20 votes

Being Pro-Life Is Hard When You're A Guy!

So I was having this conversation with one of my gf's female friends I began to tell her why I'm pro-life. I said first there's really no way to regulate it! She said I thought you didn't like to regulate stuff, I said yeah on everything else! Drugs, foods, school, but not murder! I said look there are doctors who follow the rules and abort fetuses that aren't that old( which I still think is disgusting), but there are some doctors who can care less and would abort a baby who's 6months or 7 or 8! She said that doesn't happen Juano and I said, but I've heard stories, she said exactly "HEARD" stories, that doesn't make it true. So I went on my IPhone and showed her a story, anyway she begins to cry and says she has gotten 2 abortions her self and says Juano you would never know because you're a guy! She said there was no way she could have taken care of those kids, she's struggling as it is now! And I said I do understand, but you would of been a good mother, your a great person! Then she says but imagine how different my life would be? I said well yeah duh lol. I said if you moved to NYC your life would be different too, she says no it wouldn't! I'm single I could do what ever I want. I said why didn't you just put them up for adoption? She says she didn't want to because she felt that she would end up wanting to keep the baby when she saw it and that just wasn't an option. She says Juano what if a girls rape or incest occurs? I said what about it? She goes comeon! Your not thinking logically! I said no your not! The girls already a victom, you want the baby to be one too? She pauses for a long time, then says I see what you're saying Juano, but.... but... Idk. I guess that's just how I feel! Lol I said I use to think just like you until I found Dr. Paul! I said if you met a kid and someone told you hey he or she is a product of a rape would you treat that kid any different? She says of course not! And I said, I don't think you would if it were your baby either! She said Juano you're right! She goes I never looked at it like that! Then we just kept on drinking lol.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
metalhed19's picture

I would also like to add

I would also like to add "Death of the West" to this list.

*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"

Best Book on What happened to America

Buchanan is great Writer. I have read most of his books. I wish every dailypaul reader would read them before masquerading as know all.

There are so many open-border leftists here, who think they are libertarians.

But the book of the century is this


You can convert it and read on Kindle. Its author is one of the leading evolutionary psychologists in the world.

free speech is under attack, so read it before its banned under hate speech laws.

Also available from Amazon.


BestRonPaulVideo, Totalitarianism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M#t=28m28s
BestVideo, Political Correctness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8pzG02oxU#t=19s
Bestbook, Totalitarianism, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0759672229

Yeah, I've run into some of them.

But, they're not all Leftists. Libertarians are somewhat divided on immigration policy. If you carry the principle of free trade over to immigration, then you would have to support the free flow of people as well as goods across borders. What they fail to take consideration of though is the fact that goods don't have cultures and mindsets like people. If a nation wants to preserve its culture and values, it has to at least keep the brakes on the number of immigrants it lets in from places that have radically different cultures and values. People can certainly change and adapt to our culture, form of government, and way of life. But, if we let in 5 million of them at once, they won't; they'll just group together like different tribes and expect us to bend our laws and traditions to fit their customs.

the problem

is not that there is free trade, or even free movement of peoples. The problem is that caucasian peoples simply do not have enough children to counterbalance other peoples who are immigrating. It is the way that decadent societies always fail in the end. There is no way to change it except to have a lot of children yourself if you think it is an important thing (skin color that is) but I do not. I think it would be better to inform the immigrants in how the society should work from a libertarian point of view. I care not whether someone is white or black or yellow or purple, as long as they are willing to openly listen to reason, and willing to live within a nation of laws. It is not the color of our skin that made us great, but our unity of purpose in a nation of laws (mostly) evenly applied, that is the miracle of western civilization which is vanishing before our eyes.

Josh Brueggen
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois

The color of their skin has little to nothing to do with it

it's the culture and mindset they bring with them. You would like to educate them on libertarian government, but the vast majority of natural-born American whites are not libertarians. Think about California. It is currently impossible for a Republican to win California because the Mexican immigrants want welfare programs and handouts. You can certainly educate immigrants if they come by the tens of thousands, but you can't educate them if they come by the millions at one time.

