RE: Ron Paul ignored.
November 29, 2011 at 9:49 pm
(This post was last modified: November 29, 2011 at 9:59 pm by reverendjeremiah.)
(November 29, 2011 at 9:36 pm)Tiberius Wrote: That isn't what he said.
thats right, I was wrong. i thought he typed "I havent". Sorry prophet...my bad.
(November 29, 2011 at 9:36 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Is there really a right to that? Really? When there is an unborn child inside it? What about the rights of the unborn child? These are all questions that need answers before you can talk about those so-called "rights". When there are conflicting rights, whose get special treatment? Leaving it up to the states is a great idea lets people decide for themselves, rather than have such an issue decided by 9 people.
Gosh R, I guess you are right. If a woman gets raped, then she must be forced to carry to term.
It is about the rights of the unborn baby involved..correct?
Quote:That said, I'm against the civil rights act too, because I don't believe rights are things that can be voted on. So, does that make me a racist?..versus...
Quote:Is there really a right to that? Really? When there is an unborn child inside it? What about the rights of the unborn child? These are all questions that need answers before you can talk about those so-called "rights". When there are conflicting rights, whose get special treatment? Leaving it up to the states is a great idea lets people decide for themselves, rather than have such an issue decided by 9 people.Talk about a flip flopper. So walking, talking working people of a different skin color than the masses shouldnt have their rights voted to be protected, but unborn children in the womb is fine and dandy to vote on when it comes to protection rights.
So which is it with you...rights can be voted on, or rights cant be voted on?
