Infomerical and Abortion

[steph3n]

Well, your getting into partial-birth abortion, which is different...even on the view, that behar bitch who said ron paul couldn't win also said she was against late term abortions, and only wants normal, earlier term abortions, and she's a really really liberal woman.

he had them squirming on the view with that, he is a doctor dealt with that many times. I feel he's as qualified as any on this matter.

 

[Craig_R]

He needs to make it clear that he is ultimately states-rights on the issue. I think he should absolutely avoid saying OVERTURN RoeVWade if he's not going to specifically say "leave it to the states".

I've had to explain this to >5 women tonight.

yup

 

[justinc.1089]

Ok so aborting a big baby is bad but aborting a small one is ok?


Look I'm not trying to be rude to those of you who are for abortion on here, I just can't come close to fathoming how you think its ok, and every person I talk to thats for it can't say why they are other than basically finally breaking down to the argument that the baby is the woman's property if I push the issue for like hours with them lol.

And most people supporting Paul are smart when it comes to politics, so maybe you people will be the first ones to help me get how you can think its ok to murder babies just because they aren't very old or big or born?

Also if you think earlier abortions are ok, but not later ones, where and how do you draw the line? Is it ok to abort a baby if its 3 months old or whatever but then 1 minute after that its not? 1 day after that? I mean how do you draw the line?

 

[adwads]

The most INTERESTING result from the abortion poll: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=636964&posted=1#post636964

...is that only about 15% of the grassroots would support federal action on abortion. That is NOT a traditionally republican position. Most republicans--like fuckabee--want federal laws that implement christian morality regarding aboriton, drugs, prostitution, etc.

 

[adwads]

Do you think a zygote or a blob of cells is a baby? See, there are different levels of growth and its not a baby right away at conception

Ok so aborting a big baby is bad but aborting a small one is ok?


Look I'm not trying to be rude to those of you who are for abortion on here, I just can't come close to fathoming how you think its ok, and every person I talk to thats for it can't say why they are other than basically finally breaking down to the argument that the baby is the woman's property if I push the issue for like hours with them lol.

And most people supporting Paul are smart when it comes to politics, so maybe you people will be the first ones to help me get how you can think its ok to murder babies just because they aren't very old or big or born?

Also if you think earlier abortions are ok, but not later ones, where and how do you draw the line? Is it ok to abort a baby if its 3 months old or whatever but then 1 minute after that its not? 1 day after that? I mean how do you draw the line?

 

[Craig_R]

Ok so aborting a big baby is bad but aborting a small one is ok?


Look I'm not trying to be rude to those of you who are for abortion on here, I just can't come close to fathoming how you think its ok, and every person I talk to thats for it can't say why they are other than basically finally breaking down to the argument that the baby is the woman's property if I push the issue for like hours with them lol.

And most people supporting Paul are smart when it comes to politics, so maybe you people will be the first ones to help me get how you can think its ok to murder babies just because they aren't very old or big or born?

Also if you think earlier abortions are ok, but not later ones, where and how do you draw the line? Is it ok to abort a baby if its 3 months old or whatever but then 1 minute after that its not? 1 day after that? I mean how do you draw the line?

quit trying to start a flame war. If you believe abortion is murder talk to your STATE represenatives about it. Murder is not a federal issue, and certinly not one we should tackle here.

 

[adwads]

quit trying to start a flame war. If you believe abortion is murder talk to your STATE represenatives about it. Murder is not a federal issue, and certinly not one we should tackle here.

Damn, I wish our politicians would say that once and a while. How refreshing would it be for a federal official to say that something is a state issue and therefore out of his jurisdiction?

 

[Craig_R]

Do you think a zygote or a blob of cells is a baby? See, there are different levels of growth and its not a baby right away at conception

please dont do this

 

[peacemonger]

peacemonger is pro-life

No war
No death penalty (or death tax)
No Abortion after viabilty (5th or 6th month)

These are personal views which I do not think everyone will agree with. But there are also contingency factors.

War is Ok if congress declares it and we fight and win quickly...
The death penalty is ok if that is what some states want to do, never federal government...
Late term abortion is probably ok if the baby would not be viable. Very early termination/late prevention methods should be protected. Leave it to the states and doctors and patients to decide.

 

[Craig_R]

Damn, I wish our politicians would say that once and a while. How refreshing would it be for a federal official to say that something is a state issue and therefore out of his jurisdiction?

as do I, it has been a wedge too long, and both sides use the issue and never actually try to solve the probelm.

