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.
So, using birth control is the answer? I would seem that everyone believes that birth control is 100% effective. It’s not, not even having your tubes tied is 100% effective.
Rape is a lot more common than many people are willing to believe. Many aren’t even reported due to the way rape victims are treated.
The decision of weather or not to have an abortion is too serious to be made by anyone except by the woman concerned. She may or may not consult her doctor, her partner, or anyone else. Ultimately, the decision is between a woman and her God.
Ron Paul is entitled to his opinion just as I am. If understand his position correctly, the legality of abortion should be left up to the individual states rather than the federal government. In my opinion, the government at all levels needs to stay out of it.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
The argument that life begins at conception is misleading. Certainly life proceeds from that point, but it hardly originates there. Recall the chicken and the egg paradox? Neither sprang from a point where no life existed. If the presence of life is the only standard to be applied when asserting a ‘right’ to be protected, then the benchmark of conception is no more legitimate than birth, or the existence of egg and sperm.
A ‘right’ simply sanctions or prohibits the autonomy of an individual, and cannot precede individual autonomy without creating a paradox like the chicken and the egg. Whatever alleged rights exist in utero, they are entirely subsumed by the actual rights of the possessor of the uterus and all its contents. The only real question here, is whether you would place a woman’s uterus in the hands of the State, or allow her to own it.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
9 
13
Prohibiting women from opting out of pregnancy, in order to legally protect the alledged right to life of a zygote, effectively subjects every miscarriage (AKA, “spontaneous abortion”) to a criminal investigation in order to determine if “death” occurred naturally, negilently, or intentionally.
“Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002458/
That’s right… according to statistics provided by the National Institutes of Health, about 15-20% women in their 1st trimester will suspected of homicide if they (among other things) exercised too rigorously, got sick, drank alcohol, smoked, exposed themselves to environmental toxins, or are obese…
… and having a previous miscarriage may well imply a repeat offender. Kinda gives the 3 Strikes Law a whole new potential for “doing good”, eh?
Hotly debated. What do you think?
12 
15
I’m going to go with Devil for a moment. Essentially, if I understand his argument, as previously articulated, or implied, it’s as follows:
You have rights from the moment you are born, whether that’s by natural birth or by C-section. Makes no difference. And whether you are born late, prematurely, or on the ‘due’ delivery date. But not for one second before. You have no rights in the e.g., 5 minutes prior to birth, compared to the 5 minutes after.
Not arbitrary at all. Basically, respect the authority of Locke. Doesn’t matter if Hume kicked his ass. Doesn’t matter if Bentham kicked his ass. There are other authorities that can be pointed to, and by virtue of their authority the argument is made out.
Aren’t you patriotic? If so, then how can you disagree? Those other authorities include the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Yes, a ‘premmy’ baby has rights, but the baby of the woman in the next room or bed in the hospital, even if conceived at the same time, and biologically older, doesn’t, if she is overdue.
It all makes sense. A right is a freedom of action. You have an inalienable right to life from the moment you are born. Not for one nanosecond earlier. But, you may ask, what if you have an accident, become paralysed from the neck down?
The problem with your argument, your commonly flawed rebuttal, is, well, it all depends when the accident you refer to happens. If it happens in the womb due to e.g., thalidomide, or perhaps something else, tough luck. You don’t have any rights.
Actually, even if your condition is treatable in the womb, it’s not imperative that the doctors give you any medical care. You don’t have any rights. Both before being born, or rather instead of being born, and after being born, you can be euthanased, because in either case you don’t have freedom of action.
And, after all, that’s what a right is.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Bentham and Hume, eh? Well at least you’re starting to rely on more credible sources of information than those for eugenics. With regard to Hume, all I have to say is, if a right to life IS credible, it OUGHT to be protected.
Patriotism is a poor substitute for reason. If you disagree with having a natural right to life, then simply don’t bother protecting yours and see where that gets you, but please don’t be so hypocritical as to assert a right to life in utero that you yourself dismiss.
The rest is a legitimate question of timing and practice; when does this alleged ‘right’ initiate, and how is it protected? RP says at conception, and by prohibiting abortions. RP also says there’s no such thing as group rights; only individual… so, logic dictates that if a zygote doesn’t abort itself, no harm – no foul…
… of course, being a group of civic minded do-gooders, we will have to investigate every miscarriage just to be certain there was no foul play on the part of the prenatal parent, her family and friends, or the community at large…
… as you say, “after all, that’s what a right is.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
And he puled the bow across his strings and it made an evil hiss.
Margaret Sanger is not credible to you?
Devil, you are an advocate for voluntary eugenics. You merely fail to acknowledge it.
You and your extremist friends on both sides of the debate really ought to ‘bite the bullet’ on eugenics.
If I and many others were not committed to life, eugenics would convince us to be ‘pro-choice’?
It certainly has a lot of potential to convince atheist conservatives.
It’s the best argument that you anti-life people have going for you.
You have asserted that eugenics is pseudoscience without backing it up. Where is your evidence appealing to popular prejudices, the onus is on you to prove it.
Fire on the mountain, run boy, run.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
LOL, the onus remains on the individual making a positive claim to prove it; not vice versa. I’ll not labor to deliver you from your argument from ignorance.
I also find it amusing that relying on Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for definition of rights makes me “extremist”. Guess I’m almost as “dangerous” as RP *chuckle*
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Thanks for taking the bait Devil. Your naked assertion that “eugenics is a pseudoscience” is not a positive claim?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Definition pseudo: not genuine; sham.
Are you so confused as to think that I am the one claiming eugenics IS a science?!
LOL, everyone makes a pet of their own domga.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“The demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience brings up debate in the realms of science, philosophy and politics. Imre Lakatos, for instance, points out that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union at one point declared that Mendelian genetics was pseudoscientific and had its advocates, including well-established scientists such as Nikolai Vavilov, sent to a Gulag and that the ‘liberal Establishment of the West’ denies freedom of speech to topics it regards as pseudoscience, particularly where they run up against social mores’.” [Pseudoscienve - Wikipedia]
What I said, Devil, was that abortion is eugenics. I didn’t say it was a science. I didn’t say it wasn’t a science. It may be. It may be a fringe science, a protoscience, or mainstream science. It may not be. I’m not sure. I didn’t go there – you did. You asserted it’s a pseudoscience, as Marxists and liberals often do when they feel uncomfortable. You have not backed your assertion up. I’m not sure that the practice of attempting to bring down global temperatures by limiting greenhouse gas emissions is a science. It seems to fail on several criteria of science. Wanna do some special pleading? And no, I don’t think you are claiming that eugenics is a science, merely that you are an advocate for it. Not for authoritarian eugenics, but for liberal or voluntary eugenics. You don’t want the term applied to it, but nonethless you are an advocate for eugenics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One way to lower the rates of abortions is to have BETTER EDUCATION OF CONTRACEPTIVES!!!
come on people… if you don’t want a kid, be SMART about it!
wrap it before you tap it
put it on before you get it on
cover your pickle before you make her tickle
pop your pills before you use your skills
don’t be a fool, cover your tool
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
According to one pro-lifer here, “Birth control pills are abortion of human life.”
*sigh*
“You Can’t Fix Stupid.” ~ Ron White
LOL
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
“I’ll put an end to the idea that a woman’s body belongs to her … the practice of abortion shall be exterminated with a strong hand.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Even Adolf Hitler was pro-life. What does that say about the pro-choice people? They are lower than Hitler. There is nothing lower than killing babies.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
15 
17
“Even Adolf Hitler was pro-life” ?!?
Dude, I can’t even begin to get my head around what you’re trying to express here.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
Devil, are you resorting now to reductio ad Hitlerum? Why does that not surprise me? Interestingly, the results of DNA analysis of Hitler’s skull fragments revealed in 2009 that the skull was female. That explains a lot of her behavior, and adds a new dimension to the term ‘feminazi’.
You’ll be pleased to know that Martin Bormann’s view (sourced from a letter admitted into evidence in proceedings before the Nuremberg Tribunal) was much more in tune with your pro-choice, feminist way of thinking:
“The Slavs are to work for us. Insofar as we do not need them, they may die. Therefore, compulsory vaccination and German health service are superfluous. The fertility of the Slavs is undesirable. They may use contraceptives or practice abortion, the more the better … We are the masters; we come first.”
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
“… like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target!” ~ Kirk, Wrath of Khan
Focus Aussie…
“If they (rights) are derived from God, then a zygote has a right to life.”
Can you cite ANY explicit prohibition of abortion in the Bible? Y/N
If not (and you reject the natural rights argument), you’re argument reduces to, “… they (rights) are conferred by man.” Specifically, that ALL rights result from man’s CHOICE to confer them; that LIBERTY trumps LIFE.
Oh, but you have to have life to have liberty? Hmm… rights cannot be derived from God, or Nature’s God… time to call a friend? Hume, Bentham or Sanger perhaps??
If you’re going to dance with the Devil, try to pick up the beat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
yeah….pretty sure Hitler killed some babies. Get your facts straight
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
Thanks for calling me on that.
Perhaps the most outspoken German critic of the Nazis was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a pastor and theologian. He was executed by the Nazis in the dying days of the regime. Bonhoeffer wrote:
“Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.” (Ethics, pp.175-6)
Devils Advocate rejects that view.
