My point has always been, if we're choosing the lesser of evils, Ron Paul is literally the least evil of all the candidates ... a few crazy notions or disagreeing on a few issues does not make a person a bad candidate. So ... those who don't like Ron Paul, which evil are you choosing? The ones who want to have the government censor everything or the ones that want to make you worship their religion?
I admit it. Im a Ron Paul supporter and do disagree with him on this issue. But you got to ask yourself what is more important. Having states rights on abortion (there is no way every state is going to be pro-life) or to finally get rid of the patriot act, ndaa, the drug war, foreign wars, and our economy being bankrupt (since no other candidate or Obama wont do jack shit and will only make things worse). You decide
Who really cares about abortion when our country is bankrupt, invades our privacy and over printing money to finance meaningless wars until the dollar has no value left? Is abortion really important? Besides, you can conclusively prove that Paul is wrong, I mean where does life actually begin anyways? I am not a pro-lifer, but I can respect his opinion on the matter and it will not have any impact on my support for him.
@TheJaggedyer Well you probably don’t care because you’re a man. Besides that, there is a major problem being against abortion. First, if you’re a taxpayer, you should know that the federal adoption industry costs a fortune, that CPS is responsible for more than half of abused, neglected and dead children in its care and, the least, do you want to keep paying welfare for uneducated 20 years old single moms of 2/3/4 ?
@SayNoToTheIlluminati Beleive me, if there's an industry of death in America, it's the chronic underachievement in your education system married to the military industrial complex. You're sending your highschool dropouts to thier deaths overseas. That is the real 'abortion industry'.
• Ron Paul is pro-murder. Unborn babies are not safe under Ron Paul policies. Ron Paul who believes that life begins at conception, believes abortion is justified on any level, MUST believe that it's okay to kill life that already exists. He already established life exists, baby is alive, death through abortion is justified. Whether on state or federal level, he believes in killing babies. That is being pro-life? Whether limited or maximum restrictions applied, he is pro-choice.
My many experiences w/ Ron Paul supporters, is that they say mostly the same thing. It's like they all memorize pamphlets on Ron Paul's stance on issues. I have noticed by their comments, that supporters are not free thinkers; do not challenge his stances on issues. Ron Paul is pro-choice masquerading as pro-life. He has no moral authority under the constitution to wash his federal hands from abortion by shifting the burden onto states. Feds/ states have no moral authority to legalize abortion.
If we'd like a president who isn't going to thrust us into pointless wars, spend on doomed government projects, or continue turning our wallets to dust ... is there really any other option?
Those letters stating those racist comments were not made by him, but by somebody working under his campaigns. Second, that is just some stuff made up to keep him from winning. He' s pro gay rights, religious but open minded to other faiths, and anti war. He defended Wiki Leaks, he' s the only guy who is willing to chan ge America which is really fucked up. You guys are killing the only chance to save America, as it falls into false propaganda against ''terrorists'' killing people for oil.
You're a moron. Repealing Roe v. Wade wouldn't default to a federal ban on abortion, which Ron Paul has repeatedly stated he doesn't want. Does the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the federal government defining marriage, render null and void state legalizations of gay marriage? No. If he wanted a federal ban, he wouldn't dance around the topic by "redefining" life as beginning at conception. He would simply lobby for a nationwide ban, which he has NEVER DONE.
@Sistarovat A fertilized human egg isn't a human being either. It's a zygote. And it's a growing ball of cells and a fetus until the brain really begins to develop at around the 24 week mark of gestation when the later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Basically, a fetus is a fetus and when a woman is growing one and is not ready for a child, it is her body and her right to decide.
@jessicaR4bbit You're ending what COULD be a life, I look at it this way.
I think abortion should be legal, but I also think people should stop fucking like rabbits without protection just because they know they can get rid of it.
@RhetoricGamingHD This whole perception though that women who get abortions go and fuck like rabbits witout protection because they know they can abort it is ludacris too. Everytime a woman has an abortion she decreases her chances of conception in future. Unless they're hellbent on being infertile the mentality of "I'll fuck unprotected and if I get preggo I'll abort everytime" is totally illogical. Probably best for these people to abort anyway if they're that stupid.
@oscarhopes I'd rather be a slave than be dead. At least as a slave, you have the hope of one day being free. But even if a slave doesn't attain freedom, in every slave society that has existed in known human history had benevolent slaveowners and cruel slaveowners. There were many slaves who lived no different than they would have had they been employed by their owner. So, as much as being someone's servant would stink, most of the tiime it would be better than not being alive at all.
@shinryu1285 A two-day old baby has yet to 'experience' life, let alone anything. Thus, when a mother throws her live baby in a dumster, she isn't depriving it of anything.
TJ, you act as if everybody agrees with you by default. Did it ever occur to you that many we Ron Paul supporters already knew he was for outlawing abortion and SUPPORT THAT EFFORT?!? Abortion is worse than slavery. Slavery only deprives a human of Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, but abortion deprives people of LIFE, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.
Exactly TJ, he wants to take away the federal governments authority over abortion AND GIVE IT BACK TO THE STATES. You their will be NO federal ban on abortion, its a states issue.. you misinterpreted it.
Also their are much more important issues that this. How about the wars, the monetary system, massive bailouts, NDAA, SOPA, patriot act, the massive debt that will lead to a collapse. Much more important issues that abortion, let each state decide democratically if they want abortion.
PLEASE LISTEN. You need to research a little more TJdoeslife.
1. Repealing Roe V Wade takes away the federal governments authority over abortion.
2. The Sanctity of Life Act says that the authority to protect the lives of unborn children resides in the jurisdiction of each state.
THE ACT DEFINES LIFE AT CONCEPTION AND ALLOWS INDIVIDUAL STATES TO OUTLAW ABORTION, IT DOES NOT OUTLAW ABORTION ITSELF. ITS SAD THAT MOST PEOPLE WILL BE MISINFORMED FROM YOUR VIDEO AND NOT SEE THIS COMMENT.
Letting the states decide equals letting some states take away the rights women have to make their own choice.
The reason he says let the state decide isnt because hes a Libertarian on that issue, but because he knows that the state in some areas would then enable the government to dictated what a citizen cant do on some issues.
@Lobos222 That doesn't add up, because sanctity of life act would effectively define abortion illegal on federal level on the grounds of the constitution.
T.J. is right. I still like Ron Paul though. He is for freedom, even if he things that 2 day old spermegg is a human. He is the only candidate against SOPA and NDAA.
Hes not the only candidate against SOPA. SOPA has already failed and the NDAA, while its content can always be critiqued and debated, is something that has been signed each year for almost 50 years.
Anti military spending peeps will make it sound like the NDAA is something new.
While pro rights people critic its content, which I agree with. I am just saying being against the NDAA because its the NDAA is kinda silly unless you are against all military spending period.
@TinyMcLarge "Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn."
I support Ron Paul, LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVES. Look at them for Crists sake, just look at them. They're like a bunch of babbleing lunatics fresh from the looney bin. Lets try to pick the most intellegible and insofar the most consistant Idiot among them. I'm not suggesting Ron Paul is a Great guy. In fact most of his opinions run contrary to my own, but at least we know that he is a staunch constitutionalist. Beliefs and/or opinions should bear no weight what so ever in his duty to uphold it.
@kiele21 The constitution has been a flawed document in the past, and if we were to say it's perfect now (which I don't concede) we still have judges and politicians who don't agree on the interpretation of it. It's impossible for Paul or anyone else to interpret the constitution the way everyone would like. It only makes sense that there are going to be people who would prefer not to have even a 'staunch constitutionalist" in office because they don't agree with his interpretations.
@bricewgilbert I cannot help but agree with you completely. But if it were between Obama and Newt Gingrich, or even Rick Perry I say we should at least let him (Ron Paul) have a go at it. He'd be hard pressed to screw things up worse than things are now. However nothing seems impossible these days...
In other words.. he applied the rights of states to vote on issues while at the same time supporting his belief.
He never has supported a national set condition on abortion that if he had and got into office would remove the right of ALL woman not to have abortions. Rather he supports anit-abortion but doesn't feel the decision should be placed on his shoulders.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm PRO-LIFE, ANTI-SODOMITES, ANTI-INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE, PRO-GUN, and PRO-CONSTITUTION. Take your heathenistic, atheistic, humanistic liberal crap and shove it.
@Sistarovat Then you sir, are a slack-jawed neo-con. lump of garbage. You are proof that there is no God. Who would create something so monstrous as yourself? There is so much in the world of which you will never know. So much art, language and learning, all barred from your puny mind. Oh, well, I suppose you should be getting back to your Nascar.
ron paul supporters are so crazy about him that they will believe and defend anything he says. if Ron Paul said pedophilia is good, his supporters would blindly believe him.
