Protect All Human Life




The heated debate about abortion is filled with emotional arguments that usually center on considerations such as sexual morality, religious beliefs, women’s rights, or purely on pragmatic reasons: if abortion were made illegal it would still take place – under unsanitary conditions that would endanger additional lives.

However, a rational evaluation of abortion must be built upon one single question: When exactly does human life begin? At conception, at birth or somewhere in between?

Not even the most radical feminist would find it okay to tear apart a recently-born baby just because it is not wanted by its mother. All other considerations aside, the only reason many individuals can support abortion with a good conscience is because they believe it’s not murder… and that unborn babies do not count as human beings.

Ron Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He believes that human life starts at conception, and that casual elimination of the unborn leads to a careless attitude towards all life.

Recalling his personal observation of a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his medical residency, Ron Paul stated, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”

In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:

“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”

During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?” Additionally, Ron Paul said that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is “an act of aggression” against a fetus.

At the GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate on Sep 17, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what he will do to restore legal protection to the unborn:

“As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.”

At the GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida, on Nov 28, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what a woman would be charged with if abortion becomes illegal and she obtains an abortion anyway:

“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”

For many years, Ron Paul has been speaking up for babies’ rights. He passionately defends those who cannot speak for themselves because they haven’t been born yet.

In order to “offset the effects of Roe v. Wade”, Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a “barbaric procedure”.

At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.

Many people feel very strongly about the issue of abortion, and once they make up their minds they rarely change their opinion. If you are undecided and/or open-minded, check out this page and this site for more information about abortion, including images and a description of medical procedures.



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

Likes(5)Dislikes(0)

8,341 Comments:

  1. It is incredibly retarded that someone would challenge the medical opinion of a doctor in this matter. Dr. Ron Paul is just that, a DR.! So, XRON. You have stated many things, one of them being that you do not see that Dr. Paul is for social change.....are you serious? He clearly states that he is for society avoiding the path that they seem to be on, in regards to being carefree about life because abortion has itself become such a casual thing. In a world where now abortions are actually being done with the ingestion of a couple pills instead of the old fashioned method that actually left many women barren, he is absolutely calling for social change. He is asking Americans to have a conscience; that is the biggest change American society could and should make. You seem to just be upset at the fact that this social change doesn't correspond with how you feel about it; the sad thing is, is that you then say that he is not for social change.
    Furthermore on the abortion issue, my grandmother was raped in the late 70's and became pregnant; she didn't abort and the world did not end; in fact that is her favorite child.
    When it comes down to it, a mother is many things; and with all extreme circumstances aside (because seriously, they are so few and far between)only a real bitch would kill her unborn child.
    Dr. Paul is an educated, and balanced man who does not deserve to be attacked for having an opinion based on his medical background. Anyone who attacks this man should be ashamed of themselves.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • I agree that Dr. Paul is a smart man, but it is unwise to base someone's credibility merely on title. After all, there are also quite a few doctors who oppose Ron Paul on this issue, and therefore, according to your logic, we ought to accept all of there opinions. What you are advocating here is essentially the regulation of the free market of ideas. Just because a person has been through more schooling than another person does not mean that the one is better than the other. Essentially, if we are true capitalists, then we ought to side with the person with the more convincing argument.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. killerqueenmercury

    he says no goverment interference in anything... and he wants to ban abortions? wow. if life begins at conception, why don't we have funerals for miscarriages? you absoulty cannot take away a woman's right to get rid of a fetus she does not want to have. it is her right. accidents happen. people do stupid things. rape happens. ron paul is saying if a woman makes a mistake she can't correct it or if it wasn't her fault - sucks for you you have to have that baby anyway? this is why i don't trust religious politicians. they make it about "the sanctity of life". newsflash- its not alive until it is out of the womb. life does not begin at conception. men shouldn't even have a say in this issue. when men start having babies, i'll be listening with open ears.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • You claim: "they make it about “the sanctity of life”. newsflash- its not alive until it is out of the womb" well newsflash to you: Babies are alive in the womb, they are alive the every instant conception happens. If it wasn't alive it wouldn't need food, care, and it wouldn't grow. I do not know if you have taken a biology or not, but I have, and I know that unborn individuals are alive in the womb. Ever felt a baby "kick". Yeah if it wasn't alive, I don't think women would ever have a chance to know if they were pregnant or not.

      LIFE IS NOT THE SIMS: baby's don't just fall out of the air.
      Also, that whole sanctity of life applies to more than just babies, it applies to all living people. Hence, the same argument used to vouch for an unborn person's life is the same argument to vouch for your life, my life, and everyone elses' life.

      Its no one's right to dispose of people. Born or unborn, people have a RIGHT TO LIVE. Women have a responsibility to care for their children, irregardless of how she ended up with child. However, if by unjust means this occurs, I do believe that accommodations need to be made to help assist her with her unwanted pregnancy.

      One final point: Rape is bad. Hence we should not do something bad thinking it fixes the problem. Otherwise we are extensions of the original evil.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. WHY ARE WARS ON EARTH?
    IS MAN BORN TO BE A WORRIER OR, WAS MAN TAUGHT TO MAKE WAR, AND IF SO BY WHOM? (ZECHARIA SITCHIN - go research for; WHOM )

    I think, we were taught, and that is why nobody minds there own business!

    War is : Telling others how to think, how to talk, and how to walk. Is'nt why there is war in Irak, Afganhistan,Palestine, etc,etc... You dont have to go far to see war, just look at couples; every fight is about telling the other one what they should say or do,...caught ya!

    ...SPEAKING WORDS OF WISDOM, LET IT BE, LET IT BE, by John Lennon, IS LONG FORGOTTEN, SADLY, because of a lack to REFLECT on it!

    DROP THE BONE S EVERYONE,THERE IS NO MEAT ON IT! YOURE FIGHTING FOR A TURF THAT IS NOT YOURS!

    THERE IS NO DEBATE HERE, THERE IS ONLY PEOPLE WANTING TO TELL OTHERS HOW THEY SHOULD LIVE AND HOW THEY SHOULD DO IT!

    THAT'S NOT LOVE, IT'S CONTROL, IT'S OPRESSION, IT'S DICTATORSHIP THAT IS WAR! Are you a Worrior??? THINK AND WAKE UP MY FRIENDS!

    PEOPLE SHOULD CLEAN UP THERE OWN BACKYARD BEFORE TELLING OTHERS
    HOW THEY SHOULD CLEAN THERE'S. Mostly INSTITUTIONS, THERE FAR FROM EXAMPLES, HA,HA!

    GOD LAW IS: LOVE YOUR BROTHERS LIKE YOUR SELF, EVEN if he does'nt think, say or do like you ... LOVE INCONDITIONNALY! AM I INVENTING SOMETHING HERE ??? NOPE!
    NO ONE HAS A CLEAN TURF, EVERYBODY, HAS SOME WEEDING TO DO, ALL OF THE TIME!

    GOOD LUCK EVERYBODY ON YOUR QUEST FOR A PEACEFULL TURF, WHERE REAL COMPREHENSION RESIDE...WITHIN!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  4. Well, I am not a woman but I can see both sides. However I want to live in a free nation governed by the states. I don't want to be living in an Obamanation governed by his will alone. He wants to sign the freedom of choice act. If this is done then doctors can no longer refuse to perform abortions. The Catholic Church has stated that if this passes they may close their hospitals instead of performing abortions. I think this is another holocaust. If you feel the way I do then go to www.fightfoca.com

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. I truly understand your point Mattthew, but... One's reality may differ from your neibourghs and services is not LOVE.

    Iv'e been adopted, and I did work in specialized education for 17 years. I was lucky I have had great parent's to take good care of my needs and to LOVE me.
    Unfortunatly, disfunctionnal people do exist and for that matter the consequences are terrible(I've seen it). When a child is placed in these institutions and spend there hole life, in foster homes, and back to the institutions, they become lost, and unwanted, in society; there a mess.
    The arsh reality, is you cant replace LOVE in theses institutions. LOVE is one thing that these BOXES cant give you! LOVE has to be there in the first place!

    Then, try to console an infant that knows that he is not LOVED, WANTED OR DESIRED IN THE FIRST PLACE, Try it! It will brake your heart!
    Many of these kids I'm talking to you about, are dead today,
    and that happens more than you can even IMAGINE, just because of an ABSENCE of LOVE. So, that is enought for me to stand for freedom of choice.

    ...my reflexion is: Maybe they just were'nt meant to be!

    Reality is cruel, but most of us just dont want to deal with it, and abortion is one of it!

    Look at nature! My cat was to weak to have kitten's. She did'nt look at me and ask me what to do, what she did is, ate them! That solved it. Yes life is cruel, nature is wild, that is something you and I cant do much...but we can educate, that we can!

    Have a great day Matthew!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • All people have a right to life. The quality of life may or may not be ideal, but first and foremost people have a right to live. If people did not have this right and it is as you say "maybe they just weren't meant to be" then any arbitrary power can make decisions for whether you live or die. Should we just kill off everyone who happens to live in a bad family, the undesirables? Good or Bad, Happy or Sad, people still have at least one fundamental right: to live. And as long as a person lives, they have hope. Reality is cruel, but people don't have to be, especially people who make decisions in good faith that by deciding to uphold liberty they are upholding ideals for the next generation to come. It is a slippery slope when people can decide for people who can't defend themselves if they are "desirable" or not.

      Adoption isn't the most ideal option, but outright disposal should never be an option.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Pingback: Abortion and the Centralization of Power | Ron Paul .com

  7. Here is a VITAL ISSUE and a Personnal one period.

    Let's never forget and never loose the perspective of why woman
    do abort.
    I personnaly never encountered a woman jumping for joy about having an abortion, and I dont think we ever will see that occur.

    IF WOMAN USE THIS AVENUE ITS BECAUSE THERE IS SIMPLY NO OTHER OPTIONS FOR HER.

    The hole system is about making us feel like criminals when the REAL CRIMINALS here is the System it self, for not giving us any other options,resources and proper sexual education.
    The MAJOR here, is security of having somthing to give a child a minimum in life; roof, food, and proper care if medical needs are required.

    Most woman are poor, and have a Fkn hard time just surving this limited and barbaric system.

    Only when the Govt. will secure that MAJOR, only then we will stop fighting this issue all together, PERIOD

    It's alway's easy to point out the ones that has to make that horrible dicision, just because the ONE on top of us is limiting our choices INTENTIONNALY.

    IT IS TIME FOR THE GOVERMENT TO CHANGE! HE, IS THE ONE THAT MAKE US LOOK LIKE THE MONSTER HERE, WHEN THE REAL MONSTER AND CRIMINAL IS THE GOVERMENT ITSELF PERIOD

    STOP BLAMING THE VICTIMS OF THIS SYSTEM BLAME IT ON THE REAL OFFENDER, The Box.

    Good luck to all in this REVOLLUTION!

    From Québec; The Oppressed NATION in Canada.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • I'm no so sure about Canada, but in the US there are laws that help people who can't provide a good home for a child. These laws are a better alternative than eliminating a life that is precious in itself. Women who choose abortion are criminals, just misguided in what they have to do. It is a sacrifice either way a woman chooses since the child is unwanted and/or inconvenient at that point in time. However, choosing to keep the child alive and leaving it for adoption is a better choice because that sacrifice you make is for a truly good cause (the life of one who cannot defend themselves), and not a sacrifice for self-centered reasons (a reason that considers the welfare only inclusive of self, though not necessarily selfishly choosing self).

      A lot of people choose to blame the woman for her choice because they look only at the one who lost something, but its clearly not that clear cut. However, its always best to take actions that protect the liberties of others other than one's self. Women should look past the inconveniences of pregnancy and see that liberty shouldn't be sacrificed for those reasons.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. I voted for Ron Paul because he is for life. I agree that conception begins at birth and if we disregard human life in it's begins, we as a society will disregard the dignity of human life throughtout the natural life span.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. I believe a lot of people fail to see the point in this article. I've noticed that whenever people speak of abortion they fall into two camps: people who see the life that is at stake, and the people who see themselves at stake. Those people who say they have a right to choose should realize that their rights to choose infringe upon another living being's liberty. Ron Paul's point was upholding liberty for all. Pro-choice and Pro-abortion only seek the convenience of one, neglecting the liberty of the child in the womb.

    People who feel that a human life only begins outside the womb are gravely mistaken. People don't just pop out of air, they grow, form, and develop, from very basic beginnings. These beginnings are not suddenly detached from the individual that lives post-birth. That being said, if the being that exists outside the womb is the same being that existed inside the womb, then that being has the same rights, namely a right to live, and a right to liberty due their status in life.

    This generation feels that they are entitled to many things, worst of all, they feel that they are entitled to convenience. People are losing the value of life, hard work, principles, and liberty. It doesn't matter if you are religious or not, but these things should matter to everyone. Human life needs a concrete definition in the constitution. That way people would better see how they are legally subjected to preserving the liberty of themselves and others, and no longer feel that in the name of convenience that the liberty of those least able to protect themselves are not infringed upon.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Matthew Blackmon - 11/14 @ 7:59 pm

      Matthew,

      That was beautifully written.

      CC-

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Thank you, and I want to say that there are options for women who find that they are at the end of the line. Several states have laws that state that a newborn can be left at the hospital for couples who can't provide a good home for it. Also there are more formal adoption procedures that a couple can go through. The main thing is that the life and liberty of the least of the least of us isn't compromised just because we can't handle something or want to handle something ourselves.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Matthew, that's right. I forgot about the option to leave the newborn at the hospital, or even the local fire station. I'm sure there are even more options to consider, as well. And, you are correct in promoting the assurance of life and liberty for all, especially for those precious little ones who cannot speak for themselves.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. I wonder if it's not so much an issue of taking civil right from the mother or father but rather taking the life away from an 'unborn individual'? This article or web page is the 1st I have read of Mr. Paul's stance for or against abortion. But what I gathered from my 1st read through was that Mr. Paul isn't so much looking at the issue as an issue of taking away civil liberties from anyone but the topic of abortion poses the question of whether or not abortion is 'penal code 187' of an unborn person. I'm sure we can all agree that murder should be punishable by one level or another. Or is punishing a person for murder "taking away civil liberties"?

    I'm strongly for Freedom of Civil Liberties...but I don't think that's really the issue here. I believe the real issue comes down to whether or not you feel that an unborn person or fetus has the right to life (the same as you or I do) or can someone take away that fetuses heatbeat because they don't believe they are human and becuase having a baby would be inconvenient to them -personally??

    I'm a God fearing man - and I wish God would have been more to the point on this matter! Then maybe I'd be able to see this topic as black and white and not in it's current shade of Grey. I'm pro-choice but I'd never be able to abort my own unborn child! However, I am very touched by Ron's point, “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?”.

    I believe God Gives and Takes all life -he only allows us to THINK we're in charge! I beleive that the all-knowing, all-mighty God knows that when he joins a particular egg and sperm that what happens thereafter will NOT turn into an air breathing individual -if abortion is the future plans of the parents. - if our JUST God wants to give that unborn "kid" a special place in heaven becuase he/she didn't have a fair chance at life, then I consider that kid very blessed!

    I'll end on this note: This world is a very confusing place, us humans make it a very unfair and unjust world for any and every individual. - I pesonally feel that the government, either state or federal, should focus more on other issues (maybe issues more relevant to our founding fathers perceived purposes of government), and try to stay out of Grey area "personal choice" issues like this one. i feel to a certain extent that "emotional" or personal choice or religious issues like abortion or gay rights take focus off other more important issues at hand that our politicians should be focusing on i.e.: taxes, national security, the ecomony, etc.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Holy moley where do I start? First of all this debate over the constitution is pointless. It has been a long time sense ANYONE has followed it. There has to be alot of changes before we can get to that point. And I believe that Ron Paul is a STEP towards that. But arguing over your own perception is a step backwards. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. Abortion is the death of an unborn child. That is a scientific fact. Ron Paul knows that. I know that. And in our society murder is usually frowned upon. But manslaughter varies from state to state. So why in God's name would abortion be any different? And for people to think that our federal government should to decide such things is silly. That is the whole reason why we have state and federal. Our federal government is barely in control of what they need to be like our foreign policy and money crisis. Why don't the regulate the federal reserve and leave abortion to choice to the american citizens. And it is a really hard choice to make. Maybe that's why people want to rely on the federal government. But as a country we need to make our own sound decisions and that starts with the states within our country. And to think that to give our states that right will lead to slavery. Serioulsy? I'm offended by that. I'm pretty sure that our country is not so stupid. And there are people who are struggling with their freedom. But so did slaves and look where they are today. We are a young country and things take time. But anyways the federal government should not get themselves worked up over and spend money and time in things they shouldn't be involved in. And even thought I do not personally believe in abortion it's not my right to tell someone who is scared and pregnant what desicions they have to make. And if there should be any prosecution let your state decide. In MN we are not allowed to smoke ANYWHERE and I am a smoker. I am honestly considering moving because my state has laws that I don't believe in but I still love this country (with some exceptions lol). We are always faced with desicions and controversy so stop complaining and deal with it.

    oh and by the way did Texas really rule in creationism over evolution??? WHAT THE F*CK?? that is the biggest joke i've heard. I am sorry for the citizens of Texas. really sorry. hopefully you feel bad for me bcuz I can't smoke where I want to. haha. but seriously. that is messed up. I am honestly blown away. almost speechless. wow. but that is a desicion that Texas made and should be regulated by the state of Texas. atleast the federal gorvernment doesn't gorven that and the entire country has to live by "creationism". hahahahahaha

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. It is not RPs opinion that it be decided by the states. It is the constitution that says it should be decided by the states. It is not the presidents job to voice in on the matter, it is his job to abide by the Constitution.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  13. In 200 years there has been much Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution. Roe vs Wade was based upon Griswold vs Connecticut. Griswold vs Connecticut established a definition of the right to privacy. It was an attempt to fill in an apparent hole in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has amended the Constitution from the bench quite a bit.

    Whenever the Supreme Court is making up amendments we should be following with a proper means to amend the Constitution. We are in great need to have a Constitution Convention. This should be done on a regular basis as the Supreme Court decides upon issues not defined in the Constitution which seem to be federal issues based upon the penumbra of federal law.

    The right to privacy now is partially defined by Roe vs Wade. I desire we establish a new Bill of Rights which includes the right to privacy in regards to ones health and to ones reproduction. We should not continue to leave the amending of our Constitution greatly in the hands of the Supreme Court. This is improper and unconstitutional.

    Opponents of abortion may not wish for individuals to have complete control over their own reproduction and make it a matter of the state. Amendment proposals can be made to suppose this idea. Either way, it is not good to have the Supreme Court making up the Constitution from the bench. I agree with Ron Paul that the present situation needs to be corrected one way or the other.

    I hope we as liberty lovers recognize the value in having local control over controversial subjects. State control is better than federal control. Individual control is better than state control. The more controversial a subject the better it is to have individuals to have control. We need to strength our Constitution limitation upon government to interfere with decisions which should belong to individuals.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • I agree with this. However, when you talk about individual rights, you neglect to consider the actual individual involved, the unborn child. Where are his rights? Do we not all, as individuals, have right to life? The mother is NOT the child, the mother is the child's vessel, why should she be able to say whether he lives or dies? That would be like saying, if a baby is born, and the mother decides she cannot handle it, she can kill it. What is the difference between this and abortion? Does being outside the womb grant you personhood? Tell me what the difference is between a child the day before it's born and the day after, in regards to it's status as a human being? That's the point here, you cannot protect one person's rights by taking away someone else's.

      For the person who gave the carrot cell analogy - that is simply the silliest comparison I have ever heard. Just because you can't LOOK at it and tell what it is, doesn't mean it's not life. I'm sure you have no problem with destroying a carrot cell, but you also have no problem with eating a fully grown carrot... As you see, this is not an accurate analogy.

      The point is, we have to have laws as human beings, as a society we have to live by those laws. Things like not killing and stealing. Who enforces those laws? Murder is murder, no matter who you kill, how you kill them or with what intention. If I see a man laying on the side of the street suffering because he was hit by a car, do I grab the shotgun out of my trunk and shoot him in the head to end his misery? No. Why? Well, you tell me. But, I say, "he was better off dead! what kind of life would he live?" - Like the baby with Spina Bifida that the mother murders. What makes one scenario right and the other wrong??

      This is not an issue of women's rights. The woman exercised her right to choose when she spread her legs (in most cases). Of course there are exceptions, but we're talking about most cases here. And rape or incest? Bad things happen all the time, life can really suck, it does not give you the right to murder the innocent party.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • What is your position on molar pregnancy? This is life with full compliment of DNA. Should a women be allowed the choice to terminated such a pregnancy?

        If you have intercourse but no pregnancy do you honor the fallen one, the egg, the human life which died? With your definition of life I expect you are or would. Is your honoring of this human life different than the honoring you have for a human such as your parents?

        The point I am attempting to make is that the embryo is not the same as an adult human. It is clear that different humans have different opinions about the various stages of development of embryos as to their ethical status in regards to rights.

        If you are a collectivist, you believe such decisions are made by the 50% plus one. If you are a freedom lover, you would respect individual rights. Now, you claim the embryo has rights, too. Then you claim these addition rights are the privy of the majority not the parents. This is dangerous grounds to allow the collective to interfere in the rights of parents. Do you subscript to the notion that we should be a collective democracy where the morals and beliefs of the majority should always supersede the freedom of individuals?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • "What is your position on molar pregnancy? This is life with full compliment of DNA. Should a women be allowed the choice to terminated such a pregnancy?"

          The pregnancy has no viability of eveloping past a certain point, resulting in a live birth and it also medically endangers the life of the mother. Of course, in the interest of not depriving the mother of life for a life that cannot be sustained, you would perform an abortion. That is a very clear cut case.

          "If you have intercourse but no pregnancy do you honor the fallen one, the egg, the human life which died? With your definition of life I expect you are or would. Is your honoring of this human life different than the honoring you have for a human such as your parents?"

          By this logic, you're saying there is an abortion or a miscarriage every time a woman has her monthly cycle. We know this is not the case because in order for there to be life, there needs to be sperm. An egg is a single cell that has no capacity or ability to expand, multiply and take on any characteristic of life with being fertilized by a sperm.

          "The point I am attempting to make is that the embryo is not the same as an adult human. It is clear that different humans have different opinions about the various stages of development of embryos as to their ethical status in regards to rights."

          Where you are essentially saying that a newborn is not "as human" as an adult. Yet, infanticide is murder in our culture.

          "If you are a collectivist, you believe such decisions are made by the 50% plus one."

          I am not and I do not.

          "If you are a freedom lover, you would respect individual rights."

          Yes, the rights of the individual in question. The child. www.l4l.org gives a Constitutional, non-religious argument by Libertarians against abortion.

          "Then you claim these addition rights are the privy of the majority not the parents. This is dangerous grounds to allow the collective to interfere in the rights of parents."
          The parents had the right to choose to have sex (again, we're not talking about rape cases here, that is a separate argument). On your conclusion, one could make the same argument that not every person in society thinks murder is wrong, or at least that there is justifiable homocide, yet we are not allowed to kill people (except possibly when our own life is in danger, but you still have to be tried for such acts)without consequenses.

          "Do you subscript to the notion that we should be a collective democracy where the morals and beliefs of the majority should always supersede the freedom of individuals"

          I believe you have the right, as an individual, to do anything you want, as long as it does not infringe on another individual's rights. Abortion infringes upon the unborn's right to life. I understand that when life starts is still an open question to some. Since we cannot, by their standards, sufficiently prove when life DOES begin, the burden lies upon them to prove when life is not in existance. Since they cannot do that, we must err on the side of life.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          • I regards to murder, a vast majority of individuals do not think it is a good idea for people to kill each other. This vast majority does not exist against abortion. Collectivist believe a simple majority is needed to determine moral decisions for all. Freedom lovers do not.

            I do think all of us are capable of determining when rights may be given. We can do it. Is is not an uncertainty. No proof of anything is needed. Parents should have reproductive rights. We need to err on the side of freedom. We should not err on the side of a moral majority.

            If you value privacy at all you should see the profound importance of health and reproductive rights over the rights of government.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • By your logic - it would then be OK for parents to kill their newborn, should it become inconvenient. And obviously you would not oppose the horrendous practice of partial birth abortion.

            If your neighbors abuse their children, do you respect their privacy or do you protect the rights of the child by calling the police?

            The whole point here is that you cannot enforce the rights of one by infringing upon the rights of another. Whether or not someone is alive is not a moral majority decision, it is a scietific fact. Until science can prove when a child is or is not alive, then we have to err on the side of the right to life and freedom from agression for the unborn child.

            Criteria for life:
            Does it react to it’s environment?
            Does the object adapt to its environment?
            Does the object reproduce?
            Does the object grow?
            Does the object obtain and use energy?
            Is the object made of cells?

            If 15 years down the road, science can prove life starts at conception (which, by the defined criteria for life, it does), then we will have violated the rights of countless unborn children. If science somehow proves an embryo is not alive, then what harm has been done accept maybe a few mothers gave birth and actually decided to love their child?

            Anyway, it's not about all the mooshy stuff, as you can see, an embryo meets the criteria for life as defined by science. So what we are really arguing, is when personhood starts. Again, no clear answer, but I would say, once it is alive and is (obviously) a human being then we must protect it's right to life. But there are those that argue that embryos are lower forms of humans not to be granted equal rights. I say to this, when are children granted the same liberties as any other human being? That is a very slippery slope, because, again, by the same argument you could say that infanticide should be the parents' decision, and we all know (or at least I hope we do) that is wrong.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          • Because of the advances in fertility science and stem cell research, doctors and scientists have proven that life begins at fertilization. They have known for a while that a fertilized egg adapts, reproduces, grows, uses energy, and is made of cells, but it is a fairly recent discovery that a fertilized egg reacts to outside stimulus. As they have been able to study fertilized embryos in a petrie dish, they have proven that those embryos will move away from a stylus if you try to prod it, in a way similar to an amoeba.

            There's no need to go on the defensive if you're pro-choice; I'm just telling you what scientists and fertility specialists have proven. Not all fertility scientists are pro-life.

            Whether an embryo is entitled to human rights or not is one thing, but you can't rewrite scientific fact. Pro-choice and pro-life scientists agree that an embryo meets the scientific definition of life.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Dear Amanda, you are right on the money my friend.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. X-Ron - "I cannot agree with Texas voting in creationism and voting out evolution and I see this as an an even greater crime against the unborn than abortion; being deprived of exposure to science and modern wisdom"

    Wow... Being deprived of life is better than being deprived of a theory on origins?

    I honestly dont care to much if someone believes Evolution or creation but your statement just blew my mind and not in a good way. Dramatic license and all...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Can't we all just...get along? :)

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. If the voters in a certain state believe that a fetus is living person, and therefore is entitled to certain rights (like not being cut into pieces) then IT IS up to the government (according to RP on the state's level) to defend that person's rights... Im pro-life, b/c I believe that its better to be inconvenienced (however difficult it may be) for nine months than to kill a human being (there are orphanages and plenty of families who would love to have a healthy child). If a woman gave birth to a baby and a man walked into the room and shot the baby before the umbilical chord was cut, that man would be a murderer. Therefore life must be determined by location right? In, its expendable... out, its a human. The only time i think a woman should "choose" whether or not to let her child live or die, is when there are considerable chances that the woman could die in pregnancy... In essence, i believe that ron paul takes a stance that we should embrace... hes seen first hand... and he completely disagrees... but hes still willing to let voters choose what they believe while keeping the FEDERAL government out of it... Hes one of the LEAST hypocritical politicians you'll ever encounter...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Ron Paul talks about the draft being unconstitutional because it imposes on a person's civil rights by forcing them to fight even if they don't want to. The same thing would be done if either federal OR state law made abortion illegal. THe government has no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do to her body. I personally am again abortion, but I would never legally try to impose my views upon someone else. I think Dr. Paul is being very hypocritical on this issue, since he talks so much about being truly free and that goverment should not interfer in our lives.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • If you were a Texas voter, I suppose you could call him hypocritical. As one from Connecticut, I really can't do that.

      When you have principles, you have to stand up for things, ideas, and people who are not popular, and often many you don't personally agree with. It is not an easy position to take.

      Ron Paul's policy on abortion is based on the principle of actually reading the Constitution. Incidentally, it is also one that has the ability to upset just about everyone. Yet he doesn't back down.

      I can't help but love him for that :)

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • John, while I respect what you are saying, I must take issue with it.
        Firstly your presumption that your experiences entitle you to some extra depth regarding human life are self agrandizing and offensive. I have lived a life, probably much like yours and my opinions have been formed by the same rational thought I trust yours have.
        Secondly, just like the framers of the Constitution, I admit I am falable, and like most people there are mistakes I've made and regrets I have, again probably much like yourself. Who is to decide how and how long we pay for our transgressions? Is it based on how many we hurt? I am sure there are many women who are greatful for the day they were able to choose to end a pregnancy rather than destroy their own life in addition to that of the fetus.
        While we can devolve into splitting hairs, suffice it to say that Ron Paul using a late term abortion for the crux of his sentiment does little to address the "morality" of the larger issue; the far more common, rational decision by a women to terminate an unwanted pregnancy through early term abortion. I would wager in this instance, even someone as astute as yourself would have a hard time differentiating between a fertilized egg and carrot cell. I take no issue with the destruction of an amorphous carrot cell.
        Lastly your banging of the Constititution drum is getting a little old in that you keep pointing to it's wisdom regarding human rights when they have consistently been established only after the fact. It is a great document because it admits there is room and necessity for evolution and improvement. Slavery and women's rights were original failures of the constitution and needed to be fixed by the more enlightened who came later. If left to the states, as you insist, others might have needed to wait until the 1960's to marry interracially and who know's what might be going on in Texas? Is this issue much different than the right to marry the person of one's choosing? The fact that things can be revised, through sometimes innordinately huge efforts by those being wronged, does not speak to the perfection in their original design. Nor will it make those who oppose it now any more right because it isn't in the Constitution.
        And if you do choose to stick to the letter of the law, then by all means, let's allow the children to have all the rights of citizenship, all they need do according to the constitution is to be born.
        I want Ron Paul to take a stand for rational acceptance of human rights based on enlightened thought, not the passing off of the tough decisions to the states because he doesn't want to offend religious sensibilities. That is what got him to the libertarian party to begin with. All I want is follow through. With all the pain and suffering that exists, isn't it ironic that some people's conservative core comes out in defending the unborn as opposed to the living?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • With my eyes blindfolded, I can't diffrentiate between my practice target and you. Is it okay if I shoot you? Your logic is flawed...

          P.S. No offence intended, I don't really want to shoot you, I love all people. But as Ron Paul has said, you can't talk about protecting individual liberty without protecting the right of the unborn. Self-governance is not autonomy.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  18. After watching the financial future of this country look more gloomy with each passing day I am more convinced than ever that you should have been elected as our next President. Although I disagree with your foreign policy your economic views may be the only hope we have. Obviously throwing more money at the problem is not helping (big surprise). I pray that President-elect Obama reaches out to you before it is too late. Could you please reach out to him and offer your services? Our children and grandchildren will owe their futures to you.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. You are indeed taking this out of context. Unfortunately for Ron Paul’s cause, your mistake is one that is made by many people. It is an honest one, and seeing as how you’ve expressed a hope that you are misinformed, I would like to take the time to educate you.

    Ron Paul is strongly pro-life. There is no denying that. As someone who is also strongly pro-life, I cannot believe that his opinion on this will ever change. However, it is vitally important to look at his viewpoint from a larger perspective than simply his personal convictions.

    The simplest way to sum it up is that Ron Paul supports a State’s right to choose. He does not believe the Constitution gives the federal government any authority to decree one way or another on the issue. He believes that the Tenth Amendment clearly states this. In other words, he believes that voters in Connecticut have no right to tell voters in Texas whether or not they can outlaw abortion, and vice versa.

    Even so, there is the strong possibility that you personally believe that a women’s right to choose is a fundamental human right that should be retained by all women regardless of where they live. You are absolutely free to believe that and to try and convince others to believe that. Indeed, there is a constitutional process for acquiring your interpretation of justice. I am talking, of course, about the amendment process. The Constitution can, and should, at times, be altered. The point, however, is that this should be done via the proper, prescribed, amendment process and not by some judge in an imperial city ruling on a whim and interpreting the Constitution as loosely he/she sees fit.

    When you look at Roe v. Wade from that point of view, you find that it is very flimsy indeed. The Fourth Amendment was stretched quite a bit to justify that ruling. Appointing judges who use current public opinion to interpret the Constitution is just as dangerous as appointing judges who use the Bible to interpret it.

    As an aside, and speaking entirely for myself, you could indeed convince me to support a constitutional amendment that forbade federal, state, and local governments from outlawing what I do to my own body so long as it does not harm another person. But of course it is that last part of the sentence that I, being pro-life, would take issue with.

    Fair enough?

    My Regards,

    John P. Petroski

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • John I respect your right to never have an abortion. I'll take it as a given that with regards to incest, spina bifita, mother's health and other extenuating circumstances your feelings may not be written in stone. Please see my comments above. I still do not like the idea of passing the ability to arbitrate civil rights to any voting body, federal or state. Taking a stand has become anathema to politicians and I'm afraid this is another example of passing the buck.
      I have no desire to substitute putting up with idiots on a Federal lever for a local one.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Honestly, X Ron, the best way to put it might be that I'm "Pro-Mind-My-Own-Business." I don't care what you do with your own body so long as I don't have a personal reason to care. Once MY child is in your body, though, I very much feel like it IS my business. When it comes down to that, I am strongly pro-life.

        I'm not sure if you have ever had a child aborted. I have. Although I cannot know what pregnancy is like, women certainly have no way to know what a pro-life father goes through when his child is aborted, either.

        If that makes me an idiot, so be it.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • John,

          Firstly, let me applaud you for stating your opposing opinions without insulting X-Ron. Too many online forums result in demeaning those with differing viewpoints, and I appreciate your not subscribing to that practice.

          Secondly, I'm sorry for your loss. I've carried 3 sons to term and had 1 miscarriage, and can only imagine the desperation and helplessness you and your family experienced in having your rights stripped from you in the name of a woman's right to choose, and more tragically, the life of your son or daughter that was growing inside of its mother. I'm not saying this to make you feel bitter or hateful, so please don't go that route, but to emphasize the importance of the role of a dad in the life of a child and the decision to keep and raise that child.

          I replied to Steve's comment (11/14 @ 11:10 pm) about abortion being a human rights issue, as opposed to a woman's rights issue since 3-lives are traditionally involved--the mom, dad and baby, and it would apply here as well. All 3 need to be considered.

          Of course, in cases of rape or incest, the man has committed a criminal act, and by doing so, surrendered his rights as to whether the woman raises the baby or gives the baby up for adoption. His only say is, well, he would have no say, only jail time. But, in your case, you should absolutely have a say. With regard to the baby, no one should have the right to end the life of a baby unless the pregnancy threatens the life of the mom or both the baby and mom. I made mention of that, as well, in my response to Steve's comment. There could be rare exceptions, but that does not seem to be the circumstance in which you and I'm sure many other men have found yourselves.

          I know women who, as teens or young 20-somethings, went ahead with an elective abortion(s) and have found themselves wrestling with a lifelong struggle in overcoming the guilt and pain of their decision(s). Abortion hurts everyone.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Does anyone care or pay attention to the fact of millions or unwanted, neglected, throw-away kids who are the result of unwanted pregnancies on the planet? Surveys have shown that about half of the women who were interviewed, in several third world countries, did not want as many children as they had. (Population Institute) Most have never had the chance to obtain contraception, and typical male attitudes as well have made this situation worse.Until every woman has access to contraception, and abortion when necessary, this overpopulated planet has a dim future.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  20. Sadly, now Ron Paul may have lost me. I like his ideas for fiscal responsibility and small government, but small government means it should stay the hell out of people's lives. Make sure they're not putting toxic waste in my toothpaste and shut the lights before you leave.

    If Ron Paul doesn't like abortion, Ron Paul doesn't have to have an abortion.

    On the other hand, this could be taken entirely out of context and Ron Paul supports the right to choose but simply doesn't agree with it for himself. Fingers crossed for out of context.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • How did he lose you? He gave his personal opinion on the matter, then, ended it by saying it is a state issue and should be decided by the state.

      Smaller Federal Government leaves more up to the State. Which is the way it should be.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Andrew, that unfortunately is known as a "Cop-out" on his part. If we left it up to state's rights there's a great chance that there would be slavery in the south and as we've seen in California, no rights for homosexuals either. Tell Ron to strap on a set of balls and say that no gov't has the right to ever vote on civil rights.
        Then we can talk.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Wrong.
          What got us into this mess we call our Government is a President and many politicians pushing their personal beliefs on the rest of us.

          You said: "...but small government means it should stay the hell out of people’s lives"

          My point exactly. All he is supporting is Americans are more than capable of making their own decisions. We have the power to decide what is best for us.

          You also said "...If Ron Paul doesn’t like abortion, Ron Paul doesn’t have to have an abortion. "

          No kidding he doesn't need to have an abortion. He won't because its against his beliefs. So why would he not allow us to make OUR own decisions based on our own beliefs? Leave it up to the State, which should represent whatever the majority of that State feels on whatever matter comes up. If you don't like what your state decides, then move to another.

          I'm Pro-choice. Am I going to become an "x Ron" such as yourself? No. Because I respect him for having his own beliefs and not having to feel like he needs to push his beliefs on the rest of us.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Andrew, I respectfully disagree with you. The Liberatarian ideals which got Ron Paul noticed center around the idea of legislating civil liberties which by their nature are personal. In essence it represents to me the most highly evolved form of government. The rights of the individual stop at the end of one's fist and begin at the start of another's nose. It would do us an enormous service as a nation to have someone who is an "unconventional candidate" such as RP to stress this form of personal responsibility. This is what I mean by taking a stand and it does not increase the size of government. On the other side of the slippery slope, I cannot agree with Texas voting in creationism and voting out evolution and I see this as an an even greater crime against the unborn than abortion; being deprived of exposure to science and modern wisdom, (okay, dramatic license taken here). It's not all cut and dried and the states, ie. Alabama, Texas, Kansas, have shown they lack the ability to make these decisions maturely. I think Ron Paul comes very close but while he's got the time to continue gathering the base, standing on the platform of passing on every major decision to the states is not the only answer.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Every government and law-maker pushes his or her beliefs on the populus; that is the purpose of government. There is no law that can be proven to be necessary except on moral grounds. Why can't I steal if I need to? Why shouldn't I kill someone who is hurting me? Why shouldn't I oppress my neighbor if it will help me get ahead? Answer: because you just can't; it's not fair; it's not nice; it is immoral. Unless you believe in anarchy, you have to accept that the laws we live with are our shared code of ethics and morality. So, abortion, should be debated on moral grounds, because neither side can empirically prove whether their belief is good for people or bad for people. (And, by the way, abortion is immoral and bad for people.)

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Slavery in the South?

          Please go and read the Constitution front to back before you come back here. It will make having a civil discussion much easier.

          If Ron Paul "had the balls" to say that "No government has the right to interfere with civil rights," then Ron Paul would be a very brave man who completely turned his back on his principle of reading and abiding by the Constitution.

          If you want him to say that, you go get an amendment passed. Then he'll say that.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Suggesting Ron Paul strap on a set of balls is quite an uninformed statement.

          Just because Ron Paul strongly denounces abortion does not mean he should immediately jump on the federal prohibition bandwagon. If the Constitution doesn't allow it, then the states take it and rule on it.

          I think it takes balls to refrain from the popular leaning towards inappropriate federal government.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • I still respectfully disagree. I am Jewish and by shear numbers we will always be a minority. Right now for the homosexuals in CA, their minority status is being borne out in the worst way. As we've seen, the larger voting block, especially at the state level, does not necessarily side with upholding the civil liberties I still think Ron Paul wants upheld. I've known that might has not made right for a long time. While enlightenment comes slowly, some states must be brought in the modern age even if they come kicking and screaming.
            My point is that in addition to his fiscal responsibility which I applaud, there must be a commitment to social change as well and I think sometimes this need to come from the top down.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • So, you agree that when the States vote to allow practices that violate another human life, the federal government should ban that practice, as they rightly did with slavery.

          They curtailed slaveowners' civil liberty to maintain their plantation lifestyle through slavery in order to uphold the higher law of equal respect for human life in all forms. Therefore, the federal government should curtail women's civil liberty to maintain their lifestyle through abortion in order to uphold the higher law of equal respect for human life in all forms. (They can still be free to use birth control!)

          A one-week old embryo is scientifically classifed as homo sapien, and exhibits all of the properties necessary to be scientifically defined as a living organism. Just because it doesn't look, talk, or act the way we think a life should, doesn't mean it's not living. The same logic that slaveowners used to justify slavery is being used to justify abortion: "They're not really, completely human." Slavery and abortion are wrong. We should never defend the liberty of an individual to do harm to another life.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • The government want to take away civil rights: IE: give our tax dollars to UN population control to FORCE MURDER OF BABIES (lets call it what it is, go check out the horror of the bodies of the 6 through 9 month old babies in a mommy's womb , were we all once lived. also forced sterilization and one child, how can the government do that. communism is alive.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion because you cannot support policies that allow for one human being to kill another living human being, even if that is their own child and even if that child is not yet a functioning member of society. Abortion is a human rights issue, not a woman's rights issue.

      Ron Paul has seen abortion happen. He's seen a baby cut out of its mother and placed in a bucket in the corner of a room and left to die as it struggled to breath.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • I completely agree with you that abortion, as it is implemented today, is a human rights issue, more specifically a right to life issue, as opposed to a woman's rights issue.

        When a woman is pregnant (I've carried 3 sons to term, and had 1 miscarriage), traditionally 3 lives are involved--hers, his and the baby's. The argument about a woman's right to choose during a pregnancy fails to recognize the rights of the others involved. A woman has a right to choose abstinence or contraception. Should she become pregnant, she and the involved father should decide whether to keep the baby or to give the baby up for adoption (I say involved, because men that choose not to concern themselves with the well-being of the woman they impregnated, or the baby on the way do not care one way or the other, and therefore, leave it up to the woman's sole discretion to make the decision to raise the baby or give the baby up for adoption). Terminating a life that is not your own, although that life is growing inside of you, is a choice which, ethically, should only be made if the pregnancy would result in the death of the mother or both the mom and baby (i.e.-ectopic pregnancy: pregnancy where the egg lodges itself in the fallopian tube, rather than the uterus, and other similar life-threatening circumstances.)

        We have grown so calloused as a society. Abortion is no longer used as a life-saving mechanism for women undergoing life-threatening pregnancies, but as a procedure of convenience. We need to take responsibility for our actions. We all understand how it works--if a man and woman have sex, the woman could get pregnant. Some may take precautions. If precautions fail, we make reasonable choices--love the baby or provide a loving home for the baby through adoption. Terminating the baby's life when, again, the life of the mother or both mom and baby would not end in death, is rarely a choice that should be made without resulting criminal consequences.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • Concerned citizen, you hit it right on the head...this is NOT a women's rights issue but a HUMAN rights issue and a right of a person who can not defend themselves. There is no issue with when life begins...it's at conception, by the time a woman finds out she is pregnant (at four weeks post-conception) the baby has a two chamber heart...there is no other issue.

          With our aging population and not enough people paying into the medicare and social security system (hence the 50 mil+ babies who were killed) we are heading toward another convenience in the near future...let the old folks die (aka euthanasia).

          If you (all of you) don't think that the abortion issue is key...think again. It is at the core of every economic, educational and social issue we have in this country and has allowed a callus society to develop. We have to import people to make up for the killed babies that would have taken the jobs...thereby creating another issue of Immigration, yes we are creating more problems...and looking to the government to solve them. I could go on and on.

          We live in a society of cliches such as: "Guilt Free Living", "Worry Free Living", "What's most convenient" and most of all it's all about "ME" mentality. Need I say more?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • In the early stages of development, the fetus is not a person, but a group of cells that would be a potential human being, if left to continue. Most would agree that it is not a person until a brain develops, and that is at a later stage of pregnancy (some say around 3 months). Many believe (as I do) that a soul enters into the fetus at some point late in the pregnancy, and until that happens, there is no really complete human. I think most agree that early abortion is the best choice, and leaving it to past 4 months is not a good choice unless medically necessary. Still, it MUST be left up to the woman to decide,according to her own beliefs, and her own situation.
            Recently a l3 year old girl was beaten and raped by a drunk. Should she have had to bear his child? The lack of abortion facilities made it difficult for her, but she finally ended the pregnancy at 7 months. The callous attitude of those who are determined to close all abortion facilities because of their one-sided dogma, has the potential for causing a lot of pain to women and girls in desperate need for that medical procedure.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Wouldn't it be "human" if PETA would spend their time and resources on the atrocities we see in the dismemberment and torture of un-born babies, as they do for their agenda on animals?

            From the peta website:

            "In the slaughterhouses of McDonald's U.S. chicken suppliers, birds are dumped out of their transport crates and hung upside-down in metal shackles, which can result in broken bones, extreme bruising, and hemorrhaging. Workers have the opportunity to abuse live birds, and birds have their throats cut while they are still conscious. Many birds are immersed in tanks of scalding-hot water while they are still alive and able to feel pain."

            http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:9obC6xhbbsgJ:www.mccruelty.com/why.aspx+peta+mcdonalds&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

            They have graphic pictures up showing the "torture, murder of chickens"

            What pro abortionist won't admit to and have put on blinders to, is these unborn humans, babies feel every bit of their "torture!" EVERY, SINGLE POKE, RIP, SLICE, BURN, TORTURE!

            But you will sure as hell see pro abortionist siding with peta before they would ever defend, an unborn human!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • I like what you say.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • First and formost, at 18 days in utero a fetus' heart is beating. Abortionists do not even offer an abortion until 6 weeks into the pregnancy. I have known aquaintences in my life who have used abortions as a form of birth control. For all we know any of those children could have been our salvation to this godforsaken country but we wouldn't know because that child never had the chance to live. We need to eliminate the stigma of adoption as well. There are so many people who can't have children, and some females choose to kill their children instead of giving them to a family because they are only worried about stigmas. Stigmas are ruining this country!!!! Adoption is better than abortion. Marijuana is natural and Tobacco is killing millions. Wake up people so we can fix this crumbling nation.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • You are right on the money. This is a society all about convenience and 'self'. The slippery slope is already here as witnessed by the fact that we now have assisted suicide legalized in some states. It is conceiveable at this point to imagine a world in which it is 'inconvenient' to deal with an elderly person, a downs syndrome person, a disfigured soldier, or as one Columbia University professor has suggested, an out-of-control 2 year old who "isn't fully human yet" and advocates allowing the killing of that child as it becomes inconvenient or a problem. According to RonX in his comments below, everything boils down to avoiding disease, illness, stress, and general unpleasantness rather than moral basis for judging our actions right or wrong. It's really only a matter of 'science' and 'convenience', isn't it...Life has no real meaning or value in a world that is so concieved.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • you know,? I fear that the fact that Ron Paul is pro life will mean that he can't get elected. I would say that politically I am pro choice. personally I am pro life. there are so many sad stories about abused children. If abortion is to become legal then there needs to be laws that will only good parents have children there are sooooo many cases of neglect going on, One might argue that the majority of children in this country are neglected to one degree or another. Many younger people these days are clueless as to what it takes to raise a child. Talk about a slippery slope. adoption is the way to go in many if not most cases of teenage pregnancy. and then you have the catholic church that will not support birth control. I guess in other-words that we can't let that issue destroy RPs' presidential bid. and then there are the people who get abortions most would not make good parents. there are not enough adoptive parents to adopt all those children. Many will be raised on welfare and many will end up in jail. It takes a village. who will step up? this is something that should be addressed. I have to say that I am pro choice in support of the bill of rights It is unconstitutional for one person to dictate to another. Its A very complex issue. In my opinion the biggest problem in the world today is overpopulation, you can attribute most of the other problems to it. Abortion kills we realy need to think long and hard about this problem Ultimatly we need to practice better birth control,(manditory???) OH CRAP It's late gotta go

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • You are absolutely right on, that overpopulation worldwide is the source of and at the root of almost all the world's problems, which we all know but won't list here, as the list would be too long. Unless we cut back on numbers of births, we will see even more wars, hunger, poverty, deaths, diseases, water shortages, neglect and abuse of children, refugees, and the list goes on and on. The quality of life for everyone on earth is at stake here. I think this to be far more important than worrying whether ALL fertilized eggs and embryos make it to birth.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • I am pro-choice, and therefore will not vote for someone who has a strongly held pro-life opinion, regardless of if he or she says it is merely a personal opinion. For the anti-abortionists there is no such thing as a "personal opinion" on this issue. They believe that abortion is murder, the end, and therefore will campaign, protest, and murder providers to fight for their "cause". State decision is not reliable, due to the fact that during a governor or senator's campaign the abortion issue may never come up, and a candidate who on all other issues may be progressive enough to win votes may also be vehemently anti-abortion and thus cast a vote that severly limits the reproductive right of women. I stand for the right of a woman to have an abortion of purely naturalistic reasons. Many animals have the ability to miscarry a fetus if they feel that carrying that fetus to term should cause harm to themselves. For instance, cows will often electively miscarry their offspring if the food supply runs short or there is severe upheavals in it's environment. The cow realizes that any calf born in those circumstances would die and perhaps bring death to the cow as well due to the requirements of rearing said calf.
          For me it is the quality of life that matters, not the quantity. I am pro-abortion for a variety of reasons beyond the tired "rape" and "incest" hypotheticals, I also believe a woman should have the right to abort should genetic testing show that the child will be deformed, mentally handicapped or in any other way unfit to live a long and fulfilling life. Not only would it be cruel to subject this child to a life of disability and struggle, but it is also poses an undue financial, emotional and psychological strain upon the family who would have to dedicate their lives to taking care of a broken and useless human being.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Matthew Blackmon

            The question the arises though is what value should we place to defend life? Are we only allowed to defend life that is desireable? In that case, why should we keep the statue of liberty which says:

            "Give me your tired, your poor
            Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.
            The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
            Send these, the homeless, tempest – lost to me.
            I lift my lamp beside the golden door. "

            Isn't this our symbol of hope in liberty that all people who live in America have our blessings to do just that. Why should quality of life matter really, since, quality of life is the most entirely subjective thing a human can have. Should we shoot down those rich celebrities who are so tired of their life that they resort to drugs and alcohol to desensitize themselves to the quality of their life? I believe you would think it would be appalling to do so, even though that is part of the reasoning you cite for our youngest, dearest ones.

            Life is the highest form of liberty that can be granted to an individual. Without a guarantee for life, you can never guarantee liberties at any stage of life. Once life becomes "desirables" versus the "undesirables" we clearly see that whoever is in power is the aggressor.

            I do not label myself pro-life or pro-choice, I label myself with no other label than the most basic human love you can offer anyone, and that is to treat human life as an end in itself, rather than merely a means to an end.

            Life is not a tool to happiness or fulfillment. Rather each individual life is a testament to our ability to be civilized. Abortions are not civilized just as slaughtering our elderly is not civilized, because it fails to respect the highest form of liberty.

            A doctor's role should always be to support human life to live, never to die. Abortions go directly against the fundamental nature of doctoring.

            I challenge you bjorn to give me an answer that is nobler than loving all life--what is more civilized than that, what else is closer to the desire of every human heart. I do not want to see our doctors become the arbiters of death, nor do I want to see our society suffer itself in its own conscience. I do not know of many people who react positively to see the outcomes of an abortion, which is why often times all of that is totally hidden away. I've witnessed an abortion through ultrasound, and I can tell you, that regardless of the genetic issues and age of the child, it gives a silent cry of pain as the procedure goes.

            Have you witnessed an abortion? If you haven't, then I can understand why your "intellectual argument" seems to be so desirable to you, but unless you can even empathize with the tiniest members of society, then I can say you have a very shallow version of liberty that is only based on the security of happiness of only a select few.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • LOL @ "they will...murder for their cause." What a ridiculous and extreme statement to make, to make a sweeping generalization like that because an abortionist gets murdered once every 10 years. From a pro-lifers perspective, pro-choice advocates are extreme because they will advocate a female's right to murder her unborn child simply because it's not convenient to continue a pregnancy.

            Abortion is a self-centered choice in most situations because most abortions occur because people are irresponsible in their birth control responsibilities. Even such, I still think first trimester abortions ought to be legal because personhood as defined is an opinion largely based on religious beliefs.

            And that's really too bad about not voting for a candidate simply because s/he is pro-life. We have far, far larger problems than social issues like abortion, such as war, globalism and government-sponsored terror and our government's unwillingness to investigate such corruption. That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If a candidate is sound on all issues with me besides a social issue like abortion (most of which could be prevented if people would use their birth control as instructed), I think I could overlook that (at least for now) considering how screwed up this world has grown. I would easily vote for an abortion-any time for any reason
            candidate like Obama if he was otherwise a decent human being.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Bjorn: you are a broken and useless excuse for a human. I don't even have the empathy to pity you. You referenced "cows", well, you can put yourself in the bovine category.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Bjorn, you are right on. About one in five pregnancies are aborted naturally, (miscarriages). I truly believe that the fetus becomes a 'person' in the later stages of pregnancy, when, as some eastern religions avow, the soul enters the fetus when it is determined that the pregnancy will be completed. This may sound wierd but I, like many ohers, believe this to be the case. No women or girl should be forced to bear an unwanted child. The world is crammed full of rejected, neglected, undernourished children, and the environment will be further damaged by adding millions more.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • You are right on. No law should force a girl or woman to bear an unwanted child. There are far too many of them in the world today. Sadly, many die from hunger, malnutrition or starvation, or live lives crippled by abuse, neglect and wars. Perhaps having unwanted, uncared-for children should be declared a form of child abuse.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Did you know that there are babies that survive abortion? Those babies usually suffer from terrible birth defects because of it. I guess that would cause financial hardship, emotional and psychological strain upon a family too. There is a case in Fl just recently where an abortion doctor was sued by a family. The baby girl survived and is now 10 years old. She has cerebral palsy, no function on the left side of her body, strokes and brain damage, physical, emotional and cognitive delays, lung damage, chronic lung disease and seizure disorders.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Idiot Wind I couldn't have said it any better... Amen.
          @ Bjorn I will be praying for u... G-d help u.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • The abortion issue can be boiled down to this:

      The pro-choice movement only serves to free people from the consequences of their own actions. A woman has a choice. She can choose to have sex or not to have sex. She has the choice to use birth control. But she also knows that if she chooses to have sex, on possible consequence of that action is that she may conceive a child. The abortion merely provides the woman the means to avoid being inconvenienced. Let me explain, if a woman who did not intend to become pregnant, finds herself to be pregnant, she has two choices that do not involve abortion. First, she can keep the baby, as inconvenient as it may be. Or second, she can carry the baby to term and give the baby up for adoption. There are plenty of people in this country on waiting lists to adopt newborn babies, so this is definitely a viable choice. The abortion choice only serves to keep the mother from having to carry a baby for nine months, which I am sure is very inconvenient. But, I am not aware of a constitutional right to not be inconvenienced. This issue is a symtom of a greater problem in our society. We seem to want to absolve people of the consequences of their own choices. We have a lot of freedom in this country, of which everyone is aware, but the less popular subject of conversation is the responsibilities that are unalterably tied to those freedoms. You cannot have the freedoms without the responsibilities. When you try, you invariably infringe on the rights of others.

      Another thing that I can't understand from the pro-choicers is the claim that a woman is free to do what she wants with her body. The suggestion is that the fetus is part of her body. I find a slight problem with this idea. Scientifically, are we not taught in high school biology that every cell in a person's body has the same DNA? The fetus does not have the same DNA as the mother, so how could the fetus be a part of the mother's body?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • DNA? Hmmmm. Excellent point! And, as well, could be argued scientifically, since, sadly, morals seem to take a back seat to "almighty" science. Scientific research, or any such endeavor, should be ethically governed, not be the governing authority.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Now that’s progressive thinking. I can say as a scientist, that I have yet to meet a fellow scientist who is governed by unethical beliefs. But maybe that’s because I’ve only worked in (as previously commented) the backwards state of Texas.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • A human beings health and ability to adapt depends on the mother's level of stress when the child is pregnate. Thats why most kids who are adopted have serious problems. Unwanted child birth can lead to mental illnesses. That is determined by quantum physics, the grandaddy of science.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Only 5% of our population should have to face diseases. Stress prevents the growth of cells in our body. We start to deteriate at a mircoscopic level from stress. The more we stress, the more acceptable we become to disease. So when a mother stresses about an unwanted child and prevents that baby to become mentaly stable, it is an act of abomination.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Why are you so quick to give in to despair and fatalism? We can counsel women and teach them to learn to want their babies, and to love their babies. That way there is no love or life lost in the world, and the mother and child can both live fulfilled lives. Why are we so easily defeated today? When we see tragedy in the world, we are eager to trade it in for what we delude ourselves is a "lesser" tragedy. Your arguments have already conceded that there is no hope in the world for anyone to be happy. That is very sad, and also completely untrue. There is hope in the world.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • I will let Sean's ridiculous comments speak for themselves.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • What do you know about quantum mechanics jonathan??

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • I know what quantum mechanics is, and I know what it is not. I know it has nothing to do with the psychological health of a child. If you want to talk about wave particle duality or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, I imagine there are forums that would be more appropriate. You can't just throw out references to complex concepts in theoretical physics to explain a psychological condition and not explain the connection thoroughly. When you do, it gives the appearance that you are merely making these references to add weight to your poorly thought out conclusions. You can't use quantum physics to prove that all adopted babies will have psychological issues.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Whenever you stress or fear, the pituitary gland makes hormones squeeze the blood from your head and viscera sending it to the bones and muscles of your arms and legs stunting growth. This is why people can't think when they fear and why the millitary uses fear tactics in training. So soldiers can think clearer..

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Quantum mechanics proves that cells react to perception and not DNA. All diseases start out as bacteria that is already in our body. When we stress it stunts our growth giving the bacteria more control to take over.. Is that thorough enough?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • This is why energy healing is more effective than conventional medicine and has become the backbone to all religions.(praying, meditating, etc.) This is now being used in the medical field, using frequency waves that match the host to destroy it like a tong destroying a wine glass. It is a potential cure for cancer.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • While these bodily reactions are true, stress does weaken the immune system, there are some problems with your analysis. First, quantum physics is not related to any of this. Second,you are basically saying that death is superior to being in any stressful situation. So adopted children will have psychological problems that are unavoidable due to the stress of being adopted, so really it is merciful to abort them? Is that what you are really saying? And all this is based on your knowledge of quantum physics and how you claim it somehow relates to biology? Wow. That is such a convoluted and poorly constructed argument that I am actually amazed.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • First, quantum physics proves that cells are controlled by perception and not genes, so DNA doesn't predetermine our life. That shows us that our thoughts control our health. I can break down the gene structure and functions if you would like. That was the whole point of this discussion so I think it does relate. Second, your body reproduces trillions of cells a day. The more you stress the less it reproduces the more your body deteriates. This is why people age when they stress. They stress so much that they lose cells making bacteria easier to form into disease. Third, I never said that I was for or against abortion.. I do think letting a child become a high risk to disease and slow painful death is not moral.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • "Some scientists now believe that the effect of the life in the womb on emotional and physical health may be greater than that of the genes we inherit. The conditions in the uterus, ranging from mother's hormones to the nutrients supplied through the placenta, may significantly determine how a baby's liver, heart, kidneys, brain and mind will function during the adulthood." - Vijai P. Sharma, Ph.D

            "The babies of these mothers are exposed to a variety of stress hormones, toxins and malnutrition inside the womb. Some of these babies will continue to live in the same or often worse noxious environment." - Vijai P. Sharma, Ph.D

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • "How women deal with stress during pregnancy and after giving birth is strongly associated with fetal and infant development, according to data presented at APA's 1999 Annual Convention, Aug. 19 - 24 in Boston." -Beth Azar

            "In particular, stress and anxiety during pregnancy is associated with low birth weight and early delivery, said Christine Dunkel-Schetter, PhD, of the University of California-Los Angeles." -Beth Azar

            "One main finding has been that women under high stress during pregnancy are as much as four times more likely to deliver their babies prematurely than women who experience little stress." -Beth Azar

            "Premature infants are at greater risk for short and long term complications, including disabilities and impediments in growth and mental development." - Wiki

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • You are presenting new age religous beliefs as science. This has nothing to do with quantum physics. The point is you can't see the future of these babies, so you don't know how their lives will go. You can't assume they will have a bad life. Should we stop educating people because studying and taking tests is stressful? Stress is a part of life that can never be removed, and if it were, we would have to give up the things that make life worth living.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Who do you think came up with the idea of meditation and prayer? Early scientists known as philosophers. Here are some quotes that explain how religious beliefs have to do with quantum physics... It takes years of stress to harm someone, so don't let all this stress you out too much. Although you can be scared to death from this very reason... Anyways, the point is, we have a higher rate of mental illnesses bc of unwanted stressful births and if we abolish abortion, than we would have a much higher percentage of diseased and mentally challanged people.

            "Quantum Physics and Energy Healing-
            A simplified and functional description of quantum physics reveals that everything is made of energy and all apparent and observable realities are simply created by thoughts that are “molding and holding” that energy in place. In quantum physics, all of the infinite possibilities and probabilities exist within our reach and it is the observer that creates the reality they see. Like an artist painting on canvas, we choose our colors and images and “paint” the life in front of us with our thoughts and beliefs." - Lisa Lewis

            "We all have storage centers in our bodies that store Energy and Energy patterns. They are called Chakras. We can have Energy Patterns stored from events that happened yesterday as well as from many years ago. Some of these patterns will be happy memories and some of them will be unpleasant and painful memories of something that happened to us. Sometimes we stash them away deep into some recess in our Chakras and in our Auras (the Energy field around us), and try to forget about them, but they don’t really go away. Dis-ease is a manifestation of unbalanced Energy. Healing, then is a way of balancing Energy.- Phylameana lila Desy

            "Chakras are an ancient Hindu concept, from a Sanskrit word used to describe seven centers of energy -- or more accurately, focus -- in the human body" - J.M. Berger

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • That is an unproven religous belief, not science. And again it merely uses quantum physics as a buzz word to lend credibility to it. There is no science involved. Also, you are saying that if we outlawed abortion we would have more people with psychological problems; therefore we should continue abortion, but there are two problems with this strategy. First, you can't prove that because you can't see the future. Second, you wouldn't advocate executing everyone living today who has mental problems would you? So your logic is, as long as you kill them before they are born, it's in society's interest, but after they are born it is wrong. You don't kill someone because you think they could grow up and have a mental illness. Especially on sucha flimsy premise.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Quantum Physics is the science of atoms and energy. Its what holds shape to matter, our planet has an electro magnetic field. A field of energy that makes everything what it is. I really could sit here and explain the science of energy , how it gives and recieves information, but you really have to study it to understand. Ex. Radiology and Telivison.. There is a science to how this contributes to energy healing and can even trace back the electromagnetic field to the big bang. So yes, scientists can prove energy healing through scientific knowldege. You've just been stuck on materialism and reductionism, the common knowledge, just like everyone else. You just don't understand... And your trying to get into an unsolved debate about whats right and wrong when I was just presenting the facts. This lil "debate" is just going to keep going in circles between what you actually know and what you actually believe is right. Maybe if you got outside your lil bubble, you would you understand what I am saying and what I have been taught. Till then, have a good day and a wonderfull Christmas.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Jonathan,you are right. If stress caused such catastrophic consequences life would be impossible past the age 7. My uncle is a rape baby, my Grandmother was stressed beyond belief...he is a perfectly normal individual; free of mental illness and any other debilitating conditions........ did quantum physics miss him or something?
            Sean, what are you smoking? Because you clearly don't live in the world everyone else does.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • Producing children in the circumstances where they are likely to suffer neglect, abuse, rejection and lack of sufficient food and education, is a form of child abuse!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6568107389365915765

        This is a link to a cloning scientist who deconstructs cells. Check it out...
        I actually got this at the Rally for the Republic in Minneapolis and then read his book. I guess I do live in a world beyond common knowledge.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • This guy is a complete quack who knows nothing about physics. Might as well be selling snake oil.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Your stupid. This man clones cells for a living. Your the one selling snake oil just to make ends meet.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • "Dr. Bruce Lipton is an internationally recognized authority in bridging science and spirit. He has been a guest speaker on dozens of TV and radio shows, as well as keynote presenter for national conferences.

            Dr. Lipton began his scientific career as a cell biologist. He received his Ph.D. Degree from the University of Virginia at Charlottesville before joining the Department of Anatomy at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Medicine in 1973. Dr. Lipton’s research on muscular dystrophy, studies employing cloned human stem cells, focused upon the molecular mechanisms controlling cell behavior. An experimental tissue transplantation technique developed by Dr. Lipton and colleague Dr. Ed Schultz and published in the journal Science was subsequently employed as a novel form of human genetic engineering.

            In 1982, Dr. Lipton began examining the principles of quantum physics and how they might be integrated into his understanding of the cell’s information processing systems. He produced breakthrough studies on the cell membrane, which revealed that this outer layer of the cell was an organic homologue of a computer chip, the cell’s equivalent of a brain. His research at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, between 1987 and 1992, revealed that the environment, operating though the membrane, controlled the behavior and physiology of the cell, turning genes on and off. His discoveries, which ran counter to the established scientific view that life is controlled by the genes, presaged one of today’s most important fields of study, the science of epigenetics. Two major scientific publications derived from these studies defined the molecular pathways connecting the mind and body. Many subsequent papers by other researchers have since validated his concepts and ideas."

            ACADEMIC POSITIONS AND FELLOWSHIPS:
            1966 National Science Foundation Traineeship, Mt. Lake Biological Station, Univ. of VA.

            1968-1971 National Institutes of Health Pre-doctoral Traineeship, University of Virginia,
            Charlottesville, VA.

            1968 Biological Stain Commission Fellow, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.

            1972-1973 Department of Health, Education and Welfare Post-doctoral Trainee, Department of
            Zoology, University of Texas, Austin, TX. Mentor: Dr. Antone G. Jacobson.

            1973-1979 Assistant Professor of Anatomy, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine,
            Madison, WI.

            1979-1982 Associate Professor of Anatomy, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine,
            Madison, WI.

            1983-1986 Professor of Anatomy, St. George's University School of Medicine, University Centre, Grenada (West Indies).

            1987-1988 Senior Research Associate, American Health Assistance Foundation Grant (awarded to Dr. Theodore Hollis), Department of Biology, Penn State University, University Park, PA.

            1988-1992 Stanford Scholar, Cutaneous Biology Program, Departments of Dermatology and Pathology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA.

            1991-1992 Visiting Professor of Anatomy, St. George's University School of Medicine, University Centre, Grenada. Histology, Cell Biology, and Embryology

            1991-1993 Director, Inst. for Cellular Communication, Univ. of the Trees, Boulder Creek, CA.

            1993 Visiting Professor of Anatomy, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR. Histology, Cell Biology and Embryology

            1994-1997 Adjunct Professor, J. F. Kennedy University, Orinda, CA

            1995-1998 Adjunct Professor, Life Chiropractic College West, San Lorenzo, CA

            1999-2005 Visiting Faculty, Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, IA

            2006-Present Visiting Fellow, New Zealand College of Chiropractic, Auckland, NZ

            NON-ACADEMIC POSITIONS:
            1979-1984 Founder and President of LASER GROUP, INC., research, development and application of laser projection technology.

            TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
            1973-1993 Histology-Cell Biology (Univ. of Wisconsin, St. Georges University, UPR, San Juan), for first year medical students and graduate students.

            1976-1979 Gross Anatomy for Nurses (University of Wisconsin), participant in team

            1991-1992 Medical Embryology (St. George's University School of Medicine)

            1987 Human Physiology-Biology 41 (Penn State University).

            1991 Physiology 472 Graduate Level Course (Penn State University)

            1994-1997 The Biology of Consciousness (an elective course, JFK Univ.)

            1995-2000 Fractal Biology (CEU program for Life Chiropractic College West)

            2001-Present Biology of Complementary Medicine (US and Canadian workshops for health professionals, sponsored by Spirit 2000)

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Nice. I'm stupid? So, Dr. Lipton has it all figured out. Genetics is worthless? Holistic medicine an meditation is the answer? That's science? What does he make of unified string theory? M-theory? Sean, keep your inane rambling to yourself. You probably fall for pyramid schemes, too.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • haha, he prob knows more about it than you do. I give him more credit than you. Believe what you want, I'm not trying to internet argue and you havn't been flexible enough to care to understand this conversation, so it's worthless. Take care, have a good Christmas.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Sean, if you are even still reading this, you keep telling people they need to be flexible to understand what you are saying. But you seem to forget that quantum physics is still merely theoretical AND you are mixing it with New Age beliefs. On top of that you are being inflexible and are rejecting decades of research and study that supports the contrary. Sure Quantum Physics may be something to be considered but it is not fact and therefore should not be treated as such, in fact it would be ethically wrong to do so.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • To a great extent I agree with you, but a large part of the debate over abortion in the last 50-75 years has come about with the heightened attention to women's rights since the late 1800s (in the United States, UK, France and Sweden in particular). Sadly, such attention to women's rights transformed even the abortion discussion into something having to do with principally women and their choices.

        Men and women alike have the choice, together, to have sex and make babies. So, when we're not discussion crises such as life-threatening pregnancies, incest, or rape, then we absolutely MUST take greater responsibilities as humans (men and women alike) for our reproduction decisions. This requires greater levels of awareness, education in schools AND at home, and an acknowledgement by religious leaders in particular that sex is indeed a part of life and that irrational passion is a part of what leads to sex and its often unplanned consequences. Human beings need to try to avoid the unplanned aspects of sexuality, but when they make mistakes they should not be shunned by parents, teachers, friends, pastors, priests, and the community. They need support, education, alternatives. The best alternative for abortion, in fact, once a suspected mistake has been made--or in the cases of rape or incest even--is a D&D or morning after pill--PRIOR to conception if at all possible. But for those who object to this alternative and who rightly see it as yet another consumer convenience in a throw-away society, then we must find ways to support those in our society who typically feel ostracized or inconvenienced by pregnancy.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • A large part of the debate over abortion in the last 50-75 years has come about with the heightened attention to women's rights since the late 1800s (in the United States, UK, France and Sweden in particular). Sadly, such attention to women's rights transformed even the abortion discussion into something having to do with principally women and their choices.

        Men and women alike have the choice, together, to have sex and make babies. So, when we're not discussion crises such as life-threatening pregnancies, incest, or rape, then we absolutely MUST take greater responsibilities as humans (men and women alike) for our reproduction decisions. This requires greater levels of awareness, education in schools AND at home, and an acknowledgement by religious leaders in particular that sex is indeed a part of life and that irrational passion is a part of what leads to sex and its often unplanned consequences. Human beings need to try to avoid the unplanned aspects of sexuality, but when they make mistakes they should not be shunned by parents, teachers, friends, pastors, priests, and the community. They need support, education, alternatives. The best alternative for abortion, in fact, once a suspected mistake has been made--or in the cases of rape or incest even--is a D&D or morning after pill--PRIOR to conception if at all possible. But for those who object to this alternative and who rightly see it as yet another consumer convenience in a throw-away society, then we must find ways to support those in our society who typically feel ostracized or inconvenienced by pregnancy.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • You're right, there are plenty of people who'd like to adopt a child. However, there are also plenty of children who are not being cared for properly by their biological parents. If it wasn't for legal abortion, that number would be even greater. This is what really happens when people don't have the abortion that they're considering, they (the kids) end up living with people that don't care about them and only keep them around to get another few thousand dollars back on their tax returns. Surely you wouldn't say it's a good idea to pluck children from their incapable biological homes and give them to the long list of families waiting to adopt, would you? It's the same thing as giving them up for adoption, just not voluntarily and further down the line, basically the same though. No, you want MORE poor people to have MORE kids that AREN'T going to be cared for properly so that WE can end up paying more taxes to support them via welfare. Abstinence obviously isn't going to happen. You have to eventually start shaking yourself away from this part-time religious fundamentalism. The generations that follow are going to end up stuck with a bunch of legislation that was drafted by fundamentalists and could possibly be completely out of touch with what they may feel and want.

        Let me ask you this, what if it was an illegal immigrant (II) wanting an abortion? Since most people equate IIs with Mexicans (which are predominantly Catholic and therefore less likely to have an abortion), and most are against the idea of them having children here, wouldn't that actually be better if they did abort some of those pregnancies that they can't care for and that are only going to be funded by your tax dollars?

        I often find that Pro-Lifers have never had to deal with the issue in their own lives, which begs the question "Why you gotta act like you know when you don't know?" Where are your champions that chose not to have an abortion, had their baby, and then put it up for adoption? I know they're out there, but they mostly live in shame and regret. How many people like that do you know? Their kids live with their adopted families and grow up to talk about their "real" mothers. I'm not saying abortion is the only choice, but it is A choice and should be available. I consider someone who chooses not to bring a life into this world if they aren't going to be cared for to be responsible. They obviously aren't going to take responsibility for it by having safe sex or abstaining. What are you going to do, make it illegal to have unsafe sex?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • I reject your premise. You are making a classic liberal argument. I must be a religous fundamentalist, because I am against abortion. You site a social problem that is not relevant. Yes bad parents exist. So you think that these children would rather have been aborted than been raised in bad families. That's insane. As far as a drain on the system, I don't believe in entitlement programs in the first place. You approach the problem as if the only movable piece is the abortion issue. Enforce immigration law, eliminate entitlements. Make people accountable for their own choices. Do I want to make unsafe sex illegal? No, but I also don't want to rescue people from the knowable consequences of their own actions. I don't have to experience every problem to understand it. I can evaluate an issue from an objective point of view. It is people who are in the situation that are making subjective judgements about the problem. You make the mistake of assuming you know what people are going to do. Some people will always make bad choices, but will there be more or less bad choices if people have to deal with the consequences of those choices? The less you expect from people, the less you get.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • For someone claiming to look at things from "an objective point of view" (which to me is a contradiction in itself), you sure do base your arguments off of your perception. I never said you were a fundamentalist, I was simply pointing out that people like you are unknowingly applying religious ideas to issues without waving bibles around. You're not saying things under the banner of Christian fundamentalism, but you're still expressing their ideals.

            The social problems I cited are indeed relevant as they stem directly from unwanted pregnancies. Of course I don't think that children would rather have been aborted. I never said anything like that.

            We agree that entitlement programs and immigration law are drastically in need of improvement, and they are all "movable pieces", but the issue we're discussing IS abortion.

            You say you want to make people accountable for their own choices, do you mean by forcing them to give birth to a child they don't want? You don't want to rescue them from the known consequences of their actions? Are you saying that we are providing abortions to people free of charge or that taxes fund abortions? How are you "rescuing" them by allowing people to choose an abortion? Some insurance companies cover them to a point, some don't. In most cases, the patient pays 100% of the cost. You don't realize that when you use language like "hold people responsible", you can make it sound like a punishment to many people. I doubt that's your intention, but think about the other situations when that phrase is used.

            When did I assume that I know what people are going to do? I know what they HAVE done, and I mentioned that.

            You read half of what I said, put a bunch of words in my mouth, didn't address most of the things I asked, ignored main points by labeling them irrelevant, and claimed to be objective but offered no facts or metrics...all about an issue that you "don't have to have experience in". Politicians do the exact same thing and that is what's wrong with this government. You can reject my premise all you want, but before you respond to it, you could put a little time into reading it at least. And then actually responding to what was said instead of all your misdirection.

            I've wasted entirely too much time on this argument, and for that I feel guilty myself.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • I wll respond to you now, point by point:

            1.) Your point: there are also plenty of children who are not being cared for properly by their biological parents. If it wasn’t for legal abortion, that number would be even greater. This is what really happens when people don’t have the abortion that they’re considering, they (the kids) end up living with people that don’t care about them and only keep them around to get another few thousand dollars back on their tax returns.

            Response: Does this happen, yes. Is this so prevalent that we should base national policy on it? I don't have stats on that, and I doubt that stats of that nature are available. We should not assume that every child adopted will have a crappy childhood. There is no guarantee that anyone, including biological parents, will be good parents. If children are being abused, we find new families for them. You would never say that when someone loses their job we should kill them so they become homeless.

            Point 2: Surely you wouldn’t say it’s a good idea to pluck children from their incapable biological homes and give them to the long list of families waiting to adopt, would you? It’s the same thing as giving them up for adoption, just not voluntarily and further down the line, basically the same though.

            Response: No, children in loving families who are not being abused should never be broken up. Adoption for unwanted children is not the same thing. You are saying these are unwanted children. If they are unwanted, why not give them to someone who does want them and can provide a loving home?

            Point 3: No, you want MORE poor people to have MORE kids that AREN’T going to be cared for properly so that WE can end up paying more taxes to support them via welfare.

            Response: I don't anyone to be poor. I do not want anyone to have children they don't want. However, I can't and don't want to tell people what to do with their genitals. What I ask is that, since veryone knows what the biological purpose of sex is and the possible biological consequences for exercising this freedom, people should take responsibility for these consequences. If you want the baby, it's a good consequence. If not, it's bad. But in reality, it is what it is. Nature doesn't discriminate. Once there is another life involved, it's no longer just the woman's choice. Her choice came earlier, when she chose to have sex. As far as welfare and immigration are concerned, you brought those into the discussion. I was explaining why I don't consider them relevant justification for abortion.

            Point 4: You say you want to make people accountable for their own choices, do you mean by forcing them to give birth to a child they don’t want? You don’t want to rescue them from the known consequences of their actions? Are you saying that we are providing abortions to people free of charge or that taxes fund abortions? How are you “rescuing” them by allowing people to choose an abortion? Some insurance companies cover them to a point, some don’t. In most cases, the patient pays 100% of the cost. You don’t realize that when you use language like “hold people responsible”, you can make it sound like a punishment to many people. I doubt that’s your intention, but think about the other situations when that phrase is used.

            Response: I am not holding anyone accountable for anything. Nature is. I don't make anyone pregnant. As far as forcing people to give birth. I am not forcing anyone to give birth either. When you are pregnant, the natural conclusion is to give birth 9 months later. Abortion is intervention to avoid the natural conclusion. I am merely saying that this intervention is not harmless, because it causes another human being to die. There is an alternative (adoption) to this intervention that does not require the parent to raise the child, but merely insure the child can get to the point where it can survive without the mother (birth). I don't see this as an undue burden, especially since the mother chose a course of action that she knew could result in pregnancy. Again, I am not punishing people, I am merely protecting a life, and I have made every argument without relying on any religous belief.

            Point 5: You read half of what I said, put a bunch of words in my mouth, didn’t address most of the things I asked, ignored main points by labeling them irrelevant, and claimed to be objective but offered no facts or metrics…all about an issue that you “don’t have to have experience in”. Politicians do the exact same thing and that is what’s wrong with this government. You can reject my premise all you want, but before you respond to it, you could put a little time into reading it at least. And then actually responding to what was said instead of all your misdirection.

            Response: I am not going to argue based on any metrics or specific circumstances. I am trying to argue these points on principle and logic. But if you want me to talk about my experience I will. My wife is 8.5 months pregnant right now with out first child, a little girl named Genevieve. Right now she is legally not a real person, but I asure you, she is very real to me. After seeing her on the sonogram, after feeling her kicking and rolling around inside my wife's belly, I don't know how I could come to any other conclusion. If something happened to her, I would be devestated, and it pains me to know that babies like her are thrown away everyday because carrying them to term would be inconvenient.

            I hope I have adequately addressed your points. If I missed any I am sorry for the ommission.

            JB

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • A sketchy Internet connection has resulted in my last reply being wiped out. We both know we could go on ad nauseum, so I'll be brief.

            I respect your point of view and your situation. I am a father myself. 3 kids, 3 miscarriages, and 1 molar pregnancy. I obviously didn't choose abortion. But I believe that having the choice is very important. My PERSONAL BELIEF is that abortion should be legal. Women shouldn't be compelled to remain pregnant, especially by the federal government. Obviously, if I believed in gov't intervention in family planning, I could go to China. But I haven't. I want to stay here, and I want everyone here to have the choice to live how they want.

            Congrats on the baby, I'm happy that you are an excited parent and that your child will be loved. Just realize that other people may not feel the same way as you. We can't have our cake and eat it, too. We can't expect the freedom to do whatever we want, except for the things we don't believe in. I don't believe that people should smoke or be obese, I'm disgusted by those things...but it's supposed to be a free country.

            Your reasoning is sound and I want to reiterate that I respect your opinion, you are entitled to it. I was just very unappreciative of your response earlier as I explained in what you have labeled as "Point 5". I hate being misquoted, when people avoid the real conversation and when they make false claims. You know you weren't being objective and your last response really clarifies that. But you don't have to be objective. You're an American, you need to be subjective and make your opinions heard, that's what we're doing here. ;)

            Again, congratulations on the baby.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • I don't see the inherent right to life of the child mentioned. On what authority does someone dispose of a human life that posed no danger to their own?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Inherent right to life of an unborn fetus you mean? Unborn defined as: not born; not brought into life. We don't issue Conception Certificates or Certificates of Viability. We issue Birth Certificates, when a life is brought into the world outside of it's mother's womb. The law contradicts itself here. You can be charged of murder for assaulting a pregnant women that results in losing the pregnancy. I understand your argument but it won't ever hold any water until it's widely accepted that life begins at conception (which I don't believe will ever happen). It's a slippery slope, gray area, it's not clear to most people, myself included.

            I actually feel sorry for Dr. Paul when it comes to this issue. He has to release an opinion that can be interpreted as against it but tolerant, which can persuade people one way or another. He has stated that he, himself, is pro-life, but that the constitution doesn't provide for abortion to be banned. That's what the main point is, upholding the constitution instead one's personal beliefs.

            I seriously doubt that we'll ever see the day when you can't get an abortion in the US, but you can still be against it. Just like people are against smoking. You can still make a personal choice to not have an abortion and even support programs for the adoption of unwanted pregnancies. Take action on a cause you support instead of just talking about it. You have that choice as an American.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • The argument that is put forth in Roe v. Wade was that the fetus was effectively part of the mother's body, an that the mother's right to privacy bars the state from outlawing abortion.

            The argument hinges upon the determination that the fetus is part of the mother's body. But, don't all of a person's cells all have the same DNA profile? A fetus does not have the same DNA profile as the mother, therefore, the fetus is not part of the mother's body. If the fetus is not part of the mother, what is it? At conception, it is a single living cell that is not part of the mother's body, therefore, it is a separate living being. Is there any way this life could be considered anything other than human? No, the fetus has human DNA and, absent outside intervention, will grow into a viable human being. So, is there any way that terminating the development of the living fetus could be considered anything but the death of the fetus? No, the only end of life is death. Then, is there any way that causing the death of a living human with intent is not murder. No, that is the definition of murder.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Maybe it's because the life of the fetus can ONLY be sustained by the mother, and that's how they rule it part of the mother's body. It's attached and unable to survive without that physical attachment to the mother. I don't know for sure. Scientific death may be defined differently than legal death. They may think you must be born before you can die. Again, I don't know how they determine it. PERSONALLY, I believe that a fetus isn't born into the world independent of it's mother, so it isn't completely alive yet. That is my PERSONAL opinion.

            It's murder to YOU. You can argue that you PERSONALLY believe it's murder until you're blue in the face, that doesn't mean that it is murder. It could be argued that living an unhealthy lifestyle by smoking and eating Ding Dongs all day is a form of suicide. I sometimes tell my students that jokingly, but I make it very clear that I'm expressing my personal opinion and using rhetoric. It doesn't mean I can accuse someone with attempted suicide because they eat a case of Twinkies.

            You stated that it is a separate living being, and I think that argument leaves the most room for disagreement. It is, in fact, attached to the mother, so some may not see it as separate. You call it living but others may not consider it alive until it's viable. You said that it WILL GROW INTO a viable human being, which is the saying that it isn't yet.

            It's difficult to play the definition game because there are several ways to define the killing of a human: murder (1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree), manslaughter (vonluntary, involuntary, constructive, criminally negligent), infanticide, suicide pact, and I may have missed some others. Most of them have varying degrees of intent associated with them, so it's not really as simple as saying that killing with intent is murder. It may be all the same to you, but again, it's not all about you.

            Following Roe v Wade, some states adopted "Fetal Homicide" laws and came up with their own answers to the viability question. I think that is the right way to go. Your state can decide. If you don't like what your state decides, you can fight it or move.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Are the cells that make up the fetus not alive? Does the fetus not have different DNA? What other part of a person's body has different DNA? I agree that a feus in the first or second trimester is not yet viable outside the womb, but does that mean that it is not a separate life. Are you aware that one of the czars working for President Obama believes that you should be able to abort a child up to two years of age, because the child is not really alive until it is fully socialized? If you are right, and there is no right or wrong on this issue, how would you argue against that idea?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • I already expressed how I feel about the separate life statement.

            No, I was not aware that a czar of Obama believes that. What is their name so that I can learn more about that.

            I would argue that idea by saying that it has a birth certificate, it's been declared to be a separate life. It isn't physically dependent on any one, specific person. It has been born into the world outside of the womb and is, therefore, alive.

            Please do hurry with the name of the Obama staff member, I want to read this for myself.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • His name is Joh Holdren and he is a follower and colleague of Peter Singer, Professor of BioEthics at Princeton.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Wouldn't you agree though that your standards are merely where you draw the line? If you take the position that there is no objective truth, you concede that his view, which is totally insane, is no less valid than your own. Which is also a slippery slope.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • I spent some time to reflect on your last comment. It is a very slippery slope. To me, an objective truth is something that can be held up against any argument. Like 2 + 2 = 4. I struggle with the idea of an objective decision. You understand or realize something objective. I feel that once something requires someone to make a decision or judgement, it is subjective.

            I heard evidence and arguments, then formed my opinion on abortion, I realize that my opinion is subjective. I personally view the idea of 2 years being completely alive as illogical, but I believe that's a gross oversimplification of his theory. I don't think that many others would support that view. It seems more to me like religion than anything else. Especially after reading a few excerpts describing some kind of doomsday scenario. Some people will buy into it, just as some buy into the bible. When people start holding those things as objective truths, they're in trouble. If someone can say "2 + 2 = 4; a spirit created the universe; and you're not alive until you're 2 years old", I'll think they're insane. There are people like that out there. They have no concept of objectivity vs subjectivity though.

            I view the fact that there is legislature in place that allows for abortion as an objective truth. I also view the fact that those laws can be changed the same way.

            So I do not concede that his point is no less valid because I find no logic in it. But then again, that is a subjective argument. Things can be subjective but still logical.

            I don't have access to a surface sample of the Sun that I can physically analyze and declare that it is made of hydrogen. I still believe it because it makes more sense to me than the idea that it is a spirit casting heat spells on us. It's more logical. I think that is a fair analogy. It's more logical to consider something alive after it's born than after it turns 2 years old.

            This has become more of an essay on what I believe is objective, which ironically, is quite subjective...

            One thing is for sure, it's thought-provoking. I'll be tossing and turning tonight over objectivity.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Josh,

          Your (and all other) arguments for abortion are not dissimilar from a plantation owner's justification to own slaves or the Nazis' persuasion to kill off "lesser" races. Fundamentally, all are examples of a privileged group de-humanizing another for sake of expedience. It's pitiful that you use your (quite apparent) intellect to construct arguments to justify your position. MLK is the most dynamic leader we've had in our nation (imho). He said, "Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expedience asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take a position because it is right?" You KNOW it is not right to murder. I refuse to believe that the crucible of your conscience follows suit with your artful argumentation..you must know that abortion kills human life.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • I think it's pitiful that you keep my attention on this subject by appealing to my vanity! I did feel rather pleased with your reply for some reason. You remind me of a slick preacher who tries to lure people to their beliefs by complimenting them.

            ANYWAY, I don't see how my support for the right to have an abortion is "not dissimilar" to the slavery and Nazi themes you mentioned. I don't have a use for a fetus like a plantation owner had for a slave, and I don't consider a fetus a lesser race nor do I want to see them killed off. I just think that this was supposed to be a free country and people should have the choice to not continue with an unwanted pregnancy!

            I must admit that I was a bit thrown-off by your use of the word "expedience"...so I looked it up. I guess you meant "self-serving" (I wish people would use simple language and save me trips to the dictionary). Well, an abortion doesn't serve me at all. While slave owners and Nazis may have benefited from from their actions of "de-humanizing" others, I don't benefit from people having abortions. If I misunderstood you on this point, please clarify.

            This is the first time I've ever heard that the use of intellect is pitiful. So you feel sorry that I use my intellect to explain my points? I've rolled that phrase through my head several times, and I still can't make sense of it so I'll leave it at that, unless you want to clarify.

            As it turns out, I'm quite disinterested in MLK. So I did not know that he said that. I have found that I formulate things in my own head well enough to not ever rely on the quotes of others. But you can quote me on this:

            I'm sure this passage from MLK has been the foundation for several college papers and political arguments in this country, but I find it incomplete. The 5th and final question should be:

            "Common sense and the will to freedom ask the question, IS THIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?!?"

            That is the position I am taking Thomas, the position that there is a constitutional right to have an abortion.

            You refuse to believe that my conscience follows suit with what I am expressing as my opinion, but you are WRONG! The fact that this issue sits so heavily in YOUR consciousness doesn't mean that it does for everyone else. There are some that feel the same way about eating meat, killing whales, cutting down the rain forest, gay marriage, or socializing health care.

            I look at this issue in an incredibly simplistic way: Someone's pregnant; they don't want to be pregnant; the constitution allows for them to terminate their pregnancy; they should have the choice to terminate their pregnancy if they want. That's it! All circumstances are irrelevant. The constitution grants them the right. That is what I believe. Now you can fight that here in America (which I believe to be futile), take action on your beliefs by supporting adoption or alternatives, or you can get out! Most likely, you'll do nothing.

            Let me tell you what I think is pitiful, someone who supposedly believes so strongly in something but does nothing about it.

            I don't think it's murder. I don't think it's a human life until it's born to the world outside of it's mother's womb. I know I'm repeating myself but I want you to understand what my opinion is.

            You have earned points, however, with your double alliteration towards the end. I don't consider my argument artful though, I intend for it to be easily understood.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Matthew Blackmon

            @Josh

            A woman's right to choose is not a right she exercises for herself, but against her "unwanted pregnancy" (which is the child growing inside her). The child is alive, that's why it grows. If it wasn't then, it would truly just be a set of tissues that belong to the mother, and that harming those tissues would indeed inflict harm upon the mother. In actuality, when you harm a fetus, the pain is all upon the fetus, not its mother, because the fetus has its own nervous system, etc. It is true that a fetus is dependent upon its mother for survival. Who wasn't? If people had to start off independent then why would we need mothers and fathers? These questions are all beside the point.

            The Constitution is designed for life, liberty, and happiness. If the pursuit of my happiness interferes with your liberty, then that is no longer a constitutionally protected right. If the pursuit of my liberty interferes with your right to life, then that is no longer a constitutionally protected right. My right to life however trumps other people's rights to liberty and happiness. People cannot for their own liberties and happiness take my life away from me to achieve their ends.

            If you have ever taken any ethics or philosophy classes, then you know that people should never be treated as means to an end. In the honest truth, that is how most unwanted pregnancies start, when men and women use each other towards an end. Out of their "pursuit of happiness" they form something they are unwilling to be responsible of, and that is a developing life.

            Some claim that abortions are necessary. Some people also claim that tyranny is necessary. Roe v. Wade made the decision it did, not because of the question of abortion, but of privacy. It took a wide view of the fourteenth amendment to get that. The first time I read the 14th amendment I thought it was a great amendment to defend the unborn. "How silly of me, my rights to privacy trumps another's right to life. I should have known better."

            Those of you who are inclined to argue this from an intellectual view should know and understand biology. We all know that an embryo given a "natural" chance, will become a fully grown human. Note that I don't say that it will become human, it already is, but rather it will become fully grown. I don't know why its so hard to see for a great majority of these intellectuals. They act like its not a person if I can't see it. But then again, they argue that's not the question.

            They either claim its tissue and not a problem at all, or they concede that its a person but its not fully alive yet, so we can extinguish it because we're not really killing it because its not alive. And further they argue that its our "right" to do so. I believe the emphasis is wrong. Our nation's rugged individualism must cloud our vision or something because I've seen on this forum that some people claim that its not a fully alive child if its dependent upon its mother.

            If you want liberty, respect life. If you want happiness, respect liberty. Without life you have neither. If there is no guarantee of natural life you have neither guarantee of liberty and happiness. People usually fail to see my point on this issue. They don't because they only see themselves benefiting from the abortion. But for that child with no guarantee of life, it neither has liberty of happiness. But who wants to give it that anyway. We are a nation of opportunity. And when given the opportunity to "cut costs" we are quite prudent right?

            This issue is not a matter of religion or objective, versus subjective thinking. This issue is a matter of our nations founding principles and your emphasis.

            Some are saying that liberty is more important than life. "Give me liberty or give me death"--Thomas Paine. I believe we are giving fetus's their death. I argue that liberty becomes our right because of our inherent value as living rational beings.

            Then the argument always gets construed so that people claim that the fetus is not alive or some stupidness like that. Biology shows that from an embryonic state, that "human" (yes human, its no other species) is alive(who's life and death can be separated from the mother's), and given proper care (natural gestation), is a growing human, who will, with the blessings of humanity (not the curse of abortion) more than likely have a natural birth and grow to as big as any of us.

            Yet society wants the guarantee of happiness even more than liberty it seems. And some want the guarantee of liberty more than life. This is a very backwards way of thinking. Life leads to liberty, liberty to happiness. Once we get our logic straight, we can make strong principled decisions in life. Irresponsibility occurs when people get this fundamental thing wrong.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • Hi Josh,

          So using what I view to be as your relativistic interpretation of what constitutes life--what assurance can an adherent to this logic employ to know that they will not someday be subject to extermination at the hands of a more privileged group?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Matthew,

            You're holding your own point of view as objective truth. How many times must I say that these things are what I personally believe? You reference ethics and philosophy as objective truth, but they aren't. You're ethics aren't my ethics. It's very arrogant to see your personal beliefs as objective truths. And I do understand biology. Again, how arrogant of you to say that I disagree with you so I must not even understand what I'm talking about.

            It is ENTIRELY an issue of objective vs subjective thinking. You're essentially trying to tell me that red is better than blue. Apples are better than oranges. This is an issue, people hear evidence, hopefully do research on their own, and then make a choice on where they stand on this issue. I know where you stand, you know where I stand. You're trying to give a sermon. You're speckling in some science and then claiming that your personal interpretation is scientific. It isn't. I don't despise people with your opinion. I DO despise anyone that takes their opinion and tries to cram it down other peoples' throats as truth!

            Thomas,

            "Relativistic interpretation" seems to be somewhat repetitive. You asked what assurance I have that I won't be exterminated at the hands of a more privileged group. There is no assurance for me, or anyone else. Was there more to this question? Let me rephrase your question, so that it's more easily understood, and then you can thrill me with your response:

            Your interpretation of what alive means is relative to you (thanks for pointing that out btw)--how does someone that thinks like that know they won't be killed by a more powerful group?

            Let's do an experiment, I'll make 2 lists, Objective & Subjective, then I'll put things under those that fit. Then you can do the same and we'll see we come up with.

            Objective:
            2 + 2 = 4
            My wife is a female
            A fetus gets it's nutrition from the mother by way of cord that physically attaches them
            Organized religion exists

            Subjective:
            My wife is pretty
            The cord that attaches mother and fetus means that the fetus isn't separate
            Organized religion is good

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Josh,

            Was Adolf Hitler right in killing the Jews? It seems he was putting teeth to your argument relating to the subjectivity surrounding life. Fundamentally, I think you & many other pro-choice advocates don't so much have an issue with fetuses, Pro-lifers, or Christian fundamentalists per se..the issue is with God (again imho).

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • The amusement of deciphering your messages is fading. Why must you insist on not speaking clearly? Is it because you have nothing to clearly say? How is my issue with God? I guess if you speak so cryptically, it leaves an enormous margin for interpretation.

            No, Adolf Hitler wasn't right in killing the Jews (did you expect me to say yes? what was the point of that question?). Frankly, I think your approach is more similar to Hitler. Your arguments reflect your ethics and emotions, not much logic. And the logic you do offer isn't logical to me.

            I'm not surprised that your arguments rely on references to Hitler and slavery. I see you as a message boy, a parrot. You offer nothing that is yours. You simply regurgitate quotes and historical citations. It's a sound technique, if people read about Hitler and slavery often when they read about abortion, they might start to dislike abortion because they think they're supposed to dislike Hitler and slavery. And you will appeal to people by your dramatic MLK quote. A sound technique indeed, but also one that shows those that can see through the sermon, that you have no real pertinent argument.

            And just so you know, everyone has a subjective view of life (pardon the redundancy). A view is subjective by definition. Subjectivity can seem logical or not. Haven't I already pointed that out?

            I don't have an issue with fetuses, or God.

            I DO have an issue with anyone that tries to cram their personal beliefs down the rest of the world's throats as cold, hard facts.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Joshua--

            Your hypocrisy is quite apparent--perhaps even to yourself. On the one hand, you properly acknowledge Hitler was wrong in killing the Jews. On the other, you argue that life is subjective--which is how you rationalize your pro-abortion attitude. If life is so subjective, how can you fault Hitler for his purge of the Jews (?)--he surely justified his ideology the same way you do, yet you're insulted to be compared to him. By your own assertion (RE the subjectivity of life), who are you to judge Hitler's actions as wrong? The fact that you cannot manuever this impossible moral balance (in spite of your seeming eloquence) should be no surprise...murder is not meant to be justified.

            By the way, in your keen judgment, it's reprehensible to cram ideas down throats, but it's quite tolerable to destroy other lives (throat & all). Well, now that I mention that, it does seem par for the course in the logic you've conveyed thus far.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Tom Tom-

            I bet your used to talking the way you do and having people back down from their arguments, that's what makes it so much fun to keep replying to you. I'm not intimidated by your vocabulary (almost said "vernacular" here, but that's not in accordance with my goal of being easily understood). In fact, I absolutely love to argue with people like you by using simple English. How am I eloquent? I would rate my use of language as somewhere between 4th and 9th grade.

            I don't argue that life is subjective; I argue that my view of it is subjective, as is yours. Hitler DID justify his ideology the same way I do, and the same way YOU do, and the same way everyone else on Earth does; by evaluating things, and then deciding what they believe. There aren't different degrees of subjectivity. A point of view or opinion is subjective. An indisputable fact is objective. Why don't you understand that? I consider myself to be fairly well-spoken, but I have failed to help you understand what subjectivity actually is. Let's try again.

            Objective = Apples exist

            Subjective = Apples are good/bad; Apples are a little bit good/bad; Apples are really good/bad

            Do we understand subjectivity yet?

            Let's try yet a couple more times.

            Objective = Jews exist

            Subjective = I like/dislike Jews; Let's save/kill the Jews

            Objective = Sperm and egg come together and result in a human being

            Subjective = They result in a human being when an embryo is produced; They result in a human being when it's born into the world outside of its mother's womb

            I'm glad you asked who I am to judge Hitler's actions as wrong--I am the owner of a mind capable of having an opinion. I'm not insulted that you compared me to Hitler because we both have opinions. I'm OFFENDED that you compare abortion to the killing of the Jews; and that you have no personal, original argument. Like I said, you're a parrot, a tape recorder.

            I don't need to maneuver any moral balance. To me, morality is completely subjective anyway. There is no objective morality.

            Abortion isn't murder by definition. You may think of it as murder, but that doesn't mean that it is. I find it funny that you think I'm the only one who is subjective. You are too. It seems to me that you don't even understand what the word "subjective" means.

            To address your last point, I'm obviously tolerant of abortion which YOU PERSONALLY HOLD AS DESTROYING LIVES. So in YOUR OPINION, it is indeed "par for the course".

            You know what's really funny to me? The fact that you are sitting here trying to argue opinions and I'm trying to argue that we have DIFFERENT opinions. You're trying to get me to change my opinion, and I'm trying to get you to understand what an opinion is.

            I have a lot of pride in the fact that I realize my own fallibility--I'm wrong sometimes. I don't believe that I know everything. I do know some things, and I form my opinions on those things. I actually get some kind of pleasure from admitting it when I realize that I am wrong. It makes me feel like I just learned something, which is one of my life goals, to never stop learning. I hate closed-mindedness, and I strive to be open to the arguments of others. That is why I read your arguments. But I simply don't agree with you. Is that so hard to understand?

            By the way, here's another reply from me where I address absolutely 100% of your argument (with no quotes or historical filler, simply Josh). If you respond, I predict that you'll address less than 20% of what I say, and your response will be full of quotes, Hitler, or slavery (that's a tactic to get you to respond to more of what I say and use your own thoughts instead of quoting people and talking about Hitler and slavery). I also predict that you'll try to pass your personal definition of murder off on me; AND that it will seem like a sermon; AND that you'll try to use big words. *And yet another* AND you won't tell me how my issue is with God.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Hello Josh,

            Say what you want--at the end of the day, you are justifying the destruction of human life. It cannot be denied that slaveholders and anyone else taking/restricting life of another employ the same logic as you do. By the way, the abortion argument wouldn't be around if there weren't abortion (which even you could not deny is an invasive process) in the first place. I find it humorous that your ilk finds it more offensive to hear the condemnation that necessarily follows it's advocacy for destroying life.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • I support abortion, we already know that. You equate it to the destruction of life, I don't. It CAN be denied that all who take/restrict lives employ the same logic as me--I'm denying it right now!

            I agree that abortion can be invasive, but not all abortions; medical abortion doesn't seem invasive to me.

            I find it offensive because you're trying to make it sound like I want to wipe out or enslave all fetuses.

            Looks like my prediction from above was correct. Why do you even bother replying to me if you aren't addressing anything that I'm saying?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Josh,

            "I find it offensive because you’re trying to make it sound like I want to wipe out or enslave all fetuses."

            Is this your tacit acknowledgment that fetuses are human or at least worthy of a modicum of respect?

            If you don't believe a fetus is a human, what is it?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • "Is this your tacit acknowledgment that fetuses are human or at least worthy of a modicum of respect?"

            No. I'm not implying anything. I say what I mean.

            "If you don’t believe a fetus is a human, what is it?"

            It is what turns into a human. My opinion is that a fetus will become a human when it's capable of surviving without being attached to the mother. My justification of abortion doesn't hinge on my opinion of when life starts.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Josh,

            Given your prior acknowledgment that the Jewish holocaust was wrong (albeit, in your subjective view of what constitutes right & wrong), if we were living in, say 1942, would you not be compelled to denounce this blatant destruction of life?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • "Given your prior acknowledgment that the Jewish holocaust was wrong (albeit, in your subjective view of what constitutes right & wrong), if we were living in, say 1942, would you not be compelled to denounce this blatant destruction of life?"

            My opinion is that it was wrong. I probably would have been compelled to go fight the Germans, not merely denounce their actions. But I often have an inner struggle to reach a balance of self-preservation and altruism, so I can't say for sure.

            Regardless, whether or not something is right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder. I know speeding is illegal, I don't necessarily think it's wrong. I know that carrying a gun without a license is illegal, but I don't think that's wrong either.

            These things are wrong in your eyes, but there are billions of eyes on Earth. I don't want you to agree with my opinion, just realize that I'm entitled to it.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Circular logic - where one bullshit argument is proven by another bullshit argument until your original argument is proven by itself.

            When you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Josh,

            First of all, I thank you for your candor and what I view as your sincerity in this discussion.

            However, I would like to flesh out what I think is an inconsistency in your logic (with the disclaimer that I'm NOT arguing that you're not entitled to your views).

            In previous posts, you've said:

            "Subjective = They result in a human being when an embryo is produced; They result in a human being when it’s born into the world outside of its mother’s womb"

            "Subjective = I like/dislike Jews; Let’s save/kill the Jews"

            "I probably would have been compelled to go fight the Germans, not merely denounce their actions."

            "I DO have an issue with anyone that tries to cram their personal beliefs down the rest of the world’s throats as cold, hard facts."

            "I DO despise anyone that takes their opinion and tries to cram it down other peoples’ throats as truth!"

            So by your own definitions, is it not contradictory to denounce (let alone go to war with!) someone who holds a differing view on a certain subjective topic (killing the Jews), all the while taking offense when someone merely crams their opinion down your throat (sans warfare) regarding a separate subjective topic (abortion)? Should the SS take great umbrage to the fact that you don't even respect their viewpoint RE the Jews?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • What I think you're trying to say is "How can you denounce or go to war with someone for acting on their opinion, and then be offended when someone else says their opinion is a fact?" Is that supposed to mean that I'm doing what they're doing by fighting against them?

            If that is your question, then here is my answer:

            I don't see it as contradictory at all. If a dictator thinks a race needs to be destroyed, that is their opinion. And by acting on that opinion, they're forcing it on people. That is what I'm against. That is what I might want to go fight against.

            I don't know what "umbrage" means so I'm not going to respond to that.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Greetings Josh--

            "I don’t see it as contradictory at all. If a dictator thinks a race needs to be destroyed, that is their opinion. And by acting on that opinion, they’re forcing it on people. That is what I’m against. That is what I might want to go fight against."

            With all due respect, I think this is an inconsistency which you simply don't want to grasp (perhaps because acceptance of such might do great harm to your position). To expound: If a dictator espouses an opinion and acts on it, I think it's fair to say, they deem it as a FACT. Contrarily, if you espouse an opposite sentiment and are willing (even to the extent of fighting) you are also expressing an opinion that you deem to be no less a FACT (something which you ostensibly have such great aversion to).

            I will not run away from the FACT that I view abortion as murder to be a FACT. But again, it's the very FACT that abortion exists that brings me to take such an unyielding opposition to it (similar to your aggression towards Nazi policies). IF it is wrong to take such an approach, the greater misdeed has already been done to allow abortion to exist in the first place.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Mr. Braun: Well said! We need to all look deeper into our beliefs about life. I think that our country needs to re-examine our views about God and morality. To examine our country's founding views on christianity go to wallbuilders.com. It seems that we have strayed from many of these views and it would help to go back to some of them!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Thomas-

            "...if you espouse an opposite sentiment and are willing (even to the extent of fighting) you are also expressing an opinion that you deem to be no less a FACT (something which you ostensibly have such great aversion to)."

            So we agree that genocide is acting on an opinion. I am not espousing the opposite sentiment, only fighting against someone that is acting on an opinion. My sentiment on the matter doesn't make any difference. I actually like Germans and choose their cars, dogs, and beers over those of any other country.

            Lindsey-

            "I think that our country needs to re-examine our views about God and morality. To examine our country’s founding views on christianity go to wallbuilders.com. It seems that we have strayed from many of these views and it would help to go back to some of them!"

            Separation of Church and State ring a bell?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Josh--

            "So we agree that genocide is acting on an opinion. I am not espousing the opposite sentiment, only fighting against someone that is acting on an opinion."

            I don't follow your logic here Josh. If you're willing to actually wage war against someone, how is that not taking the greatest degree of opposition to them?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Thomas-

            I understand your confusion.

            If I were to say I wanted to fight the Germans because I felt sorry for the Jews, I think that would agree with what your point.

            However, I'm not saying that my compassion for the Jews would drive me to fight, just the fact that the Germans are killing millions based on their opinion of them.

            This does seem tricky even as I reread it. But I can clearly separate my feelings from the truth of the situation.

            I apologize to anyone who reads this if it seems abstract at all, that was not my intent.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Someone is suffering from Holdren's Disease.

            “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”

            - John P. Holdren
            ‘Human Ecology’ – page 235

            Hope they find the cure.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Hello Josh,

            "If I were to say I wanted to fight the Germans because I felt sorry for the Jews, I think that would agree with what your point."

            "However, I’m not saying that my compassion for the Jews would drive me to fight, just the fact that the Germans are killing millions based on their opinion of them."

            To me, it's irrelevant whether you're motivated by compassion or an ardent drive to right a wrong--if we adhere to your prior definitions, both fall within the realm of subjectivity because they are your opinion. So, in this analysis, it seems there are 2 subjective (albeit polar) viewpoints--the Nazis' and yours..and if this is the case, my question stands--how can you suggest the Nazis are wrong for their opinion?

            My greater point is this: if you agree with me that causation of violence is the monkey wrench that nullifies the validity of one's subjective position (ie the holocaust is innately wrong because it destroys life--it went beyond the realm of rhetoric into reality), how is it consistent for you to resist the holocaust yet reject the validity of one fighting against abortion? ALL are subjective positions (pro-Nazi, anti-Nazi, pro-choice, pro-life) but whereas there would be no anti-Nazi without there first being a Nazi, there would manifestly be no pro-lifer without there first being a pro-choicer.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Thomas-

            When we hijacked this board to discuss the holocaust or slavery, my argument was that they weren't comparable. Here the argument has come full-circle, and I still don't think they should be compared.

            You have made me realize something though, if I were to interfere in another holocaust, I'd be doing what I hate most! However, since I'm career military, I most likely would be there fighting anyway because of my oath. But thanks for helping me see that.

            "My greater point is this: if you agree with me that causation of violence is the monkey wrench that nullifies the validity of one’s subjective position"

            I agree with you and see where that is applicable to the holocaust, but I don't see abortion as the violence you described because of my personal definition of a fetus.

            **I've been seeing these commercials for "Inglorious Basterds" and hearing the line "...we're in the killin' Nazi bidness..." It just seems ironic since we've been discussing this for a while. I always wonder what the conversation would turn into if we were discussing this in person and that commercial came on.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • "I agree with you and see where that is applicable to the holocaust, but I don’t see abortion as the violence you described because of my personal definition of a fetus."

            But don't you see--you've constructed this brilliant line of argument basing the validity of belief on the subjectivity of life(?). Yet it's acceptable for you to deem the Nazis as wrong & contemptible for others to find your position wrong. Is this not falsifying your entire premise on the subjectivity of life?

            Question--do you think a Nazi leader would justify their atrocities because in their mind the Jews were less than human--and in so doing elevate their position beyond the realm of reasonable debate, impervious to scrutiny?

            How would you respond to someone who said, "I don’t see the holocaust as the violence you described because of my personal definition of a Jew." ?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • "Is this not falsifying your entire premise on the subjectivity of life?"

            No.

            "Question–do you think a Nazi leader would justify their atrocities because in their mind the Jews were less than human–and in so doing elevate their position beyond the realm of reasonable debate, impervious to scrutiny?"

            Perhaps. Isn't that what you're doing, too?

            "How would you respond to someone who said, “I don’t see the holocaust as the violence you described because of my personal definition of a Jew.” ?"

            That's their opinion.

            We disagree on what's subjective and what's not, so we'll never see eye to eye on something that one of us thinks is subjective.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • "We disagree on what’s subjective and what’s not, so we’ll never see eye to eye on something that one of us thinks is subjective."

            Josh, you didn't have any problem defining the subjective position (as it relates to abortion) before..again by your own words,

            “Subjective = They result in a human being when an embryo is produced; They result in a human being when it’s born into the world outside of its mother’s womb”

            So is it or is it not a subjective position that a fetus is a non-human?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • "So is it or is it not a subjective position that a fetus is a non-human?"

            Yes that is my personal subjective position. That's what I was pointing out in the beginning. Your opinion is different than that. I'm not sitting here forcing my opinion on anyone to take as their own. By outlawing abortion, a different opinion would be forced on me. That's my main concern.

            If someone believes that abortion is killing a living human being, then they don't have to participate in it. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is if those people try to get laws passed that are based on their personal morals/ethics/beliefs.

            Let me say this, I'm not running around impregnating women and having abortions. I'm not going to be in that situation. So this isn't for my personal benefit. It's just what I believe is a right afforded to Americans.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          • Josh: Our whole legal system is based on morals/ethics/beliefs. Our laws and our whole legal system is based on Judeo-Christian ethics! What would you have us base our laws on? What else is there? Yes, there are other beliefs (Muslim, Hindu etc.) but they are very similar to ours. I doubt that abortion is legal in any predominately Muslim country or Hindu for that matter. Killing humans is wrong in any religion or sane society! Hopefully, this country isn't going insane!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          • Josh--

            I mean no offense, but it's imho that you are either naive or willingly ignorant to the sheer hypocrisy of your argument. You've couched the validity of your pro-choice position under the auspices of subjectivity, thus declaring that no one must tread upon your right to exercise your opinion. Yet, in the example of a Nazi exerting their opinion relating to the holocaust (which you regard as no less a subjective position), you entitle yourself to enforce your brand of truth upon them.

            Contrary to what it might seem, I don't claim to be perfect..we all fall short of true wisdom. BUT, at the same time, if we uncover error, we are obligated to correct it, no matter how heartfelt our preconceptions may have been. I think it is very consistent to not only fight the Nazi holocaust but also the abortion holocaust that claims 3500 American lives every day!

            In and of itself, I lay no claim to the ability to dogmatically wield authority over anyone's life--that being said, I will unapologetically fight with every fiber of my being against the pervasive dogma that dictates the authority to destroy innocent human life (Nazi, fetus, or otherwise). As I mentioned prior, if this approach is wrong, then the greater misdeed has been done already to allow abortion to exist in the first place.

            While you've correctly identified all opinions as necessarily being subjective, those that result in death can only be rejected by any society intent on upholding the dignity of life.

            Incidentally, I assume when one claims subjectivity in any topic, that they are inferring the prospects of potentially being wrong. If this is the case, wouldn't a better approach be to err on the side of caution just on the outside chance that it really is life that we are aborting??

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          • Josh: I guess you would have viewed the abortion that occured to Dr. Paul where they dumped the baby into a bucket as OK. Mr. Braun has tried to explain this issue in a logical way to you. I do not look at life as a "logical" thing and neither do most people in this world. Josh, I hate to tell you this but we are humans and not computers or Vulcans like Mr. Spock. You are human also and I know that if you reflect on this idea from a spiritual point of view and quit trying to be Mr. Spock you will come up with the right answer. Mr. Braun has been most patient with you in explaining the error of your logic and I commend him for it. However, I think deep down you know better. If you don't, I will say a prayer for you!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Exactly. Well said.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • I agree. I like Ron Paul's stance on most other issues, except abortion. I think it's sad, but I think it must be the pregnant woman's choice according to her circumstances and beliefs. I really wish that more emphasis would be placed on birth control measures, and am frustrated that many people who are against abortion are _also_ against birth control education or accessibility.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      • The church and the government should be kept out of this very personal issue.
        I am pro-faith, pro-life, AND pro-choice, which is the motto of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Their web site is wwww.rcrc.org.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • When you're a grandmother (maybe in your next life!), it is hard to see a daughter who's been damaged by her abortion. It was difficult when I found out, sixteen years ago, and we've not spoken of it since; knowing it would be too painful for her. I am glad my mother didn't abort me. Even though I have mental illness and chronic fatigue, I will gladly take the bad with the good. Only God knows when conception occurs; so I will err on the side of precaution. God bless you, Ron Paul <

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Ms. Wind, I agree with you that it's better to err on the side of caution. However, once your daughter actually went forward with the abortion, did you consider her, or want her punished as a murderer? Or worse, would you have felt better if her life or physical health were jeopardized because there were no qualified medical establishments to perform the procedure?
        Regardless of religious beliefs, I err on the side of protecting the lives and decisions of those women who choose to go ahead with this unfortunate course of action. Let them each wrestle with their own conscience, my judgement does not need to compound their own self recrimination.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • Mr X Ron,
          One cannot legislate morality. Yet that is exactly what we try to do. Who's to say when is a good stopping point when dealing with life or death? Unless you have gone through abortion, or know someone who has, you cannot judge.
          I am a veteran of the US military. I didn't serve my country to uphold Roe V Wade. I served to preserve life and rights. Where are the rights of the unborn?
          With the way our media, movies and music goes, sex is embedded in every facet of our society. Do you agree? You can't sell a car unless it is "sexy"; you can't be a hit TV comedy show unless it is "sexy"; being "sexy" is the most important want of society these days. How is this idea affecting the teaching of our children? Sex is highly over-rated; viagra commercials on child-time television? Why is it so bad to teach our children, both girls and boys, to have respect for their bodies and the bodies of others? Slowly, Roe (not-real-name) has been embedded as a right, for any reason at all, to "erase" a one-night-stand 2 months ago. When did we get into the mindframe of "not being held for the responsibility for our actions?"

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          • Ms. Wind, firstly let me thank you for your service. I appreciate that you served our country but it must have occurred to you that ironically, a component of preserving rights and life is taking rights and life away from someone else.
            You have served in the military where one is expected to kill actual living people because their religious or philosophical beliefs are different than ours. I would expect that you would appreciate the idea that often times circumstance dictates that we act in a way we might not otherwise condone, and we are left with our own conscience and a responsibility to our own code of acceptable behavior.
            I would also say that just as you were able to prioritize/rationalize the preserving of one life by taking another, you can understand why your daughter had an abortion. If you feel so strongly about it, you might benefit by talking to her about her reasons and why she didn't see the pregnancy to term. I too have dealt with it as closely as a man can so I do have experience and as I stated before, I am not judging.
            "Roe" is a right, and thankfully looks like it will continue to be one. I merely stated that as I like a lot of Ron Paul's fiscal policies, the fact that he does not support the right to choose, but instead passes this off to the states makes me less likely to vote for him.
            And by the way, if you are unhappy with the "sexy" things on TV, turn off your set and don't buy those sponsor's products. "It's easier to put on slippers than to carpet the whole world," (Al Franken as Stuart Smally)

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • The difference between abortion and serving in the military:

            With an abortion, one individual is given the power to make a life and death decision over another.

            With military service in the U.S., a large, democratically elected body of ruling representatives makes an official declaration of war against a government, and that same body may also rule that it is necessary to fight to kill to win the war. (Although there are a few wars in history that have been won without killing.)

            There is a big difference between giving individuals the power to kill without debate, or oversight, or legal consequences, and electing representatives (plural) who may decide by a majority vote to kill, but who will have to answer to the voters and the Geneva Convention for their actions.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Mr. X Ron,
            It has appeared you have been prosecutor, jury and judge in this discussion. You are equating my military service to the services of an abortionist. And as my defense, it is up to you, as prosecutor, to try to prove me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
            In my service as an NCO, it was our duty to defend our country, not to invade and not to kill. I do not ever remember pickling any enemies in brine. If you want to bring up the Enola Gay-- at least it stopped the killing.
            I'm sorry if that offends you.
            New technologies, new ideas in science and space have led us to believe in that somehow "we have become gods". I would've gladly died for my children had it been a choice of "me" or "them".
            How calmly I write this as I am talking to someone who has deemed me an executioner, when the real ones are making a fortune for their "$ervice$".

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Excellent reply!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • we are all grown up adults here?
      We were all a product of conception.
      Life....
      I am glad my mom chose to deliver me in to this world.
      A child begins at conception.
      Abortion is murder.
      No other way around it. Lets grow up and see the truth of the matter.There is one truth in this debate.
      One can choose to believe the truth or, a lie.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • I had an abortion and I am NOT a murderer. This is outrageously insulting.I suppose you want prison time for those who made this legal decision? Those who make those kind of accusations are being holier-than-thou bigots against those who find themselves in the throes of this very difficult, but very personal, decision.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • How can it be called "choice" if the father, grandparents and even the baby being aborted don't get to decide? I'm sure if the baby had a choice of living or being killed, he or she would choose to live. No wonder the world is in such turmoil, there's no regard for life.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • Those who want a girl or woman to bear an unwanted child don't show much regard for HER life, and how this will affect the rest of her life from that time on.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • Just cause you like to have abortions doesnt mean we think its right, but as he said it should be left up to the States. If thats not clear maybe you should stick to a beat around the bush politican instead of an honest statemen like Dr. Paul.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • People don't just say "I like having abortions". It's a gut-wrenching, agonizing, very personal decision. For some, the consquences of having an unwanted child can be devastating, and can adversely affect the whole rest of their lives. This is why is must be left up to each individual, to make that decision without government or religious zealots doing it for them.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • When you choose to ignore the truth of when life begins and gleam only what fits your "i am prolife, prochoice, pro whatever compromise, you are exactly what you judge others as being a double minded bigot.

          You can't have it both ways. YOU, don't decide when that life is viable or considered "human" or when he/she has a soul.

          God has stated in His word "I knew you before you were formed in the womb." Think about that. He knew us, before, we were formed, in the womb.

          So therefore, we had a soul, before, we were formed in the womb.

          There are many other scriptures to the truth. That moment is evident by God's Word. Denying that is denying truth. God is Truth.

          No one is calling you a murderer. The act is murder. What is in one's heart is just the same as the act itself.

          No one can judge you. If you did not have murder in your heart when this act was done, how can anyone call you a murderer? That is between you and God. He knows your heart. He is also a forgiving God to those who want or ask for his forgiveness.

          The "greatest challenge" humanity has ever faced, is how to stop, the extermination, annihilation, genocide of the least protected and most helpless species on the planet, the unborn human child.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Greatest challenge? No way.
            One challenge we have is to keep religious zealots from passing laws based on their own religious or fanatical beliefs, that the rest of us have to follow.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • I am not backing down. And you are off base.

            Your problem is you want it both ways.

            Do yourself and future unborn babies, a favor. Accept O's sterilization.

            If things go your way, you won't have to worry too much about it. Obama's czars will make sure there is sterilization.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Have any of you seen the spoils of abortion. There is no doubt in my mind that these are living, breathing and thinking people. How anyone could ever even consider getting an abortion is incredible. This is not a womans rights issue although they will tell you differently this is a human rights issue and as far as I am concerned the rights of the unborn are being trampled.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • he is just saying that he thinks it's wrong to kill a human being and that he doesn't think that it should be going on in America. The thing is when you go and say that he is interfering with these peoples lives one of those lives isn't going to last much longer and that life has no other choice. He is defending that life. My definition for abortion is erasing that one night stand a few months ago. This is a problem with America, we are erasing all of our mistakes and how do we become better people if we can't learn from our mistakes?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • T., how did he loose you? He was basically just saying that HE doesn't believe in abortion but that it's something that should be for the individual states to decide and not our government

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • For somebody who supports the constitution so strongly, you would figure that he would support pro choice. The idea behind America is freedom. If my condom breaks and I get my girlfriend pregnant, I may not be ready to have a child. It may wreak havoc in my life and cause me to have financial issues for the rest of my life. And anyone who believes that it is ok to get an abortion only if you get raped is a hypocrite. Someone gets raped and the way to rectify it is "kill" a baby? America is about making your own life choices not having the government, STATE or federal, tell you what to do about something that is none of their business.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      • Check out our new CD !!

        http://www.inconvenientbabiesinabucket.com

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Yes, America is about freedom. But you can't be free if you are killed before birth.

        Besides using a condom (for STDs) tell your GF to take the pill or get and IUD. She won't get pregnant trust me. I've been doing this for more that ten years.

        The birth control options available nowadays really, but REALLY let us choose if we want to get pregnant or not.

        Abortion is a way out for irresponsible individuals who won't face the consequences of their actions.

        Want woman's rights? Make birth control pills OTC. I seen that in other countries. Abortion is a matter of human rights, not women's rights. I am a woman and I know that having access to birth control is having the right to choose.

        And if the catholics don't believe in birth control... Well, let the catholics do whatever they want. That's where the republicans mess up. Birth control should be available to anyone, just like abortion is.

        Abortion is wrong and kills an innocent child. Open your eyes America.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • If your condom breaks, and you get your girlfriend pregnant you should be fine as long as she is smart enough to also be on the pill. And if she can't afford BC pills, then maybe you guys are too young and immature to be having sex. If not, then make sure you guys get an abortion before 8 weeks. Anyone who gets an abortion after 8 weeks, and waits until 15 weeks is not only careless, but souless. I believe in pro-choice, to a point. But people abuse abortions and I have seen it first hand. Catholics have the right to believe in what they do and I'm sick of liberals judging religious people. They don't like it when they are judged for their life styles! People need to start respecting LIFE period. Being more responsible when having sex and I'm sure there wouldn't be careless frequent abortions. And condoms just don't break. It's very rare. That's something people say when they are afraid to admit they had unprotected sex.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    • Any female who has an abortion after 15 weeks, who is perfectly healthy, should be arrested. Many females take advantage of the system and use abortion as a form of birth control. As a female who is pregnant right now, at 14 weeks my baby can hear me sing and can touch it's mouth. That baby has rights too. Women KNOW when they are pregnant by at least 7 weeks. If they want to have an abortion, fine, do it before 8 weeks. But anything after 8 weeks should be denied. Carry the baby to full term and hand it over to a couple who are longing for a child but are unable to conceive. They will pay you money and pay for your medical! Maybe then next time those careless women, will buy condoms or take birth control pills. I know women who have had more than three abortions, because they were to cheap to purchase BC or Condoms. And too weak to tell their partner to wear one! I stand behind Ron Paul, and If I witnessed an abortion of a baby at 2 pounds, crying and being thrown in a bucket I would have personally punched that "mother" right in the face and taken that baby to the hospital for care and adopted that baby myself. That person should be ashamed of themselves! And anyone who can sit there and justify that kind of abortion is an souless human being who I hope never becomes a parent!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  21. I can't speak for Devil's Advocate or the pro-choice lobby generally, but the pro-choice people I know and have read make a clear distinction between a zygote-embryo-fetus inside a woman's body and a born child outside of it. A sex act, voluntary or involuntary, can result in fertilization of an ovum and, thereby, a zygote. That zygote can develop into a blastocyst across a natural life span of maximum 8-10 days. If it does not implant into the tissue of the woman by that time, it naturally dies. That is all that a sex act between a man and a woman can produce.

    If the blastocyst implants into the woman's tissue, it uses some of the tissue to form a placenta via which it continue to live parasitically in/on the woman's body as an embryo and develop into a fetus. Since the embryo/fetus has no life in itself, if it becomes detached from the woman, it dies. When it reaches the point of viability, however, it has the potential to live outside the woman independently of her body, and when born, it does so live. A born child does not come from a sex act or fertilization of an ovum. It comes, first, from the life of the woman and, second, from the woman's risking disease, disability, and death to give birth to it. That is why the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy is the woman's and nobody else's.

    The pro-choice people I know make a big distinction between a blastocyst/ embryo/fetus implanting, implanted, and living parasitically on/in a woman and a born child with life in itself who is completely separated from the woman's body and life. They see no problem with a woman's preventing implantation or aborting what is living parasitically in/on her body at least until it is viable because the only life it has is actually the woman's life, the life she has in herself. After birth, however, there is no question that the born child has life in itself, and that life belongs to it. I have never known a pro-choice person who thinks infanticide is acceptable.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× 6 = twelve

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>