Yanks only: Who are you voting for on Tuesday?

[The Ozzman]

Cythraul was joking

 

[Mort Divine]

I won't get into an arguement over gay rights because that can't go anywhere but in circles. However, abortion is murder. Period. What about the fucking rights of the child? I already don't like living in a country that allows abortion for any reason , I like the idea of having a place where murder of defenseless humans isn't allowed.

 

[seedofvengeance]

It's not even developed all the way until the 3rd trimester... which is precisely why 3rd trimester abortions are illegal.
Personally, were I to have a kid under unfavorable circumstances, I would not have an abortion. However, I feel that if a woman were raped or is in a position to where the child were to not have a chance, I fully support the right to have an abortion.

 

[False Joe]

What about the fucking rights of the child?

If the thing can't live outside the womb, it's not alive. Hence is the point of the whole "Only to 24 weeks" or whatever it is.

It's not fucking freedom of choice to tell people that they must kept the rapists baby, or get the fuck out of my country if you like it up the arse.

 

[skeptik]

You know you don't exactly get to have an "opinion" on when "life" begins, right? There are actual facts pertaining to what is a living being and what is not, and an egg with a sperm in it certainly is not alive by any stretch of the imagination. A fetus is not generally considered "full-term", meaning that it can likely survive outside of the uterus, until well into the third trimester. For comparison's sake, there has never been a documented case of a fetus surviving after having been born prematurely in approximately the 21st week, but not even 2% of all abortions in the US take place past the 20th week. In many (maybe even most) states, third trimester abortions are illegal, though the constitutionality of these bans are widely questioned, as, for example, many of them contain no stipulation about the health of the mother.

Edit: Regarding Ron Paul and racism: He famously published newsletters for many years with his name on it which supported plenty of racist ideas. There were conveniently never any names attached to the particular writings, but they were written in such a way as to indicate that they are views shared by Paul. Here's a link for reference. Read it for what it is, don't whine about bias: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

This is Ron Paul's response to the accusations from January:

BLITZER: Candidate Ron Paul is joining us now live from the campaign trail in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Congressman, thanks very much for coming in.

PAUL: Thank you.

BLITZER: All right. Let's talk about it. How could this happen? Because I have gone through some of these old Ron Paul newsletters. It has your name bannered on the top. And some of these comments as we've just heard from Brian's piece are pretty shocking.

PAUL: It is. And of course it's been rehashed for a long time and it's coming up now for political reasons. But everybody in my district knows I didn't write them. And I don't speak like that. Nobody has ever heard me say anything like that. I've been reelected time and time again. So everybody knows I don't participate in that type of language.

But the point is when you bring the question up you're really saying, you're a racist or are you a racist? And the answer is no. I'm not a racist. As a matter of fact Rosa Parks is one of my heroes. Martin Luther King is a hero. Because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience, nonviolence.

Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea. You see people in group. A civil libertarian like myself see everybody as an important individual. It's not the color of their skin that is important. As Martin Luther King said. What is important is the character of the people. What's really interesting, though, and this might be behind it because as a Republican candidate I'm getting the most support from black voters and now that has to be undermined.

And I do this because I attack two wars that blacks are suffering from. One, the war overseas. And all wars minorities suffer the most. So they join me in this position I have against the war in Iraq. And what about the war on drugs? What other candidates will stand up and say I will pardon all blacks, all whites, everybody who were convicted for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes.

And this is where the real discrimination is. Let me finish this. Because I've got to get my message back because you put the other message out. I got to get my message back. Now, if you want to look for discrimination, it's the judicial system. Fourteen percent of the inner city blacks commit drug crime. Sixty seven percent of blacks are in prison. That's discrimination. That's the judicial code that I'm attacking. That's not racism.

What I defend the principle of libertarianism where we never see people who belong to a group, and every individual is defended and protected because they're important as an individual, not because of the color of their skin, but because of their character. So I am the antiracist because I am the only candidate, Republican or Democrat who were protect the minority against these vicious drug laws.

BLITZER: Congressman, there's a lot of material there. Let me just try figure out, how did this stuff get in these Ron Paul newsletters? Who wrote it?

PAUL: I have no idea. Have you ever heard a publisher of a magazine not knowing every single thing? The editor is responsible for the daily activities. People came and gone. And there were people who were hired. I don't know any of their names. I absolutely honestly do not know who wrote those things. But I do know they was a transition, there were changes around and, to me, it's been rehashed. This is the politics of it all. If it were important enough, why didn't the people in my district who have heard this for these 10 years or so that this came up and people believe me. Why don't you believe me and just say look, it's in there. It's bad. I recognize that. I had a moral responsibility.

