PDA

View Full Version : Infomerical and Abortion




adwads
12-17-2007, 12:48 AM
Maybe the abortion poll will help us decide what to do about the infomercial and it's heavy anti-abortion message at the beginning...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=57472

bbachtung
12-17-2007, 12:50 AM
It is an ad aimed at Iowa Republicans. You know them as the evangelicals who disproportionately favor Huckabee, and share Ron Paul's views on abortion.

stljim
12-17-2007, 12:54 AM
Yeah, it was definitely Iowa-centric. I didn't necessarily love it. I'm looking forward to this national commercial though.

steph3n
12-17-2007, 12:55 AM
Roe vs Wade makes it a federal issue instead of a states rights matter. He supports overturning to make it a state matter, nothing wrong here

Benaiah
12-17-2007, 12:55 AM
I'm pro life and Paul's stance on abortion is what drew me to him.

aspiringconstitutionalist
12-17-2007, 12:55 AM
Iowa Republicans are very strongly pro-life (and hence also strongly anti-war).

Infomerical is perfect the way it is.

InRonWeTrust
12-17-2007, 12:56 AM
I very much dislike the anti-abortion message at the beginning of that clip. It sure as hell should not be played up like this outside of Iowa. But if it wins Iowa, ok. :)

AggieforPaul
12-17-2007, 12:56 AM
Personally, Im glad its in there. Abortion and immigration have always been the 2 issues that have kept me from supporting the libertarians. Luckily enough, Dr. Paul. gets it right with me on both of them.

justinc.1089
12-17-2007, 12:56 AM
Am most republicans are against abortion and pro-life......:rolleyes:

adwads
12-17-2007, 12:56 AM
Yeah, it was definitely Iowa-centric. I didn't necessarily love it. I'm looking forward to this national commercial though.

And did you notice how they edited the video to gloss over his opposition to the war in iraq? In fact, its kind of noticeable...Dr. Paul is talking about failing to get bin laden in afghanistan and is about to say "and instead of getting bin laden, we went to war........" and it ends right there, when the sentence is really saying that we went to war in iraq.

JDeVriese
12-17-2007, 12:57 AM
It should at least run in every red state

justinc.1089
12-17-2007, 12:58 AM
I very much dislike the anti-abortion message at the beginning of that clip. It sure as hell should not be played up like this outside of Iowa.

It sure as hell should be played in SC! Thats 1 of 3 questions you're guaranteed to be asked when campaigning here, pro-choice or pro-life, with everyone practically wanting pro-life.

I don't know where you all are getting the idea a pro-life message will be bad. Most republicans are pro-life, and I believe most people in Iowa are pro-life too, and I know the overwhelming majority of people here in SC are pro-life.

If he was a democrat, then yes we would have to worry bigtime lol.

InRonWeTrust
12-17-2007, 12:59 AM
I doubt most of Dr. Paul's supporters are pro life, especially the younger ones.

Most of us think the government should stay the hell out of our lives.

aspiringconstitutionalist
12-17-2007, 01:01 AM
Right, I think we sometimes forget that we're trying to win the REPUBLICAN nomination and not the Democratic or Libertarian nomination here. REPUBLICAN primary voters are strongly pro-life and anti-illegal immigration. This ad will win the right voters. It's perfect.

adwads
12-17-2007, 01:01 AM
I doubt most of Dr. Paul's supporters are pro life, especially the younger ones.

Most of us think the government should stay the hell out of our lives.

I totally agree. I'm strongly pro-choice, but I still support Dr. Paul...At least he will leave the issue up to the states, so you can choose to live in a state that has abortion or one that doesn't

I wish Dr. Paul would reconsider his abortion stance though--he talks about rights and liberty and freedom so much, and yet doesn't agree that the ability to have an abortion is a civil right. (And I don't mean late term abortion, which I'm STRONGLY against. I'm basically talking about first trimester abortion)

Paulite5112007
12-17-2007, 01:04 AM
I totally agree. I'm strongly pro-life, but I still support Dr. Paul...At least he will leave the issue up to the states, so you can choose to live in a state that has abortion or one that doesn't

I wish Dr. Paul would reconsider his abortion stance though--he talks about rights and liberty and freedom so much, and yet doesn't agree that the ability to have an abortion is a civil right. (And I don't mean late term abortion, which I'm STRONGLY against. I'm basically talking about first trimester abortion)

He feels the fetus is an individual - so he is, actually, preserving it's right to live. He has a point too when a person can be convicted of a double homicide when they kill a pregnant woman.

