Hahaha!!! You should have to get an ultra sound in order to get an abortion. Especially if one considers abortion a medical procedure. Doctors always take a look inside before surgery, how is this any different? This helps protect the mother from getting hurt.
When I tell my friends and family that I feel like I was duped by Ron Paul because of his bigotry I've discovered, they almost always jump up to defend him... Well, here's my proof - and there's a ton more where that came from.
states have the right to choose what is to be for each individual state. Not the federal government. When the federal government gets involved states lose the power to legislate for themselves. If you disagree with a state, you should be able to fight on a state level. This would make the playing field even.
@wldeanml because ron paul is the almighty authority of doctors. ever think that he got into politics because maybe he wasn't the best doctor ever? yeah, why don't you go look that up.
BTW: read your constitution as governor, he should have the right to do that. If the constitution was followed as was intended, you could always move to another state if you do not like it. That would be the beauty of having a government where individual states decide laws for each state. FREEDOM! What a concept!!!!
@rockeycc yea because it's so easy to just pick up your stuff & leave everything you have known to move to another state. And when there is something that you don't agree with in that other state you can just pick up your stuff and move on again right? That's real freedom right there -___-
I find it funny how people are so quick to stand up for their stance on abortion.But let me ask you something? Once that baby is born where are you? You forget all about them.After they are born, Fuck them! The same people are quick to vote against universal healthcare, headstart, ie more spending on government programs to actually enhance many of their lives. I think that if you want or are all for life, then you get to adopt those child. Fill up your minivan, you just got a ward til age 18.
@rockeycc To add to your great comment (if I may?): those who pride themselves on being "pro-life" are most often "pro-death penalty". On one side of their picket sign, it says "save the babies!!!", on the other, "fry them bastards!!!". It seems, to me, they should choose one side, or the other. Plus, I'd like to see a state mandate in Texas which says, 'if one fought against abortion, one must annually adopt two foster kids.' How 'pro-life' would they be, then?
@eajoseph217 not to mention the 30 to 40 thousand children who die everyday that no one speaks up for. If you are truly prolife, Maybe we should be worried about the ones already here before we start worrying about the ones not here yet.
Ron Paul is completely consistent here. He is running for President, not the governor of Texas. He has stated many times that the federal government should not be involved with most crimes because the crimes are state crimes. For example, murder is illegal in every state.
The only people who don't know that Paul is a fraud are his wacky supporters ! That man would be a disaster as President ! The main reason is because congress would eat him alive with all the wackiness he is proposing ! I'm not just stating my opinion , this has been said by many non-partisan groups !
This is actually consistent with Paul's philosophy. He's against FEDERAL govt intrusion. States must be free to set their own way, even if they set a stupid path like Texas has with this law. Paul would never promote something like this at a Federal level.
Paul, like ANY Republican is pro-life, so I don't think him stating a pro life position means anything to independent voters. After all, Independents vote for other pro-life candidates all the time.
Im against fetucide. Its wrong, a baby doesnt have to be out of the womb to be given life thats false! Most doctors would say that its still a developing organism, they just say that because for each abortion performed the doctor gets more money. And it would damage the reproductive systems after the operation, no good comes from an abortion, only setbacks and a dead baby.
Rachel Maddow is such a quack. How is this news? She isn't even pretending to be objective or unbiased.
Maybe we should just give all humans the right to life through some kind of document... Oh wait, we have that, the US Constitution. Too bad it just gets ignored. Otherwise, killing an unborn child would be murder.
@MoronBuster101 Because if the fetus is not out of the woman's body, it's a POTENTIAL! What constitutes a person is not the fact that a fetus exists to nearly near birth, what constitutes a person-hood is the FACT that the fetus exist on it's own OUTSIDE THE BODY! Hence the actual existence of a being that breaths on it's own.
@Vegasgodless Now don't get me wrong, an abortion is such a late stage is something that I've got a personal problem with, however this doesn't give me A RIGHT to DICTATE another individual what they may or may not do with their own fucking lives
@Vegasgodless So, a baby becomes a person as soon as it leaves the womb but never before that? Let's suppose that there are two children, conceived on the same day. One child is born at exactly 9 months. The other child is not born until a week later. During the course of that week, one child has the right to life but the other doesn't?
@paradigmentropy That is correct. Like I've always stated it all depends on what constitutes a person. In reality if a fetus is not yet out of the womb can it be a person vs to the one that already exist out of the womb? No for one is a zygote while the other is already fully formed organism, that doesn't internally need the host of a person for its survival.
@Vegasgodless Let's say that both of the children in the previous scenario are killed with a rusty coat hanger. It would only be wrong to kill the child living outside of the womb? Isn't the child outside of the womb just as dependent on its mother for survival as the child inside, if not more? A mother caring for a child living outside of the womb must make a number of conscious decisions to ensure the survival of the child, while the pregnant mother need only take care of herself.
@paradigmentropy You do realize there's a 500 word limit right? I never claimed a child outside the womb is not dependent of the mother, it's obvious that it is, killing such baby is murder. However the fact that the baby is not yet born is not the same as the fact that it is. For one is dependent on the body resources of the mother, while the other is not. But yet needs to be nourished, and taken care off. However if the baby born already mother doesn't want it, if she killed it it's murder.
@Vegasgodless Baby not born yet, still in the womb, mother decides to abort. It's just a procedure. Those are the facts. Never mind how late the term may be. It's not murder cause it's not yet born. BUT!! IMO a late term abortion is a very dangerous procedure, and one the individual really must consider the risks involved. I also happen to think it's a bit amoral to use abortion as a contraceptive. that's why I would rather abortion not be supported by gov. healthcare.
@Vegasgodless I do realize that there's a 500 CHARACTER limit, yes. I never claimed that you claimed a child outside the womb is not dependent on the mother. Is a breast feeding mother not providing necessary resources for a newborn? (Perhaps, one could argue, that the invention of infant formula, or the presence of wet nurse prior to formula, has made the murder of children who are dependent on a mother's milk immoral.) The only principled pro-life argument is the "parasitic fetus" theory.
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy & paste this everywhere and THUMBS UP!
thats not a big government... thats a state government. if thats what texas wants to do and you dont like it. move to a different state. thats freedom. he wants the states to do what they do. thats america. like she said "liberty". like he said "state position" and if the people of the state dont like it then then need to start making phone calls.
@MoronBuster101 Society doesn't have a say in an individuals choice, nor should you, society can suck my left nut, I don't give a fuck about what society may dictate or not! remember this county is not a complete democracy it's a republic, made of INDIVIDUALS and the most important thing that one must know is that individual's rights are above the group, church, or what ever you consider society to be!
@MoronBuster101 No that's not perverse that's reality. You can't charge anyone for a potential, one doesn't know the outcome of pregnancy complications killing the child at birth, an actual however is a total different thing. If you murder his already 'BORN' child then it's quite different then murdering his pregnant girlfriend. Objectively the courts should not hold you responsible for the potential, but we know this not to be the case, the law is flawed.
@MoronBuster101 Many laws in this country are not objective, but merely subjective laws, however it is basically amoral to DICTATE to an individual what she has to do with her own body! Not only that but also the life change of an individual that is forced through pregnancy and then to live with a child that she does not want nor love. Adoption is an option, yes but who pays the price for the damage done to her body?
@MoronBuster101 But your replacing justice for a potential and completely avoiding the justice of the actual. A potential doesn't deserve any rights, it's misleading that some one may see it has a double manslaughter if a pregnant woman gets killed in an automobile accident. The zygote has no rights, and any freaking judge and jury that lets this happens, does not hold an OBJECTIVE view of the law!
@MoronBuster101 That all depends on your definition of what constitutes a "person" doesn't it? A zygote by all definition is not a person, if you say it's a living entity within a woman, then so is cancer would you consider that murder to kill cancer cells? So NO! I don't consider abortion murder, and dictating by gov. church or any other individual what a woman should do with her own body, to me that's amoral!
This is the actual proof of Ron Paul being a fraud? Looked like a lot of mud throwing to me, hmm let's see what they have to say about Mitt. Oh wait, they're not going to try and screw over their own investment. This woman should be ashamed of herself.
@MoronBuster101 Zeitgeist (German pronunciation: [ˈtsaɪtɡaɪst]) is "the spirit of the times" or "the spirit of the age." [1] Zeitgeist is the general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, or political climate within a nation or even specific groups, along with the general ambiance, morals, sociocultural direction, and mood associated with an era.
