View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (01-22-08)

01-22-2008, 02:23 PM

Ron Paul Roundup (01-22-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=350076075&Mytoken=80CE7E6F-8AEA-493A-ACC0321398DC49599071632)

Hello Freedomphiles! So, yesterday was the big Free at Last money bomb. How'd it do? Lew Rockwell himself reported (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018808.html) the results:

Only one candidate was able to raise significant money in honor of an opponent of aggressive war, militarism, and empire: Ron Paul on MLK Day. The total was $1.9 million.

A lot of people are calling the money bomb a failure, just because it didn't beat the record-setting day that brought in over $6 million. So what? That's almost $2 million dollars Ron Paul has today that he didn't have this time yesterday. And don't forget, the goal was to have people donate $10, not $100 this time. I totally see this as a success.

Right-libertarian John Armstrong writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1348.html) on The Nolan Chart that there may be a method to the madness of Ron Paul:

You see, Rudy is set to explode now because that is exactly what he planned to do from the beginning. Other than self-funded Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, all of the other candidates are broke. Rudy has been waiting. Paul's supporters have been critical of his thrifty spending in early primary states on sub-par (but improving) advertising. What they didn't see is that Ron Paul actually had a real strategy to go the distance. I include myself in the category of being critical or this approach due to my initial failure to recognize this strategy. We all wanted to shock the world in Iowa and New Hampshire. It didn't happen. I didn't realize what was going on until after Nevada. It seems that many of Ron Paul's supporters still don't.

As many MSM articles have stated, the primaries so far have done more to make the GOP nomination picture cloudy than they have to establish a leader. In 2000, the nomination was all but guaranteed when Bush won South Carolina. This year, McCain won South Carolina with a paltry 33% and far fewer votes than he received in the same state eight years ago. Even the pundits who tout polls showing McCain as the only Republican who can beat Hillary aren't ready to fully get behind him yet. And the longer they wait to pick their man, the better Ron Paul's chances get.

Super Duper Tuesday will mean a lot; in fact, it will mean more than it ever has. And very few candidates will be able to advertise in all (or even most) of the states. The media couldn't keep Ron Paul from finishing second in Nevada even on the heels of the racist smearing attempt. Unfortunately and fortunately, it was his advertising and lack of advertising by his opponents rather than his message that made the difference. In states where the advertising of other candidates and influence of the media met, Paul failed to reach the top 3 (if you are one of the 258 Iowa Ron Paul supporters who didn't vote and prevented a top three from happening there, which would have changed everything, go donate the maximum amount to the campaign now to pay your penance). But in the one state (excluding closed-primary Wyoming) where the other candidates didn't advertise, Ron Paul finished SECOND behind the candidate who spent more. The moral of the story is that now more than ever, Ron Paul needs your support so that he can advertise and finish strong in the states on Super Tuesday where the other candidates don't have the money to compete.

It's an interesting theory, to be sure. But it also presupposes a preturnatural ability for Ron Paul to have divined early on that a Republican frontrunner would not be annointed by South Carolina, which goes against decades of precedent.

That said, I don't care if it was a Machiavellian scheme or a happy accident, this is definitely the strategy Dr Paul should be following right now.

Peter Glaskowsky wrote (http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13512_1-9854519-23.html) on C-Net about the other reason for the money bomb:

I've written here about a couple of previous "money bombs" organized by independent Ron Paul supporters-- one commemorating Guy Fawkes Night (and, oddly, the movie V for Vendetta) and another celebrating the Boston Tea Party.

There's another one scheduled for today, but it has a purpose beyond mere money-raising. As Rep. Paul has been gaining ground in the polls and primaries, opponents have revived old charges of racism based on newsletters written in his name back in 1992. The statements in the newsletters were pretty bad, but Paul didn't write them and has apologized for them repeatedly.