Left wing Libertarians, Poor Underatanding of Free Trade

Most Libertarians have a poor understanding of Free Trade. I debated this issue with 2 others a few days ago and when they could not defeat me intellectually, they hurled abuses and ran away.

Here is what I said, (combining of two posts):
You are proposing trade without tariffs which is arbitrage trade, not free trade at all.

Marx supported free trade without tariffs. Here is what he said more than 100 years ago:

...the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point…the Free trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone...I am in favor of Free Trade...

Founders knew better. They supported general tariffs to pay for defense, foreign affairs, treasury, and justice, the 4 constitutional departments.

Some force is necessary to protect life, liberty and property. National Defense, local police, tariffs are those things.

Under general tariffs, Govt does not dole out tax payer money or regulatory favor to either ford or toyota or both.Or block entry of a new player. Under general tariffs All japanese, koreans, germans, etc are welcome to compete in US with Americans with zero corporate tax, 0 income tax, 0 sales tax etc.

So tariffs are not govt intervention. Your accusation would be valid if tariffs were designed to artificially prop up GM, Chrysler, etc, to compete against Honda, which would make them subsidies or protective tariffs, not general tariffs.

There is no tariff between 50 States because constitution organizes all 50 States under federal govt.

If China and US were under single govt with common constitution, then yes I would agree to tariff free trade with China.

If all nations were under world govt with world army and world constitution, then yes tariff free world trade makes sense because then there is no arbitrage.

"Who cares if Toyota dumps their products". - The answer to that is simple. You need single set of laws, rules, regulations under single national govt governing both Japan and US.

Without tariffs, free trade is like one side playing judo and other side playing football with other other. The contest would turn into a circus.

BestRonPaulVideo, Totalitarianism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M#t=28m28s
BestVideo, Political Correctness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8pzG02oxU#t=19s
Bestbook, Totalitarianism, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0759672229

Limited Government: The God

Limited Government: The God That Failed. Q.-- When is it ok to use force to achieve political ends? A.-- When it's for the common good. And of course the list of "problems" that need to be addressed by force becomes endless. Neat though, how force/coercion becomes non-intervention by the statists twists of tortured logic.

yeah there creating a divide,

yeah there creating a divide, its just awful man!

juan maldonado

The reason I said its hard

The reason I said its hard for guys to be pro-choice is because im runnning into alot of girls who have gotten abortions and i guess it brings back memories! it sucks man! because im trying to explain to them why i feel the way I feel, but they dont even think I have a right to do that. idk its kind of hard to explain.we need to change the morality of our people guys, before its to late!

juan maldonado

Who Is .....

the giver of life and the taker of life?


Your girlfriend

apparently is a murdering slut. And you keep company with that trash? Says a lot about you too. And how does your story in any way relay that it is hard to be pro life if you are a guy?


judgemental much?

I don't play, I commission the league.

My girl friend? What are you

My girl friend? What are you talking about? Why calling woman sluts? Your a Ron Paul supporter? Lol

juan maldonado

I'm sorry, I misspoke.

Your girlfriends girlfriend.

Let's recount her story. She spreads her legs who knows how many times and gets pregnant and murders her child then she continues to spread he legs and gets pregnant again and kills that child also.

Ok, let's see. Sexual promiscuity = slut. Multiple abortions = murder.

Yep I'm right again. I just don't sugar coat it to make it sound like something sweet and innocent.

I also don't know why being a Ron Paul supporter means that you can't call a kettle black. Must be your pet peeve or something.

As far as I am concerned, a

As far as I am concerned, a baby that is on the umbilical cord is to me considered a part of that person. There is no separation. Just as a person born as a parasitic twin, there is a right to removal.


