Protect All Human Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • DarrellRoss

    @Choose

    You are arguing for two wrongs. Men are forced to pay child support for a child they did not want in the first place. Now you argue that to make up for this injustice, women should be forced to carry a child to term they do not want?

    Do you not see the gaping hole in this argument? If you force all women to carry-to-term unwanted pregnancies, the number of men forced to pay child-support is certainly going to increase.

    You are making the same old, sex-is-for-procreation-only argument. Why are you so PRO-GAY? I love how all these anti-choice people appear to be pro-gay sex. So since I cannot have heterosexual sex without risk of pregnancy, at least I can have GAY SEX right?

    I don’t have anything against gay sex personally, but I have a hunch that many anti-choice folks are fairly conservative and likely homophobic so it’s fun to point out how their arguments are actually encouraging GAY SEX. :)

    So… your name is choose. I suppose you Choose Gay Sex then eh? ;P

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • Jae Webb from Spokane

    @Jae Webb from Spokane

    “If an elderly individual cedes power” – when does the fetus cede power? A one month old infant does not have the ability to cede power yet we presume it wants to live. Why is it that you would assume a fetus may or may not want to live when you wouldn’t make that assumption of a one month old infant. You continue to make comparisons of a fetus to other situations that are self-defeating of your own case.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • djt

    The uneducated, underprivileged, downtrodden people are also the most malleable to the power of the government…..they can easily be made as ‘slaves’. The more dumbed down our society becomes the far easier it is to make us the worker bees for the wealthy and those that want to rule us.

    People are ignorant to think most of these children don’t suffer. They do. One example: Crack babies that have lifelong mental, emotional and physical problems that leave them with dead end horrible lives.

    By the way, the next step will be to stop calling them zygotes, embryos or fetuses. They will start calling them babies from conception. Take a look at the Duggar family – I have nothing against them but I have discovered that they are all about pro-life (against legal abortion). With so many kids they most likely believe that contraception is an interruption of potential life – admittedly this is my assumption. Knowing now how fiercely they feel about pro-life, I see their behavior regarding their recent miscarriage as a two-fold message. Firstly, that they already felt the connection to their baby to come and deeply grieved the loss of it. My condolences to them and their pain is understandable. I did also take note of the fact that they had a professional photo shoot done of the body, focused on the feet, hands, etc. and placed them up at a funeral service they had for their lost child. She miscarried at 20 weeks, I believe. They allowed these pictures to be made public….why? Did they have professional pictures taken of the rest of their 19 children and make them available to the press? They stopped short of giving a name. I know they are following their hearts and what they believe and quite frankly, I respect it and have no problem with their choices or personal beliefs about their own lives. i do however, have a serious problem with others looking to strip me of my choices based on their beliefs.

    »crosslinked«

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • 53christine

      @djt WELL SAID!!! I wish more people would THINK about why they believe what they believe. They box themselves into a “party” (mostly because their parents did), and vote without ever looking at, researching, listening to…… the heartbeat of the country.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • Bkwmm

        I guess I’m one of the exceptions. Grew up atheist & pro-choice.i thank God every day for changing my life. I am thankful for His transforming Word. And, no, it wasn’t a great sermon at some hip church that did it for me or keeps me believing today. I studied on my own. God pulled me out of the ditch & opened my eyes to a view I’d never had. As for parties, I am conservative, but I disagree with Republicans & agree with Democrats on some issues. And, I don’t see one candidate I’d vote for. Maybe my standards are too high now?!

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • vampyreshadow

      @djt I find myself quite disturbed with the Duggers Quite frankly, I have been an unwilling member of the Movement they are in. Duggers promote this book on their site http://www.amazon.com/Train-Up-Child-Michael-Pearl/dp/1892112000 I have read this book, its filth, its a manual in how to abuse a child. (I wouldn’t raise a dog the way they want to raise children. Another fyi about the Duggers and the Quiverful movement, is its considered a sin to show any displeasure at your treatment, so you never know how much of its just a show.

      Want scary, go check into this movement, while I support them in their right to live this way, I honestly think we need to scrutinize this.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • djt

        @vampyreshadow You are a very brave person and have been very willing to share yourself here. You encouraged and supported me to do the same, so thank you. I admire your courage to face life and confront issues, your own and those of our society. i am getting quite an education here and will check this site out as the others you shared before. I never really looked that deeply into this family’s world…..but once here at this site, it triggered me about them with having all those kids and the odd way they went on television over their miscarriage. I didn’t get it the time but sure do now. I’ll be back later to respond.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • djt

        This movement blows my mind. Quite frankly, IMO this is irresponsible to our planetary resources. What would happen if everyone followed such nonsense? It’s very much like the Catholic Faith when birth control methods were first introduced. The book you posted on the child rearing appears pretty darn extreme and dangerous.

