Paul focusing more on Abortion this time?

[cheapseats]

And for the record you are the one trying to force your beliefs on others. I'm not the one trying to tell Ron Paul how he should campaign.

I'm stating the fact! I've never said that you or anyone else needs to focus on being pro life. All I've said from jump is that there's nothing wrong with Ron Paul focusing on it.

Also for the record, I say YOU are trying to force your beliefs on others. From LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, to forcing a person to carry a pregnancy to term under threat of punishment.

Furthermore the TITLE OF THIS THREAD IS BOGUS. Ron Paul is NOT focusing "more" on abortion. It's the same focus he had back in 2007/2008. He had an entire slim jim devoted to his pro life position.

Is that why Abortion is Chapter One in "(Kinda) Liberty Defined"?

That's for the candidate (Ron Paul) to decide and nobody else.

MAYBE Ron Paul.

But whether it's him or another, do you seriously think a candidate representing a PARTY should decide all on his lonesome each plank of the platform on which the party stands? Will you feel that way if it's NOT Ron Paul?

 

[cheapseats]

You are the one being the aggressor, the hysteric and the bully. But I've seen you act this way in other threads. It's just your nature. I'm not mad. I just feel sorry for you.

Right back atcha.

My BEDSIDE MANNER is harsh. Too bad -- I've no respect for people who require the Truth be dolled up or toned down.

But YOU are the Bully.

 

[sarahdeez]

Did someone address the issue that the morning after pill works in the same way birth control pills work? They both prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. While some christians, most notibly catholics, feel this is abortion, one is no worse than another. There are abortion pills that do abort an already implanted embryo. I just want to be sure our community is is using these terms appropriately. I am pro-life and have been debating for years the issue of oral contraceptives. I personally do not like the idea of a fertilized egg dying from a failure of implantation. But I can see where people would think that was ok - it is infact a cluster of cells before implantation. To me there is no argument after implantation.

 

[acptulsa]

Is that why Abortion is Chapter One in "(Kinda) Liberty Defined"?

Nope. It's the pesky alphabet. Really.

But whether it's him or another, do you seriously think a candidate representing a PARTY should decide all on his lonesome each plank of the platform on which the party stands? Will you feel that way if it's NOT Ron Paul?

Which platform? Our county G.O.P. has its own. I personally believe he should, just as certainly as I think he should run for office even if he doesn't agree with every single law on that government's books. In fact, especially if he doesn't agree with all those laws. And I certainly like states' choice better than outright top-down abolition, which is what I suspect the national platform is.

 

[sailingaway]

I'm only about a third of the way through the book and I think the chapter on abortion was excellent. I had thought maybe it was too bad it came first, but everyone knows he is pro life, and it makes it very compelling and personal, to learn why.

I will say, after reading this book, we are going to find out if America is really interested in electing an honest man. That is not a campaign book.

 

[low preference guy]

That is not a campaign book.

Haha. My impression was the exact opposite.

 

[Krugerrand]

I disregard "links and charts" because I REJECT THE PREMISE that life begins at conception.

Even if I WAS inclined to get dreamy-eyed about knowing God's Will and steely-eyed about enforcing what a percent of people (MY people) believe are God's "between the lines" regulations, as are so many on this board, I would still be wide-screen that the RIGHTS & PROTECTIONS OF A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN TRUMP ANY THAT PERHAPS COULD BE ARGUED TO FALL TO AN EMBRYONIC MASS THAT CANNOT DEVELOP OR INDEED SURVIVE BUT VIA A WILLING HOST.

More to the point, HOSTESS.

Cheapseats ... take a step back here. Throughout this thread you constantly bring up that RP risks losing the General Election because of his stance on abortion - even if he wins the primary. However - you refuse to look at the charts and EVIDENCE that pro-choice is less electable than pro-life. So - no matter who is right and who is wrong on abortion ... please either stop saying it will cost him the general election - or look at the evidence provided to the contrary and then try and present some evidence that this is not the case. Pro-life - right or wrong - will not cost Ron Paul the general election. Could it cost certain states? of course. The general election - no.

 

[Krugerrand]

I disregard "links and charts" because I REJECT THE PREMISE that life begins at conception.

Even if I WAS inclined to get dreamy-eyed about knowing God's Will and steely-eyed about enforcing what a percent of people (MY people) believe are God's "between the lines" regulations, as are so many on this board, I would still be wide-screen that the RIGHTS & PROTECTIONS OF A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN TRUMP ANY THAT PERHAPS COULD BE ARGUED TO FALL TO AN EMBRYONIC MASS THAT CANNOT DEVELOP OR INDEED SURVIVE BUT VIA A WILLING HOST.

More to the point, HOSTESS.

Some people reject the premise that it's wrong to steal. Some people reject the premise that it's wrong to drive your children strapped in car seats into a river. Historically, some people have rejected the premise that the earth was round. You can reject a premise to your blue in the face - that does not make something so.

Did you look at this site?
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Again - claiming that this is a religious issue and thus dismissible does not make it so. There are a boat load of pro-life atheists out there. I'll say it again ... there are a boat load of pro-life atheists out there.

Calling the unborn an "embryonic mass" does not change the basic biological concept of like produces like. Cow produces cow. Chicken produces chicken. Human produces human. The starting point of a new cow organism is when an egg is fertilized. The starting point of a new chicken organism is when an egg is fertilized. The starting point of a new human organism is conception - when the egg is fertilized.

You don't have to believe it. You are welcome to deny it - just like people tried to deny that the earth was round. Denial does not change reality. Also, as I posted above - unless you can refute the statistics posted previously - that you admittedly refused to look at - don't spew nonsense that this will cost Ron Paul the general election.

 

[SimpleName]

Ron should definitely play up this angle often during the primaries. We need the social conservatives. They have always been weary of Paul on these issues. Obviously most of these folks are unmovable blockhead idiots who don't understand you cannot force others to accept your values and live to your standard, but the intelligent social conservatives will feel more comfortable if Paul makes it a bigger deal.