More Ron Bashing

[Whateverist]

I don't believe that any right to "choose" is greater than the right to life. The right to life should be held as our most important right. Do you support a woman's right to choose whether she keeps her newborn baby alive? If not, why not? What is the difference between a baby that is unborn (i.e. viable for abortion by your argument) and one that is born?

I would just say you and I lack standing in the matter. Neither of us has anything at stake, aside from our principles and feelings.

No I wouldn't go so far as to sanction infanticide but up until some reasonable point in the pregnancy I say the woman gets to choose in favor of her health and her preferences, no questions asked. Afterall somewhere out there the sperm donor's life goes on just as before even though he probably enjoyed the copulation every bit as much as the woman who is now pregnant. I won't say what a reasonable length of time should be but I'm going to come down on the side of leniency even in the case of a distraught teenage girl who tosses her new born child in a dumpster.

Now every life might be unique and special in its own right but my god this planet is over run with people. I'd say up until that reasonable point in the pregnancy, the more fetuses that get vacuumed out the better. They won't be missed and the rest of the life on this planet will be better off.

[paintpooper]

It gives states back the right, instead of the federal government creating a law that all states must abide by. It is very simple.

I do not support the Act.

No it doesn't. And no amount of wishful misreads will make that true.

Try fucking reading it for once, specifically paragraph ONE. Paragraph One, sections A and B redefine a motherfucking legal term you dolt.

Jesus fucking christ. Fucking obtuse, that you are.

I do support the act, and Ron Paul supports it because liberty applies to all humans, including those that are not yet born. It's really as simple as that.

Another thread please, but if not...

Had you ever bothered to learn the slightest iota of human biology, you would know that the 'person' that can be measured (didn't you used to insist on evidence before asserting rights?) in neural activity happens months later, at earliest starting in the second trimester.

For FUCKS SAKE - the neural tube in human development (helps form the spinal column and friends, is the ultra-basic component needed for any brain development) appears three weeks later roughly around Day 23. And THAT is just the tube itself. No infrastructure that would be associated with it (e.g. a brain, etc,.)

How can it be accorded or be protected as a person?

A fucking blastula is a non-sentient bundle of cells. And boy and howdy does "non-sentient" extend for quite a while (~3-4 months) before enough infrastructure is grown for the organism to react to pain stimuli (something, I might add, flatworms have been able to master (reacting that is)).

And yet your equating a person, a child, a teenager to something that, in this case, can do less than a flatworm reactions.

Most people who think differently are usually fucking wrong with respect to basic human embryology.

And I think that includes you.

Sorry here is the rest.

Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

‘Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

‘(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

‘(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

‘(A) the performance of abortions; or

‘(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.

So it makes it a state right. I don't use anger or name calling.

[Autumnlicious]

Wow, barring the supreme court with an act of congress from reviewing an act of congress. Like that's going to work.

[paintpooper]

IMO the best solution to the abortion issue is just like almost any other issue. Abortion is a band-aid to a problem, not a solution.

You need to identify the problem, (too many unwanted pregnancy's) and find the solution. (Affordable contraception and education).

Since 1997 the federal government has invested more than $1.5 billion dollars in abstinence-only programs – proven ineffective programs which censor or exclude important information that could help young people protect their health. In fact, until recently, programs which met a strict abstinence-only definition were the only type of sex education eligible for federal funding; no funding existed for comprehensive sex education, which stresses abstinence but also provides information about contraception and condoms.

Federal Programs. So your state didn't get federal funds unless it was abstinence only. And we support the Dept of Education why?

[Autumnlicious]

I care not if that human life is just a bunch of mindless cells; technically speaking, we are made up of nothing but mindless cells. I do not see why our consciousness is grounds for having human rights. Do we take human rights away from brain dead people, or people in comas? No. Human rights apply to all humans.

That is a complete bullshit misrepresentation of what we are. "We" are defined as the abstraction formed by a group of those cells working in tandem, ergo you cannot grant rights to something just because it possesses genetic strain Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

And last I checked, rights were something we granted to each other haltingly.

