Ron Paul ignored.

[Tiberius]

No. They are NOT the words you said. They are the eventual CONSEQUENCES of what your words may likely bring. Surely you understand the difference?

Yes, I understand the difference. However, instead of asking me if I agree with a certain set of consequences, you immediately imply that this is what I believe. You make the assumption that I believe them, and sarcastically say "you must be right".

If you are FOR the rights of the unborn child, then SURELY you make no difference between an accidental child, or the product of a rape. Unless you are NOT for them. Are you flip flopping again?

I'm for the rights of people to be in charge of their own lives, but I still make a difference between a person who has committed no crime, and a person who has. People who commit crimes should have that right withheld (to some degree) whilst they serve time in prison. This isn't a flip flop; this is admitting (as I said before) that under some circumstances, one set of people's rights trumps the other's.

So which one is it? Do unborn children have rights or not..or just CERTAIN unborn children have rights and others dont. Stop flip flopping and make the call. Either you support rights for the unborn or you do not.

All unborn children have rights. Those rights might be trumped by the mother's rights, depending on the circumstances. That doesn't mean they don't have rights, but that rights often come into conflict.

Consider this scenario. Two adults (A and B) have the right to life. Adult A attacks adult B, with the intent on killing him. Adult A is attempting to violate adult B's right to life. Adult B has a choice; he can defend himself, which may result in the death of adult A (and thus a violation of adult A's right to life), or adult B can do nothing, die, but not violate adult A's right to life.

In a court of law, adult B would be found innocent, since self defence is seen (usually) as a valid reason for causing someone's death. This would be another example of one person's rights trumping another.

You, on the other hand, are splitting hairs about it. "unborn babies have rights!" vs. "I never said I was for forcing rape victims to carry to term". Well, if unborn babies have rights, then a woman cannot abort it merely because of a rape. To bad, so sad, the unborn baby's rights are superior to the mothers rights.

No, because I hold that rape is a violation of the mother's rights, and she should not be expected to carry the offspring of such a violation.

Your semantics arguments do nothing for you. It is not an "intentional misrepresentation" of your words. Again, it is you back tracking when you realize the results of your words have negative consequences on the masses and you are trying to bump them off onto me to avoid the stigma

These aren't semantic arguments; these are responses to you taking my position and suggesting I support A, B, and C, simply because A, B, and C are consequences that might arise from one possible implementation of my position. As it stands, I've dealt with the conflict of rights, so I see no problem with my position. There is no back tracking here; I haven't changed any of my original statements, I have expanded on them, and responded to different scenarios.

Just like when you say something like "I support businesses right to placing 'whites only' signs on their windows". When I point out the mass negative consequences to such a belief, you will try to find some way to blame it on the one pointing out the consequences, not the one (you) supporting the tools required to actually cause said negative effects on society.

No, I think you'll find I simply disagreed with you there. A business that only allows whites would only be prosperous in a neighbourhood where white supremacists lived, or if its customers simply didn't care. Same with a business that only allows blacks, or mexicans, or the french, etc.

You flip flop so many times in this I dont even need to individually point them out. So unborn babies are "innocent" and deserve rights..but apparently you do not think the product of a rape (which would STILL be an innocent baby) should have rights, or that these "rights" should be decided upon an individual case only. So if a white man accidently impregnates a white woman, then a judge can say "no abortion ruled". But if a black man accidently impregnates a white woman the judge can say "abortion awarded". Absolutely NO consistencies in your concept of rights. Just like in other posts. One moment you say "Rights should not be voted upon" then you flip flop again and say "these rights should be voted upon".

How is this a flip flop? I've consistently said that both unborn children and the mother have rights. What I've commented on is how one set of rights trumps the other set when a conflict occurs. How decisions are made in various situations should be laid out properly in the law; if the circumstances are the same, then the decision should be the same, regardless of race, religion, etc. Again, this isn't voting on the actual rights themselves, but the conflict between two rights.

As usual, your concepts of human rights are appaling and NOT well thought out. Seems like they are based more on emotional moments and personal views. And how are rights considered rights if they are ruled on an individual basis? Will some black people be allowed civil rights while, lets say darker black people will have their rights ruled upon by a judge on an individual basis? How about atheists? Will some of the atheists (the quiet ones) have their rights no questions asked, but the ones who open their big mouths will have their rights ruled on an individual basis?

Conflicts of rights are ruled on an individual basis, not rights themselves. Everyone has the right to free speech, but what about if that speech endangers the lives of someone (or even leads to their death). Rights can come into conflict; to deny this is simply absurd. What happens when rights come into conflict? I hold that the issue should be resolved in a democratic manner.

Doesnt sound very anti-authoritarian, anarchist, or Libertarian to me.

That's because (surprise surprise) it isn't my position.

there is no "conflict of rights" in this situation. The unborn baby is CLEARLY a product of the mothers body. To argue that unborn babies have rights would be the same as to argue that sperm and eggs have rights as well....they are living organisms inside the human body just the same as an unborn baby. Masterbation would be murder. Menstruation would be murder.

A sperm is not a human; and egg is not a human. A baby is a human. We can't hold up human rights and yet not apply them to what are human on even a basic genetic level.

I understand your position though; I used to be like you, supporting abortion to the same degree. I was persuaded to think otherwise by a man you've probably heard of, Christopher Hitchens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYv9hAkenI