What is Digg?152 Comments
- zaxang, on 02/09/2008, -15/+50As others have pointed out both here and elsewhere, for someone who stands behind limited government and true freedom, this anti-abortion stance by Dr. Paul is very confusing and hypocritical. I have a lot of respect for the candidate, but this is where he and I differ.
- Darksaber11, on 02/09/2008, -15/+47I like Ron Paul a lot, and I respect him a lot, but I'm really sick of the term "pro-life." What? You think the other side of the issue is "anti-life"?
- TomK88, on 02/09/2008, -4/+23Pro-choice and pro-life. Those are the two sides. Both sides obviously try to make the name of their movement sound the best.
- haoest, on 02/09/2008, -2/+20He's pro-life, not anti-choice. His idea is to cut federal fund that subsidizes abortion operations, and have the states to decide on this issue, which aligns with the principles of Democracy. Given every one on stage, the *****-you-romney, warmongering mccain, mr. 9-11, he definitely stands out.
- ncairns, on 02/09/2008, -19/+35"...science based..."
No. It isn't. I know because I'm a scientist.
The belief that human life begins at conception is about as accepted among biologists as is Paul's other belief - that evolution is a lie. It is a stance based SOLELY in religious fundamentalism. - inactive, on 02/09/2008, -13/+27Read his "We the People" Act, then come back and say the same thing. Gays and non-Christians get the same treatment as women who want to control their own bodies. He is a charlatan, and most of us figured it out long ago, when he first made a name for himself. I will give you specific links, if you can't find the info yourself.
- Napoleone, on 02/09/2008, -6/+20"More importantly he can decide for 300 million Americans weather or not you will be allowed to do it."
No president has that authority. - TomK88, on 02/09/2008, -16/+29Shhhh! Ron Paul cannot be wrong on ANY issues! Haven't you been reading Digg?
- ncairns, on 02/09/2008, -9/+22Not really.
When we talk about where life begins as it pertains to abortion, we aren't really talking about life. Plants, bacteria, intestinal worms - these things are all alive. But, according to religious people, they aren't sacred or worthy of protecting because they don't have souls. Putting aside the profound arrogance inherent in that tacit, or often overt, assumption, the more meaningful diagnostic condition of whether or not life should be protected is whether or not it is sentient. Fully developed human beings interact with their environment. They learn from it, draw conclusions about it, change it, and wonder about where it came from. We synthesis largely hollow explanations about where *we* came from, and why and when and who. These questions are indicative of intelligent, inquisitive, self-awareness. As far as I'm concerned, that's as close to sacred as anything in us ever gets, and it is ALL that is worth protecting.
So while a snotty gob of cytoplasm clinging parasitically to a uterine wall may be alive, it most certainly is not sentient. - rolf, on 02/09/2008, -3/+15If you hear Paul talk about the issue, it's very easy to understand. He is for liberty of the individual but with that come responsibility. Remember, he delivered 4000 babies. He also recalls vividly abortions being done at his university, and living, breathing babies by any other name, being dumped into buckets. He believes in protecting the individual - so is he not protecting the most defenseless individual here? To call him hypocritical is simplifying a complex issue along your lines. He has a very valid point.
And he was the first person to jolt my pro-choice opinion. I can't say I'm on his side, but I'm not as rigid anymore or sure of my opinion. If I were honest, I would say that the majority of abortions are probably done by people who have made a conscious decision to the risk of getting pregnant by having consensual sex. Given that, is this life really have to die for their mothers' convenience? Can we really allow people to abandon this basic responsibility for so shallow a reason? If she brings it to term, she could give it away to the myriad of people who want to adopt and then move on with her life.
But then we hit the other side: if a girl/woman is raped by a stranger, or by a family member, or whatnot -- should she be forced to carry the child to term? Of course not - that would be just a continuing violation of her body. Or the rare life endangering pregnancy, what about those?
Ron Paul makes the point that if someone, in the act of a crime, kills a fetus -- in certain states that criminal can be held responsible for homicide if that child is lost. In say, a car accident. So isn't this it's a life, it's not really a life a double standard? Or mothers the ultimate authority on whether or not that child should die? I really don't know.
It can get so complicated, I won't pretend to have a one-size-fits-all answer. I think most sides want to make it into a binary issue, it's not. RP wants to let the local level handle it. I'm not on his side.... but I can't really fault him on this. His argument is not stupid, ignorant, or anything else - it's just different than mine. - colonelbuckshot, on 02/09/2008, -7/+19Ron Paul: “I am strongly pro life ... but, I do not believe this should be a federal matter. All issues of life and violence and crime and murder are dealt with at the local level."
The actual speech referenced by that pro-life website:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oaD9oM4xQo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWlUc8ip5hc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGaZsAeMKFo - TomK88, on 02/09/2008, -14/+24Hard to imagine it is anything other than religion, which is why I don't understand Digg's support for the guy. What happened to all the atheists on here?
- BlackJackJester, on 02/09/2008, -3/+13The hypocrisy is the neo-cons saying they're pro life, while waging war around the globe. It appears the only like they are pro is unborn life. If you've been born, ***** it, they'll kill you.
- Napoleone, on 02/09/2008, -0/+10Find me the Constitutional provision that says a president has that authority.
- Jeremiah188, on 02/09/2008, -9/+18What does that mean? Please be explicit. You are not communicating.
- Intensity, on 02/09/2008, -2/+10Embryos, and fetuses are NOT babies.
When they become self-sustaining and not uterus-latched parasites, then you can call them babies. - colonelbuckshot, on 02/09/2008, -1/+9Ron Paul: “I am strongly pro life ... but, I do not believe this should be a federal matter. All issues of life and violence and crime and murder are dealt with at the local level."
Which part of that confuses you? - Dumbledorito, on 02/09/2008, -1/+9@Minarchian: Deductive reasoning was developed by Aristotle and made popular in more modern times by Sherlock Holmes.
Scientists use the Scientific Method. You seem to use the "pull stuff out of my ass and hope it sounds smart" method. You might want to rethink that one. - nblsavage, on 02/09/2008, -5/+13so you say
- damnitkitty, on 02/09/2008, -6/+13You can't get everything you want in a single candidate; you have to prioritize. Some pro-choice people support him because they believe ending the war and the outright theft of our incomes through government over-spending and unsound monetary policy is far more important than having a few conservative states ban abortion.
- waynetheman, on 02/09/2008, -0/+7Well said. And glad to see others not just pretending it's as simple as some make it out to be.
- fadeout, on 02/09/2008, -2/+9No, the code word is "international bankers" now.
- buildbyflying, on 02/09/2008, -9/+15I don't find it complicated at all -- Paul has his opinions and he believes that abortion is wrong. But he's also for limited gov't, which means decisions on abortion are up to the state. If Mississippi wants to ban abortion, then let the fine people of Mississippi duke it out.
I personally don't think abortion's an issue. Compared to the amount of killing we're doing and supporting it's just icing on the cake. Dead baby icing. yum. - blast_flame, on 02/09/2008, -2/+8Pro having back ally abortion clinics where mothers die and pro not having back ally abortion clinics where mothers die. That's how I see it. Not too hard of a choice then.
You can twist that both ways. - mattes5, on 02/09/2008, -2/+8wow... seek counseling
- Richandler, on 02/09/2008, -1/+7Haha, 9 months. So, his position is to end the Iraq war and bring home troops from other countries as well and you say that he's lying about it...? Is it because he's the only candidate saying this?
- ncairns, on 02/09/2008, -6/+12You'd prefer I just establish the definition of what makes something alive?
Well that's much easier, really.
Unless you want to deal with exotic fields like exobiology, the most widely scientifically accepted definition of life - with a few exceptions - is any organism which exhibits some order of homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproductive ability.
Interestingly, one such exception *is* with regard to gametes - they are not capable of independent reproduction, but I've never met a cytologist who doesn't consider them living organisms, because (generally) *all* cells are considered to be alive.
Thus it is the opinion of science, by which I as a scientist am bound, that, accepting the religious axiom that all life is sacred, the average teenage male commits an act of mass murder several times daily. - Spuy767, on 02/09/2008, -3/+8Yet he wants us to believe that he would respect women's rights.
- Leadman584, on 02/09/2008, -3/+8Excuse me, but scientifically speaking, once cells begin to divide, life is technically existent. Any doctor harming these cells from this point forward, is guilty of murder. They can be convicted of this crime, at the behest of the "mother to be".
Choice is important.
In very unusual circumstances the "mother to be" may have a legitimate reason for slaughtering her unborn. A 666 tattoo, horns and a tail would seem reasonable for abortion. So the child has down Syndrome, Abort? In China many mothers choose to abort females, Cool? They only get one shot, why waste it on a girl. A little wiggle room generally leads to abuse. So we learn to identify genetic traits, prior to birth. Our computers are getting more powerful by the hour, not a stretch. Fat gene, stupid gene, ugly gene, or defective gene, where do we draw the line?
For gosh sake, the guy is an OB/GYN, used to bringing life in to this world. He prefers to leave it up to the states, and it's residents to decide if murdering children is OK. It's not the presidents place to decide these "grave" matters.
Millions pray and hope for an adoption opportunity.
Why the hell is abortion an issue again?
Oh yeah, I forgot, we stopped teaching Sex Ed. Abstinence only, is not an answer.
A far right wing friend and I debated this issue recently, it was fun, He opposed violently a teacher slapping a condom on every desk, with a free birth control prescription. And I agree. A Condom machine in every Boys/Girls restroom, with a 25 cent dispenser seems more reasonable. We will not stop teenagers from being, well, teenagers.
Legislating Morality, especially at the Federal level, is exactly what Dr. Paul is fighting. - stansky, on 02/09/2008, -35/+40Shut up about Ron Paul already... sheesh. He doesn't stand a chance.
- janeuner, on 02/09/2008, -1/+5As you have no doubt noticed, Paulestinians are drawn to rampant stupidity.
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -5/+9My reaction to the headline was, "Ron Paul says a lot of things". The man is detached.
- poppacherry, on 02/09/2008, -1/+5wow, you have attitude and a vagina. wanna do my laundry?
- chrispr, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4This orphanage argument is wrong, yet it's the leg that pro-lifers stand on. Do some research on the abundance of people waiting for orphans.
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -2/+6Haha, you talk like he's even in the running.
- colonelbuckshot, on 02/09/2008, -2/+6But if say 80% of a state's populace are in favor of a pro-life policy, who are you to tell them they are wrong?
(I am pro-choice btw) - warbird, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4I'm "pro-choice" so I agree with what you say. But the statement "Yet, an embryo does not resemble life in even the simplest of ways" is wrong.. Just look at amobeas and simple multicell organisms.
Furthermore, while Singer is an interesting philosopher, he also argues that killing a baby thats just born (or up to a certain age. dont remember) isn't any worse than abortion, as babies that young doesn't have cognitive abilities, and are not self aware. These are not statements most people would support. I do realise that he exagerates to make a point though.
Anyways, my own view is that one should have the choice of having an abortion or not, but it should be done within a framework of rules. - brstilson, on 02/09/2008, -1/+5I think people who support Dr. Paul are banking on the fact that if he tries to pass an anti-abortion bill, he'll get shot down by the other two branches. They don't take it to the obvious conclusion though, that NONE of Ron Paul's radical reforms would get past congress. If a miracle happened and he became president, his administration would spend most of it's time fighting congress and the supreme court, losing almost every time.
- MaximusPryme, on 02/09/2008, -10/+14Ron Paul is absolutely wrong on this topic. His stance on abortion is that life begins at conception, and this is what I disagree with, and not that murder is wrong.
The debate is a metaphysical topic ("where does life begin?"), because nobody would argue that murder should be permissible, except in extraordinary cases. Therefore, if you are to assume that life begins at conception, then a woman does not have a right to kill a child, anymore than she has the right to kill the child when its born. Yet, an embryo does not resemble life in even the simplest of ways, which is that of being able to decipher pleasure and pain, so because of the fact that embryo is not alive, I would argue that then a woman has a right to choose whether she has an abortion or not. An interesting book on the subject is, "Practical Ethics" by Peter Singer.
I agree with Ron Paul on a number of issues, and I believe he is correct when it comes to economics,foreign policy, and drug policy, but that does not prevent him from being completely and utterly wrong when it comes down to immigration and abortion, and a few other issues. Yet, despite the fact that he is not the messiah, I will still support him until the bitter end. - nblsavage, on 02/09/2008, -1/+5hiya pot
- ncairns, on 02/09/2008, -2/+5@0xception
Actually, that was *my* point:
"When we talk about where life begins as it pertains to abortion, we aren't really talking about life. [...] the more meaningful diagnostic condition of whether or not life should be protected is whether or not it is sentient."
They then responded:
"Notice how you've gone from defining what it means to be alive, to what it means to be sentient."
So I defined what it means to be alive. - nblsavage, on 02/09/2008, -2/+5I didn't even have to study him for 9 months to realize that Paul and his followers are certifiable.
- waynetheman, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Seems you've been hoodwinked into believing being a neoconservative is what conservatism is about.
As if "conservative" and "liberal" are the only two possible worldviews.... - nebion, on 02/09/2008, -2/+5That is pretty consistent with what anti-abortion people believe - a large portion of them believe that life begins as early as possible.
In reality, most fertilizations never even end up as pregnancies, much less living babies. While I'm against very late abortions without a very good reason (there are some clinical reasons for those), terminating a pregnancy during the first few weeks should never be considered killing a person by any sane person. - inactive, on 02/09/2008, -14/+17We researched him, and found him lacking, LONG ago. That is why he is back at 5% support. Thinking people know he is completely full of *****, and realized this many months ago. His 5% support is no mistake.
- Dumbledorito, on 02/09/2008, -5/+8Come on, really. Support the guy and his ideals all you want, but short of a meteor wiping all the other candidates out at a debate he was excluded from, there's no way he could win without an army of rigged voting machines and a free blowjob for every voter.
And I'm not saying that to be a dick; his candidacy, for whatever reason you want to pick (the "media conspiracy" seems to be a popular one) he doesn't have the support he needs to get a majority of the vote, even in his own party. - inactive, on 02/09/2008, -3/+6mmm, taste like lonely stalker...
It IS a lonely stalker!!!! Congratulations on being irrelevant.... - cuntmate99, on 02/09/2008, -3/+6no woman wants to have an abortion. it usually only happens because there's no other choice. you don't honestly think that women come out of the hospital feeling happy with themselves do you?
how about you make society not-a-steaming-*****-hole then maybe people won't need the ***** abortions. - waynetheman, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Wow. You convinced me. Especially that argument where you pointed out... um... wait a minute....
- DesertDude, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3"Dr Paul and his campaign leaders are failing to capitalise upon..."
I see you taking the opposite approach and capitalizing many things in your post. -
Show 51 - 100 of 150 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is