 

[adwads]

please dont do this

Okay, I just don't like people implying that I support "murdering babies" or something like I'm some sort of evil lunatic.

 

[Tedhunter]

I change my view on abortion more than Mitt Romney, but I would support Ron Paul either way because I really don't see why it's always one of the biggest issues in every campaign. I understand where both sides are coming from. As far as I'm concerned, there are much bigger issues that need to be addressed right now.

Exactly - we have much bigger fish to fry. Unfortunately, abortion continues to be a major campaign issue because it is so fundamentally personal, and because there is a lack of agreement on it. There is no scientific or philosophic consensus about when life or humanness begins, so people are inevitably going to arrive at different conclusions. Yes, the Supreme Court ostensibly settled the issue with Roe v. Wade, but that assumes the controversy ended there, and clearly it hasn't.

I'm starting to agree with Ron Paul - leave this complex and controversial issue to the states. Like Iowa for example, where they clearly desire the right to legislate in order to protect life. Very smart political decision to play up his pro-life stance there.

 

[peacemonger]

The problem is that the voting masses are largely ignorant

they are either social conservative
Pro-life = protection of the innocent
Pro-choice = baby murder

or they are social liberals
Pro-life = obstructing rights for women
Pro-choice = reproductive liberty and privacy

We have been discussing real issues here. But in the campaign people only want to know whether you are pro-life or pro-choice so they can decide when to stop listening to you. If you have to explain your issues too much then you are already losing the race. It is a complicated issue but you have to be definitive. Its a catch 22... damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Dubaruba]

I didn't really mean for this thread to debate the issue of abortion itself, but rather what to do about the infomercial...whether to promote it or let it just be in iowa. I mean, if the infomercial is the big secret project, then I think we should focus our attention on other things and forget about it.

I'm 38 and pro choice, but I agree with Ron Paul that the issue should be left up to the states. I also live in Seattle, and most of my friends are pro choice libertarians or democrats. When I first saw that there was a 30 minute infomercial I immediately posted it to my Facebook page. After watching the first 3 minutes, I immediately took it down. That segment may win him votes in iowa, but it will scare away many of his supporters here in Washington, and there are a lot of us.

This is not something I want the many people i have converted to the cause to ever see.

Matt

 

[justinc.1089]

A blob of cells as you say is not a baby yet since it is still mainly cells, but it is a human life no less. And I think it should be protected. If you look at it from a biological point of view, life begins when the cells for a new organism first begin forming, and that is the point where it is a new life, and at that point killing it is murder. Thats my logic, now please all I'm asking is to understand the logic from the other side, I'm not trying to flame anyone, I swear.

And I'm sorry if you guys disagree with me supporting a constitutional amendment defining life as starting at conception. We know we have the right to life, and I see life as starting at conception, and since that definition has been questioned I think it needs to be stated in our constitution where life begins because I think it is of extreme importance to defend the life of unborn babies, and cells too because they are equally human life and will shortly be a baby. The main reason you have to recognize cells as human life in my opinion is that there is just no way to define a point where at one time or size or whatever the cells are still cells, and at what point they are now a baby.

I'm honestly not looking for an argument, if I was I would say the other side is wrong, and why my side is right. I am looking for the logic behind the other side because no one has ever explained it to me, and I absolutely don't understand where people come from on the other side of this debate. It puzzles me, and I'm just asking if someone wouldn't mind explaining your point of view to me, that would be nice.

 

[Craig_R]

hot topics maybe

 

[JesseCRX]

I dont think it's a good thing to start on because of the internet. It can be a double edged sword for him in the not so red states.

As for Ron Paul on the issue...

This is the entire abortion argument IMHO.

Pro-choicers say that when the baby is still in the mother it does not have any rights and making abortion illegal is taking AWAY the rights of the mother.

Pro-lifer's say that a baby DOES have rights and that killing it is actually taking away IT's right to live.

So from Ron Paul's point of view abortion IS a denial of Liberty and he is standing behind it just like he stands behind ever issue and that's that he is a protector of Constitutional rights (including those of unborn babies) 100%.

Regardless if you are pro-choice or not Ron Paul made a very good point regarding the matter that I have never really heard before:

People like to claim that before a baby is born it's not really a person and doesn't have any rights so if you kill it before it's born then that's your decision and there should be no consequence for your actions.

However, if a doctor screws up and causes your baby to die before birth he is held COMPLETELY responsible for killing the child. If a woman is murdered while pregnant you are charged with TWO counts of homicide.

Why is that if it's YOUR choice to abort that suddenly a baby isn't a baby any more and is just a bunch of cells but when you actually WANT to have it those "lump of cells" magically become important?

I'd like to see someone take a woman that earlier in her life had an abortion but now is pregnant again and wishes to keep the child. I'd love to see her response if the doctor came in and told her "Oh I'm sorry to tell you this but that medicine I gave you earlier today accidentally killed your baby. I see you've had an abortion before though so I'm glad to know it won't really bother you. Good luck next time."

If killing a child while it is inside you is truly ok then there should be NO difference in feeling regardless if you wanted to have it or not. Since this is NOT the case there is obviously something very wrong with doing so.

If it's just a bunch of unimportant cells I'd like to see a mother that just aborted her child actually have to look at the remains of the child dead in the bowl and then be forced to carry those remains herself to the place in which they are disposed/incinerated.

If a girl could do that without breaking down and crying then you might could convince me abortion is ok. Until then...meh

Here is a good vid of Dr Paul discussing the issue in depth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

 

[adwads]

This is basically the Ben Stein argument, that because a mom thinks the baby is baby inside her womb, that that makes abortion bad. (I heard ben stein say this in a speech). I'm not convinced, but I understand the argument.

I dont think it's a good thing to start on because of the internet. It can be a double edged sword for him in the not so red states.

As for Ron Paul on the issue...

This is the entire abortion argument IMHO.

Pro-choicers say that when the baby is still in the mother it does not have any rights and making abortion illegal is taking AWAY the rights of the mother.

Pro-lifer's say that a baby DOES have rights and that killing it is actually taking away IT's right to live.

So from Ron Paul's point of view abortion IS a denial of Liberty and he is standing behind it just like he stands behind ever issue and that's that he is a protector of Constitutional rights (including those of unborn babies) 100%.

Regardless if you are pro-choice or not Ron Paul made a very good point regarding the matter that I have never really heard before:

People like to claim that before a baby is born it's not really a person and doesn't have any rights so if you kill it before it's born then that's your decision and there should be no consequence for your actions.

However, if a doctor screws up and causes your baby to die before birth he is held COMPLETELY responsible for killing the child. If a woman is murdered while pregnant you are charged with TWO counts of homicide.

Why is that if it's YOUR choice to abort that suddenly a baby isn't a baby any more and is just a bunch of cells but when you actually WANT to have it those "lump of cells" magically become important?

I'd like to see someone take a woman that earlier in her life had an abortion but now is pregnant again and wishes to keep the child. I'd love to see her response if the doctor came in and told her "Oh I'm sorry to tell you this but that medicine I gave you earlier today accidentally killed your baby. I see you've had an abortion before though so I'm glad to know it won't really bother you. Good luck next time."

If killing a child while it is inside you is truly ok then there should be NO difference in feeling regardless if you wanted to have it or not. Since this is NOT the case there is obviously something very wrong with doing so.

If it's just a bunch of unimportant cells I'd like to see a mother that just aborted her child actually have to look at the remains of the child dead in the bowl and then be forced to carry those remains herself to the place in which they are disposed/incinerated.

If a girl could do that without breaking down and crying then you might could convince me abortion is ok. Until then...meh

Here is a good vid of Dr Paul discussing the issue in depth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

 

[JesseCRX]

This is basically the Ben Stein argument, that because a mom thinks the baby is baby inside her womb, that that makes abortion bad. (I heard ben stein say this in a speech). I'm not convinced, but I understand the argument.

Oh I'm not try to convince anyone. I am just trying to make a point. And who is this Ben Stein character?

I'm gonna go watch Ferris Beuller's Day Off ...be back in a bit

No but seriously, I've never heard Ben talk about abortion. I just remember his game show.

 

[mokkan88]

Ron Paul's stance is essentially that subjective issues should not be left up for the government to decide, especially on a federal level. He would argue, however, that abortion is not subjective because it is not an argument of women's rights rather than an argument of how life is defined.

Biologically speaking, life is described as anything that undergoes metabolic processes. From the moment of conception, metabolic processes have begun. So I think Dr. Paul could be very effective in arguing that life begins at conception.