, While Other People Do Not. Roe vs Wade is the 20th Century's answer to Dredd Scott.

applause

[nickcoons]

The undeniable fact is that an Embryonic Human (a fetus) is still a human being. In other words, they are members of genus **** and species Sapiens subspecies Sapiens. They have the same type of DNA as we do and are therefore pre-politically in possession of inalienable rights, not the least of which is Life.

Let's say for argument's sake that you're correct about a fetus as a human being and having inalienable rights. In the abortion process, is it the removing of the fetus or the killing of the fetus that you oppose?

In many cases, depending on the age of the fetus, removal would mean death. But I'm making a distinction between "killing" and "allowing to die." In a free society, you can't stab someone, but you can decline to pay the needed medical costs that someone would incur if their life was in danger because they were stabbed, thereby resulting in their death.

Just as you can't be forced to care for someone else, can a pregnant woman be forced to care for a child that she's carrying? Can she not have the child removed, without causing it direct harm in the process (medical and technical limitations aside), thereby declining the imposed obligation of carrying it to term?

There is one piece that throws a wrench in this argument, and that's that a pregnant woman (usually), along with someone else, makes a choice that leads to her being pregnant. That may throw the analogy out of whack.

[Danke]

Perfection is not the realm of man.

Literatim makes a SORT of sense, a type. Literatim makes perfect sense to those with like-minded sensibilities.

What a great many don't see is that there are as many ways of seeing a thing as there are people looking.

:rolleyes:

[newyearsrevolution08]

What I find funny is that those who preach of abortion 101 actually believe it is SIMPLY about "womens rights"......

Do you really believe that?

Ask that in the abortion capital of the world china.

The only difference, instead of mandating abortions over here in the U.S.A we practically use them as birth control.

Odds are china is jealous as well.

We have to force our women to abort their babies BUT in America they do it because of WOMENS RIGHTS.... lol, those funny americans.....

Now everyone does get a right to their own beliefs and thoughts especially in these forums but why would my view and stance on abortion be any LESS than say my wifes stance?

If WE had a BABY together and no I am not saying having a FETUS together. Why would it simply be her decision? Because the bun is in her oven?

And when science gets crazy enough for pregnant men (who knows anyways with the way this world is going) will I be able to claim "mens rights"?

The whole argument and basis of that argument is LAUGHABLE.

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

This goes to another thought I had in a previous thread as well.

Lets say I killed a pregnant women right. But before I killed her it was fully known that she was going to abort her FETUS (I call them babies but I will roll with the thought process). Now since that was known by many I should only get charged with 1 Murder correct? If the mom herself and her WOMENS RIGHTS believed that to NOT be a baby then what murder was committed?

ALSO

And also what does a womens RIGHT have to do with aborting a baby. Does it NOT matter what her reasoning is. Do you HONESTLY believe that most if any of these women ACTUALLY believe the b.s. that they did NOT have a baby inside them or do you think maybe, JUST MAYBE they are telling themselves that because that is socially and politically correct and allows them to live knowing what they did?

it's ok to do, I wasn't ready, its my choice, that wasn't even a baby "yet".....

keep telling yourself that.

I know of a few who have had abortions and I can tell you that ALL of them were not happy with their decision later on down the road. Most if not all regret what they have done and if that is true then odds are there is GUILT there somewhere. How can you feel guilty of aborting something that you believe to NOT even exist though?

[newyearsrevolution08]

Slaves were VERY expensive to keep. They housed them, fed them and doctored them. it is a damn LIE that the slaves were beaten...there might have been a random event...but who in their right mind would destroy their productivity? I have visited "slave quarters" here in the south...believe me, they were not mistreated. I would say the mistreatment was even owning others...but there were indentured servents...etc..and have been since the beginning of time. The War of Northern Aggression was not about human rights...nope. It was about high tariffs imposed on the south by the north, (first and formost economics) , a handful of abolitiionists riling people up because they were afraid of SLAVE POWER , in other words, they believed the south intended to expand slavery to include EVERYONE, and the polecat Lincoln, who like Obama, had no experience, and who promised the industrial north that if they elected him, he would raise the tariffs on the agricultural south through the roof,. The New England politicians hated that the slaves were given ANY worth as people because it aided the south in having MORE representation in congress...and of course, the new midwestern states wanted slavery..which would have tanked any power the northern states had in congress...and they hated that fact. We're gettin MORE white guilt in this thread. Throw OFF the chains of white guilt! Tones

They don't have to beat us "current slaves", we pay and work for FREE nowadays.....