Ron Paul Fan
12-17-2007, 01:04 AM
Most of us think that the government should protect life! Go check the poll results! It's overwhelmingly pro life. Iowa Republicans are overwhelmingly pro life. Remember, Ron Paul is running for the nomination of the REPUBLICAN PARTY! He's not going to change his abortion stance after 30 years of protecting life. Ron Paul believes that the unborn has rights and he's protecting their rights! You can't protect liberty without protecting life!

stljim
12-17-2007, 01:04 AM
I disagree with him on the abortion issue but I in no way think this is a bad ad for Iowa. It should play very well.

adwads
12-17-2007, 01:05 AM
I meant to say that I'm pro-choice...I said it wrong initially...I've corrected my post now

JRegs85
12-17-2007, 01:05 AM
I will submit to you that no pro-choice person has ever spent serious time in a Neonatology or Neonatal ICU ward of a hospital.

Lance C Roseman
12-17-2007, 01:06 AM
I doubt most of Dr. Paul's supporters are pro life, especially the younger ones.

Most of us think the government should stay the hell out of our lives.

As an adoptee, 39 years of age...luckily...I say that this is NOT the basis for a campaign run. Hard to say because I am anti-abortion, but really...this is a long slough through too many ruts to make a real difference and probably won't be the mainstay of the campaign.
We will all figure this one out after we have sane foreign policies (and believe me, we'll follow like we have a ring through our nose)
and some sort of monetary normalcy in the US and Canada. In Canada, people whom are less wealthy have more children to get more welfare to have more children to get more welfare to have more babies to get more welfare. Is it any different where any of you live? The poor don't get abortions, the Middle Class do? Or am I way off base?

No1ButPaul08
12-17-2007, 01:07 AM
Iowa is the only time Ron Paul brings abortion front and center. I think this is good strategy. He needs the his share of the christian right to WIN iowa

adwads
12-17-2007, 01:07 AM
The poll is turning out to be very interesting...about 2/3 pro-life and 1/3 pro-choice. Are the latter the younger people? I'm 26 and pro-choice...

xerigen
12-17-2007, 01:07 AM
I change my view on abortion more than Mitt Romney, but I would support Ron Paul either way because I really don't see why it's always one of the biggest issues in every campaign. I understand where both sides are coming from. As far as I'm concerned, there are much bigger issues that need to be addressed right now.

aspiringconstitutionalist
12-17-2007, 01:09 AM
The poll is turning out to be very interesting...about 2/3 pro-life and 1/3 pro-choice. Are the latter the younger people? I'm 26 and pro-choice...

21 and pro-life, here...

mokkan88
12-17-2007, 01:10 AM
I doubt most of Dr. Paul's supporters are pro life, especially the younger ones.

Most of us think the government should stay the hell out of our lives.

Most of us also believe the government has an obligation to protect life.

No1ButPaul08
12-17-2007, 01:11 AM
I change my view on abortion more than Mitt Romney, but I would support Ron Paul either way because I really don't see why it's always one of the biggest issues in every campaign. I understand where both sides are coming from. As far as I'm concerned, there are much bigger issues that need to be addressed right now.

I feel the same

Ron Paul Fan
12-17-2007, 01:11 AM
Just because you're young doesn't mean you have to be against protecting life. Roe v. Wade must be overturned!

adwads
12-17-2007, 01:12 AM
I didn't really mean for this thread to debate the issue of abortion itself, but rather what to do about the infomercial...whether to promote it or let it just be in iowa. I mean, if the infomercial is the big secret project, then I think we should focus our attention on other things and forget about it.

adwads
12-17-2007, 01:13 AM
Just because you're young doesn't mean you have to be against protecting life. Roe v. Wade must be overturned!