Speaking of Newlettergate, libertarian writer and activist James W Harris, editor of The Advocates for Self-Government's (http://www.theadvocates.org/) Liberator Online, comes to Dr Paul's defense. This op-ed (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/49862)is so spot-on, I would like to reprint the entire thing. But then I'd probably be sued, so I'll hit the highlights:

In a campaign of sleazy, flip-flopping presidential candidates loaded down with ugly personal and political baggage, Paul has been a shining exception. A ten-term congressman of incredibly consistent views, praised by ideological friends and foes alike for his character, integrity and friendliness. A devout Christian reluctant to inject public declarations of his faith into politics; a devoted family man, married to his high school sweetheart for over fifty years. A doctor who has delivered literally thousands of babies and provided pro bono medical care for the poor; a student who paid for his first year at college by delivering newspapers, selling lemonade, and mowing lawns. No skeletons, no scandals. A squeaky-clean straight-talking Mr. Paul Goes To Washington...

...While I strongly believe that Paul did not write the newsletter material quoted in the TNR article, for reasons I will discuss below, it should nonetheless be noted that a good bit of what TNR holds up as oh-my-God!-shocking actually is... not. For example, criticism of Israeli policies, or concern about the influence of the Israeli lobby upon U.S. foreign policy, is not anti-Semitic. Nor is opposition to foreign aid to Israel, especially in the context of Paul´s opposition to all foreign aid....

....Similarly, attacking The New Republic for failing to defend the free speech rights of Holocaust revisionists (as one 1989 newsletter did) is not, of course, an endorsement of the revisionists´ views; it is the proper stance of First Amendment absolutists like Paul.

TNR claims one article "had kind words" for Klan nutball David Duke. Upon actually reading it, however, one finds no "kind words" for Duke (though the short article is somewhat obnoxious). Rather, the article -- written immediately after Duke´s shocking 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary -- examines Duke´s strategy of building a populist movement against high taxes, big government, and welfare, as a possible model for other candidates without Duke´s nasty background and racist views. Tellingly, TNR fails to quote a later newsletter at their site that denounces Duke as "an adherent of the violent philosophy of the KKK" and wonders why the media spends so much time attacking the politically impotent Duke and tiny bands of skinheads instead of going after the likes of Oliver North "who has done much more damage to America than a few scattered fascists." TNR, in full smear mode, ignores such nuances.

To point out such misrepresentations and exaggerations -- and there is much more -- is not mere nitpicking, nor is it an attempt to excuse the genuinely vile stuff that TNR has uncovered. It is important because TNR pads the article with such material to back up its claim that the newsletters show "decades worth of obsession with conspiracies ... and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays." However, all the nasty, damning quotes TNR gives -- the legitimate meat of their article -- appeared sporadically over a narrow, specific time-period: about fifteen issues from very late 1989 to 1993 -- about three years, not "decades." (Comments sympathetic to the militia movement, none bigoted, appear in a couple of 1994 and 1995 issues.)

And this, as we shall see, fits in well with Paul´s claim that he did not write the newsletters or oversee their content....

....It is important to put even this trash in some context. They are mostly short pieces and do not seem to be the focus of the newsletters (with the exception of one ugly "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism"), and even the worst do not make anything remotely like white supremacist arguments, or call for repressive government action against minorities.

But they are loathsome. They engage in nasty baiting and stereotyping of blacks and gays. They are unquestionably ugly and bigoted, deliberately crafted to pander to racists, homophobes and nuts. This core of writings is utterly indefensible.

People are right to be alarmed when confronted with them, as they should be about any similar statements from a presidential candidate´s past. No candidate who uttered or believed such things would be worthy of support....

....Similarly, in early 2007, New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell wrote that Paul had disowned the comments "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own..."

Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan, who had endorsed Paul prior to the TNR article, calls the material "ugly, vile, despicable tracts," but notes: "I've listened to him speak a great deal these past few months and either he has had a personality transplant or he didn't write this."

They are correct. The offensive newsletter articles are indeed wildly, ludicrously, grotesquely out of synch with Paul's lifetime writing style, voting record, public statements, and personal conduct. They are, to those who are familiar with him and his record, very clearly not his own. Few if any in the mainstream media believe he actually wrote them.

Even the TNR article doesn´t seriously argue they are his words. According to Berin M. Szoka of Gays and Lesbians for Ron Paul, a few weeks before the TNR hit piece was published, the author, Jamie Kirchick, emailed Szoka: "I don´t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I´m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up...."

