• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread

Its not a matter of whether an unborn has rights, its whether it has more rights than its mother, which it doesn't. If it can survive outside its mother's body, its welcome to live (so yes, some abortive procedures are immoral), if it can't well, sorry, but the law can't force it to. I don't know about you, but if government agents started coming around demanding everyone give blood to save the country, I think I'd keep a pretty stong grip on my shotgun.
 
mulberryman said:
Its not a matter of whether an unborn has rights, its whether it has more rights than its mother, which it doesn't. If it can survive outside its mother's body, its welcome to live (so yes, some abortive procedures are immoral), if it can't well, sorry, but the law can't force it to. I don't know about you, but if government agents started coming around demanding everyone give blood to save the country, I think I'd keep a pretty stong grip on my shotgun.
that's interesting because I actually realized, just last night, that abortions seem to be allowed waaay later in a pregnancy than I had thought, and later than I feel is ethical. I think the measure of 'can it live outside of its mother, and would removing it cause undue stress to the mother?' should be the line you cannot have an abortion past.

<<Off topic - mulberryman I would've pm'd you but I don't think you'd read a pm from me. Anyways this is a new thread about healthcare I don't think you've posted in, and I know you've got a lot to say on this issue:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?p=5420345&posted=1#post5420345 >>>>>>>
 
The War on Christmas and Religion

As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

(click for your author)
 
my guess is "made of founding father material" has never read Jefferson, Madison, Franklin or Thomas Paine, or i dunno, knows what the fuck a theist is. Maybe he needs some summer reading of something other than the federlatist papers
 
mulberryman said:
Its not a matter of whether an unborn has rights, its whether it has more rights than its mother, which it doesn't. If it can survive outside its mother's body, its welcome to live (so yes, some abortive procedures are immoral), if it can't well, sorry, but the law can't force it to. I don't know about you, but if government agents started coming around demanding everyone give blood to save the country, I think I'd keep a pretty stong grip on my shotgun.

Saying that it is a question of whether the baby has as many rights as the mother is comparible as to saying during the civil rights movement that it was a question of whether or not black people had as many rights as white people. The simple fact is that all people are created equally and have the same rights. The only question is if the unborn child is a person which I truly believe. Regardless of the level of development, the end result is the same.

As far as your comparison to giving blood goes, there is a huge difference between mandating that you help someone, and mandating that you don't harm someone.
 
Ron Paul's beliefs dealing with religion always bothers me. I have to agree with really separating religious beliefs from schools and other government centers. However, I don't think Christmas really should be considered totally Christian Holiday. My family celebrates Christmas but in no way shape or form is anyone in my family religious. Its about bringing the family together. I honestly don't mind seeing Christmas decorations (on government and school property), as long as it strays away from religion.
 
now for a comment, i wish people would just admit it. In terms of the GOP i think he's the best canidate. on the wide spectrum... i like him, gravel and kucinich.. but guess what..

all three have so many great ideas most of the "establishment" politicians don't have, we tend to ignore their ugly, stupid, silly sides.

Rather than defending them rampantly, why not just look at them as another politician rather than some god coming to save us all.
 
ron paul said it best himself, "There's stuff I don't agree with you on, but atleast I can trust you."
 
foodisgood said:
Saying that it is a question of whether the baby has as many rights as the mother is comparible as to saying during the civil rights movement that it was a question of whether or not black people had as many rights as white people. The simple fact is that all people are created equally and have the same rights. The only question is if the unborn child is a person which I truly believe. Regardless of the level of development, the end result is the same.

As far as your comparison to giving blood goes, there is a huge difference between mandating that you help someone, and mandating that you don't harm someone.

not really. Just as those who argue that the fetus' right to life is more important the mother's right to liberty are dead wrong. The right to liberty is more important than the right to life, which is why civil rights movement continues to be so successful, and why our country was founded. "Give me liberty or give me death!" We Americans would surely rather dies as free men (or women :)) than live as slaves. Even an unborn baby cannot be any woman's master.
 
The thing about liberty is that you are not free to infringe upon the rights of others. I'm not free to walk into your house and steal from you because I would be infringing upon your right to your property. A mother doesn't have the right to abort her child because she is infringing upon the childs right to life. What you are describing is anarchy.
 
foodisgood said:
The thing about liberty is that you are not free to infringe upon the rights of others. I'm not free to walk into your house and steal from you because I would be infringing upon your right to your property. A mother doesn't have the right to abort her child because she is infringing upon the childs right to life. What you are describing is anarchy.

You seem to be arguing from the standpoint that a zygote is a child. Also, that doesn't define anarchy in the least. You are thinking of a disordered state, anarchy holds that a without a governing body, people self-govern without implication.
 
A person's body is a person's body, just as a person's home is their home and noone can force their will upon them in such, no matter how altruistic that will may be. Consider that if a burglar breaks into your house, you have every right to shoot that person dead. Similarly, a fetus is inside a woman's body, and she has every right to do whatever she wants with her body in a free society. I'd agree that in some cases a doctor performing some abortions, such as late term, and partial birth abortions is unethical and should not be allowed, but if a woman aborts a baby herself, even in the 9th month, she should never be considered criminal for what she, or anyone else for that matter does with their own bodies, ever. One of the biggest problems we face in our society today is that far too many people don't think we, as humans, need to have our personal freedoms guaranteed, and the government should be allowed to dictate how we live our lives.
 
mulberryman said:
Consider that if a burglar breaks into your house, you have every right to shoot that person dead.
good post, just want to clarify this is NOT always the case, lest anyone completely ruin their lives following that. Some states are 'last resort' only, meaning if you heard someone in your living room stealing your TV, and they just said fuck off and walked towards the door with the TV, and you shot them in the back while they were walking towards your front door, you'd be in trouble for that.
 
mulberryman said:
A person's body is a person's body, just as a person's home is their home and noone can force their will upon them in such, no matter how altruistic that will may be. Consider that if a burglar breaks into your house, you have every right to shoot that person dead. Similarly, a fetus is inside a woman's body, and she has every right to do whatever she wants with her body in a free society. I'd agree that in some cases a doctor performing some abortions, such as late term, and partial birth abortions is unethical and should not be allowed, but if a woman aborts a baby herself, even in the 9th month, she should never be considered criminal for what she, or anyone else for that matter does with their own bodies, ever. One of the biggest problems we face in our society today is that far too many people don't think we, as humans, need to have our personal freedoms guaranteed, and the government should be allowed to dictate how we live our lives.

The problem with that situation is that an unborn child does not invade a women's body. Over 98% of the time the mother gets pregnant because she chose to have sex. The problem in our society is not the lack of personal freedom (though that is a big problem in many other areas), but the lack of responsibility when facing up to the consequences of our actions.
 
foodisgood, a lot of women who have abortions have reasons such as the fact that they're not ready for a child. If they assumed responsibility for the situation as you suggest, it'd be likely they'll raise a kid they weren't ready for, which in a lot of circumstances will completely suck.
 
bingalpaws said:
foodisgood, a lot of women who have abortions have reasons such as the fact that they're not ready for a child. If they assumed responsibility for the situation as you suggest, it'd be likely they'll raise a kid they weren't ready for, which in a lot of circumstances will completely suck.

Not to sound like a bitch but too bad. Guess what, life can suck. Just because you screw up doesnt give you a pass to punish your child for your mistake.
 
Top