Of course not--its just that younger people tend to be more liberal on social issues

ksuguy
12-17-2007, 01:13 AM
I think it makes sense for Iowa. I know when I talk to people in Kansas, abortion is one of the biggest issues.

firebirdnation
12-17-2007, 01:14 AM
I was pro-choice when I was younger, but as soon as I had my first daughter I changed my position on abortion, as did my wife. I also remember hearing a radio program where the host had people on who would have been aborted had it not been illegal at the time and instead they were adopted and each one of them were thankful it was illegal and happy to be alive. I am also not religious and therefore probably out of step with the mainstream pro-lifers.

mokkan88
12-17-2007, 01:17 AM
I believe Ron wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would get rid of federal government jurisdiction of abortion specifically. He does, however, support the redefinition of the beginning of life as being at conception, which would effectively define abortion as murder.

adwads
12-17-2007, 01:18 AM
I believe Ron wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would get rid of federal government jurisdiction of abortion specifically. He does, however, support the redefinition of the beginning of life as being at conception, which would effectively define abortion as murder.

I think his website supports that position.

Doriath
12-17-2007, 01:20 AM
As an adoptee, 39 years of age...luckily...I say that this is NOT the basis for a campaign run.
As an adoptee of 41 years of age, I agree it's not a "basis" for a campaign run -- but the reality is that leaning heavily on his pro-life position in states like Iowa is smart politics. And I say this as someone who is reluctantly pro-choice. But if we don't change the direction the country is headed, abortion will be the least of our problems. If it gets votes, and I think it will, I'm good with it.

justinc.1089
12-17-2007, 01:21 AM
I doubt most of Dr. Paul's supporters are pro life, especially the younger ones.

Most of us think the government should stay the hell out of our lives.

I'm 18 and strongly pro-life. How can you justify killing an unborn living child? It is a living person. Once those cells start growing, life has began, and if it is ended, the life has been killed.

The story Paul sometimes mentions is always the perfect example. There was some doctor that tried to abort some baby, but it was born alive during or right after the abortion process alive. So the doctor was supposed to have aborted or in other words killed which would be murder it so what did he do since he had screwed up? He took the baby and drowned it to kill it since the abortion didn't go as planned.

The doctor was charged for murder. If the abortion had been successful, why would that not have been murder?

The acceptance of abortion is a sign of a society's moral state. Only the most barbaric societies through history have accepted abortion.

steph3n
12-17-2007, 01:23 AM
I am 24 and pro-life but it is a personal responsibility as well.


I don't believe the feds should be involved

it is really sad that voters base choices on such a minor issue, presidents have almost ZERO say on this matter.

mexicanpizza
12-17-2007, 01:23 AM
He needs to make it clear that he is ultimately states-rights on the issue. I think he should absolutely avoid saying OVERTURN RoeVWade if he's not going to specifically say "leave it to the states".

I've had to explain this to >5 women tonight. :mad:

justinc.1089
12-17-2007, 01:24 AM
But until there is a constitutional amendment defining life as starting at conception I am for leaving it to the states to decide. However, I'm strongly for a constitutional amendment defining life as starting at conception because we are born with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And just as the right to liberty applies to all classes and races and groups, the right to life applies to people of all ages from the unborn recently conceived to the elderly. So we must define that in writing just as we had to define it in writing about other groups of people relating to their liberties as well.

adwads
12-17-2007, 01:25 AM
I'm 18 and strongly pro-life. How can you justify killing an unborn living child? It is a living person. Once those cells start growing, life has began, and if it is ended, the life has been killed.

The story Paul sometimes mentions is always the perfect example. There was some doctor that tried to abort some baby, but it was born alive during or right after the abortion process alive. So the doctor was supposed to have aborted or in other words killed which would be murder it so what did he do since he had screwed up? He took the baby and drowned it to kill it since the abortion didn't go as planned.

The doctor was charged for murder. If the abortion had been successful, why would that not have been murder?

The acceptance of abortion is a sign of a society's moral state. Only the most barbaric societies through history have accepted abortion.