....No one has EVER heard Ron Paul, in ten congressional terms, two presidential races, and endless public speeches, interviews and appearances, utter one racist or bigoted comment.

In decades of public service and a very public life, there are no damning video or audio clips, no damning quotes, absolutely nothing -- except this small, very specific handful of quotes from these newsletters. Zero. Nothing else. The newsletters are extreme anomalies. Not only do they not sound like him -- they are obviously extraordinarily inconsistent with the man´s entire life and worldview....

....In 1993, when the worst of the newsletters were being published, Ron Paul very publicly endorsed the Virginia General Assembly campaign of Rick Sincere, an openly gay Libertarian. Says Sincere: "Ron Paul issued a letter on my behalf, soliciting funds from libertarians and votes from constituents. ... Dr. Paul (then a former congressman) was aware I was running as an openly-gay candidate and he raised no questions, concerns, or objections. I hardly think a homophobic bigot would have sent out a fundraising letter over his own signature, endorsing (as the Washington Times stylebook would have it) an ´avowed homosexual´ for public office."

In Congress, on April 20, 1999, Paul declared: "I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks, who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies."

Again in Congress, on Jan 17, 2007, he praised Mohammed Ali as "a man of great courage... he practiced what Martin Luther King made popular, civil disobedience, because he disagreed with the [Vietnam] war... what Muhammad Ali did eventually led to getting rid of the draft... I see what Muhammad Ali did as being very great."

These are unlikely words, and unlikely heroes, for a bigot....

....I will continue to support Ron Paul. First and foremost, because I very strongly believe that the fifteen-year-old newsletter garbage is not his words or his beliefs.

Second, because he is the only candidate who has the wisdom and courage to denounce American imperialism, to ferociously defend the civil rights of all Americans, to call for the restoration of the Bill of Rights, to oppose the wretched War on Drugs, and to take other bold pro-freedom positions. He is the only voice for liberty in this presidential race on many, many vital issues. He and he alone is the candidate of peace, non-intervention, and limited government. And Ron Paul has inspired a thrilling, utterly unforeseen, mass grassroots movement fired with enthusiasm for these grand ideals.

Third, because the other candidates are supporting POLICIES that are infinitely worse than the worst words in those old newsletters published under his name. Criminal wars that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents and may at any moment metastasize into global and nuclear devastation. Security measures and laws that threaten to turn America into a full-fledged police state. A vile foreign policy that has soiled America's name. Economic policies that subsidize wealthy corporations while robbing hardworking ordinary Americans. A federal death penalty that disproportionately affects the poor and minorities.

Indeed. Believe it or not, this is really only part of the article, so go check it out. Well worth the read, and proves yet again that the people at The Advocates for Self-Government are some of the best liberty advocates in the world.

Now, moving on, in the "Oh, Snap!" department, click this link (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/index.html)to see that The New York Times has replaced Rudy "Benito" Guiliani on their election guide.

Centrist-Libertarian Scott from Oregon writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1351.html), in my estimation, the exact opposite of good advice on The Nolan Chart:

"The Big Ironic Fatty" can be used as a springboard for some very creative thinking. Rather than take the cash collected from earnest Ron Paul supporters and hand it over to the media to get a few commercials out, why not be far more creative? Why not boycott all media and declare that you are doing so, because the media is trying to make the choices for the American people? Instead of standing on a corner holding a Ron Paul sign, why not stand on a corner and declare that even the media is afraid of the Constitution? Rather than just a Ron Paul for Presidency movement, why not expand the movement to include the media (who can easily be shown to be trying to steer the election with verifiable and well documented facts)?

Instead of traditional ads run on traditional televison, why not another blimp, this one proclaiming that the media is trying to be the next "Decider", and if you care about America, you will find out why they don't want Ron Paul's message out?

Why not a cross country parade?

Why not fifty parachuters with Ron Paul parachutes landing on the roof of Graceland? Why not, I say. Why the heck not?

Traditional politicking by one already scorned by the insiders, will produce traditional results.

The American people love a spectacle. They love an underdog. They love it when you can make them think and giggle at the same time.