@KripDrip Abortion to the ability to kill the most defenseless, and innocent thing there is. I would support abortion more if there are not lots of these cases
One children is enough(birth control)
I am in college
Money
Do you support those cases. And we pay taxes for abortion too. Can we both agree ton common ground that there should be consequence to actions. I think that ANY THING that has a heartbeat should be protected. Dude that's a coming a human being your talking about.
@KripDrip If you truly are gullible enough to believe this then your the one who will believe anything. Im on the borderline of supporting ron paul, i used to be quite deeply in his support base. Irregardless my point is you my friend are gullible.
@KripDrip i'm an avid ron paul supporter and i disagree with some of his views. for example, abortion. if a woman wants to abort her child, i don't have a problem with it. in fact, i encourage it. the world already has enough fuckups.
I don't care about abortion, or his views, but to say a woman should be able to abort just because there are too many people in the world... You're just evil. Get a better reason.
@tjdoeslife Yes Ron Paul wants to pass that act but that is not going to prevent the states on making their own decisions when it comes to the matter. Life does begin at conception whether you want to believe that or not, it might not be an actual human but it is a life. As far as the whole cult thing goes that's just stupid and if people want to play that I'd rather drink his koolaid and live anyday!!!! Stop trying to act like his supporters don't know what they are talking about!!!!
None of those things prevents states from allowing abortion. Life does begin at conception, fact. Now, a human being doesn't begin there, but that's something totally different. That would still be left up to the states to decide. Way to jump the gun. All those pieces of legislation do is bar the Supreme Court from mandating for the entire country. That includes banning abortion completely, which otherwise very well could happen one day.
You guys are stupid read what I wrote below. This fag in this visor knows shit about Paul's stance on abortion. Paul have said in the past that he is not against a doctor giving the morning after pill to a raped victim. But you all seem to have been raped and don't want to listen so good luck. Keep kill your babies please.
What Ron Paul refuses to see is if a woman is raped or if the pregnancy is killing her. Before his website was changed, it said that he never found it neccessary to save a woman from death. THAT made me turn away from him. No I don't like abortion, but I'm very pro-choice, because women are human beings and have the right to decide if they are ready for a baby or not. If they are raped, they didn't have a choice even if they fought. She could have been tied to the bed and raped.
You are right but we the people's act will allow state to punish those who does abortion. Meaning if California decide to not punish it's their choice. Ron is just saying under the constitution the federal government is defying life at conception. And thus taking that life is a crime. But the federal government can not in anyway dictate to the state on how they should punish their citizens.
@nolovelost92 Antinatalism is hypocrisy at its finest: most of them are convinced that preventing life from continuing is the responsible thing to do, yet they maintain their own lives in a rather selfish manner. If they truly supported antinatalism, they'd take a page from the religious fanatics and become an hero for the cause!
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his "We the People Act."
What part of this did you not understand TJ? Are you trying to be stupid? He said he'd prevent the judges from interfering with STATE decisions. He just said he didn't want the Federal government doing so no, once again you are wrong.
"Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."
If I read this bill correctly, Paul is wrong on abortion. I agree with him on 99% of everything else. Is there a politician that YOU endorse, TJ? Even one that is not running? If so, do you agree with them 100%? Do you hate Paul based on this ONE issue? No. You hate him because he's popular on the internet and he's for small government (and you're not). Should I change my mind and become a retarded fucking liberal like you due to one politician having one issue that I dissagree with? Fuck off.
Even if you accidentally kill a fetus in the womb, you can still be put on trial and sentenced in 36 states... yet a woman can hire a doctor to destroy the fetus at any time before the third trimester. Considering all of the birth control options available nowadays (birth control pills, IUDs, the day-after pill, hysterectomies, etc.), the idea that a woman would need an abortion in the second (or even the first) trimester to deal with unwanted pregnancy is just irresponsible and downright lazy.
@SexedUpAtheist The problem with bringing up IUDs and day after pills is that you're killing fertilized eggs. This would be murder if life begins at conception. This legislation is a mistake. Also, if a woman has a miscarriage should she then be investigated for negligent homicide? The fact that the legislation is federal and sweeping is antithetical to what Paul's message is for everything else. It compromises the message of small local government and individual liberty.
@hallavast That's only a problem for Ron Paul's stance, not mine. I think that the laws should be consistent, one way or the other. Either everybody (including the mother) can be tried for the premeditated murder of a fetus, or nobody can.
For the most part, Ron Paul has remained consistent in his belief that the federal government should have no authority in regards to abortion: the only action he's taken on the federal level is to sign the ban on partial-birth abortions, which was wrong.
He said he voted for a bill to ban “partial birth” abortions becuase it was “helping revers some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.” Also note this was not a state right’s argument he was making. He voted for a federal ban not for allowing the states to decide.
Ron Paul said it is the government’s funciton to support “traditional marriage” so he is willing to have his view enforced by the state. He only bickers over at which level the coecion should be done. That may be Constitutionalism but it is not libertarianism.
@plasticiconoclastic You're right. The film was definitely biased. However, you can't make the actual abortion process biased. It's not like you can tell the fetus to act scared so that everyone will be against abortion afterward. If you ignore the bias of the video and just watch the abortion, it's obvious that the fetus attempts to avoid being dismembered; in that regard, the video is objective.
It's not objective; the video clip displaying the fetus in its attempt to evade removal was accelerated for the sake of the video itself, which you yourself admit was biased. Those movements are typical of any fetus; it, the fetus in the video, was likely incapable of even perceiving the device, much less experiencing the sensation of dismemberment as it had not reached the stage of development necessary for a fully functional neuroanatomy as we know it.
Abortion should be illegal. If you can be arrested and prosecuted for killing someone else's fetus (and yes, you can), then you damn well should be arrested and prosecuted for choosing to kill your own fetus. I fail to see any difference between the two, personally. If you don't want children, get fixed. If you have sex, use a condom and take a morning after pill. Take responsibility for your choices, though: don't expect the newly formed life to give it up because you can't be bothered to.
it is shamefully uncivilized..no wonder the leets still force the serfs to pay taxes..a good mom makes her grown son pay rent becuz he wont get off his azz and take responsibility for his own life
this is a blatant display of the duh-masses: ignorance to sexual education (u didnt know u could get preg?), laziness to responsibility (im not ready to be a parent), selfishness (my life is over), and prolly worst of all, immaturity (going to mom and dad ie the govt and asking if it is ok to abort it)..u never hear sheeple say "i got an abortion to preserve the environment from yet another cancerous life consuming pile of decaying meat we like to call a human"
@jeffthecoder "i got an abortion to preserve the environment from yet another cancerous life consuming pile of decaying meat we like to call a human" --I would get an abortion for this reason.
@liverbitz91 i know there is that whole argument of "what about rape and incest"..but it is almost a fallacy because so few abortions are done for those reasons that it doesnt even register as 1 percentage point on a scale..abortion clinics are not a billion dollar industry due to rape and incest..no no no
@jeffthecoder Again, looking at the society we live in, we do not value human life. We live in a society is that promotes contrary rhetoric. This is evident in the abortion debate. The people who carry the pro-life torch are generally the same people who would gladly send their citizens to occupy/ invade another country. If we valued human life above all else, we would be living in a society that does not tolerate imperialism.
bringing up "rape/incest" regarding abortion is almost a fallacy..rape/incest abortions are so rare that they dont even register as a percentage point on a scale..throwing that out, i see now how low the sheeple of the USA have come..once preggo, instead of saying "wow im gonna be a parent" ppl say "should i keep it?"
NOTHING to be sorry about, it's a good position he has. I t GOES ALONG WITH THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE and the DECLARATION is a literal publication. To remind you what it says LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. That is the spirit in wich the Constitution was written. Watch "Ron Paul ad life".
Well that's interesting news. He is only honest candidate and has the only ethical position concerning our economy and foreign policy. This information is good news. I actually thought he was indifferent to the pro-death vs. pro-life issue. He is a man of honor. Thanks for pointing out what an excellent candidate he really is.
Regardless of Paul wanting to "let the states decide", he is still pro-life, and he still thinks that women should NOT be in control of their own bodies.
@liverbitz91 Just curious, obviously Atheists don't care about infanticide, because there's no God to answer to in their minds he doesn't exist. But there's obviously a point during the pregnancy when a fetus becomes a human with a circulatory system, nerve endings, brain development. Why can't women who get knocked up terminate the pregnancy prior to it becoming a human life? The pro-life crowd may not like this concept, but there is the ability to terminate sooner as opposed to later.