[Kludge]

Perfection is not the realm of man.

False. I am perfect. You are just delusional.

[literatim]

This thread made me really laugh now that I have read TrueFreedom's posts in the eHarmony lawsuit thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=170476

[The_Orlonater]

Gay and abortion issues should be left to the states to decide. In my eyes, I don't want abortions, gays marrying, gays raising kids, etc... It's a personal choice. I have no more intentions of forcing my own views on them, than they have intentions of forcing their views on me.

Now, the advantage of having states vote this out, is we can vote with our feet.

It seems like your views are being forced upon them. Oh the hypocrisy of these "liberty lovin' conservatives."

[freedom-maniac]

I agree, enough of the "we" bullshit.

By "we" I was refering, to 1. Myself, 2. Dr. Paul, who is pro-life, and 3. The pro-life faction of the R3volution.

I was not trying to encompass all humanity.

[freedom-maniac]

You could read up on Jefferson. He was going broke feeding all of his slaves, because they became unproductive. If that isn't an incentive to get rid of them, I don't know what is.

"...the work done by freemen comes cheaper in the end than that performed by slaves." Adam smith

[SeanEdwards]

I could debate you all day on whether a fetus is a person. It's not your place to pin your definition or view on other people and limit their individual rights to their body.

But you'd be wrong all day. If you kill a pregnant woman, it's a double murder. That's not a personal opinion, it's the law of the land.

[2young2vote]

When someone is being adopted do they have a say in what parents they go with? If so, then i don't have a problem with gay people adopting children. But if the kids DON'T have a say in who they go with then i don't believe in adoption at all. I wouldn't want to be forced to live with some people i don't even know...especially two men or two women i don't know. If i was going to adopt a child what right would i have to take that person without them saying i could?

[newyearsrevolution08]

But you'd be wrong all day. If you kill a pregnant woman, it's a double murder. That's not a personal opinion, it's the law of the land.

but what if the same law of the land allowed a pregnant women to decide whether or not "what was inside her" was a child or not?

If the women herself didn't believe it then what murder happened? I mean it is after all "her right" and "her body" right?

[SeanEdwards]

Again you give no proof that it is an individual.


http://www.obgyn.net/Frontiers_In_Reproductive_Medicine/images/PGD.gif



What is Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)?

PGD is a relatively new technology which allows us to test an egg or embryo for genetic abnormalities prior to embryo transfer. It can be used to diagnose single gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis and thallasemia or chromosomal disorders such as translocations or aneuploidy. Aneuploidy is an abnormal number of chromosomes, which commonly leads to miscarriage or genetic disorders such as Down’s syndrome.


IVF clinics around the world confirm every day and routinely that the fertilized egg is a unique individual, with unique genetic traits. By analyzing a single cell from the growing fetus, geneticists can determine what gender the child will be, and a host of other specific features associated with individuality.

You need to face the facts dude, that the real world does not agree with your flexible notions of morality. You want the right to not be burdened with unwanted offspring through legalized abortion, but in order to claim that right you have to shut your eyes to the facts of human embryological development. This is the same reason that abortion clinics don't allow the women to view the remains of their aborted fetuses. Because seeing that tiny human shredded into chunks reveals the vast lie at the heart of the abortionist's belief system.

[SeanEdwards]

but what if the same law of the land allowed a pregnant women to decide whether or not "what was inside her" was a child or not?



That sounds a lot like the justification nazis used to exterminate untermenschen. They simply decided that the "undesirables inside their society" were not human, and fired up the ovens.