Yes, but when the giggling is accompanied by pointing and head-shaking, it is counter-productive. Look, everyone enjoys the spectacle and amusement of an Al Sharpton candidacy, but they don't take it seriously.

The Washington Post is writing (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/21/paul_campaign_buoyed_by_nevada_1.html) about Ron Paul's success in Nevada and the lift it may give the campaign:

Riding high off Rep. Ron Paul's best finish thus far in the Republican campaign, a second-place result Saturday in Nevada, Paul backers launched the latest in a series of "money-bombs" designed to swell the Texas congressman's campaign account...

"...If you look at the raw vote totals so far, we're about tied with Fred Thompson, and we have more than doubled Rudy Giuliani's," Benton noted.

Paul has also finished ahead of Giuliani in four of the six states so far -- Iowa, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina.

Paul also benefited in Nevada from volunteers who organized on the Web and took time off from work to help out with door-to-door canvassing, such as Vijay Boyapati. Boyapati left his engineering job at Google to help campaign for Paul. He moved to New Hampshire last fall, weeks before the primary, then relocated to Nevada a few days before the state's caucuses, renting a few houses where 20 volunteers camped out.

Greg Albert of American Chronicle thinks (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/49846) that when it comes to the western states, Nevada is only the tip of the iceberg for Ron Paul - if only he follows some advice, which is better advice than given by Scott from Oregon:

I would tell Ron Paul to spend every remaining dollar on three types of "Take Back the GOP" advertisements. The first would highlight the historical greatness of the Republican Party and contrast it with the current Party: "We can be great again if we stop pushing people around and start pushing the government around".

The second advertisement would make a case for a "conservative withdrawal" from Iraq. There is no question that Paul wants to leave Iraq for fiscally conservative reasons and there is no question that we need to. Perhaps the problem is that so many Republicans want to remain in Iraq out of pride or a fear of terrorism. Ron Paul must give them the strength to finish what they started and to do it on conservative terms: "Other candidates would have you believe that we need protection from the dark forces of terrorism, but we don't need the state's 'protection' after all, we're Republicans."

The third advertisement would highlight Paul's unwavering integrity and dedication to the Republican principle of Constitutionalism. What more could Republicans ask for in this painful episode in the Party's history than a tested leader who can resist the temptations of power? "He will always run the country always with the taxpayer's interests at heart", the advertisements should state. This way he will rise above the petty squabbling of his opponents and advance the messages they overlook: liberty, honesty, and governmental transparency. On that note: most Paul supporters can trace their support back to a Youtube video with these several lines:

- Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes.

- Ron Paul has never taken money from lobbyists

- Ron Paul has never voted to spend Social Security

- Ron Paul refuses to participate in the lucrative congressional pension plan so long your Social Security is owned by the Chinese (and even his wife wants him to give that up ).

Top of the diamond libertarian AJ Antimony writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1353.html) on The Nolan Chart that there is no rEVOLution, and it's your fault. Yes, you there, with the cheese doodles and the Star Wars Christmas Special t-shirt:

It's a troubling thought, but we can't avoid it. There is absolutely no revolution of any kind going on in this country. And we all know why. It's because too few people are hearing about Ron Paul's radical message of true freedom and personal liberties. And why is this? It's because of the mainstream television media and its continual censorship of the most qualified Presidential candidate.

It's very easy to point the finger at the MSM (you decide which finger), but do they deserve all of the blame for the small exposure of Dr. Paul's message? I think there's someone out there who ultimately should get more blame for this than any news network.

That person is you.

Jerry White and Jeff Lincoln write (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/paul-j22.shtml) on The World Socialist Website a piece about the left's fascination with Ron Paul:

The struggle against war cannot be successful by appealing to the powers-that-be. This war and the explosion of American militarism in general is not just the product of the circle of neo-conservatives in the White House but is deeply rooted in objective economic and historical conditions, above all the decline in the global position of American capitalism. There is a general consensus in both political parties that military power be used to reassert US hegemony over America's economic rivals by seizing control of the strategic energy resources of the Middle East and Central Asia.

