This is a great way for him to win the religious voters.. but I bet some libertarians really disagree with his religious stance because religion has no place in influencing government.. Debate and logic and facts should be how government is influenced, not fairytales.

This is a great way for him to win the religious voters.. but I bet some libertarians really disagree with his religious stance because religion has no place in influencing government.. Debate and logic and facts should be how government is influenced, not fairytales.

hmmmmmm, if i was ron paul, how could i get more votes?

(note to ron:  aren’t you the limited government guy?)

Ron Paul, founder of Libertarians for the Police State. If you don’t like abortions, Ron, kill Rand!

Begin pro-life is the logical libertarian viewpoint.  To deprive an unborn child of life and liberty is a civil rights matter. The debate has nothing to do with religion. Even an atheist can be of the opinion that the unborn have rights. If you saw a pregnant woman smoking would you just shrug and say “well it’s her body and it’s her choice”? 

Much better….

I wonder if Rep. Paul reported that incident to the police when it happened, because I am pretty sure that is illegal.  If he didn’t, I doubt the veracity of it. I don’t think his anarchy beliefs would go that far, that murder is nobody’s business.

“Libertarian” moRON paul is AGAINST ABORTION !!!!!????? The inconsistencies and nutty positions of this mental case make my brain hurt.

Any rational person realizes that moRon paul, who actually occasionally has some good ideas (like stopping the out-of-control, reckless, irresponsible, big-bank-profits-supporting federal reserve), is basically a flake who is best ignored. (Seriously, how low and pathetic must you be to join with buffoon barney frank to co-author a “pot-for-everybody” bill in CONgress and support nukes for iran/ahmadinejad ?)

moRon paul couldn’t win a NATIONAL ELECTION even if his were the ONLY name on the ballot.

The responsible conservative movement is committed to having candidates for president that can actually WIN A NATIONAL ELECTION, yet remain true to conservative principles and ideals, and not to supporting a fringe ideologue like the lunatic-left d-cRAT socialists do.

Liberal philosophy accepts the killing of babies. Like the death panels, they value their weird ’earth god’ more than human life. Gore wants us to; “..decrease the current population by having  less children.”       
Libertarians protect the rights of everyone, Paul’s personal religious beliefs are irrelevant to the overriding libertarian philosophy.

If you saw a pregnant woman smoking.. What would you do?  I do not agree with smoking or drinking etc during pregnancy but I hope your answer is that you would mind your own damn business.

If you saw a pregnant woman smoking.. What would you do?  I do not agree with smoking or drinking etc during pregnancy but I hope your answer is that you would mind your own damn business.

Huh?  It’s not a crime so what are you going to do besides berating her?   What about women who drink while pregnant and those that eat sushi throughout their term?  What exactly do you think you can do since NONE of these actions are crimes.  A FETUS has NO RIGHTS sonny boy unless some prosector decides to charge someone like yourself for the murder of a pregnant woman for offending some christian retard.  

killing a fetus in a traffic accident is manslaughter here

And people wonder why Cons are called stupid.

Yes, but that’s not a right of the fetus, it’s the right of the prosecuting attorney if he or she elects to bring the additional charge for gross negligence. 

I don’t know if he could win in 2012, but I like Ron Paul more and more as time goes on. He seems to have a solid foundation in his convictions whether you like them or not. That keeps him from swaying with the political winds and I find that very admirable, especially in these times.
I don’t see a better advocate for Americans as individuals or reducing our oppressive, over sized and too centralized government than Ron Paul among the candidates.
All that being said, I still haven’t made my decision on who is best for the country aside from ruling out at least two of them.

manslaughter is taking a life.   so is it a life or not? if not , the law here is wrong

Ohhhh…. did I crap on your global warming religion junior? Libtards are so gullible. Great name calling D-bag Hahahahahaha……..

Looks like the old man finally caved, so much for liberty and freedom

“Even an atheist can be of the opinion that unborn children have rights.”

I think most, if not all pro-choicers think unborn children have rights. The rights of the grown woman hosting the child just take precedence over the rights of the fetus.

He did not cave.

