Ron Paul raises over $6mil today in less than 24hrs reaching his 4th quarter goal!!!

[Credge]

Originally Posted by KubeDawg

The Right to be free of any law that deprives a person of life, liberty, or property without due process.

1. You must recognize the era in which the text was written.

2. The era in which the text was written did not have abortion.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/person

Notice how no definition defines a person as a fetus, a zygote, etc. You may also notice the first definition has the following words:

Human: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/human

Individual: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/individual

In blue.

You'll notice no words remarking anything about a fetus or zygote.

You should also notice the little part at the end of what you quoted. Due process.

DUE PROCESS - The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's basic rights to 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' Courts have issued numerous rulings about what this means in particular cases.

That's fine. It's very easy to legally put somebody to death, to seize their belongings, to do a plethora of other things. It happens daily. It happens often. And it is no different here.

[KubeDawg]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

I few things. If you want to get techincle and examine things at their most basic literal meaning, then the baby isn't even a person until after they're born. They don't have any form of ID, social security or birth certificate, or, legally speaking a name. That's just food for thought. There's no point implied.

Certainly understood, however, the key is, will be born, as opposed to, oh we're thinking about having a baby so we're going to start having sex now. Huge difference. Assuming the sex is consentual, the woman ALREADY has the CHOICE not to have a baby BEFORE she and her man decide to have SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

This choice is often misunderstood, and a lot of people think that pregnancy cannot happen with the use of proper contraception, but nothing is full proof. The Choice is there before it even takes place. I am certainly not one to play russian roulette and hope I don't get shot in the temple...

Originally Posted by uBeR

KubeDawg, if neither you or Dr. Paul can differentiate between a zygote and a fetus, I certainly can't help you.

I've already made this argument before, but you've ignored it: If the fetus is going to kill the mother, why should the mother have to go through the pregnancy? What values her life less than the fetus's? The federal government should not be in the business of valuing one life over another.

Even if you choose to ignore that argument, there's no basis for ignoring a female's right to her body. The woman's body does not belong to the government. To wit, "A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church)."[1]

Plainly, as the U.S. Libertarian Party sez it, "the government should be kept out of the question."

I didn't ignore this argument. Both lives are valued equally, but it should be up to the doctor, if no spouce/family is available, on who's life should be saved if both are at risk and there is a 100% no chance of saving both...

The choice to birth a child comes when a couple decides to have sex, with or without contraception.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by KubeDawg

The choice to birth a child comes when a couple decides to have sex, with or without contraception.

Rape isn't a choice.

[BinaryLife]

Originally Posted by KubeDawg

Certainly understood, however, the key is, will be born, as opposed to, oh we're thinking about having a baby so we're going to start having sex now. Huge difference. Assuming the sex is consentual, the woman ALREADY has the CHOICE not to have a baby BEFORE she and her man decide to have SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

Well, to get into my other statements a bit; Once theegg is fertilized there's not really a total chance the baby will be born anyway. You're protecting the life of something not yet living. There are a great many things that could go wrong. Nature, luck, will, god nor science can gaurentee the life of an unborn zygote. It is merely a collection of cells, the equivelent if you will of bacteria growing in your stomach lining. To me, that does not represent life. To you it does, which is fine. I can understand an emotional attachment to something you believe to be living.

But there is no answer. Nothing definitive. The possibilty of my way of thinking being wrong is equal to yours. When it comes to dictating the courses of lives not our own we can not use our hearts to guide us. The only thing you and I are sure on is that the mother is alive, and a person who has rights. Science, faith, will and luck can substantiate that. That alone makes her life more important. You can look into her eyes, and watch them blink.

A zygote has no eyes, no heart or lungs. It has no legs, no beating heart. If you were to pull it out of the mother and incubate it, it would die. Which is why I must go back to my statement that as young as an unborn child can survive outside the womb is considered life. At that stage at least the future has an answer.

*edit* because as time progresses and medicle scienec and keep younger fetuses alive outside the womb there is an alternative to abortion. But also, because if the baby has a chance to live without the mother then an abortion is ending a live more guarenteed than once before. It's not a time limit, or a finite point, but a point of maturity that will grow with the human race.

[zSilver_Fox]

Originally Posted by uBeR

KubeDawg, if neither you or Dr. Paul can differentiate between a zygote and a fetus, I certainly can't help you.

I've already made this argument before, but you've ignored it: If the fetus is going to kill the mother, why should the mother have to go through the pregnancy? What values her life less than the fetus's? The federal government should not be in the business of valuing one life over another.

Even if you choose to ignore that argument, there's no basis for ignoring a female's right to her body. The woman's body does not belong to the government. To wit, "A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church)."[1]

Plainly, as the U.S. Libertarian Party sez it, "the government should be kept out of the question."

+1

Kube's obviously going to pull the consentual sex argument. But like you said: If he can't differentiate between a zygote and a fetus, he needs to take a biology class over.

I very much doubt you're actually pro-life, Kube. You believe the baby should be born. Where should it go? If the mother can't raise it or it'll ruin her, it should go to adoption, right? Such a shame that our adoption centers are bursting, and there are loads of kids out on the street right now that would love to have a family take them in.

Not only that, but adoption costs money. Lots of it. Most people simply CAN NOT afford it, and as a child gets older, their chances of adoption are slimmer.