Yeah, sound about right for your position. That and circuitous. ; )
@MoronBuster101 Choosing to have unprotected sex? Are you saying that the people that did protect themselves but now make up the 0.01% contraception failure rate and still got pregnant can abort?
@MoronBuster101 Minor error, I forgot a correction in my copy and paste, I meant "linguists". I'm alternating from a more broad canvas in Microsoft Word to the narrow text box in YouTube.
@MoronBuster101 You're a terrible bluffer. But I think I see what you were trying to say, when you talked about mom's being able to sue doctors and fetus's having inheritance funds, you worded it like a condescending example of how many rights fetuses already have but "the conflicting laws" comment just barely helped to clarify what (I think) you mean now, but I had to interpret it 3 times. You suck as a linguistic.
@MoronBuster101 "In some instances the unborn are treated as People with legal rights and have the protection of the legal system - but in another instance they don't."
I think I see what you're getting at but your comments are worded extremely vaguely.
A woman's fetus has more value to me if she gives a shit about it (i.e. she CHOOSES to keep it) BUT I wouldn't start granting the fetus rights. Instead I would focus on the pregnant woman herself.
Did you mean you said it in the sense that you blame them in all other cases EXCEPT rape but you still think they are obligated to keep the fetus? Or did you mean you're against ALL abortions EXCEPT for cases of rape?
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you meant the former rather than the latter because if you excuse abortion in cases of rape, your position falls apart...faster.
When I typed "someone like you" I meant "someone using your "logic" " And the point still stands. If it doesn't, try explaining what you meant because your wording is apparently vague. "LOL"
@MoronBuster101 Calling my argument "zeitgeist" is a complete projection of you onto me, I DO use logic as you've seen (and are probably still limping from). And I do have compassion, but the difference between you and me is that I aim it at the right place. I have compassion for the sentient woman whose body is bearing the hardly sentient fetus which is why my logic tells me she should have the right to have a choice in something that concerns her own body.
@WhiteKnitter I strongly doubt you were ever pro-choice because it’s difficult to believe any competent person could ever be convinced by such basic fallacious pro-life propaganda as “she chose to have sex”. Anyone who believes rape victims should be forced to carry to term their rapist’s fetus has no right to claim “compassion”.
Neveryoumind why they are pregnant to begin with. It's none of your concern and completely irrelevant to whether or not they should have the right to choose. Thank you for demonstrating your gross lack of understanding for the word "sentient". If you can’t tell the difference between me and a fetus then you’re even more sad than you think I am.
ONCE MORE, the issue is whether or not they should have the "responsibility" forced on them.
@MoronBuster101 *sigh* AGAIN, citing laws is NOT justification for whether or not a law should remain law. That's what we are talking about; >Should< physicians be sued for manslaughter?
~The year's 1880 and Jim Crow laws are in place!
Should black people be treated supposedly "separate but equal"?
Someone like you: Well of course they should, the Jim Crow laws say so!~
@MoronBuster101 No, that's EXACTLY what your argument is, replace 'The Constitution' with 'The Bible'.
Secondly, the view that "life is cheap, get used to it" isn't 'Pro-Choice', it's 'cynicism'. A barely sentient blob of cells has nothing to do with "Justice", "Love" maybe, but not "Justice".
The main issue in the abortion debate is whether or not you should have the right to make a decision that affects YOUR OWN BODY at the expense of a barely conscious collection of cells.
@MoronBuster101 No, that's NOT what we need to do to move forward in the abortion issue.
What we need to do is decide whether or not the rights of a barely sentient blob of cells trumps the rights of the full grown sentient woman carrying them. THAT is the issue, not what defines "life".
You need to stop citing the constitution and its wording as if it were an end-all-be-all infallible document. It's not; Google "Changes to the Constitution".
Vote Vermin Supreme! Half the kook, twice as electable. A pony on every table, a pony in every pocket...heck, your pony is "green", plug it in a socket (no pony in your wok?...FOCK IT!).
Ron Paul is an obstetrician-gynecologist. There's nothing wrong with ultrasounds. I think Dr. Paul is more qualified to make statements about this than this excuse for a journalist.
@MoronBuster101 I easily doubt that explanation. Ron Paul has not held the same standard when it comes to his opposition to women's abortion rights and disregards the 9th and 10th Amendments just as quickly as you're pointing to them.
Ultimately, citing the technicalities of the 9th and 10th Amendments when you think it's convenient to you and making excuses to disregard them when they aren't is a cop-out.
Rachel Maddow is confused about Ron Paul's politics. He always says if you like big government, you can have it- at the state level. He would never allow legislation like this at the federal level. This doesn't make him a fraud, it actually cements his consistency.
Once an expectant mother sees her baby moving and fully formed as a small human in the ultrasound image, she will be more informed of what the full consequences of the abortion will be. Maddow and her ilk, would prefer to ignore the rights that the baby has for its protection
the states are supposed to be the ones choosing, not the fed. he would rather not take away a living human beings right to a mother who doesnt want to give birth. its a more difficult situation when your mom wanted to abort you. regardless of his opinion or not though, he obviously has stated over and over that its up to the state/ peoples gotes.
@MoronBuster101 If he supports freedom than why doesn't he want to just outright sign it into law instead of leaving it up to individual states to decide thus creating the potential for some states to vote to give them the rights and some to vote to take away their rights THUS creating in-equal rights amongst United States citizens?
Secondly, rejection of gay marriage IS a primitive religious ideal...
Wow, obvious bad media. Listen to the quote, "It should have always been a TEXAS position." Key word Texas, Dr. paul is all about state rights. He didn't say it should have been a US position. He said texas psoition. The problem with media is so apparent.
@lilyaskue Nothing against but nothing against RachelMaddow, she is an incredible erudite and articulated news anchor however still a news anchor. Many people do not realize this: while generally more informative, MSNBC has as great a bias as oh—FoxNews. What I don't appreciate is her oversimplifying of Paul's ideas and taking them out of contest in hopes of making him seem like a petulant, fist-waving teenager. Libertarians would be ok with the ultrasound law, it's a state issue
Many doctors lie to women and say it is just gooey stuff but an ultrasound will show the truth... it is an infant human just a few months smaller. This lady is soooo manly.
1 good thing about Ron Paul would be his "states have the power" stance. Do away with big government. That way, when I decided to rob a bank, all I have to do is cross a state line. Then, I can just go about my day since the FBI and National Jurisdiction doesn't matter anymore. THANKS RON PAUL!!!
If Ron Paul is running as a libertarian then I guess Obama is running as a socialist. Ron Paul is a republican not a libertarian. I am a democrat that has changed my party to vote for Ron Paul. And Ron Paul did not say stop abortion just do an ultrasound. And as for you JoeyDiphard. Instead of just calling people names give us your brilliant thoughts if you can do it without the insults that is. And the reason we are so upset is because of what this country has become. And I do love fruitcake.
@lilyaskue so if you don't have a baby bump, you are 3rd term? If you are 1 month pregnant, that is 3rd term? Did you actually read your statement or were you like using the force or something. If you would have actually listened to it, you would have heard her say that "even if a Dr. see's no reason for it it is mandated". What this is, is the scared straight program. If you see the baby, you won't kill it. I just wish you Repubs would call it what it is.
@lilyaskue Nothing against but nothing against RachelMaddow, she is an incredible erudite and articulated news anchor however still a news anchor. Many people do not realize this: while generally more informative, MSNBC has as great a bias as oh—FoxNews. What I don't appreciate is her oversimplifying of Paul's ideas and taking them out of contest in hopes of making him seem like a petulant, fist-waving teenager. Libertarians would be ok with the ultrasound law, it's a state issue
@lilyaskue Nothing against but nothing against RachelMaddow, she is an incredible erudite and articulated news anchor however still a news anchor. Many people do not realize this: while generally more informative, MSNBC has as great a bias as oh—FoxNews. What I don't appreciate is her oversimplifying of Paul's ideas and taking them out of contest in hopes of making him seem like a petulant, fist-waving teenager. Libertarians would be ok with the ultrasound law, it's a state issue
@lilyaskue What the fuck? Where did you get this information from?
Secondly Ron Paul doesn't support gay marriage. He spoke in support of the 'Defense Of Marriage Act' and co-sponsored 'Marriage Protection Act' which would have prevented judges from at least challenging it.
Goddamn these Paulist fruitcakes. They're as insane as their "infallible" leader. Most of these Paulist comments are either contradictory to the actual stated positions of Ron Paul, and/or their psychobabble borders on the edge of psychosis in that they make no rational sense whatsoever.
