• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ron Paul - Anti-gay, anti-women, abortion is murder.

J

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Say something enough times and people believe it. But Ron Paul doesn't vote as he says.

How many times has Ron Paul said the federal government should stay out of marriage? YET Congress is in essence the government for Washington DC, and Ron Paul voted that as a federal order gays are banned from adopting children.

WORTH REPEATING: Ron Paul voted to ban gays from adopting children.

How's that for non-federal intervention? The federal government will ban you from adopting children?

Ron Paul supports "Don't ask, Don't tell," meaning known gays removed from the military. In his logic was some drivel about how rights come from "the Creator" and then rambles of in his opposition to separation of church-and-state.

Although Ron Paul raged against Rowe V Wade claiming the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion for decades, he turned around and sponsored legislation to outlaw abortions and now - seeking the Republican nomination - declares that life begins at conception and that any state that wants to outlaw ALL abortions may do so.

Ron Paul claims that abortion is CRIMINAL MURDER and wants citizenship rights to BEGIN AT CONCEPTION.

The reason he has that view is because the government staying out of people's lives doesn't apply to women. Or gays. When it comes to children. If you're gay, he says the government SHALL ban you from children and if you are a woman you are banned from not having children. The most radical of all when it comes to government control over having - or not - children. This, in his view, is singularly the government's decision based upon his religious beliefs, that he wants and attempts over and again to make federal law in any way possible. On this, Ron Paul is the ultimate government control freak. Total government power. Over being a parent or not.

Why does anyone like Ron Paul? - Ashley F. Miller - Open Salon

Why does anyone like Ron Paul? - Ashley F. Miller - Open Salon

Despite the fact that he thinks the education department should be dismantled, he also thinks that public funds should pay for private Christian educations and supports a constitutional amendment in favor of school prayer. Again, not a libertarian stance at all. So while he claims the government spends too much, he thinks that paying the expenses of Christian schools should be by the government.

Not Jewish Schools. Not Muslim or Buddhist schools. Christian schools.
He has a somewhat complex view on abortion in that he, like murder, should be tried and controlled at the state level, not the federal one. That said, he has voted repeatedly for national bills that promote the pro-life cause and introduced a bill that would say that life begins at conception.

This conveys all legal and citizenship rights to the fetus. Thus, an abortion would be premediated first degree murder in his view, though he wants states to prosecution. In many, that means the death penalty. It also means there could be NO exceptions allowing abortion including rape or the life of the mother as the fetus has equal full legal and citizen rights.

He voted not to authorize embryonic stem cell research multiple times.

He has a 0% by NARAL, meaning he votes 100% against abortion rights.

He voted yes on the Stupak Amendment to prevent health insurance companies from offering abortion coverage.

Voted to prevent funding from going to schools that make the morning after pill available and to provide funding for abstinence only education.

He cosponsored a bill to take funds from a needy family benefit program to go to support non-governmental groups that counsel people not to have abortions.

Again, how is this not federal interference? What is Libertarian about any of that? Where is constraint on the federal government? The right of individuals to decide rather than government?
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Say something enough times and people believe it. But Ron Paul doesn't vote as he says.

How many times has Ron Paul said the federal government should stay out of marriage? YET Congress is in essence the government for Washington DC, and Ron Paul voted that as a federal order gays are banned from adopting children.

WORTH REPEATING: Ron Paul voted to ban gays from adopting children.

How's that for non-federal intervention? The federal government will ban you from adopting children?

Ron Paul supports "Don't ask, Don't tell," meaning known gays removed from the military. In his logic was some drivel about how rights come from "the Creator" and then rambles of in his opposition to separation of church-and-state.

Although Ron Paul raged against Rowe V Wade claiming the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion for decades, he turned around and sponsored legislation to outlaw abortions and now - seeking the Republican nomination - declares that life begins at conception and that any state that wants to outlaw ALL abortions may do so.

Ron Paul claims that abortion is CRIMINAL MURDER and wants citizenship rights to BEGIN AT CONCEPTION.

The reason he has that view is because the government staying out of people's lives doesn't apply to women. Or gays. When it comes to children. If you're gay, he says the government SHALL ban you from children and if you are a woman you are banned from not having children. The most radical of all when it comes to government control over having - or not - children. This, in his view, is singularly the government's decision based upon his religious beliefs, that he wants and attempts over and again to make federal law in any way possible. On this, Ron Paul is the ultimate government control freak. Total government power. Over being a parent or not.

Why does anyone like Ron Paul? - Ashley F. Miller - Open Salon

Why does anyone like Ron Paul? - Ashley F. Miller - Open Salon

Despite the fact that he thinks the education department should be dismantled, he also thinks that public funds should pay for private Christian educations and supports a constitutional amendment in favor of school prayer. Again, not a libertarian stance at all. So while he claims the government spends too much, he thinks that paying the expenses of Christian schools should be by the government.

Not Jewish Schools. Not Muslim or Buddhist schools. Christian schools.
He has a somewhat complex view on abortion in that he, like murder, should be tried and controlled at the state level, not the federal one. That said, he has voted repeatedly for national bills that promote the pro-life cause and introduced a bill that would say that life begins at conception.

This conveys all legal and citizenship rights to the fetus. Thus, an abortion would be premediated first degree murder in his view, though he wants states to prosecution. In many, that means the death penalty. It also means there could be NO exceptions allowing abortion including rape or the life of the mother as the fetus has equal full legal and citizen rights.

He voted not to authorize embryonic stem cell research multiple times.

He has a 0% by NARAL, meaning he votes 100% against abortion rights.

He voted yes on the Stupak Amendment to prevent health insurance companies from offering abortion coverage.

Voted to prevent funding from going to schools that make the morning after pill available and to provide funding for abstinence only education.

He cosponsored a bill to take funds from a needy family benefit program to go to support non-governmental groups that counsel people not to have abortions.

Again, how is this not federal interference? What is Libertarian about any of that? Where is constraint on the federal government? The right of individuals to decide rather than government?
Click to expand...
the swiftboating of ron paul has begun.
 
Truth is the strongest adversary of many a candidate.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
the swiftboating of ron paul has begun.
Click to expand...

Begun? Joko's been doing this for a month at least if not longer. His hatred and spin against Ron Paul is like a crazy bizzaro world Ron Paul fan. They're amazingly similar save for he hates Paul rather than loves him.