But that doesn't mean that you can indirectly charge me as being a racist. That's what is being done, and yet, I am the most anti- racist because I don't see people in collective groups. And I practice. Right now, even before this thing broke, guess when our next fundraising day, our next super day, we raised four million one day, six on the next, the next one is on Martin Luther King holiday. I mean, this is it. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Gandhi, they are the heroes in practice of civil disobedience to try to get the burden of government off our backs.

And that's why I am the one that protects the individual blacks who are in the city who are so unfairly being treated and thrown in prison. That's the message that needs to be heard and I appreciate somebody help and bring that out rather than nitpicking over something done many years ago which I did not write.

BLITZER: Did you used to read these newsletters? Congressman?

PAUL: Not back then. There may have been at times that I would. At times. I was in a medical practice. I traveled a lot. I was doing speeches around the country. Very frequently I never did see these. A lot of the things you just read, I wouldn't have recognized them.

And the point is it's not part of my character. The point also is when people get charged they usually have a clip. They have a clip of somebody saying something. A slip of the tongue or something. And then they're blasted to kingdom come. Nobody has ever heard me say that. They know those are not my thoughts. Therefore the people have not rejected me in Texas.

In a way this is a bit of a witch hunt. I know there is reason, I don't say you are unjustified in asking the question but you also have to think of the motivation behind this. Maybe this is part of the anti Ron Paul deal. I got excluded from the debates the other night. Maybe this is knock down on Ron Paul because he's gaining grounds with the blacks. I'm getting more votes right now and more support from the blacks because they understand what I'm talking about and they trust me.

BLITZER: I've got to tell you, congressman, you and I, we have talked a lot over these past several months. And when I saw these newsletters, I didn't know anything about them until I saw that article in "The New Republic," I was pretty shocked. Certainly didn't sound like the Ron Paul that I've come to know and our viewers have come to know all this time.

I just want to be clear because this is a chance for you to respond. Because this is a chance for you to respond. You repudiate all of these racist comments, all of the slurs, that are contained even though it contains the name Ron Paul in these news letters.

PAUL: Well, the most important thing is anything I've ever said in my life has repudiated that for years and years. So I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines and I heard tonight, and like I say, I've never read that before. If you asked me to dig up a copy of that I wouldn't have the vaguest idea. That's how unimportant it was to me.

But obviously it is important. It needs to be ironed out. In many ways, Wolf, I should thank you for bringing it up so I can clarify this and make sure everybody knew where I stand on this issue. Because it's obviously wrong. People who know me, nobody is going to believe this. Absolutely nobody just like you said. You've known me for a good many years and a good many interviews and that's just not my language.

That's not my life. I honor and respect the civil rights movement and the civil disobedience. And right now I really think that people have to think about the real discrimination in this country today has to do with the drug laws. What other candidate would take it upon himself to challenge this whole system of the judiciary, which is so unfair to the minorities?

Talk about that. That's what I want to people to hear. Out of fairness, that message needs to get out.

BLITZER: Ron Paul joining us from South Carolina. Thanks very much. You want to be president of the United States, you're going to have to expect a lot of scrutiny. All the candidates go through it. You're going through it right now yourself.

PAUL: Understood.

BLITZER: Thanks very much for joining us.

PAUL: OK.

 

[Dak]

If the thing can't live outside the womb, it's not alive. Hence is the point of the whole "Only to 24 weeks" or whatever it is.

It's not fucking freedom of choice to tell people that they must kept the rapists baby, or get the fuck out of my countryif you like it up the arse.

Which is why we were talking about state by state laws, and as far as the whole alive not alive thing that definitely falls under opinion. Mine is that you're alive from conception. Arguing that you aren't "alive" because you can't survive outside the womb is a ludicrous argument. Interference with a natural process isn't a valid out.


I love how the "rapist's baby" always gets drug into abortion debates, and how few abortions are due to rape.Sure, allow abortions in that case for the obvious reasons , but that still leaves about 99% of abortions as murder for selfishness' sake

 

[viewerfromnihil]

abortion isn't murder and i'm so fucking sick of hearing people say that

 

[skeptik]

as far as the whole alive not alive thing that definitely falls under opinion.

It really, really, really, is NOT a matter of opinion. People need to stop thinking that what constitutes life in medical and biological terms comes down to one's opinion when there are real, genuine facts regarding the matter.

 

[Dak]

I will say it again

INTERFERENCE WITH A NATURAL PROCESS ISN'T A VALID ARGUEMENT

It's like saying you aren't alive because if you stop breathing you wouldn't survive.

 

[Mort Divine]

In high scool I was a punching bag
When I got out I was a punching fag
You fuck with me I'll fuck with you back
Ain't gonna fall between the cracks
-Fagatron

EDIT: err, wrong copy and paste

but you know why not

 

[Valerie]

I will say it again

INTERFERENCE WITH A NATURAL PROCESS ISN'T A VALID ARGUEMENT

It's like saying you aren't alive because if you stop breathing you wouldn't survive.

 

[skeptik]

I will say it again

INTERFERENCE WITH A NATURAL PROCESS ISN'T A VALID ARGUEMENT

It's like saying you aren't alive because if you stop breathing you wouldn't survive.

What does this even mean? If interference with a natural process isn't a valid argument, then doesn't this negate what you're saying, or did you just word this stupidly? If you don't think that citing interference with a natural process as justification for something is valid, then you're saying that people who say that abortion is wrong because it interferes with a natural process don't have a valid argument. Try wording that again, because that can't possibly be what you meant to say.

Also, btw, you can be medically determined to be dead (and hence "not alive" even if your body still functions to some degree. See: Terri Schiavo. Your analogy is really piss poor, you might want to have another crack at that as well.

Cheers.

 

[Dak]

You said it's not alive if it can't function outside the womb. It's a ludicrous arguement. No shit it can't survive outside the womb, it's a newly developing human. But that still doesn't mean it doesn't have the same basic rights as any other human.

[Pulling it out of the womb] to sustain your arguement is invalid. Your interrupting the natural process of development. Just like interrupting most natural human processes cause death.

Using Terri Shiavo as an analogy would fall under "piss poor".

 

[skeptik]

Try explaining yourself. Making vague statements does not help further this dialogue at all.

Obviously you do not support the biological and medical determinations of what defines a living human being, because if you did you would not believe that life begins at conception. Are you a Christian? I'm curious, because the original basis of that belief has its origins in the Christian belief that at conception, a soul is transferred into the egg which thus makes it a living human being.

 

[Dak]

I don't consider myself a "Christian" but as far as the soul issue goes, yes.

Excluding the soul issue, a baby in the womb, regardless of the stage of development is still a human.

I really don't think what I said before was vague. You are saying that it isn't alive/human because the baby can't function outside the womb. And I am saying that doesn't have anything to do with the matter of whether it deserves the right to live because pulling it out of the womb early is interrupting a natural process.

 

[waif]

I've been facepalming for this entire page. Jesus fucking christ can we just ban this stupid fuck?

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

aw, you dont agree with him so you want him banned???

 

[waif]

No, in every thread in which he's posted he's basically said retarded shit and completely derailed the discussion. He's been a complete idiot since his first post and we really don't need any more of those.

 

[skeptik]

I really don't think what I said before was vague. You are saying that it isn't alive/human because the baby can't function outside the womb. And I am saying that doesn't have anything to do with the matter of whether it deserves the right to live because pulling it out of the womb early is interrupting a natural process.

First of all, that's not what I'm saying. A fetus is nothing more than a developing mammal, it is not alive and it is not a human. It has life potential and nothing more. Something that is not alive and not human is not entitled to "right to life". A fetus is a non-living, non-conscious, non-sentient thing. Look it up please. Your idea of the soul is irrelevant to the political discussion because it's completely outside the realm of fact and evidence.

Secondly, to say that whether or not a fetus could survive outside the uterus is irrelevant is pretty ridiculous. There are certain qualities that a fetus must first possess before it is considered to be capable of life, and, coincidentally, these are the exact same qualities that determine whether or not it can survive. Some amorphous mishmash of cells and primitive blobs-kind-of-resembling-organs-that-cannot-actually-function is not a living thing. If you continue to rehash the same two or three bullet points over and over again then I really don't see the benefit in debating with you, because you're throwing out non sequitors and marginally indirectly related issues and not addressing the facts of the matter, namely what constitutes a living human being, which is the fundamental issue in determining whether or not "abortion is murder" as you so emphatically claimed. If you don't see a response to your next post, it's because you didn't provide an argument.

Edit: WAIF, he's really not all that bad. He's not belligerent and inflammatory like Heat Mizer.

 

[waif]

I'm remembering that thread about creationism v evolution. I seem to remember some mind-blowing retardation there. Also, I don't think we should use Heat Mizer as a baseline for ban-worthiness.