PPP Poll: Ron Paul takes lead in Iowa

[guerilla]

Wait, RP is pro life... just lost my vote.

Assuming you're serious, and you're consistent with your beliefs, shouldn't someone who is not pro-life be attempting suicide?

I'd hope you will not hurt yourself and reconsider your views, but it seems to me that someone who is against life doesn't really have a lot of business posting on forums and living it up among the pro-life people...

 

[Napolean]

Wait, RP is pro life... just lost my vote.

He believes abortion laws should be decided by states, not the federal government.

 

[Russ86]

Assuming you're serious, and you're consistent with your beliefs, shouldn't someone who is not pro-life be attempting suicide?

I'd hope you will not hurt yourself and reconsider your views, but it seems to me that someone who is against life doesn't really have a lot of business posting on forums and living it up among the pro-life people...

Wow, assuming you are serious with this argument, I just lost respect for you.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Wow, assuming you are serious with this argument, I just lost respect for you.

+1. Just... dumb.

 

[papajohn56]

Wow, assuming you are serious with this argument, I just lost respect for you.

I think you just completely misunderstood what he said, good job.

+1. Just... dumb.

Same goes for you.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

I think you just completely misunderstood what he said, good job.

Same goes for you.

Fine, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. This is how I read it:

Assuming you're serious, and you're consistent with your beliefs, shouldn't someone who is not anti-abortion be attempting suicide?

I'd hope you will not hurt yourself and reconsider your views, but it seems to me that someone who is against life [...? How do you know this?] doesn't really have a lot of business posting on forums and living it up among the anti-abortion people...

(My edits in bold.)

Not being "pro-life" is not the same as being "against life" in this context because "pro-life" identifies a stance on abortion. Which is so obvious it shouldn't need explaining.

 

[turbolapp]

He believes abortion laws should be decided by states, not the federal government.

Exactly. Which also means that if (like I said previously) he sticks to his guns, we don't have to worry about the stupid republican dead horse abortion federal ban crusade taking up his time when he clearly has more important issues to work on for the country.

Hence, why I, pro choice, don't feel any conflict when supporting him.

 

[JakeStratham]

Word. If Ron Paul manages to win the nomination, sticks to his guns and doesn't succumb to the republican right ( and thereby going against true libertarian principles) I will have no problem voting for him and against obama.

That said, if one of those other clowns get the nomination, then I have no problem voting for obama (with maniacal glee).

If I remember correctly, you are a self-professed libertarian. Thus, I assume you understand the principle of non-aggression, the cornerstone of libertarianism. It is logically untenable to remain true to libertarianism while voting for Obama, given his demonstrated use of aggression.*

So, what am I missing? Do you misunderstand libertarianism?



* I can make a further logical argument regarding the notion of voting, but will stop here.

 

[guerilla]

Wow, assuming you are serious with this argument, I just lost respect for you.

1. If you disagree, articulate why.

2. I wasn't looking for respect. I'm not starting a cult or political party.

3. Truth isn't a personality contest.

Pro choice is not the opposite of pro life. Anti-life is the opposite of pro-life, hence my post, which was a little funny and a whole lot of serious.

Ron Paul supports the rights of women to choose what to do with their own bodies. He supports it absolutely, including drug use, prostitution, scarring and even suicide.

He does not however believe that a fetus is not a living creature. And in libertarian theory, one person's rights cannot infringe on the rights of another living being. They have to be able to co-exist.

Needless to say, it's a complex issue, and I can see the argument that there is no way to determine the precise moment life, in the sense of a soul, or that spark of human awareness, precisely enters the equation.

However, a pro-choice position, taken seriously and to its logical end, means that an abortion is ok 1 minute before birth. Because the pro-choice position is that the woman has absolute dominion over her body, including the fetus within her, regardless of any other circumstance.

So if you're ok with last minute baby terminations, as Paul has described that he once saw a newborn baby put into a bucket and left in the corner of a room to die, then cool. I mean, it's not my position, but I accept there are people in the world with different values than me.

However, being pro-choice isn't without its issues, if you do not support the concept of a last minute abortion, and/or you don't believe the fetus is a living sentient being until after it has left the mother's body.

Before any knee jerk replies are posted, read this again and again until you understand what I am saying. Then disagree with it, and articulate why. I'm not interested in trolls like PseudoNym, or knee jerk attacks.

If you believe something to be true and right, articulate it. Particularly if you felt the need to declare it will influence your voting (who cares?) publicly.

Hope that explains what I was saying better.

 

[turbolapp]

If I remember correctly, you are a self-professed libertarian. Thus, I assume you understand the principle of non-aggression, the cornerstone of libertarianism. It is logically untenable to remain true to libertarianism while voting for Obama, given his demonstrated use of aggression.*

Voting is your voice. I'll use my voice however I damn well please and If I choose to vote for a candidate in in clear attempt to undermine the Republicans for a previous colossal failure at not nominating the only candidate worth running this country then I will do so.

At this point, I don't care if that fits your definition of libertarian, I'm really not here to do so.

 

[JakeStratham]

Voting is your voice. I'll use my voice however I damn well please and If I choose to vote for a candidate in in clear attempt to undermine the Republicans for a previous colossal failure at not nominating the only candidate worth running this country then I will do so.

At this point, I don't care if that fits your definition of libertarian, I'm really not here to do so.

I have my answer.

You have also reminded me that emotion and logic rarely occupy the same space.

 

[Russ86]

1. If you disagree, articulate why.

Pro choice is not the opposite of pro life. Anti-life is the opposite of pro-life, hence my post, which was a little funny and a whole lot of serious.

This is where your logic is flawed. The same flaw that Pseudo Nym pointed out (he wasn't trolling)... Pro-life is a term used to define a stance on abortion, not a position toward life in general, which shouldn't need to be explained at this level of argument between adults on a web forum... but it's the one fundamental flaw in your logic that makes your whole argument pretty silly, so its necessary to point out. Pro-life is the opposite of of pro choice in this context, because its about one's stance on a political and moral issue: that of abortion... not the whether or not someone is against or for life in general.

It's also important to understand that one's stance, pro-life or pro-choice, isn't a 'black and white' issue or decision.. it's more of a scale in which most people lean either one way or another. While some may take a hard and strict stance for one side, most people find themselves somewhere in the middle of the scale. For example, someone who leans more pro life may consider all abortion to be immoral unless the woman was a victim of rape. Or perhaps someone who is pro choice is only ok with early term abortions.

The reason I said I lost respect for you was because you are taking the term 'Pro-Life' out of context by translating into it's literal definition in order to support your side of a debate. And in this case, its awkwardly obvious what you were doing.

 

[Russ86]

Exactly. Which also means that if (like I said previously) he sticks to his guns, we don't have to worry about the stupid republican dead horse abortion federal ban crusade taking up his time when he clearly has more important issues to work on for the country.

Hence, why I, pro choice, don't feel any conflict when supporting him.

Ah great, thanks for this clarification.

 

[Napolean]

The reason I said I lost respect for you was because you are taking the term 'Pro-Life' out of context by translating into it's literal definition in order to support your side of a debate. And in this case, its awkwardly obvious what you were doing.

Oh I see.. your mistake was that internet etiquette dictates that you articulate an opinion like that with "I see what you did there".

Ah great, thanks for this clarification.

You're welcome?

 

[guerilla]

Pro-life is a term used to define a stance on abortion, not a position toward life in general, which shouldn't need to be explained at this level of argument between adults on a web forum...

But what does the term mean? It's not a position on abortion, it is a principle regarding the value of human life.

That principle is applied to positions regarding abortion. Massive difference.

By living, you're engaging in a performative contradiction if you're truly not pro-life.

Now, if you are pro-choice, that's different. You're welcome to articulate why you support pro-choice. Ron Paul might even agree with you on most of it.

Of course, it would be helpful for you to explain your stand from first principles.

but it's the one fundamental flaw in your logic that makes your whole argument pretty silly, so its necessary to point out. Pro-life is the opposite of of pro choice in this context, because its about one's stance on a political and moral issue: that of abortion... not the whether or not someone is against or for life in general.

See my post explaining that pro choice and pro life are two different arguments, not two sides of the same argument.

The pro life argument is that all human life is precious and should be defended.

The pro choice argument is that a woman's body is sovereign, and she should have absolute authority over everything that happens to that body.

They aren't the same at all. You could even say that pro-choice is a direct consequence of being pro-life.

Ron Paul is both pro life and pro choice.

it's more of a scale in which most people lean either one way or another.

That's called moral relativism. Ethics are not aesthetic choices. Whether killing is ok or not, is not the same as whether or not chocolate ice cream tastes good. The nature of the opinion is radically different.

While some may take a hard and strict stance for one side, most people find themselves somewhere in the middle of the scale.

And ... ?

Some people film themselves sticking glass coke bottles in their ass and post it online. How does what some people do inform us about facts or morality?

The reason I said I lost respect for you was because you are taking the term 'Pro-Life' out of context by translating into it's literal definition in order to support your side of a debate. And in this case, its awkwardly obvious what you were doing.

To recap;

You claimed you were against pro life.

I pointed out the logical inconsistency of that position.

You said that I was changing the means of the terms involved and you lost respect for me because I pointed out the error in your statement.

I have now explained what the terms mean, and how they apply.

Your move.

 

[guerilla]

I gotta do some work, and I really don't want to have deep philosophical arguments on Wickedfire, so I will end with this.

The "abortion issue" is about when (if ever pre-birth) the fetus is a human being with a right to life and liberty.

It is not an easy issue. The only context it can be framed as a women's rights issue, is whether the mother is the person who can determine when that life has started. Which opens up another can of worms, mainly that if a mother can end the life one minute before birth, then why can't she end it one minute after birth?

Again, not an easy issue.

No one is denying women autonomy, and except for Russ, no one is denying that life is good.

Have a nice day.

 

[greenleaves]

Ron Paul is both pro life and pro choice.

I agree with your definitions, as they are the correct ones. However Paul is neither pro life, anti-life, pro choice or anti choice.

He simply believes it is not for the federal gov to get into. States deciding is what he advocates for. He is against the death penalty, drug wars and abortion laws at a FEDERAL level. Not state. My Take: That is the best of both worlds. If everything is determined on a state by state basis, then states can make decisions which will make them more attractive or less attractive (like companies on an open market). So if Cali wants to legalize weed and abortions, they can. Then if people like that, they move their and cali will prosper. If another state is against that, then people who like that can move there.

 

[guerilla]

I agree with your definitions, as they are the correct ones. However Paul is neither pro life, anti-life, pro choice or anti choice.

He simply believes it is not for the federal gov to get into.

Your last sentence is correct, however that is a political position, not an ethical one.

 

[Russ86]

The pro life argument is that all human life is precious and should be defended.

Please indicate any authoritative source that backs this up.. otherwise it appears you are now just spewing shit out of the wrong end in order to try to save face.

Ron Paul is both pro life and pro choice.

Oh I get it, so you've redefined the entire political landscape regarding matters of abortion all by yourself.. damn dude, props.

...


Guerilla, I've drastically over-estimated you. I hate to say it, but the fact we are arguing the very definition of the term pro-life, which just so happens to be the basis of your argument, speaks volumes about either your ignorance or inability to use logic in debate... anyway, I'll just wrap this up as I have better things to do as well.

pro-life (advocating full legal protection of embryos and fetuses (especially opposing the legalization of induced abortions))

Source: WordNet Search - 3.1

pro-life
[proh-lahyf]
adjective
opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life.

Source: Pro-life | Define Pro-life at Dictionary.com


Pro-life : Opposed to abortion.

Source: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life

There are the technical definitions. Now, let's just assume for a second, for your sake, that we actually were talking about pro life outside of a political context as you are suggesting... in that case, please feel free to list your sources indicating that the term 'pro-life' is actually a broader principle that refers to the value and regard for all life, as you suggest.. at least then, your points will appear to stem from somewhere.

I admire your commitment to your case, but you'll learn that when your entire argument is based on logic that is fundamentally flawed, in this case the meaning of pro-life as it pertains to this discussion, you just wind up talking yourself in circles. I just hope you are some sort of 24 hour bender and wake up tomorrow and retract what you said, at least then you could chalk it up to sleep deprivation.

Good day, sir.

 

[Napolean]

The "abortion issue" is about when (if ever pre-birth) the fetus is a human being with a right to life and liberty.

It is not an easy issue. The only context it can be framed as a women's rights issue, is whether the mother is the person who can determine when that life has started. Which opens up another can of worms, mainly that if a mother can end the life one minute before birth, then why can't she end it one minute after birth?

Again, not an easy issue.

I would like to know how someone could then consider themselves pro-life but turn around and eat bacon, steak, or other meats. Or use products made from animals.

If you are pro-life, then you should agree that no creature should have to die for something as petty as a luxury item, or lunch.

People would argue that animals aren't human because they don't have the same intelligence or self-awareness.

Neither does a fetus, a fetus's brain for the most part is less developed than an animals until late in the pregnancy. So claiming that the fetus has more rights than an animals, is not easy in my opinion, to justify.

In fairness, we could advocate that animals that kill other animals should be considered fair game. However, cows don't kill other animals, and deer don't *usually* kill other animals except in self defense. Neither kill other animals to eat them, so we can't justify eating cows and deer from that perspective either. It does justify eating fish, lobster, and other sea food.

Yet, I am still comfortable going out on a limb and saying that a majority of pro-lifers don't give hunting a second thought.

Then we get into the issue of health complications such as an ectopic pregnancy. If the mothers health is threatened, and terminating the pregnancy is the only safe choice, isn't that a given?

To be totally fair on that point though, Ron Paul has said that he has never seen himself, a pregnancy that actually needed to be terminated, that there were always safe alternatives. He would know this better than any of us.

Personally, I don't believe in abortion being used casually like just another birth control method. Everyone is responsible for themselves, and it doesn't take much effort to prevent oneself from getting pregnant. I don't have many qualms about early term abortions, like 3 to 9 weeks. But late term definitely bothers me. In my opinion, to wait until that point to terminate shows a gross lack of personal accountability and unbelievable egocentrism.