The only means of putting an end to war, therefore, is by putting an end to the capitalist system that produces it. Far from opposing the economic and political domination of America's ruling elite, Ron Paul is one of its most vociferous defenders of the capitalist system, saying, that the "rights of all private property owners" are the key to "maintain a free society."

Paul's criticisms of the Iraq War and the Bush administration are entirely tactical and stem from his ultra-nationalist and isolationist outlook, not any principled opposition to American imperialism.

Aside from the fact that it is amusing to read an extremist website refer to anyone else as too extreme, their understanding of the politics and principles of Ron Paul is woefully inadequate. If anyone gave a crap about what they had to say about anything, I'd probably try to refute it.

Donald Luskin writes (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Q5MDM2NzZkNzU5ZDEwYTI3ODg5YjY2YWZlMjFkYTc=) over at National Review Online that Paul's economic views need to be heard:

On the economics front, Paul is a delightful paradox. If you crack the nut shell and look objectively at what Paul is really advocating, conservatives will find that Paulonomics looks an awful lot like Reaganomics. Paulonomics emerges as a refreshing return to conservative roots: small government, low taxes, deregulation, and sound money. If Paulonomics seems nutty, that may say more about the sad state of events today, with "big government conservatism" having become the new touchstone.

The core concept of Paulonomics is the reduction in the size and cost of the federal government. Irking many of today's conservatives, Paul emphasizes how this should include scaling back what he calls American "militarism," beginning with a pullout of Iraq.

But embracing a more classic fiscal conservatism, Paul would outright eliminate what he believes are wasteful and counterproductive federal programs, such as the departments of Education and Energy. Nutty? Most Republicans wouldn't dare talk about eliminating the Department of Education in the age of "No Child Left Behind." But Paul reminded me in a recent interview that it wasn't so many election cycles ago that scrapping this department was an official plank of the GOP platform.

And if you mean it about cutting the cost of government, you've got to after the big-ticket items. As to the biggest-ticket items of all, Paul would decommission Social Security and Medicare by honoring obligations to those who are utterly dependent, but letting young people opt out of both systems entirely. Nutty? Let's be honest: Most conservatives want to do exactly this, but are afraid to say so in a political environment where even mandatory personal accounts are vilified as a "risky scheme," as Al Gore famously put it.

With all that and more gone from the federal budget, it's not so nutty for Paul to talk about eliminating the individual income tax and the intrusive bureaucracy that administers it. Paul points out that today's level of federal tax revenues, without the income tax, is sufficient to meet all the government's expenses as they stood not so many years ago. The problem is that the size, scope, and cost of government has grown so much. Would it be such a nutty trade-off to roll back the clock on government expenditures if it meant eliminating income taxes for all Americans?

Paul deplores the federal deficit, but insists the only way "to solve that problem is to cut spending, not to raise taxes — or to not lower taxes when you get a chance." As a first step he advocates the elimination of all taxes on capital — estates, capital gains, interest income, and dividends. He told me, "It's capital that you need to make capitalism work." He says the idea that most excites young voters is his proposal to eliminate income taxes on tips: "It's a big deal if you're a family struggling and if a second member of the family is working and trying to pay the bills." Nothing nutty about any of that.

There is nothing with which to find fault in there, except the minor quibble that this is not "Paulonimics." This is "economics." Divorced from class-envy, statism, and central-planning, this is what is left - what works.

David Weigel reports (http://reason.com/blog/show/124542.html) over at Reason that Ron Paul was just endorsed by Norma McCorvey, aka "Jane Roe:"

Paul took questions from a tiny audience of press and local supporters after elucidating his abortion views. Roe was wrongly decided; federal courts need to be taken out of the loop on abortion law to let states make their own laws. A constitutional amendment would be "a tedious solution; it takes a long time." Pro-lifers need to make this possible, in public opinion, before lawmakers move. "The ultimate test of the right to life movement is how we change attitudes on this."

McCorvey was frustrated at the lack of attention her original Reno endorsement got, but she was lighthearted today. "When you're president," she asked Paul, "can I stay over at the White House?"

"Anytime," Paul said. The supporters in the back of the room cracked up.

"I'll take the Lincoln Bedroom," said McCorvey.

