Yes, his faith underscores his belief that his liberty is a God given right, not something that govt. grants him. But he supports freedom of religion for everyone. So what is your point?
RON PAUL I HAVE A ? FOR YOU. WHAT KIND OF DOCTOR ARE YOU IF YOU DONT CARE ABOUT HEALTHCARE FOR AMERICAN PEOPLE? FORGET ABOUT KIDS IN AFRICA OR WOMEN IN AFGHANISTAN, WHAT SPECIES ARE YOU? ARE YOU HUMAN? DO YOU LOVE AMERICAN PEOPLE OR YOU JUST WANT POWER? DUDE ALL JOBS WENT TO CHINA , CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS. WHY U DONT WANT AMERICAN PEOPLE TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE IF TECHNOLOGY KILLS JOBS ?
Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He is saying in this video that the Supreme Court has defined the word "liberty" too broadly. He's a neo-confederate racist fraud.
@worldnewsbbc1 - back in the day, libertarians were pot smoking, pro-abortion, pro-immigrant, and anti-war. Today's libertarians are just lame-ass gun-nut fascists.
he is entitled to his own personal opinions on the matter. As long as he is careful to be bipartisan about it when it comes to politics, It shouldn't really matter what he thinks about the issue.
The only thing is, yes it is a life clearly but it's also the woman who has to go through the process of pregnancy and the pain of labor and at the same time that it's kind of messed up to kill the fetus or the child it's also kind of messed up to force a woman who doesn't want to have a child to have one. I don't see it as so black or white on either side. In cases or rape I think abortion is legit b/c the woman didn't concede to pregnancy or if the woman's health is in crisis I think the
already born and living woman's life outweighs the only partially formed child and mandating her possible death is wrong. Some people dismiss those two notions but I think it's completely legit. In the case of pregnancies that are the result of irresponsible consensual unprotected sex I'd say it's a hard call to make. I think a better argument can be made against late term abortions b/c the child is even more formed and developed and in some cases resemble prematurely born babies that survive
I guess really though if you have consensual unprotected sense you're consenting to the pregnancy though. Even if you use birth control and it fails you're still consenting to the risk. But I don't believe in the state so I don't believe in abortion being illegal per se b/c I don't believe in police
these pro-life people are idealouges plain and simple. my question is what are the practical implications of a pro-life agenda? because I only see bad things. I see more children born out of wedlock, more poverty, more crime, and more illegitimate/dangerous abortions. so if you are pro-life I really want you to consider what a world without legal abortion would be like.
That's a fucked up elitist view to take b/c plenty of people struggle in their lives to overcome conditions they're born into whatever they be. Should they have been aborted too? I mean should every person whose parents were not married or got a divorce have been aborted?
@dubified89 first of all, it's elitist to tell all women what she can do with her own body or livelihood.
secondly, only a very small percentage of abortions are done for women who don't absolutely need it for a vital health reason.
and thirdly, yes, there is suffering in the world and abortion is not going to make it all go away. but i think that if a woman has the opportunity to terminate a pregnancy before it inevitably becomes a human being in poverty, she has that right
I never heard him fully explain his outlook. Turn it over to the States, yes and what does that look like. Of course its not a matter of Fed influence at that point, but if you're going to be Chief Executive, you have to foresee what the development will look like and use your office to 'educate' the country.
He doesn't say anything about Mothers' homes, adoption changes, assistance for orphanages, etc. Or what degrees of abortion should exist. He just makes a good case against abortion.
just like obama, ron paul has repeatedly said to leave it up to the states...ron paul believes it is wrong,,,but if u totally abolish it, then u choose...the life of the mother or the baby
My beef w/ RP on this and a lot of his other issues, is that he speaks as an ideologue. Granted he is trying to paint a picture of a possibility most people don't currently know, but I'm not sure if his lack of explaining the transition processes is just a simple omission (for the getting his ideology out there) or some incompetence/naivete/lack of foresight.
That's a good point. I support Ron Paul, but I think if he better explained how we would transition to these ideals, it would be helpful. His books deal a little with that, but I think some of the mainstream concern with him is how we would transition, would America be willing to go through the growing pain, etc. Thank you for your comment. RJ
Yeah and it is a huge transition. We're talking about society being structured enough to without government, that education has some level of relative equality, a moral and 'typical' knowledge-based education.. so that people the opportunity to make those good or bad decisions, rather than their lack of 'education' making it for them.
Its a real "christian" idea, people volunteering to assist others for the good of the whole, rather than expecting govt to do it.
That would take a good generation or two, I think, to develop and be something capable of replacing what we depend on the govt for. Especially with the way we've unravelled socially in the past few decades.
History is littered with failed govts and societies that were run aground by ideologues who believed their system was so pure that application would be a cure all for society, regardless of the context in which it was instituted.
Ideologically speaking, I probably fall in line philosophically with anarchy. You need an entirely different society for that to work though, so I vote/live in way that edges my immediate world towards that. If we abolished law & govt tomorow, it would be the cliche madness people think of when they hear the word "anarchy."
Same as we'd have a caste system if we went to a hardcore libertarian govt tmw -- moral 'common sense' and the charitable structures would take time to develop.
I do like how Ron Paul is questioning the current paradigm. In my view, in modern day America, it seems we are being conditioned to look to government for solutions to our problems, instead of self-regulating, working-out solutions, or simply acting responsibly and appropriate. I cant tell you how many times Ive told people just because its not illegal, does not meant that it is ethical.
Excellent point, I agree. The idea of volunteering captures the passion of "giving" derived from from an individuals own cause, instead of "forced giving" through government taxation. However, it is very hard to change societies beliefs when they have become dependent on government. We would have to break that cycle of addiction.
The question IS NOT whether abortion is legal the question IS DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY? If you attack the reasoning in Roe v. Wade you open up a can of worms and attack your own privacy rights. The quicker you bring down the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade the sooner the Federal government will be in your home. So all you Neo-Cons out there keep it up and you will soon have the large centralized government you want. HA-HA
You should be able to do what ever you want when it comes to your own body, but a baby is not your body it is a seperate life, someone needs to fight for that innocent child, abortion is murder!
There are all sorts of things you can't do with your own body because it's against the law. You can't take drugs, you can't kill someone, you're locked up in a psych ward if you try to kill yourself -- again, there are all sorts of things that you are not allowed to do with your own body. Maybe murdering life which is growing inside you should be one of them.
I don't mean to sound like I know what both sides are thinking. But if it were me who got pregnant, I would kill a mutherfocker who tried to tell me what to do with it! It's really not fair to make people do one thing or another to their own bodies when they absolutely don't want to! And don't cry to me about the what if's.. save it for someone who's pregnant!
It's your un-born baby is not a valid argument for being able to kill the baby. People can't be owned anymore. It's either a life deserving full constitutional protection or not. The only question is is the baby alive.
A fetus is not a human being with rights. It's a fetus! You Pro-Life scum should stop hiding your hypocrisy behind a constitutional law! We're talking about desperate human beings here that want to end a mistake, not continuing it (like Ron Paul wants to do with the war in Iraq)! And stop pretending you actually care what happens to a zygote in some distant third world country.
Maybe you should take Bio 101. A human fetus is a human being. There is no if, ands, or buts about it. It's scientific fact. Life begins at conception. The body begins to grow immediately, and will continue to grow and develop for another 20 or so years. What makes a human life any different when it's in the womb? Nothing! The only thing that's different is the location of the body. If you take that body out early, it can still live. Hence, there is no difference. Life begins at conception.
Its TWO peoples baby, not ones. The other spouse has a equal right in the decision. I don't have kids, but had to girls tell me thay had abortions without me knowing. BITCHES! They murdered my bloodline. Now, why don't I have kids?
Its also stupid how women say its their body and decision. Then ask for child support. Whats that for? Do we have a right of not? So if we can't have a decision on abortion, cause its not ours, then don't come asking for money. Thats about all I got to comment on the subject.
Now you're making some sense. But you should understand that SHE is the one holding that baby, not you. Why did these girls lie to you? There has to be a reason (not that I'm saying it justifies anything). Abortion is not always "justified", nor is it always a mutual choice (like in your case). But it IS always up to the woman "to have a choice". Whether you get her to agree with you or not. How can you possibly think it's right to make that choice I L L E G A L ?
You are so ignorant they couldn't stand the thought of having your disgusting parasite in their bodies for another second. You want a kid? Get a uterus. Give birth. Raise it yourself just like those women would have ended up raising your offspring alone.
