Guest capitan mission Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 if I were American I would vote for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I'm so confused edit: i can't vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I don't really see your point because i listened to both of those and i happen to agree with him!!! aborting a baby one day before birth wow.. didn't know they left it that late... that is fucked up no??? Everything Ron Paul says seems to be bang on and it seems hes genuine. The number of abortions that get performed after the 21st week is 1.4% of the total number of abortions. Of those, the age group where it occurs with most frequency is in girls under the age of 15. They probably have little idea that they're pregnant until after the 21st week, thanks to insane US sex education. I'm not a doctor, but i would hazard a pretty good guess that the main reason abortions are performed that late is for medical reasons, where the mother's life would be in danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptowen Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 https://twitter.com/RP_Newsletter welp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ranky Redlof Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Our Plan 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I don't really see your point because i listened to both of those and i happen to agree with him!!! aborting a baby one day before birth wow.. didn't know they left it that late... that is fucked up no??? Everything Ron Paul says seems to be bang on and it seems hes genuine. The number of abortions that get performed after the 21st week is 1.4% of the total number of abortions. Of those, the age group where it occurs with most frequency is in girls under the age of 15. They probably have little idea that they're pregnant until after the 21st week, thanks to insane US sex education. I'm not a doctor, but i would hazard a pretty good guess that the main reason abortions are performed that late is for medical reasons, where the mother's life would be in danger. But Ron Paul's argument there isn't a pragmatic one, it's an abstract one. He is saying that the usual pro-choice logic applies as well to that "one day before birth" scenario, so there has to be something wrong in it and he ask for it to be reconsidered. I think he is right tho, deep down the pro-choice side places no value in unborn life but few will admit that. I don't have a problem with placing no value in unborn life btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 https://twitter.com/RP_Newsletter welp lol, i wonder if the person this twitter account follows is intended to be parody , among his 'following' is Alex Jones and AIPAC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 28, 2011 Author Share Posted December 28, 2011 i like this comment about the newsletters when you opt to support anti-imperialist and civil liberties ideals by supporting Paul the Candidate, you end up supporting everything else about him. This puts you back to zero. The same is true of voting for Obama or any candidate. You support Obama because he defends the welfare state, environmental protection, and gay and women's rights, and you end up supporting permanent war, the national security state, and domination by finance. And on Obama's "good" issues he's often very weak. Paul's zero chance is bigger than any of the other zero chances. It's more like Perot's zero chance. Perot shook things up a bit, though not in a good way (he was a big deficit hawk). My opinion is that this is all moot anyway. I don't think that Pres. Paul could stay in office if he totally changed military policy. One member of Obama's transition team said that that was why none of the Bush team were prosecuted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 omg ron pauls an alien i friggin knew it omg what if RON PAUL builded the PYRAMIDS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YO303 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Makes sense, he is old enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptowen Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YO303 Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 hahaha right now im creating an account on the Ron Paul forum just to post that picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest A/D Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 that is beautiful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I don't really see your point because i listened to both of those and i happen to agree with him!!! aborting a baby one day before birth wow.. didn't know they left it that late... that is fucked up no??? Everything Ron Paul says seems to be bang on and it seems hes genuine. The number of abortions that get performed after the 21st week is 1.4% of the total number of abortions. Of those, the age group where it occurs with most frequency is in girls under the age of 15. They probably have little idea that they're pregnant until after the 21st week, thanks to insane US sex education. I'm not a doctor, but i would hazard a pretty good guess that the main reason abortions are performed that late is for medical reasons, where the mother's life would be in danger. But Ron Paul's argument there isn't a pragmatic one, it's an abstract one. He is saying that the usual pro-choice logic applies as well to that "one day before birth" scenario, so there has to be something wrong in it and he ask for it to be reconsidered. I think he is right tho, deep down the pro-choice side places no value in unborn life but few will admit that. I don't have a problem with