<!--quoteo(post=1659510:date=Nov 6 2007, 12:46 AM:name=Tykjen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tykjen @ Nov 6 2007, 12:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The one that wins only ends up saying what the people wanted to hear, but will far from do anything with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much why I try very very hard to ignore politics. It seems its all about producing the most awesome sounding lies to get elected, and then doing whatever the hell you like once you're actually in power. There is NOTHING, absolutely ###### all to make politicians actually fullfill the promises they make before they're elected, so what's the ######ing point?
<!--quoteo(post=1659508:date=Nov 6 2007, 12:32 AM:name=SkulkBait)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SkulkBait @ Nov 6 2007, 12:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659508"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What do LGBT issues have to do with the federal government? Does a candidate have to come out and say "I don't support putting ######s in death camps" for you to believe that he cares about their freedom?
I wouldn't really call him ultra pro-life either, based on what I've read, since he sees it as a matter of degrees and he recognizes that there are situations, like rape, where it should be allowed. Even so, he believes it is up to the individual states to deal with that issue, which I disagree with, but its not like hes going to force an abortion ban or anything.
Ultimately thats one of the things that I think makes him such a great candidate: He doesn't want to force his beliefs on others.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like any other civil rights issues, LGBT issues have a lot to do with the federal government. Ever hear of Lawrence v. Texas and anti-sodomy laws? Or how about the other extreme: a Constitutional amendment that would've banned same-sex marriage, but was defeated in Congress?
I don't understand people... why do women need the right to kill babies? I don't see how rape changes the issue at all. Can we not just kill the rapist instead of the baby? It's not like the baby committed rape...
Anyways, I'm not a libritarian myself, but it's good to see a republican candidate who acctually IS a libritarian. The current republican trend towards nazi fascism is scary and quite generally unamerican. Lets not fool ourselfs though, the next president will be a democrat, and will horrendously screw things up, especially in the middle east. The sheeple have already spoken.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
<!--quoteo(post=1659528:date=Nov 6 2007, 04:15 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Nov 6 2007, 04:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659528"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't understand people... why do women need the right to kill babies? I don't see how rape changes the issue at all. Can we not just kill the rapist instead of the baby? It's not like the baby committed rape...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yikes. Are you volunteering to take care of all the unwanted babies? or I guess the woman should have thought of that before she let herself get raped. This thread can go to a very bad place from here =p
I for one think the only people that should have a say in abortion law are women, at the very least, and preferably, women who have been faced with the choice of keeping or aborting an unwanted pregnancy.
<!--quoteo(post=1659529:date=Nov 6 2007, 10:21 AM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Abra @ Nov 6 2007, 10:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659529"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Are you being serious?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes.
[edit] DZ: All of them... no, but if I can ever muster the monetary resources to make it plausible I fully intend on helping as many as possible. To me the concept that a human life can be worth less than the cost of raising it is infuriating.
[edit2] How many pregnancies per year are the result of rape anyways? I kind of doubt the statistics are staggering to the point where it would constitute a signifigant drain on sociaty. People just suck to much to want to give other lives a competitive chance.
How will killing the rapist solve anything? The raped woman was still raped, and is still pregnant. It's not like you can undo that by killing the rapist. It's like closing the barn doors after the horses have escaped.
As for "the right to kill babies," that's a rather emotionally laden way to put it. It's called an abortion. The opposite to "the right to kill babies" would be "forcing women to have children even though they don't want them." Neither sounds very nice, and neither is conducive to a good debate.
Fair enough, lets not kill the rapist then. Still, the pro life issue isn't one of punishment. Pro lifers don't want to punish women for being irresponsible with their sexuality, they want to NOT KILL. Rape is not an exception. Honestly, I'm not really even pro life, however, I'm anti safe stance. If we assume a fetus is a human life there are no safe circumstances in which aborting it is moral, if we assume it's not a human life there are no circumstances in which aborting it is exceptionally immoral. The value of the fetus is either the value of a human life, or it's not. Rape is NOT an issue. If it means saving a human life we do whatever it takes, if it doesn't mean saving a human life there is no reason to give a crap irregardless of the circumstance.
9 months of discomfort and pain is not a punishment for irresponsibility, it's a necessary sacrifice to protect a human life.