[Highland]

This is what Dr. Paul says about abortion.....the constitution gives the individual their rights at conception....so technically abortion should not be allowed, or at least determined by the state...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTjccxVZ8B0

[newyearsrevolution08]

That sounds a lot like the justification nazis used to exterminate untermenschen. They simply decided that the "undesirables inside their society" were not human, and fired up the ovens.

I agree, well not comparing an abortion to tossing tons of people into ovens. But in the sense itself. But we are in a country that does allow a WOMEN to decide if that is a baby, not a baby, a duck or what the fuck.

I just wish the democratic side would not think that "abortion + womens rights" = against the republicans because that in itself is stupid BUT seems trendy and many stand behind it.

They are confusing individual rights with something very different.

If anything talk with women who have had abortions, if it is no big deal then why don't they discuss it? I have talked with plenty and some within my own family and I have NEVER heard anyone say, "baby? what baby? I didn't abort a baby, that was just a fetus, a nothing".

The only people who I hear screaming WOMENS RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO ABORT are those who have NOT gone through them with their own family or THINK they are on the "rights of the people" side of the debate.

I think both sides have it all wrong and it needs to be moved Off the political scene completely.

Why not have doctors and scientists figure it out versus "bible based reaction vs. womens rights". Let those who actually know what the hell they are talking about actually get the NATIONAL platform to speak and debate the topic.

Why won't people let the womens rights portion go? Because if we remove the womens rights part then what else is there? If you take the whole b.s. "its my body" response away all there is would be a person NOT WANTING THE BABY whether due to time, life, money or what have you.

You must keep pushing, it isn't a real baby YET because if you didn't push that point then it would be very hard to debate and prove to a large audience.

I don't think there are really that many women WANTING abortions daily but rather doing it out of personal reasoning that have zero to actually believing NOTHING is alive is in her belly but at the same time rationalizing it as ok because "its my right to choose".

[Dojo]

Breath is life in my belief system, I have the right to believe that. I don't think anyone should legislate their beliefs on me.


To many in the "religious community" the question surrounding abortion revolves around the issue of when life begins. Most claim "life begins at conception" but Genesis suggests something different. Gen 2 v7 states: "the Lord God formed man of the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul."

That appears to be quite clear, man became a living soul when God breathed in the "breath of life". Therefore, it can be argued – from scripture – that life begins at the first breath. You can carry a baby to full term...but if it is born and does NOT breathe, IT IS DEAD.

Now I appreciate other scriptures tell us that we were knit together in our mother's womb, and that God knew us before we were born, but scripture is quite clear – breath was the life-giving feature.

In fact, it could be argued that before the "breath of life" man was just "dust of the earth". Life ends at the last breath, therefore it can be argued it begins at the first breath. If you take someone off a respirator and they don't breathe, THEY ARE DEAD. But the biology is sustainable for some time, doesn't make that person ALIVE

I appreciate that abortion and the issues surrounding it are third rails, but what makes some posters here sure about when life begins?

[SeanEdwards]

Breath is life in my belief system, I have the right to believe that. I don't think anyone should legislate their beliefs on me.


Humans are delicious in the cannibal belief system, and cannibals have the right to believe that. I don't think anyone should legislate their beliefs on cannibals.

[Theocrat]

So far in the top ten threads I see people saying that homosexuals should not be able to adopt children and that women should not be able to get an abortion. Now I am more than a little confused how it is that people that claim to support individual rights and freedom want to place their own views and limitations on the rights of others. The general theme around here has been that "I have the right to do what I want as long as it doesn't harm anyone elses rights". Ok, so if a gay couple decides to adopt a kid, how does that effect you? And we won't get into the question of when life begins bc there is no set answer, but why do individuals here think they can place their own view of morality on others and tell them how to handle their own bodies? Seems kind of Orwelian to me to have a group that says they promote freedom and then want to place their own views on the population at large.(Emphasis mine)

Oh, so it's okay for you to impose your own views that one cannot condemn gay couple adoptions nor women having abortions? You have a double standard, and you need to check yourself before you condemn others for making their own judgments.

