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

[The silenced majority]

Thus, firstly, rights are synonymous with citizenship.
By the fourteenth amendment, one is not a citizen until birth.

The 1st thing that needs to be understood is that nowhere in the 14th amendment does it say that fetuses are citizens; it doesn’t say they aren’t, but nonetheless. This was a decision arrived at by the SCOTUS in Roe vs. Wade, simply because it wasn’t clearly enumerated in the 14th amendment.

"The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. [] But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.

That is the basis of the entire decision.

It’s hard to not make an appeal to emotion when such a heavy matter was so cavalierly handled and has had such measurable consequences. That is a stark reality.

They did however recognize that a state had the right to determine on it’s own when the interest of the “potential life” must be considered:

"The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. [] As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.

What is potential life?

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."

"after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." He stated that this "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence." He added, "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception

I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest-that human life commences at the time of conception - and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian

The medical health field is pretty split on exactly when life begins nowadays. I’m willing to submit gigs of opinions that life begins at conception. Therefore since scientific evidence of the day led to Roe vs. Wade; new scientific evidence about when life begins compels this issue to be re-visited.

“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree
that conception [they defined fertilization and
conception to be the same] marks the beginning
of the life of a human being — a being that is alive
and is a member of the human species. There is
overwhelming agreement on this point in count-
less medical, biological, and scientific writings.”
Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers
to Senate Judiciary Committee
S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7

""With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

So since a fertilized egg can live wholly outside of it’s mother’s womb in a test tube, a test tube baby by their definition is viable & worthy of protection if the state sees fit. Not only fetuses conceived in test-tubes are viable outside a mother’s womb, all fetuses are viable outside their mother’s womb; it’s a scientifically proven fact.

The only question left to answer is when are we going to recognize the fetus as a viable organism unique in it’s design a wholly separate genetic organism from it’s mother as an “eventual” citizen and extend to them equal protection under the law? The potential for Individualism is an ability that we all innately have, however that isn’t to say that all will have the chance at individualism. Many could be born into a social structure where individuality is suppressed. The person born into an archaic social structure has the *potential for individualism that may never be realized: would that disqualify them from being considered life? The same holds true for the fetus. It’s potential for individualism is there, just not yet realized.

 

[Cephus]

Well, your opinion aside, is the man not allowed to have his own personal opinions & beliefs as long as it doesn't compromise his ability to defend the constitution & perform his duties as chief executor?

We vote for people based on their beliefs and opinions and positions on the issues. Why should I want to vote for someone who has so little respect for half of the population?

 

[The silenced majority]

We vote for people based on their beliefs and opinions and positions on the issues.

Sure we do. That doesn't mean that an executor can't have a personal opinion and still respect the will of the electorate.

Why should I want to vote for someone who has so little respect for half of the population?

Why would we need elections if we had leaders who could cater to 100% of the population?

It would seem redundant, wouldn't it?

 

[Monk-Eye]

Slant

"Slant"

Ron Paul is far from adequately qualified to be President but he's not as despicable as those described here:
"They're terrible people, liberals. They believe--this can really summarize it all--these are people who believe," she said, now raising her voice, "you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and pronounce that a constitutional right has just been exercised. That really says it all. You don't want such people to like you!"
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1050304,00.html

Hydrocephalus (link) Infants and young children with hydrocephalus have abnormally large heads because the pressure of the fluid has caused the individual skull bones — which have not knitted with each other yet — to bulge outward at their juncture points. Compression of the brain by the accumulating fluid eventually causes convulsions and mental retardation. Hydrocephalus occurs in one or two out of every 1,000 live births and was routinely fatal until surgical techniques for shunting the excess fluid out of the central nervous system and into the blood or abdomen were developed. Today it need not cause any intellectual impairment if recognized and properly treated.

Be sure to send your donations for microsurgery.
But in the event someone arrives with a brain dead fetus would you like to force an invasive surgery or give them an option for IDX?

 

[OKgrannie]

Are you reading a different bill than I am? It said nothing about "teacher led" and furthermore prohibited having the "words of a prayer" in any school curriculum and even further stated that no person shall be forced to participate.