As I just wrote to the author of this video, this is a state issue and a lokal issue.
Ron Paul opposes the federal goverments involvement in the issue itself. He would rather follow the constitution.
But he also states that if abortion where to become completely illegal, it would probably grow into a terrible black market so he doesn't completely support that idea either.
What he thinks shouldn't really matter though, since the president has no such powers.
@L4CES Well I agree with you sir. Why can't they? I believe that at any point in a pregnancy, it is the woman's body, she should get to decide when to terminate. Her decision is based on her morality, and it is personal. She is not owned by the state, the state will not raise that fetus--the state is not responsible for her body. Therefore, any decision she makes has nothing to do with the rest of the country.
Exactly, ITS NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE! If you understand that the constitution puts the limitations on the government in articles 1-7. Roe v Wade, is telling the Federal Government what to do. ITS A STATE ISSUE!
I don't see how this doesn't still hold true to his beliefs on states' rights. Roe v. Wade is a federal legislation that extends over the states. He want's to eliminate this to allow the states to decide for themselves on the issue of Abortion. This same reasoning applies to gay marriage and many other positions he holds.
ok i understand but he is still probably safer as far as our rights are concerned than the others are, and unfortunately its quite clear that a republican is going to win this one i think we can all see that, so we need to back the one who wont fuck us (as roughly)
and if he dose we the people give the people license to execute ron paul and his party
Ron Paul aka paultards have no idea what they are talking about or what Paultard will actually do if he where to win. They are like brain dead retards saying the same shit over and over constantly attacking every video and every comment of who ever does not like or even just disagrees with Paul. And paltard supporters do this rather obsessively too, like they all act like obsessive paranoid crazy people.
anybody who thinks this issue is black and white needs to see Paul make his case as to why he believes in pro-life. Here is the Youtube link: watch?v=66jpPCIzza8
Through judicial activism, Roe v. Wade stripped the states of their rights to legislate this issue within their borders. Repealing Roe v. Wade would restore the states' right to decide.
As to the sanctity of life, defining when life begins is helpful. Up to this point the judiciary has been relying on willful ignorance.
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic
wait a second so you can get an abortion legally but if someone kills a pregnant woman its double murder. why is it murder in one case but not the other? because of how pregnant she is? so wait 1 more second wheres the cut off and why? maybe today i can punch a woman in the stomach and her baby dies i'll just get assault charges but tomorrow i would get a murder charge because she may now be deemed too pregnant when yesterday it wasnt a life. how about if i accidently hit her with a car.
@kenny8331 "wait a second so you can get an abortion legally but if someone kills a pregnant woman its double murder. why is it murder in one case but not the other?" It has to do with consent.
unborn children don't have rights? funny that, if i punch a pregnant woman and cause the death of her unborn child, it's murder. perhaps we should clear that legal techniocality before we make such decisions
@58robbo In your scenario, the rights of the pregnant girl/woman would have been violated. If there are laws that call it "murder," they exist only because anti-abortion activists are doing everything in their power to take away the rights of girls/women to make decisions as to whether they want to provide "womb service" for a fetus.
@58robbo The laws are all over the place with regard to this issue. Some believe that a "person" exists from the moment of conception, others that a "person" doesn't exist until the brain and central nervous system are mature enough for the fetus to experience pain, after "quickening," etc. The U.S. Constitution grants rights only to those born or naturalized, not to fetuses. Defining causing a miscarriage as "murder" is merely part of the anti-abortion agenda, and a violation of women's rights.
@Kogerii Calling a fetus a "baby" is a red herring. All sorts of things happen to fetuses that can't happen to living, breathing babies, such as the brain or other internal organs growing outside the body. In the early stages, it can split into two or more, and even fuse together again.
No one can be forced to provide blood, a kidney, etc. to another against their will. Not even to save a life. Likewise, no girl/woman should be forced to provide "womb service" against her will.
@Kogerii From medical-dictionary[DOT]thefreedictionary[DOT]com/fetus:
fetus /fe·tus/ (fēt´us) [L.] the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.
@Kogerii Call it what you will, until it's capable of living and breathing on its own, it's a parasite, i.e. "An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense."
@Kogerii I'm not defining anything wrong. You and I disagree. You seem to think a fetus is equal to a fully-formed, living, breathing human. I don't. I also don't think that a girl/woman should be forced to provide "womb service" for an unwanted fetus. You probably disagree. That's okay. What's not okay is telling others that *they* can't have abortions because *you* think it's wrong.
Whether it's right or wrong isn't a matter of opinion; it's a matter of truth.
Identifying something as wrong and seeking to avenge the wronged are two different things. People are getting robbed, raped, and murdered right now but neither of us are seeking out the wrong-doers to enforce justice.
I'm not delusional. I don't think women will stop killing their kids based on my will, a law, or your agreement it's wrong. But the fact remains: it is wrong.
@YY4Me133 Or better yet, require activist women to take responsibility for their decisions. If a person can be arrested and tried for the murder of a fetus, why is it suddenly o.k. for the mom to hire a doctor to do it without (legal) consequence? Bullshit. Killing a fetus is either murder, or it isn't.
@SexedUpAtheist I think that people should *not* be arrested and tried for the "murder" of a fetus. If someone causes a woman to miscarry during the commission of a crime, or otherwise against her will, that's a violation of the woman's rights. Fetuses have no constitutional rights.
@SexedUpAtheist It all comes down to consent. If you hit a woman in the belly with a bat and kill the fetus without her consent, then I would say that is wrong. If they give a doctor consent to remove the fetus from their body, I would say that it is their business, and only theirs, not the state or federal government's business.
@liverbitz91 You'll have to clarify, sir, because I was unable to locate a single point that you attempted to make which my comment would prove. Your last comment contained an unsubstantiated opinion, an argumentative fallacy, and pure speculation, none of which could be proven by a mere comment.
@SexedUpAtheist Are you trying to say that America does not practice imperialism? " The people who carry the pro-life torch are generally the same people who would gladly send their citizens to occupy/ invade another country." - Is this not a clear example?
@liverbitz91 I missed this comment, I think, but I'll respond just the same: this is a sweeping generalization intended to vilify those who hold the pro-life position. Ron Paul is a perfect example of someone who 'carries the pro-life torch', yet he is against sending our citizens to occupy/invade other countries... so am I.
This is why it's best to judge people on an individual basis, and not lump them all together to satisfy our human desire for simplicity.
@SexedUpAtheist Abortion is an act of destroying a pre-mature zygote, so technically speaking, it is not murder since it is not a fully developed human being.
@SexedUpAtheist ...which is why I said "generally" because I know it's a generalization. If we are going to judge people individually, then we should probably get rid of labels like "pro-choice" and "pro-life", since those are collectives of people, who all happen to hold collective opinions. Instead, we should call people who are pro-war but anti-choice "inconsistentists", and people who are consistent in their views, "consistentists".
@SexedUpAtheist I guess my point is that our absolute morals are inconsistent. Why is life important here, but not here--is the point I was trying to make.
@hempbilly Yes, and you can figuratively shove it up your ass.
To answer your question: obviously that is not the case. When the fetus is in the womb, it is alive: when the fetus is removed, it is dead. That sure sounds like the definition of killing to me.
@pikachu7567 Yeah, I've heard this rationalization used many times.. don't know how to break this to you, but human babies aren't born capable of sustaining themselves. Sure they're conscious, but they can't feed or clothe themselves: even if they don't continue life with their original mother, they will still require that somebody care for them. So perhaps, since they're dependent on someone to care for them and cannot care for themselves, we should accord them the same rights as a fetus?
@SexedUpAtheist Babies are conscience, and you can leave a baby in a room for a period of time and it still live, that means it can sustain it's own existence. A fetus, cannot live without being attached to it's mother, a baby can. Sure it needs care but it can sustain it's own existence.
@pikachu7567 Semantics. Leave the baby in the room for a long enough period of time, and it will die. Why? Because it's incapable of caring for itself. Period. So no, it cannot "sustain its own existence" except insofar as it won't die immediately if left uncared for by another person, who it must depend on for survival.
@SexedUpAtheist Semantics, just because it needs a guardian to survive doesn't mean it has the survival capabilities as a fetus. It can survive on it's own a fetus can't that's the difference. So no, a baby is not like a fetus.
@pikachu7567 This conversation is about over, because you're exhibiting willful ignorance and providing weak arguments: you argue degree, which is largely irrelevant.