And yes, braindead people actually have comparatively less to no rights -- Terri Schiavo comes to mind as an interesting case; in her case, her "rights" were ignored in favor of her husband and her parent's right to duke it out in court over who get's to be her representative.

So much for rights for human vegetables.

You cannot infringe on rights if someone is fundamentally incapable of using them. Take for example Schiavo -- the argument was over to unplug and kill the comatose organism or not. You can't get anymore basic than that.

I cannot infringe on your (Tiberius') abortion rights (at least as far as I know). That's probably because you are incapable of having an abortion.

So yea, long story short, "rights" are quite fluid.

And comatose people don't have equivalent in rights to you. Nor can they enjoy the privileges that come with such rights.

[Tiberius]

Sorry, but what is it exactly that stops us from granting rights to members of a certain species? In any case, as a Libertarian I hold that rights are not "granted"; they are inherent.

"You cannot infringe on rights if someone is fundamentally incapable of using them."

Interesting. I'd argue that people that are alive are very actively using their right to life. So how does that fit into your argument? If by "incapable" you mean not actively aware of them at a certain point in time, then do you support killing people who are asleep? I mean, people who are sleep aren't actively aware of their rights unless they are lucid dreaming. I highly doubt you support the killing of people because they are asleep, so please explain your position more.

People in comas can wake up; they are still human, and they still deserve rights. Whenever I talk about this issue with people it sickens me at how twisted people can take the issue of rights. It's always picking and choosing, placing some people's lives as more worthy than others. Really quite a shocking attitude to have, and I think you'd feel differently if it were you who was going to be in the coma.

[Whateverist]

I think you'd feel differently if it were you who was going to be in the coma.

Just as I think you might feel differently if it were you that got knocked up .. though I suspect you'd actually feel the same way.

Disgusted or not by my callousness, do you really feel that we need even more human beings on this planet? If one is precious, how many billions more does it take before we have enough? Is it not possible to have too much of a good thing? I think we need to be a little less infatuated with our own species and think more about the good of the planet.

[Tiberius]

I don't believe that we should solve overpopulation by killing innocent humans, no. As other people have said, contraception and education are both good things too.

No, I doubt I'd feel differently if I were capable of getting pregnant, mainly because I'd understand that it was my own doing (unless I was raped of course), and therefore my own responsibility. I know the risks of having sex, which is why I always use protection. If I did accidentally get a girl pregnant, I'd support the baby in any way I could. I wouldn't support an abortion though; trying to fix a mistake is not worth another human's life.

[reverendjeremiah]

As we resort back to what my original thread was about. It only proves my point. Some stupid newsletter that is irrelevant is all you guys have produced. Ron Paul 2012!
It's not a race angle. Its the truth.

It's not what someone says it is their actions that matter. I'm with you Tiberius. I'm done.

Then i deduce that you have ignored the vast majority of my posts. Of course I fully support your personal freedom to come to such a conclusion, but just because YOU consider ALL of the points I have made to be irrelevant does not make them default universally irrelevant. Ending your sentences with political slogans does not help your position either.

What is Ron Pauls actions in the matter? He hasnt done a single thing about his newsletter other than shrug his shoulders and try to brush it under the rug. That is an action that i would not tolerate. If it were my newsletter, then the hell if I would let other people write under my name, and i would keep a close eye on it, and if something slipped by on something I disagree with, especially something as caustic as racism, you can bet your libertarian ass I would have made public apologies and delt harshly with those involved in the subterfuge... none of which actions Ron Paul did.

So i agree, its all about actions, which Ron Paul lacked in this situation. Inaction is just as important as action in this situation.

---

I studied human biology thanks very much. You'll note that I didn't say "person", but "human". As I've said before, life starts at conception, and that life is genetically human, ergo, human life starts at conception.

I care not if that human life is just a bunch of mindless cells; technically speaking, we are made up of nothing but mindless cells. I do not see why our consciousness is grounds for having human rights. Do we take human rights away from brain dead people, or people in comas? No. Human rights apply to all humans.

