Ron Paul is nuts...

[dank69]

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.

I know I'm being terse with you, so I forgive you for not understanding. When I said 'Good plan, I'll blame you for Dubya' what I mean specifically is that your philosophy led to Bush getting 'elected' during the hanging chad debacle.

 

[momeNt]

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

Thank you for the time to put together a thoughtful response to my question. It still draws a line partially through the extension of the rule, but this is derailing I shouldn't even have used this thread as a venue to air my thoughts.

 

[Atreus21]

I don't understand the pro-choice challenge to pro-lifers that says we don't care what happens to the child after birth.

It's a simple matter of priority. Of course we prioritize keeping the child alive over keeping the child healthy and happy, for the simple reason that you can't be either one if you're not alive first. What this argument boils down to is that if you can't demonstrate that the child will be healthy and happy, he or she is better off dead.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't understand the pro-choice challenge to pro-lifers that says we don't care what happens to the child after birth.

It's a simple matter of priority. Of course we prioritize keeping the child alive over keeping the child healthy and happy, for the simple reason that you can't be either one if you're not alive first. What this argument boils down to is that if you can't demonstrate that the child will be healthy and happy, he or she is better off dead.

No, the crux of the argument is that the "compassion" of the pro-life stance is a moral hypocrisy. Force poverty stricken mothers to have children out of compassion for the fetus, but provide no safety net for the child once it is born. The "compassion" ends at birth.

 

[momeNt]

From the source. www.ronpaul.com

At the same time, 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.

 

[matt0611]

No, the crux of the argument is that the "compassion" of the pro-life stance is a moral hypocrisy. Force poverty stricken mothers to have children out of compassion for the fetus, but provide no safety net for the child once it is born. The "compassion" ends at birth.

No, their (or at least my) position is that compassion should come from individual, i.e. individuals voluntarily giving to charity to help those that can't provide for themselves.

Stop looking for government for compassion. Taking from others and distributing it to those you deem more needy is not compassion.

 

[Atreus21]

No, the crux of the argument is that the "compassion" of the pro-life stance is a moral hypocrisy. Force poverty stricken mothers to have children out of compassion for the fetus, but provide no safety net for the child once it is born. The "compassion" ends at birth.

If that's how the pro-choice crowd views the pro-life position than they deeply misunderstand our motive. There is no compassionate component to the entire argument. It is a question of if its right to kill an innocent human being.

 

[woolfe9999]

If that's how the pro-choice crowd views the pro-life position than they deeply misunderstand our motive. There is no compassionate component to the entire argument. It is a question of if its right to kill an innocent human being.

What, I don't understand how opposing the "killing of a human being" as you put it is separable from the notion of compassion. Are you saying that pro-lifers aren't out holding candlelight vigils for all the poor dead babies? Compassion for the "victims" has nothing to do with this?

 

[Atreus21]

What, I don't understand how opposing the "killing of a human being" as you put it is separable from the notion of compassion. Are you saying that pro-lifers aren't out holding candlelight vigils for all the poor dead babies? Compassion for the "victims" has nothing to do with this?

I'm just saying that compassion is irrelevant to the really core argument:

Premise 1: If murder is the unnecessary killing of an innocent human being, and
Premise 2: An unborn child is an innocent human being, then
Conclusion: Killing an unborn child is murder unless it's absolutely necessary (as in to save the mother's life).

Most pro-choice disagree with premise #2.

 

[HumblePie]

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.

Because you are asking something impossible to do that's why.

You are trying to equate to things, one of which doesn't exist, as a logical argument to your point.

One, when abortions happen to a fetus THERE IS NO FUCKING BRAIN DEVELOPED. You can't lobotomize something that doesn't exist. Vast majority of abortions happen when there is barely a few cells that have started to grow. Which you need a microscope to even see.

As far as your argument goes, should pregnant women be arrested then for being around car exhaust as that may be harmful to the unborn baby? Should a woman who takes a small nightcap once during a pregnancy be arrested because the alcohol has potential to cause serious birth defects (not in this case but it can)? I mean shouldn't every women that becomes pregnant go into a plastic bubble for the next 9 months so that the child comes out as perfect as can be? I mean otherwise there could be potential harm for the child if the mother isn't in a completely sterile and safe environment right? And if said mother isn't in such an environment and the baby comes out born with 9 toes instead then she should be arrested for forcing harm onto another human being that couldn't protect itself. Amiright?