Gay couples do not have a right to be together because God gives them no authority to have a marital relationship with each other. He even calls it an abomination, punishable by death. The issue really isn't should gays be able to adopt children, but whether gays be allowed to have a relationship in the first place. You're missing the point.

By the way, if you think unborn babies aren't human, I strongly recommend you click on the picture in my signature and watch the video. If you still think unborn babies are not human persons, then you simply are morally deficient, in my opinion.

True freedom comes from moral integrity and responsibility. We defend liberty, not libertinism.

[Dojo]

Humans are delicious in the cannibal belief system, and cannibals have the right to believe that. I don't think anyone should legislate their beliefs on cannibals.

Sure ........... if morons want to eat dead people, I don't really don't care, but that was a ridiculous response.

[Jaykzo]

Gay couples do not have a right to be together because God gives them no authority to have a marital relationship with each other. He even calls it an abomination, punishable by death. The issue really isn't should gays be able to adopt children, but whether gays be allowed to have a relationship in the first place. You're missing the point.



Oh for cryin out loud...

This kind of crap is why the Republican party SUCKS. Half of them take the bible more literally than the constitution.

Listen, if you want to run the country with the laws printed in a book that makes claims of talking snakes and seas split in two, then you go right ahead. But you better damn well understand that a lot of people are going to be pissed at you for trying to inject that historical/religious/mythical BULLSHIT into my country's legislation.

[Theocrat]

Oh for cryin out loud...

This kind of crap is why the Republican party SUCKS. Half of them take the bible more literally than the constitution.

Listen, if you want to run the country with the laws printed in a book that makes claims of talking snakes and seas split in two, then you go right ahead. But you better damn well understand that a lot of people are going to be pissed at you for trying to inject that historical/religious/mythical BULLSHIT into my country's legislation.

I'm not Republican. :p

[SeanEdwards]

Sure ........... if morons want to eat dead people, I don't really don't care, but that was a ridiculous response.

A ridiculous post deserves a ridiculous response.

[JS4Pat]

"A fetus is an individual ".... says who?
A lot of people - just as a lot of people say it is not. I don't think it has been decided hence the debate continues.


Your opinion does not mean that all society must follow it and certainly does not give you the right to take away other's rights.

Back at you.

Those who fight to protect the right of the unborn to live are no less advocates of "True Freedom" than are the ones who don't. This issue does not break cleanly down libertarian lines.

We should agree that the Federal government should have no role in this issue. Return the issue to state and local governments.

[Highland]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTjccxVZ8B0

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

In a free society, you can't stab someone, but you can decline to pay the needed medical costs that someone would incur if their life was in danger because they were stabbed, thereby resulting in their death.

You cannot as a parent abrogate your responsibilities to your children because you live in 'a free society'. That means you cannot starve them, work them to exhaustion, beat them needlessly etc. Passive methods of aggression (simply not clothing, feeding and/or evicting a child who cannot fend for themselves) is still aggressing.


Just as you can't be forced to care for someone else, can a pregnant woman be forced to care for a child that she's carrying? Can she not have the child removed, without causing it direct harm in the process (medical and technical limitations aside), thereby declining the imposed obligation of carrying it to term?

Its never an easy answer when it comes down to this because (its coming) people will invariably bring in rape and incest to the equation. If it was completely consensual sex, then sorry, freedom and living in a free society doesn't mean free from responsibility of your actions. Passive forms of aggression (as I said) are still forms of aggression. Don't want to be burdened with your child, give it up for adoption. That doesn't mean you can leave them out for the wolves, toss them into the ocean or any number of methods that ancient man did to not burden themselves with their responsibilities.

In the case of rape and incest, the undeniable fact is that an Embryonic Human still has inalienable rights, the most basic of which is Life. Further, just to quash the incest argument, the chances of serious genetic defect for incest is mostly a myth. That would require multiple generations for that sort of thing to come out.