He believes you can’t defend liberty if you don’t defend life.

It’s his attempt to be consistent given a very tough issue. 

Ron Paul on a national ballot would be the true anti-war candidate.

He’d cut spending enough to give people confidence about our future again.

Ron Paul, in several polls, polls right up there with Obama.

Name calling is the refuge of losers.

And now he thinks its the governments place to tell people what is life and what’s not.  He’s as totalitarian as the pope on the issue. There is no way of regulating abortion, it will ALWAYS happen, as it has forever this is a simple waste of government time and money.  All this would mean is abortionist would go from performing abortions in clinics usually far away from residential homes to possible right next store to you  and men killing pregnant women would skyrocket.  Gotta love those reasonable thinking righties

Exactly!

I’m not for a federal ban on abortion, either. 

I just don’t think he’s “caving” as you said, though.

I’m not 100% certain he’s for a federal ban?

Honestly, with our current situation I try to ignore social issues.

They mean little me.  It’s his goal of bringing our troops, shrinking government

and the idea of one day not being a slave to the state with the 

income tax that makes me support him.  

Abortion, Gay Rights, Santorum and all that crap can stfu as far as I care.

Oh, and i’m gay too.  But a society that understands liberty will be equally beneficial 

to us all.

He made a point on government funding abortions. This is wrong why? I never heard him say NO Abortions did you? He personally is pro life and thinks the IRS taking tax dollars from those that are pro life to give to those that are pro abortion is wrong. We all know it is! If you want an abortion the Government shouldn’t be paying it unless it’s a choice of mothers health.

He wants smaller government, this is one more step to it. We can’t keep paying everyones personal bills. How in the world is it right that those working hard all their lives should pay the bill on those working the system and sitting in Air Conditioning homes, playing playstations while talking on their cellphones to their congressman about the next election needing even more entitlements? Not on my back if I can help it.

Ron Paul 2012

What would you do, dare I ask? Don’t you see the hypocrisy in touting smaller government, but then wanting to dictate what a woman does with her body? The fetus is not a human, but a “potential” human.

Let me quote Ayn Rand, you probably like her ;-)  ”One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living.” Ayn Rand:And finally this quote surmises the whole issue to me: ”No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.” Frederica Mathewes-Green:

What would you do, dare I ask? Don’t you see the hypocrisy in touting smaller government, but then wanting to dictate what a woman does with her body? The fetus is not a human, but a “potential” human.

Let me quote Ayn Rand, you probably like her ;-)  ”One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living.” Ayn Rand:And finally this quote surmises the whole issue to me: ”No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.” Frederica Mathewes-Green:

^^^^ TRUTH ALERT  ^^^^

Well to be fair, the only people who call conservatives stupid are “liberals”.
And every rational person knows that the “opinion” of a “liberal” is absolutely worthless. Sorry to break it to you.

It’s a shame that he can’t be a viable candidate in the current political system. He has broad appeal and can flip-flip just a good as the big boys. 

There are times when I believe abortion is necessary. Rape, incest, health problems, to name a few. But to get an abortion because the fetus is a inconvenience ( the reason most abortions happen) is wrong. I’m not saying laws should be made to prevent women from getting abortions btw. The situation is complicated. I think we need to look at the reason why most women get abortions in the first place. I believe the problem starts at home, as a failure on the parents part to teach their children responsibility. To teach them that there are consequences for the actions they choose to take. Alot of American women today are raise with no sence of responsibility… girls just wana have fun, dont you know. As a result, when reality hits them in the face, for example, pregnancy because unprotected sex seemed like a good idea at the time, the girl freaks out. Her ability to have fun has been compromised and she’s having none of that. As she runs to the abortion clinic the thought of taking responsibility for her actions never even crosses her mind. It’s not her fault, she wasn’t raises to think of such things. As she walks out of the clinic, she wonders for a second if she did the right thing. Then one of her girlfriends pulls up and says ” Get in the car, girl. There’s an 80s party across town. Lets go!” She gets into the car and forgets about it. It’s time to have fun.

If parents just took the time to teach responsibility, abortion would be for the most part unnecessary.

