Ron Paul: a man's home is his castle, but a woman's body is government property.

[1069]

There's nothing more despicable than a so-called "Pro-life Libertarian".
Look at this repulsive panderer sucking the Christian Right's weenie on LifeNews.com:

"For some libertarians, the view that government should be limited means that it shouldn't prohibit abortions or put any limits on them. Paul disagrees.

Asked by the Spartanburg Herald-Journal newspaper in South Carolina to spell out his abortion views vis-a-vis his views on the right to privacy, Paul says they go hand in hand.

"You have a right to privacy in your home - I don't want any cameras or any invasion in the home. Your home is your castle in a free society," Paul explained.

At the same time, "That doesn't give you the right to kill a baby in the bed."

"If there is another life involved, and that crib happens to be the uterus, the issue is not telling the woman what to do. The issue is whether there's another life," Paul told the newspaper.

"I tell my libertarian friends that if you have a live fetus, and it's 4, 5, 6, 7 pounds, and it has a heartbeat, and brainwaves, moves and sucks its thumb, and you kill him, you're committing an act of violence," Paul explained about his reconciliation of the two principles.

"So, it's a little more complicated than saying a woman can do what she wants with her body, and that's why it's been difficult for a lot of people to sort this out," Paul added.

Ultimately, Paul said he wants to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade and make it a state issue again, where state legislatures are free to pass abortion bans."

What a despicable excuse for a human being.
Of course he tries to downplay this when speaking to the mainstream media.
Unbelievable that after being pandered to and then screwed so many times, the Christian Right still falls for this dreck, like a lonely, insecure little girl who will cheerfully slide her panties down for any conman who tells her she's pretty.
Absolutely pathetic!


link

 

[StrawHat]

Eh, I hardly think that qualifies as making Ron Paul a "repulsive panderer sucking the Christian Right's weenie" or a "despicable excuse for a human being". That's ridiculous. All that he did was state his opinion, and one that makes sense at that. Isn't the core of libertarian ideology that your freedom ends where someone else's begins? If that's so, and Paul thinks the fetus is someone else, then saying this is perfectly in-line with his ideology. He's not pandering at all.

This smear job sucks.

 

[The silenced majority]

Ron Paul proves yet again he is far and away the best candidate to be the next president.


Libertarianism means nothing if it isn't accompanied with a rational self-interest and strong morality.

Libertarianism sans morality & rationality is better termed as anarchism, heathenism even Satanism.

Ayn Rand said that the individual is the tiniest and should be the most cherished of minorities. The tiniest of the tiny "minorities" is the helpless child in his/her mother's womb. To kill that individual is to deny rights and liberty to all, since the child in the womb has done nothing to have it's right to life stripped.

Traditional "liberals" would argue as well that a defenseless fetus should be given a chance at life.
It's only the neo-liberal warped feminist mind-set that views a woman's role as child-bearer part of a cabal dreamed up by an entrenched patriarchal order designed only to oppress women. The biggest travesty is that many across the political spectrum refer to them as being "liberals".

Nothing could be further from the truth...

...It is impossible to be a true libertarian and be pro-choice.

 

[OKgrannie]

Ron Paul proves yet again he is far and away the best candidate to be the next president.


Libertarianism means nothing if it isn't accompanied with a rational self-interest and strong morality.

Libertarianism sans morality & rationality is better termed as anarchism, heathenism even Satanism.

Ayn Rand said that the individual is the tiniest and should be the most cherished of minorities. The tiniest of the tiny "minorities" is the helpless child in his/her mother's womb. To kill that individual is to deny rights and liberty to all, since the child in the womb has done nothing to have it's right to life stripped.

Traditional "liberals" would argue as well that a defenseless fetus should be given a chance at life.
It's only the neo-liberal warped feminist mind-set that views a woman's role as child-bearer part of a cabal dreamed up by an entrenched patriarchal order designed only to oppress women. The biggest travesty is that many across the political spectrum refer to them as being "liberals".

Nothing could be further from the truth...