Do the other candidates ever get asked if they are going to distance themselves from Jewish supremacist groups like the ADL? Will Obama distance himself from black vested interest and advocacy groups like United Negro College fund and Naacp? How many members of the NAACP have sent money to Obama? How many Jews in the various Jewish advocacy groups have sent money to Hillary? Why are these questions not being asked?
Well the Israel lobby has actual money, unlike a band of rag-tag white supremacists who may even be agents, & candidates have to promise to do things for them such as go to war & kill innocent people unlike individual donations.
Can you define a "white supremacist"? It seems you watch too much TV, the TV always goes on about "white Supremacists". I suggest you shut off the Jewish media. Yes, Jewish media, that's what it is.
i thought i liked ron paul till i heard this. is he saying he never masterbates or has sex just for the joy of it and not just having sex to get his wife pregnant? thats killing a cell too. so what its not a fetus, it can still be life. fucking hypocrite.
Check out RON PAUL for President in 2008, this guy is trying to crash the two party system-talks about the American imperialism,abolishing the Fed, IRS. Please read some books also, I can't believe how ignorant our federal monopoly on education as dumbed down Americans along with our big media liars.
Yeah but maybe you wouldn't if you viewed it from a states right vs. federal gov't control issues b/c really Paul takes the same stance on it as he does every issue. It's just his personal feelings that are against it.
so you're going to let the abortion issue dictate federal politics? If the states were handling this, people might actually vote based on something important, instead, feminists who want to kill unborn babies will vote for someone like guiliani, put it this way, don't worry about it, just ignore the massive debt, just turn a blind eye dude, things will be just fine.
it's not doubletalk, he says exactly that he's against it but that he's also against federal involvement in it and wants it handled by the states, seems pretty clear cut to me, you'd prefer it if he turns it into a wedge issue where the federal government has absolutely legislative control over touchy subjects that by definition have no 'one size fits all' solution?
It's not doubletalk. As an ob/gyn he was responsible for a fetus from the time of conception so for him life begins then. However he acknowledges that it is a complex issue and complex issues are better decided at the local level and the feds have a way of screwing things up.
The thing is pro choice people really don't think life begins at the moment of conception. I just don't. Who has funerals for miscarriages? I also understand that some people DO believe that life begins at conception so it makes sense that they are against abortion. Complex issue. No real right or wrong answer. Keep the feds out of it.
I agree that in the US the states should deal with this. Although I don't like your point when you brought the funerals for miscarriages thing. It's just the fault of some individuals. It's got nothing to do with the fact if a human being begins at conception or not (life does begin at conception - fetus is alive - the question is: is this life a human being).
It's not really considered a human being or there would be funerals. A miscarriage is maybe tragedy for the mother, not the death of a human. My catholic auntie miscarried after just having given birth about two months before and she was glad not sad. Two babies in a one year time frame is a bit much even for a staunch catholic. She didn't think of it as losing a child at all. Nobody did.
She must not have had it while still recovering from a c-section. I doubt my auntie would have felt relief if she hadn't just given birth two months before. The last thing she wanted was another baby. Everyone is different.
Nope, he has a 20 yr, record for honesty and integrity in Congress. He says what he means and he ALWAYS does what he says. He's prolife but he won't let personal views effect his stance on upholding the constitution. He will overturn Roe v Wade but he will not replace it with any anti laws because it should up for states to decide.
When are you radical Commie Ron Paul morons going to finally be taken to concentration camps for "American re-education" (hopefully, waterboarding for all)? We have been waiting for this for years now ever since Moveon, Algore, George Soros, Run Paul (brush your teeth), and Hillary Rotten warned us. When?
I love Ron Paul and understand why he believes as he does, but I strongly disagree with him on abortion. That being said, he's still the best candidate out there, without a doubt.
i understand exactly where he's coming from, he actually doesn't paint it black and white like all the other candidates, but i disagree with his fetus stance.
however, with that said, he did say he would never vote for a national ban on abortion, and his biggest problem with roe vs. wade is from a constitutional stand point
Extremely poor analogy considering Ron Paul is against killing anything. Republican vs democrat doesn't mean anything these days considering both parties are full of corporate whores, Except Ron Paul. He's the only candidate that's for the people and not for corporate sponsors.
my point is that most supporters blindly follow ignoring the fact that a lot of his policies are very conservative. plus his stance on education is ridiculous, but just because he's not a corporate whore, we should elect a lunatic? he wants to destroy the system and replace it with one that would benefit the rich even more. not to mention, we can get out of iraq without telling the whole world to fuck off, by leaving all IOs.
I think that you're wrong to say that his supporters follow him blindly. Most support him because the agree with at least most of his policy if not all. I also strongly disagree that his policies would make the rich richer. He's never voted to raise taxes for instance. He's fiscally conservative but socially liberal. He does not want to tell the whole world to fuck off. He just doesn't want to mind their business with our troops and taxes.
A lunatic? Yes, he refused the million dollar pension that all the crazy greedy congressmen voted in for themselves out of the tax payers pockets. That is crazy. I just happen to think that that is a good kind of crazy and the kind of crazy integrity that we need now.
So you think we should blindly follow the government and give them all our money and be able to kill babies up to a certain point. Great thought. If someone crashes into your car, and kills your unborn child it is a murder, yet if you decide you don;t want the child its ok to suck it out and throw it is the trash. WOW we need more people like you
no, see, that's a very important point. if someone runs over a pregnant woman it should only count as 1 count of vehicular manslaughter. i really don't care if you kill something that doesn't have a conscience. Like descartes said, "i think therefore i am." if you don't, die for all i care you dumb fetus. and women should have a choice, otherwise you'll force her to live with her mistake which is bad for her and the child.
Live with her mistake. Are you serious. A child is much more than a mistake. Force HER to live, exactly. Living is a great thing and nobody would force her to keep the child if she did not want to live up to her responsability. There is a word- responsability- A child is not a choice and should not be concidered something to get in your way of happiness. TAKE RESPONSABILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS. Murder should not be a easy way out of a situation Mr. Peterson
Ok, I'll give Paul credit. Most politicians win elections promising to give everyone something. He's the first to promist to take away everything from everybody.
"we should cut everything" --Ron Paul, Oct. 2007
youtube video: Ron Paul post-debate interviews in CNN's Spin Room
"when we cut, it's going to hurt some people, that's why I say, cut overseas first."
i've had enough to these Texas republicans, like Paul, leading our country down the drain
how does that make sense though, you say these things as though they're meant to make sense, but they don't, and you don't even realise it, all these costs and programs and subsidies are growing at a rate that's not sustainable, if cutting them is going to lead America down the drain, then I must be in the twilight zone, that shit is all backwards.
@Teutonicberserker You are an idiot. Decisions regarding birth control are a fundamental right so they receive greater protection than rights which are not considered fundamental. Very simple concept and you are quite stupid.
The thing is abortion is not good. I know what I'm talking about here. And, it is a life. However, what happens to the woman who has to give birth to a baby and raise it in this poverty stricken world is appalling. She has a very slim chance of having a nice life. Especially if she is poor, in an abusive relationship, already has a couple kids, or the father is M.I.A. It has to remain an option.
Ron Paul is anti choice, which is bad, but I understand that his general policy is to leave abortion to the states, because civic matters have no place in federal policy, akin to his more prioritized libertarian argument. Anyway, he's dead wrong about abortion, but so long as he doesn't get all arrogant and start interfering into civic matters, then I think he's better than the status quo candidates.
No chance of getting elected though, if you ask me.
if you ban abortion then the women who were raped and left half-dead and pregnant will have to give birth to an unwanted child that will only remind them of their nightmare. i would never carry a child that was given to me in that manner.
look, he's been recorded saying that we can't view this issue as just black and white. there is a huge gray area that will be left up to the states. i'm located that material as we speak for proof.
Abortion is a woman's right to choose. Men have absolutly no say on this topic! It's funny, because most of you posters who are against it, are men which makes me really mad. Until you can carry a kid for months you have no right to tell us what to do with our bodies!!
Ron Paul wants to bring us back into the dark ages. Is it what you want?? Abortion was made legal for very good reason..because back alley abortion killed women, thousands of them!! So, why would any one wanting to go back to make abortion illegal?? You people need to face the reality!
again, 90% of all abortions are done in the first trimester! these are not babies! It is only blood and tissues!! I have had several abortions done as soon as they could be done and have no regrets!! But I agree, late term abortions should be ban except when the mental or physical health of the mother is in danger.