So, what bill is it you're reading?

This bill has the exact wording of Istook's Religious Freedom Amendment and after it failed, a later bill he attempted to get passed. These people are very cunning in wording legislation in order to get what they want, which is to use public facilities to further the Christian religion. Google "Istook's school prayer bill" for more info.

"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):
To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion. "

AHA Action Alert: School Prayer Amendment

"The bill, simply put, would permit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. As the bill does not stipulate who can and cannot lead prayer, it is a backdoor to letting administrators lead students in prayer.Its seemingly innocuous language reads:
“Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer. Neither the United States nor any State shall prescribe the content of any such prayer.” (See the full text at: http://thomas.loc.gov/)....

Like all school prayer bills, this bill is unnecessary, as the freedom to pray or not pray is already protected. The Constitution already permits voluntary personal prayer in schools. This bill is a backlash to perceived hostility to religion, and should not be passed."


Istook's prayer amendment: more of the same - Church And State Humanist - Find Articles

"These high-sounding phrases--redolent of moral purpose and sober demeanor--are fine but aren't needed. The First Amendment, as interpreted by decades of jurisprudence, gives full protection to all citizens to worship if and how they choose without governmental pressure or preference.

Istook's proposed amendment goes on to say:

Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official
religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious
beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools,
shall not be infringed.
This section extends the amendment's scope to public buildings, including courthouses, and suggests that the people of the United States don't have the right to "recognize their religious beliefs, heritage and traditions"--a demonstrably unproven, and indeed inaccurate, assertion.

To disguise the fact that prayer amendments have long been held to be presumptively coercive, the Istook amendment (H.J.R. 81) says that the government "shall not compose school prayers, nor require any person to join in prayer or other religious activities." The First Amendment ban on religious establishment has long been interpreted to include such bans, and most state constitutions contain provisions forbid ding mandatory religious observances.

Still, Istook and his colleagues are using sheer emotionalism to advance their shopworn cause. "

 

[rivrrat]

This bill has the exact wording of Istook's Religious Freedom Amendment and after it failed, a later bill he attempted to get passed. These people are very cunning in wording legislation in order to get what they want, which is to use public facilities to further the Christian religion. Google "Istook's school prayer bill" for more info.

"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):
To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion. "

AHA Action Alert: School Prayer Amendment

"The bill, simply put, would permit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. As the bill does not stipulate who can and cannot lead prayer, it is a backdoor to letting administrators lead students in prayer.Its seemingly innocuous language reads:
“Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer. Neither the United States nor any State shall prescribe the content of any such prayer.” (See the full text at: http://thomas.loc.gov/)....

Like all school prayer bills, this bill is unnecessary, as the freedom to pray or not pray is already protected. The Constitution already permits voluntary personal prayer in schools. This bill is a backlash to perceived hostility to religion, and should not be passed."


Istook's prayer amendment: more of the same - Church And State Humanist - Find Articles

"These high-sounding phrases--redolent of moral purpose and sober demeanor--are fine but aren't needed. The First Amendment, as interpreted by decades of jurisprudence, gives full protection to all citizens to worship if and how they choose without governmental pressure or preference.

Istook's proposed amendment goes on to say:

Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official
religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious
beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools,
shall not be infringed.
This section extends the amendment's scope to public buildings, including courthouses, and suggests that the people of the United States don't have the right to "recognize their religious beliefs, heritage and traditions"--a demonstrably unproven, and indeed inaccurate, assertion.

To disguise the fact that prayer amendments have long been held to be presumptively coercive, the Istook amendment (H.J.R. 81) says that the government "shall not compose school prayers, nor require any person to join in prayer or other religious activities." The First Amendment ban on religious establishment has long been interpreted to include such bans, and most state constitutions contain provisions forbid ding mandatory religious observances.

Still, Istook and his colleagues are using sheer emotionalism to advance their shopworn cause. "

I think you, and others, are reading more into it than is actually there. The way that some people in this country DO want to forbid anyone from praying, or wearing religious clothing, or whatever, I can see why they would want a bill to protect this.