...It is impossible to be a true libertarian and be pro-choice.

It is impossible to be for limited government and then request government to regulate and police the INSIDE of a woman's body. Government, any kind of government, is not capable or qualified to judge morality, much less enforce it on the people. Morality is a question for individuals. And BTW, a fetus is not an individual. Only a vile person would compare a woman to a crib.

 

[The silenced majority]

It is impossible to be for limited government and then request government to regulate and police the INSIDE of a woman's body.

He's not saying that the government needs to police a woman's body. I think he's just saying that bad law is bad law and should be dealt with. There won't be a womb-gestapo; but then again, abortions won't be as readily available or endorsed by law in Ron Paul's America.

Government, any kind of government, is not capable or qualified to judge morality, much less enforce it on the people. Morality is a question for individuals.

I didn't say the government needs to be the judge of morality, I just said that strong morals is an essential ingredient to Libertarianism. In fact, it wasn't me who said it,

...it was Ayn Rand.

And BTW, a fetus is not an individual. Only a vile person would compare a woman to a crib.

When does that fetus become an individual? After birth? 9 months after gestation? What if a baby is delivered 4 months premature? Does that baby have to wait for 4 months to become and individual?

 

[1069]

When does that fetus become an individual? After birth? 9 months after gestation? What if a baby is delivered 4 months premature? Does that baby have to wait for 4 months to become and individual?

Individuality is a moot point; one is an "individual" when one's survival no longer depends upon occupancy within the body of another person, and when one no longer sustains oneself by extracting another person's bodily resources.
Until that time, the person whose body is being occupied is well within her rights to sever the relationship at any time, for any reason.

Born people do not have the right to parasitic relationships with unwilling human hosts.
Born people do not have the right to occupy other people's bodies against their will.
Born people do not have the right to help themselves to other people's bodily resources without their consent, even if their lives depend upon it.

He's not saying that the government needs to police a woman's body. I think he's just saying that bad law is bad law and should be dealt with. There won't be a womb-gestapo; but then again, abortions won't be as readily available or endorsed by law in Ron Paul's America.

He would have no say in the matter, other than the ability to nominate socially conservative judges to the Supreme Court; with the current congress, however, such nominations would never be accepted.
This is what I mean about the Christian Right's idiotic naïveté; so eager to believe disreputable panderers like Mr. Paul, so flattered by their attention.
Abortion would be no less readily available under Ron Paul than under any other president for the past 35 years.

 

[The silenced majority]

Individuality is a moot point; one is an "individual" when one's survival no longer depends upon occupancy within the body of another person, and when one no longer sustains oneself by extracting another person's bodily resources.
Until that time, the person whose body is being occupied is well within her rights to sever the relationship at any time, for any reason.

Born people do not have the right to parasitic relationships with unwilling human hosts.
Born people do not have the right to occupy other people's bodies against their will.
Born people do not have the right to help themselves to other people's bodily resources without their consent, even if their lives depend upon it.

OK. Let's follow this logic out, shall we?

By what you've just asserted, a test-tube zygote the moment it is incepted is an individual, and remains one till the day it dies or is implanted into a host. Therefore if a baby was conceived using a test-tube and was incubated with a machine, that baby is an individual. Because 1.) it's not occupying another person and 2.) it's not sustaining itself via another person's bodily fluids. All the while a baby naturally conceived in it's mother's womb is disqualified as an individual for the aforementioned reasons.

Some fetuses are "more equal" than others I guess .

He would have no say in the matter, other than the ability to nominate socially conservative judges to the Supreme Court; with the current congress, however, such nominations would never be accepted.
This is what I mean about the Christian Right's idiotic naïveté; so eager to believe disreputable panderers like Mr. Paul, so flattered by their attention.
Abortion would be no less readily available under Ron Paul than under any other president for the past 35 years.

No, alot of what we idiot Christians are concerned about is the threat the idealogical state has to crush our culture and traditions. We just want to know if Dr. Paul sees things our way or not. After all, in a representative republic such as ours, is it not important that those we charge to lead us share our morals and views?