Quit having sex with women who could potentially become pregnant, jimmy. if a man has sex with a woman, one of the risks is that she will have an abortion. Men know this. Women are the ones who have to go through that difficult and very personal ordeal. As a man, you have the right to choose whether or not you want to have sex with a woman- and then you get to man up and pay the consequences. We have to.
Creed... like so many, you need to talk to the romanian people and get back to reality!! watch the movie 4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days...You have no right to force a pregnancy on a woman! Period! ban abortion and women will die! nothing and no one will stop a woman who does not want a child!! it has been like this for the begining of times! When are you going to get it??
you morons don't seem to mind that millions of kids who are born, are dying of diseases and starvation.. but again, for you, only american life is worst saving... Also, you don't seem to mind all the bombs killing thousand of children in iraq and afghanistan... instead on dwelling on fetuses, start dwelling on the ones who are already borned!
4,000 babies are killed daily by abortions. So do the math when talking about the casualities in the Middle East. Both abortion and the war are wrong, but many more babies are dying because of their own mothers.
feeknocks.. you are the moron. Again, it will be the poor who will pay the price if there is a ban on abortion. they won't be able to afford to go to another state. Unwanted children= unloved and abused! They end up paying the price of being unwanted. I know I was one of them! All children born should be loved and wanted! PERIOD!
This is smoke and mirrors. He is anti-choice! If he repeals Roe V. Wade, states will make abortion illegal. RP supporters don't make this a big issue because they know it is unpopular. If your a pro-life voter that is fine, but many RP supporters dont know his stance on this.
Feeknocks, easy for you to say. You're old. You won't have to live with the consequences of your actions very long. My generation is screwed. I have recollection of only three presidents: Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and Bush Jr. I am aghast that after all the work women have done, we still don't make much money, we are still victims of constant violence, we can't safely walk down the street alone, and we are being told what to do with our bodies. My uterus hurts from Bush constantly attacking it.
Whether or not it's a life isn't the issue. I mean we aren't concerned with taking a life when it means our lunch. The issue is whether the life deserves the same rights as thinking individuals.
I will never vote for him if he is against the right to choose! Period! I will vote for a candidate who support abortion, education and healthcare for all!
His personal views have nothing to do with his legislative agenda. He doesn't plan to eliminate abortion, and he wouldn't have the power to do so. You have to differentiate between personality and politics-The media usually confounds the two.
so you're basically a socialist? sweet. lets go through history and find out how socialism has worked out so far...I don't know how people can be so ignorant and selfish.
you want want freedom to choose? don't wear a seat-belt! that's your life - it's your right. (your other right to choose involves keeping your legs closed -even when you've had one too many drinks)
Since there is no scientific basis, WHEN a human being exists becomes a belief. If you choose to believe a human being exists at conception, that is only a belief. Others choose to believe that human being exists at birth. Most are in the middle. Regardless, it is a belief we are EACH entitled to.
A persons POV doesn't make something impossible, especially something that's officially undecided within the scientific community that people praise so highly. Women should have equal rights, that's good and fine what we are all about, but nobody should have the right to kill, not even the state in my opinion.
The issue of abortion has a lot to do with how one feels about human sexuality. The left end of the political spectrum says that humans can pretty much have sex with anyone who is consenting. The right end says that a person should only have sex with one and only one spouse of the opposite sex.
If you believe the first, where unwanted pregnancies are much more likely to happen than under the latter practice, then you are much more likely to believe that terminating a fetus is okay. Believing otherwise doesn't coalesce well with that lifestyle. If you have the other lifestyle then you are more likely to believe a fetus to be a life.
I disagree martinking. my stance comes the idea from life may possibly start at conception, and since no one can agree that it doesn't it would be better to err on the safe side and risk giving a potential human right to life rather than risking denial of a human right to life. Maybe some people are more willing to compromise that because they are more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy.
I also believe that one persons choices end where one persons rights begin.
Yes, but if you are a woman who wants to sleep around a lot then you are probably more likely to "err" on the other side. The reason is you don't want to be stuck having a child you didn't want.
So my reasoning still stands solid. Nothing you said refuted it.
ok. So because I am hypothetically a monogamous person and I believe that since life may possibly start at conception we should just forgo the risk of terminating said life by banning abortion. I see the connection.
but what is it about sleeping around that makes the possibility of denying a human their right to life okay? I realize you may not want the kid but you wouldn't risk a grown humans life on that.
In those people's eyes (with more promiscuous lifestyles), they don't see it as human life. That is the point. They see it as part of the mother's body. But I think their lifestyle is part of the reason why they view it that way.
ah. so the increased chance of me getting pregnant as a promiscuous female makes me more likely to a fetus as inhuman. predictable, but not objective at all.
It is not completely objective. Feelings on abortion is subjective. Is a human fetus a life who should have the same rights as a 5 year child? There is no totally objective answer. And that is the main point of all my posts: it is not a black and white issue. That is something many people on both sides don't understand. They have their point of view and refuse to see it any other way.
but in a case of whether it is life and death issue you have to have a black and white answer, the state has to be objective while handling cases of life and death.
But that is the big issue: whether it is life or death. To pro-choicers, it isn't. It is about the choice of the mother and who has autonomy over her body and what is in it.
so ignoring that what happens could actually result in a human dying makes it not an issue of life and death?
If you see an object on the road and decide to run over it with the possibility of it being a human, just because it is more convenient not to stop or even just drive around it, is that a matter of life and death?
Well, then one could argue about sperm or eggs. They die and they have the chance of being a life. There is certainly the possibility.
You just assume that life begins at conception, but many minds (well-meaning) disagree. You need to keep an open-mind and try to see things from other people's point of view. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it.
But I think far too often people believe that people on the other side of abortion somehow have malevolent intentions. Examples from the choice side include that pro-lifers want to control women's bodies. I am sure you disagree, but many pro-choicers refuse to see it any other way.
Much like you refuse to see it any other way than life being killed. If you don't want to see any other way, then that is your choice. But I wanted to tell you that pro-choicers don't see it that way. You believe you are protecting babies, but they believe they are simply protecting women.
Also, we like to spell it "Grammar" when we are criticizing other people's grammar. I don't know who they spell it where you come from, but that's just what they taught me in school.
nobody said a pregnant woman is property of the state, just that she should be held accountable to state laws and that children be protected by the state.
What's irrational is rating sentience by 'blobbiness.' Does that mean fat people are less human because they are more blobby? Isn't an adult just a bigger, more complex 'blob' of cells?
If a state is making medical decisions for a woman, and ignoring her right to choose, I'd say that the state effectively owns that woman's body for the duration of the pregnancy.
Children should be protected by the state. They are right now. What does this have to do with abortion?
An adult is a blob of cells that is a rational being. This is where our rights originate.
Abortion is not the problem. The problem is unwanted pregnancy. There are all these "accidental" pregnancies out there I keep hearing about. Someone want to tell me how you can get accidentally pregnant? I'm sure we all know how it happens. Men have to learn to keep there pants on and women have to learn to keep their legs closed. IMO, rape is the only justifiable cause for an abortion.
That makes no sense. You cannot say that a murder or manslaughter has taken place purely based upon the whims of the mother. According to you, if the mother doesn't want the baby, then the guy who caused her to miscarry did her a favor. On the other hand, if a different mood strikes her and she does want the baby, suddenly the guy has comitted murder or manslaughter. That's insane!
Even worse. In one case a person chooses, that is, deliberately kills another person, & in another case, the person unintentionally, without want, kills a person. The abortion is first-degree murder when the car accident is manslaughter.
If your argument were true, you would be perfectly justified in tossing your kid in a dumpster if you wanted since you may "choose not to raise it". If that seems absurd, then consider what is fundamentally different about a baby a split second before it is born. Nothing! What changed about the BABY ITSELF during that time? Nothing substantial. So you want to be able to kill the baby based upon nothing substantial.
Ron Paul is an amazing human being. It is not trendy to be pro-life, which makes it all the cooler that Dr. Paul just sticks to his guns an doesn't give a damn who wgrees with him or not. He also uses intelligent discourse as a means to getting his points across.
But if I unintentionally hit you with my car you're crossing the street & you are pregnant & your baby dies, why am I then subject to manslaughter charges? It was an accident, I didn't mean to kill your kid, millions of abortions are performed every year, but in one case it is considered a human life & in another it is not. Doesn't make sense.