        Quiverful Movement

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/16/extreme-motherhood.html

        Though the Duggars do describe themselves as conservative Christians, in reality, they follow a belief system that goes far beyond “Cheaper by the Dozen” high jinks. It is a pro-life-purist lifestyle known as Quiverfull, where women forgo all birth-control options, viewing contraception as a form of abortion and considering even natural family planning an attempt to control a realm—fertility—that should be entrusted to divine providence.

        At the heart of this reality-show depiction of “extreme motherhood” is a growing conservative Christian emphasis on the importance of women submitting to their husbands and fathers, an antifeminist backlash that holds that gender equality is contrary to God’s law and that women’s highest calling is as wives and “prolific” mothers.

        Mary Pride, an early homeschooling leader whose 1985 book “The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality” is a founding text of Quiverfull, convinced many readers that regulating one’s fertility is a slippery slope. “Family planning is the mother of abortion,” she writes. “A generation had to be indoctrinated in the ideal of planning children around personal convenience before abortion could be popular.” Instead, Pride and her peers argue, Christians should leave family planning in God’s hands, and become “maternal missionaries”: birthing as many children as He gives them as both a demonstration of radical faith and obedience, as well as a plan to effect Christian revival in the culture through demographic means—that is, by having more children than their political opponents.

        Quiverfull advocates see their lifestyle, and their abundant progeny, as a living denunciation of what they call “the contraceptive mentality”: demonstrating their commitment to end abortion by accepting all children as “unqualified blessings” from God.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • djt

          The Quiverfull Movement suggest having children to create “armies” to take control of both houses of Congress and reclaim sinful cities like San Francisco. Unbelievable!

          http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/03/16/extreme-motherhood.html

          Often, children of the movement are also called “arrows.” Quiverfull takes its name from Psalm 127: “Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.” A wealth of military metaphors follows from this namesake, as Pride and her fellow advocates urge women toward militant fecundity in the service of religious rebirth: creating what they bluntly refer to as an army of devout children to wage spiritual battle against God’s enemies. As Quiverfull author Rachel Scott writes in her 2004 movement book, “Birthing God’s Mighty Warriors,” “Children are our ammunition in the spiritual realm to whip the enemy! These special arrows were handcrafted by the warrior himself and were carefully fashioned to achieve the purpose of annihilating the enemy.”

          Quiverfull advocates Rick and Jan Hess, authors of 1990’s “A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ,” envision the worldly gains such a method could bring, if more Christians began producing “full quivers” of “arrows for the war”: control of both houses of Congress, the “reclamation” of sinful cities like San Francisco and massive boycotts of companies that do not comply with conservative Christian mores. “If the body of Christ had been reproducing as we were designed to do,” the Hesses write, “we would not be in the mess we are today.” Nancy Campbell, author of another movement book from 2003 called “Be Fruitful and Multiply,” exhorts Christian women to do just that with promises of spiritual glory. “Oh what a vision,” she writes, “to invade the earth with mighty sons and daughters who have been trained and prepared for God’s divine purposes.”

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          • Wendy AP

            So, uh dose it say anything about over population & resource depletion? I’m just curious. Or is everyone who isn’t Quiverfull christian know as the enemy? (rolls eyes) If so I’m definitely a goner.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • slmccoyx

    @djt Thank you for saying this. Protect girls and women from being reduced to mindless breeding machines with no right to individual bodily integrity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • djt

    I said before and will again that I have been a huge supporter of just about all of Ron Paul’s stances. I even knew that he was pro-life and felt I could live with this because I did not feel his goal was to eliminate a woman’s right to choose. I did feel respectful of his fight against partial births – he fought tirelessly to get this passed. If I understand correctly, this means the prevention of killing what would be a late term pregnancy. With our current medical abilities these babies would be able to live with life support machines and a mother’s life be saved at the same time. I reasoned to myself that most people should have been able to make up their mind long before this time if they truly did not want a child (choosing abortion) and that it was reasonable to only do such a procedure to save a mother’s life,

    I have not been in the past, one of those people that has followed the details of pro-life and pro-choice, believing personally that it is a private matter and thinking naively that this is what the majority of people in our country believed. Since participating in this comment section, I have been investigating because I was seeing the very well thought out debate from both sides. THIS IS NOT THE CASE at all anymore. We are now as a country pretty close to a 50/50 polarized stance on this issue. The “PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT” is very strong. It has a plan and millions of dollars have been spent on the fight to prevent abortion and the right to choose. They know their battleground well. They know what hasn’t worked for them in the past and come up with new strategies. Go to any pro-life site and you will see that the goal is to overturn Roe vs. Wade in order to put it back at the state level, as they have not been able to get the Federal courts to give them what they want. Who do you think fought to get the rollback laws in place within most states if Roe vs. Wade is overturned? The people of those states did. Ron Paul has been VERY active in the pro-life groups to bring this about. So while he may outwardly be saying that he is just wanting the Federal level out of our business, this is because the Federal level has not given him what he wants. The law he spent years supported was at a Federal level.