placing no value in unborn life btw. I don't really see your point because i listened to both of those and i happen to agree with him!!! aborting a baby one day before birth wow.. didn't know they left it that late... that is fucked up no??? Everything Ron Paul says seems to be bang on and it seems hes genuine. The number of abortions that get performed after the 21st week is 1.4% of the total number of abortions. Of those, the age group where it occurs with most frequency is in girls under the age of 15. They probably have little idea that they're pregnant until after the 21st week, thanks to insane US sex education. I'm not a doctor, but i would hazard a pretty good guess that the main reason abortions are performed that late is for medical reasons, where the mother's life would be in danger. But Ron Paul's argument there isn't a pragmatic one, it's an abstract one. He is saying that the usual pro-choice logic applies as well to that "one day before birth" scenario, so there has to be something wrong in it and he ask for it to be reconsidered. I think he is right tho, deep down the pro-choice side places no value in unborn life but few will admit that. I don't have a problem with placing no value in unborn life btw. Appeals to emotion are shitty arguments. I do value unborn life. But I also believe that people should have the right to choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I think there's more to it than an appeal to emotion, or at least I see it that way. What ron paul says in that video pretty much renders the usual line of reasoning of the pro-choice side as disingenuous. And it calls for a better discussion on the issue, not that it needs one, but up to the present the discussion is usually a simulation that consists of politically correct things to say that reach the conclusion one wants to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 You don't think saying that "it applies to the day before birth" is an appeal to emotion? When he talks about "a young girl who kills her baby", that's not an appeal to emotion? Won't somebody think of the children. It's a terrible argument. Again - look at the number of abortions that take place after the 21st week. The fetus is 100% dependent on the mother. 100%. If the mother dies as a result of complications in the pregnancy, the fetus dies too. Unless she happens to be in a hospital and the fetus is after a certain gestational period, when the doctors think it might be viable to save the fetus. My opinion, that's reason enough to consider the fetus not an individual life. Going back to the young girl who kills her baby - if abortion and pregnancy wasn't such a taboo issue for high school students, might there not be a decrease in the number of those stories you hear about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I DO think those are appeals to emotion, I said there's more to it than just that. Off topic but I also think emotion is important even in legal issues, more on this later. Let me sum up my final thoughts since I don't wish to start an abortion debate. -At it's core, the pro-choice side of the issue feels like a baby's life is worthless if no one wants it, or at least not worth the inconvenience it could cause. But hardly anyone will admit that. -At it's core the pro-life side of the issue is a religious/spiritual stance that sees life as a sacred thing beyond all practical issues. Whether you agree or not with the above, I would pose the question, why is it that we value life? is it because of spiritual beliefs? practical ones? emotional ones? Returning to the 'appeal to emotion', aren't most of our judgments of what's right and wrong, purely emotional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Uhhh your issue is in defining life. fetus != baby And what's considered right or wrong is not purely emotional. There's this thing called reason that comes into play...it's kind of a big deal in setting the bar for what's right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 -At it's core, the pro-choice side of the issue feels like a baby's life is worthless if no one wants it, or at least not worth the inconvenience it could cause. But hardly anyone will admit that. You think a pro-choicer would be giving up an unborn out of selfish convenience? At it's core? How about making a 180 and arguing that life is worth so much that it isn't some walk in the park which you just have to accept whenever you stumble upon it. Would you argue that abortions of unborn due to medical conditions of the unborn are a matter of inconvenience to the people deciding about the abortion? What about the life the unborn would have to live? Surely you can think of some examples where forcing a full pregnancy borders on sadism. For the women or the child. The only thing pro-choice does, is recognizing there can always be conditions which call for alternative solutions. The discussion should be about when those conditions are being met. Not about belief systems which are supposed to be implied. It should be a medical decision in the first place. Not a religious one. Or emotional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Benedict Cumberbatch Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 lots of bad coverage today in the news: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/28/ron_pauls_disqualifying_racial_ignorance/ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/opinion/mr-pauls-discredited-campaign.