Ron Paul adheres to the Non Aggression Axiom, if one falls within that it doesn't matter if the person is pro-life or pro-choice, they are consistent. Meaning there is no absolute, authoritarianism on either side is not present, they will not ban nor force their views. The market deals accordingly and science will handle the life part.
"Going back to the states" is just a response of getting the power out of Federal Government doesn't mean Paul is endorsing violence at the state level.
@BIackOp Going back to the states isn't his full answer either, taking one minute response questions is ridiculous to judge entirely as fact base. There is a lot more to it than that, this is the same man that doesn't support any form of taxation because his ultimate goal of a free society is voluntarism; which he doesn't believe will happen in his life time and then there is the transition to that free society. When asked he is speaking from as a President in the Federal Government.
I agree the report is fallacious as Mr. Maddow once again takes the cake in lousy journalism.
However, I disagree that there is any contradiction in Rons worldview. Nowadays, we must place the word "classical" in front of "libertarian" to help the lost better understand. Without Christ, there is no liberty. Without God, true government is hopeless.
Govt' has two jobs:
PREVENT FORCE
PREVENT FRAUD
That's it!
when kids are killed, we should expect men to rise up.
@FisherofMen75 "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Infidelity is liberty; all religion is slavery." ~ Robert G. Ingersoll
@CRUClEFICTION well, here's the deal, while i hold t.j. at a high esteem, i don't consider him an expert on issues of theology. As a Christian and scientist (not Christian scientist, lol) I believe the Constitution sets forth for, at the very least, the power of states to protect human life and reasonable lengths. I believe life starts and the moment of conception. That is the ideal viewpoint as a libertarian myself.
It's easy for me as well as others to tell just by looking at the likes vs dislikes that this videos ratings and comments have been alter by people that are hired to support Ron Paul. Prison planet is full of these people and so are most other forums online where Ron Paul is portrayed even in a somewhat negative light.
State government is GOVERNMENT. U can't go around screaming 'freedom' & then support GOVERNMENT intrusion into people's bodies. BTW, does anyone understand that anti-abortion forces don't just stop @abortion? These people also want to ban birth control & pre-marital sex. Rick Santorum is honest about this. So, when RP types talk about 'freedom' u mean more STATE POWER, u don't mean 'freedom'. Free people get to decide if they want a baby or not. Free people decide 4themselves when to have sex.
Wow Rachel did u forget that this is the United"States"of America ur comments seem ignorant at best Its because of ppl like u that trick and persuade the American ppl in2 thinking the Feds have some kind of priority or sayso over the States The States should and do make up there own rules and regs and if they have 2 pay for cost or have Drs certified 2 practice in there state then they have every right 2 do so Who r u 2 imply otherwise Learn something before u open ur mouth and look like a fool
Of course Rachel, it's not like Ron Paul is an ob/gyn medical doctor who delivered over 4,000 babies, he obviously should have no opinion on the issue. Pathetic.
@allgoo19 I'm sorry, are you really asking what part of the Constitution says what?
According to your page you're from the U.S., and you don't know what Paul means when he's talking about the Constitution? Yet still you make a comment about his positions & his ideology?
10th Amendment. If you truly want to see what it says, look it up.
Facts; Paul is ant-abortion, he doesn't even try to deny it. Paul is a champion of State's rights, and doesn't want the fed govt violating states rights.
While I agree that his anti-abortion stance is contradictory to libertarian principles, his support for this Texas law is in keeping with his political positions.
This report fallaciously tries to paint Paul as hypocritical here. An honest report would have focused on the contradiction of his abortion stance & libertarian principles.
@UtubeMyAccountName that is what she meant in the vid--he is contradicting is libertarian ideals by saying the state should have the right to force medical choices. where is you head??
Ron Paul is not running for President of Texas, but for the President of the USA, and he has said over and over again that laws against most crimes, including murder, should not be under the federal purview. I love his consistency more than anything, and if he was either pro-life or pro-choice and sought to impose his position at the federal level, I would think far less of him.
@al2i you must not have been paying attention to the vid--paul's position is against abortion and letting the state decided a woman's care or choice--definitely not a libertarian stance and also one that imposes his belief on women.
Maddow proves again that she can't comprehend the constitutional position of state law deferment. Paul was just saying that the federal government shouldn't be making laws on abortion.
Anyone of you ever seen an ultrasound of a baby at 3 months? it's as ugly as it is at 8 months,
I agree with abortion at any age, they actually stripped us of 6 months of our Rights. We should be allow to abort at any age, like 8 months or minutes before birth? As long as the baby is in our body It's our Right !!! Why look at an ultrasound, it wouldn't make a difference to me... :)
@BajaArtists your logic is flawed. Sure it's in your body, and it's your body, but onces it's born it now is in your home, and eats your food. So with such logic you should be able to kill it even at 5 years old. The real question obviously is when does the fetus become a baby (person), If a person got his head stuck up your ass, you wouldn't have much of a right to cut his head off.
I was actually stating what this idiot was saying. I honestly feel NO woman the the right to kill period at any age, except maybe days old, like the next day pill. If you listen to Ron Paul's reason why he doesn't believe in abortion, you would understand why. I did and it changed my belief in abortion. LOL... it was a joke, but that how they sound. I'm glad someone responded...LOL.
He's not a fraud because this is at the state level, not the federal level. Ron Paul advocates liberty because he reduces the size and power of the federal government.
Let me see, is this the same sonogram they use to prove the baby is dead after a car accident in which you will get prosecuted for murder/involuntary man slaughter? I don’t necessarily agree with the procedure; however it seems like two different standards. How many women would give up prosecuting an individual responsible killing their 3-9 month, so called baby if the law was changed not to include this dictation of a life under these circumstances? Ron Paul is not a Fraud! Dr. RON Paul 2012!!!
ALL NEOCON GOP & OBAMA ARE THE SAME. They Love Wars & Permanent Detentions, They Love Burning US Constitution, They Love NDAA, SOPA, Patriot Act, FISA & Spying on Americans, They Love Torture, Killing families w/ Drones, Guantanamo & Drug War, They Love Corporate Bailouts & Subsidies, They Love Giving TRILLIONS to Pentagon & War Industry, They Love Zionists, AIPAC & sending Israel TRILLIONS, They Love Fed Reserve and WONT Audit it, They Love Fascism & they ALL take Bribes
@EnthalpyH Not exactly, much of the questions he is asked are based on a Federal Level. When he says state level, he is advocating breaking the power down but that hasn't been his ultimate goal. He opposes all forms of taxation because of its nature and supports the non aggression axiom. Hes trying to appeal to minarchists but at the same time transition to a freer society with options like opting out. Just look at his book recommendations on law.
@BIackOp He's been on the record for saying that the power of all government should not exceed the power of an individual as their actions are no different, and the responses to such action should be the same regardless if government is on a far more grand scale.
As much as I hate libertarians, Ron Paul isn't one. He's a state's rights advocate. People call him a libertarian because they don't know what it fucking means. Rachel has pointed it out numerous times. Ron Paul doesn't give a shit, he just knows kids on the internet and in college like him, and that's fine.
Ron Paul doesn't believe in separation of church and state, or that the U.S. Constitution protects our rights at the state level. He's as dangerous as the other Republican theocratic candidates.
I can only find the same tiny snippet "should always have been a Texas state position" everywhere. Anybody got a more complete text? At the very least a full sentence? Can't make up my mind with just this. This news reporting is pathetically useless.
What a nasty hit piece. Ron Paul believes that life begins at conception. As life is protected under law, there should probably be some checks on the abortion. Calling him a fraud for this is silly.
Can you see the glee in the reporter's eyes? They're just glad he finally said *something* that they could catch him on. He's much less of a fraud than any of the other hucksters vying for office right now.
lolol paul is a fraud. He wants everyone to have rights yet supports this bullshit? and the sheep follow him, praising him on everything. What a fucking fraud.
Everyone who calls people who support Ron Paul Paulbots .. Listen.. We support Ron Paul because we understand how the system works... The system will collapse and you WILL be homeless on the street because our country can not sustain the spending. We borrow 3 billion dollars a day from foreigners .. we can't afford it the system will collapse..
Its a good point, but its like getting a snake bite and only putting a band-aide on the holes. What I mean is this is only the surface issue. There is a lot more to it.
He also believes that liberty extends as far as to protect life, and in the view of anyone who is pro-life, life begins at conception and thus must be protected. Therefore, the issue is not simply government invasion of a woman's privacy, but rather recognizing the rights of the unborn child to life. Abortion has always been (and most likely will always be) a highly debated topic, and so It's not as clear cut issue an issue as it is implied here.