Then if you studied biology you would be very aware of the fact that life not only starts at conception, but that the sperm and egg are also living as well. A single sperm is life. A single egg is life....unless, of course, the sperm or egg are dead, in which case nothing will happen from their encounters. You are cherry picking your views on this divisive topic, which never helps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rauO_M9tb4

Can you tell me in this video which sperm are alive, not healthy, or dead?

Also, we can also find out that, genetically, this sperm is human. So this is a video showing some living human sperm, along with sperm that are deficient and dead.

How many steps away from "every sperm is sacred" are you Tiberius?

---

Wow, barring the supreme court with an act of congress from reviewing an act of congress. Like that's going to work.

I do believe I have made SEVERAL posts on this thread showing how Ron Paul would remove checks and balances that are in the constitution. his supporter claim he is a strict constitutionalist, yet Ron Paul consistently ignores the constitution when it doesnt settle right with him. Apparently Ron DISPISES the supreme court, and it CONSTITUTIONALLY sanctioned job of being a check and balance over the legislative branch.

One of yet many constitutional facts that Ron Paul flatly opposes. He even wants the first amendment to be up to popular state decisions, wether each individual state decides to allow their supreme court to decide or not on the most basic liberties of religion, speech, etc... Ron Paul is no civil libertarian. He is just another neo-con with paleo-conservative leanings.

---

IMO the best solution to the abortion issue is just like almost any other issue. Abortion is a band-aid to a problem, not a solution.

You need to identify the problem, (too many unwanted pregnancy's) and find the solution. (Affordable contraception and education).

There is no easy fix for abortion. Your solution neglects many angles.

What about accidental pregnancy? You know, the contraception didnt work for some reason? What if she is allergic to latex and contraceptive chemicals?

[reverendjeremiah]

Sorry, but what is it exactly that stops us from granting rights to members of a certain species? In any case, as a Libertarian I hold that rights are not "granted"; they are inherent.

The human imagine is what legislates what is a "right" and what isnt. There are no inherent rights. We, as a society and as individuals, frequently intrude on others.

I ask that you show me evidence that the "right to life" is inherent in this universe.

"You cannot infringe on rights if someone is fundamentally incapable of using them."

Which is only an ideal. The concepts of "negative" or "positive" rights do not help the topic either, being more of a sophestry of ideals than an inherency.

I ask again that you show me evidence that these "rights" are inherent in the universe.

Interesting. I'd argue that people that are alive are very actively using their right to life. So how does that fit into your argument? If by "incapable" you mean not actively aware of them at a certain point in time, then do you support killing people who are asleep? I mean, people who are sleep aren't actively aware of their rights unless they are lucid dreaming. I highly doubt you support the killing of people because they are asleep, so please explain your position more.

This is just comparing apples and oranges on your and his side of the argument.

People in comas can wake up; they are still human, and they still deserve rights. Whenever I talk about this issue with people it sickens me at how twisted people can take the issue of rights. It's always picking and choosing, placing some people's lives as more worthy than others. Really quite a shocking attitude to have, and I think you'd feel differently if it were you who was going to be in the coma.

But you are also a hardcore capitalist Tiberius. What if the family is unable to pay the medical bills to keep this coma patient alive? My brother just went through it with his most recent daughter. The cost was 10,000 dollars per day just to keep her alive. She died and my brother is stuck with several hundred grand in debt for which they will take his house from him if he defaults on the debt. So what would you do in this situation? Saddle the debt upon the tax payer or the family? You are a minarchist Tiberius, you want just enough government to keep the capitalist system going and to protect property rights (minarchism in a nut shell). Capitalism, in this sense, by default, picks and chooses who is more worthy than others. Obviously the one with the most money is worthy of continued life...have you thought your views through? It sounds to me that you may find them questionable. A person who holds to minarchy would very clearly and quickly have an answer to this situation. "If the person cannot afford the healthcare, then that person will die"