The problem is that the issue is not as simple as "not wanting to kill." There are consequences for every action, and sometimes pragmatism must be given its due. In this case, we're weighing the good of a victim of sexual abuse against the good of an unborn child or fetus, both with conflicting goals. It is easy enough to attempt to boil down a complex issue to a single problem and declare all other considerations to be of secondary importance, but it's an oversimplification. If we assume that an early fetus is a human being with the same basic right to life as everyone else and thus forbid abortion except in cases of danger to the mother (I'm just going to assume that nobody is going to argue against abortion in THAT case), we are forcing our moral values on the woman. That's a dangerous thing to do, as morals are often not absolute values.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]if we assume it's not a human life there are no circumstances in which aborting it is not exceptionally immoral.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Objection. This is unfounded and unexplained. If we assume it is not a human life, then it is merely a cluster of cells. It may not have a central nervous system or a speck of consciousness. How is killing such a non-person in any way immoral? I doubt you cry for every amoeba that expires in a petri dish.
<!--quoteo(post=1659536:date=Nov 6 2007, 10:33 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 6 2007, 10:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659536"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If we assume it is not a human life, then it is merely a cluster of cells. It may not have a central nervous system or a speck of consciousness. How is killing such a non-person in any way immoral? I doubt you cry for every amoeba that expires in a petri dish.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's exactly what he said. His point (which is what I think, too) is that your position on abortion basically boils down to whether you think the thing being aborted is an actual person, or just a potential person. If you think it's a person, it's murder. If you think it's just a potential person, then abortion is just as moral/immoral as preventing the conception in the first place, by, say, using a condom.
How did the whole donation blitzkrieg go? Is Ron Paul the next president yet?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]if we assume it's not a human life there are no circumstances in which aborting it is not exceptionally immoral.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Note the double negation. "<u>No</u> circumstances in which aborting it is <u>not</u> exceptionally immoral." That means the same as "Abortion is exceptionally immoral under all circumstances." But in this case we are already assuming that it's not a human life. So even though it's not (by assumption) a human life, it is still exceptionally immoral to abort it? I have to ask for the rationale behind that.
Ya, Lolf... accidental double negative screwed me up. You quoted me before I fixed it.
If we assume a fetus is not a human life it's somewhere on the level of spermatozoa and amoeba. It's death is inconsequential vs the pain and suffering it causes. Personally I'm somewhat relativist in philosophy, so I tend towards not making an arbitrary value guess on the value of the objective value of a fetus, if it was my choice to make I would choose to preserve due to the relative likelihood of the humanity being objective, but I don't really feel justified to make that choice for other people.
The point is that if we are pro life, we assume that the fetus is a human life, and thus, it's impossible to make an exception for rape, so I'm arguing that safe stancers should stop raising the issue, it's never going to be accepted middle ground.
[edit] isn't it kind of over the edge requoting a post over and over that was edited before you even completed the first post in which it was quoted?
<!--quoteo(post=1659367:date=Nov 5 2007, 10:43 AM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Nov 5 2007, 10:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659367"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->He's uber-pro Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't allow it, he doesn't vote for it. He's ran as a Republican in every one of elections he's run in for the House, and back in 1988 ran for President as the Libertarian candidate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That means he's pro 'right to bear arms', right? Er, yep the video says yes. "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not, I think, is irrelevant [...] I think the second amendment would have prevented 9/11. They might not even have tried if they knew every pilot had a gun"
<!--quoteo(post=1659450:date=Nov 5 2007, 08:56 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Nov 5 2007, 08:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659450"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As far as republicans go I think he's the best. I don't agree with some of his social issues but since he's for Federal Gov't not regulating that stuff it evens out.
I'd vote for him over Hillary, but not Obama.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Woah woah woah woah woah woah.
Woah.
You have a presidential candidate called 'Obama'? His last name isn't 'Sinladen' is it? I just don't want you guys ######ing it up for yourselves a 3rd term running. You haven't exactly got the best track record in choosing the best people for the job. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
Yes, I didn't re-read your post, so I never noticed you had changed it. I had a small suspicion that the double negative was accidental, but decided to ignore it.
So since the double negative was accidental, consider that issue moot.
If your stance is that all abortion is murder and you will accept no compromise, then there is no room for debate. Maybe Ron Paul's stance in this case is a sensible one: Don't pass any federal legislation on abortion, but leave it up to the individual states to decide. Some of them will legislate one way, some will legislate another way. Those who wish to live in a state where abortion is forbidden can do so. Those who want an abortion even though it is forbidden in their state can still get one through a trip over the state border(s). It's a bit unfortunate for them, of course, but such is the nature of compromises.