Neither a fetus nor an infant could survive without another person to care for it. We don't accord a baby less protection than an adult simply because they have different (lesser) survival capabilities: quite the opposite, in fact. This is the only way in which your semantics apply, and they argue for MORE protection, not less.
@SexedUpAtheist You failed to acknowledge the fact that a fetus is parasitic, a baby is not. What part of a baby can live without leeching off of the resources of another organism don't you get? If a fetus is detached from it's mother, it dies, if a baby is separated from it's mother, it lives. There is a huge difference here, just because a baby can't live without a parent to PROVIDE (different from having a mother to leech from) doesn't mean it has the same survival capabilites as a fetus.
@pikachu7567 Yep, another word that you people like to throw around to defend your abhorrent stance: parasitic. Parasitic is just a descriptive, and it applies to more than just a fetus. Disabled people and those on welfare are also parasitic, by definition: should we accord them little or no rights? Should we be allowed to cut off their benefits? Can we abort them as well? Or are you going to make different rules for different "parasites"?
@SexedUpAtheist Also "sustain it's own existence" means it can live for ANY period of time without the dependence of another organism, just because it needs care doesn't mean it cannot sustain it's own life.
@pikachu7567 I believe this will be my last response to you: unless you're able to come up with something more than the semantics game, we have little else to discuss.
A fetus is NOT a parasite. A parasite is an organism that is introduced (from an external source) onto or inside of an organism of a different species, which it feeds upon. A fetus is the development of an egg created within the female body, and fertilized by the male sperm. Your rationalization is disturbing and unethical.
@SexedUpAtheist Tell that to the mother who rolls out of the bed with morning sickness and who vomiting profusely, and she's always in a shitty mood because of her contractions.
@pikachu7567 I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you are not a woman, and I'm even willing to bet that you're not a father, because your words display your vast ignorance on the subject of pregnancy.
At any rate, her discomfort is the consequence of an action that she knowingly engaged in, fully aware of the potential for this situation which she finds herself in: to use this as justification for murder is reprehensible.. shame on you.
@SexedUpAtheist You don't know what that woman went through for her pregnancy to happen, maybe her partner's condom broke, maybe her birth control failed, maybe she was RAPED! Why should a woman have to carry a child that reminds her of the horrific experience in which she was raped. BTW abortion is not murder, it's an organism that has the POTENTIAL to be a human being. Sperm has the potential to be a human, is it genocide everytime a man masturbates?
@pikachu7567 Google 'Personal Bodily Rights, Abortion, and Unplugging the Violinist' by Francis J. Beckwith, and give it a read. It'll better help you understand how your "arguments", such as they are, do not hold up under closer scrutiny.
@SexedUpAtheist The person you are referring to ( Francis J. Beckwith) is an an American Christian philosopher, not someone who knows what can and can't be apart of your body. Her argument of, "To say that the unborn entity is part of her mother is to claim that the mother possesses four legs, two heads,
two noses, and with the case of a male conceptus, a penis and two testicles." is fucking ridiculous. They are
symbiotically connected, same as an attachment is part of an email.
@TearsOfWar1 You yourself refer to the mother and the fetus as "they", which draws a distinction between the two as separate entities, so I'm not sure how you can do that and yet refer to her argument as "fucking ridiculous": They are connected like a tub is connected to a water heater: is the water heater an integral part of the tub? Of course not.
@SexedUpAtheist Parasitism is a symbiotic relationship in which one organism benefits and the other is harmed. Even if they replaced "organism" with "species" does that mean that there's any difference in the relationship? An organism is still suffering and another is benefitting. I accuse you of playing a "semantics game" I would explain the difference between a human being and a fetus, but you just need to google "Pwned grounded for life" to figure it out.
My point has always been, if we're choosing the lesser of evils, Ron Paul is literally the least evil of all the candidates ... a few crazy notions or disagreeing on a few issues does not make a person a bad candidate. So ... those who don't like Ron Paul, which evil are you choosing? The ones who want to have the government censor everything or the ones that want to make you worship their religion?
KittenKoder 1 hour ago
I admit it. Im a Ron Paul supporter and do disagree with him on this issue. But you got to ask yourself what is more important. Having states rights on abortion (there is no way every state is going to be pro-life) or to finally get rid of the patriot act, ndaa, the drug war, foreign wars, and our economy being bankrupt (since no other candidate or Obama wont do jack shit and will only make things worse). You decide
REDRAPIST 4 days ago
Who really cares about abortion when our country is bankrupt, invades our privacy and over printing money to finance meaningless wars until the dollar has no value left? Is abortion really important? Besides, you can conclusively prove that Paul is wrong, I mean where does life actually begin anyways? I am not a pro-lifer, but I can respect his opinion on the matter and it will not have any impact on my support for him.
TheJaggedyer 4 days ago
@TheJaggedyer Well you probably don’t care because you’re a man. Besides that, there is a major problem being against abortion. First, if you’re a taxpayer, you should know that the federal adoption industry costs a fortune, that CPS is responsible for more than half of abused, neglected and dead children in its care and, the least, do you want to keep paying welfare for uneducated 20 years old single moms of 2/3/4 ?
xnewtime 1 day ago
sheeesh! the adoption industry!
SayNoToTheIlluminati 1 week ago
@SayNoToTheIlluminati Beleive me, if there's an industry of death in America, it's the chronic underachievement in your education system married to the military industrial complex. You're sending your highschool dropouts to thier deaths overseas. That is the real 'abortion industry'.
soundslave 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
State and federal authorities DO NOT, under the constitution, have moral authority to legalize abortion.
kodachromefilm 2 weeks ago
• Ron Paul is pro-murder. Unborn babies are not safe under Ron Paul policies. Ron Paul who believes that life begins at conception, believes abortion is justified on any level, MUST believe that it's okay to kill life that already exists. He already established life exists, baby is alive, death through abortion is justified. Whether on state or federal level, he believes in killing babies. That is being pro-life? Whether limited or maximum restrictions applied, he is pro-choice.
kodachromefilm 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My many experiences w/ Ron Paul supporters, is that they say mostly the same thing. It's like they all memorize pamphlets on Ron Paul's stance on issues. I have noticed by their comments, that supporters are not free thinkers; do not challenge his stances on issues. Ron Paul is pro-choice masquerading as pro-life. He has no moral authority under the constitution to wash his federal hands from abortion by shifting the burden onto states. Feds/ states have no moral authority to legalize abortion.
kodachromefilm 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
kodachromefilm 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
kodachromefilm 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
kodachromefilm 2 weeks ago
You should have uploaded this video to AmazingAtheist, this is important
tuberofyou1 3 weeks ago
If we'd like a president who isn't going to thrust us into pointless wars, spend on doomed government projects, or continue turning our wallets to dust ... is there really any other option?
HelplessVictim 3 weeks ago
I support Ron paul, but honestly some of his opinions are really fucking stupid
2122Hellfire 1 month ago
Hello big TJ, your pseudo-philosophy is blindly supported by the masses.
TehAlexJonesChannel 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TJdoeslife
This has been flagged as spam show
Those letters stating those racist comments were not made by him, but by somebody working under his campaigns. Second, that is just some stuff made up to keep him from winning. He' s pro gay rights, religious but open minded to other faiths, and anti war. He defended Wiki Leaks, he' s the only guy who is willing to chan ge America which is really fucked up. You guys are killing the only chance to save America, as it falls into false propaganda against ''terrorists'' killing people for oil.
saramichealhpt 1 month ago
Ron Paul wants to make his subjective religious beliefs into legislation that will effect all Americans! This is why he will never get my vote.
RealNRD 1 month ago
You supported RP obviously never lived in a society where abortion was illegal.
prochoicecliniescort 1 month ago
You're a moron. Repealing Roe v. Wade wouldn't default to a federal ban on abortion, which Ron Paul has repeatedly stated he doesn't want. Does the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the federal government defining marriage, render null and void state legalizations of gay marriage? No. If he wanted a federal ban, he wouldn't dance around the topic by "redefining" life as beginning at conception. He would simply lobby for a nationwide ban, which he has NEVER DONE.
IJUSTLOVETURTLES 1 month ago 2
@visini14 Of course not. Where in the world would you get that notion? An unfertilized egg isn't a human being.
Sistarovat 1 month ago
@Sistarovat A fertilized human egg isn't a human being either. It's a zygote. And it's a growing ball of cells and a fetus until the brain really begins to develop at around the 24 week mark of gestation when the later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Basically, a fetus is a fetus and when a woman is growing one and is not ready for a child, it is her body and her right to decide.
jessicaR4bbit 4 weeks ago
@jessicaR4bbit You're ending what COULD be a life, I look at it this way.
