Ron Paul: Words Mean Things

[hornadylnl]

No, the first time I became aware of him was at the Dublin, OH Irish Fest in either 2003 or 2004. A group of his supporters were passing out flyers supposedly outlining his positions on various topics. One of those bullet points was, as I recall, a statement affirming a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and that the federal government should stay out of the decision.

In case my position needs to be clarified, I see no difference between a woman choosing to kill her unborn baby and a murderer choosing to slay another human being. If any level of government should be involved in the latter, it should also be involved in the former, and for the same reason: both are premeditated and both involve the deliberate termination of a human life.

Outlawing murder worked so I'm sure outlawing abortion will too.

 

[LEaSH]

Equating murder with a woman's choice in terminating a fetus?

Keep thumpin'.

And if you feel it's the same, you might want to look into the hundreds of thousands killed as a consequence of the "War on Terror". Start writing to your representatives. Demand some justice.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Equating murder with a woman's choice in terminating a fetus?

Keep thumpin'.

And if you feel it's the same, you might want to look into the hundreds of thousands killed as a consequence of the "War on Terror". Start writing to your representatives. Demand some justice.

Well, you can't argue with logic like this...er...um, maybe I should say there's no use arguing with logic like this.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Involuntary manslaughter...Otherwise, good luck differentiating between deliberate miscarriages & accidental. You'd have to have a probing investigation either way...something I doubt most would want...

Abortion has only been legal since 1973 since the progressives decided it so. To quote Justice Rehnquist, "The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."

I, like Ron Paul, believe that it should be outlawed at the state level and it was until the progressive Supreme Court made it a "fundamental right." It has never been a federal issue until the Supreme Court made it one in Roe v. Wade.

 

[LEaSH]

Well, you can't argue with logic like this...er...um, maybe I should say there's no use arguing with logic like this.

Who wants to argue? Who wants to discuss?

Who's useless? Who's logical?

 

[foszoe]

Outlawing murder worked so I'm sure outlawing abortion will too.

Advocating for the legalization of murder?

 

[LEaSH]

Advocating for the legalization of murder?

No. Legalize liberty. It's what the thread was started for.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

No. Legalize liberty. It's what the thread was started for.

There is a growing scientific movement that abortion should be legal until the baby is 2 or 3 years old. As long as you don't call it murder and change what the definition of murder is then it becomes okay.

 

[foszoe]

No. Legalize liberty. It's what the thread was started for.

oh the statement I read equated outlawing murder and abortion as equally effective. didn't see the word liberty in there.

 

[LEaSH]

There is a growing scientific movement that abortion should be legal until the baby is 2 or 3 years old. As long as you don't call it murder and change what the definition of murder is then it becomes okay.

Yeah, right. Totally relevant.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No. Legalize liberty. It's what the thread was started for.

Just not for fetus'.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Abortion has only been legal since 1973 since the progressives decided it so. To quote Justice Rehnquist, "The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."

I, like Ron Paul, believe that it should be outlawed at the state level and it was until the progressive Supreme Court made it a "fundamental right." It has never been a federal issue until the Supreme Court made it one in Roe v. Wade.

You'll have to forgive me, but I managed to beat the odds, apparently, & was born in 1977. I have to ask, how was the illegality enforced? How many resources were spent investigating & prosecuting fetus deaths? I'm guessing it was just a feel-good law that didn't have any weight.

You might be one of those people who equate legality & morality, so perhaps you don't believe that a law ought to be enforceable, but I really don't see a reason for something unenforceable to be a law. Are you just looking at abortion illegality as a token feel-good mandate or are you truly interested in miscarriage investigations.

Again, I abhor abortion & do not understand how those involved live with themselves. I just think it's unwise to open such a can of worms.

If it's ever outlawed, considering how immoral our society has become, I foresee a huge upswing in SIDS.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Outlawing murder worked so I'm sure outlawing abortion will too.

Equating murder with a woman's choice in terminating a fetus?

Keep thumpin'.

And if you feel it's the same, you might want to look into the hundreds of thousands killed as a consequence of the "War on Terror". Start writing to your representatives. Demand some justice.

Murder has legal consequences - except when it's the legal murder of an unborn child.

And, yes, of COURSE I'm equating a woman's "choice in terminating a fetus" (aka "unborn child") with murder. It's a deliberate choice to kill another life.

It might be a different situation if the majority of abortions weren't done just because it was inconvenient for a woman (and the man who assisted) to have a baby created out of her own act.

And I can understand your allusion to the "hundreds of thousands killed as a consequence of the 'War on Terror'; except the "hundreds of thousands" killed in the War on Terror are dead at the hands of both sides in the war, and it is not our policy to deliberately murder innocents in war. It is, however, policy to deliberately kill our own 'inconvenient' children here in our own country.

And to answer a comment upthread: to equate the use of the words "murder" and "baby" as a means of injecting emotion into the subject of abortion is as legitimate as using the terms "terminate" and "fetus' as a means to distance the impact of the act from the inhumanity it represents.

 

[LEaSH]

Just not for fetus'.

An unborn child is not a child. It is not a person. It is not capable of living as a fetus. It is not murder to abort a fetus.

An unborn child (that is not a child) that is a hindrance on the woman's health or well being, regardless of how the woman became pregnant, is no business of mine or yours.

IT IS no business of mine or yours.

You are entitled to your opinion. You will never legislate your opinion into the uterus of a woman you've never met.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

An unborn child is not a child. It is not a person.

You are fundementally wrong from this point. Therefore the remainder of your arguement fails.

 

[LEaSH]

You are fundementally wrong from this point. Therefore the remainder of your arguement fails.

OK. I guess if you say so.

Keep on aThumpin'...

 

[Lex Concord]

I would submit liberty is impossible without life. When society so cavalierly decides one person's "liberty" is more important, a higher priority, than another's life, then our society's priorities are screwed up.

Yes. Thank you, I was already aware of your stance on abortion and how it plays into your definition of liberty for all. Knowing that is part of your definition, would you care to flesh it out?

EDIT: Actually, let's not even look at "liberty for all", just "liberty"...what is your definition (knowing that your definition is intended to apply equally to the unborn as well as the born)?

 

[Lex Concord]

No, the first time I became aware of him was at the Dublin, OH Irish Fest in either 2003 or 2004. A group of his supporters were passing out flyers supposedly outlining his positions on various topics. One of those bullet points was, as I recall, a statement affirming a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and that the federal government should stay out of the decision.

In case my position needs to be clarified, I see no difference between a woman choosing to kill her unborn baby and a murderer choosing to slay another human being. If any level of government should be involved in the latter, it should also be involved in the former, and for the same reason: both are premeditated and both involve the deliberate termination of a human life.

I had no question on your position.

I was just surprised to hear of that from Paul and absolutely shocked to hear of anyone pushing him in 2003 in Dublin, OH, of all places. Do you remember the stated point/goal of their handing out tracts?

 

[Lex Concord]

An unborn child is not a child. It is not a person. It is not capable of living as a fetus. It is not murder to abort a fetus.

An unborn child (that is not a child) that is a hindrance on the woman's health or well being, regardless of how the woman became pregnant, is no business of mine or yours.

IT IS no business of mine or yours.

You are entitled to your opinion. You will never legislate your opinion into the uterus of a woman you've never met.

So, are you saying that until a child passes through the birth canal it's open season?

In other words (yes, I'm on a definitions kick), please define "child" and, in your opinion, when a fetus becomes a person with rights.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

An unborn child is not a child. It is not a person. It is not capable of living as a fetus. It is not murder to abort a fetus.

An unborn child (that is not a child) that is a hindrance on the woman's health or well being, regardless of how the woman became pregnant, is no business of mine or yours.

IT IS no business of mine or yours.

You are entitled to your opinion. You will never legislate your opinion into the uterus of a woman you've never met.

An unborn child is a separate entity from its mother at a very early stage of its gestation. If the definition of "human" is "able to exist without other human assistance", then you've justified the killing of anyone dependent upon drugs, or a heart-lung machine, or dialysis, or just someone who can't move on their own. We are all hypocrites to some extent, but pretending that an unborn baby isn't "human" so that it may be killed so as to not inconvenience its mother is high hypocrisy indeed.

And of course, saying that the killing of an unborn baby is no business of anyone except the mother's is akin to saying that my killing of your sister because she's an "inconvenience" is none of your business because it doesn't involve you. Society frowns on unjustified killing, as a rule.