Ron Paul 2012!!!!!!!!!! This man needs a chance to be President. His policies are good and he speaks the truth. If you look up some of his videos on youtube from years back, he talks about the crap thats going on right now.

Ayn Rand was a dirty whore and opinion on this matter is unwarranted.

What makes you think a dumb fuck like your self knows anything about Conservative princibles ? I see twelve year old with similar writing styles as your self. marijuana is less harmful, less intoxicating, less deadly (wait not deadly at all yes that is true you can not die or overdose from marijuana) then alcohol which conservatives enjoy drinking. Also calling Ron Paul a socialist is probably the most idiotic part of your comment.

Caved are you stupid or what he has been telling that stoy for years.

Ron Chomsky is a simulacrum.

Right, but being pro-life isn’t necessarily a big government position, especially if you (like Paul) still view abortion as a states’ rights issue.

If a government should be limited to being almost exclusively in the business protecting life, and you view abortion as an assault/murder, then it makes sense to be pro-life. I don’t agree with that position, and I don’t believe the majority of libertarians do either, but it’s not inconsistent.

Libertarians believe you should pay FOR YOUR OWN abortions and not have government fund abortions.

If people are concerned with giving abortions to the poor…create a non-profit organization to do that, but the government should not pay for them.

Then let her pay for it.

Why should the government pay for it..

unfortunately. latin 2 is too stupid to mention there is no government funding of abortion except for rape or incest cases

Latin2 continues to lie and lie and lie ;)

The same thought crossed my mind.  He saw this and did nothing.  Also, he claims this was after a caesarian section which is notan abortion.  We have no context as to what was going on or why with this woman and her fetus.  What he describes is foul and illegal.  I have to wonder if we’re getting all the facts, as it seems a story designed to sway opinion.

Abortion is complicated. I support choice, but find late term abortion to be yucky. 

Ron Paul is right, abortion should be illegal. I am a Liberal but I don’t support murder.

Ron Paul has always been prolife http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

read the ending..which shows un-like other candidates pressing unconstitutional law, his personal view will not override the Constitution.

“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 like Ron, I don’t want a penny of my Tax dollars spent on someones abortion. They can pay it themselves in a state it’s allowed.

Murder? Because human life begins at conception? Shouldn’t we then be doing forensic investigations of all miscarriages.

A thing need not be a crime for it to be stupid, and if you see stupidity, it isn’t a crime to point it out.

You actually think rights come from laws? Oh, child…

The fetus is not a human, but a “potential” human.

It is a nascent human being. Ever hear a pregnant woman say “I’m potentially having a baby!”?

I think we need to look at the reason why most women get abortions in the first place.

Because shame is dead.

I don’t know about illegal, but the vast majority of the time it is immoral and I see no reason whatsoever to celebrate it.

Does your Wife or Girlfriend use birth control?  Is a reasonable and relevant question considering the topic.

Abortion did not become legally and socially acceptable, out of thin air.  To question the legitimacy of abortion is to question the underlying reasoning of Roe v. Wade along with precedent decisions that you might not be so quick to question?

Conservatives tend to reject the proposition that “privacy” resides within the text of the Constitution.  Yet, in an important Supreme Court case from 1928, Olmstead v. US, Justice Brandeis wrote:

“The right to be let alone–the most comprehensive of rights and the most valued by civilized men.”

Privacy, “the right to be let alone,” depends, I guess, on whether or not your “Ox is being gored?”

Purveyor

it’s not a states rights issue, that’s the point

the government doesn’t pay for abortions

how many times do we have to go over this?

Ah. I see the problem–all people have the right to freedom, privacy, and determination of what to do with their bodies–except women. Having rights only applies to men.

The government already pays for Viagra, but it’s only that Evil Obamacare that pays for birth control. Anybody see a problem here? (and at the end of the Bush administration, there was a brief attempt to classify most methods of birth control as abortion, and therefore the government wouldn’t pay for it. That didn’t last long, but I still have a clip of the editorial in the WSJ, that noted liberal rag, discussing it).

Is retro-abortion possible??