I think abortion should be legal, but I also think people should stop fucking like rabbits without protection just because they know they can get rid of it.
RhetoricGamingHD 3 weeks ago
@RhetoricGamingHD This whole perception though that women who get abortions go and fuck like rabbits witout protection because they know they can abort it is ludacris too. Everytime a woman has an abortion she decreases her chances of conception in future. Unless they're hellbent on being infertile the mentality of "I'll fuck unprotected and if I get preggo I'll abort everytime" is totally illogical. Probably best for these people to abort anyway if they're that stupid.
jessicaR4bbit 3 weeks ago
@oscarhopes I'd rather be a slave than be dead. At least as a slave, you have the hope of one day being free. But even if a slave doesn't attain freedom, in every slave society that has existed in known human history had benevolent slaveowners and cruel slaveowners. There were many slaves who lived no different than they would have had they been employed by their owner. So, as much as being someone's servant would stink, most of the tiime it would be better than not being alive at all.
Sistarovat 1 month ago
@shinryu1285 A two-day old baby has yet to 'experience' life, let alone anything. Thus, when a mother throws her live baby in a dumster, she isn't depriving it of anything.
Sistarovat 1 month ago
Who is this fat faggot?
p2eas3 1 month ago
TJ, you act as if everybody agrees with you by default. Did it ever occur to you that many we Ron Paul supporters already knew he was for outlawing abortion and SUPPORT THAT EFFORT?!? Abortion is worse than slavery. Slavery only deprives a human of Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, but abortion deprives people of LIFE, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.
Sistarovat 1 month ago
@Sistarovat A fetus has yet to 'experience' life, let alone anything. Thus, you aren't depriving them of anything.
shinryu1285 1 month ago in playlist More videos from TJdoeslife
@shinryu1285 I'm more concerned that they said "slavery ONLY", as if being a slave is having a life.
oscarhopes 1 month ago
@Sistarovat So does when a woman has her period, that is depriving a cell of becoming a human, should the woman be put in jail?
visini14 1 month ago
Silly TJ, red meat is for the base! =D
aaronpolitical 1 month ago
Exactly TJ, he wants to take away the federal governments authority over abortion AND GIVE IT BACK TO THE STATES. You their will be NO federal ban on abortion, its a states issue.. you misinterpreted it.
Also their are much more important issues that this. How about the wars, the monetary system, massive bailouts, NDAA, SOPA, patriot act, the massive debt that will lead to a collapse. Much more important issues that abortion, let each state decide democratically if they want abortion.
IamYoddle 1 month ago
@IamYoddle fuck the states. give authority to the PEOPLE. and to a woman who needs an abortion, it is an important issue.
froggymicwop 1 month ago
PLEASE LISTEN. You need to research a little more TJdoeslife.
1. Repealing Roe V Wade takes away the federal governments authority over abortion.
2. The Sanctity of Life Act says that the authority to protect the lives of unborn children resides in the jurisdiction of each state.
THE ACT DEFINES LIFE AT CONCEPTION AND ALLOWS INDIVIDUAL STATES TO OUTLAW ABORTION, IT DOES NOT OUTLAW ABORTION ITSELF. ITS SAD THAT MOST PEOPLE WILL BE MISINFORMED FROM YOUR VIDEO AND NOT SEE THIS COMMENT.
tehdouglas1 1 month ago
@tehdouglas1
Letting the states decide equals letting some states take away the rights women have to make their own choice.
The reason he says let the state decide isnt because hes a Libertarian on that issue, but because he knows that the state in some areas would then enable the government to dictated what a citizen cant do on some issues.
Pro life = Government decide.
Lobos222 1 month ago 7
@Lobos222 That doesn't add up, because sanctity of life act would effectively define abortion illegal on federal level on the grounds of the constitution.
coosoorlog 1 month ago
T.J. is right. I still like Ron Paul though. He is for freedom, even if he things that 2 day old spermegg is a human. He is the only candidate against SOPA and NDAA.
bchplse 1 month ago
@bchplse
Hes not the only candidate against SOPA. SOPA has already failed and the NDAA, while its content can always be critiqued and debated, is something that has been signed each year for almost 50 years.
Anti military spending peeps will make it sound like the NDAA is something new.
While pro rights people critic its content, which I agree with. I am just saying being against the NDAA because its the NDAA is kinda silly unless you are against all military spending period.
Lobos222 1 month ago
@Lobos222 How is being against making it legal to detain citizens indefinitely without a trial silly?
bchplse 1 month ago
@TinyMcLarge Belief whatever you want my friend.
Gold21030 1 month ago
@TinyMcLarge "Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn."
Right from his campaign website.
Gold21030 1 month ago
I don't think you understand what the word federal means...
MuseFromGallifrey 1 month ago
You're such a fat faggot.
cheeryouUPfred 1 month ago
@cheeryouUPfred Wow, what a very intelligent argument. <<<<Sarcasm
afromime 1 month ago
@TinyMcLarge Ron Paul wants to define life starting at conception.
Gold21030 1 month ago
I support Ron Paul, LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVES. Look at them for Crists sake, just look at them. They're like a bunch of babbleing lunatics fresh from the looney bin. Lets try to pick the most intellegible and insofar the most consistant Idiot among them. I'm not suggesting Ron Paul is a Great guy. In fact most of his opinions run contrary to my own, but at least we know that he is a staunch constitutionalist. Beliefs and/or opinions should bear no weight what so ever in his duty to uphold it.
kiele21 1 month ago
@kiele21 The constitution has been a flawed document in the past, and if we were to say it's perfect now (which I don't concede) we still have judges and politicians who don't agree on the interpretation of it. It's impossible for Paul or anyone else to interpret the constitution the way everyone would like. It only makes sense that there are going to be people who would prefer not to have even a 'staunch constitutionalist" in office because they don't agree with his interpretations.
bricewgilbert 1 month ago
@bricewgilbert I cannot help but agree with you completely. But if it were between Obama and Newt Gingrich, or even Rick Perry I say we should at least let him (Ron Paul) have a go at it. He'd be hard pressed to screw things up worse than things are now. However nothing seems impossible these days...
kiele21 1 month ago
In other words.. he applied the rights of states to vote on issues while at the same time supporting his belief.
He never has supported a national set condition on abortion that if he had and got into office would remove the right of ALL woman not to have abortions. Rather he supports anit-abortion but doesn't feel the decision should be placed on his shoulders.
revron77 1 month ago
what i hate about youtube is that a hour long video with only a picture is 90mb to downlaod when an 56kbps mp3 would be like 20.
Ioganstone 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm PRO-LIFE, ANTI-SODOMITES, ANTI-INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE, PRO-GUN, and PRO-CONSTITUTION. Take your heathenistic, atheistic, humanistic liberal crap and shove it.
Sistarovat 1 month ago
@Sistarovat Then you sir, are a slack-jawed neo-con. lump of garbage. You are proof that there is no God. Who would create something so monstrous as yourself? There is so much in the world of which you will never know. So much art, language and learning, all barred from your puny mind. Oh, well, I suppose you should be getting back to your Nascar.
xTheAnrchoMarxist 1 month ago
@xTheAnrchoMarxist Well said!!!
blackexpat 1 month ago
Comment removed
dmcarefuldriver 1 month ago
ron paul supporters are so crazy about him that they will believe and defend anything he says. if Ron Paul said pedophilia is good, his supporters would blindly believe him.
KripDrip 1 month ago 17
@KripDrip Abortion to the ability to kill the most defenseless, and innocent thing there is. I would support abortion more if there are not lots of these cases
One children is enough(birth control)
I am in college
Money
Do you support those cases. And we pay taxes for abortion too. Can we both agree ton common ground that there should be consequence to actions. I think that ANY THING that has a heartbeat should be protected. Dude that's a coming a human being your talking about.
gergar121 1 month ago
@KripDrip If you truly are gullible enough to believe this then your the one who will believe anything. Im on the borderline of supporting ron paul, i used to be quite deeply in his support base. Irregardless my point is you my friend are gullible.
omfgurjk 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@KripDrip i'm an avid ron paul supporter and i disagree with some of his views. for example, abortion. if a woman wants to abort her child, i don't have a problem with it. in fact, i encourage it. the world already has enough fuckups.
lvanhorn2 4 weeks ago
@lvanhorn2 Evil. EVIL, you are.
I don't care about abortion, or his views, but to say a woman should be able to abort just because there are too many people in the world... You're just evil. Get a better reason.
RhetoricGamingHD 3 weeks ago
@RhetoricGamingHD no, i think that's a pretty valid reason. if you don't like my stance you can cry about it.
lvanhorn2 3 weeks ago
@tjdoeslife Yes Ron Paul wants to pass that act but that is not going to prevent the states on making their own decisions when it comes to the matter. Life does begin at conception whether you want to believe that or not, it might not be an actual human but it is a life. As far as the whole cult thing goes that's just stupid and if people want to play that I'd rather drink his koolaid and live anyday!!!! Stop trying to act like his supporters don't know what they are talking about!!!!
MercadoKR 2 months ago
None of those things prevents states from allowing abortion. Life does begin at conception, fact. Now, a human being doesn't begin there, but that's something totally different. That would still be left up to the states to decide. Way to jump the gun. All those pieces of legislation do is bar the Supreme Court from mandating for the entire country. That includes banning abortion completely, which otherwise very well could happen one day.
beabercj 2 months ago
You guys are stupid read what I wrote below. This fag in this visor knows shit about Paul's stance on abortion. Paul have said in the past that he is not against a doctor giving the morning after pill to a raped victim. But you all seem to have been raped and don't want to listen so good luck. Keep kill your babies please.
cs2excalibur 2 months ago
@cs2excalibur Your level of stupidity is disturbing.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
Ron Paul may have saved lives, but he's pro-choice on a pro-life ticket. Politics as usual.
kodachromefilm 2 months ago
What Ron Paul refuses to see is if a woman is raped or if the pregnancy is killing her. Before his website was changed, it said that he never found it neccessary to save a woman from death. THAT made me turn away from him. No I don't like abortion, but I'm very pro-choice, because women are human beings and have the right to decide if they are ready for a baby or not. If they are raped, they didn't have a choice even if they fought. She could have been tied to the bed and raped.
LoveThroughSong 2 months ago
god he's an idiot. what if a girl is raped? or the baby will become sick? or maybe..they just don't want to have a fuckin baby OMFG he pisses me off
MoonlightOwlDreams 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TJdoeslife
You are right but we the people's act will allow state to punish those who does abortion. Meaning if California decide to not punish it's their choice. Ron is just saying under the constitution the federal government is defying life at conception. And thus taking that life is a crime. But the federal government can not in anyway dictate to the state on how they should punish their citizens.
cs2excalibur 2 months ago
@nolovelost92 Antinatalism is hypocrisy at its finest: most of them are convinced that preventing life from continuing is the responsible thing to do, yet they maintain their own lives in a rather selfish manner. If they truly supported antinatalism, they'd take a page from the religious fanatics and become an hero for the cause!
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his "We the People Act."
What part of this did you not understand TJ? Are you trying to be stupid? He said he'd prevent the judges from interfering with STATE decisions. He just said he didn't want the Federal government doing so no, once again you are wrong.
Yabuturtle 3 months ago
"Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."
911truthandjustice 3 months ago
If I read this bill correctly, Paul is wrong on abortion. I agree with him on 99% of everything else. Is there a politician that YOU endorse, TJ? Even one that is not running? If so, do you agree with them 100%? Do you hate Paul based on this ONE issue? No. You hate him because he's popular on the internet and he's for small government (and you're not). Should I change my mind and become a retarded fucking liberal like you due to one politician having one issue that I dissagree with? Fuck off.
hallavast 3 months ago
Even if you accidentally kill a fetus in the womb, you can still be put on trial and sentenced in 36 states... yet a woman can hire a doctor to destroy the fetus at any time before the third trimester. Considering all of the birth control options available nowadays (birth control pills, IUDs, the day-after pill, hysterectomies, etc.), the idea that a woman would need an abortion in the second (or even the first) trimester to deal with unwanted pregnancy is just irresponsible and downright lazy.
SexedUpAtheist 3 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist The problem with bringing up IUDs and day after pills is that you're killing fertilized eggs. This would be murder if life begins at conception. This legislation is a mistake. Also, if a woman has a miscarriage should she then be investigated for negligent homicide? The fact that the legislation is federal and sweeping is antithetical to what Paul's message is for everything else. It compromises the message of small local government and individual liberty.
hallavast 3 months ago
@hallavast That's only a problem for Ron Paul's stance, not mine. I think that the laws should be consistent, one way or the other. Either everybody (including the mother) can be tried for the premeditated murder of a fetus, or nobody can.
For the most part, Ron Paul has remained consistent in his belief that the federal government should have no authority in regards to abortion: the only action he's taken on the federal level is to sign the ban on partial-birth abortions, which was wrong.
SexedUpAtheist 3 months ago
He said he voted for a bill to ban “partial birth” abortions becuase it was “helping revers some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.” Also note this was not a state right’s argument he was making. He voted for a federal ban not for allowing the states to decide.
TearsOfWar1 3 months ago
Ron Paul said it is the government’s funciton to support “traditional marriage” so he is willing to have his view enforced by the state. He only bickers over at which level the coecion should be done. That may be Constitutionalism but it is not libertarianism.
TearsOfWar1 3 months ago
@plasticiconoclastic You're right. The film was definitely biased. However, you can't make the actual abortion process biased. It's not like you can tell the fetus to act scared so that everyone will be against abortion afterward. If you ignore the bias of the video and just watch the abortion, it's obvious that the fetus attempts to avoid being dismembered; in that regard, the video is objective.
pacifiedfools 3 months ago
@pacifiedfools
It's not objective; the video clip displaying the fetus in its attempt to evade removal was accelerated for the sake of the video itself, which you yourself admit was biased. Those movements are typical of any fetus; it, the fetus in the video, was likely incapable of even perceiving the device, much less experiencing the sensation of dismemberment as it had not reached the stage of development necessary for a fully functional neuroanatomy as we know it.
plasticiconoclastic 3 months ago
you just got your first thumbs down from me, congradulations tj
wyarosh 4 months ago
you just read exactly what they said his position was....
wyarosh 4 months ago
Abortion should be illegal. If you can be arrested and prosecuted for killing someone else's fetus (and yes, you can), then you damn well should be arrested and prosecuted for choosing to kill your own fetus. I fail to see any difference between the two, personally. If you don't want children, get fixed. If you have sex, use a condom and take a morning after pill. Take responsibility for your choices, though: don't expect the newly formed life to give it up because you can't be bothered to.
SexedUpAtheist 4 months ago
I always knew this guy was an awful loser but this video confirms it he's just not smart and a bad person.
magicidiot12345 4 months ago
it is shamefully uncivilized..no wonder the leets still force the serfs to pay taxes..a good mom makes her grown son pay rent becuz he wont get off his azz and take responsibility for his own life
jeffthecoder 4 months ago
this is a blatant display of the duh-masses: ignorance to sexual education (u didnt know u could get preg?), laziness to responsibility (im not ready to be a parent), selfishness (my life is over), and prolly worst of all, immaturity (going to mom and dad ie the govt and asking if it is ok to abort it)..u never hear sheeple say "i got an abortion to preserve the environment from yet another cancerous life consuming pile of decaying meat we like to call a human"
jeffthecoder 4 months ago
@jeffthecoder "i got an abortion to preserve the environment from yet another cancerous life consuming pile of decaying meat we like to call a human" --I would get an abortion for this reason.
liverbitz91 3 months ago
@liverbitz91 i know there is that whole argument of "what about rape and incest"..but it is almost a fallacy because so few abortions are done for those reasons that it doesnt even register as 1 percentage point on a scale..abortion clinics are not a billion dollar industry due to rape and incest..no no no
jeffthecoder 3 months ago
@jeffthecoder Again, looking at the society we live in, we do not value human life. We live in a society is that promotes contrary rhetoric. This is evident in the abortion debate. The people who carry the pro-life torch are generally the same people who would gladly send their citizens to occupy/ invade another country. If we valued human life above all else, we would be living in a society that does not tolerate imperialism.
liverbitz91 3 months ago
bringing up "rape/incest" regarding abortion is almost a fallacy..rape/incest abortions are so rare that they dont even register as a percentage point on a scale..throwing that out, i see now how low the sheeple of the USA have come..once preggo, instead of saying "wow im gonna be a parent" ppl say "should i keep it?"
jeffthecoder 4 months ago
Ron Paul believes in birth control like the morning after pill, but not abortion
dfg93353 4 months ago
NOTHING to be sorry about, it's a good position he has. I t GOES ALONG WITH THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE and the DECLARATION is a literal publication. To remind you what it says LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. That is the spirit in wich the Constitution was written. Watch "Ron Paul ad life".
davidjpringle 4 months ago
Ron Paul is the best republican choice, but not my best personal choice. I liked kucinich, but he's not running anymore
likeminas 4 months ago
i am against abortion but i think if you want to get one you should be able to
cooperTroopa1 4 months ago
State issue or not, abortion should be legal.
tgseason12 4 months ago
At what point is killing the child considered a legal, even federally funded procedure as opposed to murder of a human being?
cartersbenefits 4 months ago
Oh nooo... Not this guy again....