Well, your getting into partial-birth abortion, which is different...even on the view, that behar bitch who said ron paul couldn't win also said she was against late term abortions, and only wants normal, earlier term abortions, and she's a really really liberal woman.

steph3n
12-17-2007, 01:26 AM
Well, your getting into partial-birth abortion, which is different...even on the view, that behar bitch who said ron paul couldn't win also said she was against late term abortions, and only wants normal, earlier term abortions, and she's a really really liberal woman.

he had them squirming on the view with that, he is a doctor dealt with that many times. I feel he's as qualified as any on this matter.

Craig_R
12-17-2007, 01:33 AM
He needs to make it clear that he is ultimately states-rights on the issue. I think he should absolutely avoid saying OVERTURN RoeVWade if he's not going to specifically say "leave it to the states".

I've had to explain this to >5 women tonight. :mad:

yup

justinc.1089
12-17-2007, 01:36 AM
Ok so aborting a big baby is bad but aborting a small one is ok?:confused:


Look I'm not trying to be rude to those of you who are for abortion on here, I just can't come close to fathoming how you think its ok, and every person I talk to thats for it can't say why they are other than basically finally breaking down to the argument that the baby is the woman's property if I push the issue for like hours with them lol.

And most people supporting Paul are smart when it comes to politics, so maybe you people will be the first ones to help me get how you can think its ok to murder babies just because they aren't very old or big or born?

Also if you think earlier abortions are ok, but not later ones, where and how do you draw the line? Is it ok to abort a baby if its 3 months old or whatever but then 1 minute after that its not? 1 day after that? I mean how do you draw the line?

adwads
12-17-2007, 01:36 AM
The most INTERESTING result from the abortion poll: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=636964&posted=1#post636964

...is that only about 15% of the grassroots would support federal action on abortion. That is NOT a traditionally republican position. Most republicans--like fuckabee--want federal laws that implement christian morality regarding aboriton, drugs, prostitution, etc.

adwads
12-17-2007, 01:38 AM
Do you think a zygote or a blob of cells is a baby? See, there are different levels of growth and its not a baby right away at conception


Ok so aborting a big baby is bad but aborting a small one is ok?:confused:


Look I'm not trying to be rude to those of you who are for abortion on here, I just can't come close to fathoming how you think its ok, and every person I talk to thats for it can't say why they are other than basically finally breaking down to the argument that the baby is the woman's property if I push the issue for like hours with them lol.

And most people supporting Paul are smart when it comes to politics, so maybe you people will be the first ones to help me get how you can think its ok to murder babies just because they aren't very old or big or born?

Also if you think earlier abortions are ok, but not later ones, where and how do you draw the line? Is it ok to abort a baby if its 3 months old or whatever but then 1 minute after that its not? 1 day after that? I mean how do you draw the line?

Craig_R
12-17-2007, 01:39 AM
Ok so aborting a big baby is bad but aborting a small one is ok?:confused:


Look I'm not trying to be rude to those of you who are for abortion on here, I just can't come close to fathoming how you think its ok, and every person I talk to thats for it can't say why they are other than basically finally breaking down to the argument that the baby is the woman's property if I push the issue for like hours with them lol.

And most people supporting Paul are smart when it comes to politics, so maybe you people will be the first ones to help me get how you can think its ok to murder babies just because they aren't very old or big or born?

Also if you think earlier abortions are ok, but not later ones, where and how do you draw the line? Is it ok to abort a baby if its 3 months old or whatever but then 1 minute after that its not? 1 day after that? I mean how do you draw the line?


quit trying to start a flame war. If you believe abortion is murder talk to your STATE represenatives about it. Murder is not a federal issue, and certinly not one we should tackle here.

adwads
12-17-2007, 01:41 AM
quit trying to start a flame war. If you believe abortion is murder talk to your STATE represenatives about it. Murder is not a federal issue, and certinly not one we should tackle here.

Damn, I wish our politicians would say that once and a while. How refreshing would it be for a federal official to say that something is a state issue and therefore out of his jurisdiction?

