Ron Paul and Abortion " My thoughts" Please contribute

reply to post by milominderbinder


You better because obviously you do not know what you speak of...

Evil and Good , There's obviously a battle. Naive to say there isn't.

I promise if you turn a blind eye , you will be easily influenced by evil. Everyone is.

Originally posted by yoyoyoyo
reply to post by disgustingfatbody

 

Hey I don't need to, It's already been done..

When you think Roe vs Wade is women's rights. Your fooling yourself. It's really women's enslavement to evil.

This world is evil, and if you don't have an ounce of strength evil will take over. Evil looks for the weak, and takes advantage of those that can't defend themselves... IE: Unborn.

None of these aborted babies are evil, Not one... On the other hand every mother that has an abortion is letting evil into their lives either knowingly or not. They are.

So...if the world is "evil" then isn't abortion simply "protecting" these innocent lives from evil? Innocent babies get a straight ticket to "heaven" in your world, right?

...if you TRULY wanted babies to "have a chance at happiness"...shouldn't all babies be aborted so they can go be happy with "god" and never know all of the pain, misery, and suffering, in this "evil" world?

Makes sense to me.

reply to post by yoyoyoyo


I hope you are a woman in your next life. You need a little perspective to go with that dogma.

Originally posted by yoyoyoyo
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

You better because obviously you do not know what you speak of...

Evil and Good , There's obviously a battle. Naive to say there isn't.

I promise if you turn a blind eye , you will be easily influenced by evil. Everyone is.

Are you off your meds by any chance?

Originally posted by milominderbinder

However...let's say a fetus DID have choices. I'm pretty sure the fetus ALSO wouldn't choose to be born a parent(s) that were too poor to care for it or would resent it for the balance of their lives. Likewise, I'm guessing not many fetuses would CHOOSE to bounced around to a smattering of foster homes and orphanages and be raised by "The System".

The other party in this equation is the woman. She has a choice. One that actually makes sense. To cut a long story short no one has a right to someone elses bodily resources, blood, bone marrow, kidneys heart etc. even if they're culpable for the other person requiring it.

For example, if one person was suffering from leukemia, and another person was the only available match in a given time and distance value who had suitably matching blood marrow for donating, the first person's "right to life" would not obligate the second person to provide her bone marrow without consent. Even if we bring responsibility into it and acknowledge fault, they might be thrown in jail or pay with their wallet, they don't "pay" for it by being forced to give up their organs or blood. A historical precedent that dates to 1900 in this country. Pregnant women shouldn't be held to a double standard.

Secondly, the woman's body caused a situation which only benefited the fertilized egg - by bringing it into existence. So no obligations can be derived from it, particularly in it's brainless state. Much like pro-lifers ignore those same fertilized eggs in IVF clinics.

Originally posted by disgustingfatbody
reply to post by LaborofLove

 

I think the soul is infinite whether it is contained in a body or not.

We are not murdering souls. I believe they simply await another vessel.

Did you know, following the discovery of fertilization, the debate about abortion within the church tipped in favor of its now familiar position that human life begins at conception. That was only around 160 years ago.

Before then the prior view (within the Church) was that the fetus did not acquire a soul until later in pregnancy. Here's the interesting part. Ensoulment was said to occur funnily enough when the legal limit for having an abortion is up today. Who would've thunk it.

Not to say abortion was morally right thing to do, but it certainly wasn't murder. For example in the Jewish faith who are notorious for keeping tradition, women can get an abortion but they need to see a Rabbi or something and it can't be late term.

reply to post by disgustingfatbody


I hope we come to the realization that ending our brothers and sisters lives just because their unborn and unwanted by the mother is stopped.

Why doesn't the father have a say in it? Did he not take part in creating the child? O wait it's because he's not carrying it, so he has no right to say if that child lives or dies...

Twisted logic for women to fall victim too.

Women's rights, this isn't women's rights. This is mass murder... Plain and simple.

reply to post by milominderbinder


Obviously you need some med's thinking it's ok to murder our unborn brothers and sisters for "womens" rights.

What about those unborn women? Do you not care about them?

reply to post by yoyoyoyo


All your arguments a simply a mindless reiteration of you OP and appear to be an attempt to illicit a sympathetic emotional response for your good vs evil agenda. Your pragmatism and continual bombastic insults and seemingly ignorant slurs aren't helping your cause.

Dr. Ron Paul would be very ashamed to be associated with this thread, I do believe!

reply to post by windword


I do believe your wrong, Ron Paul knows the horrors of abortion.

Women's rights, I'll say this again what about the unborn women? Do they not matter to people of your ILK?

Women's rights to murder there unborn. What a right.

Radical feminists is who got the abortion rights for women...

I would like to compare them to Radical islam. Same mind set.

There is no reasoning for these groups. They are so strung up in what there doing is right.

I like Ron Paul and hoped he would be the next American president.

But it's all over for him now !

reply to post by rigel4


Ron Paul would win if all the voting wasn't rigged.

They rig elections, They will even assassinate presidents and then convince our women that murdering their unborn is ok.

As this life is to serve ourselves. It's all about us. That's the devil's code.

reply to post by yoyoyoyo


The devil has nothing to do with it. It's called survival of the fittest.

If the time isn't right for a child the mother makes a decision. Sometimes nature does it for her. It's called spontaneous abortion.

What about that? Is that murder?

reply to post by disgustingfatbody


As this life is to serve ourselves. It's all about us. That's the satanic code.

excuse me for saying devil.

edit::

Polls are indicating Ron Paul would beat Obama if he goes against him.

Ron Paul is clearly the better choice.

The number of pages on this thread shows how emotive the subject is.

The amount of stars the OP has, tells me that there's not much support for the point of view expounded.

That gives me comfort.

reply to post by selfharmonise


Have comfort, it's obvious you don't have value for the unborn.

reply to post by yoyoyoyo


I have value for the unborn, but I have a bigger value for tolerance and understanding for the living.

Pick your teeth out of that, as they say in Scotland.

reply to post by selfharmonise


Tolerance and understanding for the living validates abortion to you... pfft what a load of crock.

It really doesnt feel natural to coin the phrase "bleeding heart conservative", but I think that in this regards it fits.

People seem to have more regard for a bunch of cells, than they do those starving in the streets.

reply to post by selfharmonise


Those cells are starving for love and affection as it's a young human life. You're misguided if you want to ask me...

I mean why are you trying to say human life doesn't start at conception, because we start out as cells? Is that so hard to believe?