"Jane Roe" Endorses Ron Paul

About an hour ago Norma McCorvey, a.k.a "Jane Roe" from the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, formally endorsed Ron Paul at the Phoenix Park hotel in Washington. Why didn't she endorse a frontrunner like Mike Huckabee? Thank the grassroots: She saw a newspaper ad in Nevada, bought by Paul supporters, using the analogy of the frog and the pot of boiling water to demonstrate what was happening to America. "It touched my heart." That was three weeks ago, and McCorvey keynoted a pro-life Paul rally in Nevada on January 12th, but the campaign made the official announcement today before Paul spoke at the March for Life. McCorvey:

I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v Wade. Ron Paul doesn’t just talk about being pro-life, he acts on it. His voting record truly is impeccable and he undoubtedly understands our constitutional republic and the inalienable right to life for all. Ron Paul is the prime author of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade. As the signor of the affidavit that legalized abortion 35 years ago I appreciate Ron Paul’s action to restore protection for the unborn. Ron Paul has also authored H.R. 1094 in Congress, which seeks to define life as beginning at conception. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn.

Paul took questions from a tiny audience of press and local supporters after elucidating his abortion views. Roe was wrongly decided; federal courts need to be taken out of the loop on abortion law to let states make their own laws. A constitutional amendment would be "a tedious solution; it takes a long time." Pro-lifers need to make this possible, in public opinion, before lawmakers move. "The ultimate test of the right to life movement is how we change attitudes on this."

McCorvey was frustrated at the lack of attention her original Reno endorsement got, but she was lighthearted today. "When you're president," she asked Paul, "can I stay over at the White House?"

"Anytime," Paul said. The supporters in the back of the room cracked up.

"I'll take the Lincoln Bedroom," said McCorvey.

UPDATE: Paul said that he found McCorvey compelling because she changed her mind on abortion in 1995, so he was asked what he thought of Mitt Romney's evolution on the issue. He generally praised Romney, but I want to listen to the tape before I run what he said.

Comments

MLK | January 22, 2008, 11:59am | #

What she doesn't understand, is Paul has a 75% NARAL voting record in recent years and is all over the place.

the legislation she sites, first the "Life starts at conception" would quickly be ruled Unconstitutional by atleast a 5 to 4 ruling, if it got that far, possibly 9-0 since the Constitution says it applies to 'those born in'.

the part about taking the issue away from the courts is counterproductive and pointless, as long as the Supreme Law of the land(Roe and Casey) are on the books with all the jurisprudence since then. The only effect it would have is confusing the issue and stop any future federal related issues with life.

the guy is all over the map on the issue and is counterproductive.

Chris Baker | January 22, 2008, 12:03pm | #

There isn't all that much Doctor Paul can do about abortion. Plus, I don't know if the abortion lovers care about this endorsement.

Amanda | January 22, 2008, 12:04pm | #

The pro life people could care less about life, they just want to control womens bodies. It ia all part of an organized, multicentury long hierarchical patriarchy.

Obviously a fetus is not alive if it is not wanted, everyone knows that. No one knows when life begins so we need to assume it is at birth.

Abortion must be legal thru all nine month right up till the cord is cut. It is the most important, God given right any woman has, without it all other rights are meaningless.

Randolph Carter | January 22, 2008, 12:08pm | #

oh dear god Abortion and Ron Paul. It's the perfect thread-storm.

Catoite | January 22, 2008, 12:08pm | #

I heard that Ron Paul doesn't mind if black women get abortions.

javier | January 22, 2008, 12:09pm | #

Obviously a fetus is not alive if it is not wanted, everyone knows that

ummm... WTF kind of logic and reasoning is that??

so anything that is not wanted is not alive?

You may want to go a little deeper in qualifying that.

Beltway Blackbelt | January 22, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Birth control (including abortion) is needed to keep the lower classes from out-breeding finer stock.

Warren | January 22, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Maybe we should concentrate on endorsements from intelligent, accomplished, respectable people like Gary Johnson, and not take so much notice of the of the galacticly stupid.

Amanda Is Probably Promiscuous | January 22, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Dear Amanda - Did you notice that you didn't cite any evidence to prove your assertion that ANYONE who is pro life is at heart a control freak? ''Obviously a fetus is not alive if it is not wanted, everyone knows that.'' This sentence proves your total lack of logic. Simply by not wanting a baby to be born, we may render it ''dead''? I'm not sure how in the world you can believe something so profoundly stupid. Also, the fact that you believe the right to an abortion is more important for women than free speech or the right to vote says a lot about you, I'm afraid.

Seer | January 22, 2008, 12:13pm | #

Amanda, please tell me that is satire. It's way too hard to tell with libertarians sometimes.

jackanapestarian | January 22, 2008, 12:13pm | #

"When you're president," she asked Paul, "can I stay over at the White House?"
"Anytime," Paul said. The supporters in the back of the room cracked up.
"I'll take the Lincoln Bedroom," said McCorvey.

Charming. And they lived happily ever after.

Amanda | January 22, 2008, 12:14pm | #

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/

robc | January 22, 2008, 12:17pm | #

I have long considered the possibility that the logic gene is located on the Y chromosone. Amanda's posts from yesterday's thread (and today's) have just about convinced me.

Amanda Is Probably Promiscuous | January 22, 2008, 12:17pm | #

Obviously, if the teenage mother didn't want her baby, it was never alive to begin with!

Pure genius

Taktix® | January 22, 2008, 12:19pm | #

Ok, I'm calling 300+ posts easy...

jj | January 22, 2008, 12:19pm | #

Darn! I thought Amanda was being ironic in the last abortion thread. Her comments were so deliciously outrageous and sexist they seemed funny.

Amanda, I can respect both pro-choice and positions, but not one that blames men for simply wanting to enslave women. Are you aware that more men are pro-choice than women? Men actually like the freedom not to have to deal with alimony. Some simply believe that it is a human being and feel they need to pay their dues.

DavidS | January 22, 2008, 12:19pm | #

Oh god - a troll pretending to be Amanda Marcotte. What kind of double hell is that?

Mr. Nice Guy | January 22, 2008, 12:20pm | #

"Dear Amanda - Did you notice that you didn't cite any evidence to prove your assertion that ANYONE who is pro life is at heart a control freak?"
Actually, in my undergrad days we ran some numbers from I think the GSS and there was considerable overlap between people who were pro-life and those who were rather prudish on things like extramarital affairs and such. In fact your stupid comment:
"Also, the fact that you believe the right to an abortion is more important for women than free speech or the right to vote says a lot about you, I'm afraid."

Heavily implies that connection...

Can't say much for Amanda's logic on the "not alive because not wanted" part though. As a pro-choice person I would say that any non-viable entity without a functioning brain of any significance is not a life. If you look at centuries of common understanding, as manifested in such things as the common law, fetuses just were not considered people...

kohlrabi | January 22, 2008, 12:20pm | #

Wow, I was absolutely sure Amanda was a parody. Then I linked to her website. Horrible. It should have a link to Larouche's website so they can share rhetorical techniques.

Benji Rush | January 22, 2008, 12:21pm | #

Amanda,

You are obviously not basing your opinion on either science or the law. Science proves a fetus is alive and can be delivered as early as 21 weeks, 6 days.

The rule of law states that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. Under generally understood concepts of the law, the only defendable reason to deprive a person of life is in defense. That's why the death penalty doesn't apply. That's why pre-emptive war doesn't apply.

The life issue has nothing to do with patriarchy. It has everything to do with the fact that 1/3rd of my generation is gone thanks to Roe v. Wade. That includes men and women.

Amanda | January 22, 2008, 12:21pm | #

I have long considered the possibility that the logic gene is located on the Y chromosone.

Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy, there are other, non-linear forms of thought that are more valid. Logic is meant to oppress womyn.

JayDubya | January 22, 2008, 12:22pm | #

The damage has already been done to our governmental system, but if it hadn't have been her, it would have been someone else. I do have to laud her for fighting to undo the legal absurdity she helped to create.

And of course, she has good taste in presidential candidates.

andy | January 22, 2008, 12:22pm | #

amanda, you completely miss the secular crux of ron paul's argument: if it's not alive then why are ob/gyns sued if they accidentally harm the fetus? after all, it's not like they killed anyone. should it just be an "aw, shucks" moment for the ob/gyn?

why was scott peterson convicted for the murder of laci peterson *and* her unborn son?

your "logic" has bigger disagreements with the law than it does with ron paul. although, the law seems to have disagreements with itself on this issue.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 22, 2008, 12:22pm | #

A person can certainly see what they think of as reproductive rights to be pretty fundamental without being a skank. I mean, we ARE on a site where people think the right to contribute 10,000 dollars or the right to employ people in dangerous occupations is fundamental, fer christ sake.

tarran | January 22, 2008, 12:23pm | #

I have long considered the possibility that the logic gene is located on the Y chromosone.

Carefull there robc:

Dave W has a Y-Chromosome.
Eric Dondero has a Y chromosome.

Jennifer does not have one.

I think your theory is flawed.

dhex | January 22, 2008, 12:23pm | #

dude you guys are getting trolled hardcore.

ps. calling your reply name "...is probably promiscuous" is a good way of reinforcing that some abortion opponents are interested more in social control and sexual chastity.

JayDubya | January 22, 2008, 12:24pm | #

"Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy, there are other, non-linear forms of thought that are more valid. Logic is meant to oppress womyn."

lol joke poster confirmed? I hope?

DavidS | January 22, 2008, 12:25pm | #

dude you guys are getting trolled hardcore.

ps. calling your reply name "...is probably promiscuous" is a good way of reinforcing that some abortion opponents are interested more in social control and sexual chastity.

Amanda and Amanda is Probably Promiscuous are presumably the same troll...

Mr. Nice Guy | January 22, 2008, 12:25pm | #

"You are obviously not basing your opinion on either science or the law. Science proves a fetus is alive and can be delivered as early as 21 weeks, 6 days."
And the court has ruled that there is a state interest of stepping in to protect a fetus as one gets closer to viability, right? And some do.

"amanda, you completely miss the secular crux of ron paul's argument: if it's not alive then why are ob/gyns sued if they accidentally harm the fetus?" But its not treated as a murder is it? Now you answer why not.

kohlrabi | January 22, 2008, 12:25pm | #

"Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy, there are other, non-linear forms of thought that are more valid."

Like makebelieve.

OK, she's definitely a troll, not being serious. Moving on...

fyodor | January 22, 2008, 12:25pm | #

Is this part of the smear campaign? I can't tell!

Lamar | January 22, 2008, 12:25pm | #

Norma McCovey is 100% full of crap. She was the pro-choice poster child for over 20 years, then all of the sudden she claims that she had no idea "Jane Roe" meant so much to the pro-choice movement. In fact, she's wrong on two levels. She's full of it to say she didn't know Roe v. Wade was a rallying cry, and she's full of it to assume that anybody gave a crap about Norma McCovey (as opposed to fictional person Roe).

Frankly, I feel sad that people give that old bag any credence, whether they admire her for her pre-flip flop pro-choice stance or her post-flop pro-life stance.

Heidi | January 22, 2008, 12:27pm | #

I heard that Ron Paul doesn't mind if black women get abortions.

This is blatantly wrong. Ron Paul is one of the only people who actually understands that civil liberties are God-given, not given by the government. That means civil liberties for white, black, brown, gay, straight, born and unborn. His message is purely non-prejudiced.

The chairman of the NAACP has known him for 20 years, coincidentally, and has said that Ron Paul isn't racist.

The pro life people could care less about life, they just want to control womens bodies. It ia all part of an organized, multicentury long hierarchical patriarchy.

Wow, I thought Ron Paul people were supposed to have cornered the tin foil hat market. You couldn't be farther from the truth. I am a woman and pro life, and I do believe the issue of abortion is very complicated and needs discussion. It's not a matter of just a woman's body... it's a matter of the fetus as well.

The law states that if a person beats a pregnant woman, and that woman miscarries, you can be charged with murder. The law also states that it's alright to snap the neck of a child coming out of the birth canal as long as the mother wants it so.

This arbitrary law is very dangerous because it's literally based on the whim of the mother at that moment, even when the child could survive outside the womb.

Dr. Ron Paul, a gynecologist who's delivered over 4,000 babies, has seen an abortion performed where the child came out very much alive, kicking, and screaming. The doctors put the living baby in a bucket until the cries stopped.

If there's any conspiracy here, Amanda, it's the conspiracy of population control. Every unborn child is less money the government would have to spend finding that child loving parents. It's quite literally throwing the baby out with the bath water.

SPD | January 22, 2008, 12:28pm | #

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

jj | January 22, 2008, 12:28pm | #

Amanda, you are my new hero. Can I use this comment as my new signature. I loves it that much:

Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy, there are other, non-linear forms of thought that are more valid. Logic is meant to oppress womyn.

dhex | January 22, 2008, 12:28pm | #

Amanda and Amanda is Probably Promiscuous are presumably the same troll...

ehhh, you have greater faith in the ability of the blind to see hilarity than i do.

some dude | January 22, 2008, 12:28pm | #

the part about taking the issue away from the courts is counterproductive and pointless, as long as the Supreme Law of the land(Roe and Casey) are on the books with all the jurisprudence since then. The only effect it would have is confusing the issue and stop any future federal related issues with life.

Au contraire. It would be rather simple and straight-forward. Jurisprudence is based on precedent. A lower court rules on a case a certain way because the assumption is that if that case were taken all the way up to the SCOTUS, the High Court would rule the same it did in the past. If appellate jurisdiction is taken away by congress (which they have every power to do), state courts have no assumptions as to what the SCOTUS would do. They can rule on their own.

DavidS | January 22, 2008, 12:29pm | #

Heidi - congratulations - take a joke at face value and respond to a troll - all in one post.

DX10 | January 22, 2008, 12:29pm | #

Amanda says; The pro life people could care less about life, they just want to control womens bodies.

Well, it is pretty clear that a lot of women can't control their bodies. Don't want a child, don't get pregnant.

robc | January 22, 2008, 12:30pm | #

tarran,

Just because the logic gene is on the Y doesnt mean that all of us with a Y have that gene (or have the version that is turned on).

Ive also considered the possibility that it is on the X, but is recessive. Thus, women would need to pro-logic genes before it kicks in. And some men would still be without. That is my nicer version and I generally dont prefer to be nice.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 22, 2008, 12:30pm | #

It is a simple fact that there is considerable overlap between folks who oppose abortion and those who oppose extra or pre-marital sex, for instance. Check out any GSS data set for proof of this...

Now the two don't NECESSARILY have to go together, or LOGICALLY, but they often do EMPIRICALLY...

andy | January 22, 2008, 12:31pm | #

mr. nice guy:

i don't know of an ob/gyn case to support this, but from the scott peterson trial:

"On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Peterson of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and second-degree murder for killing his unborn son."

ianal, but my assumption is that ob/gyns get sued for negligence the same reason any doctor gets sued for negligence when somebody dies (or doesn't die, i guess... depends on if you consider the fetus living).

Dave W. | January 22, 2008, 12:31pm | #

Jennifer does not have one.

I think J. deleted my comment over at the Feral Genius site. What was that all about?

Taktix® | January 22, 2008, 12:31pm | #

Heidi - congratulations - take a joke at face value and respond to a troll - all in one post.

DavidS,

Don't forget the unnecessary, eye-glazing length. Me thinks that's the trifecta of dumbass posting...

Damn Paulbots...

Amanda | January 22, 2008, 12:32pm | #

amanda, you completely miss the secular crux of ron paul's argument: if it's not alive then why are ob/gyns sued if they accidentally harm the fetus? after all, it's not like they killed anyone. should it just be an "aw, shucks" moment for the ob/gyn?

If you have an accident with a pregnant woman and the fetus is harmed, it is murder, even if she is her way driving to the abortion clinic, because what if she changed her mind.

Heidi | January 22, 2008, 12:33pm | #

DavidS - very cute. I don't care if it's a troll or not, I'm making a point for people who may not know.

James Kabala | January 22, 2008, 12:33pm | #

I am pro-life, but I feel obliged to point out that the boiling frog thing is a myth:

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2006/09/the_boiledfrog_myth_stop_the_l.php#more

Amanda, by the way, either actually is, or possibly is someone pretending to be, Amanda Marcotte, who gained fame a while back after her controversial comments about Catholicism and the virgin birth caused her to lose a job with the John Edwards campaign.

She may be of more interest to Reason posters (who seem to be generally non-religious) for once claiming that libertarians think they own the poor. See http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/11/01/6263/ for the original comment to this effect and http://juliansanchez.com/notes/archives/2007/11/dance_for_me_peons_dance_mooho.php for commentary on the subject by one of Reason's own.

Lamar | January 22, 2008, 12:34pm | #

Could I please get somebody to opine on why Norma McCovey means anything to anybody? Aside from cheap symbolic value of an old lady who changed her mind while waiting to get into heaven, is there any value in what she says? Roe v. Wade is about Jane Roe, a fictional person. Any connection to McCovey is irrelevant. Yes, that includes the fact that McCovey was Jane Roe.

Amanda: Any opinion on old bags who change their minds when they reach the earlybird special age?

Brett | January 22, 2008, 12:34pm | #

"Abortion must be legal thru all nine month right up till the cord is cut. It is the most important, God given right any woman has"

Em, abortion as a God given right? This boggles my mind...

Heidi, I applaud your Ron Paul enthusiasm, but I think Catoite was only joking.

To Mr. Nice Guy | January 22, 2008, 12:35pm | #

When a woman is pregnant, she is growing a living organism in her uterus. If you kill a fetus, you are destroying a life. All abortions should be, in my opinion, carried out only as a result of something barbaric like incest, rape, etc. There is no other valid reason to kill an unborn child. That being said, I do not wish to see my personal views on this matter imposed by the Feds on the female population. I just don't support abortion to save a womans reputation. Put the kid up for adoption if you can't afford to raise it.

Heidi | January 22, 2008, 12:35pm | #

Don't forget the unnecessary, eye-glazing length. Me thinks that's the trifecta of dumbass posting...

Poor thing. Don't like reading? It's okay, I understand.

dhex | January 22, 2008, 12:37pm | #

Ron Paul is one of the only people who actually understands that civil liberties are God-given

actually, let's hijack this shit cause i have what, in street parlance, would be called "beef" - that is to say, a complaint or dispute with - the whole natural law thing.

1) prove it! where the fuck is this fucking god or fucking nature that gives us these so-fucking-called natural fucking rights?

2) enforce it! why the living fiddle faddle do these natural rights evaporate as soon as some two bit bureaucrat - pardon, fucking bureaucrat - says "lie down on the floor and remain calm"? it's almost like they don't really exist in any concrete way.

3) don't get me wrong! i mean, i like it when people pretend that natural rights exist because it's another arsenal in the "fuck you, gubmint" playbook. taking the idea seriously is right up there with venusians at the center of the earth. it might be fine for personal spiritual rule-making, but good luck selling it to someone else.

C Smith | January 22, 2008, 12:37pm | #

"The pro life people could care less about life, they just want to control womens bodies. It ia all part of an organized, multicentury long hierarchical patriarchy.

Obviously a fetus is not alive if it is not wanted, everyone knows that. No one knows when life begins so we need to assume it is at birth."

Thanks for the reminder that many pro-deathers are complete moonbats who will say anything they think serves their purpose.

javier | January 22, 2008, 12:37pm | #

But its not treated as a murder is it? Now you answer why not.

Scott peterson was charged with two counts of murder. I have never heard a pro-choicer say that is inconsistant if the fetus infact has no legal rights.

yoshi | January 22, 2008, 12:37pm | #

Thank the grassroots: She saw a newspaper ad in Nevada, bought by Paul supporters,

She has been a tool used by various groups her entire life. Its of no surprise a mere newspaper ad is all it took for her to support somebody. I am sure she will see a huckabee leaflet stapled to a poll tomorrow and change her position.

All this ignores that annoying little fact that RP has no chance of being president.

andy | January 22, 2008, 12:38pm | #

"If you have an accident with a pregnant woman and the fetus is harmed, it is murder, even if she is her way driving to the abortion clinic, because what if she changed her mind."

i'm confused as to how this doesn't support my point. i'm saying that a fetus has to be considered alive for there to be a murder. you just substantiated that, thereby refuting your earlier (hasty and quick) assumption that "life begins at birth."

if you're a troll, you're like, the worst ever... which may make you the best.

smacky | January 22, 2008, 12:39pm | #

Dr. Ron Paul, a gynecologist who's delivered over 4,000 babies, has seen an abortion performed where the child came out very much alive, kicking, and screaming. The doctors put the living baby in a bucket until the cries stopped.


This is a made-up story. Way to spew out false apocrypha, Paulbot.


And AmandaM is a troll. Probably a pro-life troll, at that.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 22, 2008, 12:41pm | #

"If you kill a fetus, you are destroying a life. All abortions should be, in my opinion, carried out only as a result of something barbaric like incest, rape, etc."
Now THAT'S illogical. If it is a life, then why should it matter that it was produced by incest or rape? Think: what if the product of rape was born, and two years later the mom could not stand to look at it anymore and killed it. Certainly that is wrong? If it's just as much a life in the uterus then why does its origin matter? Try again...

" but my assumption is that ob/gyns get sued for negligence the same reason any doctor gets sued for negligence when somebody dies (or doesn't die, i guess... depends on if you consider the fetus living)." They get sued if they mess up my kidney too, but my kidney is not a person.

Amanda | January 22, 2008, 12:41pm | #

And AmandaM is a troll. Probably a pro-life troll, at that.

Yes.

Gilbert Martin | January 22, 2008, 12:41pm | #

A lower court rules on a case a certain way because the assumption is that if that case were taken all the way up to the SCOTUS, the High Court would rule the same it did in the past. If appellate jurisdiction is taken away by congress (which they have every power to do), state courts have no assumptions as to what the SCOTUS would do. They can rule on their own.

Congress does have the power to limit the appellate juridisction of the Supreme Court - but not in cases where a State shall be a party as per Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Episiarch | January 22, 2008, 12:42pm | #

You know, Saturn (Cronos) ate his children as a form of birth control.

SPD | January 22, 2008, 12:43pm | #

"Abortions for me, but not for thee." --N. McCorvey

I support overturning Roe v. Wade, if only to prevent a more socially conservative court from using this precedent to come in later and outlaw all abortions, everywhere.

Perhaps if a few more drugstore would carry RU-486 and the local PTA's would stop wringing their hands about sex education in high school, there wouldn't be as much of a demand for abortions in the first place.

Nope, nope... too logical for the fundies.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 22, 2008, 12:44pm | #

"Scott peterson was charged with two counts of murder. I have never heard a pro-choicer say that is inconsistant if the fetus infact has no legal rights."
If I remember that was part of the impetus behind these laws, which do not exist in every state I think (and why not, eh?) (which are fairly recent, right?), to make for the supposed inconsistency and further the pro-life cause. Many pro-choicers went along since we do think fetuses are valuable things and that viable ones can be protected as full lives.

andy | January 22, 2008, 12:44pm | #

mr. nice guy:

okay, i concede that you have me there and i could get into ticky-tacky arguments and you could present to me how killing cancer is also taking life — genetically unique life, at that.

but if scott peterson killed laci peterson and her kidneys, i don't think it would be considered a triple murder.

according to that case, a fetus is alive. you have yet to respond to that half of my statement.

Lamar | January 22, 2008, 12:44pm | #

Gotta ask: If life begins at conception, and we're genuinely concerned with life (as opposed to control of women), then why is the product of rape or incest non-life?

To Mr. Nice Guy | January 22, 2008, 12:44pm | #

It matters because the sex required to get the woman pregnant in the event of rape or incest is not consensual.

Why don't YOU try again? You didn't even think about what you just typed, apparently.

James Kabala | January 22, 2008, 12:44pm | #

SPD: She never actually had an abortion, because the case dragged out so long.

de stijl | January 22, 2008, 12:44pm | #

I'll give it one half-hearted effort: reasonable people disagree. Pro-life or pro-choice, you're not going to change anyone's mind with your bloggy advocacy.

BTW, responding to an obvious troll makes you look like a doofus.

To Mr. Nice Guy | January 22, 2008, 12:45pm | #

edit: not usually, at least (in the event of incest)

Earl E | January 22, 2008, 12:46pm | #

Consenting adults engaging in the reproductive act are simply following the course of nature.

It is an agreement to procreate. Any other view denies the reality. Once an egg is fertilized, it is the beginning of alife.

Any other view denies reality.

So maybe those that wish to allow for murder of defenseless children are simply trying to promote sex for fun.

So have fun sex and slaughter your children.

Pathetic humans, just as bad as the neaderthals. Just bigger sticks and stones, same cave(bunker) mentality.

Inkstained Wretch | January 22, 2008, 12:46pm | #

I have nothing to add to the debate on abortion here. I would only point out though that the analogy Paul uses of the frog and the pot of boiling water is bogus, an urban myth.

In reality frogs will try to escape the water once it becomes too warm. Snopes.com pointed this out a while ago.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

Mr. Nice Guy | January 22, 2008, 12:46pm | #

"It matters because the sex required to get the woman pregnant in the event of rape or incest is not consensual."

Are you an idiot or something? It's OK to kill someone if the sex that created them was not consensual? WTF?

jj | January 22, 2008, 12:47pm | #

Smacky: "This is a made-up story. Way to spew out false apocrypha, Paulbot."

Actually Ron Paul himself related the story on national media, NPR, I think. Now you can choose not to believe RP, but calling someone a Paulbot because you are woefully ignorant is a little beyond the pale.

javier | January 22, 2008, 12:47pm | #

prove it! where the fuck is this fucking god or fucking nature that gives us these so-fucking-called natural fucking rights?

our rationality. the ability of free speech, expression etc. comes from our nature. our nature as rational, thinking beings. without interference it is natural for a human being to use his mind and make choices and act on those choices. this is natural state of man. only government or criminals can take this away, forcing man to go against his nature.

was that to randian?

DavidS | January 22, 2008, 12:47pm | #

So "To Mr Nice Guy" and "Amanda is Promiscuous" are one and the same - but are they the same as "Amanda"?

some dude | January 22, 2008, 12:47pm | #

I am pro-life, but I feel obliged to point out that the boiling frog thing is a myth:

Why? It is such a good analogy. As an analogy, it doesn't actually matter if you can boil a frog. The truth of the point you are trying to make does not depend on it.

jj | January 22, 2008, 12:48pm | #

Inkstained Wretch:

Maybe it was a suicidal frog?

Mr. Nice Guy | January 22, 2008, 12:50pm | #

Look, if you are going to be pro-life then accept the logically necessary yet stinky conclusions: products of rape and incest are lifes and must be protected too.

I realize you have not thought this through much...
YOU: Babies, yay! Rape, yuck! Abortion, bad, but in case of rape, OK.

As I said, try again. Read some books and stuff...

DavidS, Blog Detective | January 22, 2008, 12:51pm | #

Yes, its okay in my worldview to eradicate bastard children who were conceived by rape or incest. This is different from a girl having consensual sex and accidentally getting pregnant. Then the child should be spared and either raised by the girls family or put up for abortion. Why this is so mind-boggling for you is very curious.

Eric Dondero | January 22, 2008, 12:53pm | #

Someone should dig up a copy of Ron Paul's book from the 1970s "Abortion & Liberty" published by Mark Elam's M&M productions in Houston. It's a real eye opener. Paul uses very harsh anti-abortion rhetoric in the book charging that doctors who perform abortions are essentially "murderers."

It's rather interesting that the book has fallen off the face of the earth. You can get Paul's misspelled "Freedom under Seige" from 1988 on pdf, but not "Abortion & Liberty."

javier | January 22, 2008, 12:53pm | #

raised by the girls family or put up for abortion

i'm guessing mistype??

Matt | January 22, 2008, 12:54pm | #

edit: adoption. Thanks Javier

brotherben | January 22, 2008, 12:54pm | #

Wait. I think amanda is onto something here. If we take a vote and decide amanda is unwanted, can we pay someone to "abort" her?

andy | January 22, 2008, 12:56pm | #

davids: it's just inconsistent. either life is life or it isn't.

the question that has to be asked first and foremost is "does abortion end a life?" all other questions regarding medical privacy or consent or whatever are straw men at best and red herrings at worst.

if it's a life when a woman is inseminated consensually, why isn't it when it's not consensual?

again, the issue of consent is a non-issue when compared to the issue of life, which ostensibly gets the governments protection first and foremost.

dhex | January 22, 2008, 12:58pm | #

our rationality. the ability of free speech, expression etc. comes from our nature. our nature as rational, thinking beings. without interference it is natural for a human being to use his mind and make choices and act on those choices. this is natural state of man. only government or criminals can take this away, forcing man to go against his nature.

was that to randian?

a bit, yeah. i give you a b- for effort though!

problems with that:

1) if our nature is rational, why is human history fraught with irrationality?

2) what does "without interference it is natural for a human being to use his mind and make choices and act on those choices." have to do with the price of tea in china?* it's also natural for me to pee. peeing does not guarantee me innate rights. unless the president (or some other crime lord) is a pee freak and into that sort of thing, in which case pass the cranberry juice - i feel the natural rights just a-flowin' through me!

*in another thread there's probably a funny joke to be made about tea prices and no blood for oolong but this is not that thread.

Earl E | January 22, 2008, 12:59pm | #

Children of rape and incest is too difficult for me to answer. The child created isn't going to argue for its own abortion, if it could talk it would probably say "Mommy, don't kill me."
Even though I think it is truely one of the worst things for a women to deal with, the child inside didn't ask to be created.

The child still has rights.

dhex | January 22, 2008, 1:00pm | #

jj, beyond the pale would be me accusing you of murdering that little girl down in east plano, texas, twelve years ago on a foggy, moonless night.

beyond the pale doesn't mean "wrong" - it means "egregiously shitty."

Matt | January 22, 2008, 1:01pm | #

Andy, I think it is morally justifiable to kill a bastard child conceived through non-consensual sex. This makes sense to me because the girl or woman should not be forced to support or find a well being for a child that she was forcibly impregnanted with. The sooner the abortion is carried out in this case, the better.

andy | January 22, 2008, 1:02pm | #

dhex: i would say peeing gives you the innate right to pee, although any other rights that this need/desire/ability confers are limited.

DavidS | January 22, 2008, 1:04pm | #

While we're on natural rights, when did libertarians reject the social contract bit of Hobbesian/Lockean natural rights theory? Or didn't they? Am I just confused?

Lamar | January 22, 2008, 1:04pm | #

"Why this is so mind-boggling for you is very curious."

It isn't mind-boggling. It's just proof that you care about controlling women and not life per se.

Vermont Gun Owner | January 22, 2008, 1:04pm | #

Mr. Nice Guy,

Yes, you are correct: it is inconsistent to be pro-life but allow abortions in cases of rape and incest (unless you aren't basing your opposition to abortion on the fetus being a life, but what pro-lifers don't?).

This is why I opposed abortion even in cases of incest or rape. Don't punish someone for a crime their father committed. The only exception that I will grant is in order to save the life of the mother.

dhex | January 22, 2008, 1:04pm | #

yes but andy, with a catheter my so-called "natural right" to pee is easily suspended, diverted and - in the case of certain films in german and japan - tubed upward and downward yet again, hoisting me on my own petard.

some fucking natural right that is, so easily diverted with 99 cents of tubing.

Lamar | January 22, 2008, 1:05pm | #

I really can't figure out how being an innocent product of rape allows you to be "murdered" as the pro-lifers like to say. Don't tell me life begins at conception except when it doesn't.

Lamar | January 22, 2008, 1:06pm | #

What if a rapist sires a child, the mother has the child and gives it up for adoption, then the father finds it and kills it. Murder?

andy | January 22, 2008, 1:07pm | #

matt:

once again. answer this question first: does abortion end a life?

the issue isn't divided on pro-consent/pro-rape/incest lines! the issue is surrounding whether or not a life is taken.

it might make sense to you, but it shows no sense of consistency. i feel that if pro-lifers weren't so a la carte with their pro-life stance (eg, pro-lifers who are also pro death penalty) they might be taken more seriously.

dhex | January 22, 2008, 1:09pm | #

What if a rapist sires a child, the mother has the child and gives it up for adoption, then the father finds it and kills it. Murder?

i don't know, but it sounds like a banging game of Clue.

While we're on natural rights, when did libertarians reject the social contract bit of Hobbesian/Lockean natural rights theory? Or didn't they? Am I just confused?

well depends on who you talk to, it seems. you get quite a few "ain't no such thing as a social contract" type responses from some, and others who say "constitution, duh!" and i'm sure there's about 30,000 more i haven't heard/remembered.

Vermont Gun Owner | January 22, 2008, 1:10pm | #

Dondero:

Paul uses very harsh anti-abortion rhetoric in the book charging that doctors who perform abortions are essentially "murderers."

And why is this "eye opening"? That is the consistent position, assuming that a fetus is a life. Ron Paul is consistent is not an eye opening fact.

andy | January 22, 2008, 1:11pm | #

dhex: where do you find these wonderful toys?! an endless cycle of peeing? urethra massages for everyone!

robc | January 22, 2008, 1:12pm | #

DavidS,

I think social contract is a mixed bag. Some libertarians accept it, some dont. I rejected it well before I was (or at least knew I was) a libertarian. I didnt agree to the social contract, therefore it doesnt exist.

Vermont Gun Owner | January 22, 2008, 1:12pm | #

Taktix :
Ok, I'm calling 300+ posts easy...

Up to 100...

DavidS | January 22, 2008, 1:12pm | #

It's rather interesting that the book has fallen off the face of the earth. You can get Paul's misspelled "Freedom under Seige" from 1988 on pdf, but not "Abortion & Liberty."

So I find that PDF for you on another thread - some poor guy has scanned it in by hand and then OCR-ed it.

And it's somehow a conspiracy that he hasn't done the same for another book?

You need to take some pills, pal.

DavidS | January 22, 2008, 1:14pm | #

robc - but you think the natural rights exist?

Anonymo the Anonymous | January 22, 2008, 1:14pm | #

Just a few hundred more posts and we'll settle this abortion thing once and for all! We're almost there, I can feel it!

some dude | January 22, 2008, 1:16pm | #

Gilbert Martin,

So the SCOTUS can accept an original case between an individual and her state saying the state violated her federal constitutional right to an abortion? I don't know. Doesn't that take a legislative structure? What law and fact would they be ruling on? Doesn't that require federal legislation governing the interaction between and individual and her state by which the SCOTUS could determine if such legislation was violated?

The fourteenth amendment messed so much up. Sloppy constitutionalism.

At the very least, it would force the SCOTUS to re-try an abortion case. Then what? It is exercising its original jurisdiction. Would it be required to take all abortion cases thereafer?

Shane Brady | January 22, 2008, 1:16pm | #

If you're pro-life and believe life begins at conception, great, don't get an abortion. I don't care.

But otherwise mind your own fucking business.

Ron Paul believes in the freedom of the state to oppress women. How twisted.

Misfits | January 22, 2008, 1:16pm | #

"I'm neither pro choice, nor pro life; I'm pro you-shutting-the-hell-up."

The Regressive Party

robc | January 22, 2008, 1:17pm | #

DavidS,

but you think the natural rights exist?

Yeah, but I prefer God-given rights. But either way, yeah.

I also go along with the social contract people on many things. I agree with them on the only legitimate purposes of government, I just dont buy into their mythology on how government came about.

DavidS | January 22, 2008, 1:20pm | #

Thanks robc. I think I am beginning to understand why I spend so much time on this site utterly confused. It comes from being part of an increasingly godless European liberal tradition, I suspect...

Paul | January 22, 2008, 1:21pm | #

um wasn't Adolf Hitler Poe-choice? Didnt he want to kill off the lesser races? Didnt he kill off people with cleft pallets? Didn't he kill old feeble people? Hitlerey has the same plan.

God says "those who hate me love death" hmmm ?

Vermont Gun Owner | January 22, 2008, 1:22pm | #

"If you're pro-life and believe life begins at birth, great, don't commit murder. I don't care.

But otherwise mind your own fucking business.

Shane Brady believes in the freedom of the state to oppress murderers. How twisted."

NOTE: Apologies to Brady if you are a complete anarchist.

DavidS | January 22, 2008, 1:29pm | #

60 odd comments before the first violation of Godwin. Pretty good going...

John C. Randolph | January 22, 2008, 1:29pm | #

"Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy"

I wasn't sure at first whether you were satirizing the pro-choice position, but that made me laugh out loud. Well done.

-jcr

Atley Jackson | January 22, 2008, 1:35pm | #

This is a moot point. Sure Dr. Paul may be pro-life, but he defends the states rights to choose their own laws. I happen to be pro-choice, but I am also a Paul supporter, knowing that he will not take away my right to freedom of choice.

Cesar | January 22, 2008, 1:38pm | #

um wasn't Adolf Hitler Poe-choice? Didnt he want to kill off the lesser races? Didnt he kill off people with cleft pallets? Didn't he kill old feeble people? Hitlerey has the same plan.

Hitler banned abortions for German women. He wanted them to be soldier-making machines.

Taktix® | January 22, 2008, 1:40pm | #

Poor thing. Don't like reading? It's okay, I understand.

Heidi,

Go fuck yourself*. Will post a more adequate response when I've finished my work due at 2 p.m.

*This message brought to you by the Taktix® Go Fuck Yourself Institute, 2008, all rights reserved...

Christopher (Fipher) D. Osborn | January 22, 2008, 1:45pm | #

"I heard that Ron Paul doesn't mind if black women get abortions."

That is a most ridiculous and horrible claim. Ron Paul is no racist! If he was racist he wouldn't be getting the kind of support he gets, like from the Austin NAACP president Nelson Linder. Check out this article: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

Now I don't know if I agree with Dr. Paul's position that life starts at conception, and so I think it should be up to individual states to decide, but otherwise I think Ron Paul is a great man.

pedant | January 22, 2008, 1:46pm | #

beyond the pale doesn't mean "wrong" - it means "egregiously shitty."

No, it means the area of Ireland outside the control of the King of England. You see, after the Norman Conquest...ah, fuck it.

Every Sperm is Sacred | January 22, 2008, 1:47pm | #

I just jerked off, Oh my! A thousand murders?

Apparently some on this thread think so.

~~~

Really though, is government mandated pregnancy something folks can really support?

If I'm understanding what some folks think, I really have to support embryo worship or some sky fairy is gonna send me to hell?

On the assumption that that is where Hunter Thompson and Mark Twain are, where else would I want to be anyway?

sage | January 22, 2008, 1:49pm | #

Lunch today: soup and sandwich, of course.

I had some Aztec Trail Mix earlier though to tide me over. I get pretty hungry in the morning.

Robert | January 22, 2008, 1:49pm | #

Eric, why don't you just refrain from commenting on Ron Paul articles? You are obviously nothing more than a jealous hater.

Tom Walls | January 22, 2008, 1:50pm | #

An Amanda I knew once told me Darwin was wrong because he was an old white guy, not because his basic theory was contradicted by the fossil record or anything.

J sub D | January 22, 2008, 1:51pm | #

Vermont Gun Owner This is why I opposed abortion even in cases of incest or rape. Don't

Vermont Gun Owner, In your morality, when does a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus become a "person", with rights that require state protection?

Alice Bowie | January 22, 2008, 1:54pm | #

It's a good thing that Coat hangers r made of plastic now-a-days...ahh???

de stijl | January 22, 2008, 1:56pm | #

sage,

Beef vegetable for me with oyster crackers. Why are they called oyster crackers?

Robert | January 22, 2008, 1:57pm | #

Does Eric Dondero still beat his wife?

http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/06/01/has-eric-dondero-rittberg-stopped-beating-his-wife/

Matt | January 22, 2008, 1:57pm | #

Life begins when the woman becomes pregnant. You're not destroying life when you masturbate..thats an awfully inaccurate and hysterical paraphrase of the pro-life philosophy. Pro-Lifers like myself just want legitimate (i.e. non-rape, incest) children protected. Im not saying that incestuous children are not ''life''- but I believe it is much less morally reprehensible to dispose of a child of incest or rape than one resulting from accidental pregnancy. I believe women and men should suffer the consequences of their bad decisions and reasonable exceptions can be made for a girl or couple too young to get a job to pay for food and clothing for the child. That is all

Tacos mmm... | January 22, 2008, 1:59pm | #

um wasn't Adolf Hitler Poe-choice? Didnt he want to kill off the lesser races? Didnt he kill off people with cleft pallets? Didn't he kill old feeble people? Hitlerey has the same plan.

Amazing it took this long. This is a particularly shitty discussion, even for an abortion thread.

sage | January 22, 2008, 2:00pm | #

I dunno, de stijl. They're good though. I should get some of those to go with chili. Man I'm hungry.

Every Sperm is Sacred | January 22, 2008, 2:01pm | #

Matt,

It's true that I'm just playing rude Monyt Python games in this name, but life begins at conception?

The only way I can understand that from a scientific way would be to include sperm in you definition of the beginning of life.

Now, if you are using a purely religious definition of "human life", I could understand, you are saying (I'm guessing) that a "soul" is present at that moment.

But how can you get there from science, and doesn't your definition also say frozen embryo's from Infertility treatments should also be protected?

Hence,

Every Sperm is Sacred!

Geotpf | January 22, 2008, 2:03pm | #

Wow. This is one clusterfuck of a thread.

Tacos mmm... | January 22, 2008, 2:03pm | #

Matt,

Your perspective is a common one, but your positions are basically aribtrary and I see no justification for enforcing them on others. It's also more than a little judgemental and condescending.

DavidS | January 22, 2008, 2:03pm | #

Every Sperm's got it right. You're a Catholic the moment Dad came...

Every Sperm is Sacred | January 22, 2008, 2:05pm | #

And for me, I need really compelling arguments against abortion before I can support such a MASSIVE government intrusion as governmandated pregnancies.

Also, just a small note, most pro-life organizations are also against open availability of birth control, suggesting that the intervention in the female reproductive cycle that most groups (not all) are looking for is more than the protection, but OVERT GOV control of a womans reproductive organs.

I might think differently if pro-life groups were also pro-contraception (as my pro-life conservative aunt was)

Jamie Kelly | January 22, 2008, 2:08pm | #

I just jerked off, Oh my! A thousand murders?

If your sperm count is that pathetically low, then you won't have any trouble in the accidental-pregnancy department.
Hell, I regularly spray the ceiling with millions of the little critters.

Every Sperm is Sacred | January 22, 2008, 2:09pm | #

Hmmm.....


It never occurred to me to count them.

Alice Bowie | January 22, 2008, 2:10pm | #

Hey Matt

Will u b willing u pay the welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, daycare, for anyone who DOESN'T want to have an abortion.

U will never b pregnant...AND R COMPLETELY UN-QUALIFIED TO STATE an Opinion on THIS.

whit | January 22, 2008, 2:12pm | #

"The pro life people could care less about life, they just want to control womens bodies. It ia all part of an organized, multicentury long hierarchical patriarchy. "

is this feministing.com or reason.com?

spare me the women's studies 101 rhetoric.

and i'm pro-choice btw. you're still full of it.

Fish Tacos | January 22, 2008, 2:12pm | #

I don't care about abortion -- either way. Abortion, like gay marriage, is just another pointless wedge issue.

Alice Bowie | January 22, 2008, 2:12pm | #

1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion in U.S.

If u wanna bring back the coat hanger, the safe cracker, and the alley way butcher...out-law abortion at the federal level !!!

Jamie Kelly | January 22, 2008, 2:13pm | #

Alice Bowie,

I LIKE ur styl of TYPING TO MAKE ur points. it is VERY E-FECtive.

DavidS | January 22, 2008, 2:14pm | #

Alice - Ron Paul doesn't want to outlaw abortion at the federal level, he wants it outlawed at the state level. That's a big difference. Or something.

J sub D | January 22, 2008, 2:14pm | #

Life begins when the woman becomes pregnant.

Matt (and Vermont Gun Owner if yoiu're still here) -
From here -
12 days or so after conception: The blastocyst has started to produce hormones which can be detected in the woman's urine. This is is the event that all (or almost) all pro-choice groups and almost all physicians (who are not conservative Christians) define to be the start of pregnancy. If instructions are followed exactly, a home-pregnancy test may reliably detect pregnancy at this point, or shortly thereafter.[my emphasis]

Going with that definition, emergency contraception (morning after pill) would be OK. I'm just trying to get definitions down here, lest the discussion devolve into name-calling. I may be too late for that. ;-)

Jamie Kelly | January 22, 2008, 2:15pm | #

Get your abortion within the first trimester.
Other than that, fuck you, you're having the kid. And if you do get an abortion after that, we'll throw your ass in the slammer.
Got it, you stupid skirts?
Jamie has spoken.

Alice Bowie | January 22, 2008, 2:16pm | #

Alice - Ron Paul doesn't want to outlaw abortion at the federal level, he wants it outlawed at the state level. That's a big difference. Or something.



REALLY ???

Right 2 LIFErs want ABORTION 2-END @ ALL LEVELs. They'll settle 4 state level 2-day. 2-Morrow...wait and c.

dhex | January 22, 2008, 2:17pm | #

I had some Aztec Trail Mix earlier though to tide me over.

Original Sufferin' Succotash!

No, it means the area of Ireland outside the control of the King of England. You see, after the Norman Conquest...ah, fuck it.

and you call yourself a pedant? man...kids these days.

i think my whole problem with natural rights (or natural law, etc) is that they're so easily abridged. as far as social fictions go, though, it's a top-notch idea. it seems to avoid some (but not all) of the pitfalls associated with other social fictions (like the social contract).

Every Sperm is Sacred | January 22, 2008, 2:17pm | #

I don't know fish taco,

When you read The National Review and their concerns about the brown hordes and mud peoples out re-producing european descended folks, and certain presidential candidates saying the immigration problems are all caused because of abortion of potential low paid worker types (yes one really said that, do you know who?) you kinda see that maybe, just maybe, having a whole bunch of baby making machines running overtime just like in the good ole days, might be central to the modern republican world view?

Maybe?

J sub D | January 22, 2008, 2:18pm | #

Jamie,

The pro-choicers now hate you. The pro-lifers do also. I'd expand that window to about 5 months based on nervous system development. We could likely have a rational discussion on the issue.

Every Sperm is Sacred | January 22, 2008, 2:20pm | #

DavidS,

Wow, so if I read you right, it's just like slavery?

State's rights and all that, dontcha' ya know.

Does Ron Paul also believe that the states can pre-empt freedom of speech and ownership of guns?

Is he consistent on that point?

Jamie Kelly | January 22, 2008, 2:21pm | #

J sub D,
Fair enough.
Once the fucking thing has a nervous system, fuck you, you're keeping the kid.
Got it, you stupid skirts?
Jamie has re-spoken.

DavidS | January 22, 2008, 2:22pm | #

Ron Paul:

Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.

Lamar | January 22, 2008, 2:22pm | #

A surefire way to kill any abortion thread is to highlight the fact that pro-lifers call abortion murder, then advocate for murder when the father is related to the mother or a criminal.

Enonesoch | January 22, 2008, 2:23pm | #

There are those who believe life begins at conception. There are those who believe life beings at birth. Who is to say? That is Dr. Paul point. I feel one way, you feel differently so how are we to solve such a predicament? Like Dr. Paul, I feel is can only be resolved at the local level. A blanket decision by the Federal Government takes your belief and my belief away. Let us discuss the issue with our neighbors, friends and family in public forums and make the appropriate decision based on our common views. I believe for Dr. Paul it is very much a Legal issue as much as a Moral issue. Considering he could be sued for harming a fetis, or that you and I could go to jail for an accident involving the death of a fetus.

Every Sperm is Sacred | January 22, 2008, 2:23pm | #

Interesting thing too, most christians believed it wasn't a "baby" until the quickening (putting Jamie square on the spot of a really conservative view).

Oddly enough, you didn't hear that much from most christians about abortion until the pill came out. Which they also opposed. Funny that.

DavidS | January 22, 2008, 2:24pm | #

Does Ron Paul also believe that the states can pre-empt freedom of speech and ownership of guns?

No - because they're constitutionally protected rights.

dhex | January 22, 2008, 2:24pm | #

ok now we need a "father's rights" posting in 3...2...1.... GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

(preemptive response: don't want to pay for a kid? don't ejaculate in her!)

Anon | January 22, 2008, 2:24pm | #

The cake is a lie?

whit | January 22, 2008, 2:24pm | #

-"Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy"

-"I wasn't sure at first whether you were satirizing the pro-choice position, but that made me laugh out loud. Well done."

scarily, there is some rumbling among some feminists that logic IS a construct of the male way of thinking, and is thus a sexist concept. this is simialr to the nimrods in race studies programs who claim that emphasizing concepts such as punctuality, discriminates against ethnicities that don't value that either.

specifically, empiricism is critiqued
"[T]he desire to objectify and quantify," says Duran, is related to a certain position that can be labeled as male objectification, and it is also clearly linked historically to the overview of the Vienna Circle, which emphasized correspondence rules, deductive certainty, empirical tightness, and so forth"

dhex | January 22, 2008, 2:25pm | #

I feel one way, you feel differently so how are we to solve such a predicament? Like Dr. Paul, I feel is can only be resolved at the local level. A blanket decision by the Federal Government takes your belief and my belief away.

this really just kicks the belief taking away from the feds to the locals.

why not do it county by county?

fyodor | January 22, 2008, 2:25pm | #

Over halfway to taxtix's predictions of 300 posts!

Go thread! Go thread!

The Wine Commonsewer | January 22, 2008, 2:26pm | #

you didn't hear that much from most christians Catholics about abortion until the pill came out. Which they also opposed

There, fixed that for you.

whit | January 22, 2008, 2:26pm | #

"Oddly enough, you didn't hear that much from most christians about abortion until the pill came out. Which they also opposed. Funny that."

"they?"

some did, some didn't. some jews did, some didn't. some atheists did, some didn't. saying or implying that christians uniformly did not support the pill is ahistorical generalization.

Every Sperm is Sacred | January 22, 2008, 2:26pm | #

DavidS,

Thanks!

Good to know that Ron Paul believes that he can make medical decisions for my family.

Actually, I knew that, which is why I stopped liking him as a politician.

Can't help it, Like George Washington, I think med decisions about someones body, belongs with the someone, and not the gov (someones being anyone without an umbilical chord, so no matrix candidates in pods either)

Tony | January 22, 2008, 2:27pm | #

To MLK:

The "law of the land" is not, nor should it ever have been, written by the courts. The law of the land is supposed to be written by Congress and reviewed by the courts. The truth is that abortion may be curtailed if it became an issue for lawmakers to decide, but it would not be eliminated for the minority of procedures that are nescessary for the health of women, or victims of rape and incest. Instead of promoting this birth-control safety net, we should be promoting the wisdom of choosing one of the many preventative measures of birth control, and accepting that a true "choice" includes adoption and being a parent. Rather than protest the promotion of these choices as undermining abortion, look at them as equaly valid options.

DavidS | January 22, 2008, 2:29pm | #

Every Sperm...

I too am a little confused by the sharp Federal/State divide in Paul's thinking.

Presumably ending the 'war on drugs' means ending the federal war on drugs.

State law would ensure that most of the currently illegal drugs remain illegal.

Reinmoose | January 22, 2008, 2:30pm | #

I agree that it is a wedge issue, and I don't see how people can vote strictly on this issue. Election cycles start out being about a lot of things, but in the end it's
"He's for killing babies!"
"He's black!"
"He wants to take away a woman's right to choose!"
"He's a socialist"
"He's rich!"


Personally, I'm pro-life if it were to ever come down to a personal decision, but I view abortions that other people have as more of something sad than as a crime.

whit | January 22, 2008, 2:30pm | #

"Can't help it, Like George Washington, I think med decisions about someones body, belongs with the someone, and not the gov "

i do too.

and im pro-choice

but #1. a fetus is distinct from somebody else's body. it's DEPENDANT, but it is not THEIR body. one can be pro-choice without believing the (imo a simplifcation at best, lie at worst) idea that abortion is merely about a woman's control over her body. it's about a woman's control over her body AND a fetus.

#2 while i wish govt. would get out of legislating our bodies, they certainly haven't in other areas. we can't sell our organs, go to unlicensed doctors, take whatever drugs we want, prostitute ourselves (except in certain jurisdictions, etc.)

i think we SHOULD have control over our bodies, but most pro-choicers don't take the argument to consistent extremes and support this kind of stuff.

note that many pro-choicers are even against women getting breast implants etc. many don't think ThAT should be a choice.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 22, 2008, 2:30pm | #

why not do it county by county?

You mean like zoning and building codes?

Jamie Kelly | January 22, 2008, 2:30pm | #

Over halfway to taxtix's predictions of 300 posts! Go thread! Go thread!

That post doesn't count. Nor does TaxTix's prediction. Nor does this one.
Subtract three.

dhex | January 22, 2008, 2:31pm | #

this is simialr to the nimrods in race studies programs who claim that emphasizing concepts such as punctuality, discriminates against ethnicities that don't value that either.


well, to be certain, some cultures don't. my best friend is colombian, which means i'm going to have to drag him to his own fucking wedding later this year because of what, at least if you're an "intercultural business training specialist" is called "polychronic time orientation" as opposed to my more rigid "monochronic time orientation."

i.e. if the movie is at 6, i'm there at 5:45. if the movie is at 6, he's there at 6:20. if you've done business in south america (and elsewhere) you've encountered this.

Tony | January 22, 2008, 2:31pm | #

Dhex:
What if the father wants to pay for the kid? I've