Paul focusing more on Abortion this time?

[eduardo89]

Taking that argument to its absurd extreme, killing a 1 year old should be legal because a 1 year old isn't "mature enough" to understand the "concept of life". That's crap. Children are not property. And this is the problem with making property the sole basis of "rights".

Exactly, my 1 month old daughter doesn't understand what rights are. It'd be ok to kill her then, since because she doesn't understand the right to life she doesn't have it?

 

[prmd142]

nope.... killing children is violation of rights of parents hence immoral and illegal. and such violator should be treated same as a murderer.

but to think that without government protecting the children the parents will start killing their children, that to me is absurd. so then you support assigning government agent to every household to protect kids from their parents. afterall kids cannot come forward and tell their grievances isn't it? now that is the extension of your logic. more government to protect our kids from us!!

 

[eduardo89]

I didn't say more government will protect us. Just that I find it a bit hypocritical to be against abortion, yet think it'd be ok for some states to allow it.

 

[jmdrake]

nope.... killing children is violation of rights of parents hence immoral and illegal. and such violator should be treated same as a murderer.

Unless the murderer is the parent. Parents have been known to kill kids.

but to think that without government protecting the children the parents will start killing their children, that to me is absurd. so then you support assigning government agent to every household to protect kids from their parents. afterall kids cannot come forward and tell their grievances isn't it? now that is the extension of your logic. more government to protect our kids from us!!

Don't be stupid. I don't want teachers to be able to kill kids either, that doesn't mean I want a government agent assigned to every school. Most parents don't kill kids. Most teachers don't kill kids. Most strangers don't kill kids. If you want to be consistent and argue for no punishment of murder under any circumstances that's one thing. But if you want to make exceptions because the murderer is a parent and the victim isn't old enough to speak his or her opposition then you are just being silly.

 

[S.Shorland]

If a foetus is 'sensible' to the environment around it,I would consider it alive.If when stimulated,it could sense the stimulus,then I would say it is beyond aborting.If it can feel its environment,then it can feel it is distinct from it and it is a 'self'.How you study these circumstances,however,I have no idea.

 

[prmd142]

When person A commits a crime against an innocent person B then the society has a stake in the issue because what A did to B, tomorrow he could do the same to any of them. That is the signal that A sends to everyone. That he doesn't respect the basic principles on which a human society can properly function namely 'right to life' and 'right to property'. So it is the duty of every member of society to take 2 actions (1) To make A compensate B or B's family (2) To make sure that A no longer lives in the same society so that everyone can go about their lives without worrying that a violator of basic principles lives among them. Whether the society achieves the second objective through government agency or private agency (in case of anarcho-capitalist society) by executing him or by sending him to prison till he learns to recognize these principles or whether you drop him on a remote island is just a matter of technicality.

I strongly believe that no parent wants to kill their kids. That the interests of children are best taken care of by parents rather than government. Even in the unlikely case of a parent killing their kid, most of these will be traced back to parent being forced by government to carry pregnancy to term. They didn't want the kid then, so likely they will not want him now. The result will be neglect, harm etc. So even more reason for the government to intervene even after the birth. If you are against abortion then you should be against post coital pill, IUDs etc., Not to speak of all the illegal underground abortion shops that will pop up everywhere putting women's lives in great danger because of the use of unsafe methods of abortion. If you want to see the effect of banning abortion just look at the war on drugs. You want more mess on you hands, go ahead.

If you think that abortion is violation of right to life then the countries in which it is legal should've more crime rates in general because according to you abortion represnts lack of respect for life. So in societies where life is not respected crime rates in general should also be high. I don't see any proof of that.

what a parent does to their kid is of no interest or concern to other members of society because the parent doesn't send a signal to others that he might come after them next. Children ought to be treated as property of parents until maturity. If you don't, there is no limit as to what extent the government or the society can have a say in how you deal with your own kid. Want to circumcise your kid? Nope the government/society says. Want to buy your kid some ice cream? Nope says the government/society as eating junk food could lead to obesity later and put you kid's health at risk. Where will it stop?

Hence, children - property of parents and parents alone. Yes there will be some bad parents. But the effect of those will be limited to only very few cases. If you put government in charge of child protection then I can promise you there will be a lot more casualties in terms of life and liberties.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I didn't say more government will protect us. Just that I find it a bit hypocritical to be against abortion, yet think it'd be ok for some states to allow it.

Well, that may not exactly be what happens. You could say that the framers of the Constitution took a big risk when they limited Congress to considering three crimes (treason, counterfeiting, and piracy) and left the rest to the states to figure out.

Charging someone for the crime of murder, for example, is a Constitutionally-reserved issue for the states.

Therefore, I think if Ron runs, he should run on making a fight to overturn the unconstitutional ruling of Roe-v.-Wade, and let the states decide.

 

[prmd142]

If a foetus is 'sensible' to the environment around it,I would consider it alive.If when stimulated,it could sense the stimulus,then I would say it is beyond aborting.If it can feel its environment,then it can feel it is distinct from it and it is a 'self'.How you study these circumstances,however,I have no idea.

there is no dispute as to whether fetus has life. yes it does. the moment sperm fertilizes the egg new life is created. But this new life can only exist/progress by using force aggressively on the rights of the woman. if she consents to this then fine. but if she doesn't then she has the right to use force to abort it because her use of force is not the initiation but only in reaction to fetus's initiation of force on her. Fetus is the initiator of force here not the woman.

 

[S.Shorland]

Well I don't know really.You'd have a difficulty to say the ball of cells/foetus is using force because as it touches the wall of the womb,the woman's body accepts it and permits a connection.We derive our natural rights by our human nature:You have a mouth and the intelligence to utter speech,therefore you have the same right to speech as everyone else does.If our rights come from the nature of our existence,then how can we say the foetus/ball of cells perpetrates force when it is in the nature of things for the womans' own nature to accept the connection?

When I say 'I don't know really',I mean it.I'm not a philosopher and I haven't studied philosophy.It's just that the freedom philosophy makes such obvious common sense to me that I like it. Maybe I take 'natural rights' incorrectly as to how far they go back to the basic human nature and its connection with the human body? It's just the way I 'talk' to myself to make sense of things.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

If you recall, Rand's campaign focused on fiscal & monetary issues until he was pressed on foreign policy or social problems.

Also, Ron after winning CPAC '11 delivered some VERY libertarian talk on abortion. Recall the interview the next day where he said "I believe abortion is wrong, but using force to stop people from doing it just doesn't work." Ron Paul's 2008 campaign focused on states' rights and "get the federal government out of it" on the abortion issue, and it would be bizarre for him to reverse that stance now. In fact, it would be disastrous politically to appear to flip-flop on social issues to the neoconservative voter. The less they stop to think about Ron's social views and how they're too tolerant or too peaceful, the better.

 

[JCLibertarian]

I don't see how having 50 million children, many of whom could end up poor, feral, unintelligent, dependent, and undesired would be a good thing for them or for a taxpaying class obligated to finance an unsustainable welfare state. But beyond, I just think it is inconsistent to believe the government should have the authority top exert control over a woman's body. I realize personal opinions may very, and I don't mind that, I think individuals should be free to make decisions about their own body. But I disagree with the notion that the government has the right to control your body or that a fetus has a right to your body. That violates the principle of self-ownership. But it doesn't stop me from supporting ron Paul, because that isn't really a high issue on my priority list and he has no power to change anything, and at the worst, he could nominate a supreme court justice and it would become a state issue as per the tenth amendment.

 

[jmdrake]

I strongly believe that no parent wants to kill their kids.

That one sentence is all that I need to respond to. The rest is just silly drivel. If you don't think that any parent wants to kill his/her kid, then you aren't living in reality. Mothers putting newborns in the trash happened so much that states passed "safe harbor" laws to try to prevent that. And don't forget Andrea Yates, Susan Smith and others. Most parents do not want to kill their kids, but some not only do, but have. It's ridiculous that some so called "libertarians" try to make up an entire philosophy around a reality that only exists between their ears. Kids are not the property of their parents. Nor are kids the property of the state. And while I believe in parental rights, I do not believe in the right of parents to kill their kids. You have fallen victim to the "fall choice" logical fallacy. Just because someone doesn't fall for the nonsense that you are putting forward that children are property which the parents can kill at will doesn't mean that person believes the state should be the parents any more than people think the state should be someone's spouse to keep their husband or wife from having the right to kill them as "property".

Anyway I'll leave you to argue with yourself. But before continuing this argument you should go to the graves of children killed by their parents and explain to those tombs why it is you don't believe what actually happened happened.

 

[jmdrake]

there is no dispute as to whether fetus has life. yes it does. the moment sperm fertilizes the egg new life is created. But this new life can only exist/progress by using force aggressively on the rights of the woman. if she consents to this then fine. but if she doesn't then she has the right to use force to abort it because her use of force is not the initiation but only in reaction to fetus's initiation of force on her. Fetus is the initiator of force here not the woman.

Nonsense. The fetus didn't initiate force on the woman. Quite the opposite. If anything the woman "kidnapped" the fetus (since you want to use silly melodramatic imagery) so the woman is duty bound like any other kidnapper to deliver her victim alive. Really, these libertardian "let's twist logic past the breaking point to reach a result I won't" arguments are a waste of time and energy. I'd love to see you on at TV debate trying to explain your position in favor of toddlercide.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

If you recall, Rand's campaign focused on fiscal & monetary issues until he was pressed on foreign policy or social problems.

Also, Ron after winning CPAC '11 delivered some VERY libertarian talk on abortion. Recall the interview the next day where he said "I believe abortion is wrong, but using force to stop people from doing it just doesn't work." Ron Paul's 2008 campaign focused on states' rights and "get the federal government out of it" on the abortion issue, and it would be bizarre for him to reverse that stance now. In fact, it would be disastrous politically to appear to flip-flop on social issues to the neoconservative voter. The less they stop to think about Ron's social views and how they're too tolerant or too peaceful, the better.

Agreed.

 

[Shane Harris]

 

[Shane Harris]

not mine but this needs to be seen and taken seriously because its a great design and a great idea. circulate this website and these 2012 brandings everywhere. get them to ron paul himself and jesse benton. its a perfect brand for round 2.

http://ronpauldesigns.blogspot.com/

 

[prmd142]

Nonsense. The fetus didn't initiate force on the woman. Quite the opposite. If anything the woman "kidnapped" the fetus (since you want to use silly melodramatic imagery) so the woman is duty bound like any other kidnapper to deliver her victim alive. Really, these libertardian "let's twist logic past the breaking point to reach a result I won't" arguments are a waste of time and energy. I'd love to see you on at TV debate trying to explain your position in favor of toddlercide.

woman kidnapped the fetus? lol

so then, in case of rape she was forced to kidnap the fetus! or would you make an exception in case of rape as she was not willing...

 

[libertybrewcity]

ANYWAYYYYYYYSSSSSS.........Ron Paul should definitely focus on Iowa if he wants to win that state. When ever he goes there and talks about family issues, local newspapers across the state pick up on it. I would be willing to bet that many many likely Republican voters think that RP is pro-choice because he regularly described as a libertarian. Family issues need to be PUSHED like none other in Iowa.

I'm sure NH will call for a totally different strategy.

 

[libertybrewcity]

On the flip side...here is something interesting to think about. I don't necessarily agree with it. Abortion is the one issue that I have been conflicted over for years.

 

[jmdrake]

woman kidnapped the fetus? lol

so then, in case of rape she was forced to kidnap the fetus! or would you make an exception in case of rape as she was not willing...

Most pregnancies (and hence most abortions) were not because of rape. But if you want to go with the rape analogy, that would be someone kidnapping a child, forcing the child onto someone else's boat, and then the boat owner throwing the child to the sharks. There is no logical way where you can claim that the child initiated the force.