GET THIS. THIS IS AN ISSUE FOR THE STATES.
NOT SOMETHING THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT HAVE OVER POWER OVER !
Pick it up and READ IT.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
Well that's interesting news. He is only honest candidate and has the only ethical position concerning our economy and foreign policy. This information is good news. I actually thought he was indifferent to the pro-death vs. pro-life issue. He is a man of honor. Thanks for pointing out what an excellent candidate he really is.
L4CES 4 months ago
*definition
bretagne1617 4 months ago
The difinition of "death" is 'brain dead'.
By week 3, the baby's spinal column and nervous system are forming.
At week 6 Brain waves are dectable.
At week 7 - Baby kicks and swims and has features (eyes, nose etc.)
Around week 10 and 11, the baby breathes amniotic fluid. The baby has skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.
Human enough for you?
bretagne1617 4 months ago
Regardless of Paul wanting to "let the states decide", he is still pro-life, and he still thinks that women should NOT be in control of their own bodies.
liverbitz91 4 months ago
@liverbitz91 Just curious, obviously Atheists don't care about infanticide, because there's no God to answer to in their minds he doesn't exist. But there's obviously a point during the pregnancy when a fetus becomes a human with a circulatory system, nerve endings, brain development. Why can't women who get knocked up terminate the pregnancy prior to it becoming a human life? The pro-life crowd may not like this concept, but there is the ability to terminate sooner as opposed to later.
L4CES 4 months ago
@L4CES Absolutely !
As I just wrote to the author of this video, this is a state issue and a lokal issue.
Ron Paul opposes the federal goverments involvement in the issue itself. He would rather follow the constitution.
But he also states that if abortion where to become completely illegal, it would probably grow into a terrible black market so he doesn't completely support that idea either.
What he thinks shouldn't really matter though, since the president has no such powers.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@L4CES Well I agree with you sir. Why can't they? I believe that at any point in a pregnancy, it is the woman's body, she should get to decide when to terminate. Her decision is based on her morality, and it is personal. She is not owned by the state, the state will not raise that fetus--the state is not responsible for her body. Therefore, any decision she makes has nothing to do with the rest of the country.
liverbitz91 3 months ago
Exactly, ITS NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE! If you understand that the constitution puts the limitations on the government in articles 1-7. Roe v Wade, is telling the Federal Government what to do. ITS A STATE ISSUE!
HansBooBee 4 months ago
this makes me like ron paul more and i'm not a libertarian. he helped save babies' lives? that makes him a hero
DickOPlenty 5 months ago
I don't see how this doesn't still hold true to his beliefs on states' rights. Roe v. Wade is a federal legislation that extends over the states. He want's to eliminate this to allow the states to decide for themselves on the issue of Abortion. This same reasoning applies to gay marriage and many other positions he holds.
EliteKiller07 5 months ago
What laws states would have regarding abortion would still vary if abortion was identified as murder.
Murder's illegal in every state. The punishment for murder varies by state.
Kogerii 5 months ago
ok i understand but he is still probably safer as far as our rights are concerned than the others are, and unfortunately its quite clear that a republican is going to win this one i think we can all see that, so we need to back the one who wont fuck us (as roughly)
and if he dose we the people give the people license to execute ron paul and his party
marcuspinson 5 months ago
Ron Paul aka paultards have no idea what they are talking about or what Paultard will actually do if he where to win. They are like brain dead retards saying the same shit over and over constantly attacking every video and every comment of who ever does not like or even just disagrees with Paul. And paltard supporters do this rather obsessively too, like they all act like obsessive paranoid crazy people.
UnforgivingDemon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
anybody who thinks this issue is black and white needs to see Paul make his case as to why he believes in pro-life. Here is the Youtube link: watch?v=66jpPCIzza8
tek510 5 months ago
Comment removed
tek510 5 months ago
Through judicial activism, Roe v. Wade stripped the states of their rights to legislate this issue within their borders. Repealing Roe v. Wade would restore the states' right to decide.
As to the sanctity of life, defining when life begins is helpful. Up to this point the judiciary has been relying on willful ignorance.
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic
jba1999 5 months ago
You are working from the supposition that
1. The States rights are subservient to the Federal government's will. This is incorrect.
2. Human life does not begin at conception but some nebulous time before 40 weeks gestation. A large segment of America strongly disagrees with you.
3. Protecting the right to kill a fetus at will is noble. About half of America does not agree with you.
4. Roe v. Wade is sacrosanct. It is not. Even Roe doesn't think so.
jba1999 5 months ago
wait a second so you can get an abortion legally but if someone kills a pregnant woman its double murder. why is it murder in one case but not the other? because of how pregnant she is? so wait 1 more second wheres the cut off and why? maybe today i can punch a woman in the stomach and her baby dies i'll just get assault charges but tomorrow i would get a murder charge because she may now be deemed too pregnant when yesterday it wasnt a life. how about if i accidently hit her with a car.
kenny8331 5 months ago
@kenny8331
There've already been cases bringing up this contradiction. Judges stick their heads up their asses and ignore it.
Kogerii 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kenny8331 "wait a second so you can get an abortion legally but if someone kills a pregnant woman its double murder. why is it murder in one case but not the other?" It has to do with consent.
TearsOfWar1 3 months ago
@1:15 "...preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions..."
Oh, really? How about preventing activist politicians from interfering with women's decisions?
YY4Me133 5 months ago 7
unborn children don't have rights? funny that, if i punch a pregnant woman and cause the death of her unborn child, it's murder. perhaps we should clear that legal techniocality before we make such decisions
58robbo 5 months ago
@58robbo In your scenario, the rights of the pregnant girl/woman would have been violated. If there are laws that call it "murder," they exist only because anti-abortion activists are doing everything in their power to take away the rights of girls/women to make decisions as to whether they want to provide "womb service" for a fetus.
YY4Me133 5 months ago
@YY4Me133 agreed, but by your logic, it would only constitute assault or gbh. legally this isn't the case
58robbo 5 months ago
@58robbo The laws are all over the place with regard to this issue. Some believe that a "person" exists from the moment of conception, others that a "person" doesn't exist until the brain and central nervous system are mature enough for the fetus to experience pain, after "quickening," etc. The U.S. Constitution grants rights only to those born or naturalized, not to fetuses. Defining causing a miscarriage as "murder" is merely part of the anti-abortion agenda, and a violation of women's rights.
YY4Me133 5 months ago
@YY4Me133
"women's rights" is a red herring. Killing a baby isn't a gender issue.
Kogerii 5 months ago
@Kogerii Calling a fetus a "baby" is a red herring. All sorts of things happen to fetuses that can't happen to living, breathing babies, such as the brain or other internal organs growing outside the body. In the early stages, it can split into two or more, and even fuse together again.
No one can be forced to provide blood, a kidney, etc. to another against their will. Not even to save a life. Likewise, no girl/woman should be forced to provide "womb service" against her will.
YY4Me133 5 months ago
@YY4Me133
Abortion isn't limited to fetuses.
Kogerii 5 months ago
@Kogerii From medical-dictionary[DOT]thefreedictionary[DOT]com/fetus:
fetus /fe·tus/ (fēt´us) [L.] the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.
YY4Me133 5 months ago
@YY4Me133
Yet you know baby's exist in-womb and that's how English is used.
Kogerii 5 months ago
@Kogerii Call it what you will, until it's capable of living and breathing on its own, it's a parasite, i.e. "An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense."
YY4Me133 5 months ago
@YY4Me133
You're defining offspring wrong for the sake of argument.
Kogerii 5 months ago
@Kogerii I'm not defining anything wrong. You and I disagree. You seem to think a fetus is equal to a fully-formed, living, breathing human. I don't. I also don't think that a girl/woman should be forced to provide "womb service" for an unwanted fetus. You probably disagree. That's okay. What's not okay is telling others that *they* can't have abortions because *you* think it's wrong.
YY4Me133 5 months ago
@YY4Me133
Whether it's right or wrong isn't a matter of opinion; it's a matter of truth.
Identifying something as wrong and seeking to avenge the wronged are two different things. People are getting robbed, raped, and murdered right now but neither of us are seeking out the wrong-doers to enforce justice.
I'm not delusional. I don't think women will stop killing their kids based on my will, a law, or your agreement it's wrong. But the fact remains: it is wrong.
