Paul focusing more on Abortion this time?

[Krugerrand]

We can snag Young 'Uns DNA when they register for Selective Service. We can snag Old Fart DNA with their first Viagra prescription.

DO YOU HAVE A CONDOM, pishaw. ARE YOU LICENSED AND BONDED?

Oh good - you found somebody to support that dribble ... oh, wait .. that was your own post. Never mind.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

LOL. That's a straw man. I never said faith = logic. But logic can be applied to faith. Further it's a false choice to claim that if someone talks about faith they cannot apply logic. You can apply logic to anything. For example, some evolutionary biologists now believe that "faith" evolved as a biological advantage.

yayaya, this whole part of the conversation is a BS distraction. I am not even paying it any attention.

I expect the media to distort what Ron Paul says. Don't you? Anyway, if you feel like I "pounced" on you, I'm sorry. And I will correctly attack the right target. The LA Blogger grossly distorted what Ron Paul said to the point of hyperbole.

I never feel pounced on. Don't let my (depending on your perspective) excellent or poor use of language sucker punch you into an apology that is not warranted.

Another false choice. Again I bring you back to the question of someone's home and his toddler. Do you agree with the others that think there should be no laws against murder of toddlers because we don't want the government "initiating violence" against someone for what they do in the "privacy of their own home"?

The false choice is yours. Killing a toddler is not a matter of controversy among believers and non-believers.

Be careful what you ask for because there is hypocrisy in some Christianity that is preached.

According to the logic you present here it is wrong to mutilate a penis and if you mutilate a penis I should be able to protect the child and use violence against you.

However we know that mutilating a penis is an act of witnessing a covenant. Heck, God was going to kill Moses when Moses was on his way to deliver out of Egypt. We also know that circumcision is not really about the penis it is symbolic of the heart. But look at how many people got outraged in the penis mutilation thread feeling their version of Christianity was threatened.

I would say if you want to get voluntarily get circumcised to personally express your faith to witness a covenant that is your choice but would argue that you have no right to use violence imposing your choice on another person. Obviously I already know my view is not a mainstream view among "Christians"

I don't think the government has a right to have total control over someone's home. But I do agree that society has a role to protect the weak. Controlling everything in the home would mean the government being able to come in and say exactly what you could bring into your house and do in your house because you might hurt your child. Controlling everything that happens in the womb means the government could control everything a woman ate, drank or did for 9 months because she might hurt her fetus. So that's why what the article said was distorted. Most reasonable people (even those who are pro abortion) would be aghast at the idea that a parent could kill their toddler because we don't want the government controlling private homes. Likewise most reasonable people (even those who are pro life) would be aghast at the idea that governments should have total control over everything that happens in the home because a baby might die. The LA Blogger was using hyperbole to make Ron Paul's position sound unreasonable.

You can disagree with his position all you want. Just don't distort it, or quote those who do.

I am not distorting jack crap. You are the one who is unwilling to address the gun in the room and I make you uncomfortable bringing it up.

If Christian values are going to prevail it will not be at the end of a gun. It will be because Christians start praying and walking in their faith. It will be because Christians look at where they agree and disagree with non-believers and they will stop using violence to convince non-believers.

If you want the proof of what I say look no further than the American revolution. Look no further than the own blow back the church created trying to impose it's values using violence.

Christians have not learned how to love and it is only thru love not violence that life can be truly protected. Government sanctioned violence can not solve this because government is incapable of loving.

 

[dannno]

I'm ok with him emphasizing this position in Iowa but if it becomes a much larger part of his campaign this time around compared to last time then it's going to make campaigning here in CA very difficult if not impossible..

 

[cheapseats]

Will you please stop repeating the assertion that being pro-life will result in losing the general election until you first provide some evidence to back up that claim?

No, I will not.

I BELIEVE hypocritical Abortion Hysteria will cost the GOP the General Election. I no more have to provide evidence of MY beliefs than YOU have to provide evidence of YOUR beliefs.

Wanna know what ELSE I believe? I believe that if COWARDLY AND HYPOCRITICAL ABORTION HYSTERICS would betake themselves to the Middle East to serve as human shields for Middle Eastern babies and Middle Eastern children and Middle Eastern pregnant women, the wars would end. POOF, just like that.

Selective Sanctity of Life, thy other name is SUPREMACY.

 

[erowe1]

Side note - I'd be interested to see these broken down by electoral college.

That would be nice. FWIW, we do know that the electoral college shifts more to the advantage of the so-called red states this time.

 

[Krugerrand]

However we know that mutilating a penis is an act of witnessing a covenant. Heck, God was going to kill Moses when Moses was on his way to deliver out of Egypt. We also know that circumcision is not really about the penis it is symbolic of the heart. But look at how many people got outraged in the penis mutilation thread feeling their version of Christianity was threatened.

I would say if you want to get voluntarily get circumcised to personally express your faith to witness a covenant that is your choice but would argue that you have no right to use violence imposing your choice on another person. Obviously I already know my view is not a mainstream view among "Christians"

I'm pretty sure we've already got a thread for that one.

 

[dannno]

If you eat this are you eating a chicken or an egg?

That would be a fertilized chicken egg, no, not a chicken, but an egg, and in the very late stages at that. You can buy fertilized chicken eggs in the early stage and you can't even really tell the difference between that and a regular egg.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Did you miss, or choose to ignore the state erowe posted?

To the other couple posts taking a shot. Murder of people that have been born do not have the controversy abortion does. Theft does not have the controversy abortion does.

Albeit punishment for murder or theft will vary widely. Are we going to start cutting off hands again? C'mon it's a no brainer you don't try to convince anyone of anything by pointing a gun at them.

It's a no brainer you don't take a highly controversial issue and say I want to solve this problem pointing a gun at you... oh by way I want to point a gun at you because Jesus asked me too.

 

[Sola_Fide]

No, I will not.

I BELIEVE hypocritical Abortion Hysteria will cost the GOP the General Election. I no more have to provide evidence of MY beliefs than YOU have to provide evidence of YOUR beliefs.

Wanna know what ELSE I believe? I believe that if COWARDLY AND HYPOCRITICAL ABORTION HYSTERICS would betake themselves to the Middle East to serve as human shields for Middle Eastern babies and Middle Eastern children and Middle Eastern pregnant women, the wars would end. POOF, just like that.

Selective Sanctity of Life, thy other name is SUPREMACY.

U just sailed off a cliff, bro...

 

[Krugerrand]

No, I will not.

I BELIEVE hypocritical Abortion Hysteria will cost the GOP the General Election. I no more have to provide evidence of MY beliefs than YOU have to provide evidence of YOUR beliefs.

Wanna know what ELSE I believe? I believe that if COWARDLY AND HYPOCRITICAL ABORTION HYSTERICS would betake themselves to the Middle East to serve as human shields for Middle Eastern babies and Middle Eastern children and Middle Eastern pregnant women, the wars would end. POOF, just like that.

Selective Sanctity of Life, thy other name is SUPREMACY.

Again, did you skip the links/charts or just chose to ignore them?

 

[erowe1]

I no more have to provide evidence of MY beliefs than YOU have to provide evidence of YOUR beliefs.

Several of us have. It's your turn.

And please don't feel like you would only be doing it to be polite either. Just do it selfishly, since you probably know that you would have an easier time convincing us to adopt your view if you could support it with evidence.

 

[dannno]

So what? It's not a matter of opinion.

You don't get to murder a black person just because you claim to believe that's not murder.

Ok, fine, you don't get to murder a cow just because you claim to believe it's not murder.

Now I'm going to lock you up in a cage for the rest of your life for murdering a cow with the intention of eating it.

It's not a matter of opinion.

 

[Krugerrand]

That would be a fertilized chicken egg, no, not a chicken, but an egg, and in the very late stages at that. You can buy fertilized chicken eggs in the early stage and you can't even really tell the difference between that and a regular egg.

Is "chicken inside of an egg" not an option?

 

[dannno]

I'm ok with him emphasizing this position in Iowa but if it becomes a much larger part of his campaign this time around compared to last time then it's going to make campaigning here in CA very difficult if not impossible..

That said if it gets him elected I don't really care.

 

[erowe1]

To the other couple posts taking a shot. Murder of people that have been born do not have the controversy abortion does.

But again, what does that have to do with anything? Is morality up for a vote? The non-aggression principle is controversial, but you don't seem to have a problem advocating public policy based on it.

 

[dannno]

Is "chicken inside of an egg" not an option?

It would be an opinion I suppose.

I call the whole thing an egg. When the chick is fully developed and ready to hatch, then it becomes a chick about to hatch out of it's egg, but not until it's ready to come out, imo.

I call a fetus a person when they are fully developed and capable of surviving outside the womb on their own.

I call them a partial person when they become self aware, and don't like to see abortions during either of these times but am not totally sure I'd like to see women locked up for it.

I think women are more responsible for abortions than the doctors who carry them out when it is the woman's choice to have the abortion.

 

[cheapseats]

Again, did you skip the links/charts or just chose to ignore them?

It's true, I DO skip over "charts" in an anti-choice, faux-libertarian Abortion Hysteria thread.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Ok, fine, you don't get to murder a cow just because you claim to believe it's not murder.

Now I'm going to lock you up in a cage for the rest of your life for murdering a cow with the intention of eating it.

It's not a matter of opinion.

The reason that it is wrong to murder another human being and not an animal is that human beings have been imprinted with the image of God. Animals have not (although Scripture does deal with laws against animal abuse).

Now if you don't accept the premise that man carries the image of God, then I can see how you could make human life be as important as animal life. In an atheist worldview, there is no real reason that humans should have any more right to live than cows.

 

[Sola_Fide]

It's true, I DO skip over "charts" in an anti-choice, faux-libertarian Abortion Hysteria thread.

If you read the article, Ron Paul specifically calls out people like you who claim the "libertarian" label only is pro-choice.

Ron Paul says you are WRONG.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Ok, fine, you don't get to murder a cow just because you claim to believe it's not murder.

There would be no "claim to believe" here. You can't murder an animal in the eyes of the law.

All jurisdictions require that the victim be a natural person; that is a human being who was still alive at the time of being murdered. In other words, under the law, one cannot murder a cadaver, a corporation, a non-human animal, or any other non-human organism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Victim