Let me add one more thing. My belief has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or my religious beliefs. I'm a Deist and I accept Rational Thought, not Revealed Thought. We only get one pass in this life and thats it. I personally think its abominable that we have been a part of a civilization that continues to murder its own people in the name of progress.

Michael Crichton: Why Politicized Science is Dangerous (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html)

[Working Poor]

No matter what you say about fetus rights making abortion illegal will not stop abortion just like making pot illegal has not stopped people from using it.

[nate895]

No matter what you say about fetus rights making abortion illegal will not stop abortion just like making pot illegal has not stopped people from using it.

Since making murder illegal hasn't stopped it, we should make it legal.

That is the logic you are using.

[sailor]

"A fetus is an individual ".... says who? Your opinion does not mean that all society must follow it and certainly does not give you the right to take away other's rights.

"Norwegians are human beings".... says who? Your opinion does not mean that all society must follow it and certainly does not give you the right to take away other's rights. They should be able to shoot at Norwegians if they want to.

[FountainDew]

Never have I seen a thread with a bunch of people so full of themselves...


You cannot as a parent abrogate your responsibilities to your children because you live in 'a free society'. That means you cannot starve them, work them to exhaustion, beat them needlessly etc. Passive methods of aggression (simply not clothing, feeding and/or evicting a child who cannot fend for themselves) is still aggressing.

Its never an easy answer when it comes down to this because (its coming) people will invariably bring in rape and incest to the equation. If it was completely consensual sex, then sorry, freedom and living in a free society doesn't mean free from responsibility of your actions. Passive forms of aggression (as I said) are still forms of aggression. Don't want to be burdened with your child, give it up for adoption. That doesn't mean you can leave them out for the wolves, toss them into the ocean or any number of methods that ancient man did to not burden themselves with their responsibilities.

In the case of rape and incest, the undeniable fact is that an Embryonic Human still has inalienable rights, the most basic of which is Life. Further, just to quash the incest argument, the chances of serious genetic defect for incest is mostly a myth. That would require multiple generations for that sort of thing to come out.

Let me add one more thing. My belief has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or my religious beliefs. I'm a Deist and I accept Rational Thought, not Revealed Thought. We only get one pass in this life and thats it. I personally think its abominable that we have been a part of a civilization that continues to murder its own people in the name of progress.

Michael Crichton: Why Politicized Science is Dangerous (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html)

Finally a rational answer. The majority of abortions are not related to rape or incest, you can google any fact site you want they will all tell you the same thing. In such cases, I believe the woman should be allowed to consider abortion because the health of the mother will be affected and/or too traumatized to carry the baby to term. Otherwise, no way jose.

All those people questioning the most basic of basic common sense should question your own sanity and stop posting pointless comments. "nationality X are people -- says who?" "then make murder legal" "cannibals eat people" Fucking dipshit responses. Nobody, wants to argue with a 2 year old.

[sailor]

All those people questioning the most basic of basic common sense should question your own sanity and stop posting pointless comments. "nationality X are people -- says who?" "then make murder legal" "cannibals eat people" Fucking dipshit responses. Nobody, wants to argue with a 2 year old.

An obnoxious retard. Now thats a novel concept.

[Working Poor]

People do need to take more responsibility for their actions especially those that could lead to an unwanted pregnancy. I think people fall way short who are not considerate of the fact that sex causes babies and if you don't want babies you need to be very sure not to allow it to happen either by abstaining or using reliable birth control. So you don't kill someone due to carelessness.

Parents need to teach their children abstinence and stop making their children have an abortions when they turn up pregnant and parents of boys need to step up to the plate with sons. Boys need to feel the weight of responsibility of their actions. We allow the media to saturate our children with pure garbage. The kids are doing things on tv that in my day were never even thought much less acted out.

What the fuck is wrong with this world?

[SeanEdwards]

All those people questioning the most basic of basic common sense should question your own sanity and stop posting pointless comments. "nationality X are people -- says who?" "then make murder legal" "cannibals eat people" Fucking dipshit responses. Nobody, wants to argue with a 2 year old.