The mainstream media is a fraud, and this is just another example of their intentionally disingenuous coverage of anything relating to Ron Paul: it's embarrassing that this is what constitutes 'news' in the U.S.
Paul's comments as they are here quoted in no way endorse the law; they simply reiterate his constitutional position that federal courts have no authority to overturn state laws when those laws do not concern matters explicitly reserved to the federal government by the constitution.
At present, the "Roe v Wade" case that legalizes abortion on the trimester approach has been replaced by the "Webster" case, which legalizes abortion on a different criteria: "viability." This is to say, if the child could survive outside the womb, assuming medical technology, it is considered "viable" and cannot legally be aborted. I don't know how else they would measure viability than with ultrasound, being at least part of the diagnosis. I like Rachel Maddow, but this is silly.
@DeathOfAMudkip Ok, back to Biology 101 with you. #1: Sperm ARE alive. #2: WTF, throw that sock out. It's pretty awful of you to think that a rape victim/failed contraceptive victim/someone with an unwanted pregnancy which already has the burden of carrying a fetus she doesn't want, must then look at it to feel even worse about herself. You don't understand the very basics of what you're talking about, so please, keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.
0:45 "medically unnecessary ultrasounds"? In the D&E abortion procedure, an ultrasound IS necessary: "On the first day, an ultrasound (sonogram) is performed to determine the size and position of the fetus.".
Anyway, the law states that the woman can decline to view the sonogram.
She can decline to listen to the heartbeat, she can NOT decline to view the sonogram. And the aspiration method does not require ultrasounds, but the law would force doctors to preform them anyway, making them medically unnecessary.
@SgtSanchez As far as the doctor describing the ultrasound to the patient, I don't really see how that can be any more emotional than the abortion procedure itself. It's just pointing out the obvious. Not that I agree with the law; ultrasounds are just a waste of time and money.
It's obviously a shaming technique, regardless of how the doctors want to go about it. I don't get why you're defending it if you don't even agree with it...
Loving the paulbots attempting damage control here. If Ron Paul becomes President, he'll screw you all, no matter how much faithful shilling you did for him.
"The Texas law requires abortion providers to display the ultrasound images and describe them in detail. While a woman seeking an abortion CAN DECLINE TO VIEW the legally required ultrasound, she cannot decline to hear the physician's description of it unless she qualifies for an exception due to rape, incest or fetal abnormality."
@DeathOfAMudkip >No one thinks that sperm is a living thing
Technically it is. So that doesn't work as a rebuttal.
>Those anti-abortion believe it's at conception
And they can't come up with any non-religious justification for that view. I've not seen one opponent of abortion point to anything scientific about foetuses that would suggest that their right to live (to live off of an adult who doesn't want to sustain it) outweighs a woman's right to choose.
The thing is, showing the woman an ultrasound of the fetus is an emotional assault, not a medical or rational argument. A beating heart does not make a fetus a person, and any other movement doesn't either. What makes a fetus a person is the brain's development, but they're not going to show the woman an fMRI to demonstrate how the fetus does NOT experience pain or feeling or thought, are they?
This is just abuse of medical technology to promote an irrational religious agenda.
So I guess severe head injury patients who show no signs of brain activity should all be killed right? They arent human anymore... even though some of them eventually rewire, repair and retrain their brains and regain conciousness? Have you ever considered that perhaps the Embryo is capable of experiencing those mental functions but hasnt learned how to yet?
paul is so awesome if it werent for jesus freakiness
managarm1349 5 days ago
Hahaha!!! You should have to get an ultra sound in order to get an abortion. Especially if one considers abortion a medical procedure. Doctors always take a look inside before surgery, how is this any different? This helps protect the mother from getting hurt.
rkd13 5 days ago
It's because they are checking to see if there is an alien baby in the belly.
shavis001 1 week ago
When I tell my friends and family that I feel like I was duped by Ron Paul because of his bigotry I've discovered, they almost always jump up to defend him... Well, here's my proof - and there's a ton more where that came from.
eajoseph217 3 weeks ago
states have the right to choose what is to be for each individual state. Not the federal government. When the federal government gets involved states lose the power to legislate for themselves. If you disagree with a state, you should be able to fight on a state level. This would make the playing field even.
rockeycc 4 weeks ago
mothering. com/pregnancy-birth/when-is-ultrasound-necessary-unnecessary
wldeanml 1 month ago
@wldeanml I'm sure Ron Paul being a doctor and all would understand the differences between necessary and unnecessary.
wldeanml 1 month ago 2
@wldeanml because ron paul is the almighty authority of doctors. ever think that he got into politics because maybe he wasn't the best doctor ever? yeah, why don't you go look that up.
jackbrady86 1 week ago
BTW: read your constitution as governor, he should have the right to do that. If the constitution was followed as was intended, you could always move to another state if you do not like it. That would be the beauty of having a government where individual states decide laws for each state. FREEDOM! What a concept!!!!
rockeycc 1 month ago
@rockeycc yea because it's so easy to just pick up your stuff & leave everything you have known to move to another state. And when there is something that you don't agree with in that other state you can just pick up your stuff and move on again right? That's real freedom right there -___-
PlayboiX122 1 month ago
I find it funny how people are so quick to stand up for their stance on abortion.But let me ask you something? Once that baby is born where are you? You forget all about them.After they are born, Fuck them! The same people are quick to vote against universal healthcare, headstart, ie more spending on government programs to actually enhance many of their lives. I think that if you want or are all for life, then you get to adopt those child. Fill up your minivan, you just got a ward til age 18.
rockeycc 1 month ago 2
@rockeycc To add to your great comment (if I may?): those who pride themselves on being "pro-life" are most often "pro-death penalty". On one side of their picket sign, it says "save the babies!!!", on the other, "fry them bastards!!!". It seems, to me, they should choose one side, or the other. Plus, I'd like to see a state mandate in Texas which says, 'if one fought against abortion, one must annually adopt two foster kids.' How 'pro-life' would they be, then?
eajoseph217 3 weeks ago
@eajoseph217 not to mention the 30 to 40 thousand children who die everyday that no one speaks up for. If you are truly prolife, Maybe we should be worried about the ones already here before we start worrying about the ones not here yet.
tearsoftechnology 2 weeks ago
Wow is right, do people not realize how she just twisted a little clip to sound like it meant something else
He's talking about the States Rights as outlined in the constitution
btate74 1 month ago
Ron Paul is completely consistent here. He is running for President, not the governor of Texas. He has stated many times that the federal government should not be involved with most crimes because the crimes are state crimes. For example, murder is illegal in every state.
al2i 1 month ago
The only people who don't know that Paul is a fraud are his wacky supporters ! That man would be a disaster as President ! The main reason is because congress would eat him alive with all the wackiness he is proposing ! I'm not just stating my opinion , this has been said by many non-partisan groups !
pickpie 1 month ago
Ron Paul has to pick his battles. He's aiming at the federal government, not Texas.
SBRslacker00 1 month ago
This is actually consistent with Paul's philosophy. He's against FEDERAL govt intrusion. States must be free to set their own way, even if they set a stupid path like Texas has with this law. Paul would never promote something like this at a Federal level.
Paul, like ANY Republican is pro-life, so I don't think him stating a pro life position means anything to independent voters. After all, Independents vote for other pro-life candidates all the time.
StevenAdamson40 1 month ago
Im against fetucide. Its wrong, a baby doesnt have to be out of the womb to be given life thats false! Most doctors would say that its still a developing organism, they just say that because for each abortion performed the doctor gets more money. And it would damage the reproductive systems after the operation, no good comes from an abortion, only setbacks and a dead baby.
Teeheehee555 1 month ago
Libertarians must kick this fraud out of their party! He is ruining their image!
SeongKYi 1 month ago
Rachel Maddow is such a quack. How is this news? She isn't even pretending to be objective or unbiased.
Maybe we should just give all humans the right to life through some kind of document... Oh wait, we have that, the US Constitution. Too bad it just gets ignored. Otherwise, killing an unborn child would be murder.
paradigmentropy 1 month ago
Who the fuck am I going to vote for... Everyone is a fraud, and everyone is bought. Fuck this system.
liberaldigest 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 Because if the fetus is not out of the woman's body, it's a POTENTIAL! What constitutes a person is not the fact that a fetus exists to nearly near birth, what constitutes a person-hood is the FACT that the fetus exist on it's own OUTSIDE THE BODY! Hence the actual existence of a being that breaths on it's own.