He also falls into the standard fallacy that pro-choicers tend to do, which is to assume their view is the only CORRECT view and that anyone who views differently HATES WOMEN. They must think there are a **** ton of self hating women out there.
 
joko104 said:
Truth is the strongest adversary of many a candidate.
Click to expand...

You don't speak truth, unless you're holding that word up to the standard of Michele Bachmann.

You put out a fact, and then make a few wild leaps to create additional assumptions, and then you stated a wild opinion based on the initial fact and your crazy assumptions and act like that wild opinion is fact.
 
Zyphlin said:
Begun? Joko's been doing this for a month at least if not longer. His hatred and spin against Ron Paul is like a crazy bizzaro world Ron Paul fan. They're amazingly similar save for he hates Paul rather than loves him.

He also falls into the standard fallacy that pro-choicers tend to do, which is to assume their view is the only CORRECT view and that anyone who views differently HATES WOMEN. They must think there are a **** ton of self hating women out there.
Click to expand...

I don't think I posted that Ron Paul "hates" women or that pro-lifers hate women. I have posted that his pursuing a federal law declaring "life begins at conception" leads to full legal, civil and human rights to a fetus - the ultimate effect is therefore abortion would legally be murder as one person can not kill another person - thus not only providing civil protect but also criminal prosecution. In addition, this would seem to fly in the face of his claims of 1.) libertarianism and 2.) his decades of claiming the federal government has no jurisdiction over the abortion issue as his basis for opposition to Roe V. Wade.

If I posted that pro-lifers "hate" women, please provide a link.

He voted to federally deny gays the right to adopt contradicts his claim of libertarianism and opposition to federal exclusion. How many people know his extreme anti-gay vote? Most Ron Paul voters believe he favors gay equality.

In short, Ron Paul supporters and Ron Paul seem to believe the consideration on Paul should only be on his platitudes and slogans, not his votes, actions and history. Nor can they stand pointing out his flipflop votes, completely contradicting his "strict constitutionalist" stance.

Ron Paul supporters and Ron Paul himself do not hesitate to post massive attacks against other candidates and those critical of him, yet throw a tizzy of criticism of him. They tend to be incessant whiners. I don't think you'll find my whining about unfair treatment of any candidate, my messages or in general. I also have posted severe criticisms of other Republicans and President Obama. Generally, the talking heads of FOX and MSNBC are neither persuasive and usually not what I see as the most relevant topics.

Mostly, many Ron Paul supporters believe they can present Ron Paul only on his platitudes while avoiding specific realities, as they pick other candidates apart. I do often document my views including Paul's own statements and voting record in my messages.
s
Finally, I believe Ron Paul has been given a free-ride from scrunity on details and specifics, which all other candidates who go to double digits in any poll has. I see Ron Paul as an exorbitantly dangerous person primarily for his corrupting effect on politics. He is generation's George Wallace, only more extreme. Others against Paul just post mini-sneers on this forum. I give my reasons for opposing him in tangible terms.

Obviously my messages are all prefaced with the understood "In my own opinion."
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
I don't think I posted that Ron Paul "hates" women.
Click to expand...

Sorry, "anti-woman".

Same stance goes. Being pro-life is not being "anti-woman" unless one is arrogant and naive enough to believe that their view point about abortoin is the only legitimate view point to have and that everyone's stance on the issue must come from their vantage point and be weighted on that vantage point.

You, and any other pro-choicer, has zero right to tell women who disagree with you that they are "anti-women" simply because your side has been so ridiculously arrogant as to deem to have the power to say what matters with regards to ALL women. It is as ludicrous and idiotic as those on the other side suggesting pro-lifers are "baby killers" or "anti-baby".
 
I'll agree that "anti-woman" is a wrongheaded choice of words.

What about "anti-woman's rights?" I do think a person can argue from their perspective and if a person believes it a woman's right to choice then that phrase may apply.

I might not be as pro-abortion as you think. Rather, it is a question of government power. There are all sorts of acts that are unethical or immoral, but not within proper government power to regulation in my opinion.

PS, I tend to like furious hot political debate. That can include then dramatic language.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
I'll agree that "anti-woman" is a wrongheaded choice of words.
Click to expand...

thanks

What about "anti-woman's rights?" I do think a person can argue from their perspective and if a person believes it a woman's right to choice then that phrase may apply.
Click to expand...

Again, this is one side having such arrogance as to determine what is an "woman's right" issue all themselves depsite the fact that women are not ideologically one single way. It also imposing ones personal views on the subject ONTO the other person and giving them a label based not off what that persons actual view is but rather off your own that you're imposing on them.

If you are in favor of allowing children to be taken out of a home with a parent who routinely savagely beats them, is that "Anti-parent rights"? No, because the reason you're doing it isn't due to a desire to infringe upon what the parents can or can't do but rather your view regarding what should be done to protect the child.

People who are pro-life are not arguing that women shouldn't have a choice over their body...if that was their argument it would not stop with just abortoin. Their argument is that the woman's ability to have choice over her body doesn't supercede the rights they feel the chlid should have. Simply because you disagree with them about that being a child, or that they deserve rights, doesn't magically change their argument to "lets take rights away from women".

I might not be as pro-abortion as you think. Rather, it is a question of government power. There are all sorts of acts that are unethical or immoral, but not within proper government power to regulation in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Do you believe the government should have the power to take children away from parents if that parent attempts to kill them? Or more to the point, do you think the government has the right to say that a mother can't kill her 5 year old?

What is being stated by many pro-lifers is no different than that in terms of government power based on the mindset and opinion they have as to when a person should be granted rights...something that, frankly, is a 100% opinion based position as there is no universal light that hangs over everyones head to tell us indisputably when they should or shouldn't be granted rights.

So while its perfectly fine for you to have issue with abortoin due to the possability of enhanced government power based on your views (the view that the child shouldn't have rights at that time, and thus you're letting the government supercede a woman's rights for something that has no rights), you can not put YOUR view onto someone else and contort their argument to be coming from a view point other than what theirs is. Based on the argument they make, the government is NOT having enhanced power but rather the power that's already been vested to them would be applied evenly.

PS, I tend to like furious hot political debate. That can include then dramatic language.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Personally, I think the reliance and need for dramatic language indicates that ones argument at its core is weak and thus must be propped up with hyperbole, exaggeration, and appeals to emotion.
 
joko104 said:
Say something enough times and people believe it. But Ron Paul doesn't vote as he says.

How many times has Ron Paul said the federal government should stay out of marriage? YET Congress is in essence the government for Washington DC, and Ron Paul voted that as a federal order gays are banned from adopting children.

WORTH REPEATING: Ron Paul voted to ban gays from adopting children.

How's that for non-federal intervention? The federal government will ban you from adopting children?

Ron Paul supports "Don't ask, Don't tell," meaning known gays removed from the military. In his logic was some drivel about how rights come from "the Creator" and then rambles of in his opposition to separation of church-and-state.

Although Ron Paul raged against Rowe V Wade claiming the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion for decades, he turned around and sponsored legislation to outlaw abortions and now - seeking the Republican nomination - declares that life begins at conception and that any state that wants to outlaw ALL abortions may do so.

Ron Paul claims that abortion is CRIMINAL MURDER and wants citizenship rights to BEGIN AT CONCEPTION.

The reason he has that view is because the government staying out of people's lives doesn't apply to women. Or gays. When it comes to children. If you're gay, he says the government SHALL ban you from children and if you are a woman you are banned from not having children. The most radical of all when it comes to government control over having - or not - children. This, in his view, is singularly the government's decision based upon his religious beliefs, that he wants and attempts over and again to make federal law in any way possible. On this, Ron Paul is the ultimate government control freak. Total government power. Over being a parent or not.
Click to expand...

Holy **** Madam Cleo here. You know the reason why he thinks these thinks. **** man, I'll have to be careful about thinking around you since apparently you read minds. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OK, so with abortion, yes he's very pro-life. So am I. Is it that we think the government dominate women? No, it's from a belief that life begins at conception. That once conceived, that is human life and that child deserves some recognition of basic human rights. All fine and dandy and fits within the platform. That's my take on it anyway.

The gay adoption thing, yeah a bit f'd up. But for as much as I like Ron Paul, he's still a Republican. So there we have it, gay adoption is why we shouldn't vote for Paul! No, if that's the worst of his skeletons, that he believes life begins at conception and doesn't want gay people adopting; I'll take it. Sorry gay people, I'll work on letting you adopt later. But the plight of gay adoptions is perhaps not as severe as the crisis we face with our government currently.

In short, your smear is weak and your spin pathetic. That's the worst of Ron Paul? For ****'s sake, that makes him like a Saint compared to the rest of Congress.
 
joko104 said:
I'll agree that "anti-woman" is a wrongheaded choice of words.

What about "anti-woman's rights?"
Click to expand...

Only if we can call pro-choice people "anti-children's rights". Would you be ok with that?
 
What: the other candidates DON'T hold these views or something? :shrug: The GOP candidates are a better choice with less morality judgments. GAAH.

This is why I hate it when such things are wrapped up so tightly IN POLITICS. . . politics = fiscal security, foreign relations, diplomatic measures . . . this kind of stuff. This is the heft of what I focus on.

The only way to satisfy my support of abortion and gay marriage is to vote for Obama - and he doesn't even support gay marriage. WHY THE HELL WOULD I VOTE FOR HIM? Consider all tehse other political issues: the war, the economy, health care - WHY should I vote for him purely because I hold some pro-gay rights views?

NONE OF THE CANDIDATES DO support these things? Most of the country doesn't - so of course it's going to be a problem.

So - I don't vote based on that. Choosing candidates based on those things isn't how to fight FOR those issues anyway.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Say something enough times and people believe it. But Ron Paul doesn't vote as he says.

How many times has Ron Paul said the federal government should stay out of marriage? YET Congress is in essence the government for Washington DC, and Ron Paul voted that as a federal order gays are banned from adopting children.

<snipped for brevity>
Click to expand...

I have only read the first page so far, and even though I am not a Paul supporter, I have to hold back and take a closer look at accusations like this. Whenever some say "Senator X voted <insert vote here>!!!", obviously intended as a negative comment, I have to wonder if it was a small part of a larger bill, or something like that. IOW: Was it something they had to compromise on in order to gain something bigger and more important in the moment?

This is just one of the reasons I favor limiting all bills to a single subject. It would make pinpointing a politician's true beliefs and actions easier and useful for the public to assess.
 
You guys know he is trolling yeah?

Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

joko104 said:
Say something enough times and people believe it. But Ron Paul doesn't vote as he says.

How many times has Ron Paul said the federal government should stay out of marriage? YET Congress is in essence the government for Washington DC, and Ron Paul voted that as a federal order gays are banned from adopting children.

WORTH REPEATING: Ron Paul voted to ban gays from adopting children.

How's that for non-federal intervention? The federal government will ban you from adopting children?
Click to expand...

The place you got it from is wrong. The bill he voted on in 1999 was H.AMDT.356 to HR 2587: An amendment to "prohibit" any "federal funding" for the joint adoption of a child between "individuals" who are not related by blood or marriage in D.C.

Doesn't say he voted to ban anything other than federal funding to give people incentive to adopt. Nothing about banning gays to adopt.

The fact that I already corrected you on this before yet you still persist on spreading this as fact is annoying.


Ron Paul supports "Don't ask, Don't tell," meaning known gays removed from the military. In his logic was some drivel about how rights come from "the Creator" and then rambles of in his opposition to separation of church-and-state.
Click to expand...

Paul voted in the affirmative for HR 5136, an amendment that leads to a full repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", on May 27, 2010.[201] He subsequently voted for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 18, 2010.

Although Ron Paul raged against Rowe V Wade claiming the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion for decades, he turned around and sponsored legislation to outlaw abortions and now - seeking the Republican nomination - declares that life begins at conception and that any state that wants to outlaw ALL abortions may do so.

Ron Paul claims that abortion is CRIMINAL MURDER and wants citizenship rights to BEGIN AT CONCEPTION.
Click to expand...

Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life"[205] and "an unshakable foe of abortion".[206] In 2005 he sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act to define life as beginning at conception.[207] However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[208][209][210] He believes that according to the U.S. Constitution states should, for the most part, retain jurisdiction.

Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his residency, "It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket."[211] During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which is alive, human, and he believes possesses legal rights.[212]

Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue."[213] However, this has not stopped Paul from voting in favor of a federal ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000[214] and 2003.[215]

Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[207] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[146] In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.[216]

In order to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade", Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a "barbaric procedure". He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court's precedents in these areas to no longer be binding.[217] He once said, "The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction."[218]


Despite the fact that he thinks the education department should be dismantled, he also thinks that public funds should pay for private Christian educations and supports a constitutional amendment in favor of school prayer. Again, not a libertarian stance at all. So while he claims the government spends too much, he thinks that paying the expenses of Christian schools should be by the government.


Not Jewish Schools. Not Muslim or Buddhist schools. Christian schools.
Click to expand...

Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level.

Paul has proposed the use of education tax credits, included in his bill the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612), which provides a $3,000 tax credit to families to choose their own schools. He has also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act, which would provide for a tax credit for up to a $3,000 donation to the public or private school of the taxpayer's choice, which would provide accountability and more money to America's schools from a local level.[226] Paul has also proposed tax credits of $5,000 per year for each family, which could be used for any school-related expenses, whether the children of the family attend public or private school or are home-schooled.[227]

He voted not to authorize embryonic stem cell research multiple times.
Click to expand...

Paul supports stem-cell research generically, as evidenced by his authoring the Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007 (H.R. 457; H.R. 3444 in 2005), a bill "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide credits against income tax for qualified stem cell research, the storage of qualified stem cells, and the donation of umbilical cord blood". However, Paul believes the debate over the embryonic category of stem-cell research is another divisive issue over which the federal government has no jurisdiction:

Paul joined with his conservative colleagues in voting "no" on HR 2560, the Democrats' version of a federal ban on human cloning.[220] The Bush White House had strongly opposed HR 2560, saying "The Administration is strongly opposed to any legislation that would prohibit human cloning for reproductive purposes but permit the creation of cloned embryos or development of human embryo farms for research, which would require the destruction of nascent human life."[221]


He voted yes on the Stupak Amendment to prevent health insurance companies from offering abortion coverage.
Click to expand...

The amendment would not only “prevent tax payer money from being connected to abortions,” but would also prevent women from obtaining abortion coverage when they pay for it themselves.

Ron Paul: Stupak Deal Unconstitutional


Voted to prevent funding from going to schools that make the morning after pill available and to provide funding for abstinence only education.
[/U][/B]
Click to expand...

Schools shouldn't be giving away the morning after pill... I don't even need to research that to know the repercussions.


Gotta go (can't finish each one) but is there a rule (asking mods) about spreading lies even after they've been corrected?
 
Zyphlin said:
thanks



Again, this is one side having such arrogance as to determine what is an "woman's right" issue all themselves depsite the fact that women are not ideologically one single way. It also imposing ones personal views on the subject ONTO the other person and giving them a label based not off what that persons actual view is but rather off your own that you're imposing on them.

If you are in favor of allowing children to be taken out of a home with a parent who routinely savagely beats them, is that "Anti-parent rights"? No, because the reason you're doing it isn't due to a desire to infringe upon what the parents can or can't do but rather your view regarding what should be done to protect the child.

People who are pro-life are not arguing that women shouldn't have a choice over their body...if that was their argument it would not stop with just abortion. Their argument is that the woman's ability to have choice over her body doesn't supercede the rights they feel the chlid should have. Simply because you disagree with them about that being a child, or that they deserve rights, doesn't magically change their argument to "lets take rights away from women".



Do you believe the government should have the power to take children away from parents if that parent attempts to kill them? Or more to the point, do you think the government has the right to say that a mother can't kill her 5 year old?

What is being stated by many pro-lifers is no different than that in terms of government power based on the mindset and opinion they have as to when a person should be granted rights...something that, frankly, is a 100% opinion based position as there is no universal light that hangs over everyones head to tell us indisputably when they should or shouldn't be granted rights.

So while its perfectly fine for you to have issue with abortoin due to the possability of enhanced government power based on your views (the view that the child shouldn't have rights at that time, and thus you're letting the government supercede a woman's rights for something that has no rights), you can not put YOUR view onto someone else and contort their argument to be coming from a view point other than what theirs is. Based on the argument they make, the government is NOT having enhanced power but rather the power that's already been vested to them would be applied evenly.



That's fine. Personally, I think the reliance and need for dramatic language indicates that ones argument at its core is weak and thus must be propped up with hyperbole, exaggeration, and appeals to emotion.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't know how to break apart quotes.

Not sure I agree with you on the term "anti-women rights", maybe somewhat. If is accurate to call someone anti-gay who opposes legal equality for gays? Of if 1 gay opposes gay marriage etc then it is arrogant?
The other reason is that most people, myself included, don't believe people have a right to anything and everything, though then it is a right lost. For example, I suspect that women who oppose abortion oppose a woman having a right to one, thus her view is "anti-woman's right," but because she believes the person doesn't have such a right. I suppose this becomes just bandy over words at some point though.
I suppose that is my point about Paul wanting "life begins at conception" as a federal law. That would exactly equate an abortion of a fetus to a parent killing his/her 5-year-old - even if the pregnancy the result of rape, the woman is HIV positive or handicapped in an inheritable way, and the pregnancy endangers the woman's life too, because a parent can't legally murder her/his own child even to save himself and regardless of the basis of pregnancy. There is no allowed reason for a parent to kill his/her child. Equally, the no abortion restriction would be identical.

1% of abortions are due to rape. 4% because it endangers the woman's life. Under Paul's ideology, those 4% must die for the "unborn child." The 1% have their rapist baby, even if a 13 year old mentally handicapped girl. I understand some believe even in those cases, abortion should not be allowed - but that is a "right" denied. Instead, we only then argue over whether it a right that should be denied. Parents are denied the right to kill their 5 year old children in our culture - but that to is a "right" denied. I agree it should be of course. All prohibitions by government are a denied right.

Since abortion is a pre-thought decision, within that reasoning then a woman who aborts - no possible exceptions allowed - is committing 1st degree capital murder. In many states the only possible punishments are either life without parole or the death penalty.

Therefore, a stance that would declare 47% of adult women (percentage estimated to have an abortion in her lifetime) are capital murderers and would life imprison or execute a woman who has an abortion is about as punitive a stance (not using "anti woman") as possible.While other candidates agree with Paul that "life begins at conception," Paul wants that defined as such in federal law. That seems to also fly in the face of all his statements of non-jurisdiction of the federal government over abortion and in 2008 his followers were vehement that one proof of Paul being a strict constitutionalist was his opposition to any federal abortion legislation one way or the other.

Is Paul having voted to ban gays in DC from adoptions. Is that "anti-gay?" "Anti-gay rights?" If so, then isn't denying women the choice of an abortion denying a woman a right? Whether or not women SHOULD be allowed that right is a different question. For example, I oppose the right to discriminant based on race and gender. Thus, I am anti-discrimination rights."

Somehow I suspect our difference is more over words than substance. I am, for the most part, "anti-abortion," as an ethical matter, but "pro-choice" in relation to government. Whether an abortion is "murder" in my opinion lies in the mind of the individual woman, not as an institutional government decision. I don't think "human life" in terms of self identity and human rights begins until there is some self realization and a relative level of intellect. Thus I can agree to outlawing partial birth abortions because a viable independent life of some intellect and possible self realization might exist, plus it is just to barbaric an act in general.

Of emotional language... In my opinion, people are more driven by emotion than logic and thus so is politics. That is just reality in my view. Paul's supporters tend to not be reserved in attacks against other candidates - and very voluminous so. Republicans are not reserved in sneering name calling against Obama. Democrats in raw insults against Republicans. I see no reason Paul should be exempt.

I sincerely see him as a very dangerous person. He is the only candidate I see as "dangerous" to great degrees. Otherwise, personally, I think they all will actually do about the same thing, even if they have such opposite words. My opinion. His candidacy has pushed the Republican candidates ever increasingly to the rightwing. I see his agenda not only as wrong, but exceptionally dangerous and immoral. Therefore, most my political vitriol is aimed at him, though not exclusively so by any means. I can be independent to annoying degrees in that I generally don't like any of them.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Only if we can call pro-choice people "anti-children's rights". Would you be ok with that?
Click to expand...

I'm ok with you using it because possibly by your message your view is that upon conception there is a "child." Accordingly, if you do then there is no instance whatsoever in which you could allow an abortion or even not prosecute for murder any woman who had one or any doctor who performed one. Since I don't agree, I wouldn't call it that. But, if your opinion, you may.
 
Ikari said:
Holy **** Madam Cleo here. You know the reason why he thinks these thinks. **** man, I'll have to be careful about thinking around you since apparently you read minds. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OK, so with abortion, yes he's very pro-life. So am I. Is it that we think the government dominate women? No, it's from a belief that life begins at conception. That once conceived, that is human life and that child deserves some recognition of basic human rights. All fine and dandy and fits within the platform. That's my take on it anyway.

The gay adoption thing, yeah a bit f'd up. But for as much as I like Ron Paul, he's still a Republican. So there we have it, gay adoption is why we shouldn't vote for Paul! No, if that's the worst of his skeletons, that he believes life begins at conception and doesn't want gay people adopting; I'll take it. Sorry gay people, I'll work on letting you adopt later. But the plight of gay adoptions is perhaps not as severe as the crisis we face with our government currently.

In short, your smear is weak and your spin pathetic. That's the worst of Ron Paul? For ****'s sake, that makes him like a Saint compared to the rest of Congress.
Click to expand...

I did not raise my point about Paul to argue the issue of abortion. Rather: 1.) his stance 100% is a flipflop from his prior stance that the question of abortion is exclusively a state-rights issue decided by states ONLY. Paul swears he'd never contradict the constitution, and on this by his own words he does. 2.) So it clear just how anti-abortion he is simply so people are aware of just how much power he wants the federal government to have on the abortion issue - 100% power, meaning states then have none.

I don't really debate the abortion issue itself much because it goes nowhere. Each person has his/her opinion and it never changes.

A federal law declaring human life begins at conception is NOT weak and trivial. It defines nearly half the women in the USA as criminal child murderers. It is one thing to declare "life begins at conception" as a moral stance. A very different thing to codify it as federal law.

Curious... how much federal welfare money do you support for medical care and otherwise support for the 1 hour old conceived baby of a rapist?

To the opposite, some people believe "immortality" is found in a person having children and forcing a woman to have a rapist baby is the ultimate reward for a rapist - and allowing him to control and consume the woman for the rest of her life - plus rewarding him with genetic immortality as his government ordered reward for a successful rape. I personally believe a woman has an absolute right to select the genetic parentage of her child. So does her husband.

However, if life begins at conception as a matter of federal law, there can be NO POSSIBLE exceptions allowing abortion. Ever. And it always criminal murder.

It is right that the public knows Ron Paul opposes abortion in the instance of rape, incest and even at the cost of the mother's life just to know where he stands on the issue. People then can make their own decision on the abortion issue in light of that.
 
Last edited:
Joko, are you completely going to ignore jason's post? Two times now?
 
joko104 said:
I did not raise my point about Paul to argue the issue of abortion. Rather: 1.) his stance 100% is a flipflop from his prior stance that the question of abortion is exclusively a state-rights issue decided by states ONLY. Paul swears he'd never contradict the constitution, and on this by his own words he does. 2.) So it clear just how anti-abortion he is simply so people are aware of just how much power he wants the federal government to have on the abortion issue - 100% power, meaning states then have none.

I don't really debate the abortion issue itself much because it goes nowhere. Each person has his/her opinion and it never changes.

A federal law declaring human life begins at conception is NOT weak and trivial. It defines nearly half the women in the USA as criminal child murderers. It is one thing to declare "life begins at conception" as a moral stance. A very different thing to codify it as federal law.

Curious... how much federal welfare money do you support for medical care and otherwise support for the 1 hour old conceived baby of a rapist?

To the opposite, some people believe "immortality" is found in a person having children and forcing a woman to have a rapist baby is the ultimate reward for a rapist - and allowing him to control and consume the woman for the rest of her life - plus rewarding him with genetic immortality as his government ordered reward for a successful rape. I personally believe a woman has an absolute right to select the genetic parentage of her child. So does her husband.

However, if life begins at conception as a matter of federal law, there can be NO POSSIBLE exceptions allowing abortion. Ever. And it always criminal murder.

It is right that the public knows Ron Paul opposed abortion in the instance of rape, incest and even at the cost of the mother's life just to know where he stands on the issue. People then can make their own decision on the abortion issue in light of that.
Click to expand...

You make some very good and strong points, here.
 
joko104 said:
Not sure I agree with you on the term "anti-women rights", maybe somewhat. If is accurate to call someone anti-gay who opposes legal equality for gays? Of if 1 gay opposes gay marriage etc then it is arrogant?
Click to expand...

I would say "Gays" as a universal group, by and large, agree with the notion that "equality" under the law is an issue highlighting their group, so I would feel it may be a bit more accurate. Such a thing can't be said about women, who are largely split on the issue. I think its a bit ridiculous calling something a "women's right" that has more than 40% of women disagreeing with it. With just a quick google search the most recent data I turned up was from 2009, which had 49% of women being pro-life with 44% being pro-choice Link. So essentially you're trying to label something that, seemingly, a majority of women DISAGREE WITH as some sort of "women's right". To me that seems ridiculous, and I don't think something you could equate to gays and their stance on whether or not they should have equal rights under the law.

And, even beyond that, I wouldn't really be able to tell you JUST based on their stance on equality whether the person is anti-GAY (though perhaps anti-gay rights or in the case of marriage "anti-gay marriage"), as their reasoning behind their votes is important for that. If they are voting that way because they think there's something inherently wrong with gay people, then yes they are "anti-gay".

The other reason is that most people, myself included, don't believe people have a right to anything and everything, though then it is a right lost. For example, I suspect that women who oppose abortion oppose a woman having a right to one, thus her view is "anti-woman's right," but because she believes the person doesn't have such a right.
Click to expand...

So you'd be fine for me to suggest you're anti-babies right, since you're fine with ignoring the right of a child to live. Now you could go "NUH UH! I don't believe its a child!" but that wouldn't matter, because using your logic I can impose MY belief of the issue onto you. Because much like you don't believe the child is a "child" in that sense and thus doesn't have rights, that pro-life person doesn't believe the woman has a right to kill her child in the first place so he's not "anti" any kind of right because no such right exists.

I suppose this becomes just bandy over words at some point though.
Click to expand...

It is, to a point. However, on legitimate and contentious political issues I think its better to be most accurate as to a persons view as possible when there are multiple labels rather than attempting to use a label based off spin that is less accurate and more just for political gain, as it detracts from the actual debate and discussion that happens and lowers the quality of conversation across the board.

I suppose that is my point about Paul wanting "life begins at conception" as a federal law. That would exactly equate an abortion of a fetus to a parent killing his/her 5-year-old - even if the pregnancy the result of rape, the woman is HIV positive or handicapped in an inheritable way, and the pregnancy endangers the woman's life too, because a parent can't legally murder her/his own child even to save himself and regardless of the basis of pregnancy. There is no allowed reason for a parent to kill his/her child. Equally, the no abortion restriction would be identical.
Click to expand...

First...wow, thank you for giving me a way to highlight the style of mudslinging you undergo. I could take the bold statement you just made and claim now that you support eugenics because you're in favor of aborting kids because they may have an inheritable handicap.

Second, if your issue with Paul is that you would do FAR more good for your cause by actually highlighting that issue rather than falling back on ridiculous hyperbolic and spun rhetoric such as "anti-women".

Oh, and a parent is absolutely legally allowed to kill their child if that child is endangering their life...IE self defense. If you child holds a knife to your throat and is about to slice it and you stab him first, that IS legal.

1% of abortions are due to rape. 4% because it endangers the woman's life. Under Paul's ideology, those 4% must die for the "unborn child."
Click to expand...

Again, this is you stating one fact (that he voted to make a law saying life begins at conception) and then stating your OPINION about what it means as fact. Unless you've got a quote of Paul's directly stating he supports a federal law banning abortion from women in the case of their life being at risk you're just making baseless speculation about his "ideology.

The 1% have their rapist baby, even if a 13 year old mentally handicapped girl. I understand some believe even in those cases, abortion should not be allowed - but that is a "right" denied.
Click to expand...

Baesd on YOUR point of view. Based on other's point of views, the ALLOWANCE of abortoin is a "right" being denied.

Since abortion is a pre-thought decision, within that reasoning then a woman who aborts - no possible exceptions allowed - is committing 1st degree capital murder. In many states the only possible punishments are either life without parole or the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Again, another example of you stating a fact and then extrapolating a lot of speculation and assumptions and attempting to present those assumptions and speculation as not just fact but absolutes truth's that Paul believes. This is dishonest.

Is Paul having voted to ban gays in DC from adoptions.
Click to expand...

Once again, dishonesty on your part. Paul voted not to provide federal funding for jointed adoption by people...gay or straight...who are not married or blood relatives. That's not "Banning gays in DC from adoptions".

Is that "anti-gay?" "Anti-gay rights?"
Click to expand...

No, what he ACTUALLY did is not anti-gay. It anti-federally funding of adoption between non-married or family individuals.

If so, then isn't denying women the choice of an abortion denying a woman a right?
Click to expand...

No, its suggesting that their right doesn't supercede someone elses rights. Its no more "denying" a woman their right from their point of view then you are "denying" a child its rights based on their point of view.

Of emotional language... In my opinion, people are more driven by emotion than logic and thus so is politics. That is just reality in my view. Paul's supporters tend to not be reserved in attacks against other candidates - and very voluminous so. Republicans are not reserved in sneering name calling against Obama. Democrats in raw insults against Republicans. I see no reason Paul should be exempt.
Click to expand...

I think emotional and hyperbolic attacks on any political candidate or group is generally a base thing to do and one that highlights that the individual is severly lacking in either legitimate issues to attack them on or the mental capabilities to effectively present such issues.
 
Zyphlin said:
I would say "Gays" as a universal group, by and large, agree with the notion that "equality" under the law is an issue highlighting their group, so I would feel it may be a bit more accurate. Such a thing can't be said about women, who are largely split on the issue. I think its a bit ridiculous calling something a "women's right" that has more than 40% of women disagreeing with it. With just a quick google search the most recent data I turned up was from 2009, which had 49% of women being pro-life with 44% being pro-choice Link. So essentially you're trying to label something that, seemingly, a majority of women DISAGREE WITH as some sort of "women's right". To me that seems ridiculous, and I don't think something you could equate to gays and their stance on whether or not they should have equal rights under the law.

And, even beyond that, I wouldn't really be able to tell you JUST based on their stance on equality whether the person is anti-GAY (though perhaps anti-gay rights or in the case of marriage "anti-gay marriage"), as their reasoning behind their votes is important for that. If they are voting that way because they think there's something inherently wrong with gay people, then yes they are "anti-gay".



So you'd be fine for me to suggest you're anti-babies right, since you're fine with ignoring the right of a child to live. Now you could go "NUH UH! I don't believe its a child!" but that wouldn't matter, because using your logic I can impose MY belief of the issue onto you. Because much like you don't believe the child is a "child" in that sense and thus doesn't have rights, that pro-life person doesn't believe the woman has a right to kill her child in the first place so he's not "anti" any kind of right because no such right exists.



It is, to a point. However, on legitimate and contentious political issues I think its better to be most accurate as to a persons view as possible when there are multiple labels rather than attempting to use a label based off spin that is less accurate and more just for political gain, as it detracts from the actual debate and discussion that happens and lowers the quality of conversation across the board.



First...wow, thank you for giving me a way to highlight the style of mudslinging you undergo. I could take the bold statement you just made and claim now that you support eugenics because you're in favor of aborting kids because they may have an inheritable handicap.

Second, if your issue with Paul is that you would do FAR more good for your cause by actually highlighting that issue rather than falling back on ridiculous hyperbolic and spun rhetoric such as "anti-women".

Oh, and a parent is absolutely legally allowed to kill their child if that child is endangering their life...IE self defense. If you child holds a knife to your throat and is about to slice it and you stab him first, that IS legal.



Again, this is you stating one fact (that he voted to make a law saying life begins at conception) and then stating your OPINION about what it means as fact. Unless you've got a quote of Paul's directly stating he supports a federal law banning abortion from women in the case of their life being at risk you're just making baseless speculation about his "ideology.



Baesd on YOUR point of view. Based on other's point of views, the ALLOWANCE of abortoin is a "right" being denied.



Again, another example of you stating a fact and then extrapolating a lot of speculation and assumptions and attempting to present those assumptions and speculation as not just fact but absolutes truth's that Paul believes. This is dishonest.



Once again, dishonesty on your part. Paul voted not to provide federal funding for jointed adoption by people...gay or straight...who are not married or blood relatives. That's not "Banning gays in DC from adoptions".



No, what he ACTUALLY did is not anti-gay. It anti-federally funding of adoption between non-married or family individuals.



No, its suggesting that their right doesn't supercede someone elses rights. Its no more "denying" a woman their right from their point of view then you are "denying" a child its rights based on their point of view.



I think emotional and hyperbolic attacks on any political candidate or group is generally a base thing to do and one that highlights that the individual is severly lacking in either legitimate issues to attack them on or the mental capabilities to effectively present such issues.
Click to expand...

I feel I'm getting too deep into this. So I'll brief up my response.
I have no problem with you calling me "anti-baby" if that is how YOU see it. I absolutely believe you can argue an issue from YOUR values and morality. We both don't have to find some amoral (as opposed to moral/anti-moral) language particularly on an issue that is nearly entirely about morality. Like I said, it's sort of bandy of words. If you think I'm support murdering babies, then say what you think.

To try to be short on some other matters... You say it is dishonest to claim Paul "banned" gays from adoption. I will concede "ban" the wrong word. Yet it still very anti-gay.
The federal government does not ban gays from marriage, it just doesn't recognize gay marriage with all the economic and other legal effects. So I suppose it more correct to say that Paul "voted to discriminate against gays on adoption", rather than to ban gays adopting children.

I do not believe I am extrapolating anything but accuracy of the effect of the federal government passing a law defining life as beginning at conception. Because the legal implications of doing so are obvious.

Moral right and legal right are not the same in my opinion. As a legal right, do I think a woman can - legally - abort because she learned she is carrying a "baby" that is severely handicapped? The answer is yes. Since whether to abort or not is her decision, so is her reason why. Whether that would be moral or not is a different question.

Certainly rape is a rare instance of abortion, but one of predictable intense emotions for the woman. She only has bad options and if she is inclined against abortion really extra only bad choices. Does she abort, then maybe feeling like a murderer the rest of her life? Does she put the child up for adoption - then maybe coming to feel she threw the child away? Or does she agree that the rapist forced her to spend 10,000 hours, every day and night, year after year, being the free wet nurse, nanny, and single parent maybe - her whole life now controlled and consumed to raise the rapist's prodigy?

I do think if added to this it learned the rapist's "child" is severely handicapped - increasing the life burden the rapist is putting on her is relevant - VERY. And rightly so.

To be more exact, do I have a problem with a woman early in a pregnancy learning she is carrying a severely handicapped child/fetus (pick your word) opting to abort for that reason? No, I don't. While it may be "life" and even "homo sapien life," but I don't think it is human life. What defines "human" is self awareness and intellect.

Just my opinions of course. My moral standards too.

Again, I GREATLY believe a woman gets to pick the GENETICS of her children - meaning she gets to pick the bio-father. The burdens of a child are lifelong. She has a right not to be impregnated by someone of limited mental capacity - generally passed on genetically. She has a right to pick that father in every regards.

I do not believe a rapist can ever force a woman - or society - to become his lifelong slave in terms of parenting his child. I feel VERY strongly about that.

I can think of no more fundamental woman's right - yes I know you don't like me to insert "right" into that because many women wouldn't use that word - than to pick the parentage of her child/ren. Those who disagree can have their opinion, I can have mine, as to what is a "right." If they believe a rapist has a right to force a woman to give birth to his child for moral or religious reasons, that's what they believe.

If they believe the rapist's baby/fetus has full civil and human rights at total duty and burden upon the woman - even at the potential lose of her life - that right existing within seconds of the rapist ejaculating, that is what they believe. But don't be offended at my explaining what their morality or religion they impose on others is in real effect.

I'm not gay. I think I can tell what I think are rights "gays" have too.

I didn't add the obvious - yes a parent can protect themselves from an attacking child - because that is obvious and not related. Such qualifiers of the obvious makes messages 50 paragraphs long.

If I missed other issues about Paul, I'll try to get back to them.

OH.... LOL! I am the one arguing that the federal government shouldn't be the morality judge of people, and Ron Paul supporters vehemently claim it should. What a switch!
 
Last edited:
Oh, I just remembered. Ron Paul claimed the federal should have bought the slaves from slave owners - total value being 100% the entire nation GDP - rather than a war over it.

Does Ron Paul also then believe the federal government should buy unborn children from women who otherwise will have an abortion - cheaper than life imprisonment costs of those women for murdering their child by abortion? Just interested in his consistency of principles.
 
joko104 said:
I did not raise my point about Paul to argue the issue of abortion. Rather: 1.) his stance 100% is a flipflop from his prior stance that the question of abortion is exclusively a state-rights issue decided by states ONLY. Paul swears he'd never contradict the constitution, and on this by his own words he does. 2.) So it clear just how anti-abortion he is simply so people are aware of just how much power he wants the federal government to have on the abortion issue - 100% power, meaning states then have none.

I don't really debate the abortion issue itself much because it goes nowhere. Each person has his/her opinion and it never changes.

A federal law declaring human life begins at conception is NOT weak and trivial. It defines nearly half the women in the USA as criminal child murderers. It is one thing to declare "life begins at conception" as a moral stance. A very different thing to codify it as federal law.
Click to expand...

It depends. I think you fundamentally sell short the ideology of Ron Paul in order to make your attacks. At no point does Ron Paul say that there should be zero federal government. Obviously there are means and methods by which the federal government acts properly. Ron Paul considers life to begin at conception, lots of people do. If that is your basis, this is not expansion of federal powers over State; but rather the job of the government in general. That job being the necessity to keep, protect, and proliferate the rights and liberties of the individual. If you believe that life begins at conception, then that is human life and the government has responsibility to ensure its rights. Clearly then under such concern, abortion is extreme violation of the child's right to life. If you hold such a position, it is completely within the constructs of the political philosophy to then enact government force in order to preserve that right of the child to life.

joko104 said:
Curious... how much federal welfare money do you support for medical care and otherwise support for the 1 hour old conceived baby of a rapist?
Click to expand...

Better there than a 10 year long occupational war in foreign lands over nothing which concerns us. At least in this case life is preserved instead of wasted.

joko104 said:
To the opposite, some people believe "immortality" is found in a person having children and forcing a woman to have a rapist baby is the ultimate reward for a rapist - and allowing him to control and consume the woman for the rest of her life - plus rewarding him with genetic immortality as his government ordered reward for a successful rape. I personally believe a woman has an absolute right to select the genetic parentage of her child. So does her husband.
Click to expand...

Of course under normal circumstances that is true. And you "select" via selection of sexual partner. However, in the case of rape there is no choice on the woman's part. You can surely make the argument you make if you don't start with that child being a child. If, however, you do take that the child is a human child and thus deserving of basic human rights; then the child is an innocent life to the rape and did not make the decision nor enact any force to bring itself into existence. As such, he cannot be properly punished for the crimes of his father.

joko104 said:
However, if life begins at conception as a matter of federal law, there can be NO POSSIBLE exceptions allowing abortion. Ever. And it always criminal murder.
Click to expand...

Life of the mother can always be used. Toxic pregnancies or complications which endanger the life of the mother beyond the standard risks of pregnancy can be listed as valid reasons for abortion.

joko104 said:
It is right that the public knows Ron Paul opposes abortion in the instance of rape, incest and even at the cost of the mother's life just to know where he stands on the issue. People then can make their own decision on the abortion issue in light of that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can quote him on the "cost of the mother's life" bit.
 
Only addressing your last area - life of the mother.

Other than the obvious example of a parent protecting self from an attack by her/his child, a parent's life can not be saved at the life of the child. For example, you couldn't remove organs for a child costing the child's life to save the mother.

IF the child is as human as the mother, the mother can not be saved at the cost of the child, including not lost by abortion.

IF a person believes a human life begins at conception, there is no abortion possibly allowed - ever - unless such as a stillbirth situation. If a person believes that, the person does. I don't. So that is a dispute no words between us resolve.

Yet, it STILL is an issue concerning Ron Paul. Ron Paul's view of SLAVERY (who could be murdered by their owners) was NOT a federal rights issue, rather only a state's rights issues. And that a state could withdraw taking their slaves with them - preserving them as slaves subject to murder same as an aborted child. Why didn't they have federal life-rights? Am I mistaken? If not, how can Ron Paul credibly argue that the lives - literally lives - of African-Americans did NOT invoke federal life-protection constitutional and federal rights, but unborn child/fetus does?

Isn't that a contradiction? Should states be deciding what is and isn't murder? Hasn't he also claimed that criminal laws should only be a matter of states rights? How did this sole exception of abortion become the only federal life-rights variance from his otherwise states-rights stance? Is that inconsistent with strict constitutionalism? The slaves were as defenseless as unborn children. Many were infant child. Slave owners could and likely did kill severely handicapped slave babies.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Only addressing your last area - life of the mother.

Other than the obvious example of a parent protecting self from an attack by her/his child, a parent's life can not be saved at the life of the child. For example, you couldn't remove organs for a child costing the child's life to save the mother.

IF the child is as human as the mother, the mother can not be saved at the cost of the child, including not lost by abortion.

IF a person believes a human life begins at conception, there is no abortion possibly allowed - ever - unless such as a stillbirth situation. If a person believes that, the person does. I don't. So that is a dispute no words between us resolve.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to quote Ron Paul on the life of the mother business you claim.

joko104 said:
Yet, it STILL is an issue concerning Ron Paul. Ron Paul's view of SLAVERY (who could be murdered by their owners) was NOT a federal rights issue, rather only a state's rights issues. And that a state could withdraw taking their slaves with them - just preserving them as slaves. Am I mistaken? If not, how can Ron Paul credibly argue that the lives - literally lives - of African-Americans did NOT invoke federal life-protection constitutional and federal rights, but unborn child/fetus does?

Isn't that a contradiction? Should states be deciding what is and isn't murder? Hasn't he also claimed that criminal laws should only be a matter of states rights?
Click to expand...

So your main problem with Ron Paul is over an issue we resolved over 100 years ago?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom