Ron Paul ignored.

[Tiberius]

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.

Sometimes I think you intentionally misinterpret my posts in order to make a scene. In no way did I make a statement which even alludes to forcing raped women (or any woman) to carry to term. Those are your words; stop putting them in my mouth.

What I did do was ask questions. Very important questions that should be addressed before we condemn what is effectively an innocent child to death. Abortion is a matter of conflicting rights; the rights of the child versus the rights of the woman. Whose rights get special treatment? In America, the rights of the woman always come before the child. As far as I am aware (and please correct me if I am mistaken), any woman can go and get an abortion. The careless youth is treated exactly the same as the innocent rape victim. I don't think that is right; I think that certain cases should qualify for immediate abortions (rape victims, women that are in some kind of danger from having a baby, etc), but the others should be ruled upon on an individual basis.

It is about the rights of the unborn baby involved..correct?

No, it's about the conflict of rights between the mother and the child. In some cases, the mother's rights should outweigh the child's; in other cases, the child's should outweigh the mother's.

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?

No flip flop; just two completely different subjects. One is about rights in general; the other about what happens when rights come into conflict with each other. I contend that rights themselves cannot be held to a vote; should people lose their right to life if a court decides it? I don't think so. When two rights come into conflict (as they undoubtedly will at some point), what method should be used to distinguish who's rights are more important in that instance? It is a hard question to answer, but given that we live in a democracy, we usually find that similar issues are solved via a trial.

So, just in case you still misunderstand me: Rights cannot be voted on. Conflicts between rights can.