His/Her view is consistent with the following:
The first court to rule that “viability” and the “woman’s health” were determinate factors in abortion was the Nazi Heredity Court of 1934, when it ruled that “…pregnancy may be terminated, with the consent of the woman concerned, uless the foetus is already capable of independent life, or unless the termination of the pregnancy entails a serious danger to either the life or health of the woman herself.” (The Racial State, 1991, p.141).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bobby – I can’t believe you are comparing an embryo/fetus inside a woman’s body to a born child of 5 who clearly lives outside its mother’s body. Something inside a person’s body which lives off it biologically is, frankly, messing up the healthy functioning of that body – disrupting the woman’s immune system, making it difficult for her to control her bodily functions, and interrupting her rational thought and functioning 24 hours per day from inside, where it is often too disruptive to control A child outside a person’s body is in that person’s control: disrupt mommy’s life, and she can hire help or ask daddy to take a turn dealing with it. It does not mess up her healthy bodily functioning. Who are all these people who just do not get it?????
Hotly debated. What do you think?
4 
19
I keep looking for some rational argument that supports asserting a right to life at conception… it certainly hasn’t appeared here yet. Wishing don’t make it so.
Like or Dislike:
4 
9
Rights must either derive from God, or they are conferred by man. There can be no rational position in between. If they are derived from God, then a zygote has a right to life.
Like or Dislike:
11 
6
“Rights must either derive from God, or they are conferred by man.”
Wrong – natural rights are derived from the “Laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God”; there’s a difference.
“There can be no rational position in between.”
LOL *sigh*
“If they are derived from God, then a zygote has a right to life.”
Then let God defend it.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
I guess we just should let god defend the aborted babies and politicians should stay out of it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
We should only intercede to defend natural rights that cannot be naturally revoked prior to being capable of enjoying them.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Nonsense on stilts, Devil. What is that difference? You rely on convenient fictions. Although you are a skilled sophist, there is a certain rigidity in your devotion to Locke.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
“What is that difference?” In a word(s): unalienable, or inalienable.
Rights derived from God or Government are supported by arguments from authority, and may be revoked, e.g. excommunication or expatriation, without mortally wounding the individual being deprived. Unalienable natural rights, on the other hand, are derived (and validated) by rational observations of Nature, and understood to be essential to the survival of the “individual” possessing them.
Individuals have a, “separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”. Therefore if you would assert that a fetus (prior to viability) possesses a natural right to life, the onus is on you to prove that that life is “separate and equal” to the life of the host it’s biologically dependent on:
1) Does a life that is biologically dependent imply possession of an independent (“separate and equal”) life?
2) Does a life that is biologically dependent imply possession of liberty (“separate and equal”) to act autonomously?
3) Is a life that is biologically dependent capable of (“separate and equal”) pursuit of its own happiness?
Like or Dislike:
1 
8
The bottom line is, you can’t ignore the natural rights argument endorsed and protected by the Constitution without amendment, and until then, decisions like Roe v. Wade will continue to trump whatever the States have to say on this issue.
RP, not unlike Pontius Pilate, is essentially washing his hands of this pesky issue by asserting, “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”, which they cannot without amending the Constitution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
6
Well, the problem here is your definition of “biological dependency” Children up to 5 at the least could be considered biological dependents, depending on your definition of course. Most 5 years old depend on someone to feed them, bathe them, etc. And also, for example, say children from birth to 1 year. They’re still highly dependent “biologically”. Hell, as a matter of fact, we all are!!! We all depend on other life to live. We’re “biologically dependent” on the plants and trees as they produce the oxygen we need to breathe as well as the food we need for nutrition. I would argue that we are all dependent. Anyways, I realize you’re playing the devil’s advocate so I’m not going to assume which position you take on the issue. These questions to lead into more philosophical type debates. Like,”is anyone really autonomous?” Or “is any one life really independent of the rest?”
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
LOL Bobby,
Philosophical type debates like, “Is reality real?”
Don’t try to pass off rationalizations that dependency on a caregiver is biological, or that fetuses prior to viability, are no more dependent than children 5 years old, or the elderly who are incapacitated.
The ability to swap out caregivers should give you some clue as to the reality of the situation. Who exactly do you swap out for the “unfit mother” choosing to reject a pregnancy prior to viability?
The State?!
Like or Dislike:
0 
8
You phrase your questions in such a way that your argument is tautological.
And Bobby’s point in relationship to biological dependency isn’t necessarily a rationalisation.
Why does the dependency need to be ‘biological’ in the sense that you assert?
Maybe we should follow the lead of the Spartans.
Since a newly born infant is independent, separate and equal with liberty to act autonomusly and pursue its own happiness, is there any reason – consistent with her rights and liberty – why a mother shouldn’t abandon it on the hillslopes if she decides it’s an impediment to going partying?
Why should she be comelled to look after the little parasite?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What’s wrong with “honest rape” – only a troll would ask such a question… but, here’s your answer. Firstly, it is the mentality of a rapist – part of the “rapist complex” or his profile.
Secondly, when they come after the human rights of half the population, it’s only a matter of time before they come after yours, too, Buddy Boy. So take your **** out of your ***.
Like or Dislike:
3 
10
Bullshit.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
As an adopted child i thank god everyday for my adoptive parents. and thank god my biological mother did not have an abortion. though I know I would not be here today if my mother believed in abortion, if I got pregnant tomorrow I would have one. I do not have money to support a child, I’m getting my college education so that one day I can provide for my family. Until legislation and laws enforcing child support become more harsh…men should have no opinion or voice on the matter. A unwanted born child suffers the most…the foster care system has failed miserably, and there are not enough loving adoptive parents out there to go around.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
27 
18
And with this topic, Ron Paul probably lost my vote.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
27 
25
Be honest. You were never going to vote for him anyway. He’s a man. Now that Bachmann is out of the race you are just waiting to see if Sarah makes a late entry. Otherwise, you will be voting for Obama.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
9 
20
I was planning to vote for him. I just joined Ron Paul Country and everything but I really dislike his views on this. I’m either going to get over this and still vote for him or I won’t vote for any one since I don’t like any of the other candidates.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
12 
11
Emily, you are a fool.
Do you seriously believe that a HUMAN BEING is not alive or what is your problem with this issue?
Hotly debated. What do you think?
8 
21
Emily, please do some more research on Dr. Paul’s views on abortion. This article has taken so many things out of context. Dr. Paul, for himself feels, life begins at conception, but he feels that the that it is each individuals right to decide what is best for them as stated in the constitution.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
Emily, did you read the article. He stated that he feels that the states should vote on this issue and that the President has no right to decide on this. It is his opinion, that he has a right to, but he is not pushing it on anyone else. That is what Pro-choice is all about, everyone gets to decide for themselves.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
Me too. After seeing his recent interview about abortion, Paul is a now officially a anti-choice wingnut in my books. On abortion, he’d force his own daughter to keep a baby conceived during rape, even if her own brother is the rapist. Just so he can stay true to his theory of liberty for all sperms. Nice.
Sure, he has a few good ideas, but he drinks too much of his own kool-aid and is out of touch with the real challenges in our society. His kind of absurd dogma goes nowhere fast and he never has clear answers to pointed questions of how things would really work. For example, when asked about a sick old man who has no family or community support, Paul thinks some magical unseen good samaritan will just show up to help him. When pushed for specific advice for this man, he refuses to answer and goes off on a speech about the concept of freewill. He can’t answer in real terms what would happen to such a man if we all followed his theory: if left alone, the old man will die on the sidewalk. Not Ron Paul’s problem! Image: Ostrich with head in sand. Fingers in ears singing mary had a little lam…until the problem goes away.
Are we reptiles, or are we human beings?
I’m always confused when folks preach about the sanctity of life, which suddenly vanishes as soon as a human is actually born and walking. Then, that life has little value or connection to them. Freedom becomes the abstract concept to worship, not real life or love. There is no freedom when you are weak, sick or hungry. There is no freedom when your neighbours are starving and you don’t trust them. There is only blindness and denial of your responsibility to humanity.
Libertarianism is like an idealistic nerdy teenage boy’s fantasy of how the world ‘should’ be. It assumes so many factors to work in synch, but ignores the what-ifs completely as collateral damage to be brushed aside. It’s life in an idealized video game: Kill or be killed, bro.
Libertarianism is just like communism: wonderful in theory and exciting in college lectures, but in the real world it can never work beyond the very small scale system (family, mafia, farm) because it refuses to bend to the unpleasant, practical needs of individual human experience. It refuses to accept that human nature is defined as much by kindness and selflessness as it is by free will.
Even that soulless beast Ayn Rand took government handouts in her latter days…under a fake name ’cause she had nowhere else to turn. She got busted though and shrugged it off as a flaw of government. So much for principles.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
8 
14
That soulless beast was pro-choice.
A lot of the socialist democracies provide a high standard of health care to the vulnerable and disadvantaged and despite doing so are functioning better economically than the US is.
However, I’d rather a Ron Paul government to a socialist democracy. It may not be perfect but Ron Paul offers an alternative to the police state you currently have. Who cares if he is anti-choice? He’s the least imperfect option.
Obama may not winn. Do you really want Gingrich or Romney for your next fuehrer?
Like or Dislike:
8 
6
Once we get rid of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers I don’t think there will be nearly as much of a need for abortion. People will be healthier. We will take back control of our food, water, money supplies and people will be better educated about sex. There won’t be nearly as much need for abortion. The Bilderberg (funded by Rothschild) controlled media won’t be around, filling peoples heads with nonsense about sex, money and drugs and people will start to take those issues more seriously.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Well, after the “honest rape” comment, it is evident that Paul is, at least, as much of a paternalistic pig as the other pigs he’s running against. (The other major contender is the Mormon guy – nobody treats women like dirt quite like the “American Taliban”.)
Where is Harry Browne when you need him?
Here is an honest Libertarian – Harry Browne’s on the subject of abortion:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/Abortion.htm
To sum it up, every person has the right to autonomy of their own body and busy-body potential rapists (like most Republicans, for example) should stay out of it.
Like or Dislike:
7 
11
Studies have shown that in anonymous surveys, up to approximately 30% of US male college students will endose statements to the effect that it is ok to rape a woman as long as you can get away with it. This is vey disturbing, and I suspect that most of the approximately 30% would be Democrats.
The rape of women is about sex, not about power. The rapists are callous, but there is abundant evidence that the rape of women is primarily sexually motivated.
Nobody, woman or man, should ever be raped. Rape is a hideous crime. It mainly happens to males. The rape of men is principally about power, not about sex. It is also primarily cruel, rather than callous.
Most rapes occur in prisons. Non-whites are massively overrepresented among the perpetrators and whites are massively overrepresented among the victims.
The rape of women is evil. However, when men are raped, there are additional evils entailed over and above the evil of coerced sex, namely the evils of racism, sadism and homosexuality.
Your attack on Ron Paul is quite unjustified.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
8 
20
You are the most ignorant person on here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
What’s wrong with your comment – only a troll would make such a comment… but, here’s your answer. Firstly, it is the mentality of a rapist – part of the “rapist complex” or his profile.
Secondly, when they come after the human rights of half the population, it’s only a matter of time before they come after yours, too, Buddy Boy. So take your **** out of your ***.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Precisely what is offensive about the “honest rape” comment? It would appear that ‘honest’ was used as a synonym for ‘genuine’. Rapists should not be allowed to perpetuate their genes. (I also have grave reservations about feminists being allowed to perpetuate their genes) Paul is saying that he’d allow abortion if the woman was raped, isn’t he? However, he’s got concerns about alleged rape being used falsely as a pretext by women who have become pregnant, or who fear that they might be pregnant, as a result of consensual but negligent sex. That’s my understanding. Am I wrong?
If you think that no women has ever falsely alleged rape, where is your evidence. Just go through the internet. There are women on trial right now around he world charged with criminal defamation as a result of having made false rape allegations.
Few unwanted pregnancies result from rape. The rape of women is a very rare event. Most rape victims are male and the offence most commonly occurs in prisons.
Like or Dislike:
5 
14
Hillary,
Stop posting your ultra-feminism on here. Don’t you have another war to start somewhere?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
I aborted at 21 because I was not ready to be a mother at 21. 22 years later I don’t regret what I did. Period. I could care less if even other women think abortion is murder. For you (women who feel as such): you don’t believe in abortion? Then don’t get one. Simple decision. Otherwise mind your business. You have free will to oppose it. Not free will to force your opposition on other women.
As for men who think like Ron Paul, when you can grow a uterus, have menstrual cramps, and give birth, then I’ll listen to your opposition to abortion. I’ll still reject your opinion as I would any female’s, but then and ONLY then will I “listen” to what you, as a “man” have to say.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
25 
16
So your discomfort, pain, and unreadiness for sex outweight a HUMAN LIFE?
You and all other anti-life activists are lower than the scum of the earth.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
15 
16
If we place an absolute, uncoditional value on protecting the human life of a helpless baby, why not carry that through and protect ALL humans who can’t help themselves. Why do libertarians stop at birth with the caring thing? Why allow guns which are used to kill other humans? There’s a double standard happening in this discussion that is so blatantly obvious. If we truly believe that life is so precious, then we should also believe in free medical care for all living beings. Anything else implies that you would allow the poor and the vulnerable ones to die, because they couldn’t pay.
Cognitive dissonance.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
“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?” ~ Ron Paul
“Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us that men, being ONCE BORN (emphasis mine), have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink and such other things as Nature affords for their subsistence…” ~ John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5.
“Most philosophies of natural rights would hold that fetuses have rights when they become sentient or self-aware, which presumes a neurophysiological definition of personhood. Self-awareness as we generally understand it would require substantial neocortical development, which seems to occur at or near week 23. In the premodern era, self-awareness was most often presumed to occur at quickening, which generally takes place around the 20th week of pregnancy.” ~ Does a Fetus Have Rights?
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/fetus_rights.htm
The Constitutional protection of a right to life that allows States to determine whether or not it shall be enforced is absurd, and until a rational argument can be forwarded that persuasively establishes a natural right to life at conception, whatever rationalization follows is founded on a flawed premise.
As a person of faith, I have appreciated hearing both sides of this contentious issue, and hope this very important debate will continue in pursuit of a rational resolution that all parties can agree on. Until then, I remain persuaded that the self-evident truths endorsed by the signers of our Declaration of Independence, and protected by our Constitution, sufficiently address RP’s rational evaluation.
“When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.” ~ Ayn Rand
Peace and goodwill to you all… and remember to to support Ron Paul, as the least imperfect candidate running for President
)
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
When speaking about the whether raw milk should or should not be available to consumers, Paul said, “as long as you don’t force other people, and as long as you don’t defraud people, you ought to have a choice.”
Gee. What a novel idea.
Highly rated. What do you think?
14 
1
…and one that ought to be practiced consistently.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
I aborted at 21. Because I was not ready to be a mother at 21. 22 years later I don’t regret what I did. Period. I could care less if even other women think abortion is murder. For you (women who feel as such): you don’t believe in abortion? Then don’t get one. Simple decision. Otherwise mind your business. You have free will to oppose it. Not free will to force your opposition on other women.
As for men who think like Ron Paul, when you can grow a uterus, have menstrual cramps, and give birth, then I’ll listen to your opposition to abortion. I’ll still reject your opinion as I would any female’s, but then and ONLY then will I “listen” to what you, as a “man” have to say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The republican conservative ‘jesus freaks’ s are for PRO-LIFE: A 12 year old is raped by her step dad and is pregnant to him! She has to keep the baby. This baby does not breath on its own and can not sustain life on its own, it is not born yet! The 12 year old has been violated, harmed, damaged and is a victim of rape. You and your PRO-LIFE morons choose to save a fetus that can’t sustain life over that of protecting the future life of a living 12 year old girl and you have elected to destroy her future forever! Three years later the step dad gets out of jail, gets a lawyer and goes to your court system and gets the right to visit his child! The 12 year old is now 15 years old with a 3 year old baby and she has to face her rapist step-dad because of your perverted sense of justice in America! You people are as sick as one can get! So sad! So much for religious ‘jesus freaks’! Gee, you might as well invite him in for a cup of coffee! If it’s the wife that was raped, well the husband can sit on the porch while the wife and rapist discuss old times!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Oh and I just want to put out there if you’re a woman and your pro-life and your tubes are tied…. You’re a hypocrite
Hotly debated. What do you think?
13 
21
So what about the fact that the “individual” life don’t start till the day the baby is born, umbilical cord is cut, and the child takes it’s first breath. Anything up to that is a life surviving “only” off of its mother’s life. Who is anyone to tell a woman what to do with a part of her own being? This discussion will always only be that, a discussion. It should never be a law because its no ones right to tell someone what they should do on this issue. If your for abortions, you should be able to have abortions. If your not for abortions, you should be able to have abortions cause your not going to, cause you don’t want to. Its like how Ron Paul talks about his drug policy. Yet you guys toss in things to defend your argument when nothing really compares to this issue, not suicide, euthanasia, or scripts from the bible that might or might not justify it [mind you not every one reads the bible]. Also, anyone who looks at this issue and lets there political views rest on it, please remember we have a president not a dictator. [I think] Vote Ron Paul….
Hotly debated. What do you think?
11 
10
Love your comment, Thank you
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
If you believe you have a right to make decisions about my uterus, then I have the right to make decisions about your testicles. It doesn’t matter if you agree, I think I know what’s best for you, more than *you* know what’s best for you.
I think that’s a fair trade. You can make decisions about my uterus if I can do the same for your bits. Deal?
Highly rated. What do you think?
32 
17
no you may not…and if you think you have the right to murder A HUMAN BEING… for the sake of your uterus…that would make it ok for me to kill you if you where in my house jut because i just realized i don’t like you….but what about the option of just asking you to live..maybe but i should have the CHOICE of KILLING YOU because you cannot tell me what to do in my own house because if you do you would be brutalizing me..boo poor me they this tyrants will not let me choose to murder innocent people
Hotly debated. What do you think?
13 
18
Your logic is compelling.
Nobody puts a gun to a woman’s head and forces her to have an unwanted pregnancy. It comes about as a result of her negligence. She cannot then abrogate her moral responsibility and assume that there is a woman’s right to kill.
There is a feminazi slogan: “Keep your filthy laws off my body”. Governments should indeed keep their filthy laws off people’s bodies when there is no harm done to anyone else, e.g., in the case of drug use. However, if those bodies are being used as slaughterhouses, then it is arguable that governments needs to step in.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
9 
11
LOL, good point… what about a little quid pro quo?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
It seems to me that the pro-choice lobby are essentially crypto-fascist. The Nazis had a concept of ‘life unworthy of life’. This appears very similar to the pro-choice attutude to the fetus. Interestingly, it’s their attitude to their own progeny. You’d have to wonder about how they treat the kids that they do have.