And, what with all the time he spends on the Cosmotarian Conspiracy to destroy Ron Paul, I was surprised to find Wiegel also had the time to illustrate (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124546.html) Ron Paul's consistency and integrity on the issue:

I listened to the tape from earlier this morning to check how this exchange went. After Paul credited Norma McColvey for changing her mind on abortion, a reporter from the Dallas Morning News asked, "Do you feel that Mitt Romney showed the same courage in coming to the pro-life cause?" Paul:

I can't read into anyone's mind and heart but what he said is very similar. If we take him at his word, that is absolutely the case. I don't think I'd put it at the same level of what Norma's had to go through, but no, he says that he has had a changed attitude, and some people have challenged him on his sincerety, but I do not. I'm going to take his word for it unless something changes.

That's a pretty sound endorsement of Romney's argument, that he is a credible pro-life politician because he was once pro-choice.

I'm not pro-life, per se, but I also respect Ron Paul's consistency. Finally, if you are a libertarian, chances are you have heard of former New Mexico Gov. Gary "Veto" Johnson, who Reason Magazine ironically named America's Most Dangerous Politician (http://www.reason.com/news/show/27909.html) back in 2001. Well, according to the Ron Paul campaign, he has now endorsed (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/155/former-new-mexico-governor-gary-johnson-endorses-ron-paul) our man:

I am endorsing Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President because of his commitment to less government, greater liberty, and lasting prosperity for America. We are at a point in this country where we need to reduce our dependency on government and regain control of our future. To this end, Ron Paul will bring back troops, end the War in Iraq, and will strengthen the U.S. dollar and the economy. For these reasons and more, Ron Paul has my support, respect, and vote.

See you tomorrow!


01-22-2008, 03:16 PM
Wohoo. Good news at last.

Can I ask why you are not pro-life per se?

I myself am pro-self responsebility. It really is the only libertarian answer.

This is the way I see it.

If pro-choise wins. Abortion factorys. Lack of respect for human life. Abortion rates go up. Fed's begin to pay for it.

If pro-life wins. Black market abortions. Bad for women who will do it. Unsafe and unclean.

Pro-self responsebility. What is the purpose of sex? To REPRODUCE. Don't want that risk? Don't have sex or use protection and be prepared to face the consequences. DUH!

01-22-2008, 03:22 PM
Donald Luskin's excellent piece at NRO had a headline saying that, of course, Ron Paul cannot win. Mr. Luskin responds to Andrew Borzone: "My editor wrote that headline without my knowledge or consent."


01-22-2008, 03:34 PM

01-22-2008, 04:38 PM
Wohoo. Good news at last.

Can I ask why you are not pro-life per se?

I myself am pro-self responsebility. It really is the only libertarian answer.

This is the way I see it.

If pro-choise wins. Abortion factorys. Lack of respect for human life. Abortion rates go up. Fed's begin to pay for it.

If pro-life wins. Black market abortions. Bad for women who will do it. Unsafe and unclean.

Pro-self responsebility. What is the purpose of sex? To REPRODUCE. Don't want that risk? Don't have sex or use protection and be prepared to face the consequences. DUH!

Well, I don't think anyone should have an abortion ever. But I also don't think the government should prevent it. I think it's a matter of competing rights - the right to life of the child - and the right to not have another entity remain unbidden in the mother's womb.

I don't think mothers have the right to kill their pre-term babies. I definitely think they have the right to REMOVE them, though. If the child cannot live outside the womb, it is up to medical science to improve its chances. If it can, the mother has no right to kill it. It should be removed and put up for adoption, instead.

- Rick

01-22-2008, 06:29 PM
Well, I don't think anyone should have an abortion ever. But I also don't think the government should prevent it. I think it's a matter of competing rights - the right to life of the child - and the right to not have another entity remain unbidden in the mother's womb.

I don't think mothers have the right to kill their pre-term babies. I definitely think they have the right to REMOVE them, though. If the child cannot live outside the womb, it is up to medical science to improve its chances. If it can, the mother has no right to kill it. It should be removed and put up for adoption, instead.

- Rick

If science ever gets there. That is why I don't move on either side of the issue.