Craig_R
12-17-2007, 01:41 AM
Do you think a zygote or a blob of cells is a baby? See, there are different levels of growth and its not a baby right away at conception

please dont do this

peacemonger
12-17-2007, 01:42 AM
peacemonger is pro-life

No war
No death penalty (or death tax)
No Abortion after viabilty (5th or 6th month)

These are personal views which I do not think everyone will agree with. But there are also contingency factors.

War is Ok if congress declares it and we fight and win quickly...
The death penalty is ok if that is what some states want to do, never federal government...
Late term abortion is probably ok if the baby would not be viable. Very early termination/late prevention methods should be protected. Leave it to the states and doctors and patients to decide.

Craig_R
12-17-2007, 01:43 AM
Damn, I wish our politicians would say that once and a while. How refreshing would it be for a federal official to say that something is a state issue and therefore out of his jurisdiction?

as do I, it has been a wedge too long, and both sides use the issue and never actually try to solve the probelm.

adwads
12-17-2007, 01:44 AM
please dont do this

Okay, I just don't like people implying that I support "murdering babies" or something like I'm some sort of evil lunatic.

Tedhunter
12-17-2007, 01:51 AM
I change my view on abortion more than Mitt Romney, but I would support Ron Paul either way because I really don't see why it's always one of the biggest issues in every campaign. I understand where both sides are coming from. As far as I'm concerned, there are much bigger issues that need to be addressed right now.

Exactly - we have much bigger fish to fry. Unfortunately, abortion continues to be a major campaign issue because it is so fundamentally personal, and because there is a lack of agreement on it. There is no scientific or philosophic consensus about when life or humanness begins, so people are inevitably going to arrive at different conclusions. Yes, the Supreme Court ostensibly settled the issue with Roe v. Wade, but that assumes the controversy ended there, and clearly it hasn't.

I'm starting to agree with Ron Paul - leave this complex and controversial issue to the states. Like Iowa for example, where they clearly desire the right to legislate in order to protect life. Very smart political decision to play up his pro-life stance there.

peacemonger
12-17-2007, 01:57 AM
The problem is that the voting masses are largely ignorant

they are either social conservative
Pro-life = protection of the innocent
Pro-choice = baby murder

or they are social liberals
Pro-life = obstructing rights for women
Pro-choice = reproductive liberty and privacy

We have been discussing real issues here. But in the campaign people only want to know whether you are pro-life or pro-choice so they can decide when to stop listening to you. If you have to explain your issues too much then you are already losing the race. It is a complicated issue but you have to be definitive. Its a catch 22... damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Dubaruba
12-17-2007, 02:06 AM
I didn't really mean for this thread to debate the issue of abortion itself, but rather what to do about the infomercial...whether to promote it or let it just be in iowa. I mean, if the infomercial is the big secret project, then I think we should focus our attention on other things and forget about it.

I'm 38 and pro choice, but I agree with Ron Paul that the issue should be left up to the states. I also live in Seattle, and most of my friends are pro choice libertarians or democrats. When I first saw that there was a 30 minute infomercial I immediately posted it to my Facebook page. After watching the first 3 minutes, I immediately took it down. That segment may win him votes in iowa, but it will scare away many of his supporters here in Washington, and there are a lot of us.

This is not something I want the many people i have converted to the cause to ever see.

Matt

justinc.1089
12-17-2007, 02:08 AM
A blob of cells as you say is not a baby yet since it is still mainly cells, but it is a human life no less. And I think it should be protected. If you look at it from a biological point of view, life begins when the cells for a new organism first begin forming, and that is the point where it is a new life, and at that point killing it is murder. Thats my logic, now please all I'm asking is to understand the logic from the other side, I'm not trying to flame anyone, I swear.

And I'm sorry if you guys disagree with me supporting a constitutional amendment defining life as starting at conception. We know we have the right to life, and I see life as starting at conception, and since that definition has been questioned I think it needs to be stated in our constitution where life begins because I think it is of extreme importance to defend the life of unborn babies, and cells too because they are equally human life and will shortly be a baby. The main reason you have to recognize cells as human life in my opinion is that there is just no way to define a point where at one time or size or whatever the cells are still cells, and at what point they are now a baby.