Use a better argument next time if you are going to argue against pro-choice. The one you used was stupid in the extreme. Also woolfe had some good points about why it was stupid as well.

 

[manlymatt83]

I'd vote for him in an absolute heart beat (and I even donate to his campaign when I can). I bite the bullet on his beliefs on social issues because I know he's the only one who can save this country.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm just saying that compassion is irrelevant to the really core argument:

Premise 1: If murder is the unnecessary killing of an innocent human being, and
Premise 2: An unborn child is an innocent human being, then
Conclusion: Killing an unborn child is murder unless it's absolutely necessary (as in to save the mother's life).

Most pro-choice disagree with premise #2.

Compassion/humanism are hardly irrelevant to the criminalization of murder. If we had no compassion, we wouldn't have criminalized it to begin with. Actually, if we look at its emotional component, on the one hand it is about compassion for human being; on the other, it is about retribution against the wrongdoer. Unless the pro-life movement is purely about "fire and brimstone" retribution and is bereft of compassion for the "victim," then we do have a double standard. Some people think if you profess to care so much about the life of the fetus, you might be willing to have some of your tax dollar go to making sure it is taken care of after its born. The argument here is, compassion seems to end at birth.

 

[Arkaign]

From the source. www.ronpaul.com

It's god damned amazing that this has now been posted TWICE in this thread, but still 90% of the discussion here is people spamming about abortion, and many of them have made assumptions about Ron Paul's views on the subject.

POTUS opinion on abortion is really a non-issue, but his official stance solidifies that issue as irrelevant to anyone but the most extreme on either side of the fence.

Really this thread is a perfect microcosm of the easily distracted zombie apocalypse that is the state of the american voting public.

 

[bfdd]

I know I'm being terse with you, so I forgive you for not understanding. When I said 'Good plan, I'll blame you for Dubya' what I mean specifically is that your philosophy led to Bush getting 'elected' during the hanging chad debacle.

what the fuck are you talking about? that's a load of fucking bullshit, don't blame me because his oppositions conviction wasn't strong enough to pull off a campaign capable of pulling in the election. i don't participate in this "team" game so many of you like to play, life is single player ffs.

 

[dank69]

what the fuck are you talking about? that's a load of fucking bullshit, don't blame me because his oppositions conviction wasn't strong enough to pull off a campaign capable of pulling in the election. i don't participate in this "team" game so many of you like to play, life is single player ffs.

Once again, not you specifically, but people that share your ideology...

 

[momeNt]

Because you are asking something impossible to do that's why.

You are trying to equate to things, one of which doesn't exist, as a logical argument to your point.

One, when abortions happen to a fetus THERE IS NO FUCKING BRAIN DEVELOPED. You can't lobotomize something that doesn't exist. Vast majority of abortions happen when there is barely a few cells that have started to grow. Which you need a microscope to even see.

As far as your argument goes, should pregnant women be arrested then for being around car exhaust as that may be harmful to the unborn baby? Should a woman who takes a small nightcap once during a pregnancy be arrested because the alcohol has potential to cause serious birth defects (not in this case but it can)? I mean shouldn't every women that becomes pregnant go into a plastic bubble for the next 9 months so that the child comes out as perfect as can be? I mean otherwise there could be potential harm for the child if the mother isn't in a completely sterile and safe environment right? And if said mother isn't in such an environment and the baby comes out born with 9 toes instead then she should be arrested for forcing harm onto another human being that couldn't protect itself. Amiright?

Use a better argument next time if you are going to argue against pro-choice. The one you used was stupid in the extreme. Also woolfe had some good points about why it was stupid as well.

I'm not arguing against pro-choice, I'm trying to understand what ethical or moral rule allows for pro-choice, and a complete understanding of that rule and any further actions that that rule allows is necessary to assess the strength of that rule.

You give good points for reasons why pro-life may be weak as a rule, because taking responsibility as a society to force a mother to deliver it to term, may also include forcing her to protect the fetus from any harm, such as smoking or drinking.

I don't think you understand where I was coming from or my inquisitive nature. So wipe the spittle off your mouth and stick to thoughtful responses.

 

[SparkyJJO]

This thread is full of /facepalm

 

[bfdd]

Once again, not you specifically, but people that share your ideology...

yeah, again that makes no sense. We refuse to play your team game, we vote with our own convictions. those of you who participate in the team game are the ones who got him elected, not those like me.