    Ron Paul sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts which allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a presidents signature. Make no mistake, Ron Paul intends to fight to abolish a woman’s right to choose at any time, for any reason to terminate a pregnancy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • deltan9ne

    “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.”

    Clearly, he is against it, but, regardless of that personal stance, he doesn’t believe that the federal government has any kind of say on the issue.

    On quoting the bible:

    God gives direction on how much you’re allowed to beat your slave. Jesus too talks about treatment of slaves…not abolishing the concept, but how to treat them. And don’t spurt that ‘in the context of times’ bullshit, because a holy deified figure, and a timeless ‘inspired word of God’ such as the bible, transcend ‘context of the time’. Wrong is wrong. Slavery is wrong. If God says it was okay to have slaves, let alone the times or severity of how much you should beat them, then God is wrong.

    God gives specific direction on how to cook barley cakes with human feces. God gives specific direction on how to build the temple of worship (not the ridiculous used-once-a-week-mansions that have a ratio of 10-1 in American cities compared to libraries, schools, grocery stores, public bathrooms. (That stat is completely made up by me…but drive around your town, count the churches, and tell me again about the perfectly infallible inspired word of God. Seems like there’d only be one way to interpret something so universally governing…). Further, God gives specific direction on how to sprinkle the chicken blood upon the alter in sacrifice to him.

    God says that homosexuality is an abomination punishable by death. Yet, if we’re created in his image, is not God part gay? Or, is homosexuality an imperfection, a genetic mutation? How does a perfect creator make something that mutates? What is God trying to say with rectal cancer?

    I don’t worship a savior whose biography was told 2000 years before he existed. Or, the other guy who has the same biography 1500 years. Or 800 years. Why is that, why is Jesus’ biography (specific details, like the 12 disciples and virigin birth and 3 day death/resurrection routine) copied so many times? There is a reason. Look into sun worship and astrology and what happens with the sun around the days of the 25th…particularly what constellations may line up with it.

    ****

    It’s nice to quickly answer the question/topic at hand, but then go off on ridiculous tangents that espouse our own narrow minded views, as I have just done.

    But then, I dare you to contradict the points I made.

    Belligerent liberal atheists for Ron Paul, 2012.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • djt

      @deltan9neClearly, he is against it, but, regardless of that personal stance, he doesn’t believe that the federal government has any kind of say on the issue.

      deltane, I like much of your post so there is no argument from me. I just want you to understand that Ron Paul addressed at the Federal level and fought to get laws passed at the Federal level regarding abortion. Most of what he fought for has failed. This is WHY he does not want it to be a Federal law anymore. He does support and foster making abortion against the law at the state level.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • djt

        @deltan9ne Just wanted to state that the first sentence above is meant to clarify to deltane9ne what I am responding by copy and pasting from your original post and is not my statement.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • JohnLutherBarnhart

      @deltan9ne On what grounds, or by whose authority, do you say that slavery is always wrong, and why should I follow that authority? If there is no ultimate authority, as atheists would believe, then there is no absolute right or wrong. Therefore God isn’t wrong, per se, even if you don’t agree with Him. However, if God is the ultimate authority, then he can’t be wrong.

      That being said, I have to correct your statement that God does not say it is OK to have slaves, at least not like you are thinking. Exodus 21:16 “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.” Kidnapping a person and selling them is explicitly dealt with in scripture as punishable by death. The slavery that we dealt with in recent history involves kidnapping of Africans and selling them. Obviously God doesn’t say that this is OK.

      How else could someone become a slave? As payment of a debt, as retribution for theft, and as the spoils of war. If someone owed you more money than they could pay back, they could become your slave in order to work off the debt. (Or they could sell themselves to someone else and give you the money, I guess.) If someone stole from you, the punishment would be repayment fourfold (more or less). If the thief could not pay, then they would be sold into slavery.

      Now, let’s say a man stole your ox, couldn’t pay the retribution, and becomes your slave to pay off the debt. But he doesn’t want to do any work. Now what are you supposed to do? Well, God says you are allowed to beat him. If you beat him so much that he looses an eye or a tooth he is to be set free, and the debt forgiven.

      “Is not God part Gay?” Only if he is also an alcoholic pedophile Nazi wife beater gambler with a lisp. Seriously, the Bible shows us that God created a perfect world. Then Adam and Eve sinned, and God cursed the world. This is the root of all imperfection in the world. It is the result of sin, not an imperfect God.

      Yes, there are myths of god-men born of a virgin, died and resurrected, etc. Perhaps Satan really wants to be God. The first century Jewish followers of the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth were probably not well versed in these other ancient deities and decided to borrow from them. There is enough extra biblical support for the historical figure of Jesus and his resurrection to know that his original followers believed he rose from the dead. Many of them died terrible deaths instead of recanting this belief. Either they suffered from group insanity (highly improbable), or Jesus actually raised from the dead.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • DarrellRoss

        @JohnLutherBarnhart

        Dude. Get real.

        Religion has no place in government. Since this discussion is on Ron Paul who is running for President (a part of government), religion has no place in the discussion.