I'm honestly not looking for an argument, if I was I would say the other side is wrong, and why my side is right. I am looking for the logic behind the other side because no one has ever explained it to me, and I absolutely don't understand where people come from on the other side of this debate. It puzzles me, and I'm just asking if someone wouldn't mind explaining your point of view to me, that would be nice.

Craig_R
12-17-2007, 02:13 AM
hot topics maybe

JesseCRX
12-17-2007, 02:17 AM
I dont think it's a good thing to start on because of the internet. It can be a double edged sword for him in the not so red states.

As for Ron Paul on the issue...

This is the entire abortion argument IMHO.

Pro-choicers say that when the baby is still in the mother it does not have any rights and making abortion illegal is taking AWAY the rights of the mother.

Pro-lifer's say that a baby DOES have rights and that killing it is actually taking away IT's right to live.

So from Ron Paul's point of view abortion IS a denial of Liberty and he is standing behind it just like he stands behind ever issue and that's that he is a protector of Constitutional rights (including those of unborn babies) 100%.

Regardless if you are pro-choice or not Ron Paul made a very good point regarding the matter that I have never really heard before:

People like to claim that before a baby is born it's not really a person and doesn't have any rights so if you kill it before it's born then that's your decision and there should be no consequence for your actions.

However, if a doctor screws up and causes your baby to die before birth he is held COMPLETELY responsible for killing the child. If a woman is murdered while pregnant you are charged with TWO counts of homicide.

Why is that if it's YOUR choice to abort that suddenly a baby isn't a baby any more and is just a bunch of cells but when you actually WANT to have it those "lump of cells" magically become important?

I'd like to see someone take a woman that earlier in her life had an abortion but now is pregnant again and wishes to keep the child. I'd love to see her response if the doctor came in and told her "Oh I'm sorry to tell you this but that medicine I gave you earlier today accidentally killed your baby. I see you've had an abortion before though so I'm glad to know it won't really bother you. Good luck next time."

If killing a child while it is inside you is truly ok then there should be NO difference in feeling regardless if you wanted to have it or not. Since this is NOT the case there is obviously something very wrong with doing so.

If it's just a bunch of unimportant cells I'd like to see a mother that just aborted her child actually have to look at the remains of the child dead in the bowl and then be forced to carry those remains herself to the place in which they are disposed/incinerated.

If a girl could do that without breaking down and crying then you might could convince me abortion is ok. Until then...meh

Here is a good vid of Dr Paul discussing the issue in depth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

adwads
12-17-2007, 02:19 AM
This is basically the Ben Stein argument, that because a mom thinks the baby is baby inside her womb, that that makes abortion bad. (I heard ben stein say this in a speech). I'm not convinced, but I understand the argument.


I dont think it's a good thing to start on because of the internet. It can be a double edged sword for him in the not so red states.

As for Ron Paul on the issue...

This is the entire abortion argument IMHO.

Pro-choicers say that when the baby is still in the mother it does not have any rights and making abortion illegal is taking AWAY the rights of the mother.

Pro-lifer's say that a baby DOES have rights and that killing it is actually taking away IT's right to live.

So from Ron Paul's point of view abortion IS a denial of Liberty and he is standing behind it just like he stands behind ever issue and that's that he is a protector of Constitutional rights (including those of unborn babies) 100%.

Regardless if you are pro-choice or not Ron Paul made a very good point regarding the matter that I have never really heard before:

People like to claim that before a baby is born it's not really a person and doesn't have any rights so if you kill it before it's born then that's your decision and there should be no consequence for your actions.

However, if a doctor screws up and causes your baby to die before birth he is held COMPLETELY responsible for killing the child. If a woman is murdered while pregnant you are charged with TWO counts of homicide.

Why is that if it's YOUR choice to abort that suddenly a baby isn't a baby any more and is just a bunch of cells but when you actually WANT to have it those "lump of cells" magically become important?

I'd like to see someone take a woman that earlier in her life had an abortion but now is pregnant again and wishes to keep the child. I'd love to see her response if the doctor came in and told her "Oh I'm sorry to tell you this but that medicine I gave you earlier today accidentally killed your baby. I see you've had an abortion before though so I'm glad to know it won't really bother you. Good luck next time."