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
@Vegasgodless Now don't get me wrong, an abortion is such a late stage is something that I've got a personal problem with, however this doesn't give me A RIGHT to DICTATE another individual what they may or may not do with their own fucking lives
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
@Vegasgodless So, a baby becomes a person as soon as it leaves the womb but never before that? Let's suppose that there are two children, conceived on the same day. One child is born at exactly 9 months. The other child is not born until a week later. During the course of that week, one child has the right to life but the other doesn't?
paradigmentropy 1 month ago
@paradigmentropy That is correct. Like I've always stated it all depends on what constitutes a person. In reality if a fetus is not yet out of the womb can it be a person vs to the one that already exist out of the womb? No for one is a zygote while the other is already fully formed organism, that doesn't internally need the host of a person for its survival.
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
@Vegasgodless Let's say that both of the children in the previous scenario are killed with a rusty coat hanger. It would only be wrong to kill the child living outside of the womb? Isn't the child outside of the womb just as dependent on its mother for survival as the child inside, if not more? A mother caring for a child living outside of the womb must make a number of conscious decisions to ensure the survival of the child, while the pregnant mother need only take care of herself.
paradigmentropy 1 month ago
@paradigmentropy You do realize there's a 500 word limit right? I never claimed a child outside the womb is not dependent of the mother, it's obvious that it is, killing such baby is murder. However the fact that the baby is not yet born is not the same as the fact that it is. For one is dependent on the body resources of the mother, while the other is not. But yet needs to be nourished, and taken care off. However if the baby born already mother doesn't want it, if she killed it it's murder.
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
@Vegasgodless Baby not born yet, still in the womb, mother decides to abort. It's just a procedure. Those are the facts. Never mind how late the term may be. It's not murder cause it's not yet born. BUT!! IMO a late term abortion is a very dangerous procedure, and one the individual really must consider the risks involved. I also happen to think it's a bit amoral to use abortion as a contraceptive. that's why I would rather abortion not be supported by gov. healthcare.
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
@Vegasgodless I do realize that there's a 500 CHARACTER limit, yes. I never claimed that you claimed a child outside the womb is not dependent on the mother. Is a breast feeding mother not providing necessary resources for a newborn? (Perhaps, one could argue, that the invention of infant formula, or the presence of wet nurse prior to formula, has made the murder of children who are dependent on a mother's milk immoral.) The only principled pro-life argument is the "parasitic fetus" theory.
paradigmentropy 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 Next you will want to make ejaculation illegal, cause that's also a potential.
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
@Vegasgodless It's one thing to conflate potential with actual and another to conflate an unborn infant with a parasite.
paradigmentropy 2 weeks ago
Thanks, Cruciefiction
MaxwellChillington 1 month ago
Fuck Granpa Kook Paul...
9886635574 1 month ago in playlist More videos from CRUClEFICTION
where is ur prof bitch
bushbasher46 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's not enough to say "Vote Ron Paul"
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy & paste this everywhere and THUMBS UP!
YevgeniyBalbatunov 1 month ago
... she dum. lol.
beatreezeable 1 month ago
you can still kil your baby dont worry,it just takes 5 minutes longer
bobbyblack611 1 month ago
thats not a big government... thats a state government. if thats what texas wants to do and you dont like it. move to a different state. thats freedom. he wants the states to do what they do. thats america. like she said "liberty". like he said "state position" and if the people of the state dont like it then then need to start making phone calls.
410cryptic 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 if WhintKnitter failed I'm here to rectify it. The laws are flawed, cause it undermines the actual for the rights of a potential.
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 Society doesn't have a say in an individuals choice, nor should you, society can suck my left nut, I don't give a fuck about what society may dictate or not! remember this county is not a complete democracy it's a republic, made of INDIVIDUALS and the most important thing that one must know is that individual's rights are above the group, church, or what ever you consider society to be!
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 No that's not perverse that's reality. You can't charge anyone for a potential, one doesn't know the outcome of pregnancy complications killing the child at birth, an actual however is a total different thing. If you murder his already 'BORN' child then it's quite different then murdering his pregnant girlfriend. Objectively the courts should not hold you responsible for the potential, but we know this not to be the case, the law is flawed.
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 Many laws in this country are not objective, but merely subjective laws, however it is basically amoral to DICTATE to an individual what she has to do with her own body! Not only that but also the life change of an individual that is forced through pregnancy and then to live with a child that she does not want nor love. Adoption is an option, yes but who pays the price for the damage done to her body?
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 But your replacing justice for a potential and completely avoiding the justice of the actual. A potential doesn't deserve any rights, it's misleading that some one may see it has a double manslaughter if a pregnant woman gets killed in an automobile accident. The zygote has no rights, and any freaking judge and jury that lets this happens, does not hold an OBJECTIVE view of the law!
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 That all depends on your definition of what constitutes a "person" doesn't it? A zygote by all definition is not a person, if you say it's a living entity within a woman, then so is cancer would you consider that murder to kill cancer cells? So NO! I don't consider abortion murder, and dictating by gov. church or any other individual what a woman should do with her own body, to me that's amoral!
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
This is the actual proof of Ron Paul being a fraud? Looked like a lot of mud throwing to me, hmm let's see what they have to say about Mitt. Oh wait, they're not going to try and screw over their own investment. This woman should be ashamed of herself.
blacktronic 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 Zeitgeist (German pronunciation: [ˈtsaɪtɡaɪst]) is "the spirit of the times" or "the spirit of the age." [1] Zeitgeist is the general cultural, intellectual, ethical, spiritual, or political climate within a nation or even specific groups, along with the general ambiance, morals, sociocultural direction, and mood associated with an era.
Yeah, sound about right for your position. That and circuitous. ; )
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 Choosing to have unprotected sex? Are you saying that the people that did protect themselves but now make up the 0.01% contraception failure rate and still got pregnant can abort?
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 Minor error, I forgot a correction in my copy and paste, I meant "linguists". I'm alternating from a more broad canvas in Microsoft Word to the narrow text box in YouTube.
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 You're a terrible bluffer. But I think I see what you were trying to say, when you talked about mom's being able to sue doctors and fetus's having inheritance funds, you worded it like a condescending example of how many rights fetuses already have but "the conflicting laws" comment just barely helped to clarify what (I think) you mean now, but I had to interpret it 3 times. You suck as a linguistic.
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MoronBuster101 "In some instances the unborn are treated as People with legal rights and have the protection of the legal system - but in another instance they don't."
I think I see what you're getting at but your comments are worded extremely vaguely.
A woman's fetus has more value to me if she gives a shit about it (i.e. she CHOOSES to keep it) BUT I wouldn't start granting the fetus rights. Instead I would focus on the pregnant woman herself.
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 @MoronBuster101 What did I interpret to mean the exact opposite?
Did you mean you said it in the sense that you blame them in all other cases EXCEPT rape but you still think they are obligated to keep the fetus? Or did you mean you're against ALL abortions EXCEPT for cases of rape?
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you meant the former rather than the latter because if you excuse abortion in cases of rape, your position falls apart...faster.
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 What "gross assumptions" did I make?
When I typed "someone like you" I meant "someone using your "logic" " And the point still stands. If it doesn't, try explaining what you meant because your wording is apparently vague. "LOL"
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 Calling my argument "zeitgeist" is a complete projection of you onto me, I DO use logic as you've seen (and are probably still limping from). And I do have compassion, but the difference between you and me is that I aim it at the right place. I have compassion for the sentient woman whose body is bearing the hardly sentient fetus which is why my logic tells me she should have the right to have a choice in something that concerns her own body.
Hence, Pro-choice.
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago
@WhiteKnitter I strongly doubt you were ever pro-choice because it’s difficult to believe any competent person could ever be convinced by such basic fallacious pro-life propaganda as “she chose to have sex”. Anyone who believes rape victims should be forced to carry to term their rapist’s fetus has no right to claim “compassion”.
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 *double sigh*
Neveryoumind why they are pregnant to begin with. It's none of your concern and completely irrelevant to whether or not they should have the right to choose. Thank you for demonstrating your gross lack of understanding for the word "sentient". If you can’t tell the difference between me and a fetus then you’re even more sad than you think I am.
ONCE MORE, the issue is whether or not they should have the "responsibility" forced on them.
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 *sigh* AGAIN, citing laws is NOT justification for whether or not a law should remain law. That's what we are talking about; >Should< physicians be sued for manslaughter?
~The year's 1880 and Jim Crow laws are in place!
Should black people be treated supposedly "separate but equal"?
Someone like you: Well of course they should, the Jim Crow laws say so!~
That's the equivalent of your argument here.
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 No, that's EXACTLY what your argument is, replace 'The Constitution' with 'The Bible'.