Ron Paul once explained in an interview in response to abortion question, that when he was an intern working toward his surgical degree, he had to be present for an abortion among a room full of doctors. When the fetus was aborted, it was moving, crying. The surgeon dropped it in a can in the corner of the room. It continued to cry & all acted as if nothing was happening.
See, the discussion you don't want to have is whether or not the baby inside you qualifies as a human beign with a right to life. Instead, you just want to assume that it isn't and then frame the debate as a privacy issue. But that frame doesn't apply if the baby is a human being, because then it is an issue of whether all human beings have a right to live.
What Ron said there is good and all, but he needs to utterly condemn this idea that its UP TO THE STATES whether or not to legalize the brutal murder of innocent babies.
If any state legalized owning blacks as slaves or legalized child rape then the federal government SHOULD use its resources to go in and stop that injustice from occuring.
Excuse me, but take responsibility for your actions. If you have intercourse and become pregnant, you just created a life as a result of your choices. You have no right to take that same life. Now you can argue whether it it is, indeed, a life, but don't argue that you bear no responsibility in the matter.
Okay people. WHAT determines when a human life begins? How can ANYONE say when it begins? Is it DNA? If so, then if I cut off my little finger, you better not throw it away because that is a human life! If a woman trips down some stairs and then miscarries, you better arrest her for negligent homocide! All you idiots who think you KNOW when a human life begins better start getting your story straight and have FACTS to back it up. Otherwise it is FAITH. You BELIEVE when life begins.
Life began billions of years ago, no one knows exactly when or how. From that point on, life came from other life. Life is there before, during and after birth. The sperm is a living cell, the egg is a living cell. Tome the whole debate of "when does life begin" is pointless as life has always been there. Now if you want to debate, when do the cells become a human being? There is a where the debate should be.
nobody is perfect. he believes in the constitution, and he believes that a fetus is a living thing, which it is. he's not going to say, well you know, abortion is practical, so im going to allow it. he's stronger and more dedicated than that. he will be honest to the people, honest to himself, and do what he believes is morally right. he has never said he plans to outlaw abortions entirely, he has simply said where his beliefs lie on this issue.
Life begins at conception. If you went back day by day in your life to the very beginning that would be the start. If you abort your baby then you are a murderer and you should repent.
That is one valid view, however, when talking about such issues, one is inevitably talking about potential as well. Therefore, prenatal exams should not be conducted because a cell from the developing mass of cells must be removed. That cell could have split from the mass to develop into a twin, but instead has been terminated.
Identical twins develop from the splitting of a fertilized egg. When they split determines if they share a placenta and if they have one or two chorions and amnions. Perhaps you were thinking of fraternal?
And this is the primary reason I won't vote for Ron Paul. The hypocrite says that the government should leave us alone but then he says the government should decide arbitrarily for all when life begins? I'd like to hear his reasoning behind when human life begins and why...and why his view is to be considered the law. He wants to force his beliefs upon all through law and to me that is the opposite of what the First Amendment to the Constitution is about.
Yes, his faith underscores his belief that his liberty is a God given right, not something that govt. grants him. But he supports freedom of religion for everyone. So what is your point?
artmv11 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL I HAVE A ? FOR YOU. WHAT KIND OF DOCTOR ARE YOU IF YOU DONT CARE ABOUT HEALTHCARE FOR AMERICAN PEOPLE? FORGET ABOUT KIDS IN AFRICA OR WOMEN IN AFGHANISTAN, WHAT SPECIES ARE YOU? ARE YOU HUMAN? DO YOU LOVE AMERICAN PEOPLE OR YOU JUST WANT POWER? DUDE ALL JOBS WENT TO CHINA , CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS. WHY U DONT WANT AMERICAN PEOPLE TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE IF TECHNOLOGY KILLS JOBS ?
democratsaresmart 7 months ago
Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He is saying in this video that the Supreme Court has defined the word "liberty" too broadly. He's a neo-confederate racist fraud.
worldnewsbbc1 10 months ago
@worldnewsbbc1 - back in the day, libertarians were pot smoking, pro-abortion, pro-immigrant, and anti-war. Today's libertarians are just lame-ass gun-nut fascists.
wildgift2 9 months ago
he is entitled to his own personal opinions on the matter. As long as he is careful to be bipartisan about it when it comes to politics, It shouldn't really matter what he thinks about the issue.
Gardeniasaur 1 year ago
The only thing is, yes it is a life clearly but it's also the woman who has to go through the process of pregnancy and the pain of labor and at the same time that it's kind of messed up to kill the fetus or the child it's also kind of messed up to force a woman who doesn't want to have a child to have one. I don't see it as so black or white on either side. In cases or rape I think abortion is legit b/c the woman didn't concede to pregnancy or if the woman's health is in crisis I think the
dubified89 1 year ago
already born and living woman's life outweighs the only partially formed child and mandating her possible death is wrong. Some people dismiss those two notions but I think it's completely legit. In the case of pregnancies that are the result of irresponsible consensual unprotected sex I'd say it's a hard call to make. I think a better argument can be made against late term abortions b/c the child is even more formed and developed and in some cases resemble prematurely born babies that survive
dubified89 1 year ago
I guess really though if you have consensual unprotected sense you're consenting to the pregnancy though. Even if you use birth control and it fails you're still consenting to the risk. But I don't believe in the state so I don't believe in abortion being illegal per se b/c I don't believe in police
dubified89 1 year ago
@dubified89 (as long as it is done within the legal time constraints).
and, if you are pro-life, then my question still stands: what are the practical consequences of a world without legal abortion?
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
these pro-life people are idealouges plain and simple. my question is what are the practical implications of a pro-life agenda? because I only see bad things. I see more children born out of wedlock, more poverty, more crime, and more illegitimate/dangerous abortions. so if you are pro-life I really want you to consider what a world without legal abortion would be like.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
That's a fucked up elitist view to take b/c plenty of people struggle in their lives to overcome conditions they're born into whatever they be. Should they have been aborted too? I mean should every person whose parents were not married or got a divorce have been aborted?
dubified89 1 year ago
@dubified89 first of all, it's elitist to tell all women what she can do with her own body or livelihood.
secondly, only a very small percentage of abortions are done for women who don't absolutely need it for a vital health reason.
and thirdly, yes, there is suffering in the world and abortion is not going to make it all go away. but i think that if a woman has the opportunity to terminate a pregnancy before it inevitably becomes a human being in poverty, she has that right
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
Welfare state encourages out of wedlock births, more wealth and education lead to less abortion
358Liberty 2 years ago
The audio blows.
Novjunulo 3 years ago
Ron Paul is an OBGYN. He makes perfect sense on this.
BrokenSword2 3 years ago
I never heard him fully explain his outlook. Turn it over to the States, yes and what does that look like. Of course its not a matter of Fed influence at that point, but if you're going to be Chief Executive, you have to foresee what the development will look like and use your office to 'educate' the country.
He doesn't say anything about Mothers' homes, adoption changes, assistance for orphanages, etc. Or what degrees of abortion should exist. He just makes a good case against abortion.
crock703 3 years ago
just like obama, ron paul has repeatedly said to leave it up to the states...ron paul believes it is wrong,,,but if u totally abolish it, then u choose...the life of the mother or the baby
craigdavid00 3 years ago
Yeah, of course. That's what I wrote.
My beef w/ RP on this and a lot of his other issues, is that he speaks as an ideologue. Granted he is trying to paint a picture of a possibility most people don't currently know, but I'm not sure if his lack of explaining the transition processes is just a simple omission (for the getting his ideology out there) or some incompetence/naivete/lack of foresight.
crock703 3 years ago
That's a good point. I support Ron Paul, but I think if he better explained how we would transition to these ideals, it would be helpful. His books deal a little with that, but I think some of the mainstream concern with him is how we would transition, would America be willing to go through the growing pain, etc. Thank you for your comment. RJ
TripperLV 2 years ago
Yeah and it is a huge transition. We're talking about society being structured enough to without government, that education has some level of relative equality, a moral and 'typical' knowledge-based education.. so that people the opportunity to make those good or bad decisions, rather than their lack of 'education' making it for them.
Its a real "christian" idea, people volunteering to assist others for the good of the whole, rather than expecting govt to do it.
crock703 2 years ago
That would take a good generation or two, I think, to develop and be something capable of replacing what we depend on the govt for. Especially with the way we've unravelled socially in the past few decades.