Look, I'm the last person who would agree with anything being forced on anyone, especially children in an environment they have no choice but to be in. But I just don't see anything in either of those bills that calls for alarm on the matter.

 

[Chanda]

But I just don't see anything in either of those bills that calls for alarm on the matter.

"To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience..."(H. J. RES. 78)

What if one's "dictates of conscience" require one, particularly a teacher, to proselytize?

 

[OKgrannie]

I think you, and others, are reading more into it than is actually there. The way that some people in this country DO want to forbid anyone from praying, or wearing religious clothing, or whatever, I can see why they would want a bill to protect this.

1. There is NO evidence that anyone DOES want to forbid anyone else from praying.

2. WHY would they need an additional bill when the US CONSTITUTION protects everyone's rights to pray or worship as they please (so long as it doesn't interfere with others' rights)? Could it be because those wanting this amendment/bill realize that their prayer and worship actually DOES interfere with others' rights?

Look, I'm the last person who would agree with anything being forced on anyone, especially children in an environment they have no choice but to be in. But I just don't see anything in either of those bills that calls for alarm on the matter.

These bills are carefully crafted to SOUND OK, to NOT cause alarm in trusting people, but the loopholes are there. For instance, "deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion" might be interpreted as "government must pay for sectarian private school". WHEN IT HAS BEEN APPLIED, the U.S. Constitution has worked pretty well for 200 years to protect freedom of religion.

 

[ARealConservative]

Several athiests on this board support Ron Paul.

I'm one of them and I have personally followed the mans career since 1988.

I am completely comfortable with his religious views. He is one of those rare christians that "gets it". He actually seems to find peace in his views - like our good poster Galenrox. We have nothing to fear from christians like that.

 

[OKgrannie]

Several athiests on this board support Ron Paul.

I'm one of them and I have personally followed the mans career since 1988.

I am completely comfortable with his religious views. He is one of those rare christians that "gets it". He actually seems to find peace in his views - like our good poster Galenrox. We have nothing to fear from christians like that.

Christians and non-Christians should beware of anyone promoting tampering with the 1st Amendment.

 

[Cephus]

Sure we do. That doesn't mean that an executor can't have a personal opinion and still respect the will of the electorate.

Sure, he can have a personal opinion on anything he likes and I, likewise, can have a personal opinion that says I won't support people whose views are so diametrically opposed to my own on some issues.

Why would we need elections if we had leaders who could cater to 100% of the population?

Isn't that why we bother voting at all? Because we want OUR views represented? That's the point of having a representative government.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Political Schpooning

"Political Schpooning"

Christians and non-Christians should beware of anyone promoting tampering with the 1st Amendment.

"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.

Prenatal Development (link)
Week 28 (26th week of development)
The fetus reaches a length of 38 cm (15 inches).
The fetus weighs about 1.2 kg (2 lb 11 oz).

Weeks 32 (30th week of development)
The fetus reaches a length of about 38-43 cm (15-17 inches).
The fetus weighs about 2 kg (4 lb 6 oz).

That is third trimester.
It sounds like fury, and violence is not absolutely unlawful agression?

Maybe he should clarify for those that believe they are attending.
Maybe we could preach the libertarian philosophy.

 

[Chanda]

Several athiests on this board support Ron Paul.

I'm one of them and I have personally followed the mans career since 1988.

I am completely comfortable with his religious views. He is one of those rare christians that "gets it". He actually seems to find peace in his views - like our good poster Galenrox. We have nothing to fear from christians like that.

As an atheist, are you not concerned that Ron Paul doesn't believe in separation of church and state? That he thinks your tax dollars should subsidize religion?

 

[The silenced majority]

Sure, he can have a personal opinion on anything he likes and I, likewise, can have a personal opinion that says I won't support people whose views are so diametrically opposed to my own on some issues.

I can agree with that however , the deal breaker for me is abortion. If a candidate would support retuning jurisdiction for matters such as these to state level as was intended in the constitution & implied in the opinion of Roe v.Wade I'd be ecstatic.