 

[1069]

No, alot of what we idiot Christians are concerned about is the threat the idealogical state has to crush our culture and traditions.

When your "culture and traditions" involve the oppression of females and minorities, they are unworthy and deserve crushing.

We just want to know if Dr. Paul sees things our way or not. After all, in a representative republic such as ours, is it not important that those we charge to lead us share our morals and views?

Well, duh, he wants something from you. :roll:
What the hell do you think he's gonna say?
Get a clue, sonny: you're like some fat, giddy, middle-aged fool of a woman being courted by a 20-year-old gold digger who's got one hand up your skirt and the other hand on your checkbook.

 

[The silenced majority]

When your "culture and traditions" involve the oppression of females and minorities, they are unworthy and deserve crushing.

see also: Cultural Marxism

Well, duh, he wants something from you. :roll:
What the hell do you think he's gonna say?
Get a clue, sonny: you're like some fat, giddy, middle-aged fool of a woman being courted by a 20-year-old gold digger who's got one hand up your skirt and the other hand on your checkbook.

No I don't think.

The difference between Dr. Paul and the rest of the flock both R's & D's is that he isn't offering to make government "work for the people". He sees government as a major impediment to individuality and the ability for one to amass personal wealth (aka liberty).

That is his major appeal.

In the age of the nanny state, over-regulation and government dependency brought to us by the democrats, and to a lesser extent republicans, Ron Paul is a break from the norm and just what it seems a lot of people are looking for.

 

[1069]

The difference between Dr. Paul and the rest of the flock both R's & D's is that he isn't offering to make government "work for the people". He sees government as a major impediment to individuality and the ability for one to amass personal wealth (aka liberty)....That is his major appeal.

Men need less government policing, while women need more.
Got it. Thank you for your time. Next?

Ron Paul is a break from the norm...

You can say that twice.

and just what it seems a lot of people are looking for.

Pfft. Not bloddy likely.

 

[talloulou]

I've always found Ron Paul to be a bit crazy but even a broken clock is dead on twice a day.

 

[The silenced majority]

Men need less government policing, while women need more.
Got it. Thank you for your time. Next?

...and heterosexuals need less government, homosexuals need more, whites need less government, blacks and other minorities need more, the rich need less government the poor need more, Christians need less government endorsement, minority religions need more.

See folks, that's how multi-culturalism and the denial of American traditional culture has led to a collectivist nightmare used by a certain type of politico to expand government with the hopes re-engineering society.

These "groups" will be victims unless government (your paycheck) is addressing their every need and working tirelessly to perfect society.

 

[talloulou]

It is impossible to be for limited government and then request government to regulate and police the INSIDE of a woman's body. Government, any kind of government, is not capable or qualified to judge morality, much less enforce it on the people. Morality is a question for individuals. And BTW, a fetus is not an individual. Only a vile person would compare a woman to a crib.

No one is asking the government to police the inside of a woman's body. The government does not knock women up. If the government were to regulate abortion they would be policing hospitals and medical providers, which incidently, they do all the time.:roll: There is no right to particular medical procedures and particular treatments for particular conditions are approved as well as not approved all the time.

The government doesn't have anything to do with you getting pregnant or not. Just as the government doesn't make suicidal folks suicidal. Regulating abortion would just mean they've made a decision about how you may and may not treat a fellow human just as regulating suicide means they've made decisions about how you may and may not treat yourself.

 

[1069]

...and heterosexuals need less government, homosexuals need more, whites need less government, blacks and other minorities need more, the rich need less government the poor need more, Christians need less government endorsement, minority religions need more.

See folks, that's how multi-culturalism and the denial of American traditional culture has led to a collectivist nightmare used by a certain type of politico to expand government with the hopes re-engineering society.

These "groups" will be victims unless government (your paycheck) is addressing their every need and working tirelessly to perfect society.