        It doesn’t matter what you think your god says. Keep your god out of my government. Keep your god out of my wife’s uterus. Keep your god to yourself.

        I am an atheist and my morals say that slavery is always wrong. You mention working to pay off money owed several times which is *not* slavery. Slavery is forced labor without pay.

        And, for reference, the god Yahweh as described in the Bible is completely ok with slavery, genocide, etc. The morals of your “ultimate authority” are terrible.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • JohnLutherBarnhart

          @DarrellRoss@JohnLutherBarnhart But the God of the Bible does NOT say “forced work without pay” is OK. That is the point I was trying to make. The “slavery” mentioned in the bible is NOT “forced work without pay”. It is forced work, perhaps, but as a punishment for wrongdoing, or to work of a debt. Do you have any references for your biblical proof that God is completely OK with slavery? Or genocide? And I didn’t bring up the religious point. deltan9ne did. I was correcting his logic.

          The founding fathers had a definite position on government and religion. They determined that Government has no place in Religion. You make it sound like Presidents have to be atheists. But the people who are in the government can, have, and should turn to God for guidance. The Declaration of Independence states that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, so God was in the government from day 1. Among those rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If there is no right to life, then how can there be liberty, which is Ron Paul’s point in his stance on abortion.

          If there is no God (Creator), then there are no unalienable rights. There is no right to life, nor liberty. So don’t complain if your other rights are infringed if you don’t defend the right to life first.

          Fortunately, I am not in charge of God, so I can’t keep him to myself or out of your wife’s uterus. And if your wife is pregnant, He has already been there. Psalm 139:13 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • DarrellRoss

          @JohnLutherBarnhart

          The burden of proof lies with you John. You must prove your god exists and prove he is not genocidal.

          The word “god” is not in the Declaration of Independence at all. You are terribly misinformed if you think the mention of “creator” implies Yahweh.

          The rights to “Life, Liberty, and Property” are the Natural Rights defined by the philosopher John Locke and don’t need a book from the Bronze Age to define them.

          Your view of the right-to-life is twisted. Please review what it means to have a right-to-life as defined by Natural Rights.

          No matter how much you believe a falsehood, it does not make it true.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        • JohnLutherBarnhart

          @DarrellRoss@JohnLutherBarnhart God’s existence (at least one) is proven by the kalam cosmological argument:

          1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;

          2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;

          Therefore:

          3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

          4. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)

          The burden of prove of genocide falls on the accuser.

          It is a very reasonable deduction that the founding father’s use of “Creator” would be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They certainly weren’t referring to Krishna.

          According to Locke there are three natural rights:

          Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.

          Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn’t conflict with the first right.

          Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn’t conflict with the first two rights.

          By Locke’s OWN DEFINITION, abortion is not a natural right, as it conflicts with the first right. Everyone is entitled to live once they are created. And it implies a Creator! As stated by http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ “According to Locke, God created man and we are, in effect, God’s property. The chief end set us by our creator as a species and as individuals is survival.”

          So, I don’t think my right-to-life view is twisted. Sounds like Locke.

          And I agree that belief does not mean truth. Belief that there is no God does not make it true.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • DarrellRoss

          @JohnLutherBarnhart

          You first axiom is unknowable. The Kalam Cosmological argument suffers from infinite regress. Who created god? Who created the creator of god? Etc.

          Science is ok with unknowns. Religion is the one that suffers and must claim to know all.

          It is also strange to use a cause-and-effect argument for the existence of the universe since cause-and-effect are laws of said universe. If the universe did not exist, then cause-and-effect would not exist. In fact, there’s not really a way to talk about the universe not existing since the definition of exist is bound up in the universe existing. Pointless!

          I do not believe in god. This is not the same as believing there is no god. I reject YOUR claim that a god exists. It is your claim. You believe it. I do not believe it. Not believing requires no proof. Believing requires proof. There is not need for me to disprove the existence of gods.

          Do you believe in Thor the god of thunder? No? Why not? Please call in to the live TV show, the Atheist Experience sometime with your argument for the existence of god. I recommend doing your homework first though.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          • JohnLutherBarnhart

            The Kalam argument used to be attacked for point #2, that the universe had a beginning. Science used to think that the universe was eternal. The philosopher mathematicians who formulated the kalam argument deduced that the universe must have a beginning, as it was impossible for there to be an infinite number of past events in time. Now that science has shown #2 to be correct, science attacks #1, of course. Science has to attack the argument, because there is no allowance for God. But if the universe was at one point a singularity, with everything in the universe bound up in it, why did it explode? Something outside the singularity caused that. Since everything in the physical universe was bound up in the singularity, it must have been something non-physical.

            The kalam cosmological argument does not suffer from infinite regress. “Anything that begins to exist has to have a cause”, but God doesn’t “begin to exist”. He is eternal.

            Things other than our universe could and do exist. How do you know that cause and effect would not exist if our universe didn’t exist?

            Everyone has a set of beliefs. Believe: “to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so” You believe the statement “there is no god”.

            The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob commanded “thou shall have no other gods before me”. This commandment implies that there other “gods”. We learn from the rest of scripture that there are powers and principalities in the spiritual realm that may be behind some cultural or national gods. Thor may or may not have been an actual being. I don’t know. I definitely do not worship Thor, though.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • JohnLutherBarnhart

            Also, I see that you didn’t bring up John Locke again. Do you have any examples of inalienable rights that do not ultimately rely on the God of the Bible as their source?

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • vampyreshadow

        @JohnLutherBarnhart @deltan9ne for the bible thumpers
        http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DB6S8l4CJnsk&v=B6S8l4CJnsk&gl=US

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Candra

    DONSTER68, of course, you’re a man. And one of those men who’s so pompous he believes that ONLY his beliefs are correct and therefore apply to everyone. In other words, an ego-centrical, ignorant man. I don’t believe in hell, so I don’t have one to go to. But I have read parts of the bible and it does state that the judgemental proselytizers such as yourself will find themselves surprised to be at the head of the line of sinners. Because FREE WILL is number one. Won’t answer your posts anymore because while even Jackson12345 tries to reason, you just try to insult and scare others with your silly beliefs. Never mind we don’t buy into them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • Jackson12345

      @Candra I apollogize if I scare you, I was just making a point based on relativity and definition.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Jackson12345

      @Candra I have deleted those comments, because they were out of context and much too hyperbolic.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Jackson12345

      @Candra I have deleted those comments, because they were out of context and much too hyperbolic.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Candra

    I no longer believe he’s pro constitution. The Constitution guarantees that ever PERSON should have rights. That’s person. It doesn’t say every embryos’ rights should supercede the rights of any living person, male or female.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Jackson12345

      @Candra I should have a right to kill my child, I agree

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Jackson12345

      @Candra I am sorry, my super developed embryo

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • vampyreshadow

      @Candra Guest, granting use over another person’s body, is granting more rights to the fetus then the bearer of the Uterus, plain and simple, and violates the Constitution as well, forced labor is slavery. And Forcing a woman to Endeavor to carry a fetus for 9 months is slavery

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Bkwmm

        Your view is truly heartbreaking. Man, woman & child are the very basis of our existence. It’s called the family unit. And how we’re they created? I guess from your view, we are all nothingness…blobs with no minds or morals. But, for some reason, we screw each other for grins & create more unwanted blobs.
        The family unit is under attack from all sides, & I, along with 50% & growing Bible thumpers will NEVER stop fighting for God & His design. We will NEVER quit spreading His message. It is sad that 50% deny their own Creator & could care less about their existence & have no idea what it means to know the love of Jesus Christ. I thank God I am not you. I thank Him!!!!

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Candra

    GINGER, I think your comments are right on. I agree that anit-abortion is in part a ruse to create the dumbing down of Americans because the ignorant people who are uneducated and poor will have more children who are STUCK in a rut that serves that wealthy.

    Although I would disagree about men wanting to control women via abortion just because they don’t have rights. We’ve got a history of men controlling women by controlling their bodies, so they just want to maintain that right. I once read a diary written by a lady in the late 1800’s. Many women do not realize that only around a hundred years ago, a husband could send his wife into an asylum to have her clitoris removed (yes, in the USA) just because she disagreed with him, or accused him of having an affairr (a woman speaking back to her husband was considered insane). Having said that, one of my poor brothers is in the poorhouse (except my mother helps support him, which has almost taken her broke) because two women he dated got pregnant, and had the babies. So there he is. No time or money to go to school or improve his lot in life. He works to support two babies he didn’t ask for instead. I feel very sorry for him and wish he’d has a vasectomy.

    I had a friend who was so strongly anti-abortion we couldn’t talk about it or she’d froth at the mouth. Two years after she moved, she came to tell me she got pregnant and had an abortion. For the same reasons, it seems, as you. She had a boyfriend whom she married. But neither had an education, neither had money, and she knew she would resent it because it would keep her from getting these things. She now has it all, including a son she adores and supported through school, etc. because she could

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Jackson12345

    It is sacred and precious, and dangerous to be dismissive about it. We are left with our own initiatives, and our motives drive us to our ultimate end and our purpose and passion fueling that drive. If we fail to understand the importance of this issue, we have failed to achieve much progress otherwise drowned by our narcisistic endeavors.

    We sacrifice our future to appease our present.