It's your own damn fault. You post a bunch of childish inane shit and people are going to try to respond to you with baby talk that's at your level. We're trying to break though to you in a language you can understand. Now FOAD.

[JS4Pat]

No matter what you say about fetus rights making abortion illegal will not stop abortion just like making pot illegal has not stopped people from using it.

Just like laws against murder haven't stopped people from killing each other. :rolleyes:

Apples to Oranges...

Laws against Pot are not needed because no one's rights are violated. Laws against abortion are needed because someone's rights are violated.

[Original_Intent]

A fetus is an individual and no one has the right to violate its right to life.

There is no such thing as a right to an adoption.

bingo

[Brassmouth]

With the case of abortion, having abortion harms the fetus (which we consider to be a person).

Speak for yourself.


As for gay rights, this movement has been largely highjacked by right-wing conservatives, instead of up-wing libertarians, so it doesn't suprise me.

True that. I've been coming around here less and less because every time I look at the top threads they're either about some ridiculous conspiracy, religion(redundant?), or bashing some sort of minority.

[Brassmouth]

Sorry to double-post, but as I look at the rest of this thread, a question comes to mind.

Haven't you people realized it is completely futile and an utter waste of time to argue over abortion? I don't think I've ever seen/heard/read of anyone changing their views on abortion because of an online debate.

:rolleyes:

[smileylovesfreedom]

Sorry to double-post, but as I look at the rest of this thread, a question comes to mind.

Haven't you people realized it is completely futile and an utter waste of time to argue over abortion? I don't think I've ever seen/heard/read of anyone changing their views on abortion because of an online debate.

:rolleyes:

+1

[SeanEdwards]

Haven't you people realized it is completely futile and an utter waste of time to argue over abortion? I don't think I've ever seen/heard/read of anyone changing their views on abortion because of an online debate.



I used to be pro-choice, and am now opposed. Not everyone in the world has their opinions carved in stone.

[newyearsrevolution08]

I used to be pro-choice, and am now opposed. Not everyone in the world has their opinions carved in stone.

carved in stone is just being close minded. Not saying that people need to always change their point of view but yes arguing, debating and seeing OTHER sides of things can make people see things differently and even change their point of view as well on various subjects.

To say that debates and arguments online don't go anywhere is naive because you are simply assuming the only people who MIGHT learn from the various topics are the ones who are engaging IN the conversation BUT that doesn't even include the hundreds who simply view these threads getting various perspectives.

[nickcoons]

You cannot as a parent abrogate your responsibilities to your children because you live in 'a free society'.

And that's what I was getting at when I said that the fact that the fetus exists because of an act known to lead to the creation of a fetus may invalidate the entire analogy.


That means you cannot starve them, work them to exhaustion, beat them needlessly etc. Passive methods of aggression (simply not clothing, feeding and/or evicting a child who cannot fend for themselves) is still aggressing.

What a second.. working someone to exhaustion and beating them are not passive. They shouldn't be in your list. But I understand what you're saying.

[Theocrat]

Sorry to double-post, but as I look at the rest of this thread, a question comes to mind.

Haven't you people realized it is completely futile and an utter waste of time to argue over abortion? I don't think I've ever seen/heard/read of anyone changing their views on abortion because of an online debate.

:rolleyes:

Defending human life on any level is never a waste of time. Maybe this video (http://www.abortionno.org/) will get you to see why abortion is one of the most atrocious practices in the history of mankind, hence the reason why it needs to be continually discussed for what it truly is--murder of an innocent, defenseless life.

[JS4Pat]

Haven't you people realized it is completely futile and an utter waste of time to argue over abortion? I don't think I've ever seen/heard/read of anyone changing their views on abortion because of an online debate.

:rolleyes:

Haven't you people realized it is completely futile and an utter waste of time to argue over liberty? I don't think I've ever seen/heard/read of anyone changing their views on foreign policy, monetary policy or civil liberties because of an online debate.

:rolleyes: