Quote:

---

Just in case there was any question, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is no friend to women. The latest evidence came during an interview on CNN where he told Piers Morgan that only in cases of “honest rape” would he consider abortion acceptable, and even then in he would just advise the woman to go to the emergency room for “a shot of estrogen.”

“Honest rape”. So, where do we begin?

I guess I would start by asking Paul to follow-up on just what exactly constitutes an “honest” rape. What kind of evidence would we need to show a lack of consent? Does a woman need to have signs she resisted? How much resistance counts before a rape goes from being “fraudulent” to being “honest”? Can spousal rape ever be “honest”? What about other forms of familial rape? What exactly is the bright line here?

Assuming we get some clarity from Paul on the parameters of “honest” rape, I’ve got a few logistical questions also. I’m assuming part of the investigation into whether or not a rape was “honest” would include an exam to collect evidence to support or negate the claim– a rape kit. We will need to have this evidence processed and processed QUICKLY in order to make sure we get that shot of estrogen in time. In order for that to happen, I’m assuming Paul is going to make sure that local law enforcement is fully funded and staffed to process those rape kits. How will this expansion of law enforcement be funded? And what about those women who don’t live in close proximity to a hospital or clinic? Do we have law enforcement come to them with doctors?

About that shot of estrogen. What exactly is this shot of estrogen supposed to do? Paul is purportedly an ob/gyn, so he must know a shot of estrogen won’t do a thing to prevent fertilization and implantation. So what’s that shot for?

I’m not sure what is the most dangerous aspect to come from Paul’s statements here: that his platform is built on a criminal disdain of women or as a doctor he doesn’t know his ear from his elbow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Yep.

Paul's interventionist stance on abortion sure seems at odds with his supposed libertarian leanings.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Careful, you're feeding the Raptor.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

He doesn't believe in the Federal government intervening in issues of abortion, so he's non-interventionist there, too.

I don't agree with his stance on abortion. At all. But since he doesn't want to empower the Feds to legislate against it, I don't consider him as dangerous as those who do want to give the Feds that power.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Geez, its frightening that Obama is considered to have performed so poorly as Pres, meaning that one of these nutbags might actually gain power.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:That doesn't mean we kill the child. That's just logically inconsistent. If it's a human child it's not okay to kill it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Careful, you're feeding the Raptor.

Surely Obama's boots are clean enough, your drool is probably hurting them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

He doesn't believe in the Federal government intervening in issues of abortion, so he's non-interventionist there, too.

I don't agree with his stance on abortion. At all. But since he doesn't want to empower the Feds to legislate against it, I don't consider him as dangerous as those who do want to give the Feds that power.

--Anthony

---

No. He wants the states to prosecute doctors who perform abortions.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/


This would pretty much require overturning Roe v. Wade, which the Federal government would have to do via Constitutional amendment. Seems interventionist to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

He doesn't believe in the Federal government intervening in issues of abortion, so he's non-interventionist there, too.

I don't agree with his stance on abortion. At all. But since he doesn't want to empower the Feds to legislate against it, I don't consider him as dangerous as those who do want to give the Feds that power.

--Anthony

---

No. He wants the states to prosecute doctors who perform abortions.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/


This would pretty much require overturning Roe v. Wade, which the Federal government would have to do via Constitutional amendment. Seems interventionist to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Hello,

To be more precise:

"Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."

And

"The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police."

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

He doesn't believe in the Federal government intervening in issues of abortion, so he's non-interventionist there, too.

I don't agree with his stance on abortion. At all. But since he doesn't want to empower the Feds to legislate against it, I don't consider him as dangerous as those who do want to give the Feds that power.

--Anthony

---

No. He wants the states to prosecute doctors who perform abortions.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/


This would pretty much require overturning Roe v. Wade, which the Federal government would have to do via Constitutional amendment. Seems interventionist to me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Hello,

To be more precise:

"Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."

And

"The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police."

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

---

Sounds quite like he's in favor of abortion for the rich, then. After all, if a state like, say, Texas outlaws abortion, and a rich Texas girl finds herself unexpectedly "in the family way" as they used to say, her family can still quite easily send her to somewhere like, say, California, where abortion is still legal, and no harm, no foul.



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

---

Quote:

---

Rape can get people pregnant, against their will, that's one of the reasons why we don't want rape in our society. That doesn't mean we kill the child. That's just logically inconsistent. If it's a human child it's not okay to kill it.

---

Quote:

---

Magon,

Obama is not considered to have performed poorly, he *has* performed poorly. He handed 16 trillion dollars in cash to the same people who wrecked the economy under Bush; he radically expanded the Bush era police state policies to levels that represent more govt. interference in the daily lives, by many reports posted here, of americans than any other us govt; and he has started military conflicts in seven countries. I'd call that a disaster. Now if he were on my side on fracking, or any major environmental, human rights, civil liberties or economic issues, just one, I might cut him some slack.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike, sorry, the negativity of this place gets me down. I can't think that most of the folk here could be rescued from drowning in a ditch without intentionally spitting on the person who dragged them out.

As for Ron Paul, he's mentioned it a hundred times, and there's no way you can make the case that he would ban abortion but to cherry-pick lines from his speeches for the purpose of attacking him, the only point of doing so being that you're supporting someone else. It's not that you have a genuine credible gripe with the man, it's that you're making one up for the purpose of defending someone else. In this case, I'm damned sure you're not doing it for Gingrich or Romney, so I concluded it was for Obama, even though I know you don't like Obama, because at times you can be blindly partisan.

If I wanted to attack Ron Paul, I'd do so on the environment, which I think is his weakest issue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
To be more precise:

"Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."

And

"The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:



Magon, did I ever comment on the job Gillard was doing? Or the job Howard did? I doubt it, but if I did, I would feel free to do so. Obama's bad job effects the entire planet. Everyone has a right to comment. He has essentially claimed jurisdiction over the entire planet, so I think the world should be allowed to vote on him.

---

Quote:

---

Rap,

Ridiculing Paul or portraying him in a radical light based on out of context remarks only serves to support a rival candidate, which, this being primary season, benefits you far more than it benefits him.

---

Quote:

---

Absolutely I will defend muslims against those who seek to harm them, just as I would the whales or the squirrels. The Taoist love of life is so solid a belief that I feel no emotional investment in it. If I feel anything here, it's pity, for I know that one day of reckoning must occur for any soldier who has killed muslims, and when he has to face that, imagine the pain that would come. No wonder they hold dear to their position to the point where they support and advocate the slaughter of over a billion innocents and endorse organizations with open neo-nazi ties, to fulfill a armageddon or other pro-death agenda... it's all they can do to keep that day of reckoning at bay.

---

Quote:

---

No wonder they hold dear to their position to the point where they support and advocate the slaughter of over a billion innocents and endorse organizations with open nazi ties, to fulfill a white supremacist or other pro-death agenda... it's all they can do to keep that day of reckoning at bay.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:



Cavetroll,

It is not your body, it is that of a very small child.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:



Cavetroll,

It is not your body, it is that of a very small child.





It's not a very small child. What nonsense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:



Cavetroll,

It is not your body, it is that of a very small child.

---

It's not a very small child. What nonsense.

Starting off as a zygote



and ending up as a fully developed baby over 9 months.

In the mean time it takes on some very strange forms, but most importantly it cannot survive outside the womb until at least 24 weeks, and even then it takes enormous medical intervention to survive and mostly suffers some sort of damage.

So it isn't a tiny child, its a group of cells that begin to form a person.

Interestingly, pro choicers and many in the medical profession have been trying to develop ways of terminating the foetus earlier, when it is really not much past the zygote phase, but of course this too has been blocked at every turn by evangelistical pro lifers.

I note also that would be parents who go through IVF procedures often produce more embryos than they need, and it is common place for them to be destroyed. no one hardly mentions this, and I guess its because a lot of so called pro lifers who picket abortion clinics find themselves using IVF clinics and just accept that it is okay in those circumstances.

---

Quote:

---

Additionally, poor women are not the only ones to procure abortions. There are many reasons why a woman may wish to abort a fetus, poverty and rape are only a couple of reasons.

As I have said before if you are opposed to abortion, don't have one. Let others let their conscience decide for THEM>

---

Quote:

---

I know about the "quickening" laws. Such laws explicitely show that abortion was an accepted practice.

---

Quote:

---

A different genetic code doesn't in itself suggest that the embryo is not part of the woman's body, does it, a part with a mixture of the father's dna?

---

Quote:

---

Sometimes the embryo is reabsorbed into the mother's womb, no?

We eat all kinds of living matter with different genetic codes and incorporate them into our bodies. At what sub-atomic level does the broccoli stalk cease to be a broccoli stalk and become me?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:


I don't see how else you'd delineate it. Sometimes the mother's own body even rejects it because of the different DNA. It's unique from your other cells, even your uncombined haploid daughter cells. It represents a potentially new combination of genes, the loss of which may be detrimental to society.

---

Quote:

---

I hate all the 'pink fuffy bunny rabbits' nonsense about every fertilised egg being a precious protohuman.

---

Quote:

---

If you don't exist in the first place, you cannot be a loss

---

Quote:

---

Definitely not viable as a separate being.

---

Quote:

---

A woman has an absolutely unique relationship to the life growing inside her. And an absolutely unique power to destroy that life, in a variety of ways.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Thank you, Magons and Signy, for making the point so eloquently. I wonder if it doesn't come down, like so much abject craziness, to deep seated misogyny.

---