Secondly, the view that "life is cheap, get used to it" isn't 'Pro-Choice', it's 'cynicism'. A barely sentient blob of cells has nothing to do with "Justice", "Love" maybe, but not "Justice".
The main issue in the abortion debate is whether or not you should have the right to make a decision that affects YOUR OWN BODY at the expense of a barely conscious collection of cells.
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago 2
@MoronBuster101 No, that's NOT what we need to do to move forward in the abortion issue.
What we need to do is decide whether or not the rights of a barely sentient blob of cells trumps the rights of the full grown sentient woman carrying them. THAT is the issue, not what defines "life".
You need to stop citing the constitution and its wording as if it were an end-all-be-all infallible document. It's not; Google "Changes to the Constitution".
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago 2
ultrasound is standard procedure during pregnancies, what's so outrageous to show the woman how far along is the fetus while considering abortion?
Vegasgodless 1 month ago
Vote Vermin Supreme! Half the kook, twice as electable. A pony on every table, a pony in every pocket...heck, your pony is "green", plug it in a socket (no pony in your wok?...FOCK IT!).
TheCaptainSlappy 1 month ago
Ron Paul is an obstetrician-gynecologist. There's nothing wrong with ultrasounds. I think Dr. Paul is more qualified to make statements about this than this excuse for a journalist.
elrenato82 1 month ago
Actually in previous debates Ron Paul has severely criticised Rick Perry to the point of mockery even about his governments resolution on this issue.
So I do not think she is being sincere.
theawesomebeliever 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 I easily doubt that explanation. Ron Paul has not held the same standard when it comes to his opposition to women's abortion rights and disregards the 9th and 10th Amendments just as quickly as you're pointing to them.
Ultimately, citing the technicalities of the 9th and 10th Amendments when you think it's convenient to you and making excuses to disregard them when they aren't is a cop-out.
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago
Rachel Maddow is confused about Ron Paul's politics. He always says if you like big government, you can have it- at the state level. He would never allow legislation like this at the federal level. This doesn't make him a fraud, it actually cements his consistency.
tracym416 1 month ago
Once an expectant mother sees her baby moving and fully formed as a small human in the ultrasound image, she will be more informed of what the full consequences of the abortion will be. Maddow and her ilk, would prefer to ignore the rights that the baby has for its protection
mcdonald1958 1 month ago
the states are supposed to be the ones choosing, not the fed. he would rather not take away a living human beings right to a mother who doesnt want to give birth. its a more difficult situation when your mom wanted to abort you. regardless of his opinion or not though, he obviously has stated over and over that its up to the state/ peoples gotes.
67chevy7 1 month ago
@MoronBuster101 If he supports freedom than why doesn't he want to just outright sign it into law instead of leaving it up to individual states to decide thus creating the potential for some states to vote to give them the rights and some to vote to take away their rights THUS creating in-equal rights amongst United States citizens?
Secondly, rejection of gay marriage IS a primitive religious ideal...
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago
It's not working, the people are seeing through your manipulation.
ReachDeep1 1 month ago
Wow, obvious bad media. Listen to the quote, "It should have always been a TEXAS position." Key word Texas, Dr. paul is all about state rights. He didn't say it should have been a US position. He said texas psoition. The problem with media is so apparent.
pbrice56 1 month ago
@lilyaskue Nothing against but nothing against RachelMaddow, she is an incredible erudite and articulated news anchor however still a news anchor. Many people do not realize this: while generally more informative, MSNBC has as great a bias as oh—FoxNews. What I don't appreciate is her oversimplifying of Paul's ideas and taking them out of contest in hopes of making him seem like a petulant, fist-waving teenager. Libertarians would be ok with the ultrasound law, it's a state issue
TheLincolnRemnant 1 month ago
Many doctors lie to women and say it is just gooey stuff but an ultrasound will show the truth... it is an infant human just a few months smaller. This lady is soooo manly.
JoeyTubing 1 month ago
So libs are for regulating everything except for possible wack job doctors?
FavreianVengeance 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FavreianVengeance Eeyup
Sexualwendigo 1 month ago
is ron paul GAY? - I thought I read that somewhere?
TKDMike58 1 month ago
1 good thing about Ron Paul would be his "states have the power" stance. Do away with big government. That way, when I decided to rob a bank, all I have to do is cross a state line. Then, I can just go about my day since the FBI and National Jurisdiction doesn't matter anymore. THANKS RON PAUL!!!
MrClassWarfare 1 month ago
If Ron Paul is running as a libertarian then I guess Obama is running as a socialist. Ron Paul is a republican not a libertarian. I am a democrat that has changed my party to vote for Ron Paul. And Ron Paul did not say stop abortion just do an ultrasound. And as for you JoeyDiphard. Instead of just calling people names give us your brilliant thoughts if you can do it without the insults that is. And the reason we are so upset is because of what this country has become. And I do love fruitcake.
midnight2u2 1 month ago
Comment removed
lilyaskue 1 month ago
@lilyaskue so if you don't have a baby bump, you are 3rd term? If you are 1 month pregnant, that is 3rd term? Did you actually read your statement or were you like using the force or something. If you would have actually listened to it, you would have heard her say that "even if a Dr. see's no reason for it it is mandated". What this is, is the scared straight program. If you see the baby, you won't kill it. I just wish you Repubs would call it what it is.
MrClassWarfare 1 month ago
@lilyaskue Nothing against but nothing against RachelMaddow, she is an incredible erudite and articulated news anchor however still a news anchor. Many people do not realize this: while generally more informative, MSNBC has as great a bias as oh—FoxNews. What I don't appreciate is her oversimplifying of Paul's ideas and taking them out of contest in hopes of making him seem like a petulant, fist-waving teenager. Libertarians would be ok with the ultrasound law, it's a state issue
TheLincolnRemnant 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lilyaskue Nothing against but nothing against RachelMaddow, she is an incredible erudite and articulated news anchor however still a news anchor. Many people do not realize this: while generally more informative, MSNBC has as great a bias as oh—FoxNews. What I don't appreciate is her oversimplifying of Paul's ideas and taking them out of contest in hopes of making him seem like a petulant, fist-waving teenager. Libertarians would be ok with the ultrasound law, it's a state issue
TheLincolnRemnant 1 month ago
@lilyaskue What the fuck? Where did you get this information from?
Secondly Ron Paul doesn't support gay marriage. He spoke in support of the 'Defense Of Marriage Act' and co-sponsored 'Marriage Protection Act' which would have prevented judges from at least challenging it.
Fuck Ron Paul.
WhiteKnitter 1 month ago
65 people don't know what liberty actually means...
niriop 1 month ago 2
Goddamn these Paulist fruitcakes. They're as insane as their "infallible" leader. Most of these Paulist comments are either contradictory to the actual stated positions of Ron Paul, and/or their psychobabble borders on the edge of psychosis in that they make no rational sense whatsoever.
JoeyDiphard 1 month ago
Ron Paul adheres to the Non Aggression Axiom, if one falls within that it doesn't matter if the person is pro-life or pro-choice, they are consistent. Meaning there is no absolute, authoritarianism on either side is not present, they will not ban nor force their views. The market deals accordingly and science will handle the life part.
"Going back to the states" is just a response of getting the power out of Federal Government doesn't mean Paul is endorsing violence at the state level.
BIackOp 1 month ago
@BIackOp Going back to the states isn't his full answer either, taking one minute response questions is ridiculous to judge entirely as fact base. There is a lot more to it than that, this is the same man that doesn't support any form of taxation because his ultimate goal of a free society is voluntarism; which he doesn't believe will happen in his life time and then there is the transition to that free society. When asked he is speaking from as a President in the Federal Government.
BIackOp 1 month ago
@utubemyaccountname
I agree the report is fallacious as Mr. Maddow once again takes the cake in lousy journalism.
However, I disagree that there is any contradiction in Rons worldview. Nowadays, we must place the word "classical" in front of "libertarian" to help the lost better understand. Without Christ, there is no liberty. Without God, true government is hopeless.
Govt' has two jobs:
PREVENT FORCE
PREVENT FRAUD
That's it!
when kids are killed, we should expect men to rise up.