If killing a child while it is inside you is truly ok then there should be NO difference in feeling regardless if you wanted to have it or not. Since this is NOT the case there is obviously something very wrong with doing so.

If it's just a bunch of unimportant cells I'd like to see a mother that just aborted her child actually have to look at the remains of the child dead in the bowl and then be forced to carry those remains herself to the place in which they are disposed/incinerated.

If a girl could do that without breaking down and crying then you might could convince me abortion is ok. Until then...meh

Here is a good vid of Dr Paul discussing the issue in depth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

JesseCRX
12-17-2007, 02:25 AM
This is basically the Ben Stein argument, that because a mom thinks the baby is baby inside her womb, that that makes abortion bad. (I heard ben stein say this in a speech). I'm not convinced, but I understand the argument.

Oh I'm not try to convince anyone. I am just trying to make a point. And who is this Ben Stein character?

I'm gonna go watch Ferris Beuller's Day Off ...be back in a bit ;)

No but seriously, I've never heard Ben talk about abortion. I just remember his game show.:confused:

mokkan88
12-17-2007, 02:27 AM
Ron Paul's stance is essentially that subjective issues should not be left up for the government to decide, especially on a federal level. He would argue, however, that abortion is not subjective because it is not an argument of women's rights rather than an argument of how life is defined.

Biologically speaking, life is described as anything that undergoes metabolic processes. From the moment of conception, metabolic processes have begun. So I think Dr. Paul could be very effective in arguing that life begins at conception.

justinc.1089
12-17-2007, 02:31 AM
Ok I know that pro-abortion people think babies don't have rights, but why? Just looking at it from a biological point of view the only sensible and logical points to say life begins at are conception and birth, and birth seems like a dumb point to choose to me, although I know a pro-choice person that does think that is where life begins, so I can understand their argument if they believe that, but most pro-choice people don't take that stance. I don't understaaaaand......:confused:

adwads
12-17-2007, 02:38 AM
Ok I know that pro-abortion people think babies don't have rights, but why? Just looking at it from a biological point of view the only sensible and logical points to say life begins at are conception and birth, and birth seems like a dumb point to choose to me, although I know a pro-choice person that does think that is where life begins, so I can understand their argument if they believe that, but most pro-choice people don't take that stance. I don't understaaaaand......:confused:

If we just look at the first trimester, it's definetly a life or part of the life of the mom, but its not a baby yet like the kind of snuggly smiling babies you see in cribs, so its different.

The whole thing is, if a woman doesn't want to carry a baby to term, should she have the right to choose not to?

jabrownie
12-17-2007, 02:45 AM
This has nothing to do with abortion being good or bad.....we shouldn't be debating that here, it's needlessly devisive, and it's not related to the question at hand.

Here, the question is, should the federal government legislate abortion or leave it to each individual state to decide what position along the spectrum best represents the views of those living in their particular state.

If you say that the state should decide, than whatever Dr. Paul personally believes about it being good or bad really doesn't matter, because he wouldn't be deciding anything further on the issue; the states would be.

adwads
12-17-2007, 02:48 AM
This has nothing to do with abortion being good or bad.....we shouldn't be debating that here, it's needlessly devisive, and it's not related to the question at hand.

Here, the question is, should the federal government legislate abortion or leave it to each individual state to decide what position along the spectrum best represents the views of those living in their particular state.

If you say that the state should decide, than whatever Dr. Paul personally believes about it being good or bad really doesn't matter, because he wouldn't be deciding anything further on the issue; the states would be.

Okay, then why did the campaign put out an infomercial that makes it seem like Dr. Paul is pro-life and didn't mention the states rights aspect of it? They are trying to make Paul look like Huckabee on the abortion issue. I don't like that. I don't like the infomercial for that reason.

jorlowitz
12-17-2007, 03:10 AM
Oh I'm not try to convince anyone. I am just trying to make a point. And who is this Ben Stein character?

I'm gonna go watch Ferris Beuller's Day Off ...be back in a bit ;)

Ben Stein: Fetus?... Fetus?


(sorry)