    This issue goes much further than abortion, it is the hideous creature that steals our minds, our heart, and our humanity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  • Jackson12345

    It does not belong to you, it is a gift, and furthermore the most powerful and beautiful gift, the continuation of your legacy, your thoughts, your heritage and your love. Its not a rights issue, its a perception issue. your greatest loss and your greatest gain.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • Candra

      @Jackson12345 No, my own actions towards other living beings are the continuation of my legacy. If it was such a great gift, it should be for every being. But I bet you eat meat and kill cockroaches. They are living beings and were once the babies of big cockroaches. I won’t read your posts anymore because you sound like you’ve been brainwashed.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      • Jackson12345

        We do not have the same understanding of “being” or “baby”. And by tone coming from our conversations I do not believe we want to.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Jackson12345

        @Candra The reason I say that is because I believe you are making an action towards another being in the process.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • DarrellRoss

      @Jackson12345

      A gift? From who? Man creates sperm. Woman creates egg. Put them together and they form the new human life. This was no gift. It’s evolution in action. 1/2 DNA from Mother and 1/2 DNA from Father. 23 Chromosomes x2 = 46 Chromosomes.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • JohnLutherBarnhart

        @DarrellRoss@Jackson12345 So, you recognize that a fertilized egg is a new human life! Now, are you for or against the right of the mother to kill it?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • djt

          @JohnLutherBarnhart@DarrellRoss@Jackson12345 You are twisting his words as he is referring to the potential of human life that may or may not develop from the fertilization of the egg. If you read his others post you will see you are making a play on his words.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • JohnLutherBarnhart

            It isn’t potential human life. It is human life. It may or may not develop past the fetal stage. But then it may not develop past the infant stage or the adolescent stage, either.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • DarrellRoss

          @JohnLutherBarnhart@Jackson12345

          Yes, the mother has the right to terminate the fetus. Or kill it if you prefer that terminology. I am definitely for the right of the mother to kill it.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • DarrellRoss

          @djt

          No he’s not really twisting my words. I do believe the mother has a right to kill an unviable fetus. I don’t think she should be able to abort once the fetus is capable of living outside of her body. But yes, the mother has the right (currently) and should retain the right to abort or kill the fetus.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  • Candra

    Yes, anyone who’s against abortion is FOR more children being abused simply because they’re unwanted. And all these men who want, ultimately to just control women through their bodies, do nothing to help unwanted children. Hey, Ron Paul, put your actions where your big mouth is and ADOPT unwanted children instead of making women make all the sacrifices.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • djt

      @Candra This is accurate and not just your opinion as pro-lifers spend no money educating people on contraception. They preach abstinence and adoption. This is about how indecent and immoral they perceive sexual behavior in regard to what they say is promiscuous. I don’t personally believe in having multiple partners, frivolous one night stands, etc. But, this is my personal belief. Preventing abortion is not going to change the sexual practices of others. I have no interest in policing the sexual behavior of others. I do however, think it is a good thing to support one (if they want your help) in finding their own inner moral compass…not to follow my moral compass. Education of the present human being is to be most effective. I believe that stats show most get pregnant while using some form of birth control that fails….most are not acting irresponsible about contraception. This is about what pro-life believe is a lack of moral responsibility. I personally, believe that at the deepest core this is about policing the morals of others. This is the only way I can reasonably accept that people would say a mother should die for the fetus. Their argument, in it’s infancy (the pro-life movement that began when abortion was legalized) allowed for situations of rape or if a mother’s health or life was in danger but then this gave argument for the pro-choice stance to challenge if the fetus loses rights based on the above situations, then indeed this fully exposes the truth of the pro-life stance as a moral concern for the mother’s behavior. In order to get what they want, they have to refuse ALL situations, otherwise their stance has too many holes. And this is what they are willing to do to get abortion ilegalized. They are willing to let people die on the premise that they consider these cases a rarity (in their hearts but not openly) and we (as in myself) are to be sacrificed for what they believe is an honorable thing to do to save the “degradation” of our society and the future of our country. This is my personal opinion.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Candra

    I USED to be a staunch Ron Paul supporter. I was planning to volunteer my time in any way I could to help his campaign and proudly display a Ron Paul bumper sticker. As a woman who will NOT tolerate any man telling me what I can and cannot do with my body (and BTW, if something is IN my body, it’s part of my body no matter what any man, who cannot bear children thinks) I no longer support him as the answer. When men can have children, they can have a say on how to manage pregnancies unwanted or otherwise. Unless all men will consent to women having the rights to tell them what they can and cannot do with their testicles on moral grounds. Oh well. Back to square one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Donster68

      @Candra wow.. I hope you get aborted next time you kill a baby… you dont have the right to kill a baby… hell is hot.. get ready for it…

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • DarrellRoss

        @Donster68

        Seriously? Do you just *have* to throw in the postmortem threats? Get real.

        If you disagree with Candra, then say so. Your empty threats do nothing but paint you as infantile.

        You are also incorrect. At this time, abortion is legal. If you are referring to the unviable fetus as the “baby”, then Candra does in fact, have the right to kill the baby.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Donster68

          @DarrellRoss You have the right to burn in hell next to Candra… so join her… she does not have the right to burn in hell… so shut the fuck up bitch

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Donster68

          @DarrellRoss You have the right to burn in hell with her… have fun… she does not have the right to kill a baby.. so fuck off

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • DarrellRoss

          @Donster68

          Oh gee thank you. Do you have any idea how empty postmortem threats are to atheists? You are the antagonist here.

          She most certainly does have the right. No matter how much you repeat a falsehood, it does not become true. No matter how hard you believe something exists, it does not make it exist.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • vampyreshadow

          @Donster68 @DarrellRoss How very Christian of you don, Your bible condemns judging people…… well in spots other spots is the worst of humanity placed into one insane diety, and encouraging humans to kill disobedient children. HEY, I have an interesting act of god for ya don, the day before my abortion appointment I had a miscarriage, it was complete, safe, and saved me 600 And a 6 Hour drive…. Act of “god”?

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • djt

      @Candra Hi Candra, I was actually planning on doing the same in my support for Ron Paul. I am now at odds with this and feel deeply disappointed as I know that while Paul is appearing to have full transparency with his stance on this, he is not. This has made me doubt him on many levels now. Let’s just speak of one situation of a child…a woman/child that gets her period at the age of 9. Due to all the hormones in our foods females get their periods at younger and younger ages. Due to all the medical advances, we have the girth of a woman’s pelvic bones narrower than in all of history. Her body is capable of becoming impregnated. Suppose she lives in an environment where she is continuously raped? And if people don’t believe this happens and happens a lot they need to get their heads out of the sand, because it does. She is helpless, dependent and captive (often even in the home of your biological parents). What if this child/woman gets pregnant? Of course, her little girls body, her pelvic bones, the size of her vagina (studies show severe scare tissue in girls raped so young) and the condition of it cannot carry a child to term without it taking her life? Pro-liers say, SHE DIES for the fetus. Holy crap – what a horror.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Candra

        @djt HI, I actually was not going to check these messages anymore because so many whackos responded basically telling me I’m going to hell and blah, blah.

        My b/f was devastated as he even did a video he posted on YouTube supporting Ron Paul, which will be taken down.

        I wasn’t so surprised. After all, Ron Paul is a Freemason (he wears the ring), and he went to an uppercrust school. Same as every other politician. AND he’s supposed to be different from all the others, same as every other politician. Makes me realize that if you want true change, you can never expect it to come from INSIDE whatever needs to be changed.

        You make excellent points. Growing up, I only had ONE female friend, of many who hadn’t been raped at some point. And it’s true, females are “maturing” faster due to the crap food their families are feeding them. They are not only unprepared physically but mentally and emotionally as well.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • djt

          @Candra Excuse my language, but WTF???? Are you serious? i thought he was the only “true blue” and believe me I have done a ton of research. i care a great deal about what happens to this country and the rest of the world. I care about people and the quality of my life and the lives of others. He IS a Freemason? Whoa! Okay, no more struggle for me. I have studied this government inside and out. I can tell you that I (in my jaded moments) figured if Ron Paul did ever make it to office we would know he was for real when he was assassinated. The Bilderberg Group is always working the angles in an attempt to measure their next move, are they not? I recall when Hillary Clinton and Obama were supposed to meet for a “discussion” when they were neck to neck in the last primary. No one could find them at the proposed meeting but they were found at the yearly Bilderberg meeting together. Youtube it and you will find pics unless they have been removed. This was a defining moment for me….they had all worked out their deals and found the next “Chosen One”. I voted for Obama but only because McCain troubled me more. But it really is all of the same essence….the same machine. It’s frightening because it is almost too late in many ways as we have been so busy being brainwashed. I am 52 and voted since i was 18. A part of me thinks it is pointless except for just a few reasons and the right to choice is one of them.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • sara3223

    SEX ED 101: If you have a vagina and a penis goes into it and injects sperm, you could get pregnant. (Chapter 1)

    The opportunity to choose starts before we get laid, not afterwards; with the exception of rape of course. In that case, a woman should have the choice to allow or not allow her body to go through 9 months of contributing to another human developing inside of her.

    Abortion is not a one logic issue. All politicians will pick a side on abortion and all other issues.. We have to decide which issues are more important to us and choose base on our convictions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • DarrellRoss

      @sara3223

      You are making the “sex is only for procreation” argument. It’s very old and nihilistic. The argument also tends to be described as “forced pregnancy is punishment for having sex”.

      A fairly entertaining bit about your argument — it is PRO-GAY. You see, gay people can have all the sex they want without risk of pregnancy. So you are actually arguing that it is better to have gay sex if you want to get laid without risk. You are not arguing for abstinence but for gay sex. Either that or you forgot gay sex exists.

      Most people are anti-abortion. Only some people are also anti-choice. Most pro-choice folks are also anti-abortion – they wish to see fewer unwanted pregnancies and are proactive, pushing for things which help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies:

      1. comprehensive sex education – note that many anti-choice folks push for abstinence-only education which makes their claims of pro-life sound incincere.

      2. contraceptives available to all – note again that many anti-choice folks push for no contraceptives or even teaching about them which makes their claims that they are anti-abortion seem insincere since they are uninterested in providing ways to reduce the number of them.

      3. proactive support for mothers – note once again that many anti-choice folks also push to cut off funding to programs that help young mothers who have unwanted pregnancies.

      Abortion is not a political football. It is essential to women that they have the right to abort in order to control their own bodies, their own health, their own financial livelihood, and their own family planning.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • djt

        @DarrellRoss@sara3223 Darrell, you are so welcomed here by me. i just love your posts and find them very well thought out and organized. Very witty and funny at the same time. Keep it up! The gay-sex comment left me laughing so hard. Guess we should all turn to “sex with the self” because none of us are safe or responsible otherwise. Or we can shrivel up to prunes.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Jae Webb from Spokane

    Comparison to suicide is most irrational. The unborn is not choosing to take its own life. Its life, and all the potential therein, is being taken from it by another. The basis of Dr. Paul’s contention is that the unborn are as alive as a two or three year old. The ethic of custodianship then applies equally. As a mother of a three year old cannot choose rob that child of life and future potential, neither can the mother of a three month old developing fetus.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • slmccoyx

    All – It is clear that pro-choice people are pro-choice and anti-choice people are anti-choice. The pro-choice people all have sound, reasoned arguments for their side, which are backed up by the Constitution (e.g., no enslavement, equal individual rights, no unreasonable search and seizure) and science (yes, the fetus is parasitic – see the pregnancy and immunological literature. They are backed up by the fact that, if a pregnant woman dies and her fetus is pre-viable, the fetus will also die, but if the fetus is viable, that fetus can be removed from the woman’s body and live even if it needs an incubator. The woman has already been endowed with life, life in herself. The pre-viable fetus has only part of the woman’s life, not so much like an appendage (e.g., a leg), but because it parasitically takes life from her life-endowed body. If she wants to share her life with it, fine, but if she does not, for anyone to say she has to is to alienate her right to her own life even if it will not kill her. A pre-viable fetus does not have life in itself and thus does not have its own life to have.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • djt

      @slmccoyx Well said!

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • slmccoyx

    All – What represents the fetus is the objective scientific facts of what happens inside any woman’s body in pregnancy and the obvious following fact. If any pregnant woman dies before the viability of the fetus, the fetus also dies, but if the fetus dies, the woman’s body does not. The bodily organism that we call the woman’s has “life in itself,” but the organism we call the fetus does not have “life in itself” until it is viable (i.e., if the woman dies, we can remove the viable fetus by c-section and it will be able to live, even if only in an incubator). When anyone’s body has “life in itself,” the DOI creator has endowed it with an inalienable right to life (meaning, as long as it is not a serious physical threat to the woman’s life or physical/mental health, its life has to be public concern). But before that, the fetus is like a parasite, in that, though it is not just an appendage of the woman’s body (like a leg), it does not have its own life; it is alive only in that it is obtaining some of her life. If she wants to share her life, fine, but if she does not, it is her life and no one has the right to try to alienate her right to that life by forcing her to give it to the fetus. No matter what you say, the scientific evidence shows that it is parasitic from implantation (read the immunology and the placenta in pregnancy literature).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • botenemy

    Agreed that not one candidate is or falls in ‘perfect” in all categories of running a country. You read between the lines and make your best choice. Is the state of the economy more important than the issue of abortion which in my opinion will never be overturned. I don’t quite understand libertarian politics. I like Ron Paul because he does have some straight shooter ideas that I believe can jump start this nation back to where it was when it was best. His view on abortion just puts a negative on his box for me because I just cannot fathom why anyone would feel it’s someone else’s right to decide a woman’s fate as to her decision of abortion or not. The last thing this country needs is unwanted babies that get pushed through the horror of the programs for orphans. It leads to nowhere. So in ending this I believe in freedom of woman’s rights in choosing what is best for her . Endgame

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Demsprtr

    To Public Postings

    My reply prompt doesn’t seem to be working. I must respond to you in this form.

    I for one am impressed with your points and beleve that we can agree to disagree. And I like that. I agree with your most recent post and having read it again I can say that I agree compleatly with your thoughts on subject. I hope we are not alone with our vision. Thanks. Ron Paul in 2012. I think it can be a good start.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Demsprtr

    The 1% will sell us a grenade for $1.00 and the pin for $1,000.00. Or heck a bargain 10 grenades for 5 bucks and the pins for 5 thousand bucks. Don’t know about you, but, I can only hold one gernade at a time. We can create jobs for war but not for an honest living. Why is that? We need work, not war. We need a better energy policy, not another war. I don’t want to go hungry or freeze in this country for fear of a terroist. I’ve been a patreotic citizen my whole life I haven’t changed and will not change. The Patreot Act and NDAA are a gun aimed squarely at American citizens. Bush said that a dictator ship would make his job easier, just as long as he was the dictator.[ What the heck was he doing that made that statement nessary?] just as long as he was the dictator. What does that tell you about the people we put in positions of power? We need a re-start of good government this time. Vote for Ron Paul in 2012.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0