I guess I'm a confederate to a certain extent.

I wouldn't mind if one state was outrightly communist if that's what the people wanted and if another was anarchistic. Because IMO the unique state sovereignty it set up would merely the byproduct of particular laboratories of democracy.

Isn't that why we bother voting at all? Because we want OUR views represented? That's the point of having a representative government.

Isn't it possible for someone to be an unbiased executor performing his/her duties irrespective of personal views that may clash with the will of a sizeable portion of the electorate?

Isn't it about whether you "trust" someone or not? I know that trust doesn't have too much to do with politics.

I'd hate to think we've come to an impasse in this country where a Christian is mis-trusted solely because of his/her religion.

I seem to have a higher level of trust for Ron Paul over just about every other politician. He consistently votes to reduce government and spending. I can rely on him to do that.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Winning Useless Carnival Prizes

"Winning Useless Carnival Prizes"

I can agree with that however , the deal breaker for me is abortion. If a candidate would support retuning jurisdiction for matters such as these to state level as was intended in the constitution & implied in the opinion of Roe v.Wade I'd be ecstatic.

Perhaps you are not completely informed of the RvW decision -

3(a) guarantees access without state inputs.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.


3(b) gives the states nothing that would regulate abortion. Whimsical politics of protecting the mental health or physical health of the mother is an extremely limited issue and, the medical establishment would refute any blanket restriction.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

3(c) grants the third trimester decision to the states and the procedures are already, largely outlawed.

Perhaps it might be some sort of federalism, statism being my term preferred, victory but it would result in the moral majority finding that they are neither.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

 

[OKgrannie]

Isn't it possible for someone to be an unbiased executor performing his/her duties irrespective of personal views that may clash with the will of a sizeable portion of the electorate?

It's possible, but it hasn't been seen yet in the right-wing area of politics.

Isn't it about whether you "trust" someone or not? I know that trust doesn't have too much to do with politics.
I'd hate to think we've come to an impasse in this country where a Christian is mis-trusted solely because of his/her religion.

IF a Christian is mistrusted because of religion, it is because he/she has given some sign that he/she is willing to use the force of government to impose Christianity on others. Many very devout Christians can be trusted completely to practice their own faith and leave others to do the same. For example, the Amish and Mennonites. Some other Christians, being so certain they are right, feel compelled to use any means to make others be Christian.

I seem to have a higher level of trust for Ron Paul over just about every other politician. He consistently votes to reduce government and spending. I can rely on him to do that.

It is probably true that "A man is known by the friends he keeps"; you might want to check out the kind of friends who are supporting Ron Paul.

 

[The silenced majority]

Re: Winning Useless Carnival Prizes

"Winning Useless Carnival Prizes"

Perhaps you are not completely informed of the RvW decision -

3(a) guarantees access without state inputs.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

...in other words, the SCOTUS endorsing 1 particular view of human development over another, sanctioning abortion.

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

"It should be sufiicient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. [] It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks<---wrong . The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe[]. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many [Catholics and] non-Catholics[], and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning- after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs.

Wrong, because science has since discovered that a fetilized egg can grow independently of it's mother with assistance. It will develop into a unique human comprised of both it's mother's & father's DNA.

3(b) gives the states nothing that would regulate abortion. Whimsical politics of protecting the mental health or physical health of the mother is not the issue and, the medical establishment would refute such a restriction.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

Yes and the state can interrupt on behalf of the woman's health in the 2nd, and in the 3rd the fetus as an individual must be considered.... I know.

The question again is one of viability and when does it truly occur? Of course there key essentials that a mother provides to development of a fetus in a natural pregnancy that the fetus couldn't sustain itself without.

The question is, when it the fetus itself?

Does a fetus go through changes in DNA from being identical to it's mother to being unique on it's own, or does it when the moment the 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously not existed?

Many scientists believe that this is the beginning of human development as much a part as puberty, senescence and death.