Unfortunately for you, Mr. Minority, your username is inapt.
White males make up only approximately 37% of the population of the US.*
White heterosexual males make up perhaps 35% (and that's a very generous estimate).
White heterosexual Christian males? Maybe 32%.
Again, a generous estimate.
As you can see, people like you comprise less than a third of the population of the United States.

It is true that until very recently, white heteosexual christian males have comprised 100% of the ruling class.

But the times, my friend, they are a-changin'.


* As per the 2000 US Census.
And the news is even worse than it looks on the surface, for you and your ilk: the US Census Bureau classifies the following ethnic groups as "White": European Americans, Middle Eastern Americans (e.g. Arab Americans, Iranian Americans), Central Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans. Males of all those ethnic groups are included in the 37%. If you take out the Latinos and Saudis, the Iraqis and East Indians (who you probably don't consider "white" at any rate), you'd be left with a figure more like 25%. If that.
White males of European origin comprise no more than a quarter of the US population. White heterosexual christian males of European origin, less. Maybe 20%.
Most of the remaining 80% of the population- the 80% comprised of people other than White heterosexual christian males of European origin, have nothing whatsoever against you. But we'd like to have more balanced representation in this country now, representation that more accurately reflects our values. Representation that is not solely comprised of members of the 20% ruling minority.
That's not a bit unreasonable of us, now is it?

 

[The silenced majority]

Unfortunately for you, Mr. Minority, your username is inapt.
White males make up only approximately 37% of the population of the US.
White heterosexual males make up perhaps 35% (and that's a very generous estimate).
White heterosexual Christian males? Maybe 32%.
Again, a generous estimate.
As you can see, people like you comprise less than a third of the population of the United States.

.

Since we're way off topic. Maybe you could find a larger identifyable demographic out there.

Black, gay Zoarasters?
Oriental, lesbian Hindus?
:roll:

It is true that until very recently, white heteosexual christian males have comprised 100% of the ruling class.

But the times, my friend, they are a-changin'

This so ricidulous.

Have you finished my gallows pole yet?

 

[1069]

Maybe you could find a larger identifyable demographic out there.

Refer to the addendum on my previous post.

 

[zero18]

About 1/2 of libertarians are pro-life, so to suggest they are a "fringe" is just wrong.

I agree with Ron Paul on abortion. To suggest that a child has no right to life seconds before birth is proposterous.

Ron Paul believes in the right to ownership of one's body, but one must also consider the body of an innocent child.

 

[The silenced majority]

Refer to the addendum on my previous post.

OK you can't then. Even at 20% it's the biggest demographic and enough to hold plenty political sway. That is of course if we all voted the same way. We don't , since there really isn't a "white, heterosexual male" collective as the left has coined and smeared us all for being. "We" are the silenced majority, not because we have a collective voice that isn't being heard, rather because we are all grouped together so the left can apply grievances that need addressed to those not in our "group".


You see, I'm not going to fall in to your collectivist trap. My user name refers to the demographic I belong to and how they are senselessly reviled by those who view us as a club of mutual benefit that has enslaved and destroyed all who weren't like us. As if my whiteness has made me a member of exclusive entitlements that are unavailable and restricted from others. :roll: This is the reality that I must deal with I guess in an America where history is increasingly viewed as being controlled by the dominant of particular segments of society and less as a culture resulting in what happens when free people are left to live how they choose.

 

[zero18]

Men need less government policing, while women need more.
Got it. Thank you for your time. Next?



You can say that twice.



Pfft. Not bloddy likely.

First of all, learn how to spell bloody.

Second, learn to debate without using pure emotion. That way, ppl will actually read and respect your opinion and not consider you as another whiny b*tch.

 

[OKgrannie]

OK. Let's follow this logic out, shall we?

By what you've just asserted, a test-tube zygote the moment it is incepted is an individual, and remains one till the day it dies or is implanted into a host. Therefore if a baby was conceived using a test-tube and was incubated with a machine, that baby is an individual. Because 1.) it's not occupying another person and 2.) it's not sustaining itself via another person's bodily fluids. All the while a baby naturally conceived in it's mother's womb is disqualified as an individual for the aforementioned reasons.

