Ron Paul is nuts...

[soulcougher73]

That's easily fixable...

You want government aid (EBT, food stamps, welfare, etc)? You get forced contraception, in the form of an IUD.

Right now, we REWARD poor people for getting pregnant by giving them more fucking money. It's a circle that will never end and abortion will not solve it.

While I detest abortion, I'm of the opinion that what private people do with their own money in the privacy of their own doctor's office is their own business. I will not ever, EVER condone the government providing free abortion services for girls/women that are too stupid to not have sex.

I mean, hell, you can get free birth control in any city with almost no questions asked. If they're too stupid to do that, or too stupid to remember to take it, then we shouldn't be rewarding them by fixing their mistakes for them.

And these are the people you want raising kids?

 

[dank69]

Anyone who see's two evils and goes "I'll vote for the lesser" isn't to bright and should be considered a joke by most.

What is better? To vote for the worse of two evils? To not vote at all? What if the worse of two evils wins by one vote in that case? Please, sensei, tell me what I should do.

 

[bfdd]

What is better? To vote for the worse of two evils? To not vote at all? What if the worse of two evils wins by one vote in that case? Please, sensei, tell me what I should do.

I won't vote or I'll write someone in. You can't blame me for not voting if the candidates put forth are garbage. No one should elect them then and I have other methods of getting my vote out besides actually casting a ballot. I don't live in fear from the tyranny of others. You vote people in who are going to infringe on my liberty and my way of life, I'll take my own actions towards correcting the issue.

 

[dank69]

I won't vote or I'll write someone in. You can't blame me for not voting if the candidates put forth are garbage. No one should elect them then and I have other methods of getting my vote out besides actually casting a ballot. I don't live in fear from the tyranny of others. You vote people in who are going to infringe on my liberty and my way of life, I'll take my own actions towards correcting the issue.

Good plan, I'll blame you for Dubya.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

This is brought up over and over again by lefties..."XXX is for small government but he wants abortion to be illegal !"

See if you can follow this logic...

Some people believe in small government in our lives but they still want murder to be illegal.

Some of those same people consider abortion to be an act of murder, because it is depriving the fetus of life. The same way you can get charged for 2 murders when you kill a pregnant woman.

You may not agree with this but can the resident lefties at least follow this logic? Its not at all hypocritical to want limited government but still want abortion to be illegal.

If you dont own your own body within a small government Democracy then what exactly do you have?

The body aborts fetus's all the time (or God if you think that way). Why can't the higher order functions of the human body be allowed to make the same decision?


The truth is the loudest parts of the small government are really Christianists who want small goverment in the context of a Christian morality.

 

[Broheim]

A) The "proof" of that is debatable at best.

B) I should think we ALL agree that human life is more important than plants and animals, do we not? Unless you're prepared to take a different position, I think your argument falls flat.

the proof is the lack of neurological capacity for... well, any sort of thinking, especially something as abstract as selfawareness.

why exactly is human life more valuable than other animals? And none of that magic skyfairy bullshit, I'm talking from a purely biological POV.

Sorry, murder laws are written about murdering humans, not animals or plants.

It has nothing to do with being "selfaware".

I fail to see why murder laws are relevant, but let me ask you this, if a doctor takes someone off lifesupport, should he be charged with murder seeing as he is effectively killing that person?

 

[HumblePie]

I have an honest question. If a mother decides to give an unborn fetus a lobotomy, just because they don't want to deal with a human that grows up to be cognitive and just wants to always be its mommy. Is that okay? It was her body, and now that it is out of her body, it doesn't change the fact that it was once her body.

Help me here because I generally don't care about abortion, I just don't want it funded with taxpayer money. But would a woman be allowed to mutilate an unborn fetus not enough to kill (is it even killing?) but just seriously alter the fetus?

All other arguments aside, this comment here proves to me you are one of the bigger idiots in P&N if you actually believe what you just typed.

This ranks right up there with some of the stupidest drivel that comes from Patranus, Spidey, FNE, Dave, and Craig.

 

[momeNt]

It's cute when you try to put together a logical thought.

Care to elaborate?

 

[PricklyPete]

All other arguments aside, this comment here proves to me you are one of the bigger idiots in P&N if you actually believe what you just typed.

This ranks right up there with some of the stupidest drivel that comes from Patranus, Spidey, FNE, Dave, and Craig.

He didn't say that he believed what he type, he was just asking a question. How does this make him crazy? I think the intent of his question is clear. If someone who is for abortion on the principle that the fetus is part of the woman's body and she can do with it what she wants...then what is stopping her from doing anything else to the fetus. Sure his example for the question was extreme, but it is a valid question.

 

[momeNt]

All other arguments aside, this comment here proves to me you are one of the bigger idiots in P&N if you actually believe what you just typed.

This ranks right up there with some of the stupidest drivel that comes from Patranus, Spidey, FNE, Dave, and Craig.

I'm not sure what I believe about abortion. I just want to know how a staunch pro-choice advocate feels about that type of procedure.

Jeez i'm surprised at the animosity to be honest. What's the difference between a fetus that is killed, and a person that doesn't even know they are alive?

 

[momeNt]

He didn't say that he believed what he type, he was just asking a question. How does this make him crazy? I think the intent of his question is clear. If someone who is for abortion on the principle that the fetus is part of the woman's body and she can do with it what she wants...then what is stopping her from doing anything else to the fetus. Sure his example for the question was extreme, but it is a valid question.

This.

I try to question whether or not a rule is ethical or moral by taking the crux of the rule - a woman has control of their own body - and stringing it out to find anything unreasonable in that statement.

Perhaps the rule is better stated that a woman can terminate her pregnancy. That rule wouldn't allow for a woman to mutilate an unborn fetus.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Bottom line:

Tax more (on those that have enough to spare), Spend less (a painful task) and REGULATE (lets not let the looting begin before the body is cold).

Once we get, and KEEP, a surplus, then maybe we can reduce, and eventually ELIMINATE taxes. I know, fairy tale, but why is it such a fantasy to think that the US cannot amass and sustain a "surplus"?

Why does it have to spend every $ it has? That kind of philosophy end you up right here. In debt.

 

[Atreus21]

Strange how pro-life people are also pro-death penalty. And how after the child is born want to penalize the parents for improper care but give no support for proper care. But then you're nuts too.

There is a very slight difference between killing an innocent in the name of convenience and killing a murderer in the name of justice.

Are you saying that a child who isn't properly cared for would be better off dead?

 

[Ninjahedge]

He didn't say that he believed what he type, he was just asking a question. How does this make him crazy? I think the intent of his question is clear. If someone who is for abortion on the principle that the fetus is part of the woman's body and she can do with it what she wants...then what is stopping her from doing anything else to the fetus. Sure his example for the question was extreme, but it is a valid question.

Nope, because that can effect the child after birth.

You can't equate tinkering with something that will effect a fully functional and cognisant individual with termination early in cycle.

Morally you may have a beef with it, but that is not the question.

The hardest thing is putting a timeline on it. The easiest is saying "If the kid can be kept alive, and the birth will not kill the mother, she has to have it", but if it cannot survive (either on its own, or with medical help, another hair to split...) then....



But again, you prove that instead of dealing with the actual problems in this country, like the crushing of the middle class and the loss of our manufacturing base, etc etc, you focus on something that effects a small % of Americans, directly OR indirectly.


Sheeple.

 

[bfdd]

Good plan, I'll blame you for Dubya.

I didn't vote for Bush in his 2nd term and I wasn't old enough to vote for him in his first. How can you blame me for voting for someone else? I didn't vote for McCain or Obama either in the last election, so now I'm to blame for Obama as well? lols you're an idiot.

 

[Ninjahedge]

There is a very slight difference between killing an innocent in the name of convenience and killing a murderer in the name of justice.

Appellations that do not apply to the whole. You are trying to make a Monet with a 3" housepainting brush.

Are you saying that a child who isn't properly cared for would be better off dead?

No... you are.

Rhetorical much?

 

[momeNt]

Nope, because that can effect the child after birth.

You can't equate tinkering with something that will effect a fully functional and cognisant individual with termination early in cycle.

Morally you may have a beef with it, but that is not the question.

The hardest thing is putting a timeline on it. The easiest is saying "If the kid can be kept alive, and the birth will not kill the mother, she has to have it", but if it cannot survive (either on its own, or with medical help, another hair to split...) then....



But again, you prove that instead of dealing with the actual problems in this country, like the crushing of the middle class and the loss of our manufacturing base, etc etc, you focus on something that effects a small % of Americans, directly OR indirectly.


Sheeple.

Excellent point. There are far more important things to worry about than whether or not our future president disagrees with abortion or evolution. Who the fuck cares?

I care more about how he feels about the control of our nation's currency and wasteful government than what he thinks about some bacteria mutating and evolving in a lab.

 

[PricklyPete]

But again, you prove that instead of dealing with the actual problems in this country, like the crushing of the middle class and the loss of our manufacturing base, etc etc, you focus on something that effects a small % of Americans, directly OR indirectly.


Sheeple.

You're funny. You are arguing with two people who have openly said we don't have opinions on abortion...and yet you attempt to insult us that we are one-issue voters. I have never voted based on one issue...especially not abortion. As a matter of fact, I was only defending the other poster stating he made a valid question and shouldn't be insulted for making it. I never insinuated my opinion/answer to his question.

P&N really is a circus when people like you and HumblePie are so quick to insult rather than just discuss things. You're response before the insults were perfectly legit and appreciated. Your insults were not.

 

[Ninjahedge]

But but but, GAWD want's us to believe!!!!!!

 

[Atreus21]

This is what gets me about pro-lifers. They usually bitch about the cost of welfare, yet they want more mouths to feed on welfare by denying abortions. Once the child is born, they want to forget it exists and not support it. But some will literally kill to see that they're born.

Are you serious? It's wrong for us to complain about welfare because we're against killing people who might burden it further?

It's like curing an excess of hats in the world by lopping off heads.

 

[Ninjahedge]

PP, please go back to your post, the entirety thereof I quoted, and tell me where you talked about Ron Paul, the Presidency, and the real issues a candidate will have to face in the next election.

It does not matter what your intent was, your ENTIRE POST was about Abortion, and half of mine as well.

Hook, line and sinker.

 

[Ninjahedge]

It's like curing an excess of hats in the world by lopping off heads.

Straw man and extreme extrapolation.


BTW, OT = Ron Paul.

 

[woolfe9999]

This.

I try to question whether or not a rule is ethical or moral by taking the crux of the rule - a woman has control of their own body - and stringing it out to find anything unreasonable in that statement.

Perhaps the rule is better stated that a woman can terminate her pregnancy. That rule wouldn't allow for a woman to mutilate an unborn fetus.

Fine. The pro-choice stance is that the woman has dominion over her own body. The existence of the fetus in the body has a direct impact on her dominion over her own body. The fetus having an un-lobotomized brain does not. Hence, a line is drawn between the two. I see no contradiction in saying, you can decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term because it's your body, but if you decide to carry it to term, you cannot purposefully injure it. The reason you gave for this "lobotomy" scenario of yours - that the mother wants a child who is perpetually dependent on her, is not an interest in bodily privacy. The existence or non-existence of the fetus in her body, is.

- wolf

 

[Atreus21]

Straw man and extreme extrapolation.


BTW, OT = Ron Paul.

It's called a metaphor. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that sort of thing.

 

[PricklyPete]

PP, please go back to your post, the entirety thereof I quoted, and tell me where you talked about Ron Paul, the Presidency, and the real issues a candidate will have to face in the next election.

It does not matter what your intent was, your ENTIRE POST was about Abortion, and half of mine as well.

Hook, line and sinker.

My entire post was backing up another posters question with regard to it being a valid question and he should not be insulted for making it. I could not care about its topic.

You and HumblePies need to so quickly insult is sad in my eyes.