Oh Lord Ron Paul's Lost My Support - Abortion (deaths, Reed, elections)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How did you come to this conclusion? Regardless, it doesn't change the sarcastic position I presented. They aren't taking care of themselves while many others are, so... naturally, if we follow the logic that elimination of life is better in such situations because it avoids the complication of dependence and possible inability or lack of will to take care of such dependence, then so it would also be logical to physically eliminate those who can not take care of themselves, regardless of their choice leading to such a position.
Abortion is a red herring topic, like gun control. People make noise about them to raise money but not much ever really happens with regards to it.
For example, in 1993 the dems controlled the presidency, house and senate and did....ZERO about a real gun ban.
So, to let someones position on abortion sway whom you choose to vote for is rather meaningless.
Again, I do not care about his position on abortion.
I am concerned that he plans to spend precious time passing laws/regulations on the issue...like Obama spent precious time dealing with healthcare...instead of items that are important to me: economy, immigration, "war on drugs", foreign wars, over-regulation, deficit.
Period. It will be tough enough to try to tackle those few issues in 4 years.
I agree with the man on almost everything...except a woman's right to kill her unborn child. I'm a Christian and I personally think abortion is wrong...but I don't think it is my business to stop other people from doing it.
If they can live with the guilt etc, then it is between them and God... Sheesh...we have bigger fish to fry than Roe V Wade. Am I wrong?
Unborn children have rights, and by choosing to kill them before they are born when they would otherwise be born healthy and lead a fulfilling life is in violation of that child's right to live.
Basically it's not anyone's right to take someone else's life.
I agree with the man on almost everything...except a woman's right to kill her unborn child. I'm a Christian and I personally think abortion is wrong...but I don't think it is my business to stop other people from doing it.
If they can live with the guilt etc, then it is between them and God... Sheesh...we have bigger fish to fry than Roe V Wade. Am I wrong?
Yes! You are 'dead WRONG!' If there is one issue that would make me support Paul...it would be his stance against abortion. >>Abortion is convenient MURDER!<<
A human life is killed with EVERY abortion. How is that hard for you to realize?
Yes! You are 'dead WRONG!' If there is one issue that would make me support Paul...it would be his stance against abortion. >>Abortion is convenient MURDER!<<
A human life is killed with EVERY abortion. How is that hard for you to realize?
Aren't you glad you live in a country where a woman who believes abortion is murder cannot be forced to have one? It's what CHOICE is all about.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,464,466 times
Reputation: 6670
What is it with the ironically-named "pro-life" folks that they always start shouting at everyone who disagrees with 'em?! Even worse, they kinda give the impression that if you continue to disagree, the next step is they'll resort to violence!!
I agree with the man on almost everything...except a woman's right to kill her unborn child. I'm a Christian and I personally think abortion is wrong...but I don't think it is my business to stop other people from doing it.
If they can live with the guilt etc, then it is between them and God... Sheesh...we have bigger fish to fry than Roe V Wade. Am I wrong?
yes and no. I too believe it is wrong and I understand what you are saying, but I am not going to support or not support a candidate because of this issue. I do not think the law will ever be changed. I do think states have a right to decide, just like they do on same sex marriage etc. I just don't think the federal government shoule get involved. Roe versus wade will never be overturned. If it wasn't during Bush's time it is going to remain forever. I just do not want to see 3rd trimester abortions. I don't even want 2nd trimester to be truthful.
Nita
Bottom line: Ron Paul wants to dismantle Roe v Wade.....and there are a lot of people, like me, who would never even consider voting for him because of it.
Dismantling Roe v Wade and handing the issue over to the individual states is just a dirty, underhanded, back door attempt to ban abortion.....and we see it for what it is. His blathering on about states rights is just a red herring.
Since when is following the constitution dirty and underhanded? Read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
All of the women in the United States should have access to safe, legal, abortions......not just women in certain states.
We don't allow some states to vote for the right to own slaves, yet Ron Paul wants to allow some states to turn women into reproductive slaves.
Because of his stance on abortion, his is losing a lot of voters who may have voted for him otherwise.....and that's a fact.
no it's not a fact, prove it if it is.
The two biggest issues are the Economy and the Middle East.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sheesh...we have bigger fish to fry than Roe V Wade. Am I wrong?