History is littered with failed govts and societies that were run aground by ideologues who believed their system was so pure that application would be a cure all for society, regardless of the context in which it was instituted.
crock703 2 years ago
Ideologically speaking, I probably fall in line philosophically with anarchy. You need an entirely different society for that to work though, so I vote/live in way that edges my immediate world towards that. If we abolished law & govt tomorow, it would be the cliche madness people think of when they hear the word "anarchy."
Same as we'd have a caste system if we went to a hardcore libertarian govt tmw -- moral 'common sense' and the charitable structures would take time to develop.
crock703 2 years ago
I do like how Ron Paul is questioning the current paradigm. In my view, in modern day America, it seems we are being conditioned to look to government for solutions to our problems, instead of self-regulating, working-out solutions, or simply acting responsibly and appropriate. I cant tell you how many times Ive told people just because its not illegal, does not meant that it is ethical.
TripperLV 2 years ago
Excellent point, I agree. The idea of volunteering captures the passion of "giving" derived from from an individuals own cause, instead of "forced giving" through government taxation. However, it is very hard to change societies beliefs when they have become dependent on government. We would have to break that cycle of addiction.
TripperLV 2 years ago
The question IS NOT whether abortion is legal the question IS DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY? If you attack the reasoning in Roe v. Wade you open up a can of worms and attack your own privacy rights. The quicker you bring down the precedent set forth in Roe v. Wade the sooner the Federal government will be in your home. So all you Neo-Cons out there keep it up and you will soon have the large centralized government you want. HA-HA
v01dem0rt 3 years ago
pro life all the way
J575 4 years ago
You should be able to do what ever you want when it comes to your own body, but a baby is not your body it is a seperate life, someone needs to fight for that innocent child, abortion is murder!
jwfrgvn 4 years ago
There are all sorts of things you can't do with your own body because it's against the law. You can't take drugs, you can't kill someone, you're locked up in a psych ward if you try to kill yourself -- again, there are all sorts of things that you are not allowed to do with your own body. Maybe murdering life which is growing inside you should be one of them.
Kuettner 4 years ago
I don't mean to sound like I know what both sides are thinking. But if it were me who got pregnant, I would kill a mutherfocker who tried to tell me what to do with it! It's really not fair to make people do one thing or another to their own bodies when they absolutely don't want to! And don't cry to me about the what if's.. save it for someone who's pregnant!
| /.
pabface 4 years ago
Ok. I'm a male and I've given this subject some serious thought.
@#$%! EVERYONE! It's Y O U R UN-BORN baby! It's your life UNTIL IT IS BORN.
just MY OPINION
pabface 4 years ago
It's your un-born baby is not a valid argument for being able to kill the baby. People can't be owned anymore. It's either a life deserving full constitutional protection or not. The only question is is the baby alive.
frokeout 4 years ago
I guess you didn't understand what I meant by un-born. If it's in the mother's womb, it's up to the mother what to do with it.
inside = fetus
outside = baby
pabface 4 years ago
A fetus is not a human being with rights. It's a fetus! You Pro-Life scum should stop hiding your hypocrisy behind a constitutional law! We're talking about desperate human beings here that want to end a mistake, not continuing it (like Ron Paul wants to do with the war in Iraq)! And stop pretending you actually care what happens to a zygote in some distant third world country.
rattaplan 4 years ago
Maybe you should take Bio 101. A human fetus is a human being. There is no if, ands, or buts about it. It's scientific fact. Life begins at conception. The body begins to grow immediately, and will continue to grow and develop for another 20 or so years. What makes a human life any different when it's in the womb? Nothing! The only thing that's different is the location of the body. If you take that body out early, it can still live. Hence, there is no difference. Life begins at conception.
ryancwalter 4 years ago
ryancwalker, you talk like a person with the reasoning of a 6 year old.
Grow up and take a Bio 101 yourself first. If a zygote is pulled out of the hosts body, it won't survive on its own, believe me.
rattaplan 4 years ago
Its TWO peoples baby, not ones. The other spouse has a equal right in the decision. I don't have kids, but had to girls tell me thay had abortions without me knowing. BITCHES! They murdered my bloodline. Now, why don't I have kids?
sleepwalker29 4 years ago
Its also stupid how women say its their body and decision. Then ask for child support. Whats that for? Do we have a right of not? So if we can't have a decision on abortion, cause its not ours, then don't come asking for money. Thats about all I got to comment on the subject.
sleepwalker29 4 years ago
Now you're making some sense. But you should understand that SHE is the one holding that baby, not you. Why did these girls lie to you? There has to be a reason (not that I'm saying it justifies anything). Abortion is not always "justified", nor is it always a mutual choice (like in your case). But it IS always up to the woman "to have a choice". Whether you get her to agree with you or not. How can you possibly think it's right to make that choice I L L E G A L ?
pabface 4 years ago
You are so ignorant they couldn't stand the thought of having your disgusting parasite in their bodies for another second. You want a kid? Get a uterus. Give birth. Raise it yourself just like those women would have ended up raising your offspring alone.
csalzan1 3 years ago
Do the other candidates ever get asked if they are going to distance themselves from Jewish supremacist groups like the ADL? Will Obama distance himself from black vested interest and advocacy groups like United Negro College fund and Naacp? How many members of the NAACP have sent money to Obama? How many Jews in the various Jewish advocacy groups have sent money to Hillary? Why are these questions not being asked?
Gravelandart 4 years ago
Well the Israel lobby has actual money, unlike a band of rag-tag white supremacists who may even be agents, & candidates have to promise to do things for them such as go to war & kill innocent people unlike individual donations.
DaveIrie 4 years ago
Can you define a "white supremacist"? It seems you watch too much TV, the TV always goes on about "white Supremacists". I suggest you shut off the Jewish media. Yes, Jewish media, that's what it is.
Gravelandart 4 years ago
Idiot.
luketrashtalker 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i thought i liked ron paul till i heard this. is he saying he never masterbates or has sex just for the joy of it and not just having sex to get his wife pregnant? thats killing a cell too. so what its not a fetus, it can still be life. fucking hypocrite.
6im6dead6 4 years ago
Check out RON PAUL for President in 2008, this guy is trying to crash the two party system-talks about the American imperialism,abolishing the Fed, IRS. Please read some books also, I can't believe how ignorant our federal monopoly on education as dumbed down Americans along with our big media liars.
CorollaKing 4 years ago
I'm pro choice but still voting for RON PAUL, its probably the only issue I disagree with him on............
leo1133 4 years ago
Yeah but maybe you wouldn't if you viewed it from a states right vs. federal gov't control issues b/c really Paul takes the same stance on it as he does every issue. It's just his personal feelings that are against it.
DaveIrie 4 years ago 3
@DaveIrie /watch?v=kUwnMX8ht3U
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
Wow Very Impressed wit what he said. It's messed up to see people use abortion/killing a human beating heart as a form of birth control.
timm9 4 years ago
Paul is a prolifer pretending to be prochoice...or a prochoicer pretending to be prolife?
he said, on "The View" (Dec04) he wants States to Decide Abortion, which if you think about it,
is the same a pro-choice position--state's choice, if you will.
That's why I say RP is just a typical
texas republican who wants to have it both ways...8 years is enough
barryhomework04 4 years ago
so you're going to let the abortion issue dictate federal politics? If the states were handling this, people might actually vote based on something important, instead, feminists who want to kill unborn babies will vote for someone like guiliani, put it this way, don't worry about it, just ignore the massive debt, just turn a blind eye dude, things will be just fine.
luke666808g 4 years ago
no, my point is not about abortion...it's about his doubletalk...just another texas republican
barryhomework04 4 years ago
it's not doubletalk, he says exactly that he's against it but that he's also against federal involvement in it and wants it handled by the states, seems pretty clear cut to me, you'd prefer it if he turns it into a wedge issue where the federal government has absolutely legislative control over touchy subjects that by definition have no 'one size fits all' solution?
luke666808g 4 years ago
santa clause isn't real and neither is Ron Paul...but you keep living the dream, bub
barryhomework04 4 years ago
It's not doubletalk. As an ob/gyn he was responsible for a fetus from the time of conception so for him life begins then. However he acknowledges that it is a complex issue and complex issues are better decided at the local level and the feds have a way of screwing things up.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 4 years ago
The thing is pro choice people really don't think life begins at the moment of conception. I just don't. Who has funerals for miscarriages? I also understand that some people DO believe that life begins at conception so it makes sense that they are against abortion. Complex issue. No real right or wrong answer. Keep the feds out of it.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 4 years ago
I agree that in the US the states should deal with this. Although I don't like your point when you brought the funerals for miscarriages thing. It's just the fault of some individuals. It's got nothing to do with the fact if a human being begins at conception or not (life does begin at conception - fetus is alive - the question is: is this life a human being).