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Uhhh your issue is in defining life. fetus != baby And what's considered right or wrong is not purely emotional. There's this thing called reason that comes into play...it's kind of a big deal in setting the bar for what's right or wrong. Yes, defining life is an issue, and the issue is that there's no clear line, and Ron Paul argument is exactly that, you can push up that line up to the day before birth, or whatever arbitrary date you want, and then defining life stops making sense as the central issue. And I disagree with the last thing, at least at this very moment this is what i think (and I challenge you to set an example that can't be reduced to emotion); reason doesn't care about right or wrong, it may help us decide between greater goods or evils and reason can help us choose things that are practical, but 'right' and 'wrong' are in the end ethical/moral issues relative to a subjective and emotional stance on the world. -At it's core, the pro-choice side of the issue feels like a baby's life is worthless if no one wants it, or at least not worth the inconvenience it could cause. But hardly anyone will admit that. You think a pro-choicer would be giving up an unborn out of selfish convenience? That's how it usually happens. At it's core? How about making a 180 and arguing that life is worth so much that it isn't some walk in the park which you just have to accept whenever you stumble upon it. That's pretty much the pro-life stance that I described, I believe. You're not bringing anything new Would you argue that abortions of unborn due to medical conditions of the unborn are a matter of inconvenience to the people deciding about the abortion? What about the life the unborn would have to live? Surely you can think of some examples where forcing a full pregnancy borders on sadism. For the women or the child. 1. Probably yes in most real cases. And in any case you're putting your own judgement before the life of the unborn, which means you're valuing it less that whatever other ethical or practical concern that's is driving the decision. 2. Should we end the life of all the people that suffer in the world then? I'm guessing you answer is no. What does this say about how much you value unborn life in comparison?. 3. Sure we can think of all kinds of examples all day long, the more extreme the less they will reflect the actual cause for a line of reasoning. The only thing pro-choice does, is recognizing there can always be conditions which call for alternative solutions. The discussion should be about when those conditions are being met. Not about belief systems which are supposed to be implied. It should be a medical decision in the first place. Not a religious one. Or emotional. aka "conditions when is it ok to place less value to the unborn". Also, BS, "conditions which call for alternative solutions" usually means "I don't want a baby". Even in most places where abortion is illegal and satanized, it accepted it in cases where it risks the life of the mother. So those kind of situations are pretty much a non-issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Having an abortion is never a choice of convenience. You might want to ask some people who did how convenient it was or still is. Not all women opting for aborting are the crazy rave chicks you seem to presume. 2. Should we end the life of all the people that suffer in the world then? I'm guessing you answer is no. What does this say about how much you value unborn life in comparison?. This comparison is absurd without the mentioned life defining issue being solved. And it's good to see you recognize it as being an issue. And btw, I can't tell from the video where Paul stands on this issue. He seems to brush it aside as unimportant as soon as it arises. The only thing he says, from what I got from the clip, is it's not for the government to decide. I wonder if he himself would be willing to draw any line at all. And although it would appear an arbitrary choice to place a line, there's enough information readily available about the development of the unborn in the womb. So any arbitrary choice being made can easily be supported by (medical) information. Arbitrary doesn't mean it isn't well founded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Please, most abortions, legal or not, are about not wanting the child, I refuse to believe otherwise unless you present me some hard data. I do know people who have had interrupted pregnancies btw so I don't need to ask. And they're not crazy rave chicks. The comparison is 100% valid as long as you're using "preventing future suffering" as the trumping argument for ending life. It stops being valid once you accept that you value some forms of human life more than others. The line is arbitrary, no matter how much information you use. And I'll stop. As I said, I don't want to start an abortion debate, I was merely deconstructing the pro-choice line of reasoning with Ron Paul's words as a starting point. By the way, I would place myself on the pro-choice side and I have no problem in admitting that I place no value in unborn life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 The comparison is 100% valid as long as you're using "preventing future suffering" as the trumping argument for ending life. It stops being valid once you accept that you value some forms of human life more than others. The comparison is 100% valid after the definition of life has been established. Which it hasn't. That's the issue, wasn't it? Without having this issue established, the claim people don't value unborn life the same as life is put out of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 That's stupid and that's not the issue. But I don't wish to take this matter any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.