I once attended a seminar at which a leading behavioral geneticist was presenting his findings from a study of monozygotic and dizygotic twins raised together and apart. He had measured the heritability of conservatism as a trait of ideology. A liberal stood up and said “If what you are saying is correct, and conservatism is substantially heritable, what can we do to frequency of this genotype in the population?” The answer to liberals is simple. Conservatives don’t regard their own progeny as life unworthy of life. They don’t have abortions. Conservatives respect themselves, and respect life. Thus if you pro-choicers want to reduce the frequency of the genotype for conservatism in the population and pursue your dystopian vision of a society in which big government reigns supreme, men marry men, and criminals proliferate, then outbreed us. Stop having abortions, and in so doing outbreed the conservatives.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
8 
16
I’d love to see your evidence that indicates that conservatives don’t get abortions. That’s the funniest thing I’ve read in ages!
You make some mighty sweeping statements there about a large population. Links please. Some of my best friends and neighbours are conservatives and I can assure you, they are just as corrupt and hypocritical as my liberal friends. They have many secrets in their closets, including dead fetuses, mistresses, man-on-man action, criminal proliferation and other unspeakable conservative habits. Breeding has nothing to do with it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
I take your point. Supposedly, most serial killers are Republicans. Ted Bundy was. And, although I’ve forgotten his name, there was ‘the cannibal who ate Democrats.’ Also, G.W. Bush was a Republican. I’m not going to try to deny the facts. But I dispute that any of these people were true conservatives.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
OK, ALL YOU GUYS WHO ARE FOR SAVING THESE UNWANTED, “MURDERED” FETUS, BABIES…..
STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND GIVE THE SINGLE MOTHER, THE RAPED CHILD, THE RAPED WOMAN, THE WOMAN (AND NO ONE WANTS TO HAVE AN ABORTION)……HELP.
YOU ALL WANT WOMEN TO HAVE THESE BABIES, BUT WHEN THEY ARE BORN YOU DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THEM.
THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM IN A NUTSHELL.
STEP UP TO THE PLATE FOLKS….PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND YOU TAKE CARE OF THE KID.
NOLASUSAN
Highly rated. What do you think?
39 
6
It’s far easier to be self-righteous than respect the rights of others; easier still to demand the personal responsibility of others for their actions. Morality doesn’t require salesmen or politicians; it requires personal examples that persuade others to behave like yourself.
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
nolasusan,have you ever heard of the concept of moral hazard?Its quite possible that there are folks around willing to step up to the plate but it would be a bit foolish to let all the prospective single mothers know that in advance since that might influence their decision whether or not to have sex without contraceptives.
Like or Dislike:
4 
11
There are people out there wanting to help. It’s called adoption.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
15 
8
Dear Devil’s Advocate
[Exodus 20:13]Thou shalt not kill.[Genesis 38:9] He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. [10] And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.[Luke 1:31]Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
God values freewill and life, becouse he is the auther of freewill & life. We as freewilled creatures make the choice to kill, not God. God chose life witch is why we are here.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
7 
19
Cool.
This may come as a surprise to you, but America isn’t founded on the bible. You can flaunt quotes from that book all you want, but in the end it’s just beliefs of a portion of the american people.
Reminds me of that quote going around the internet:
Religion is like a penis: It’s fine to have one, it’s fine to be proud of it. But please don’t whip it out in public and start waving it around. And PLEASE don’t try to shove it down my children’s throats.
Highly rated. What do you think?
35 
16
But Catholicsm being the only logical and true religion, it is understadable why one would believe such.
Like or Dislike:
0 
7
“God chose life witch is why we are here.” ~ Not Just another Catholic
Please explain miscarriages then, as responding to God’s will.
…an how does going into your brother’s wife not violate God’s commandments against adultery and coveting your neighbor’s property? God appears to send mixed messages regarding killing and sex if you read all the Gospels.
Can you cite a biblical reference of God actually punishing a woman for having an abortion?
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
Devil, I’m not quite getting my head around your notion that a wife is a man’s “property.”
Can you cite any evidence, or explain your justification for this sexist assertion?
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” ~ KJV, Exodus 20:1-17
Now your turn, can you cite a biblical reference of God actually punishing a woman for having an abortion?
Can anyone??
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
You are arguing that your position is true because no one has shown it to be false, Devil?
I assume you are a young Earth creationist.
The Bible says nothing about stem cell research. Does it follow that God does not have a position on it?
My Christianity is based, in substantial part, on the arguments of special relativity theorist, Frank Tippler.
Tippler’s work converted me from atheism.
If Tippler is correct, God (Omega point deity) will resurrect the aborted fetuses.
God may be omni-benevolent.
However, if God is a punitive God, God is not always an interventionist God. So does God necessarily impose
his punishments in this life?
Or on the Day of Judgment?
It’s not my position that there should be the death penalty for abortion.
However, in Exodus 21: 22-23, does not God appear to decree the death penalty for abortion?
Exodus 21: 22-23. “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.”
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
I note that I rehashed above Devil and your answer is there.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
If you rape a prostitute, is it considered shoplifting?
Hotly debated. What do you think?
8 
22
Any rape is repugnant, regardless of how virtuous or not the woman is. It causes intense emotional pain and trauma. No woman should ever be raped. It’s actually mostly men who get raped, especially in the US, where the prison population is massive, even though the crime rate has been falling as a result of the effect of Roe v Wade in stopping criminals from entering the gene pool.
Like or Dislike:
7 
8
It was a joke…
Admittedly this thread probably wasn’t the best place for it, but still….
I was in no way condoning either rape, or shoplifting.
Tough crowd I guess
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
Neither the evangelicals nor the feminazis are renowned for their sense of humour.
Thus, you have managed to offend both groups of extremists. Welcome to the club!
Your joke was actually quite thought provoking and raises some legitimate philosophical questions, e.g., If consent is contingent on payment or non-payment, then is the primary loss pecuniary or otherwise? If a client pays a prostitute with a check that subsequently bounces, is that rape?
There is an anecdote about the famous British philosopher and mathematician, Lord Bertrand Russell. If I recall it correctly, he is alleged to have propositoned a woman on a train from London to Glascow, offering her 5 pounds to have sex with him when they reached Glascow. She refused, outraged and indignant. He then escalated his offer, repeatedly, with her refusing each time, until he reached “100 pounds and that’s my final offer”, whereupon she accepted the offer. Russell is then alleged to have said “Alright, then how about a quickie for 5 pounds right here, right now?” To that, she responded again with outrage, saying “What do you think I am?” Russell replied “Madam, we’ve already established that. What we are doing now is haggling about the price.”
Highly rated. What do you think?
10 
0
So what about birth control pills?
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
stephanie ,your comment was,short and sweet,small but perfectly formed.You have my respect.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Birth control pills are abortion of human life.
Look into how they work a bit and you will see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Every sperm is sacred?
A bit extreme even for me.
Take your hand off it Adam.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
You would think that the situation in this article is one that even pro-lifers have to see as a legit reason for an abortion. Not only did it save the mother’s life, but she already had children! Unless of course pro-lifers think that the unborn baby’s life (that’s already going to die anyways) is more important than the combination of the Mother, and her two other children living their lives without a mother.
http://www.salon.com/2011/05/26/abortion_saved_my_life/
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
You’re right, that is a legitimate reason for an abortion, if both the mother and her baby are going to die. But there is no way you can bring that into a pro-choice/pro-life argument. That is in no way shape or form the same as some careless women aborting her child because she didn’t use protection.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6
Flawed premises occur when rational thought is abandoned for benevolent rationalizations. A right to life necessarily includes the choice not to live, or to choose to accept or reject a pregnancy. This is the legitimate intent of recognizing and protecting an individual’s natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, i.e. self-determination.
You don’t get to choose for another individual what they must think and do, any more than they get to choose for you. That is the meaning of an unalienable right: that even a slave retains the natural ability to rebel, to struggle for self-determination, to assert their liberty to disobey even while chained. Likewise you don’t get to force a woman who becomes pregnant to deliver her child into your benevolent hands; she is not your moral slave.
Morality and ethical behavior cannot be supported by faulty premises about natural rights enacted as mandates. Morality begins and ends with persuasion (freewill), or it ceases to have any meaning other than that of a political slogan used convince others that they have no right to choose otherwise.
Do not pretend that you are protecting life, by forcing someone else to produce it.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
18 
14
I fail to see how preventing someone from destroying life is “forcing them to produce it.” That is the one of the more asinine comments I’ve read. Forcing someone to produce life would entail forcing someone to have intercourse. That’s called rape. While I’m at it, let me address that particular topic since it seems to be a favorite amongst pro-choicers. Having an atrocious act committed by someone else does not give you the legal right to commit one yourself. If you were molested as a child, it does not give you the right to molest a child as an adult – though this sometimes happens.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
Molly
exactly…this so called pro-choice people seem incapable of logical reasoning.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
My comments (as a person of faith) are based on a rational understanding of Locke’s argument for natural rights, as being derived from the “Laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence), “which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation” (Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 5). This was the view endorsed by the signers of the Declaration of Independence, protected by the Constitution, and upheld by Roe v. Wade.
If you can present ANY logical reasoning that suggests a woman choosing not to accept a pregnancy is a “murderer” and must be legally forced to deliver her child according to ANY precedent established by common, statutory or moral law, please do so.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
So in effect your argument is an appeal to the authority of Locke and of the signers of the Declaration. The fact that Locke and the signers were eminent men is irrelevant.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Really? Seems fairly relevant to understand their meaning and endorsement of “once born”, in order to evaluate whether or not they got the timing of such a fundamental ‘right’ wrong.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Really?
Then please provide a rational rebuttal that explains how prohibiting abortion doesn’t force a woman to deliver her child. Explain how denying her actual right to liberty protects a potential right to life that doesn’t exist until “once born”. Her liberty doesn’t threaten your life, and life prior to viability is a contradiction in terms of having the freedom to act (a right) on a potential to live that may be miscarried naturally or cause the death of its biological host at delivery.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
Allan, I’m a little confused by what you are saying. Are you saying that the millions you have lawfully, serially killed around the world in your undeclared wars were murdered, that you have murdered millions? Or is your point different? Are you saying that your trail of dead weren’t murdered because your undeclared, pre-emptive wars were lawful? Side issue, but what makes you so sure all of these wars are lawful, if that’s what you think? (Under Nuremberg-type, or just domestic law?). Also, are you saying that the Jews killed by the Nazis weren’t murdered, because they were killed lawfully, according to the German law at the time they were killed? And the same is the case with the 55,000,000 you have serially killed in your operating theatres?
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Aussie,what I,m saying is lets find the best way to minimise killing,whether it be lawfull killing or unlawfull killing and not allow our attention to be focused so much on the legality or otherwise.Killing is killing.
I agree with the general drift of your writings,which are cogently put.
The best way to reduce killing of babies is not to have sex without contraception if you dont want children.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
You are right Allan. Using contraception is the best way of preventing unwanted pregnancies. Out of all pregnancies, rape accounts for a tiny, tiny, tiny proportion. Rape is an infrequent occurrence in American society. The victims are usually male. It mainly happens in prisons. Leaving aside the case of rape, most unwanted pregnancies are due to to stupidity, promiscuity or irresponsibility, or a combination thereof. They are avoidable.
It would be beneficial for society if pro-choicers (i.e., feminists and their sympathisers) refrained from sex entirely. Although homosexuality and gay marriage are bad for society, I actually don’t have a problem with pro-choicers being gay or gay-inclined, provided that they don’t use artificial insemination. I have a problem with feminists, criminals, gays etc engaging in heterosexual acts. Homosexuality is disgusting, but heterosexuality can lead to them reproducing.
Killing is repugnant, although not to pro-choicers.
They believe in a woman’s right to kill.
There needs to be incentives, or disincentives, to stop them reproducing.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
7 
15
You are right Allan. Using contraception is the best way of preventing unwanted pregnancies. Out of all pregnancies, rape accounts for a tiny, tiny, tiny proportion. Rape is an infrequent occurrence in American society. The victims are usually male. It mainly happens in prisons. Leaving aside the case of rape, most unwanted pregnancies are due to to stupidity, promiscuity or irresponsibility, or a combination thereof. They are avoidable.
It would be beneficial for society if pro-choicers (i.e., feminists and their sympathisers) refrained from sex entirely. Although homosexuality and gay marriage are bad for society, I actually don’t have a problem with pro-choicers being gay or gay-inclined, provided that they don’t use artificial insemination. I have a problem with feminists, criminals, gays etc engaging in heterosexual acts. Homosexuality is disgusting, and in the main should be stamped out, but compared with them aborting, it’s the lesser of two evils, and heterosexuality can lead to them reproducing.
There needs to be incentives, perhaps tax breaks, or disincentives, to stop them from becoming pregnant in the first instance.
Like or Dislike:
5 
7
Aussie,reference incentives NOT to have kids.What we actually have is a massive incentive to have kids out of wedlock for single mothers in the benefit system where a man cannot provide as good a standard of living for a prospective mother in a stable relationship as the state can unless he is pulling in a pretty massive wage.
Therefore,its not so much an incentive not to have kids thats required as much as doing something about the massive incentive that is there for the single prospective mothers in the form of housing and other benefits that gets the young woman her own house and independance from her mother/family since young women in this society hate living with their mothers.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Good point. And unfortunately the kids of single mums are overrepresented in committing crimes and in the welfare system. Abortion does reduce crime, welfare dependency and homosexuality but allowing it amounts to eugenics, be it by stealth or by default.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
How is it that in this country that someone who murders a pregnant woman is charged with double homicide, but a pregnant woman can kill her own child? Are we saying that the mother is the one who determines when and if life begins?
The debate of when life starts is aimless. It is entirely unclear unless you take the stance that life starts at conception. Any other moment would be impossible to define If we even question the exact moment life begins, how can we risk killing a child?
Hotly debated. What do you think?
13 
7
The problem is, the assertion that life starts at conception is misleading. The potential for an unfertilized egg to become a person is no less prior to conception than the zygote it becomes afterwards. Until a fetus reaches viability, any assertion of a right to life is premature…
… and yes, certainly it is the actual right to liberty of the mother to accept or reject a pregnancy prior to viability. Were she to be declared unfit as a parent for wanting to abort prior to viability, what exactly would you do about it?
Hotly debated. What do you think?
10 
11
didn’t you just read the comment IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHEN LIFE STARTS or otherwise prove to me you can tell when it starts…so it’s ok for me to play russian roullette pointing to your head if i only pull the trigger once because the argument that you are going to get shot is misleading since the revolver can hold six bullets but only one was loaded so any assertion that you are going to get killed is premature…thus making it acceptable to do such a thing
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
The onus remains on you to prove that a right to life begins at conception. It cannot be supported by the natural rights argument or any legal precedent, or if it can, please do so and cite sources that support your assertion.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
Maybe so, but the point at which life begins IS based on fact.
If cells are the basic building blocks of life, and all cells are living, is not the zygote of a human a living human? If you say no, you are a fool.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Adam, while it is true that the zygote of a human has life, it is not true that the life of a zygote has a right to life. If it did, then miscarriages would require investigation as possible homicides.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
Adam while it is true that the zygote of a human has life, it is not true that the life of a zygote has a right to life.”
‘Life unworthy of life’, i.e., the Nazi position, Devil.
Precisely the same as the Feminazi (pro-choice) position.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
Your devotion to eugenics implies a certain inability to deal with facts, Aussie4RonPaul. For the most part, your comments aren’t “worthy” of rebuttal, however for clarity, to say a zygote lacks a natural right to live, isn’t the same as saying it’s unworthy of life. It simply calls to question when such a right to life is actuated.
“Most philosophies of natural rights would hold that fetuses have rights when they become sentient or self-aware, which presumes a neurophysiological definition of personhood. Self-awareness as we generally understand it would require substantial neocortical development, which seems to occur at or near week 23. In the premodern era, self-awareness was most often presumed to occur at quickening, which generally takes place around the 20th week of pregnancy.” ~ Does a Fetus Have Rights?
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/p/fetus_rights.htm
If you can rationally argue otherwise, please do so.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
How arbitrary is that! What’s so special about sentience or self-awareness? It’s minimal even in an infant. An adult animal may have greater sentience or self-awareness.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I think a happy medium would be to call life a heartbeat and brain wave function. 6 weeks. Teach women to have better understanding of their bodies and have unlimited access to home pregnancy tests. After six weeks? Tough shit, princess! Life’s not fair. Or use birth control, do everything but intercourse if you must and then you don’t have worry about it. It’s no mystery where babies come from and sex isn’t just some frivolous pastime. It’s how life is created.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
i would also add…educate your sons teach them that they are just as responsible for the child as the women carrying it…because the root of this problem is our society assumption that bringing children to this world is a women thing refusing to make men responsible for their own actions and living women by themselves to deal wit the consequences of something they both did
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
If you know or suspect your woman is going to have an abortion, would that not also make you a murderer since you could have prevented it by various means?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I first want to make this clear. I am not saying whether or not I personally am pro life or pro-choice here, because I’m not arguing whether or not abortion should be legal at the present. What I am arguing is that it was made legal by illegal means. This was a decision thrust on the american people by extreme lawyers, and activist judges. To have only nine votes cast on such a dividing issue is insanity. The fact that this is still dividing voters over 40 years later is proof that legislation from the bench produces false progress at best, and out right oppression at worst. With out states governing themselves on this matter every single american, born and unborn alike has their rights violated. Laws are determined by the votes of citizens in the state they hold residency, not judges appointed to interpret the constitution. An independent judiciary is one of the corner stones of modern progress. It goes both ways, lawmakers write policy, judges apply it in courts. If we let each do the others job then every life lost in the revolutionary war was lost in vain.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
“What I am arguing is that it was made legal by illegal means.” ~ seewhathappens
You have this exactly backwards if you are referring to Roe v. Wade, which was the legal reassertion of a woman’s right to liberty (protected by the Constitution) prompted by an illegal infringement of that right created at the State level. Roe v. Wade would not have occurred except for the actions of “extreme lawyers, and activist judges” at the State level to diminish what was recognized by the Founding Fathers as an unalienable natural freedom of choice.
Locke’s view, endorsed by the signers of the Declaration of Independence, is that a rational assertion of a right to life can only occur “once born”. Remember that a ‘right’ is a freedom of action. One is hardly free to act while trapped within the womb.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
so if you have and accident and become paraplegic from the neck down your life is not to be respected because you don’t have freedom of action
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
This is a commonly flawed rebuttal. Any life “once born” (not before) has unalienable rights asserted by the natural rights argument.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Choosemurder, you have rights from the moment you are born, whether that’s by natural birth or by C-section. Makes no difference. And whether you are born late, prematurely, or on the ‘due’ delivery date. But not for one second before. You have no rights in the e.g., 5 minutes prior to birth, compared to the 5 minutes after. Not arbitrary at all. Yes, a ‘premmy’ baby has rights, but the baby of the woman in the next room or bed in the hospital, even if conceived at the same time, and biologically older, doesn’t, if she is overdue. Make sense? The problem with your argument, your commonly flawed rebuttal, is, well, it all depends when the accident you refer to happens. If it happens in the womb due to e.g., thalidomide, or perhaps something else, tough luck. You don’t have any rights. Actually, even if your condition is treatable in the womb, it’s not imperative that the doctors give you any medical care. You don’t have any rights. Both before being born, or rather instead of being born, and after being born, you can be euthanased, because in either case you don’t have freedom of action. And, after all, that’s what a right is.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I see you rehashed this above, and my reply is there too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just because Nazi law enacted by the democratically elected Nazi government in Germany from 1933 to 1945 and the Nazi courts permitted the killing of Jews doesn’t mean they weren’t murdered. Irrespective of the fact that the actions of the Nazis were determined retrospectively to be crimes, they carried out their murders in accordance with the law of the land. Abortion is murder. Although he’s not fit to be president of the USA, Gingrich is right about a couple of things, most notably in his attitude to the courts. A good thing about him is he is not a lawyer. The biggest problem with Obama is he is a lawyer. One of the great things about Ron Paul is he is not a lawyer. Lawyers are overrepresented in government. Not in favour of affirmative action usually but the case of lawyers is an exception. The imbalance of non-lawyers needs to be redressed. Rational approaches to abortion, gay marriage etc will start happening when lawyers are culled. It will also advance the transition to true democracy. Direct, participatory democracy is what is needed. Representative democracy is a fraud. Every American should be able to vote from his or her laptop, tablet or phone on every bill. This particularly applies when issues such as abortion are involved. Women need to stop assuming that there is a woman’s right to kill. You can argue that the homo sapien being killed is not a human, but it sets society up on a dangerous slippery slope.
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
Aussie,I agree that morally it is wrong to kill and it says in the bible thou shalt not kill,but in the law of our society there is lawfull killing and unlawfull killing.
In the last century and the present century we have ‘lawfully ‘ killed millions all over the world as well as the millions killed in our operating theatres.
Perhaps there is a law of god and a law of man,but plenty have been killed according to ‘the law of god’ or so the priests would have us believe.
A.little consistency and joined up thinking would be nice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Further to consistency and joined up thinking,Since I dont like killing I tend towards minimising lawfull killing even although we may not be able to stop it completely due to forces beyond our control.
The most obvious steps towards this objective appears to me to be to end undeclared pre emptive wars and to leave the decision of whether to abort or not to the states as initial steps.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
You can’t help but think that if it was us Men who were having babies, having an abortion would never be questioned by anyone. Heck, we’d probably even throw abortion parties with our friends.
I’m sorry, but who are we to force a woman to carry something unwanted in her for 9 months. As far as I’m concerned, that baby belongs to her, and her husband, boyfriend (or just her if she was raped). Let them decide, and decide early. Like first trimester early. If they aren’t ready for whatever reason they may have, then it’s their choice.
Highly rated. What do you think?
24 
14
what makes you think that..how can you make such an idiotic statement without even bothering to presents facts to back it up…I’m sorry to say it but YOU ARE AN IMBECILE
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
You can’t help but think that if it was us Men who were having babies, having an abortion would never be questioned by anyone. Heck, we’d probably even throw abortion parties with our friends.
i was refering to the comment above when i wrote:
what makes you think that..how can you make such an idiotic statement without even bothering to presents facts to back it up…I’m sorry to say it but YOU ARE AN IMBECILE
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
I am disgusted by Kathryn. She is pretending she is God making the decision that it is better to kill babies because more people will wind up on welfare?
Also, Eugenics is not something far astray.. Margaret Sanger was the founder of planned parenthood and she helped publish articles for Nazi’s on Eugenics and abortions. She was a warped psycho who believed in creating a superior race by killing unwanted babies and ugly people.
and if you don’t believe in God Kathryn, how do you think this planet got here, and is not too hot to melt us, not so cold to freeze us, provides us with food, and elements to build shelters.. to have things we find beautiful.. of course you don’t find beauty.. It must be real sad be someone living only for the 100 years on earth and have nothing else. Also funny how people who don’t believe in God always say “God Da***it” when they get mad.. funny how people who don’t believe in God always say “God” as a prefix to I’m tired, I’m hungry, etc… Well.. its easy to see why you have no compassion for life, when you think humanity has no higher purpose, and no soul.
I’ve already pretty much given up on the human race from people like Hitler and all of his accomplices, Stalin, Sadam, Che, and now Obama.. the U.S. radical supporter of infanticide.
Like or Dislike:
7 
11
No one is going to change anyone’s mind in this forum. So everyone stop spouting your beliefs and look at the other issues facing our country.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
People amaze me that they think that viability determines whether or not the life of the individual in the womb warrants protection. The crime is somehow less in their eyes if someone assaults a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed when just short of viability. They think that the assault is the only crime. Tell that to the woman who has lost her child. These people rely on rely on arbitrary notions such as ‘personhood’. They avoid using the expression ‘sub-human’ but essentially it’s what they mean. To them the fetus is a ‘sub-person’. Someone profoundly intellectually impaired may also be a ‘sub-person’ to these people. They are generally the same people who try to say that homosexuality and pedophilia are not both paraphilias, not both mental illnesses, by referencing the legal consent concept, and paving the way for the legalisation of pedophilia. It’s all word games to these people. The fetus is not a ‘person’ they argue, but the fact is that the fetus is alive, is human, it has a human life and that human life that the fetus has begins at conception. Whether done witth malice, or merely with callousness, abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being, and that’s murder.
Highly rated. What do you think?
17 
5
“Definition of MURDER: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.” ~ Merriam-Webster
Can you actually make a rational charge of “murder” against a prenatal parent choosing an abortion prior to viability? If so, and you force that prenatal parent to deliver, and she dies in childbirth, who is your murderer then??
Hotly debated. What do you think?
20 
13
Get a job.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I am Pro-Life. I feel women should not have the option to abort a fetus. Life has begun the moment conception happens. Even in the worse of situations, such as rape, there is no reason that a child should pay. There is a reason we have other options as women. I was raped when I was younger by my biological father, I carried his child for 4 months before I miscarried. I held on to that child knowing that someone would have been able to give him/her a wonderful life. A life that a 12 year old could not. I had many options, just like the rest of us. Why should MURDER be one of our options? And to hear women say I wasn’t ready, man up! If you are mature enough to spread your legs, you need to grow up enough to handle the miracle that comes 40 weeks later.
My back ground is this, I am here because my mother was raped. She had the option to throw me away like trash but instead she chose horrible parenting. I lived most my life in Foster care. But now, at 25 I stand strong with a wonderful man and two beautiful girls. My life could have been different, I could not be here if my mother made the decision to choose the easy way out of life.
I am PRO LIFE the whole way and I say abortion is MURDER!
Highly rated. What do you think?
28 
18
“Definition of MURDER: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.” ~ Merriam-Webster
Rosa, can you actually make a rational charge of “murder” against a prenatal parent choosing an abortion prior to viability? If so, and you force that prenatal parent to deliver, and she dies in childbirth, who is your murderer then??
Hotly debated. What do you think?
10 
18
Yes. It is premeditated murder which by law is illegal. The women know what they are doing is wrong and most of them don’t sleep sound at night for years knowing what they did was wrong. I had a friend who killed herself after one due to the fact that she knew it was murder.She became so depressed that she couldn’t live with herself anymore, 3 years after the abortion she shot herself. It is sad to think that our system is so messed up about legal murder that it took two lives ( and many more). And when it comes down to a parent dying in during labor, doctors know the risks that would cause death and know how to help avoid it! I would give my life for any child that I carry knowing that they has every right to live. Knowing that they have a future that could make a difference in life It is a sacrifice that any mother and child bearer should be willing to take.
Like or Dislike:
10 
9
There simply is no historical biblical or common law, or contemporary statutory law, to support your claim, Rosa. Prior to viability, life in utero may be considered property at best, and the only existing legal claim to it belongs to the woman carrying it. Neither Roe v. Wade (which allows abortions prior to viability), or Ron Paul’s Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (which prohibits them after viability) define choosing to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability as an act of premeditated murder. Please correct me if I’m wrong by citing any evidence you have to the contrary.
Like or Dislike:
7 
11
Hang with me Devil -
Biblical position:
1. “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.” (Exodus 21:22-23)
2. “Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:15) Also see Psalm 22:9-10, Psalm 139:13-16, and Isaiah 44:2.
Common Law:
1. Henry Bracton (1216-1272), the renowned “Father of the Common Law in the 13th century categorized abortion of a “formed or quickened” fetus as a form of homicide, “the slaying of man by man.”
2. William Blackstone’s widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) which are the framework for the Declaration of Independence and ideas of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness wrote: “Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb… this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor…”
3. In 1803 England adopted a law known as Lord Ellenborough’s Act that made it a capital offense to “cause and procure the Miscarriage of any Woman quick with child.”
Contemporary Law:
1. See US Constitution, Amendment 5: no one can be “… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” and only if the conviction is for a “capital, or otherwise infamous crime…”
2. Maine, in 1840, becoming the first state to ban the abortion of infants “quick or not.”
3. Prior to the 1920′s, “Women who had abortions did so within a context of illegality and religious disapproval…” (Leslie Regan, When Abortion was a Crime).
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
Ida Know! I am impressed…
Biblical position 1, in the case of “no further injury”, clearly refers to a loss of property; not life. In the 2nd case, “life for life” clearly implies a 1 to 1 exchange; not twofers.
Biblical position 2, fails to support a charge of “murder”.
Common Law positions 1, 2 & 3 depend greatly on understanding the common definitions for “formed or quickened” and “quick with child”, which I understand imply a viable fetus; again these fail to support a charge of “murder” prior to viability.
Contemporary Law position 1, is understood to mean “property” prior to viability and may or may not mean “life” at viability.
Contemporary Law positions 2 & 3 ban the practice of abortion, but fail to charge “murder”, and in any case remain trumped by Federal protection of life (once born) and liberty (of the mother).
Again, the question remains, can a “rational” charge of “murder” be made against a prenatal parent choosing an abortion prior to viability? I remain unpersuaded that it can be without redefining “natural rights” to mean “potential rights”…
… and Pandora’s Box is filled with potentials.
Like or Dislike:
6 
7
Now Devil, I know it is about as clear ad mud for you, so I’ll give you some home work.
“Ancient law homicide or manslaughter” – what penalties were imposed? Against whom were these crimes committed?
Are life and liberty are “endowments” or “gifts” from God, or gifts from governments, and what was the position of the framers of the Constitution?
In understanding of common law, when do unalienable rights begin and who grants them?
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” (as protected by the Constitution), are entitlements derived from “Laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God”. The Founding Fathers endorsed Locke’s view (by signature) that such rights exist “once born”; not before. As they are “unalienable”, they can only be recognized for what they are and protected by government; not created, or altered.
As to “Ancient law homicide or manslaughter”, our Constitution in its present form trumps all as the definer of what is, and isn’t a legally protected right. It’s entirely possible to amend the Constitution to alter present protections, but not self-evident truths.
“Nature to be commanded, must be obeyed” ~ Francis Bacon
Human nature is no less demanding, and the Devil is in the details ;o)
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
The only way a person should be able to vote against abortion are ones who agree to take at least one of the unborn children that would be born as a result. Then, all of you who bitch about welfare? Be prepared for it to rise dramatically, as will our taxes. Funny how people get so emotional about a fetus, but once that baby is spit out, they could give a rats ass anymore. It’s nice to think “People should be more reponsible”, blah blah blah, but guess what? They won’t be. So, unless you are OK with millions more children clogging up the already clogged orphanages and foster homes…..you get the picture.
Bottom line? Keep it simple….if you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one. But, don’t tell another woman to not have one. We’ve been down that road before….the big difference, is not we are over populated….let’s just over populate it some more. And don’t give me that God bullshit……I do not believe in God and a lot of other people don’t either. (I’m totally with George Carlin on religion, politics and abortion).
Hotly debated. What do you think?
18 
24
The best way to protect life is to give people options. There should be an option to transfer the fetus up to a few months I think. We are not doing any research on stuff like this though are we. Why not? I’m sure it could be done. Perhaps even a test tube scenario. I’m sure most people would go that route if it were an option. Also, day after pills need to be over the counter for ANYONE. It aint a freaking fetus the day after–it’s just some cells.
Only options will end this. I agree it’s not right. It’s also not right to expect young people to control urges that are so strong and innate to them.
Like or Dislike:
11 
5
I am a 24 year old woman. I used to be pro-choice. The idea of having an inconvenient pregnancy and its effect on my education and my future terrified me—whether it came about through something as despicable as rape, or as accidental as a birth control failure. For this reason, this fear, I supported abortion, never really understanding the true nature of the practice.
Then I was forced to witness a late term abortion—to watch a viable infant die in a nurse’s arms, crying dying into nothing.
I can not imagine any human witnessing such a thing and continuing to support this practice.
Highly rated. What do you think?
28 
15
I call bullshit. Viable infants are NOT aborted in the US. No doctor will do an abortion when a c-section would do as well. Propaganda is fabulous, but at least lie more plausibly.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
18 
17
Doctors are no longer required to issue birth certificates to aborted babies. In the UK they do keep track: A total of 66 infants survived NHS termination attempts in one year alone. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-512129/66-babies-year-left-die-NHS-abortions-wrong.html#ixzz1lALveDSl). Same in Australia – http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/aborted-babies-being-left-to-die-20101006-167u0.html.
If we did in the US, we would have the stats.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
“Then I was forced to witness a late term abortion—to watch a viable infant die in a nurse’s arms, crying dying into nothing.”
If it is viable, it would have lived–not cried itself to death. And killing it would have been felony infant infanticide. A live birth is not an abortion. If it had been aborted, it would have been killed while in the uterus. By DEFINITION. Get your facts straight.
These discrepancies (and blatant lies) call your entire story into question. Sounds like propaganda to me.
Highly rated. What do you think?
20 
9
Having grown up exposed to women that had illegal and unsafe abortions. Having known one that got pregnant after being raped that was Catholic so was forced into having the most maladjusted mixed-race child I have ever met I can only say that Right-to-Life is a decision best left with the individual, their spouse or significant other, and a doctor of their choice. The very idea of endowing a single-cell organism with no brain or internal organ structure the status of human is simply ignorant of fact. If there is no conscious thought then there can be no soul. When does a fetus become a human is a question we may never know the answer to but I suspect it is between the ages of 1 – 2 years postnatal. My own spouse lost twins in the toilet when they miscarried, the doctor explained that most pregnancies actually self-terminate in human females for a variety of reasons. We cried to be sure but what was in the toilet could not possible be called human.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
24 
28
If you think a person needs a conscience to have a soul, then you are the ignorant one. Life starts at the moment of conception. You had a soul the second you were conceived because God made it possible. Your soul is a result of God’s breath on you.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
14 
18
So what do you think happens to the souls of the 40% of fertilized eggs that do not successfully implant?
Traditionally, in Christianity as well as biblically, the soul was said to inhabit the body upon quickening, not upon fertilization. This concept that a fertilized egg is a fully ensouled person is a new and very strange idea.
Highly rated. What do you think?
15 
3
“Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.” ~ Mark Twain
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Devil, there wasn’t a reply option anymore for your back-and-forth with Rosa and Ida Know so this will have to do.
As to Ida quoting evidence in the bible to show abortion is illegal in “god’s” eyes, what about that passage in Deuteronomy saying “A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin she shall be executed.” That could lead to some pretty crazy situations.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
The bible gives us testimony from men regarding their arguments over God’s will. If anything, it ought to give those of us with faith pause before enacting law to enforce one side of a moral issue.
Imagine yourself living under Sharia Law, and if you have faith that couldn’t happen here, remind yourself that all it would take is a democratic “moral” majority to make is so.
True morality begins and ends with persuasion; not legislation.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Technically speaking, the soul is present at conception but not viable or accountable until the child has reached 7 years, the age of reason.
Nevertheless, the spirit is present.
The words are used pretty much interchangably, but technically they are different.
I’m Catholic by the way and I assume you are from your picture so I fully support the right to life of all.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“Technically speaking, the soul is present at conception but not viable or accountable until the child has reached 7 years, the age of reason.
Nevertheless, the spirit is present.” ~ Adam
Please cite “technical” resources that support this dubious claim.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Some day, this unintelligent species (humanity), may learn that life exists before ‘birth’ and after ‘death’. Look at nature and see how it maintains its balance. A first born owl chick (usually bigger and stronger), will deprive its sibling(s) of a share of food during a time of shortage. It may even push one or more out of the nest entirely. Do the parents punish the offender? Does the Canadian goose pursue with a vengeance the arctic fox that has stolen an egg? Without humanity’s meddling, the world does just fine.
I hold as terminally stupid anyone who claims that a political perspective (among other things) is the result of DNA.
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
Genia – I do not think it is “short-sighted” to vote only for pro-choice candidates because their statements on abortion are not just personal beliefs – they are public policy positions. I, too, think prosecuting aggressive war is awful, but I am not at all afraid of defensive war. When I was forcibly raped several years before Roe v. Wade, I had a chance to deal with the issues of defense, the possibility of rape pregnancy, and the meaning and pragmatic effect of restrictive laws against abortion. Never was I more vocal for the right to choose than after no man could possibly make me pregnant, for then, no one could accuse me of “selfishness.” The liberty to own one’s body, to keep other people off it and outside it, to control what it expresses, and to prevent it from ever bringing forth the fruit of some other person’s sin, it more important than life, because, what the mere possibility of rape pregnancy proves, is that it is possible for “life” before birth to originate in hatred, cruelty, viciousness, and violent physical force. Such “life” is not worth having or giving. When a woman has the right to choose, what comes out of her originates in liberty and mindful consideration. Women would be far better off dying in a war for choice than living without war in a country that forced them to breed.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
17 
15
Practising eugenics, or dysgenics, isn’t a good idea. However, there are still effects of social policies in terms of population genetics. And abortion is eugenics by stealth. Devil’s Advocate’s may be right. Depends whether or not the premise is true, but the fallacy of argument by mere assertion is never a good idea.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
Most abortions are had by young white females, so you are most assuredly wrong. But being wrong has never stopped a Ron Paul supporter before!
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
blah blah blah liberty blah blah blah personal freedoms blah blah blah oh unless you want to have an abortion…..blah blah blah roe v wade was decided on the basis of right to privacy
Hotly debated. What do you think?
21 
16
So, “Jenny”, are you saying that just as long as a murder is performed PRIVATELY, that it is ok?
Hotly debated. What do you think?
14 
11
“Definition of MURDER: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.” ~ Merriam-Webster
Kerri, can you actually make a rational charge of “murder” against a prenatal parent choosing an abortion prior to viability? If so, and you force that prenatal parent to deliver, and she dies in childbirth, who is your murderer then??
Hotly debated. What do you think?
12 
13
Legal abortion is state sanctioned murder. It would appear that is why Ron Paul, being a decent human being, opposes it. It’s why pro-choice women oppose it. Being kind-hearted, warm, non-feminist women, they naturally find the idea of killing babies repugnant. They don’t care that there is an upside to abortion in that the babies who are being killed carry the genes of feminists, criminals and other low lifes and that in successfullly opposing abortion they allow these genes to be perpetuated and thus increase the numbers of gays, criminals, feminists and so forth in the population. Pro-choice women are different. They are typically callous and/or rationalise that what they are not doing is not murder. But they delude themselves. Human life clearly begins at conception. The fetus does not suddenly become ‘human’or ‘alive’ by virtue of a change of environment from inside the womb to outside the womb. It is already human and alive before it is born. Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being. It’s much like the death penalty, except that the fetus is not guilty of any crime, and the mother and the abortionist are the executioners.The mother behaves in a manner analogous to someone hiring a hitman, and is morally just as responsible for the act of violence perpetrated as is the hitman (abortionist). That’s the ugly reality of abortion. Most of the women who abort don’t experience any guilt, in the same way that the SS in the Nazi death camps didn’t experience any guilt. What bothers me is that, although the majority of women who abort are no good to society and are aborting offspring who if not aborted would grow up to be just like them, gays, criminals and so forth, sometimes good women with good genes and who do have a conscience are pressured into abortion, and they later do experience guilt. This is very sad. In fact, these women later suffer something very similar to a post-traumatic stress disorder. These sorts of women need to be protected from those who would coerce them into abortion, and unlike in the case of pro-choicers, the killing of these women’s babies is a loss to society.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
8 
33
Eugenics is a pseudo-science and not worth considering as a rational foundation for any position on the issue of abortion, no matter how many paragraphs you add to this discussion.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
And you are still a misguided and unethical fool no matter how many posts you add.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
I much prefer to be “misguided” by supportable facts and historical record, than to irrationally wish for things that just ain’t so.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Devil,
You are not the world’s only devil’s advocate, and I also doubt you know anything about the philosophy of science. You simply appeal to prejudices.
Here are a couple of lay comments on your pithy perspective.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100404225511AAZAHR5
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
LOL, yes I suppose you’d consider any perspective that doesn’t agree with political science as applied to eugenics or global warming to be “pithy”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Many women are being very short-sighted when they pick a candidate only due to his personal beliefs on abortion. Do they really insist that the most important issue in their lifetime is their right to abort a baby? They have the right to say “No”. They have the right to be responsible and use multiple forms of birth control to insure they don’t become pregnant. Are they insisting that they don’t want to be responsible for the consequence of their irresponsible actions? We are not living in the pre-pill society. Women do not have to be susceptible to multiple pregnancies as in prior centuries. Women have the choice to avoid pregnancy but they aren’t doing it. Why? Because abortion is legal and available so they don’t bother. Kids don’t worry about it because they just assume they can get an abortion if they do get pregnant. My fellow American sisters, solve the problem….either be prepared or just say “NO”.
Have they not considered that the safety of this nation from wars might just be a more important issue? Our states can educate our citizens. Our states can work with businesses to help them thrive. Our states can encourage non-profit organizations to help the needy, the homeless, the elderly, the disabled. Our states can work with the citizens locally to improve their communities. Our states cannot individually protect us from war. THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE in the 2012 presidential election is our foreign policy and our ability to individually maintain our freedom and liberty from internal suppression. Rick, Newt, and Romney scare me to death with their hawkish rhetoric. The more I listen to the leaders of other countries and some of our top foreign affairs leaders, the more I understand the wisdom of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. It is time to get our priorities in order.
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
I have liked Ron Paul very much! What I do find upsetting though, is the stance of the federal government not having the “pro-life” say on ending abortion legally. If one is for saving lives, one needs to step in and end abortion. Obviously women and baby are separate beings, and neither man nor woman should choose to call “abortion” a human right. We come from the womb as the unborn could, yet we fail to recognize that they are young members of our family. They are not some little vermin which we should simply “throw away” whenever we like. Ron Paul must stand for the unborn. I like Ron Paul for different reasons, but I am sad that he is not completely for ending what is considered an “silent genocide.” If Ron Paul loves the child, the human life, then I ask;
“Please sir, don’t give these crumbling states the ‘okay’ to destroy the human being.”
We could use a change…a good revolution.
Like or Dislike:
8 
10
Although I’m a Ron Paul supporter, I haven’t been able to convince a single woman to support Paul. His views on abortion are a deal-breaker for every woman I’ve talked to, including my girlfriend and mom. They believe that abortion is a human right, and that a woman who wants/needs an abortion will do anything they can to get one (even illegally).
Highly rated. What do you think?
26 
5
I’m also a supporter, but have trouble with his position on this issue. I wouldn’t say that abortion is a right, but a woman’s choice on this matter is certainly supported as a natural liberty. I think RP’s position on this issue is more strongly influenced by his Hippocratic oath, than a defensible position as a natural right to life.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
18 
10
I don’t agree with you. I don’t believe his stance is only due to his oath as a doctor. I know there are people who call themselves doctors and the perform abortions. Horrifying!
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
It is not based on the Hippocratic oath so much as his political aspirations.
Most physicians are pro-choice but feel uncomfortable with performing abortion mainly because doctors who perform it get shot by people who call themselves pro-life (but murder others, don’t let that irony slip by!). Medicine and science have made it pretty clear that life does not begin at conception, and even Biblical law treats killing a fetus like a property crime rather than a murder.
If you choose to disagree with both science and the Bible by being anti-choice, fine. Just do not expect others to live by your misguided beliefs.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
From the original oath, translated into English: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”
I believe RP is sincere in his belief, and the Hippocratic Oath has the virtue of presenting a defensible stance against the practice of abortion; the assertion of a ‘right to life’ as a Constitutional protection doesn’t.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Ha!
“Abortion is a human right” you say.
What about the right to life of the HUMAN being aborted???!!!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Again you are comparing an actual right to liberty against a potential right to life, and until you can rationally defend the supremacy of a potential right over an actual right, the actual liberty to choose to abort (or not to) prior to viability, remains the only rationally defensible Constitutional position.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly rated. What do you think?
6 
39
simccoy, your view was bravely and brilliantly expressed! On behalf of all women, especially my daughters and granddaughters – thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
I am STRONGLY – PRO-CHOICE. I have heard stories from my Grandmother and women from her generation, and many of these women performed self-abortions ranging from injecting Lysol into the womb to using coat hangers. I personally had to undergo a late-term abortion when my baby died in my 5th month. Without abortions, I would have had to carry that baby for weeks, maybe months before my body recognized the baby was dead. As a doctor, especially in OB-GYN, Dr. Paul, please do not leave these women without choice. I DO NOT believe it is up to the insurance company, or the government to decide, but a doctor/patient relationship what is best for the woman. So, take the insurance companies and the government out, make it selfpay/Planned Parenthood, but PRO-CHOICE should NEVER not be an option. It is my body, my life, and it should be my CHOICE. Personally, I choose life, but that is again my CHOICE.
Highly rated. What do you think?
35 
17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly rated. What do you think?
7 
38
There is a difference between libertarianism as a working political philosophy and libertarianism as total philosophy of life. I support libertarian leaning philosophy as a political tool to reign in the power of governing elites and to let people make their own choices as long as they do no harm. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
However, we in fact are all dependent on one another. We all started helpless in our mother’s womb. We are liable to be dependent again when we are old or sick. The only way that we will have humane society is if families and communities take care of the weakest among us. (I have read of very scarey libertarians of a dog-eat-dog school. ) When we have violence against our own children because they are inconvenient, we have set up a community of violence.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
The political effort to reset the clock to conception at the Federal level, while deferring to the States to prohibit or promote abortions, is an ambiguous policy; it says, “the protection of a right to life is optional”. A truly rational policy based on moral conviction demands unambiguous protection of Constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Based on what I’ve read and seen here, I doubt there will ever be a national consensus on whether life in utero prior to viability is naturally entitled to a right to anything. Miscarriage, as a natural cause, logically rebuts an alleged natural right to life at conception. A “Libertarian” resolution that presumes potential life as a mandate that supersedes real liberty strains the credibility of those who promote it.
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
“Miscarriage, as a natural cause, logically rebuts an alleged natural right to life at conception. ”
An early death does not mean that the life prior to death is not entitled to protection.
The right to life is not about moral values but basic moral standards. We don’t allow murder. Ron Paul’s solution is to leave the prosecution of prenatal homicide to enforce by the States. A compromise solution for imperfect people.
The onus will then be on the prolifers to make our case.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
The “onus” remains on those who believe a right to life exists at conception to prove it. The natural rights argument doesn’t support it, and nearly every philosopher since Aristotle never extended it prior to viability. An early (natural) death simply terminates a (natural) right that was understood to be endowed at birth (or perhaps at viability).
Equating the abortion of a nonviable fetus as murder, while allowing States to determine whether or not murder is permissible, is a curious blend of politics and morality to be sure.
Hotly debated. What do you think?
11 
9
Considering that God kills the majority of fetuses, I would say that they have little worth indeed. And if you actually read the Bible, God encourages Hebrews to rip babies from inside their mothers’ stomachs and dash their heads against the rocks. All for being born of the wrong tribe.
So, let leave the Bible out of this. It seems to advocate for infanticide in many more places than it is against it. In addition, it treats causing the death of an unborn child like a property crime rather than a murder. There is no reason outside of sentimentality to consider abortion murder. And your sentimentality should not affect my rights.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
If anything, God appears to value freewill over a mandate to live, but I agree with your point about the danger of cherry picking biblical moral testimony to enact as law. Such is the practice that promotes Sharia Law.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1