Some fetuses are "more equal" than others I guess .

That's true, every advance in technology brings additional ethical problems to be solved. Society must change to adapt to technological advances. Medical technology has made abortion safe for women, safer than childbirth, now society must accept that it is a reasonable choice.

No, alot of what we idiot Christians are concerned about is the threat the idealogical state has to crush our culture and traditions. We just want to know if Dr. Paul sees things our way or not. After all, in a representative republic such as ours, is it not important that those we charge to lead us share our morals and views?

No, it isn't important at all. It is quite possible to live in a society with widely varying morals and views; it is only necessary that we respect each others' freedom to hold different views. What is truly scary is that some think we must all hold the same views, the Christian view of course, and those views must be enforced by the state.

 

[The silenced majority]

That's true, every advance in technology brings additional ethical problems to be solved. Society must change to adapt to technological advances. Medical technology has made abortion safe for women, safer than childbirth, now society must accept that it is a reasonable choice.

This has nothing to do with advances in technology unless somebody can figure out a way to kill someone without taking their individual liberty and right to life away.

No, it isn't important at all. It is quite possible to live in a society with widely varying morals and views; it is only necessary that we respect each others' freedom to hold different views. What is truly scary is that some think we must all hold the same views, the Christian view of course, and those views must be enforced by the state.

Where are these Christians who seek to take over the government and force Christianity on everyone?

The "Christian right" is only involved politically after watching an encroaching secularist agenda seep it's way into government and manifest itself in public school curricula and social policy (among others) to an the extent that it was a threat to crush the culture and traditions in this country that Christians hold dear.

Most Christians could care less if the whole government dissolved tomorrow...

...you know, that whole "mark of the beast" thing and all.

 

[1069]

First of all, learn how to spell bloody.

When I use it as an expletive, I spell it phonologically: "bloddy 'ell!"

That way, ppl will actually read and respect your opinion and not consider you as another whiny b*tch.

514 'thanks' to your- hrmm, let's see here- four suggest that I need no advice from you on how to write for the masses.

When you have more thanked posts than I do, then you are free to advise, and I might well listen.
As it is, you oughta be begging me for pointers, Skippy.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

When does that fetus become an individual? After birth? 9 months after gestation? What if a baby is delivered 4 months premature? Does that baby have to wait for 4 months to become and individual?

When it has a working brain and is self-aware. What is so hard about this concept?

P.S.-

Skippy.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

 

[The silenced majority]

When it has a working brain and is self-aware. What is so hard about this concept?

P.S.-

Skippy.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Your ability to jump in the middle of a thread take a quote out of context then taunt is noted.

This will be the extent of my response.

 

[OKgrannie]

This has nothing to do with advances in technology unless somebody can figure out a way to kill someone without taking their individual liberty and right to life away.

It has everything to do with advances in technology. Technology changes our lives, and ethics/morals must change as well, or be left in the dust. Are you imagining that a fetus has "individual liberty" or a "right to life"? First, a fetus would have to attain individuality, liberty could only be attained by being freed from the womb, as one could hardly imagine a more confining place. A fetus would have to be able to exercise liberty in order to be entitled to it. A fetus must be able to sustain life in order to have a "right to life".

Where are these Christians who seek to take over the government and force Christianity on everyone?

They're everywhere you'd want to be. They are in groups called Reconstructionists, Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, and many others.

The "Christian right" is only involved politically after watching an encroaching secularist agenda seep it's way into government and manifest itself in public school curricula and social policy (among others) to an the extent that it was a threat to crush the culture and traditions in this country that Christians hold dear.

Most Christians could care less if the whole government dissolved tomorrow...

...you know, that whole "mark of the beast" thing and all.

LOL, play the victim card, cry persecution! Christians have always been able to be as Christian as they like without interference from anyone and there is no threat to that right. Christians cannot, however, use the public square to spread their influence or use intimidation to force others to conform to their values.