At no time does the fertilized egg have the potential to develop in to anything but a human being. It won't become a roll of tape it wont become a tree. It is unique at it's very inception. Barring any mental defectiveness or problems with cognition the human will as well have the potential for individualism.

If science was able to affirm conception unequivocally human (it has already), then obviously due process under the 14th amendment would apply to the unborn.

After all, it doesn't clearly state in the constitution that black people are citizens. It was accepted for a while and backed by law that they weren't - not even human. Common sense and rationality upturned that.

I hope we're a step away from it happening again.

Attempts to meld rational objections to abortion with religious dogma is a bit disingenuous as well, because st. Thomas Aquinas believed that life didn't begin til either the 7th or 9th day after conception..

3(c) grants the third trimester decision to the states and the procedures are already, largely been outlawed so

Largely.

Perhaps it might be some sort of federalism, statism being my term preferred, but it would result in the moral majority finding that they are neither.

Well, I wouldn't put too much stock in a moral opinion derived by one who views the termination of 44 million potential human beings as personal liberty born out of an inconvenience.

 

[The silenced majority]

It's possible, but it hasn't been seen yet in the right-wing area of politics.

Oh yeah?
Ever hear of George Washington and John Adams?

IF a Christian is mistrusted because of religion, it is because he/she has given some sign that he/she is willing to use the force of government to impose Christianity on others. Many very devout Christians can be trusted completely to practice their own faith and leave others to do the same. For example, the Amish and Mennonites. Some other Christians, being so certain they are right, feel compelled to use any means to make others be Christian.

Well one Christian I can speak for wants the government to stay the frick out of my life and let me choose what values I hold and decide to teach my children. Many Christians are only involved in politics because of what is perceived as a secularist agenda now endorsed by government to crush the culture and traditions they hold dear.

It is probably true that "A man is known by the friends he keeps"; you might want to check out the kind of friends who are supporting Ron Paul.

Anybody who want less government, lower taxes and regulations, more individual liberty and a return to the glorious days of America as a Republic is a friend of mine.

 

[1069]

Anybody who want less government, lower taxes and regulations, more individual liberty and a return to the glorious days of America as a Republic is a friend of mine.

Correction: Anybody who want less government, lower taxes and regulations, more individual liberty for men, and more government regulation and less individual freedom for women, and a return to the glorious pre-Civil Rights days of America as a Republic is a friend of yours.

 

[talloulou]

Correction: Anybody who want less government, lower taxes and regulations, more individual liberty for men, and more government regulation and less individual freedom for women, and a return to the glorious pre-Civil Rights days of America as a Republic is a friend of yours.

Men don't get to "opt out" of parental obligations without govenment interference. Nor are they allowed to "off" their offspring. So just what the heck are you blabbering about?

 

[The silenced majority]

Correction: Anybody who want less government, lower taxes and regulations, more individual liberty for men, and more government regulation and less individual freedom for women, and a return to the glorious pre-Civil Rights days of America as a Republic is a friend of yours.

So I'm racist because I oppose abortion and favor state's rights.


:roll:

Is it possible for you to add anything that isn't totally soaked with group-think?

 

[Synch]

Men don't get to "opt out" of parental obligations without govenment interference.

But they should be able to shouldn't they? I mean what happened to equal rights?

1069 I find it extremely ironic that you're demonizing the fetus as a parasite and yet you find enough sympathy to openly support the parasitic system called the welfare state. The least you can do is be consistent.

 

[talloulou]

But they should be able to shouldn't they? .

In terms of "equal rights" it would be more consistent but I don't think you fix one problem by creating even more problems under the guise of equality.

 

[1069]

1069 I find it extremely ironic that you're demonizing the fetus as a parasite

Have you ever had one sucking away at your guts until your teeth were wiggling around loose in your head and you were reduced to eating handfuls of dirt in a futile effort to replenish your depleted bodily resources?
Didn't think so.

 

[The silenced majority]

Have you ever had one sucking away at your guts until your teeth were wiggling around loose in your head and you were reduced to eating handfuls of dirt in a futile effort to replenish your depleted bodily resources?

If you have, I sypathize with you.



seriously.:shock: