Time to get behind Ron Paul

I am a pro-lifer that believes it is everyones right to decide whether or not they want to have a safe abortion, done by a professional. This seems like a paradox, but it really isn't. You create chaos whenever you try to control individuals. Look at prohibition of alcohol and drugs. You can't prevent these things from happening, all you can do is make it illegal. And all making something illegal does is adds onto problems that it tries to solve. You can't prevent these behaviors. And when you try to, people become alienated by its government; The same people that the government swears to protect. But the best way to protect your citizens is by giving them freedoms and to provide support for when they need it, at the same time help them to remain independent.

The overpopulation problem isn't with lack of abortions, but the lack of a sense of responsibility that people have over sex. Sure, sexual freedom is a right, but this freedom isn't entirely free in that it requires a certain degree of discipline. Sex can inevitably lead to pregnancies as well as STDs. The best solution to unwanted pregnancies isn't with abortions, but to reestablish the responsibility that everyone has whenever they decide to express their sexual freedoms. Sex without responsibility, leads to chaos.


Is there any trimester during pregnancy that decides when it is wrong and when it is right to have an abortion? How do you choose this? I don't know when life begins, and to what point where it becomes a crime, but I do understand potentiality. Many premature babies survive and lead very happy and healthy lives, so why not give this same chance to an even simpler beginnings of human life? How far back do we go to allow this chance of life to take place? The blastocyst may be tiny, but its size is irreverent if it'll eventually go onto a more complex stage of human development. Many would say that sometimes nature decides to abort these cells at a certain moment in time, but the decision is with nature, and not with us. We aren't seers and we can't tell which blastocysts or which early stages of human development will go onto a more complex stage of human development until we allow ourselves to see for ourselves.

 

thank you for demonstrating my point. the right to life agenda is that ALL human life, even a few microscopic human cells, should be given the same rights as a grown female. that is why i believe right to lifers like Ron Paul are a HUGE risk...given his voting record, i would even say a known risk. some may say they wouldn't take advantage of holding the most powerful position in the world to push forth their agenda (for whatever reason)...but ask yourself this...do you really want to take that risk? there is no foolproof form of birth control! accidental pregnancies will continue to happen. this is not due to irresponsible behavior. even in cases where there is some irresponsibility involved, we're talking about forcing millions of irresponsible people to become parents! this will contribute to overpopulation that we cannot afford, and it's just the tip of the iceberg. as i said before, the long-term agenda of the right to lifers is no birth control and turning back the clock to a time when a time when people had no right to sexual freedom. if they have their way, abstinence will be the only birth control method available and Planned Parenthood will be a distant memory. they are the political force behind the fight against the morning after pill, and they're just getting warmed up. we cannot afford to keep placing environmental issues on the back burner, much less the reproductive rights of millions of people. if you are looking for a candidate to vote for, i urge you not to consider so-called 'right to life' candidates.

 

who do you endorse as a candidate? seriously.. you don't like Paul but who do you like? I actually don't think I can endorse any candidate.. they're all corporate whores.. congress is owned by corporations and even if there was candidate that got elected and purported to love freedom as much as Dr. Paul that person wouldn't be able to get anything done politically anyway. He currently gets very little done politically because he is always the only person voting against corporate agendas.

Watch this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=V3q64Wc3gGw

And for the record regardless of how much you care for a woman's right to choose because of the evangelical aspect of the pro-life movement America continues to become progressively more pro-life everyday. My suggestion is that NARAL, planned-parenthood, etc. step it up a bit or we're gunna get stuck with Romney and lose a women's right to choose and end up with a raped constitution.

And also even the state forbids the right to choose abortion there will not be a population explosion simply because that is not going to prevent people from getting abortions. The same exact thing will happen that happens in every other country that does not have access to birth control or abortion clinics and that is a black-market abortion industry-- in America it might be a little more clean but for the most part since it is unregulated it will be up to doctors who legitmately care about a women's right to choose to defy the law. your fear of no abortion should not lie in population explosions but rather in the violation of human rights that comes out of forcing people into unsanitary health situations.

 

i haven't made a decision. i'm still trying to figure out if there's a candidate who hasn't been bought or not. i do believe that we have to avoid the appearance of a mandate in this country to deny women their reproductive rights. even if the election is subverted, the people doing that know they didn't have a mandate if they have to steal the election. i know that most people in the US don't believe in giving a mandate to the right to lifers, but if they lay back and say nothing a mandate will be assumed. organizations who fight to retain women's reproductive rights can only do what they have the resources to do...so support them.

the problem is that people think it can't really happen...that our rights can't be taken away. but it can, and they are. i lived in alaska when smoking pot was legal. a lot of people didn't bother to go to the polls to support the retention of their rights, and the conservatives who showed up at the polls took that right away.

 

>>Many people tell me that Gravel is the best candidate, yet want to vote for another, because others 'may stand a greater chance'. This is insane because all you have to do to get these people elected is to vote for the candidate that you think is the best, not who you think may or may not win! You vote for the man that you want to see in office. The reason why 'he has no chance', if I believe you on that, is because people have your attitude. You vote for the person you believe in, simple as that. You're a part of the reason why these great candidates don't win, and the sooner you realize that, the better. Don't listen to gallup polls, they mean nothing. Listen to your beliefs.<<
I know it's wrong that we as a country don't listen to our beliefes politicaly, but the fact remains that we don't, and we probably never ever will. You have to make compremizes some times, rather then throwing a vote away. THIS IS A COUNTRY OF MODERATES. There would still be an overwhelming majority that refuse to take the extream votes and go for Hillery or Guliani even if everyone voted for Gravel and Ron Paul who liked them. I'm sorry things are not the way they should be, or the way you or I want, but they are the way they are in this case. Chances are they wont chainge for a long time.

 

im gonna come out and make this "extremist" comment
people who dont vote for a candidate solely because they "cant win" are idiots
that is all.

 

love the lil 15 year old kids who come on here and call people idiots.

i went for ralph nader for 2 elections and got 8 years of GW. so i'm VERY interested in liberal candidates who are ELECTABLE. unless enough people SHARE your idealism, your vote doesn't count for much.

 

yeah, cause being 15 means i cant recognize an idiot
what'd you do to spread the word of ralph nader?
how much money'd you donate?
did you even care?
You'll never hear someone say " well I used to support ron paul, but now I support ______"
His supporters dont ACCEPT substitutes.
the point of democracy is YOU HAVE A CHOICE.
you dont have to vote for someone just cause "all the cool kids are doin' it."
vote with your brain, not someone elses.

 

You remind me of my parents. They both voted for Nader in 1996/2000. Of course they justified it by saying that even without being elected, if he could get 5% of the vote, then the Green Party could get federal funding or something similar. But now they are disillusioned and are looking, like you, at big party/media endorsed candidates, trying to choose the lesser of two evils.