So, who's going to take them in? Are you going to change your entire life to accomodate one child who came into this world by mistake? What about events like incest? Pregnancy among younger children (14-15)? People make mistakes, and ruining their entire life over something that can be fixed in an operation is about as backwards and as twisted as ever. A woman has rights over her body, something America is slowly realizing. It's shocking how far we're behind with civil liberties while students in our school system are lead to believe that we're a nation of angels who fought to abolish slavery and persecution. History books gladly glide over the American eugenics craze, the imprisonment of Japanese-American citizens and Japanese citizens living in America (who were unable to gain citizenship due to the laws at that time), the House Un-American Activities Committee, et cetera.

Your comment on the eight months thing shows that you have no idea what you're talking about with abortion. Refer again to what Uber said: God help you, no one else can.

[KubeDawg]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Rape isn't a choice.

Exactly. That is the dilemma we are speaking of. M previous stance was that a woman should have to go forward with the pregnancy, because if you believe in life at conception, it would be killing the child. However, on this issue, I am still in the middle of the road on, because on the other side, she didn't have the choice to get raped, However, if she reports it, gets checked out immediately, the chances of pregnacy are reduced immediately. There has to be a line, but where is it drawn? There will always be extreme circumstances, so it has to be more of a gray area based upon the situation.

[zSilver_Fox]

Originally Posted by KubeDawg

Certainly understood, however, the key is, will be born, as opposed to, oh we're thinking about having a baby so we're going to start having sex now. Huge difference. Assuming the sex is consentual, the woman ALREADY has the CHOICE not to have a baby BEFORE she and her man decide to have SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

This choice is often misunderstood, and a lot of people think that pregnancy cannot happen with the use of proper contraception, but nothing is full proof. The Choice is there before it even takes place. I am certainly not one to play russian roulette and hope I don't get shot in the temple...



I didn't ignore this argument. Both lives are valued equally, but it should be up to the doctor, if no spouce/family is available, on who's life should be saved if both are at risk and there is a 100% no chance of saving both...

The choice to birth a child comes when a couple decides to have sex, with or without contraception.

Sure, put a person's life in the hands of a doctor who doesn't know them, or their personal situation. A gynaecologist is NOT a social psychologist, and the Introduction to Psychology courses taken in college as a part of required curriculum are far from a proper Bachelors or Masters, and a far shot from a PsyD.

How are the chances reduced greatly by getting checked out? Life at conception is a joke and believed by those who don't understand the process. It's nothing more than two conjoined cells. For quite awhile afterwards it's nothing more than a handful of eukaryotic cells. Perhaps you should have paid more attention in biology. Read up on human embryogenesis on Wikipedia or something.

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by zSilver_Fox

Not only that, but adoption costs money. Lots of it. Adoption programs aren't there to make people feel good: They're in a business, and their goal is to make money. You're not just paying for the diapers, food, et cetera, when you start shelling out the cash, you're also paying for someone to have a nice ribeye dinner.

I think you are completely off base. My mom runs an adoption home study agency. That's not how it works at all.

[BinaryLife]

A lot of times adoption agencies are non-profit. There are a great many religiously sponsored adoptions centers. In the US it's handled differently for each state. I know less than I should. My dad was adopted and has since wrote a book and self published it about his experiences.

...lol I have yet to read it.

But anyways, back on topic:

[YomMamasHouse]

You pro-abortionists are just trying to make yourselves feel better about condoning murder!!!!111oneone CANT YOU SEE THE WORLD NEEDS MORE HUMANS? Especially illegitimate/unwanted ones, we need more of those.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by KubeDawg

However, if she reports it, gets checked out immediately, the chances of pregnacy are reduced immediately.

Uhhh, if you believe in life at conception then the morning after pill is just as much murder as abortion is.

[zSilver_Fox]

Originally Posted by uBeR

I think you are completely off base. My mom runs an adoption home study agency. That's not how it works at all.

I shouldn't make assumptions... as stated in Under Siege 2: "Assumptions are the mother of all fuckups."

I'll edit that out. Got carried away with my rant. Sorry.

I agree with ekiM here. Life at conception is completely baseless.

[qwertyuiop]

Who's Ron Paul?

[KubeDawg]

Google Ron Paul.

[Vicious]

lol, abortion abortion abortion abortion

who the hell is ron paul?

Priceless.

[uBeR]

[Dragonjojo]

Originally Posted by qwertyuiop

Who's Ron Paul?

lol, I stopped watching t.v a couple years ago when I moved out and about a month or so ago I was driving to work and all these people were on the side of the road with Ron Paul signs and stuff waving and I asked myself the same question "Who's Ron Paul?".

I asked someone at work and they flipped out that I didn't know who was running for president. I pretty much get all my news from this forum since the only thing I watch now are the DVR episodes of like Family Guy, Southpark and Niptuck

[BinaryLife]

Uber that pic is priceless. Seriously, it needs to be in one of those Mastercard commercials.

[KubeDawg]

It's an actual blimp, not fake:

www.ronpaulblimp.com

There is also a schedule on where it is to be going. As far as I know, it's heading to one of the carolina's to hopefully be there for the football game.

Here's a pic from the other side:

[qwertyuiop]

I bet Ron Paul smells his own socks. What a dick.