I would disagree with your last sentence.  The federal government exists to secure everybody’s natural rights, including the unborn child.  Protecting the unborn is completely consistent with the non-aggression principle

Ron Paul, he the man.

It’s your right to conceive or not to, why make it political ?  The government has no right in your bedrooms. The governments job is to defend our country and freedom. The federal government should have no other purpose. You are responsible for your actions.

No, but if a lot of liberals had their way they would.

If it was only that easy.  Yes, if you saw a pregnant woman smoking..it is her business.  But what if that pregnant woman that is smoking caused her baby to have a birth defect of some kind.  Where do you think the money would come from at that point?  Birth defects are picked up by the STATE they live in. Therefore, it then becomes a State issue….or a taxpayers issue of the state that child was born in. So, do you think SHE is going to pay for it?  Only if that child is normal.

Oh, you don’t think so?   YEs, the government pays for it.  If that woman is on Medicaid…the government pays for it.  Medicaid also pays for surgeries that do tubal ligations.  Do you think the poor people drain the system?  Yes, they do?  All because it’s a “I don’t care what medical situation I get into…..Medicaid will pay for it”.    If you are a taxpayer…then you are paying for their medical.

You should be blown out into space somewhere. That way you could look down on all people and babies. A fetus has no  rights?  Do you have any children? Evidently, your mother thought it was o.k. to bare your indispicable body.    It’s woman like you who cry wolf  about your “rights” and complain about people telling them what they can and can’t do. Most people in society would not do that anyway but just because they are Christian doesn’t mean they “butt” into your dispicable life either. You see, miss brilliant, Christians believe that life begins at conception. It is a  child in the womb. It has rights to live; just like you. The only problem with those that believe in abortion is that the child is going to disrupt their life. Oh, we can’t have that. Why, people are going to expect her to take care of it and raise it, people will expect her to clothes and feed this child, educate the child and love the child. They will find all kinds of excuses to not take the responsibility.  They took the responsibility to get pregnant, unless raped or incest. Then you have a bigger problem of the “father”. Do you know the father?  If so, you know he isn’t anymore capable of raising a child then you are…that’s where adoption comes in at.  Young women need to be more aware of getting pregnant and young men need to be responsible for a pregnancy. If that all happened there wouldn’t be anything such as abortion. There would be NO NEED to even consider killing a child for your own selfish reasons.

If he didn’t report it….he is as guilty as the doctor who did it.  You see, if you don’t understand what an abortion really is (which most people do), but oddly enough, young girls have this thinking that if they get pregnant “I’ll just have an abortion”…then things will be back to normal.  now there may be alot of young boys who feel the same. depends on what they’ve been told at home as well as in school. If your going to be sexually active there is birth control.  And not just the young people think they can have sex and not hopefully get by…it can happen to any woman. Abortions mean vacuuming out the child in pieces, it means lots of bleeding with a chance of lost life of mother, it can be cutting the child out in pieces…it is a horrible way to treat a human being. The word fetus was meant to discribe a pregnancy.Fetuses are alive beings. They are called babies after leaving the womb.

This is true. But there are many who feel they aren’t responsible for their actions. They only want  the help when it applies to them. The rest will just say “it’s none of your business.”  The biggest problem is those that are on medicaid (poorer class).  They want the government to pay for their medical bills because they don’t have to be responsible then.  The rest of the population has their own insurance…they pay for their own medical bills. And I’d dare to bet that most of the insurance owners wouldn’t think of abortion.

The stupidity of a woman to have an abortion is to turn around and get pregnant again.

Who are you kidding.  That’s happening right now.  Abortion is like illigal immigrants. They can be controlled if the government wants to. But unfortunately there are too many people that think abortion isn’t to be bothered with….just let them die..after all their just fetuses.  They do have heartbeats but there just fetuses.

Can you go third grade then try replying again?  thanks

The government does not pay for abortions.

I guess Paul actually wants to win and so has to tick the box for the anti-choice people. Too bad. He was the closest thing to an honest candidate in the whole Republican field.

Poor people behave irresponsibly, shortening their lifespans, because of Medicaid? That’s an interesting — although disgusting — notion.

Got any facts to go with that canard?

I don’t know of a single person who “celebrates” abortion. It’s sad, regardless of one’s personal beliefs about right and wrong.

What people “appreciate” is a legal framework that — in most cases — keeps the government out of decisions that are excruciatingly personal. And they “celebrate” when anti-choice zealots are beaten back from trying to destroy that framework.

And that’s yours to say? Who died and made you god?

Simpleminded as always. That’s why your views are dysfunctional. They have no practical realtionship to reality.

That’s a pretty callous and unrealistic view of an unplanned pregnancy. Having a child is a bit more than “compromising your abiity to have fun.” It’s a life-long commitment that many people are simply incapable of making.

And it takes two to tango. In intimate relations, a woman (or girl) may not realistically be in a position to say “no” over the timing and use of birth control. And sometimes birth control (especially rhythm methods) simply fail.

That’s why such decisions *must* be left to the discretion of the woman involved, her doctor, and those who care about her. It’s really no one else’s business.

OK, and I don’t want a penny of my tax dollars spent on useless wars. Or to encourage oil companies to look for oil. Or to encourage farmers not to farm.

I’ve been looking for the check-off box on my tax return that lets me tell the government what I *don’t* want them funding, and I just can’t find it.

you got a point or is this just drivel?

And her pocket book in a state that allows it…solves all problems..sounds like Ron Paul’s solution he has always been for….

keeps the government out of decisions that are excruciatingly personal.

Exactly as Paul thinks.. at state level in a state that decides it is legal.. not welfare paid for through the Feds..I.E. our tax dollars.

Nope, he is the same he has always been, state level..your choice.. he personally is prolife.
You need to read more on him.. your not listening.. he don’t want the FED paying it.. smaller government.

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

no, read these comments..because Ron Paul is prolife, everyone here thinks he is against abortion for everyone, he believes it should stay at State level and not be funded by the FED.. that’s all he says..

 Ron Paul is prolife, everyone here thinks he is against abortion for everyone, he believes it should stay at State level and not be funded by the FED.. that’s all he says..

Ron Paul is prolife, everyone here thinks he is against abortion for everyone, he believes it should stay at State level and not be funded by the FED.. that’s all he says..     

My point — which I thought was glaringly obvious — was that our taxes fund many things we’d rather not fund, but that our fellow citizens seem to think is a good idea. And that there’s no line-item veto for taxpayers.

I’m all for oil companies looking for oil, I just don’t get why I should pay them to do so. And where they look (technical and ecological issues notwithstanding) is irrelevant. In today’s oil market it’s all just oil, whether it’s pumped from a friendly country, an enemy, or a putatively friendly country that we’d despise if they didn’t have oil.

Thereby forcing the people who are least able to raise a child successfully to do so. As social policy, that’s damned dangerous.

Not to go all eugenical on you, but how many of the London rioters do you think were planned by their birth parents?

Well, if we had a sensible health-care funding system in the US, then this wouldn’t be an issue.

And how does this have anything to do with this article?

Oh so sorry, I just figured you had a job and didn’t like all these entitlements for welfare re dip ients..

Your check come this month? you can thank me later..

As I said, “closest thing to honest.” I nevertheless saw that statement as a blatant pander to the anti-choice forces.

And as I’m firmly in favor of a single-payer healthcare system administered by the federal government, I’m unlikely to be agreeing with Paul on that one.

Paul’s attitude toward the governments (state and federal) keeping their noses out of citizen business that doesn’t concern them appeals to me. I just don’t make as great a distinction between national, state, and local governments as most of the people around here.

The (to me) simpleminded notion that the federal government is bad and state and local governments are inherently good doesn’t play, especially regarding those things that are impracticable to provide by individuals states.

you can choose a different state that maybe pro or against abortion..it’s hard to change a country when it suppose to be for We The People.. not “We the select group to choose to make everyone pay”. That’s the purpose of keeping it at state level.. You really believe “everyone” including prolife should pay for it? Then you should find a Socialist country instead of changing ours. This is what causes revolutions.. DO you actually work and pay taxes? Honestly? and you want more tax taken out to fund even more people you don’t know that hang their legs in the air?, talk on cell phones, use their playstations in air condition homes and “you” flip the bill for them?  The simpleminded notion that those working are doing it for the 50 % not paying taxes is simply..simpleminded.

you can choose a different state that maybe pro or against abortion..it’s hard to change a country when it suppose to be for We The People.. not “We the select group to choose to make everyone pay”. That’s the purpose of keeping it at state level.. You really believe “everyone” including prolife should pay for it? Then you should find a Socialist country instead of changing ours. This is what causes revolutions.. DO you actually work and pay taxes? Honestly? and you want more tax taken out to fund even more people you don’t know that hang their legs in the air?, talk on cell phones, use their playstations in air condition homes and “you” flip the bill for them?  The simpleminded notion that those working are doing it for the 50 % not paying taxes is simply..simpleminded.

I’m guessing you’re male. You can stop reading now if I’m wrong.

If I’m right, you really need to shut the fuck up about what women do with their bodies because not only are you (as evidenced by your truly foolish posting) intellectually and morally incapable of mandating someone else’s behavior, you’re not qualified by biology, either.

The fact that some Christians (not all) believe that life begins at conception is meaningless for someone who doesn’t happen to share that belief. You think a fetus is a child? Whatever. I don’t. And the law is on my side.

Your notion of why a person would elect to abort a fetus is knuckle-draggingly ignorant. There are as many reasons as there are women who face the choice and you’re in no position to understand or judge any one of them. So don’t.

Those of us who live in the real world understand that unplanned pregnancies happen and moralizing about it is profoundly unhelpful and cruel.

Don’t believe in abortion? Then don’t have one.

To quote you: “And like Ron, I don’t want a penny of my Tax dollars spent on someones abortion.”

oh…I thought we was discussing Ron’s view on Abortion staying with the article….long as you now know that Ron is not against your choice.. Im content..

You know, it always seems to come down to this. Anyone who suggests that a social safety net is a good thing; who believes that as human beings we have an obligation to people not as successful as ourselves, then that person must be sucking at the welfare teat themself.

Because, after all, why would anyone think that sharing the wealth of the richest countries in the world with our fellow citizens could possibly be a good idea?

Let’s be coldly practical and not get into any of that mushy “people helping people” crap. How about, if you don’t help those who are struggling, their struggles become your struggles? How about if you help a single mother with welfare and education and childcare, her child is less likely to become a criminal? How about if you don’t provide nutrional assistance and education, millions of people live unhealthily, and cost uncounted billions of dollars in avoidable medical costs?

How about if you don’t force people who — for whatever reason — are simply not capable of raising children to do so, then you breed fewer feral louts who will burn your city down around your ears.

If you have no compassion, then just do the math instead.

You’re opposed to tubal ligations? I take it, then, you believe not one thin dime of taxpayer money should go to health care. Is this correct?

That “we the select group” is actually the majority of your fellow citizens, voting locally and nationally over the years. You’re the one in the minority here, and you’re trying to impose your mean-spirited and profoundly shortsighted view on everyone else.

I’ve got to ask, who the hell are you talking about with your “talk on cell phones and use their playstations . . . ?” You’ve got some bee in your bonnet that’s waaaay outside the ambit of this discussion and which you’re going to have to deal with yourself.

And yes I work, and pay taxes, and because I’m well-paid, quite a few of my dollars go into the IRS. And by all sensible standards (especially in the midst of a financial and jobs crisis), I’m undertaxed.

re dip ients..

Im all for giving a helping hand.. but not on this broken and abused system. To many families pass down the ways to get around the system and just live on the tit generation after generation.. no more can I support a system like this. Not with all the abuse from the re dip ients all the way to Washington..

OK, so you have some personal obsession with multigenerational welfare recipients. Can’t help you. Can’t take it seriously. While such people exist, they don’t characterize the system as a whole.

“Paul’s attitude toward the governments (state and federal) keeping their noses out of citizen business that doesn’t concern them appeals to me.” 

 Except Health care, of course?  (neutral principle)?

Anyway, when I think of the term “pro choice,” I perceive a “neutral” philosophy, that has to have been established before being applied to abortion rights.  (What comes first, the law or the philosophy?)  Conservatives, fallaciously argue for a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, thus rendering the document impotent?

Conversely, the Liberal tends to desire the Constitution be used as a foundation for any mischief, both expanding or contracting the Constitution, to achieve the desired ends, du jour.

The disparate entity known as the United States, apparently, has reached a point whereby the Nation’s Philosophy needs to be articulated, or re-articulated.  (Abandoned and replaced?)  Getting everyone to church on Sunday and saying the same prayer, we know from experience will not work.

“Neutral Principle,” reason and the consistent creation and application of law?

It’s Monday.  I go out to the Gun Range on Mondays and punch holes in paper with a Colt 1911, .45 cal.
So, you have a fine Monday, Mr. EXPAT

Im more for the founding fathers of the Republic..If you don’t know people on welfare..you have no clue what the hell Im talking about..nor what tax payers are paying for. The “idea” of help is fantastic.. the execution of our system is a total fail.. If your that blind to it..I can’t help you. But don’t worry, the 50% that don’t pay taxes will keep it going till it can go no more.. which shouldn’t be much longer.

My Favorite is the original Mad Max!

I would love to have Kawasaki Z1R Turbo like the Goose rode (Very rare)

 I disagree with religion, but not with your right to worship whatever deity you choose, or to worship no deities at all.. No rights exist.which negate, invalidate, or trump  the rights of another, regardless of where rights ‘come from’. If human rights are ‘endowed by god’ and there is an inherent ‘right to life’, why do we die at all? A person’s medical decisions are their own business, and are the province of no one else, not even their physician. Women are not obligated to gestate for the benefit of others, nor are we obligated to gestate, period. Are men obligated to impregnate?

If you disagree with abortion, you are exquisitely free to NEVER HAVE ONE.

Women get abortions for a variety of reasons, but the overwhelming one is they don’t want to be pregnant.  Pregnancy entails a variety of risks, and it is up to the individual woman to decide whether or not she wishes to accept them. Most women accept them. Some do not. Their reasons for accepting or not accepting the risks of pregnancy are none of your business, and are completely out of your control.Regardless of the legality of abortion, abortion is a reality that is not going to change, and criminalizing will not reduce the necessity for it.   As far as Ron Paul is concerned, his being prolife is a non issue, as long as he does not support a ban on elective abortion. I don’t have a problem with the federal government not paying for elective abortion, but I do believe medicare should pay for any procedure which is done to save a life, period.

You might be surprised at how many so-called ‘pro-life’ advocates want the State to do exactly that. If the legislature becomes ‘pro-life’, it’s coming, make no mistake about it.A majority of so-called ‘pro-life’ advocates are opposed to contraception as well as any and all abortion Santorum advocates taking the miscarried fetus home, cuddling it for ‘a few hours’, and introducing it to its siblings. Get ready for Gilead -  if you don’t know to what this refers, read Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”. We live in very scary times, my friend.

The stupidity of a man to impregnate a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant, is to turn around and unzip his pants again.

The simpleminded notion that all welfare recipients are living in air-conditioned homes and playing playstations, while thumbing their collective noses at you personally,  is every bit as moronic as the simpleminded notion that the government has a duty to prevent abortion. It can’t. It can only provide penalties for those who break the law should a ban on abortion become law. So, ‘just’, what penalties would you suggest be leveled on women (the fact that they didn’t get pregnant all by themselves notwithstanding) who avail themselves of an abortion for reasons of which you (in your infinite wisdom) do not approve? Mandatory sterilization? Jail time? Or is forced gestation enough for you?  I hope you thank your lucky stars every hour that you have never faced an unplanned, dangerous, toxic, or unwanted pregnancy.

I wonder if Justplaythegame is aware that when the Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution, there was no law concerning abortion? The fact  they didn’t include fetuses as citizens, but rather opined that a citizen is a person “Born or naturalized in the United States” is enough for me to believe that to the Founding Fathers, abortion was a non-issue, at least Constitutionally. I have another question: how is a fetus to enjoy all the other rights and protections granted to citizens? Or are we just going to give it the right to inhabit a woman’s body against her will, and to hell with all the others? Can a fetus ‘keep and bear arms’, or employ the freedom of speech? How about the right to peacefully assemble? To say that the Constitution protects the right to life of an unborn fetus, zygote, or embryo is to say that women have no rights to autonomy of their bodies while gestating. I find this profoundly repugnant, and vehemently disagree that that is what the Founding Fathers intended.

all welfare recipients are living in air-conditioned homes and playing playstations

Not all are..I would say “most” are..

So, ‘just’, what penalties would you suggest be leveled on women

I don’t want a ban..never said I did..don’t know anyone that said it?
No penalties other than finding a way to pay for it.. move or travel to a state allowing it. These Nice doctors performing it can do a pro-bona for all I care..Lawyers do it.. Just don’t take it to federal level country wide and add it to my tax base… I don’t want nothing to do with abortions unless through rape or health issues deciding abortions.

It’s an article of faith with me (see, even atheists believe in something!) that healthcare funding *is* the government’s business, and their nose is most welcome. No inconsistency from me there.

The flaw with your application of the NP in this case is that NP is binary (yes/no, either/or), while life is analog. Put differently, reality is a continuum, not a discrete spectrum. As a result, binary solutions applied to real life will inevitably fail. On the other hand, if you treat binary solutions like a computer does — making millions of binary decisions a second — then you can produce a pretty fair representation of reality.

All of which goes to say that it’s a very complex world out there and rigid reasoning is not going to work.

I deny that liberalism (itself a bogus term, since “liberalism” is a tendency rather than a philosophy) has any interest in Constitutional mischief. On the contrary, the liberal view of the Constitution is that it is one of the greatest documents ever penned by man, but it is not ultimate in its grasp of wisdom; it contains a number of really bad ideas; and things do change over time.

Consequently, when translating Constitutional principles into law, a healthy appreciation for the original intent must not blind us to the need to adapt to reality. And that adaptation is also — like all other human undertakings — prone to error.

Neutral principle is a process, a formula, that when used properly, no matter the result (wins or loses) the result is sound as that result is based on mutually agreed upon principles.

Both Conservative and Liberal may fear “neutral principle,” as they both tend to fear their “own Ox being gored.”  However, the beauty of NP, the philosophy is the ultimate arbitrator.  When everyone agrees on the method, there are no more excuses. (viable excuses)  A few days ago you found the philosophy reasonable, however, as it now meets your “faith” philosophy on health care, aka., “be reasonable, do it my way,” you seek to minimize the philosophies efficacy?

As for your take on the Constitution, that is the document where the proverbial “rubber meets the road.”  All too often reasoned principle is replaced by “faith” and the fear of one’s “Ox being gored.”  Hence the temptation to adjudicate with a bit too much latitude?

Moreover,  The Founding Fathers handed to future generations a document which incorporated provisos to make, adjust and adapt.  But that Constitutional process is deliberately difficult.  

“Like all human undetakings–prone to error.”  NP offers a consistent pathway devoid of moral/religious caprice.  Yet, when handled correctly, will satisfy our moral inclinations.  

Again, I deny being inconsistent. NP is a good place to start in the search for justice — and hence I respect it as that — but is a blunt instrument in dealing with multilayered and often inderminate human affairs. The ultimate application of NP: Solomon’s cutting the baby in half and awarding each squabbling woman an equal part (which of course he didn’t do — because it would have been absurd).

Regarding the Constitution and the prospect of amending it, I’m all in favor of it being very hard to do. You only need look at California’s initiative process for an example of a system in which modification of the state’s constitution is entirely too easy and leads to dysfunctional government.

But constitutional amendments are for the big shifts (like the elimination of slavery), not fine-tuning. For those, judicious (literally) interpretation is a sensible and historically workable process.

Interestingly, he is now second in the running for the Republican nomination. How do those words taste, TPA? Need a Little salt?

I think your reply was sent to the wrong person. I have supported Ron Paul from the beginning.