Although I am a Paul supporter, I am pro-choice myself. I posted this here not because I am thrilled with the endorsement, but in keeping with the sites motto: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs. I figure that this will be an interesting and relevant story that will generate a lot of controversy. So have at it folks!

"I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn," she said at a press conference in Washington this morning."

So Pauls never wavered, unlike her and Shitt Romney.

FLIP FLOP

FLIP FLOP

Here's a great website for morons.

rense.com

Posted by Bill_OReilly


Bill, you are obsessed with the conspiracy crowd.

These guys are "out there"

"Bill, you are obsessed with the conspiracy crowd."

Not really. From time to time I like to annoy them....

Just an aside from good ole La. We had our Republican Caucuses tonight.

Quick explanation of Louisiana Caucuses. This year we have no "committed" delegates from the caucus process, but each campaign still puts forth their delegates.

So the Jan 22 caucus is to choose the 105 delegates who will goto the capitol on feb 12 and choose 21 of the states 44 delegates, these delegates will be officially "uncommitted" but will be drawn from the winners of tonights caucuses (aka Candidates supporters)

The primary on Jan 9th will choose the states other 21 delegates (3 of the 44 are RNC delegates). If no candidate on Jan 9th recieves 50% +1, the 105 delegates on feb 12 will then choose the last 21 delegates and they will be considered "uncommitted"

As it stands, reports are showing that Ron Paul may be getting the majority of the 105 delegates from tonights caucusing. Meaning on Feb 12 he will have 20 RP delegates chosen, and a possibility of all 41 Louisiana delegates being his(uncommitted but drawn from his supporters)

You can always count on Louisiana Politics being clear as mud....

I think George Carlin summed it up best when he said:
"Have you ever noticed that most women who are against abortion, are women you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?"

I think George Carlin summed it up best when he said:
"Have you ever noticed that most women who are against abortion, are women you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?"

Posted by ImpeachChimpy

Man I needed a laugh!FF

I think George Carlin summed it up best when he said:
"Have you ever noticed that most women who are against abortion, are women you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?"

For some reason that post made me recall the image of Dana Carvey's The Church Lady.

Does anybody remember that skit?

Good for her. Ever wonder why the major players in the R.v.W. have had a change of heart?

If you're an RP supporter, does his pro life stance diminish him in your eyes?

I am a RP supporter and pro-choice although against late-term abortions. His pro-choice stance does nothing to waver my support for 2 reasons:

1) He has repeatedly said that he want the Federal government out of the issue and that it is for the states to decide. I agree with that.
2) Abortion rights will be the least of our worries when we become a 3rd world country in the greatest depression in our history. People have to realize what the biggest issues we are facing are and abortion isn't one of them by a longshot..

Question(s) for pro-choicers:
How important is a candidate's position on abortion?

It was never that important to me and it's becoming less and less important the more I learn how men are shafter by family court and how their right to chose is denied. I am beginning to see some people's obsesion with abortoin rights as a support of radical female-supremacist policies where it is the woman's choice whether she wants to reproduce or not, but men have no say, especially in the financial arena.

If you're an RP supporter, does his pro life stance diminish him in your eyes?

Posted by OohRah


I basically agree with JSP.

"1) He has repeatedly said that he want the Federal government out of the issue and that it is for the states to decide. I agree with that."

But lately he's been anything but clear on his abortion stance. Here, he's saying "as much as I talk about civil liberties,...the issue of life is important." That implies that civil liberties would take a back seat to "the issue of life" in his eyes.

I think that ultimately, Ron Paul would pursue policies that made it more difficult for women to get abortions. And as someone who's pro-choice, that bothers me.

Nothing like the libertarian opposition to the government interfering with individual choice.
I mean Ron Paul's position is nothing like the libertarian position.
Ron Paul's "states control" position on choice, race and sexual preference is nothing like libertarian opposition to government interference and is nothing more than code for the ultra-righties, who want to eliminate Federal control so they can extinguish these rights and protections state by state. I expect, if the Paulies git their way, they'd be pushing it down to local government, or maybe neighborhood watch groups.
As for JSP's comments, it would seem women in poverty caused by a depression,would need more reproductive choices, not less. Especially since the Paulies also want to eliminate welfare, except the charity coins dropped into the needy's tin cups.

Wow, this should take Paul over the top. BFD....

NG3, you don't think there are lots of choices to prevent pregnancy....or is the abortion option at the top of the list? If the courts were ever to overturn Roe v. Wade....wouldn't you be screaming that it should and could be left up to the states rather than the feds dictating it up or down?

Yesterday, former New Mexico Governor Gary "Veto" Johnson announced that he is supporting Dr. Paul for president. Governor Johnson is an icon to small-government conservatives and libertarians for his long-standing commitment to the principles of the Founders. You can read our press release here.

This morning, Ron Paul also received the glowing endorsement of Donald L. Luskin, a prominent financial commentator on CNBC and Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics LLC. You can read Don's editorial in National Review about why Ron Paul is right for America here.

Ride: There are currently several pregnancy prevention choices-almost all (abstinence excluded) opposed by anti-choice groups. It took years to get RU-486 around the talibaptists-how long would it be before they went after it if abortion was eliminated? Then the pill, and then condoms. Remember, a lot of the anti-choice groups are RC based. Look at how these groups manage to ham-string family planning funds and continue to push failed abstinence only sex-ed already.

Why is it "libertarians" think the government has no business in what you do in your backyard, but every right to control what medical care you receive?

northguy3 , Libertarians are not a monolithic bunch. Some Libertarians are pro-choice because they don't believe the state should be involved in decisions about abourtions while others are pro-life because they view abortion as murder and they believe it is an appropriate role of government to prevent or punish murder.

The same goes for the death penalty and even immigration, there are a lot of disagreements among Libertarians on such controversial issues because one interprets Libertarian principals in one way, someone else has a different interpretation.

HTH

Question(s) for pro-choicers:
How important is a candidate's position on abortion?

If you're an RP supporter, does his pro life stance diminish him in your eyes?

Posted by OohRah


Ron Paul is personally Pro Choice, but does not think that the Federal Government should have anything to do with it.

Row v. Wade is unconstitutional. It needs to be thrown out based on the Constitution saying that it's a State issue. It would be up to each State to put an abortion law in place.

I already know what you'll say. Some states will have anti-abortion and others will not. Young, underaged girls will need to travel out of state and her boy will risk Federal kidnapping charges, to get an abortion.

I agree that this is a problem.

But, what I am saying is that Ron Paul forces the unconstitutionality of the RvW decision.

Dr. Paul's attitude is that the Constitution is being ignored. We should change the Constitution, not ignore the law.

Now, if Paul were a Governor, his views on abortion would be relevant.

Look at how these groups manage to ham-string family planning funds

Posted by northguy3


Where do these funds come from?

"Ron Paul is personally Pro Choice, but does not think that the Federal Government should have anything to do with it."

No he isn't. He is personally pro life. Why are Ron Paul fanatics so blind to his stances that don't comport with their own ideology?

"My own pro-life views were strengthened by my experiences as an obstetrician. I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society."
-Ron Paul

"There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist."
-Ron Paul

"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."
-Ron Paul

No he isn't. He is personally pro life.

Oops, you're right. brain fart.

It needs to be thrown out based on the Constitution saying that it's a State issue.

Eddie: Link please. And how it trumps the 14th Amendment.

Question for the Paulies: Since Ron obviously accepts a government's right to interfere in your body (to the point of imprisoning/executing your ob/gyn)would you also accept the government has the right to interfere with what you eat or drink or inhale if the government deems a life at stake?

How about the government having the right to remove one of your kidneys to save another person's life?
If the woman dies of pregnancy realted issues, do we send the government to trial for murder?
And since 30-40 percent of all pregnancies end up with a miscarriage, if the zygote is a person, as Paul swears it is, does that mean God is a mass murderer and can we consider whatever church the mother belongs to a terrorist organization?

Hard to be a libertarian when you want to manipulate society to suit your beliefs, I guess.

And how it trumps the 14th Amendment.

Posted by northguy3


In the same way that some State have the death penalty in their books, while others don't. A convicted murdered in Texas could face the death penaly while a convicted murdered in Michigan faces at most life in prison without parole. How is this consistent with equal protection under the law? And yet, I don't think the Supreme Court would strike down the State's authority to carry out an execution based on the 14th Amendment, at least not for now.

If each State can decide whether or not to execute convicted murderes, why can't each State decide on abortion?

"How about the government having the right to remove one of your kidneys to save another person's life?"

Don't give them any bright ideas :( In Britain they are already considering an opt-out system for organ donation when people die.

The bottom line, some Libertarians ar like me, pro-choise, those who are pro-life object to abortion the way the object to someone being shot by a gunfire. If you favor laws punishing murder does that disqualify you from being a Libertarian? Nonsense. If you favor laws to punish murder are you trying to manipulate society? I would hope you don't answer yes to dthat. Although people might be wrong that life begins at conception, the opisition to abortion is not an endorsement of big government. you are just distorting things.

"Since Ron obviously accepts a government's right to interfere in your body"
--NG3

As usual, ignoring that in the case of abortion, two bodies are at stake.

Not the same as illegalizing pot or burgers (I hear they go well together).

Member: I'd say that the intrusion of big government, especially with Paul's interjection of the full weight of the legal system into medical decisions, is the endorsement of big government. And since Paul doesn't feel the same way about other issues, I know he's not a big government fan, just a big theocracy fan.
Not surprising, coming from a guy who thinks the era of burning witches was the good old days.

And please give me a quote from the Constitution defining who gets to make medical decisions-the state or the feds.

As usual, ignoring that in the case of abortion, two bodies are at stake.

Not really. Sticking two cells together isn't a body. But I'll take you up on the idea that the State has the right to force you to give up a kidney or bone marrow to save another, real life. I'm assuming you agree with that premise.

Better yet, if the state forces the woman to carry the baby to term, does the state have a legal obligation to care for the child? Or is it another throw away child, destined to be a criminal as many righties were insinuating in the increased birthrate posting?

"And since Paul doesn't feel the same way about other issues, I know he's not a big government fan, just a big theocracy fan.
Not surprising, coming from a guy who thinks the era of burning witches was the good old days."

You forget that Paul was criticized for saying that fascism would come in the form of a cross drapped in a flag. Where you get from that that Paul is a theocrata a la Huckabee, I don't know.

It needs to be thrown out based on the Constitution saying that it's a State issue.

Eddie: Link please. And how it trumps the 14th Amendment.

Posted by northguy3


article 4 section 1, giving jurisdiction over criminal and civil legal proceedings to the states.

States deal with things like murder, theft, and the sort. Since abortion is similar, then it should be handled by the state and not be a federal issue. Murder is not a federal issue, is it?

Huckleberry wants to use the Presidency to Constitutionally install Jesus as our Commander-in_Chief. Paul wants to dissassemble national tenets and standards to allow the social conservatives to jesusify the nation, one purified state at a time.

Federalism had been dead for a century until the federal government trumped the states over civil rights. Paul has proposed legislation repeatedly that would deny the federal government jurisdiction over civil and social rights. If the Paulies have their way, blacks would be riding in the back of the bus again in Selma and restrictive covenants would be keeping communities white in a generation. That's why Paul draws so much stormfront support. He's just putting a smilie face on their agendas.

"Not really. Sticking two cells together isn't a body. But I'll take you up on the idea that posting?"
--NG3

Two cells might not be a body, but they don't take long to develop into one.

In school we are thought about separation of powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, but they seem to gloos over the separation of power between the central government and the states. The purpose of the central government was supposed to be to defend states from foreign threats and regulate commerce among the states, among a few other things. The central government in Washington was never envisioned as intruding so much in the lives of individuals. There is a reason why Senators where chose by State Legislatures and why federal taxes were apportioned based on census figure and not payed directly by individuals to the federal government. It all got screwed up about 100 years ago when populists and "progressives" managed to get their "reforms" through so that today we have a central government that intrudes to much in the lives of individuals.

Unfortunately, populism and demagoguery are the order of the day this election cycle, more so than in previous election years.

States deal with things like murder, theft, and the sort. Since abortion is similar, then it should be handled by the state and not be a federal issue. Murder is not a federal issue, is it?

Medical treatment is the same as murder??/
man, you need a better doctor.

And I believe there are a couple of Federal laws on the book regarding crime and murder. I know there are Federal prisons, but they may be just for convicted Republican Congressmen. I'll have to use the Google.

The purpose of the central government was supposed to be to defend states from foreign threats and regulate commerce among the states, among a few other things. The central government in Washington was never envisioned as intruding so much in the lives of individuals.

And yet, the silly Founding Fathers went and enumerated individual liberties in the Constitution as the responsibility of the Federal Government in the first Ten Amendments.
What were they thinking?

"And yet, the silly Founding Fathers went and enumerated individual liberties in the Constitution as the responsibility of the Federal "

"Responsibility" ? The Bill of Rights donesn't grant the Federal Government any "responsiblity"; it mere prohibits the Federal Government from enacting laws that are contrary to individual rights.

"Paul has proposed legislation repeatedly that would deny the federal government jurisdiction over civil and social rights. If the Paulies have their way, blacks would be riding in the back of the bus again in Selma and restrictive covenants would be keeping communities white in a generation."

So what's wrong with that?

Sincerely,
David Duke

Ron Paul '08!

Two cells might not be a body, but they don't take long to develop into one.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

So if one cell is a nice suburban white 15 year old girl's and the other is a black rapist's and if that body happens to pop out as a crack addicted black baby, I'm sure you'd be the first one to adopt it, right?
btw, Only a 70% chance of it making it to birth. God don't like zygotes.

White girl, black rapist?

Yeah, way to perputuate stereotypes NG3. You accusse us of being racist, and yet the first thing you can think of is a white girl and black rapist. Of course, it works better for the marketing that way. Like news programs that bend over backwards when pretty white women get lost, you are using that imagery to suit your agenda. Why was it necesary, this hypothetical situation, to define the victim and perps race?

Why? because I want Live or Die to say, yes she should be forced to bring this child to term and yes, I'd be willing to raise it as my own if the mother wouldn't. You do agree with Ron paul that she should be forced to bear the child don't you?

"God don't like zygotes."

Do you tak to god?

"So if one cell is a nice suburban white 15 year old girl's and the other is a black rapist's and if that body happens to pop out as a crack addicted black baby, I'm sure you'd be the first one to adopt it, right?"
--NG3

How inane, as if this one hypothetical case defines the entire debate. Nevermind that a reasonable pro-lifer will favor exceptions, should abortion become more restricted, for rape, incest, life/health of the mother, etc...

And wtf does race have to do anything?

"btw, Only a 70% chance of it making it to birth. God don't like zygotes."
--NG3

Irrelevant.

Has it struck anyone that "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey) was not very bright in the first place?

She got herself preggers and forces far more aware than she was got The Court to enunciate/clarify her absolute human right not to be a mommie unless she wants to be.

Jane/Norma wins a right that one out of three American women have invoked, then gets herself in with some fundie types whose deity has proclaimed fertilized ova to be full-fledged little Republicans waiting to get out. Jane/Norma then turns around and pisses on her benefactors.

Deep down inside, I think "Dr." Ron Paul understands this. But he must play to his lunatic constituency. herm

Has it struck anyone that "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey) was not very bright in the first place?

She got herself preggers and forces far more aware than she was got The Court to enunciate/clarify her absolute human right not to be a mommie unless she wants to be.

Jane/Norma wins a right that one out of three American women have invoked, then gets herself in with some fundie types whose deity has proclaimed fertilized ova to be full-fledged little Republicans waiting to get out. Jane/Norma then turns around and pisses on her benefactors.

Deep down inside, I think "Dr." Ron Paul understands this. But he must play to his lunatic constituency. herm

Paul wants to dissassemble national tenets and standards to allow the social conservatives to jesusify the nation, one purified state at a time.

Posted by northguy3


Your fear of religion makes you come up with some wacko interpretations.

I'm really afraid of Ron Paul! The Constitution was written 200 years ago. Let's throw it out and start over. One that will ban religion and will put white people in jail if they don't apologise once a day about being white, kind of like saying a pledge everyday.

Bill O'Reilly

"I'd say.

Here's a real eye-opener:"
--DANFORTH

Not sure what the vid had to do with my assertion. I do not have a van full of dead fetus posters. Neither have I ever attended an abortion protest. Neither has anybody I associate with.

Why? because I want Live or Die to say, yes she should be forced to bring this child to term and yes, I'd be willing to raise it as my own if the mother wouldn't. You do agree with Ron paul that she should be forced to bear the child don't you?

Posted by northguy3


No! wrong!

Ron Paul never said that he would force anyone bring a child to full term.

Can you provide a link where he has said this?

On the contrary, Paul has said the he is a Pro-Lifer, but is not a Federal issue, therefore the matter should be taken care of at the state level.

Well, first you're referring to "reasonable pro-lifers", versus, I guess, the unreasonable ones, so I linked to a video which exemplified one of the huge unanswered questions: what should the punishment be for women who have abortions? The fact the majority of the protesters hadn't even thought about those ramifications, even after years on the protest line trying to make abortion illegal, speaks volumes.

What does it say to you? Or, conversely, if abortion becomes illegal, what do you think the legal penalty should be for a woman who gets an abortion?

Deep down inside, I think "Dr." Ron Paul understands this. But he must play to his lunatic constituency. herm

Posted by herm


Herm, bless you pointed head.

It does not matter that you are not in control of this issue, but Dr. Paul is an accomplish physician. How can you deny that? His wisdom on the subject of abortion greatly outweighs your weak retort.

"Well, first you're referring to "reasonable pro-lifers", versus, I guess, the unreasonable ones, so I linked to a video which exemplified one of the huge unanswered questions: what should the punishment be for women who have abortions? The fact the majority of the protesters hadn't even thought about those ramifications, even after years on the protest line trying to make abortion illegal, speaks volumes.

What does it say to you? Or, conversely, if abortion becomes illegal, what do you think the legal penalty should be for a woman who gets an abortion?"
--DANFORTH

Well, if it were up to me, I would propose no punishments for women getting abortions.

I hope that doesn't disappoint you too much, as I'm sure you were just aching to hear that I hate women, want to see them die and burn in hell, and can't stand the thought of them having sex.

"if RvW is overturned, I don't think it will ever become completely illegal in any state. "

You're dreaming. Probably not in New York, but Utah? C'mon....

"All Dr. Paul is talking about is making it a State issue. "

You may not be old enough to remember, but we tried that already. It was insultingly unfair. The wealthy were not affected by the law one iota, they could fly to another state and get "a procedure". It was only the poor who had to be subject to the whims of old, white guys in their state's capitol.

"Well, if it were up to me, I would propose no punishments for women getting abortions."

So much for making it illegal.

Can you name any other illegal activity, for which there are "no punishments"?

"So much for making it illegal.

Can you name any other illegal activity, for which there are "no punishments"?"
--DANFORTH

Brilliant post.

Who's talking about illegal activity with "no punishments?" Currently banned procedures have punishments spelled out in them that don't target women at all.

"I'm sure you were just aching to hear that I hate women, want to see them die and burn in hell, and can't stand the thought of them having sex."

No, not at all.

I was, instead, looking for a little insight as to why those who want to make abortion illegal don't seem to want to punish those who get an illegal abortion, and the seeming contradiction in that logic. Any answers, or only strawmen?

"All Dr. Paul is talking about is making it a State issue. "

You may not be old enough to remember, but we tried that already. It was insultingly unfair. The wealthy were not affected by the law one iota, they could fly to another state and get "a procedure". It was only the poor who had to be subject to the whims of old, white guys in their state's capitol.

Posted by Danforth


I mentioned this very thing above, and you didn't catch it...

however, I mentioned in the same post and you ignored that some States have on the books defining what abortion is and then continue on to regulate it.

Are you saying that some states will go back to the days of when abortion become a simple procedure?

The idea of aborting a pregnancy was new and scary. Our culture now knows what it is and how to deal with it.

So, which states do you think will completely outlaw it. I say none.

Time to catch my bus.

I will be handing out chastity belts and brochures on why women shouldn't be allowed to have sex, and mutilating their genitalia just to satisfy Danforth's preconceptions about all pro-lifers.

"Any answers"
--DANFORTH

Something like what punishments are for currently banned procedures (they don't target women at all), only I think even those are a bit too harsh.

You're a fuckin' idiot, obviously unable to understand two separate concepts without creating strawmen. Chastity belts? Mutilating genitalia? What a sicko.

Let me type slower for you: When pro-lifers want to make abortion illegal (and yes, some in ALL circumstances), they seem to get tongue-tied when asked what the punishment should be---if they'd get their way---for a woman obtaining an illegal abortion.

Can you explain the seeming contradiction?

And...if abortions WERE illegal, what should the legal penalty be for a woman seeking/obtaining an abortion?

"(they don't target women at all)"

Again, you're suggesting no punishment for taking part in (if the pro-lifers get their way) an illegal activity.

Any other examples of that in our society?

"Your fear of religion makes you come up with some wacko interpretations"

No, Eddie, actually it's religious wackos and their interpretations that I fear.

The fact the majority of the protesters hadn't even thought about those ramifications, even after years on the protest line trying to make abortion illegal, speaks volumes.

Yes, it does speak volumes. It says the main motivation and focus of these people is in saving the life of the unborn child not about hating or punishing the person who has the abortion.

It reminds me of the attitude and feelings that parents have when one of their children does something wrong and dangerous. The first and only real impulse is the safety of that child. For example, in the rescue wagon on the way to the hospital with a teenager who has overdosed on drugs, the parents are usually not discussing groundings and the revoking of privileges.

Instead of presenting people who demonstrate against abortion as fanatical, zealots bent on denying people rights and hating people who have abortions, the video humanizes them.

Thanks for the link.

Cheers

I will be handing out chastity belts and brochures on why women shouldn't be allowed to have sex, and mutilating their genitalia just to satisfy Danforth's preconceptions about all pro-lifers.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE


harsh, but funny.

"'Jane Roe' Endorses Paul"

Looks like he's got the anonymous vote locked up.

"harsh, but funny."

Not to mention totally off-base.

"Your fear of religion makes you come up with some wacko interpretations"

No, Eddie, actually it's religious wackos and their interpretations that I fear.

Posted by jomama


LOL! Jomama, you missed the point. Many people, like you, are so afraid of religion that if one were to hear another speak of a subject that remotely has anything to do with something that a religious leader is pressing into an issue, then that person is hauled off and burned at the stake for be religious (so to speak).

It's a reverse witch hunt. Do you feel good about yourself now?

Just lighten up. What are you afraid of?

Just believe what you want to believe and don't let anyone make you feel guilty, but don't persecute someone for being religious.

"harsh, but funny."

Not to mention totally off-base.

Posted by Danforth


Actually, Live_or_die's been trying to tell you that you are being a little extreme in talking about how extreme pro-lifers are.

It just struck me funny when LoD kept saying it and you kept ignoring it, that's all.

"Again, you're suggesting no punishment for taking part in (if the pro-lifers get their way) an illegal activity."
--DANFORTH

Start by reading the stated punishment spelled out in the partial birth abortion ban act. Nothing to do with targeting women. It targets physicians who perform banned procedures with fines and jail time (which I think is too harsh).

It's not that difficult to understand. I don't want to punish women. I also don't want to kill abortion doctors. In fact, I don't want to "make abortion illegal." I would, however, like to see a few more restrictions on unnessecary destruction of human life.

Is that clear enough, or are you going to ask for another example of illegal activity with "no punishments?"

"you are being a little extreme"

I ask about an inconsistency in logic, LoD conflates that with being for chastity belts and mutilating genitalia, and I'm being extreme?

Whatever.

"For example, in the rescue wagon on the way to the hospital with a teenager who has overdosed on drugs, the parents are usually not discussing groundings and the revoking of privileges."

But the parents will, once they get home, be "discussing groundings and the revoking of privileges." These folks want to make abortions illegal, but unlike every other illegal act in our society, don't want there to be any punishment. (Not even grounding!) And the video shows they never really thought that through, even though they've been picketing for years.

"It's a reverse witch hunt."

Religion in and of itself is one thing.
It's the things that are done by PEOPLE in the NAME of RELIGION that is the issue. Just because you say it's true because you "believe" it not only doesn't make it true, but it doesn't give the "believer" any special status or ability to project the "belief" onto anyone else.

"Do you feel good about yourself now?"

Actually, I feel good about myself most all the time. Thanks for asking!

"Just lighten up. What are you afraid of?"

That you may have already spawned.

"you are being a little extreme"

I ask about an inconsistency in logic, LoD conflates that with being for chastity belts and mutilating genitalia, and I'm being extreme?

Whatever.

Posted by Danforth


Right, LoD's sarcasm was point that out.

"LoD's sarcasm was point that out."

All your sarcasm belong to me.

"Just lighten up. What are you afraid of?"

That you may have already spawned.

Posted by Jomama


Good. I've made you reflect on yourself and your speech enough for you to lash out me and insult me. I'm getting through. :)

Just be careful in the future about who you persecute, who may be offending someone who you did not mean to offend.

Oh, and lighten up. I'm just making fun of you to make you realize that there is little worry about when it comes to religion.

But the parents will, once they get home, be "discussing groundings and the revoking of privileges." These folks want to make abortions illegal, but unlike every other illegal act in our society, don't want there to be any punishment. (Not even grounding!) And the video shows they never really thought that through, even though they've been picketing for years.

The point of my analogy is that when a life is in danger the parents do not worry about the punishment. For these abortion protesters, life is still in danger--continually so. If and when abortion becomes illegal then the time will come to figure out what the legal consequences might be.

This sort of attitude is completely understandable and in no way undercuts their position-- no matter how much you want it to.

More to the point, the nature of the consequences for committing an illegal action is irrelevant to the question of whether the action should be illegal or not.


Cheers

Danforth,

Let me say something else. The reason I don't want women to be punished for abortions is because I understand that they seek them out often out of desperation. I don't view them as criminals hell bent on murder. I don't view the doctors that way either.

So, overall I'm trying to balance respect for the life of the unborn with mercy for the desperate expecting mother. I'm never going to advocate either punishment for a desperate woman seeking a way out, or for an open season on all unborn.

Hopefully, I've answered your question on what I "think the legal penalty should be for a woman who gets an abortion?" (your assumption that I wanted to punish women warranted the above sarcasm)

"More to the point, the nature of the consequences for committing an illegal action is irrelevant to the question of whether the action should be illegal or not.

Cheers

Posted by Grendel at 2008-01-23 06:04 PM"

I don't know. If someone asked if I supported making jaywalking illegal, subject to a $50 fine, I might say yes. But if they asked whether I supported making jaywalking illegal, subject to the death penalty, I would certainly say no.

"(your assumption that I wanted to punish women warranted the above sarcasm)"

I never assumed you wanted to punish women. You seem to be projecting again, much like when you suggested I was all for chastity belts and genital mutilation. On the contrary, I sympathize with the folks who don't want to punish women at all; I don't either. Yet these folks-by their own admission-have never given a moment's thought to what would happen if they actually got their way. Or how poor women would be the ones "punished", while the wealthy could jet away to a "friendlier" state. I'd also bet these selfsame folks are the ones against condom use, or sex-education for children beyond abstinence-only programs.

To me, the fact they all want it illegal, but squirm when asked what the legal penalty should be if a woman still obtains one, tells me they wouldn't want others to dictate to them if the situations were reversed, and that they understand, deep-down, no one tries to get pregnant just for the unmitigated joy of having an abortion. I'll stop short of calling them hypocrites. Shallow thinkers, maybe. Illegal, but no penalty? Of course that undercuts their argument: they want it both ways. But I understand why.

"Good. I've made you reflect on yourself and your speech enough for you to lash out me and insult me. "

Home-schooled, right?

"Herm, bless you pointed head. It does not matter that you are not in control of this issue, but Dr. Paul is an accomplish physician. How can you deny that? His wisdom on the subject of abortion greatly outweighs your weak retort."

I think Eddie's syntactic complexities suggest that he thinks "Dr." Paul's MD degree renders him better qualified to comment on fetal rights issues than I am. Hardly. I suspect that a decade as a clinic escort, guiding women past the loonies waving their bloody fetus posters, renders me quite "in control of this issue."

Indeed, I usually go so far as to suggest that WE are the real pro-lifers, we who care about living women rather that fertilized ova. Even lip service to making this a political issue is the grossest kind of pandering to people who have not proven to me that they deserve suffrage at all. herm

"I don't want to punish women. I also don't want to kill abortion doctors. In fact, I don't want to 'make abortion illegal.' I would, however, like to see a few more restrictions on unnessecary destruction of human life."

All we need for openers, LoD, is human life defined. If a fertilized ovum constitutes a full-fledged little Republican waiting to get out and vote, then an unfertilized egg and and a sperm are half a life, and menstruation and nocturnal emissions should draw jail terms too.

Then we must define UNNECESSARY destruction of human life. Let us start with Bush's war and Bush's veto of children's health care. Let us define how many Iraqi lives equal one American life and one human zygote. Tell me about those "restrictions," LoD ... herm

"My own pro-life views were strengthened by my experiences as an obstetrician. I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society."
-Ron Paul

"There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist."
-Ron Paul

Eddie, read the Ron Paul quotes, especially the one where he considers an abortion provider a criminal. Geez, you already apologised once for not knowing what paul stands for.

I suspect that a decade as a clinic escort, guiding women past the loonies waving their bloody fetus posters, renders me quite "in control of this issue."

Not really.



Indeed, I usually go so far as to suggest that WE are the real pro-lifers, we who care about living women rather that fertilized ova.

Would it kill you to learn that some Christians like myself are prolife all of someone's life.

Believing that abortion is wrong, that all mother should be taken care of during pregnancy, that children should be taken care of, that war is wrong, that healthcare should be made available to everyone, the death penalty is wrong....etc.

In your simple world, do you NEED to believe that anyone who believes abortion-on-demand is wrong has beliefs that contradict the one's I just mentioned?

Why do you accuse others of this?

"You seem to be projecting again, much like when you suggested I was all for chastity belts and genital mutilation."
--DANFORTH

I never suggested you were for those things. I was playing an exaggerated version of what many pro-choicers believe ALL pro-lifers are; anti-woman and anti-sex (believe me, I'm niether anti-woman OR anti-sex).

"All we need for openers, LoD, is human life defined."

"Then we must define UNNECESSARY destruction of human life."
--MR. OBVIOUS AKA HERM

That would seem to be one of the main points in debating the subject to begin with.

Thank you for your input.

Good night.

I don't know. If someone asked if I supported making jaywalking illegal, subject to a $50 fine, I might say yes. But if they asked whether I supported making jaywalking illegal, subject to the death penalty, I would certainly say no.

By this either/or fallacy can I assume that you would prefer to make shoplifting legal if there was only a choice between a light fine and the death penalty?

In addition you are still missing the point. The inappropriateness of the punishment does not change the ethics of actions.

In fact you have the whole things backwards. The punishment or lack of one does not determine the ethics of an action; it is the action that should determine the punishment. A firing squad for a petty thief, no matter how horrifying that may sound, does not negate the ethics of stealing. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong.

An absurd or cruel or unusual punishment cannot make the action ethical. If one is imposed it becomes a moral or ethical concern but it does not negate the original action.

If you are against capital punishment, does the death penality in any way negate the unethical action of the murderer?

To use a word that you are fond of, you are conflating ethics and justice. Though the two are connected; they are not necessarily so. One can debate the ethics of action and agree something is unethical without having to necessarily decide upon how justice should be maintained.

In order for me to know that lying is unethical and that people shouldn't do it, I do not have to decide on what is the appropriate punishment for people who lie.

Finally, I have seen strong and weak arguments in the abortion debate on both sides. All I can say is that if your argument for pro-choice is a critique of the lack of vindictiveness of the most fanatical group of pro-life people then you are really scraping the bottom of the argument barrel for support.

Cheers

"Would it kill you to learn that some Christians like myself are prolife all of someone's life."

Eb, I really want to understand that sentence. Can you rephrase?

"Believing that abortion is wrong, that all mother should be taken care of during pregnancy, that children should be taken care of, that war is wrong, that healthcare should be made available to everyone, the death penalty is wrong....etc."

Eb, if you believe abortion is wrong, that pregnancy and motherhood SHOULD be forced on those who don't want it, you are part of the problem no matter how you feel about wars and the death penalty. YOU are flat-out wrong.

"In your simple world, do you NEED to believe that anyone who believes abortion-on-demand is wrong has beliefs that contradict the one's I just mentioned?"

Eb, I don't NEED to. But I do. It's that "abortion-on-demand." In my simple world you are no better than the papists and televangelists who spend their careers rooting about in women's wombs. Nothing personal, Eb.

"Why do you accuse others of this?"

Eb, it comes from dealing with the pro-liars. Maybe YOU are different. herm

"...if your argument for pro-choice is a critique of the lack of vindictiveness of the most fanatical group of pro-life people "

Who was arguing for pro-choice? I was pointing out the blatant contradiction from people who claim they believe abortion is murder, yet don't want to treat the woman-murderer as harsh as a jaywalker. These are the same folks who, I believe, would have no problem punishing the same woman for the same action 10 months later. If they claim the life is the same, why isn't the reaction the same?

"Good. I've made you reflect on yourself and your speech enough for you to lash out me and insult me. "

Home-schooled, right?

Posted by Jomama


No, Jomama has been properly schooled today...

Jomama, some advice. When someone has their outstretched arm against your forehead and you are flailing with haymakers missing your opponent, GIVE UP!

:D

Jomama, some advice. When someone has their outstretched arm against your forehead and you are flailing with haymakers missing your opponent, GIVE UP!


Saved Eddie a lot of exercise, if not much of his lunch money.

Saved Eddie a lot of exercise, if not much of his lunch money.

Posted by northguy3


What? Northguy, stop drinken. No one understands you.

" GIVE UP!"

Is that what Jesus would have done?

"And please give me a quote from the Constitution defining who gets to make medical decisions-the state or the feds.

Posted by northguy3 at 2008-01-23 02:59 PM |"


Roe V Wade...what did the court say?

The medical judgment of the physician.



From Wiki...

Reasons for abortions
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[8] Another study, in 1998, revealed that women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[9]

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
21.3% Cannot afford a baby MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
7.9% Want no (more) children MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other
According to a 1987 study that included specific data about late abortions (i.e. abortions "at 16 or more weeks' gestation"),[10] women reported that various reasons contributed to their having a late abortion:

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
6% Woman didn't know timing is important MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other



Medical Malpractice. The States should look into it.

Medical Malpractice

Actually it's the way they write these laws. The "health" of a women is a catchall that includes "emotional distress" when I think the majority of people would consider that to be frivolous.

All that needs to be done is to insert "physical" before "health" and most of these abortions would not occur.

If the standard is Preservation of Life, then a serious risk to the mother's life should allow a choice.

By the same token, those who are "pro-life" should also be willing to adopt children regardless of race, and without excluding the parents who are often adolescents who are ill prepared to support the child.

Medical judgment - does the doctor have the proper license to make that call?

Mental health is different than physical health as are the licenses to practice the mental or physical medicine.

States really could come down on doctors. The numbers reflect is disproporiate number of 'medical' needs compared to 'choice'.

Roe v Wade didn't support the term 'choice' by itself.

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
6% Woman didn't know timing is important MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion MEDICAL JUDGMENT?
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

So 200% of pregnant women wanted an abortion? Wow...

Abortion
Gay Marraige

.. red Herrings for the masses to dwell on the minutia while they vacuum your earnings and devalue your home, youre born a slave of the federal debt and thats just the way they want you to stay.

Pro whatever, anybody who keeps fighting the blind fight for/against social freedoms while you or your kids will struggle to find crappy service industry jobs and lose the value of your savings makes you a victim of your own distractions.

Dumb sheeple are the reason this country sucks, its not the politicians, its the people who do nothing and say nothing while electing the likes of Mitt or Hillary. Meet the new boss...

And so we should........

Typical contemporary US Christian attitude:
"I fought to do it, I did it, now I insist you can NOT do it."

So 200% of pregnant women wanted an abortion? Wow...

Posted by northguy3

I wonder if the answers overlapped causing the percentages...

Ohhhhh, it's from WIKI! That explains it!

Wasn't Norma McCovey's stage name Linda Lovelace?

So 200% of pregnant women wanted an abortion? Wow...

Posted by northguy3

I wonder if the answers overlapped causing the percentages...

Posted by Petrous


if every woman had 2 answers or just changed her mind and they kept the first one.