<!--quoteo(post=1659542:date=Nov 6 2007, 12:18 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 6 2007, 12:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659542"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If your stance is that all abortion is murder and you will accept no compromise, then there is no room for debate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How can you have a pro-life stance where that is not the case? Either the fetus is human life or it is not. The stance that people deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions as dictated by fate isn't even pro-life... it's just sort of being an ######. If you really believe that you might as well argue that people who get cancer deserve to die of it because obviously they did something that caused fate/god to give them cancer. It's nonsensical garbage.
That's why I can't stand the argument "what about rape?!?", ya, maby we can make an exception for rape if we're all autonomous robots without free will or the ability/responsibility to improve the human condition. What you sacrifice in the proposition that there is acceptable exceptions isn't acceptable.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like any other civil rights issues, LGBT issues have a lot to do with the federal government. Ever hear of Lawrence v. Texas and anti-sodomy laws? Or how about the other extreme: a Constitutional amendment that would've banned same-sex marriage, but was defeated in Congress?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My point remains the same: Does he have to come out and say that he won't draft an amendment to ban same-sex marriage or that sodomy laws are a violation of freedom? We're talking about a guy who wants to end the drug war because "[it] is a tyrannical approach to solving a social and medical problem.". I don't have to actually hear him say that he won't enact anti-sodomy legislation to believe that he won't do it.
BTW guys, this isn't really an appropriate place to discus abortion is it? I mean, I know we're pushing it by having a political thread in the first place, but come on.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1659517:date=Nov 6 2007, 06:00 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Nov 6 2007, 06:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659517"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My understanding is that since Paul Advocates a reduction in centralised power and supports the right of each state to individually legislate for all kinds of things ( gun control, substance prohibition, abortion etc. ) he has been labelled as 'ultra pro life'. When someone says 'ultra pro life' to me, I think of creationists burning down abortion clinics and cutting off the hands of doctors that perform the procedures.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> QFT <!--quoteo(post=1659537:date=Nov 6 2007, 11:36 AM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Nov 6 2007, 11:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659537"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How did the whole donation blitzkrieg go? Is Ron Paul the next president yet?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am also wondering this. <!--quoteo(post=1659540:date=Nov 6 2007, 12:04 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ Nov 6 2007, 12:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659540"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You have a presidential candidate called 'Obama'? His last name isn't 'Sinladen' is it? I just don't want you guys ######ing it up for yourselves a 3rd term running. You haven't exactly got the best track record in choosing the best people for the job. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah that was a big joke here before he became semi well known. The Daily show went around asking people if they thought Barak Obama should be put behind bars and because people immediately associated the name with Osama Bin Laden they said yes. It was amusing. He's actually a very charismatic democrat candidate. <!--quoteo(post=1659547:date=Nov 6 2007, 12:52 PM:name=SkulkBait)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SkulkBait @ Nov 6 2007, 12:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659547"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My point remains the same: Does he have to come out and say that he won't draft an amendment to ban same-sex marriage or that sodomy laws are a violation of freedom? We're talking about a guy who wants to end the drug war because "[it] is a tyrannical approach to solving a social and medical problem.". I don't have to actually hear him say that he won't enact anti-sodomy legislation to believe that he won't do it. BTW guys, this isn't really an appropriate place to discus abortion is it? I mean, I know we're pushing it by having a political thread in the first place, but come on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Agree with both statements.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
edited November 2007
Okay, this really wasn't supposed to devolve into a politics discussion.
And Crispy, for the record: I don't think I could let someone slide who is insulting our country about who we've elected when their own country is little more than a glorified police state.
As for how much he's raised: 3.8/4 million(Basically, in the time between EST midnight and PST midnight he got another 200,000). Currently, thats the most any pre-primary candidate has ever gotten in a single day, and not so far off from the current highest raised on a single day EVER(Held by Kerry, the day he turned into the Democratic Candidate) which was 5.7 million(Okay, so that is a pretty far ways off).
Also, I can completely understand where Athena/Mercedes(I'm not sure which name it ever is anymore...) is coming from on that, but the nice part of what my formers were talking about is that there are parts of the country that would accept it pretty easily(California, for example). I know this makes it suck pretty hard for those in the Bible Belt, but with a decentralization of power comes a lot of freedoms that would prove advantageous, and at least it would pretty much remove the argument about it.
Also, one thing he has said is that Marriage is NOT an institution that is supposed to be endorsed by the Federal Government, let alone any government, which would effectively legalize homosexual marriage.
As to LGBT things, yeah, those aren't in his platform much at all. Those tend to be the ones I wonder the most about.
<!--quoteo(post=1659553:date=Nov 6 2007, 01:40 PM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Nov 6 2007, 01:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659553"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Okay, this really wasn't supposed to devolve into a politics discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really? You started a thread about giving money to a candidate in a presidential election and did not expect the resulting discussion to be about politics?
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1659555:date=Nov 6 2007, 11:06 AM:name=Confused)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Confused @ Nov 6 2007, 11:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659555"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Really? You started a thread about giving money to a candidate in a presidential election and did not expect the resulting discussion to be about politics?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was indeed the idea. See, some people have this sense of self restraint- and furthermore, it isn't that hard to keep from getting into arguments, but those who don't have that sense of self restraint have trouble keeping themselves from that.
<!--quoteo(post=1659555:date=Nov 6 2007, 01:06 PM:name=Confused)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Confused @ Nov 6 2007, 01:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659555"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Really? You started a thread about giving money to a candidate in a presidential election and did not expect the resulting discussion to be about politics?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How dare you sully a thread about begging for money with a discussion of the issues and the candidate's stances on them! Real patriots donate without asking questions! Discussion is for Commies and Fascists!
Honestly Quanaut you can't expect us to donate money without at least talking about what the guy stands for. The only people who would rationally give money without first evaluating his positions are the people who already support him and who already would have heard about this.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1659561:date=Nov 6 2007, 02:49 PM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Nov 6 2007, 02:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659561"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I want to know is, will Ron Paul legalize cannabis? Because... please... <i>please</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A constitutionalist stance would be not support the war on drugs and would support allowing states to choose their own legislation regarding drug use. Whether such legislation would actually pass the house and senate is certainly questionable. <!--quoteo(post=1659562:date=Nov 6 2007, 02:51 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Nov 6 2007, 02:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659562"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly Quanaut you can't expect us to donate money without at least talking about what the guy stands for. The only people who would rationally give money without first evaluating his positions are the people who already support him and who already would have heard about this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree debating the <i>candidate's</i> views on certain issues is to be expected. However there were quite a few posts about abortion that were not related to discussion of the candidate at all. I think this is what <b>Quaunaut</b> was referring to <b>TychoCelchuuu</b>.
So the general gist, SwiftSpear, is that you will never be satisfied with anything but a complete ban on abortion (with the exception of life-threatening circumstances, of course)? That you are unwilling to compromise in any way? That the situation is simply "abortion is murder, murder is forbidden, therefore abortion must not be allowed?" I'm not trying to construct a straw-man argument here, I'm just trying to understand your stance, and whether there was any point to arguing in the first place (and yes, I'm taking responsibility for that).
Comments
Pretty much why I try very very hard to ignore politics. It seems its all about producing the most awesome sounding lies to get elected, and then doing whatever the hell you like once you're actually in power. There is NOTHING, absolutely ###### all to make politicians actually fullfill the promises they make before they're elected, so what's the ######ing point?
I am a raging ball of cynicism.
I wouldn't really call him ultra pro-life either, based on what I've read, since he sees it as a matter of degrees and he recognizes that there are situations, like rape, where it should be allowed. Even so, he believes it is up to the individual states to deal with that issue, which I disagree with, but its not like hes going to force an abortion ban or anything.
Ultimately thats one of the things that I think makes him such a great candidate: He doesn't want to force his beliefs on others.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like any other civil rights issues, LGBT issues have a lot to do with the federal government. Ever hear of Lawrence v. Texas and anti-sodomy laws? Or how about the other extreme: a Constitutional amendment that would've banned same-sex marriage, but was defeated in Congress?
Anyways, I'm not a libritarian myself, but it's good to see a republican candidate who acctually IS a libritarian. The current republican trend towards nazi fascism is scary and quite generally unamerican. Lets not fool ourselfs though, the next president will be a democrat, and will horrendously screw things up, especially in the middle east. The sheeple have already spoken.
Are you being serious?
I for one think the only people that should have a say in abortion law are women, at the very least, and preferably, women who have been faced with the choice of keeping or aborting an unwanted pregnancy.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0kJHQpvgB8"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0kJHQpvgB8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
Yes.
[edit] DZ: All of them... no, but if I can ever muster the monetary resources to make it plausible I fully intend on helping as many as possible. To me the concept that a human life can be worth less than the cost of raising it is infuriating.
[edit2] How many pregnancies per year are the result of rape anyways? I kind of doubt the statistics are staggering to the point where it would constitute a signifigant drain on sociaty. People just suck to much to want to give other lives a competitive chance.
As for "the right to kill babies," that's a rather emotionally laden way to put it. It's called an abortion. The opposite to "the right to kill babies" would be "forcing women to have children even though they don't want them." Neither sounds very nice, and neither is conducive to a good debate.
9 months of discomfort and pain is not a punishment for irresponsibility, it's a necessary sacrifice to protect a human life.
If we assume that an early fetus is a human being with the same basic right to life as everyone else and thus forbid abortion except in cases of danger to the mother (I'm just going to assume that nobody is going to argue against abortion in THAT case), we are forcing our moral values on the woman. That's a dangerous thing to do, as morals are often not absolute values.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]if we assume it's not a human life there are no circumstances in which aborting it is not exceptionally immoral.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Objection. This is unfounded and unexplained. If we assume it is not a human life, then it is merely a cluster of cells. It may not have a central nervous system or a speck of consciousness. How is killing such a non-person in any way immoral? I doubt you cry for every amoeba that expires in a petri dish.
That's exactly what he said. His point (which is what I think, too) is that your position on abortion basically boils down to whether you think the thing being aborted is an actual person, or just a potential person. If you think it's a person, it's murder. If you think it's just a potential person, then abortion is just as moral/immoral as preventing the conception in the first place, by, say, using a condom.
How did the whole donation blitzkrieg go? Is Ron Paul the next president yet?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]if we assume it's not a human life there are no circumstances in which aborting it is not exceptionally immoral.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note the double negation. "<u>No</u> circumstances in which aborting it is <u>not</u> exceptionally immoral." That means the same as "Abortion is exceptionally immoral under all circumstances." But in this case we are already assuming that it's not a human life. So even though it's not (by assumption) a human life, it is still exceptionally immoral to abort it? I have to ask for the rationale behind that.
If we assume a fetus is not a human life it's somewhere on the level of spermatozoa and amoeba. It's death is inconsequential vs the pain and suffering it causes. Personally I'm somewhat relativist in philosophy, so I tend towards not making an arbitrary value guess on the value of the objective value of a fetus, if it was my choice to make I would choose to preserve due to the relative likelihood of the humanity being objective, but I don't really feel justified to make that choice for other people.
The point is that if we are pro life, we assume that the fetus is a human life, and thus, it's impossible to make an exception for rape, so I'm arguing that safe stancers should stop raising the issue, it's never going to be accepted middle ground.
[edit] isn't it kind of over the edge requoting a post over and over that was edited before you even completed the first post in which it was quoted?
<!--quoteo(post=1659450:date=Nov 5 2007, 08:56 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Nov 5 2007, 08:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659450"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As far as republicans go I think he's the best. I don't agree with some of his social issues but since he's for Federal Gov't not regulating that stuff it evens out.
I'd vote for him over Hillary, but not Obama.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Woah woah woah woah woah woah.
Woah.
You have a presidential candidate called 'Obama'? His last name isn't 'Sinladen' is it? I just don't want you guys ######ing it up for yourselves a 3rd term running. You haven't exactly got the best track record in choosing the best people for the job. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
So since the double negative was accidental, consider that issue moot.
If your stance is that all abortion is murder and you will accept no compromise, then there is no room for debate. Maybe Ron Paul's stance in this case is a sensible one: Don't pass any federal legislation on abortion, but leave it up to the individual states to decide.
Some of them will legislate one way, some will legislate another way. Those who wish to live in a state where abortion is forbidden can do so. Those who want an abortion even though it is forbidden in their state can still get one through a trip over the state border(s). It's a bit unfortunate for them, of course, but such is the nature of compromises.
How can you have a pro-life stance where that is not the case? Either the fetus is human life or it is not. The stance that people deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions as dictated by fate isn't even pro-life... it's just sort of being an ######. If you really believe that you might as well argue that people who get cancer deserve to die of it because obviously they did something that caused fate/god to give them cancer. It's nonsensical garbage.
That's why I can't stand the argument "what about rape?!?", ya, maby we can make an exception for rape if we're all autonomous robots without free will or the ability/responsibility to improve the human condition. What you sacrifice in the proposition that there is acceptable exceptions isn't acceptable.
My point remains the same: Does he have to come out and say that he won't draft an amendment to ban same-sex marriage or that sodomy laws are a violation of freedom? We're talking about a guy who wants to end the drug war because "[it] is a tyrannical approach to solving a social and medical problem.". I don't have to actually hear him say that he won't enact anti-sodomy legislation to believe that he won't do it.
BTW guys, this isn't really an appropriate place to discus abortion is it? I mean, I know we're pushing it by having a political thread in the first place, but come on.
QFT
<!--quoteo(post=1659537:date=Nov 6 2007, 11:36 AM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Nov 6 2007, 11:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659537"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How did the whole donation blitzkrieg go? Is Ron Paul the next president yet?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am also wondering this.
<!--quoteo(post=1659540:date=Nov 6 2007, 12:04 PM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ Nov 6 2007, 12:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659540"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You have a presidential candidate called 'Obama'? His last name isn't 'Sinladen' is it? I just don't want you guys ######ing it up for yourselves a 3rd term running. You haven't exactly got the best track record in choosing the best people for the job. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah that was a big joke here before he became semi well known. The Daily show went around asking people if they thought Barak Obama should be put behind bars and because people immediately associated the name with Osama Bin Laden they said yes. It was amusing. He's actually a very charismatic democrat candidate.
<!--quoteo(post=1659547:date=Nov 6 2007, 12:52 PM:name=SkulkBait)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SkulkBait @ Nov 6 2007, 12:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659547"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My point remains the same: Does he have to come out and say that he won't draft an amendment to ban same-sex marriage or that sodomy laws are a violation of freedom? We're talking about a guy who wants to end the drug war because "[it] is a tyrannical approach to solving a social and medical problem.". I don't have to actually hear him say that he won't enact anti-sodomy legislation to believe that he won't do it.
BTW guys, this isn't really an appropriate place to discus abortion is it? I mean, I know we're pushing it by having a political thread in the first place, but come on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agree with both statements.
BTW I forgot to donate.
And Crispy, for the record: I don't think I could let someone slide who is insulting our country about who we've elected when their own country is little more than a glorified police state.
As for how much he's raised: 3.8/4 million(Basically, in the time between EST midnight and PST midnight he got another 200,000). Currently, thats the most any pre-primary candidate has ever gotten in a single day, and not so far off from the current highest raised on a single day EVER(Held by Kerry, the day he turned into the Democratic Candidate) which was 5.7 million(Okay, so that is a pretty far ways off).
Also, I can completely understand where Athena/Mercedes(I'm not sure which name it ever is anymore...) is coming from on that, but the nice part of what my formers were talking about is that there are parts of the country that would accept it pretty easily(California, for example). I know this makes it suck pretty hard for those in the Bible Belt, but with a decentralization of power comes a lot of freedoms that would prove advantageous, and at least it would pretty much remove the argument about it.
Also, one thing he has said is that Marriage is NOT an institution that is supposed to be endorsed by the Federal Government, let alone any government, which would effectively legalize homosexual marriage.
As to LGBT things, yeah, those aren't in his platform much at all. Those tend to be the ones I wonder the most about.
Really?
You started a thread about giving money to a candidate in a presidential election and did not expect the resulting discussion to be about politics?
You started a thread about giving money to a candidate in a presidential election and did not expect the resulting discussion to be about politics?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was indeed the idea. See, some people have this sense of self restraint- and furthermore, it isn't that hard to keep from getting into arguments, but those who don't have that sense of self restraint have trouble keeping themselves from that.
What I want to know is, will Ron Paul legalize cannabis? Because... please... <i>please</i>.
You started a thread about giving money to a candidate in a presidential election and did not expect the resulting discussion to be about politics?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How dare you sully a thread about begging for money with a discussion of the issues and the candidate's stances on them! Real patriots donate without asking questions! Discussion is for Commies and Fascists!
Honestly Quanaut you can't expect us to donate money without at least talking about what the guy stands for. The only people who would rationally give money without first evaluating his positions are the people who already support him and who already would have heard about this.
A constitutionalist stance would be not support the war on drugs and would support allowing states to choose their own legislation regarding drug use. Whether such legislation would actually pass the house and senate is certainly questionable.
<!--quoteo(post=1659562:date=Nov 6 2007, 02:51 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Nov 6 2007, 02:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659562"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly Quanaut you can't expect us to donate money without at least talking about what the guy stands for. The only people who would rationally give money without first evaluating his positions are the people who already support him and who already would have heard about this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree debating the <i>candidate's</i> views on certain issues is to be expected. However there were quite a few posts about abortion that were not related to discussion of the candidate at all. I think this is what <b>Quaunaut</b> was referring to <b>TychoCelchuuu</b>.
He didn't drop out, he didn't make it.
I'm not trying to construct a straw-man argument here, I'm just trying to understand your stance, and whether there was any point to arguing in the first place (and yes, I'm taking responsibility for that).