LibertyUPR 4 years ago
It's not really considered a human being or there would be funerals. A miscarriage is maybe tragedy for the mother, not the death of a human. My catholic auntie miscarried after just having given birth about two months before and she was glad not sad. Two babies in a one year time frame is a bit much even for a staunch catholic. She didn't think of it as losing a child at all. Nobody did.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 4 years ago
My mom had a miscarriage like 30 years ago & it still traumatizes her. She even cries when she thinks about it sometimes.
DaveIrie 4 years ago
She must not have had it while still recovering from a c-section. I doubt my auntie would have felt relief if she hadn't just given birth two months before. The last thing she wanted was another baby. Everyone is different.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 4 years ago
I would hate to know my mother was glad she miscarried with me.
brittniebob2 4 years ago
HOW would you know that? HOW?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 4 years ago
Compare Paul's doublespeak on "The View" (Dec04) and his interview with
Nashua Telegraph. Search utube "Ron Paul on Abortion" (Dec03). Why he couldn't give
a straight answer on the View? Obviously, he speaks down to whatever audience he is in front of.
Just a typical texas republican two stepper.
barryhomework04 4 years ago
Nope, he has a 20 yr, record for honesty and integrity in Congress. He says what he means and he ALWAYS does what he says. He's prolife but he won't let personal views effect his stance on upholding the constitution. He will overturn Roe v Wade but he will not replace it with any anti laws because it should up for states to decide.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 4 years ago 2
you dont want to hear what he is really saying because you are in love with him...
i'm happy for you. If you truly are a civil Libertarian then he's definitely the right
candidate for you. don't worry, i'm out of gas now. Good luck with your campaign.
barryhomework04 4 years ago
you think your out of gas wait till the dollar collapses and it is not even worth its weight in toilet paper!
bignick5469 4 years ago
I was an undecided voter. I really was. And then I listened to Ron Paul's message. Now I'm
GAY for Ron Paul. He does it for me. Real bad. Help me spread the word about his MAGIC
CONSTITUTION STICK. Search utube video: Red State Update: Ron Paul. And his sidekick K-Boy.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
barryhomework04 4 years ago
HAHA Your voting 4 Thompson? Good luck your the only one
brittniebob2 4 years ago
When are you radical Commie Ron Paul morons going to finally be taken to concentration camps for "American re-education" (hopefully, waterboarding for all)? We have been waiting for this for years now ever since Moveon, Algore, George Soros, Run Paul (brush your teeth), and Hillary Rotten warned us. When?
CharlessMartel 4 years ago
Seig Heil to you too Herr Martel.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 4 years ago
3 billion people live in less than 1 dollar a day. Yeah we need more people and more global warming.
kungiiii 4 years ago
Kung. So you think murder should be legal? Great idea.
ralloose 4 years ago
The Hunt for Fred October was a bust, dude.
CFRaud Thompson failed to inspire,
and Ron Paul's numbers keep going higher!
RP 08 FTW
ProspectorSam 4 years ago
I love Ron Paul and understand why he believes as he does, but I strongly disagree with him on abortion. That being said, he's still the best candidate out there, without a doubt.
maofas 4 years ago
exact same thoughts
i understand exactly where he's coming from, he actually doesn't paint it black and white like all the other candidates, but i disagree with his fetus stance.
however, with that said, he did say he would never vote for a national ban on abortion, and his biggest problem with roe vs. wade is from a constitutional stand point
squirmypuppy 4 years ago
I really like hitler, but i disagree with his "jew killing policy." Oooooh well. wake the fuck up. he's a republican.
quittalkingok 4 years ago
Extremely poor analogy considering Ron Paul is against killing anything. Republican vs democrat doesn't mean anything these days considering both parties are full of corporate whores, Except Ron Paul. He's the only candidate that's for the people and not for corporate sponsors.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 4 years ago
my point is that most supporters blindly follow ignoring the fact that a lot of his policies are very conservative. plus his stance on education is ridiculous, but just because he's not a corporate whore, we should elect a lunatic? he wants to destroy the system and replace it with one that would benefit the rich even more. not to mention, we can get out of iraq without telling the whole world to fuck off, by leaving all IOs.
quittalkingok 4 years ago
I think that you're wrong to say that his supporters follow him blindly. Most support him because the agree with at least most of his policy if not all. I also strongly disagree that his policies would make the rich richer. He's never voted to raise taxes for instance. He's fiscally conservative but socially liberal. He does not want to tell the whole world to fuck off. He just doesn't want to mind their business with our troops and taxes.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 4 years ago
A lunatic? Yes, he refused the million dollar pension that all the crazy greedy congressmen voted in for themselves out of the tax payers pockets. That is crazy. I just happen to think that that is a good kind of crazy and the kind of crazy integrity that we need now.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 4 years ago
So you think we should blindly follow the government and give them all our money and be able to kill babies up to a certain point. Great thought. If someone crashes into your car, and kills your unborn child it is a murder, yet if you decide you don;t want the child its ok to suck it out and throw it is the trash. WOW we need more people like you
ralloose 4 years ago
no, see, that's a very important point. if someone runs over a pregnant woman it should only count as 1 count of vehicular manslaughter. i really don't care if you kill something that doesn't have a conscience. Like descartes said, "i think therefore i am." if you don't, die for all i care you dumb fetus. and women should have a choice, otherwise you'll force her to live with her mistake which is bad for her and the child.
quittalkingok 4 years ago
Live with her mistake. Are you serious. A child is much more than a mistake. Force HER to live, exactly. Living is a great thing and nobody would force her to keep the child if she did not want to live up to her responsability. There is a word- responsability- A child is not a choice and should not be concidered something to get in your way of happiness. TAKE RESPONSABILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS. Murder should not be a easy way out of a situation Mr. Peterson
ralloose 4 years ago
Ok, I'll give Paul credit. Most politicians win elections promising to give everyone something. He's the first to promist to take away everything from everybody.
"we should cut everything" --Ron Paul, Oct. 2007
youtube video: Ron Paul post-debate interviews in CNN's Spin Room
"when we cut, it's going to hurt some people, that's why I say, cut overseas first."
i've had enough to these Texas republicans, like Paul, leading our country down the drain
barryhomework04 4 years ago
how does that make sense though, you say these things as though they're meant to make sense, but they don't, and you don't even realise it, all these costs and programs and subsidies are growing at a rate that's not sustainable, if cutting them is going to lead America down the drain, then I must be in the twilight zone, that shit is all backwards.
luke666808g 4 years ago
Women have a choice. And that choice comes before she gets pregnant.
ralloose 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
afefds
aberjam07 4 years ago
Fight the powers that be...
TEAPARTY 07 Dec 16th...
TEAPARTY07dotcom
/watch?v=p_3LY1UmYhA
Why Polls are Bull:
/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4
/watch?v=FeT70pzs4nM
cormex55 4 years ago
There is no constitution rationale for abortion to be a federal issue.
The supreme court's decisions are frequently bogus and unconstitutional.
If privacy is so important that it stretches to cover abortion, why doesn't it prevent the federal government from spying on its citizens?
Teutonicberserker 4 years ago 4
@Teutonicberserker You are an idiot. Decisions regarding birth control are a fundamental right so they receive greater protection than rights which are not considered fundamental. Very simple concept and you are quite stupid.
worldnewsbbc1 10 months ago
@Teutonicberserker - there's no rationale for it being a state issue either. It should be an individual issue.
wildgift2 9 months ago
@wildgift2 thank you. Ron paul is a fundamentalist christian before all else.
polabear001 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wildgift2 thank you. Ron paul is a fundamentalist christian before all else.
polabear001 4 months ago
The thing is abortion is not good. I know what I'm talking about here. And, it is a life. However, what happens to the woman who has to give birth to a baby and raise it in this poverty stricken world is appalling. She has a very slim chance of having a nice life. Especially if she is poor, in an abusive relationship, already has a couple kids, or the father is M.I.A. It has to remain an option.
Nadine91273 4 years ago
my body, my choice.
ban it... then there will be absolutely no choice. thus bringing mothers to suicide and dying from illegal abortion practices.
RON PAUL 2008
lytlbyt777 4 years ago
Ron Paul is anti choice, which is bad, but I understand that his general policy is to leave abortion to the states, because civic matters have no place in federal policy, akin to his more prioritized libertarian argument. Anyway, he's dead wrong about abortion, but so long as he doesn't get all arrogant and start interfering into civic matters, then I think he's better than the status quo candidates.
No chance of getting elected though, if you ask me.
curiosofsigns1234 4 years ago
my body, my choice.
ban it... then there will be absolutely no choice. thus bringing mothers to suicide and dying from illegal abortion practices.
RON PAUL 2008
lytlbyt777 4 years ago
if you ban abortion then the women who were raped and left half-dead and pregnant will have to give birth to an unwanted child that will only remind them of their nightmare. i would never carry a child that was given to me in that manner.
lytlbyt777 4 years ago
look, he's been recorded saying that we can't view this issue as just black and white. there is a huge gray area that will be left up to the states. i'm located that material as we speak for proof.
lytlbyt777 4 years ago
Abortion is a woman's right to choose. Men have absolutly no say on this topic! It's funny, because most of you posters who are against it, are men which makes me really mad. Until you can carry a kid for months you have no right to tell us what to do with our bodies!!
narvick985 4 years ago
Jimmydean. You have absolutly no idea of what my circonstances were. Women can get pregnant on the pill too, you know...
narvick985 4 years ago
Ron Paul wants to bring us back into the dark ages. Is it what you want?? Abortion was made legal for very good reason..because back alley abortion killed women, thousands of them!! So, why would any one wanting to go back to make abortion illegal?? You people need to face the reality!
narvick985 4 years ago
Simple, all those women need to get on the pill, next time.
Pixxychick 4 years ago
again, 90% of all abortions are done in the first trimester! these are not babies! It is only blood and tissues!! I have had several abortions done as soon as they could be done and have no regrets!! But I agree, late term abortions should be ban except when the mental or physical health of the mother is in danger.
narvick985 4 years ago
Quit getting pregnant. There is an answer for you.
jimmydean03 4 years ago 2
Quit having sex with women who could potentially become pregnant, jimmy. if a man has sex with a woman, one of the risks is that she will have an abortion. Men know this. Women are the ones who have to go through that difficult and very personal ordeal. As a man, you have the right to choose whether or not you want to have sex with a woman- and then you get to man up and pay the consequences. We have to.
magenta471 4 years ago
Creed... like so many, you need to talk to the romanian people and get back to reality!! watch the movie 4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days...You have no right to force a pregnancy on a woman! Period! ban abortion and women will die! nothing and no one will stop a woman who does not want a child!! it has been like this for the begining of times! When are you going to get it??
narvick985 4 years ago
you morons don't seem to mind that millions of kids who are born, are dying of diseases and starvation.. but again, for you, only american life is worst saving... Also, you don't seem to mind all the bombs killing thousand of children in iraq and afghanistan... instead on dwelling on fetuses, start dwelling on the ones who are already borned!
narvick985 4 years ago
4,000 babies are killed daily by abortions. So do the math when talking about the casualities in the Middle East. Both abortion and the war are wrong, but many more babies are dying because of their own mothers.
creed823bratton 4 years ago
feeknocks.. you are the moron. Again, it will be the poor who will pay the price if there is a ban on abortion. they won't be able to afford to go to another state. Unwanted children= unloved and abused! They end up paying the price of being unwanted. I know I was one of them! All children born should be loved and wanted! PERIOD!
narvick985 4 years ago
This is smoke and mirrors. He is anti-choice! If he repeals Roe V. Wade, states will make abortion illegal. RP supporters don't make this a big issue because they know it is unpopular. If your a pro-life voter that is fine, but many RP supporters dont know his stance on this.
tylerdurden790 4 years ago
Like all states made gay marriage illegal? /sarcasm
You moron, if people want abortion, they can go to the state, and your baby killing will happen as you please. Don't worry about it.
feeknocks 4 years ago
Feeknocks, easy for you to say. You're old. You won't have to live with the consequences of your actions very long. My generation is screwed. I have recollection of only three presidents: Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and Bush Jr. I am aghast that after all the work women have done, we still don't make much money, we are still victims of constant violence, we can't safely walk down the street alone, and we are being told what to do with our bodies. My uterus hurts from Bush constantly attacking it.
magenta471 4 years ago
Whether or not it's a life isn't the issue. I mean we aren't concerned with taking a life when it means our lunch. The issue is whether the life deserves the same rights as thinking individuals.
surfingthechaos 4 years ago
I will never vote for him if he is against the right to choose! Period! I will vote for a candidate who support abortion, education and healthcare for all!
narvick985 4 years ago
His personal views have nothing to do with his legislative agenda. He doesn't plan to eliminate abortion, and he wouldn't have the power to do so. You have to differentiate between personality and politics-The media usually confounds the two.
Totalsam 4 years ago 2
so you're basically a socialist? sweet. lets go through history and find out how socialism has worked out so far...I don't know how people can be so ignorant and selfish.
you want want freedom to choose? don't wear a seat-belt! that's your life - it's your right. (your other right to choose involves keeping your legs closed -even when you've had one too many drinks)
tharpey 4 years ago
HAHA...States can do as they please. How many pro-choice presidents have we had since Roe v Wade? And none of them changed abortion laws...
jimmydean03 4 years ago
Since there is no scientific basis, WHEN a human being exists becomes a belief. If you choose to believe a human being exists at conception, that is only a belief. Others choose to believe that human being exists at birth. Most are in the middle. Regardless, it is a belief we are EACH entitled to.
mishabear 4 years ago
A persons POV doesn't make something impossible, especially something that's officially undecided within the scientific community that people praise so highly. Women should have equal rights, that's good and fine what we are all about, but nobody should have the right to kill, not even the state in my opinion.
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
no actually I didn't understand what you wrote, I gave up on that one post. but now I do.
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
who said anything about losing? your grammar just really sucked in previous posts. it's painful to read badly written posts.
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
The issue of abortion has a lot to do with how one feels about human sexuality. The left end of the political spectrum says that humans can pretty much have sex with anyone who is consenting. The right end says that a person should only have sex with one and only one spouse of the opposite sex.
martinking68 4 years ago
PART 2
If you believe the first, where unwanted pregnancies are much more likely to happen than under the latter practice, then you are much more likely to believe that terminating a fetus is okay. Believing otherwise doesn't coalesce well with that lifestyle. If you have the other lifestyle then you are more likely to believe a fetus to be a life.
martinking68 4 years ago
I disagree martinking. my stance comes the idea from life may possibly start at conception, and since no one can agree that it doesn't it would be better to err on the safe side and risk giving a potential human right to life rather than risking denial of a human right to life. Maybe some people are more willing to compromise that because they are more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy.
I also believe that one persons choices end where one persons rights begin.
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
Yes, but if you are a woman who wants to sleep around a lot then you are probably more likely to "err" on the other side. The reason is you don't want to be stuck having a child you didn't want.
So my reasoning still stands solid. Nothing you said refuted it.
martinking68 4 years ago
ok. So because I am hypothetically a monogamous person and I believe that since life may possibly start at conception we should just forgo the risk of terminating said life by banning abortion. I see the connection.
but what is it about sleeping around that makes the possibility of denying a human their right to life okay? I realize you may not want the kid but you wouldn't risk a grown humans life on that.
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
In those people's eyes (with more promiscuous lifestyles), they don't see it as human life. That is the point. They see it as part of the mother's body. But I think their lifestyle is part of the reason why they view it that way.
martinking68 4 years ago
ah. so the increased chance of me getting pregnant as a promiscuous female makes me more likely to a fetus as inhuman. predictable, but not objective at all.
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
It is not completely objective. Feelings on abortion is subjective. Is a human fetus a life who should have the same rights as a 5 year child? There is no totally objective answer. And that is the main point of all my posts: it is not a black and white issue. That is something many people on both sides don't understand. They have their point of view and refuse to see it any other way.
martinking68 4 years ago
but in a case of whether it is life and death issue you have to have a black and white answer, the state has to be objective while handling cases of life and death.
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
But that is the big issue: whether it is life or death. To pro-choicers, it isn't. It is about the choice of the mother and who has autonomy over her body and what is in it.
martinking68 4 years ago
so ignoring that what happens could actually result in a human dying makes it not an issue of life and death?
If you see an object on the road and decide to run over it with the possibility of it being a human, just because it is more convenient not to stop or even just drive around it, is that a matter of life and death?
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
Well, then one could argue about sperm or eggs. They die and they have the chance of being a life. There is certainly the possibility.
You just assume that life begins at conception, but many minds (well-meaning) disagree. You need to keep an open-mind and try to see things from other people's point of view. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it.
martinking68 4 years ago
PART 2
But I think far too often people believe that people on the other side of abortion somehow have malevolent intentions. Examples from the choice side include that pro-lifers want to control women's bodies. I am sure you disagree, but many pro-choicers refuse to see it any other way.
martinking68 4 years ago
PART 3
Much like you refuse to see it any other way than life being killed. If you don't want to see any other way, then that is your choice. But I wanted to tell you that pro-choicers don't see it that way. You believe you are protecting babies, but they believe they are simply protecting women.
martinking68 4 years ago
That's the most callous thing I've ever heard. You should be a coal miner.
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
Nonsense is truth?
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
commas iz afterthoughts when I reedz your posts.
cuz they remindz me of LOLcatz!
Also, we like to spell it "Grammar" when we are criticizing other people's grammar. I don't know who they spell it where you come from, but that's just what they taught me in school.
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
Mother Teresa said once that when a mother is legally allowed to kill her baby, everything can happen. I love Ron Paul
medicialberto 4 years ago
Oh, how irrational.
Possessing life doesn't grant one a right to life.
I doubt he's a vegetarian.
I love how a blob of cells is a "child" but the pregnant woman is, in his opinion, to be owned by the state.
eljagg01 4 years ago
nobody said a pregnant woman is property of the state, just that she should be held accountable to state laws and that children be protected by the state.
What's irrational is rating sentience by 'blobbiness.' Does that mean fat people are less human because they are more blobby? Isn't an adult just a bigger, more complex 'blob' of cells?
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
If a state is making medical decisions for a woman, and ignoring her right to choose, I'd say that the state effectively owns that woman's body for the duration of the pregnancy.
Children should be protected by the state. They are right now. What does this have to do with abortion?
An adult is a blob of cells that is a rational being. This is where our rights originate.
eljagg01 4 years ago
Truth to Power. He addresses the real issue, still a tough question but he is one of few who actually address the question appropriately.
DCUPtoejuice 4 years ago
Abortion is not the problem. The problem is unwanted pregnancy. There are all these "accidental" pregnancies out there I keep hearing about. Someone want to tell me how you can get accidentally pregnant? I'm sure we all know how it happens. Men have to learn to keep there pants on and women have to learn to keep their legs closed. IMO, rape is the only justifiable cause for an abortion.
knytrydr73 4 years ago
now you saying nonsense is patriotic?
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
so what you're saying is that legally the child is only human if somebody wants it?
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
omg this may not be the NY time but your grammar really is atrocious and borderline offensive.
I am not listens to you anymore, who is talk bad english.
drunkensailorSTB 4 years ago
That makes no sense. You cannot say that a murder or manslaughter has taken place purely based upon the whims of the mother. According to you, if the mother doesn't want the baby, then the guy who caused her to miscarry did her a favor. On the other hand, if a different mood strikes her and she does want the baby, suddenly the guy has comitted murder or manslaughter. That's insane!
Punchey 4 years ago
Even worse. In one case a person chooses, that is, deliberately kills another person, & in another case, the person unintentionally, without want, kills a person. The abortion is first-degree murder when the car accident is manslaughter.
rockstarofredondo 4 years ago
If your argument were true, you would be perfectly justified in tossing your kid in a dumpster if you wanted since you may "choose not to raise it". If that seems absurd, then consider what is fundamentally different about a baby a split second before it is born. Nothing! What changed about the BABY ITSELF during that time? Nothing substantial. So you want to be able to kill the baby based upon nothing substantial.
Punchey 4 years ago
Ron Paul is an amazing human being. It is not trendy to be pro-life, which makes it all the cooler that Dr. Paul just sticks to his guns an doesn't give a damn who wgrees with him or not. He also uses intelligent discourse as a means to getting his points across.
colettevonhessen 4 years ago
Considering you can't even muster the use of proper grammar, maybe it is best that you don't bring any innocent children into this world.
rockstarofredondo 4 years ago
But if I unintentionally hit you with my car you're crossing the street & you are pregnant & your baby dies, why am I then subject to manslaughter charges? It was an accident, I didn't mean to kill your kid, millions of abortions are performed every year, but in one case it is considered a human life & in another it is not. Doesn't make sense.
rockstarofredondo 4 years ago
Ron Paul once explained in an interview in response to abortion question, that when he was an intern working toward his surgical degree, he had to be present for an abortion among a room full of doctors. When the fetus was aborted, it was moving, crying. The surgeon dropped it in a can in the corner of the room. It continued to cry & all acted as if nothing was happening.
rockstarofredondo 4 years ago
See, the discussion you don't want to have is whether or not the baby inside you qualifies as a human beign with a right to life. Instead, you just want to assume that it isn't and then frame the debate as a privacy issue. But that frame doesn't apply if the baby is a human being, because then it is an issue of whether all human beings have a right to live.
Punchey 4 years ago
What Ron said there is good and all, but he needs to utterly condemn this idea that its UP TO THE STATES whether or not to legalize the brutal murder of innocent babies.
If any state legalized owning blacks as slaves or legalized child rape then the federal government SHOULD use its resources to go in and stop that injustice from occuring.
SurvivorsIndiana 4 years ago
and why did you get married?
comeonloser 4 years ago
Excuse me, but take responsibility for your actions. If you have intercourse and become pregnant, you just created a life as a result of your choices. You have no right to take that same life. Now you can argue whether it it is, indeed, a life, but don't argue that you bear no responsibility in the matter.
Punchey 4 years ago 2
are you married?
comeonloser 4 years ago
the founding fathers said life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.
they did not put them in that order lightly that child's life is more important then your's or my liberty.
do you support euthanasia?
comeonloser 4 years ago
It's important to remember that where he stands is that it's up to the STATE to decide, not the Federal Government.
shamkat 4 years ago
You never asked the baby to be there?!?! Unless you were raped, then yes, you asked the baby to be there!
Punchey 4 years ago 2
Okay people. WHAT determines when a human life begins? How can ANYONE say when it begins? Is it DNA? If so, then if I cut off my little finger, you better not throw it away because that is a human life! If a woman trips down some stairs and then miscarries, you better arrest her for negligent homocide! All you idiots who think you KNOW when a human life begins better start getting your story straight and have FACTS to back it up. Otherwise it is FAITH. You BELIEVE when life begins.
mishabear 4 years ago
Life began billions of years ago, no one knows exactly when or how. From that point on, life came from other life. Life is there before, during and after birth. The sperm is a living cell, the egg is a living cell. Tome the whole debate of "when does life begin" is pointless as life has always been there. Now if you want to debate, when do the cells become a human being? There is a where the debate should be.
knytrydr73 4 years ago
What about the baby? I'd say it faces quite a "consequence" itself.
dandi22 4 years ago
nobody is perfect. he believes in the constitution, and he believes that a fetus is a living thing, which it is. he's not going to say, well you know, abortion is practical, so im going to allow it. he's stronger and more dedicated than that. he will be honest to the people, honest to himself, and do what he believes is morally right. he has never said he plans to outlaw abortions entirely, he has simply said where his beliefs lie on this issue.
shallowprofile 4 years ago
Life begins at conception. If you went back day by day in your life to the very beginning that would be the start. If you abort your baby then you are a murderer and you should repent.
Miken3307 4 years ago
@ Miken3307
That is one valid view, however, when talking about such issues, one is inevitably talking about potential as well. Therefore, prenatal exams should not be conducted because a cell from the developing mass of cells must be removed. That cell could have split from the mass to develop into a twin, but instead has been terminated.
BR0WN1E5 4 years ago
That's not how twins develop.
dandi22 4 years ago
Identical twins develop from the splitting of a fertilized egg. When they split determines if they share a placenta and if they have one or two chorions and amnions. Perhaps you were thinking of fraternal?
BR0WN1E5 4 years ago
And this is the primary reason I won't vote for Ron Paul. The hypocrite says that the government should leave us alone but then he says the government should decide arbitrarily for all when life begins? I'd like to hear his reasoning behind when human life begins and why...and why his view is to be considered the law. He wants to force his beliefs upon all through law and to me that is the opposite of what the First Amendment to the Constitution is about.
mishabear 4 years ago
You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... I'm pretty sure abortion violates the first one in that list.
mackdan7 4 years ago