Ron Paul: Words Mean Things

[Paco Bedejo]

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.

So, how do you propose that such a prohibition should be enforced if enacted? Uterine sensors that let a local Fetus Czar know when an embryo has embedded so that stringent monitoring can begin? Thorough investigations of miscarriages? Disallowing women between puberty & menopause from consuming toxic substances, you know, just in case?

Please, let tell us how by which intrusive means do you think your morals (mine too, btw**) should be enforced upon your neighbor's 13 year old daughter.

** I, however, don't wish to use government guns to shove my morals up other peoples' nethers...

 

[Bunnykid68]

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.

And a one month old baby isnt capable of living with out some help too. It would just cry, poop, and pee until it died, it isnt a viable human being

 

[CountryBoy1981]

And a one month old baby isnt capable of living with out some help too. It would just cry, poop, and pee until it died, it isnt a viable human being

This is the danger of arbitrarily deciding what is and what is not a living human being. Pre-1973, every individual was a human being. Since then, it is whatever the government determines it to be ("viable"). With the U.S. Government now running health care, is a 1 or 2 or even three year old viable to live on its own? What about an 80 year old?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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)?

Basically, off the top of my head, it's the ablility to pursue ones happiness to the extent it doesn't infringe on another's life or happiness, cause diliterious effects on the community one chooses to live, or violates the teachings/doctrine/etc of your God, creator, or concsience.

Yours?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And a one month old baby isnt capable of living with out some help too. It would just cry, poop, and pee until it died, it isnt a viable human being

Some people survive into adulthood without being viable on their own

 

[Lex Concord]

Basically, off the top of my head, it's the ablility to pursue ones happiness to the extent it doesn't infringe on another's life or happiness, cause diliterious effects on the community one chooses to live, or violates the teachings/doctrine/etc of your God, creator, or concsience.

Yours?

Each man may do as he pleases so long as his actions do no harm to the person or property of another.

I'm curious what types of things get caught in the net of "deleterious effects on the community"

Also, I'm not sure I udnerstand the violation of the teachings/doctrine/etc. of your God, creator or conscience...are you saying that no one can do something that offends another person's religion, or am I misreading your statement?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Some people survive into adulthood without being viable on their own

I really didnt think you would talk about me in that way

 

[hornadylnl]

I believe life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. But I think it's foolish to believe that outlawing abortion is going to stop it. Just like licensing doctors doesnt stop skanks from seeking back alley plastic surgery, criminals from getting guns, people killing each other. Simply passing a law doesn't make people moral. We can adopt sharia law and people will still do immoral things.

 

[LEaSH]

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.

Nobody knows. Up until the third trimester maybe, I don't know. Nobody does.

I don't really care personally. I don't have a uterus myself. Even if i did, I wouldn't dictate what others did with their parts.

I love vaginas, but never order them around.

 

[LEaSH]

And a one month old baby isnt capable of living with out some help too. It would just cry, poop, and pee until it died, it isnt a viable human being

Yes. And people do indeed kill them. We call that murder. It's sad, and somewhere from birth to its young death it was recognized as having a right to life.
Does the government get to decide that? Pretty much. Can't argue with infanticide - well you could, but you'd be considered a satanist or something.

While it's in the woman, the woman has a choice. Who is going to tell her she doesn't have a choice? Try to legislate that choice. It's called force.

Government force is carried with the threat of a gun and incarceration.

Women will always have access to abortion, legal or not.

 

[Lex Concord]

Nobody knows. Up until the third trimester maybe, I don't know. Nobody does.

I don't really care personally. I don't have a uterus myself. Even if i did, I wouldn't dictate what others did with their parts.

I love vaginas, but never order them around.

So you believe that the fetus is just another of the mother's parts?

There is unquestionably a point at which this ceases being so, even in your mind.

I can't buy that you don't care one way or the other, as I doubt you would participate in this particular topic were that the case.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Each man may do as he pleases so long as his actions do no harm to the person or property of another.

I'm curious what types of things get caught in the net of "deleterious effects on the community"

Also, I'm not sure I udnerstand the violation of the teachings/doctrine/etc. of your God, creator or conscience...are you saying that no one can do something that offends another person's religion, or am I misreading your statement?

Basically saying yours or my freedoms are not unlimited. Part of the liberty thing ought to be for people to form groups--communities/states to govern themselves as they wish. Our constitution outlines certain limitations of the federal government and to certain extents limitations on the the states...as long as those assemblies of people do not violate those provisions, they should be free to further define their society. With the understanding those that disagree can either work to effect changes or to vote with their feet.

As for that last one--Not every urge, compulsion, fantasy, etc is a right--but that is between you and your God, creator, concsience. All liberty is counterbalanced with equal responsibility.

 

[LEaSH]

So you believe that the fetus is just another of the mother's parts?

There is unquestionably a point at which this ceases being so, even in your mind.

I can't buy that you don't care one way or the other, as I doubt you would participate in this particular topic were that the case.

I do care. Primarily for the freedom of a free person. I'm not a feminist like we read about.

I put the freedom of an individual above an unborn fetus.

I know how some abortions go: Gwen gets knocked up by Bruce the lifeguard at the country club (third time), but can't have a baby because she'd get kicked out of the sorority, and her parents would take away her AmEx...
Pretty abhorrent, eh? People will judge, wont they?

But it's not the only that way pregnancies come about. And it's not for me, or you, or some imaginary cloud king to decide for a free person to decide what they need to do for their own survival.

 

[Lex Concord]

Basically saying yours or my freedoms are not unlimited. Part of the liberty thing ought to be for people to form groups--communities/states to govern themselves as they wish. Our constitution outlines certain limitations of the federal government and to certain extents limitations on the the states...as long as those assemblies of people do not violate those provisions, they should be free to further define their society. With the understanding those that disagree can either work to effect changes or to vote with their feet.

As for that last one--Not every urge, compulsion, fantasy, etc is a right--but that is between you and your God, creator, concsience. All liberty is counterbalanced with equal responsibility.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Thanks for clarifying.

Disagree?

 

[LEaSH]

So if abortion remains legal in this country - which it will - are you going to vote with your feet?

Or is voting with your feet for the people that disagree with the way you want to make law?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So if abortion remains legal in this country - which it will - are you going to vote with your feet?

Or is voting with your feet for the people that disagree with the way you want to make law?

Nope. I'll choose to work to effect the changes required to insure EVERYBODY gets the right to life. You?

 

[mrjarrell]

One of my favourite authors addressed the abortion debacle in his book, (with the late Aaron Zellman), "Hope". His main character made the point that the people who oppose abortion never look beyond their desire to ban it. They're OK to going back to the bad old days with back alley butchers and 10's of thousands of deaths. And they never look to the inevitable depredations on liberty that would be required to actually enforce their law.

Abortion: An Excerpt From _Hope_, by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith

 

[LEaSH]

Nope. I'll choose to work to effect the changes required to insure EVERYBODY gets the right to life. You?

I'll bet my life that a woman will have the right to control her body for whatever reason they choose - whether I agree or not.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

One of my favourite authors addressed the abortion debacle in his book, (with the late Aaron Zellman), "Hope". His main character made the point that the people who oppose abortion never look beyond their desire to ban it. They're OK to going back to the bad old days with back alley butchers and 10's of thousands of deaths. And they never look to the inevitable depredations on liberty that would be required to actually enforce their law.

Isn't there something inherently wrong with the notion that the only laws worth enacting are the ones that will not be broken?