Kogerii 5 months ago
@Kogerii It *is* a matter of opinion, not "truth."
YY4Me133 5 months ago
@YY4Me133 Or better yet, require activist women to take responsibility for their decisions. If a person can be arrested and tried for the murder of a fetus, why is it suddenly o.k. for the mom to hire a doctor to do it without (legal) consequence? Bullshit. Killing a fetus is either murder, or it isn't.
SexedUpAtheist 4 months ago 8
@SexedUpAtheist I think that people should *not* be arrested and tried for the "murder" of a fetus. If someone causes a woman to miscarry during the commission of a crime, or otherwise against her will, that's a violation of the woman's rights. Fetuses have no constitutional rights.
YY4Me133 4 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist It all comes down to consent. If you hit a woman in the belly with a bat and kill the fetus without her consent, then I would say that is wrong. If they give a doctor consent to remove the fetus from their body, I would say that it is their business, and only theirs, not the state or federal government's business.
TearsOfWar1 3 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist It's removing the fetus you anti woman asshole.
hempbilly 3 months ago
@hempbilly Shove your euphemism up your ass, you self-righteous little prick: it's KILLING the fetus.
Oh, and I don't hate women: I'm happily married, and proud father of several daughters, all of whom I love dearly. Nice try, though.
SexedUpAtheist 3 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist This person's comment just proved my previous point.
liverbitz91 3 months ago
@liverbitz91 You'll have to clarify, sir, because I was unable to locate a single point that you attempted to make which my comment would prove. Your last comment contained an unsubstantiated opinion, an argumentative fallacy, and pure speculation, none of which could be proven by a mere comment.
SexedUpAtheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexedUpAtheist Are you trying to say that America does not practice imperialism? " The people who carry the pro-life torch are generally the same people who would gladly send their citizens to occupy/ invade another country." - Is this not a clear example?
liverbitz91 3 months ago
@liverbitz91 I missed this comment, I think, but I'll respond just the same: this is a sweeping generalization intended to vilify those who hold the pro-life position. Ron Paul is a perfect example of someone who 'carries the pro-life torch', yet he is against sending our citizens to occupy/invade other countries... so am I.
This is why it's best to judge people on an individual basis, and not lump them all together to satisfy our human desire for simplicity.
SexedUpAtheist 3 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist Abortion is an act of destroying a pre-mature zygote, so technically speaking, it is not murder since it is not a fully developed human being.
pikachu7567 3 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist ...which is why I said "generally" because I know it's a generalization. If we are going to judge people individually, then we should probably get rid of labels like "pro-choice" and "pro-life", since those are collectives of people, who all happen to hold collective opinions. Instead, we should call people who are pro-war but anti-choice "inconsistentists", and people who are consistent in their views, "consistentists".
liverbitz91 3 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist I guess my point is that our absolute morals are inconsistent. Why is life important here, but not here--is the point I was trying to make.
liverbitz91 3 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist Sorry euphemisms are abstract objects. Also if it was killing the fetus don't you think it would have never been legal?
hempbilly 3 months ago
@hempbilly Yes, and you can figuratively shove it up your ass.
To answer your question: obviously that is not the case. When the fetus is in the womb, it is alive: when the fetus is removed, it is dead. That sure sounds like the definition of killing to me.
SexedUpAtheist 3 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist Killing an unconscious, parasitic organism yeah.
pikachu7567 3 months ago
@pikachu7567 Yeah, I've heard this rationalization used many times.. don't know how to break this to you, but human babies aren't born capable of sustaining themselves. Sure they're conscious, but they can't feed or clothe themselves: even if they don't continue life with their original mother, they will still require that somebody care for them. So perhaps, since they're dependent on someone to care for them and cannot care for themselves, we should accord them the same rights as a fetus?
SexedUpAtheist 3 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist Babies are conscience, and you can leave a baby in a room for a period of time and it still live, that means it can sustain it's own existence. A fetus, cannot live without being attached to it's mother, a baby can. Sure it needs care but it can sustain it's own existence.
pikachu7567 3 months ago
@pikachu7567 Semantics. Leave the baby in the room for a long enough period of time, and it will die. Why? Because it's incapable of caring for itself. Period. So no, it cannot "sustain its own existence" except insofar as it won't die immediately if left uncared for by another person, who it must depend on for survival.
SexedUpAtheist 3 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist Semantics, just because it needs a guardian to survive doesn't mean it has the survival capabilities as a fetus. It can survive on it's own a fetus can't that's the difference. So no, a baby is not like a fetus.
pikachu7567 3 months ago
@pikachu7567 This conversation is about over, because you're exhibiting willful ignorance and providing weak arguments: you argue degree, which is largely irrelevant.
Neither a fetus nor an infant could survive without another person to care for it. We don't accord a baby less protection than an adult simply because they have different (lesser) survival capabilities: quite the opposite, in fact. This is the only way in which your semantics apply, and they argue for MORE protection, not less.
SexedUpAtheist 3 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist You failed to acknowledge the fact that a fetus is parasitic, a baby is not. What part of a baby can live without leeching off of the resources of another organism don't you get? If a fetus is detached from it's mother, it dies, if a baby is separated from it's mother, it lives. There is a huge difference here, just because a baby can't live without a parent to PROVIDE (different from having a mother to leech from) doesn't mean it has the same survival capabilites as a fetus.
pikachu7567 3 months ago
@pikachu7567 Yep, another word that you people like to throw around to defend your abhorrent stance: parasitic. Parasitic is just a descriptive, and it applies to more than just a fetus. Disabled people and those on welfare are also parasitic, by definition: should we accord them little or no rights? Should we be allowed to cut off their benefits? Can we abort them as well? Or are you going to make different rules for different "parasites"?
SexedUpAtheist 3 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist Also "sustain it's own existence" means it can live for ANY period of time without the dependence of another organism, just because it needs care doesn't mean it cannot sustain it's own life.
pikachu7567 3 months ago
@pikachu7567 I believe this will be my last response to you: unless you're able to come up with something more than the semantics game, we have little else to discuss.
A fetus is NOT a parasite. A parasite is an organism that is introduced (from an external source) onto or inside of an organism of a different species, which it feeds upon. A fetus is the development of an egg created within the female body, and fertilized by the male sperm. Your rationalization is disturbing and unethical.
SexedUpAtheist 3 months ago 2
@SexedUpAtheist Tell that to the mother who rolls out of the bed with morning sickness and who vomiting profusely, and she's always in a shitty mood because of her contractions.
pikachu7567 3 months ago
@pikachu7567 I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you are not a woman, and I'm even willing to bet that you're not a father, because your words display your vast ignorance on the subject of pregnancy.
At any rate, her discomfort is the consequence of an action that she knowingly engaged in, fully aware of the potential for this situation which she finds herself in: to use this as justification for murder is reprehensible.. shame on you.
SexedUpAtheist 3 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist You don't know what that woman went through for her pregnancy to happen, maybe her partner's condom broke, maybe her birth control failed, maybe she was RAPED! Why should a woman have to carry a child that reminds her of the horrific experience in which she was raped. BTW abortion is not murder, it's an organism that has the POTENTIAL to be a human being. Sperm has the potential to be a human, is it genocide everytime a man masturbates?
pikachu7567 3 months ago
@pikachu7567 Google 'Personal Bodily Rights, Abortion, and Unplugging the Violinist' by Francis J. Beckwith, and give it a read. It'll better help you understand how your "arguments", such as they are, do not hold up under closer scrutiny.
SexedUpAtheist 3 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist The person you are referring to ( Francis J. Beckwith) is an an American Christian philosopher, not someone who knows what can and can't be apart of your body. Her argument of, "To say that the unborn entity is part of her mother is to claim that the mother possesses four legs, two heads,
two noses, and with the case of a male conceptus, a penis and two testicles." is fucking ridiculous. They are
symbiotically connected, same as an attachment is part of an email.
TearsOfWar1 2 months ago
@TearsOfWar1 You yourself refer to the mother and the fetus as "they", which draws a distinction between the two as separate entities, so I'm not sure how you can do that and yet refer to her argument as "fucking ridiculous": They are connected like a tub is connected to a water heater: is the water heater an integral part of the tub? Of course not.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist Parasitism is a symbiotic relationship in which one organism benefits and the other is harmed. Even if they replaced "organism" with "species" does that mean that there's any difference in the relationship? An organism is still suffering and another is benefitting. I accuse you of playing a "semantics game" I would explain the difference between a human being and a fetus, but you just need to google "Pwned grounded for life" to figure it out.
gameknight102xx 2 months ago