FisherofMen75 1 month ago
@FisherofMen75 "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Infidelity is liberty; all religion is slavery." ~ Robert G. Ingersoll
CRUClEFICTION 1 month ago 10
@CRUClEFICTION You got it!
jereuter01 1 month ago
@CRUClEFICTION well, here's the deal, while i hold t.j. at a high esteem, i don't consider him an expert on issues of theology. As a Christian and scientist (not Christian scientist, lol) I believe the Constitution sets forth for, at the very least, the power of states to protect human life and reasonable lengths. I believe life starts and the moment of conception. That is the ideal viewpoint as a libertarian myself.
supermariofj 1 month ago
It's easy for me as well as others to tell just by looking at the likes vs dislikes that this videos ratings and comments have been alter by people that are hired to support Ron Paul. Prison planet is full of these people and so are most other forums online where Ron Paul is portrayed even in a somewhat negative light.
google "OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD"
Ron Paul has a connection to Alex Jones.
htt p:/ /mediamatters.o rg/blog/2 01201050012
htt p://w ww.spirituallysmart.c om/Jones-CIA.h tm
sphonglanator 1 month ago
State government is GOVERNMENT. U can't go around screaming 'freedom' & then support GOVERNMENT intrusion into people's bodies. BTW, does anyone understand that anti-abortion forces don't just stop @abortion? These people also want to ban birth control & pre-marital sex. Rick Santorum is honest about this. So, when RP types talk about 'freedom' u mean more STATE POWER, u don't mean 'freedom'. Free people get to decide if they want a baby or not. Free people decide 4themselves when to have sex.
JoeDixon 1 month ago
Wow Rachel did u forget that this is the United"States"of America ur comments seem ignorant at best Its because of ppl like u that trick and persuade the American ppl in2 thinking the Feds have some kind of priority or sayso over the States The States should and do make up there own rules and regs and if they have 2 pay for cost or have Drs certified 2 practice in there state then they have every right 2 do so Who r u 2 imply otherwise Learn something before u open ur mouth and look like a fool
shroyerj 1 month ago
Of course Rachel, it's not like Ron Paul is an ob/gyn medical doctor who delivered over 4,000 babies, he obviously should have no opinion on the issue. Pathetic.
nihilistsneedhugstoo 1 month ago
Rachel Maddow dont care about abortion since she only supports...bush.
dominickjr 1 month ago
Ron Paul is a typical republican. A hypocrite.
voyzovrezon 1 month ago
@voyzovrezon You obviously don't care about the truth otherwise you wouldn't of stereotyped a Voluntarist as a typical republican. Typical sheep.
BIackOp 1 month ago
Fuckind stupid bitch, just another presstitute
ReloadFIFA 1 month ago
@ReloadFIFA ...well, you sound like an intelligent one.
superduperjew 1 month ago
OH YEA AND STATE GOVERNMENT ISN'T BIG GOVERNMENT
sk8erpro10 1 month ago
Libertarian view:
"Gov. intervention is good only if it's not by the federal gov."
(state gov. are much easier to be bought, because people pay less attention.)
@ImrysAnarion
@UtubeMyAccountName
allgoo19 1 month ago
@allgoo19 Spoken like someone who has no idea what they're talking about.
Libertarianism makes no distinction on the 'level' of govt. That is a Constitutionalist position.
You know, the Constitution, the framework of the federal government, the charter for the Union of Sovereign States.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 month ago
@UtubeMyAccountName "Spoken like someone who has no idea what they're talking about"
==
Which part of the constitution are you talking about? Post exact wording it appears in it.
I've always wonder about this whenever Ron Paul says about the "Constitution"
Maybe you can answer it for me instead.
allgoo19 1 month ago
@allgoo19 I'm sorry, are you really asking what part of the Constitution says what?
According to your page you're from the U.S., and you don't know what Paul means when he's talking about the Constitution? Yet still you make a comment about his positions & his ideology?
10th Amendment. If you truly want to see what it says, look it up.
...and read the rest of it while you're at it.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 month ago
@UtubeMyAccountName "10th Amendment. If you truly want to see what it says, look it up."
==
It's not that long.
You brought it up, you explain it.
What it says?
allgoo19 1 month ago
@allgoo19 No
I told you where to look for the answer to your question. If you really want to know you'll go look. If you don't, you wont.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 month ago
@UtubeMyAccountName "I told you where to look for the answer to your question."
==
Basically, you are saying you don't know.
Correct?
allgoo19 1 month ago
@UtubeMyAccountName
==
No answer?
Another constitutionalist who has no knowledge of constitution.
Why I'm not surprised?
allgoo19 1 month ago
How is he a fraud again?
BEOWULF9965 1 month ago
Facts; Paul is ant-abortion, he doesn't even try to deny it. Paul is a champion of State's rights, and doesn't want the fed govt violating states rights.
While I agree that his anti-abortion stance is contradictory to libertarian principles, his support for this Texas law is in keeping with his political positions.
This report fallaciously tries to paint Paul as hypocritical here. An honest report would have focused on the contradiction of his abortion stance & libertarian principles.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 month ago
@UtubeMyAccountName that is what she meant in the vid--he is contradicting is libertarian ideals by saying the state should have the right to force medical choices. where is you head??
garudagal23 1 month ago
@garudagal23 Then that is what she should have said.
Instead she asserted that he was contradicting his political stance (thereby calling him a liar), which he was not.
He has openly & 'honestly' stated his position on abortion.
Do I think he is wrong? Yes. Do I think he is a liar? No.
He has openly stated his position on states rights?
Do I think he is wrong? No. Do I think he is a liar? No.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 month ago
@UtubeMyAccountName not to mention it is a security feature like asking someone for an i.d before the perches of substances.
sk8erpro10 1 month ago
Rachel Maddow obviously doesn't understand Republicans.
Yes, big government is bad when it helps poor people out. But it's extremely good when it promotes (Christian) religious agendas. Duh!
Rationalific 1 month ago
Ron Paul is not running for President of Texas, but for the President of the USA, and he has said over and over again that laws against most crimes, including murder, should not be under the federal purview. I love his consistency more than anything, and if he was either pro-life or pro-choice and sought to impose his position at the federal level, I would think far less of him.
al2i 1 month ago
@al2i you must not have been paying attention to the vid--paul's position is against abortion and letting the state decided a woman's care or choice--definitely not a libertarian stance and also one that imposes his belief on women.
garudagal23 1 month ago
Maddow proves again that she can't comprehend the constitutional position of state law deferment. Paul was just saying that the federal government shouldn't be making laws on abortion.
trebmalpm 1 month ago
Anyone of you ever seen an ultrasound of a baby at 3 months? it's as ugly as it is at 8 months,
I agree with abortion at any age, they actually stripped us of 6 months of our Rights. We should be allow to abort at any age, like 8 months or minutes before birth? As long as the baby is in our body It's our Right !!! Why look at an ultrasound, it wouldn't make a difference to me... :)
BajaArtists 1 month ago
@BajaArtists your logic is flawed. Sure it's in your body, and it's your body, but onces it's born it now is in your home, and eats your food. So with such logic you should be able to kill it even at 5 years old. The real question obviously is when does the fetus become a baby (person), If a person got his head stuck up your ass, you wouldn't have much of a right to cut his head off.
MirageScience 1 month ago
@MirageScience - LOL.. I would just fart you out.
I was actually stating what this idiot was saying. I honestly feel NO woman the the right to kill period at any age, except maybe days old, like the next day pill. If you listen to Ron Paul's reason why he doesn't believe in abortion, you would understand why. I did and it changed my belief in abortion. LOL... it was a joke, but that how they sound. I'm glad someone responded...LOL.
BajaArtists 1 month ago
He's not a fraud because this is at the state level, not the federal level. Ron Paul advocates liberty because he reduces the size and power of the federal government.
watch?v=DR-qLB-XMhU
RealityChecker77 1 month ago
Something doesn't smell right here. This doesn't sound like something he would support at all; regardless if the state chose to do it.
kjohnsen045 1 month ago
Fortunately, Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination.
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
Let me see, is this the same sonogram they use to prove the baby is dead after a car accident in which you will get prosecuted for murder/involuntary man slaughter? I don’t necessarily agree with the procedure; however it seems like two different standards. How many women would give up prosecuting an individual responsible killing their 3-9 month, so called baby if the law was changed not to include this dictation of a life under these circumstances? Ron Paul is not a Fraud! Dr. RON Paul 2012!!!
ChompersMFK 1 month ago
This is one area I disagree with RP on; I think progressives should be forced to have abortions.
willyswear 1 month ago
ron paul 2012
SheliaGra 1 month ago
And that is what u call a misqouted hit piece. They just keep piling em' up! :D scums
Mangeduvet 1 month ago
RONPAUL=OUR ONLY CHOICE
ALL NEOCON GOP & OBAMA ARE THE SAME. They Love Wars & Permanent Detentions, They Love Burning US Constitution, They Love NDAA, SOPA, Patriot Act, FISA & Spying on Americans, They Love Torture, Killing families w/ Drones, Guantanamo & Drug War, They Love Corporate Bailouts & Subsidies, They Love Giving TRILLIONS to Pentagon & War Industry, They Love Zionists, AIPAC & sending Israel TRILLIONS, They Love Fed Reserve and WONT Audit it, They Love Fascism & they ALL take Bribes
iCitiz3nP0vv3R2 1 month ago
Ron Paul isn't really much of a so-called 'libertarian". He is for states dictating people's lives, not for the individual's rights.
EnthalpyH 1 month ago
@EnthalpyH Not exactly, much of the questions he is asked are based on a Federal Level. When he says state level, he is advocating breaking the power down but that hasn't been his ultimate goal. He opposes all forms of taxation because of its nature and supports the non aggression axiom. Hes trying to appeal to minarchists but at the same time transition to a freer society with options like opting out. Just look at his book recommendations on law.
BIackOp 1 month ago
@BIackOp He's been on the record for saying that the power of all government should not exceed the power of an individual as their actions are no different, and the responses to such action should be the same regardless if government is on a far more grand scale.
BIackOp 1 month ago
I want an ultrasound and I'm not pregnant.
kaduisaui 1 month ago
If any other candidate had said he supported this bullshit law, Youtube would have hated him. Not Ron Paul because he's the messiah lololol
Frances3654 1 month ago
As much as I hate libertarians, Ron Paul isn't one. He's a state's rights advocate. People call him a libertarian because they don't know what it fucking means. Rachel has pointed it out numerous times. Ron Paul doesn't give a shit, he just knows kids on the internet and in college like him, and that's fine.
SgtSanchez 1 month ago
You are tearing me apart ultrasound!
Yetanotherytuser 1 month ago
Ron Paul doesn't believe in separation of church and state, or that the U.S. Constitution protects our rights at the state level. He's as dangerous as the other Republican theocratic candidates.
YY4Me133 1 month ago
I can only find the same tiny snippet "should always have been a Texas state position" everywhere. Anybody got a more complete text? At the very least a full sentence? Can't make up my mind with just this. This news reporting is pathetically useless.
StefanPochmann 1 month ago
What a nasty hit piece. Ron Paul believes that life begins at conception. As life is protected under law, there should probably be some checks on the abortion. Calling him a fraud for this is silly.
Can you see the glee in the reporter's eyes? They're just glad he finally said *something* that they could catch him on. He's much less of a fraud than any of the other hucksters vying for office right now.
eltiare 1 month ago
Awsome...Ron Paul Supports legal Abortion in Texas.
tangeuray 1 month ago
lolol paul is a fraud. He wants everyone to have rights yet supports this bullshit? and the sheep follow him, praising him on everything. What a fucking fraud.
ruffzspree 1 month ago
*covers ears* LA LA LA RON PAUL IS PERFECT LA LA LA END THE FED LA LA LA STATES RIGHTS LA LA LA LIBERTY LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU MADDOW!
klowdz1 1 month ago
Everyone who calls people who support Ron Paul Paulbots .. Listen.. We support Ron Paul because we understand how the system works... The system will collapse and you WILL be homeless on the street because our country can not sustain the spending. We borrow 3 billion dollars a day from foreigners .. we can't afford it the system will collapse..
master690 1 month ago
Its a good point, but its like getting a snake bite and only putting a band-aide on the holes. What I mean is this is only the surface issue. There is a lot more to it.
azumaninjay 1 month ago
But he doesn't want to detain us and tourtue us indefinetly without trial right? He has my vote.
AEVautomatic 1 month ago
He also believes that liberty extends as far as to protect life, and in the view of anyone who is pro-life, life begins at conception and thus must be protected. Therefore, the issue is not simply government invasion of a woman's privacy, but rather recognizing the rights of the unborn child to life. Abortion has always been (and most likely will always be) a highly debated topic, and so It's not as clear cut issue an issue as it is implied here.
SexedUpAtheist 1 month ago
The mainstream media is a fraud, and this is just another example of their intentionally disingenuous coverage of anything relating to Ron Paul: it's embarrassing that this is what constitutes 'news' in the U.S.
Paul's comments as they are here quoted in no way endorse the law; they simply reiterate his constitutional position that federal courts have no authority to overturn state laws when those laws do not concern matters explicitly reserved to the federal government by the constitution.
SexedUpAtheist 1 month ago
At present, the "Roe v Wade" case that legalizes abortion on the trimester approach has been replaced by the "Webster" case, which legalizes abortion on a different criteria: "viability." This is to say, if the child could survive outside the womb, assuming medical technology, it is considered "viable" and cannot legally be aborted. I don't know how else they would measure viability than with ultrasound, being at least part of the diagnosis. I like Rachel Maddow, but this is silly.
jericomovie 1 month ago 2
Ron Paul is an ass, so what else is new?
MarkArandjus 1 month ago
Its a good counter point against Paul that said I still say Paul is better then what else there is.
Brettkenster 1 month ago
@DeathOfAMudkip Ok, back to Biology 101 with you. #1: Sperm ARE alive. #2: WTF, throw that sock out. It's pretty awful of you to think that a rape victim/failed contraceptive victim/someone with an unwanted pregnancy which already has the burden of carrying a fetus she doesn't want, must then look at it to feel even worse about herself. You don't understand the very basics of what you're talking about, so please, keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.
Ron Paul/most republicans are fools.
superduperjew 1 month ago
0:45 "medically unnecessary ultrasounds"? In the D&E abortion procedure, an ultrasound IS necessary: "On the first day, an ultrasound (sonogram) is performed to determine the size and position of the fetus.".
Anyway, the law states that the woman can decline to view the sonogram.
aurayon 1 month ago
@aurayon
She can decline to listen to the heartbeat, she can NOT decline to view the sonogram. And the aspiration method does not require ultrasounds, but the law would force doctors to preform them anyway, making them medically unnecessary.
SgtSanchez 1 month ago
@SgtSanchez
Sorry, you're right about the first thing. I misread it. However, they are still required to hear a detailed description of the foetus' attributes.
SgtSanchez 1 month ago
@SgtSanchez As far as the doctor describing the ultrasound to the patient, I don't really see how that can be any more emotional than the abortion procedure itself. It's just pointing out the obvious. Not that I agree with the law; ultrasounds are just a waste of time and money.
aurayon 1 month ago
@aurayon
It's obviously a shaming technique, regardless of how the doctors want to go about it. I don't get why you're defending it if you don't even agree with it...
SgtSanchez 1 month ago
Loving the paulbots attempting damage control here. If Ron Paul becomes President, he'll screw you all, no matter how much faithful shilling you did for him.
Enjoy that.
ytayj 1 month ago
Colbert 2012!
mattyhaddockful 1 month ago
"The Texas law requires abortion providers to display the ultrasound images and describe them in detail. While a woman seeking an abortion CAN DECLINE TO VIEW the legally required ultrasound, she cannot decline to hear the physician's description of it unless she qualifies for an exception due to rape, incest or fetal abnormality."
aurayon 1 month ago
@DeathOfAMudkip >No one thinks that sperm is a living thing
Technically it is. So that doesn't work as a rebuttal.
>Those anti-abortion believe it's at conception
And they can't come up with any non-religious justification for that view. I've not seen one opponent of abortion point to anything scientific about foetuses that would suggest that their right to live (to live off of an adult who doesn't want to sustain it) outweighs a woman's right to choose.
GiantSandles 1 month ago
Thats pretty crazy... I am truly shocked that if this is real, I would prefer to see the words come out of his mouth though.
2scary4yu 1 month ago
Comment removed
aurayon 1 month ago
The problem isn't one or the other, its when one has more power than the other, and abuses that power.
MrRyan23xx 1 month ago
The thing is, showing the woman an ultrasound of the fetus is an emotional assault, not a medical or rational argument. A beating heart does not make a fetus a person, and any other movement doesn't either. What makes a fetus a person is the brain's development, but they're not going to show the woman an fMRI to demonstrate how the fetus does NOT experience pain or feeling or thought, are they?
This is just abuse of medical technology to promote an irrational religious agenda.
blackwolf1200 1 month ago 7
@blackwolf1200
So I guess severe head injury patients who show no signs of brain activity should all be killed right? They arent human anymore... even though some of them eventually rewire, repair and retrain their brains and regain conciousness? Have you ever considered that perhaps the Embryo is capable of experiencing those mental functions but hasnt learned how to yet?
At what point do you consider something "human?"
ImrysAnarion 1 month ago