The thing is though is that

The thing is though is that the women created the so called "parasite" through her own actions. Fully knowing what would or could happen if she had sex unprotected or otherwise. In that way she signed a de facto contract to life with that child. The sole function of sex is to procreate. It is believed sexual pleasure was developed in humans through evolutionary processes in order to have an incentive to pro-create. How would fully conscious entities like human beings survive if there was no incentive to further there race? You must realize that aspect of humankind. Abortion is murder, there's no getting around that. It is the demoralization of society that leads people to see it the other way around.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeles

That is probably

the most idiotic statement I've heard concerning abortion and the unborn baby. Now we know that amartin315 is an idiot.

really? you think so?

really? you think so?

juan maldonado

Are you aware that fetuses

Are you aware that fetuses have seperate DNA and organ systems from its mother and are you aware that the mother does not feel the sensations that the fetus feels? Are you aware that a fetus implants itself to the uterus? Are you aware that the relationship between a fetus and a mother is mutualistic and not parasitic? What in the hell is a right to remove?

1. I don't consider DNA to

1. I don't consider DNA to be the 'essence' of what makes a person a person. There is no absolute philosophical way to determine that other than, "I know what it is when I see it."

2. Some doctors say pain starts at 20 weeks, but there is little verifiable research into the matter, but I can't possibly see how a fetus feels anything and they certainly don't remember the experience later on in life. If a fetus feels though, I imagine it would be awfully torturous to be cooped up without air eating waste products through a belly button while waiting to be pooped out of a 3 inch hole. But I really don't think the fetus has any sensations whatsoever. And the kicking is involuntary.

3. What does you point about the fetus implanting itself have to do with anything? Yes first the egg detaches or leaves its original location and heads south once fertilized and reattaches. Part of the body.

4. Actually now that I think of it, a fetus matches the definition of what a parasite is to the letter. Parasite = "An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense."

5. Right to remove. As I explained, I believe that just as a person has the right to cut out a parasitic twin, so too does a mother have the right to cut out a parasite. I don't mean this word derivatively, it just is what it is.

6. Finally I'll say this. I've seen a bunch of these crazy doctor shows where they do surgeries on poor people with extreme appendages in third world countries. A lot of it is very disturbing, disgusting, and provocative. I do not find an abortion to be any more so, except in as much as I believe it is better to avoid an abortion if you can.


You are wrong on every

You are wrong on every count.

1. DNA is the essence of humanity. Everyone's DNA is distinct to that individual. If your DNA was different by just a few chromosomes you would be a a monkey or a pig or something. Human DNA is what makes people human and is the key to there intelligience over all living things and the key to there consciencousness. Which most baser animals are believed to lack. It's that simple. So DNA is the "essence" of a person.

2. It doesn't matter if it feels pain or not. It would feel pain if it was living just like you and I feel pain. It would also feel the joys of life as well. By having an abortion you deny the child a right to either of these feelings. Also consciousness does not fully develop until late around the second year. That is why you generally don't remember anything before you are three. So a baby that does not "remember being in the womb." Thus your argument is retarded as per your argument anyone under the age of two could be killed(which some pro-abortionists have been in favor of.) Look it up there was a research paper by two british scientists recently that advocated killing children under the age of two if they were unwanted for the reasons stated above!

3. The fetus planted itself because of the actions undertaken by the mother and father. Both of whom fully knew what could or would happen if they had sexual intercourse, Ex: A Fetus or baby. Thus the parents are responsible for that fetus' action, the fetus' action is 100% involuntary by it thus it's not liable to removal.

4. An actual parasite is an unwanted and uninvited guest as you well know. So by having sexual intercourse the women signed a contract with her own existence to carry the baby to term. Thus furthering her race. The fetus was invited by hert actions. Sexual intercourse is purely for reproduction. Pleasure is an evolutionary developement to ensure we fully conscience humans have an incentive to procreate.

5. Since a fetus is not a parasite it has no right to removal. So your argument is null and void.

6. That is good to know, yet I think you find it disgusting because deep down you know it's wrong. That's some food for thought.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeles

1. The essence of human life

1. The essence of human life is, of course, the rational soul present in all human beings. Any other definition leads to a relativistic anti-life worldview that can be used to support horrors such as eugenics. For example, if we define human life as the state of being conscious, not only may the unborn be murdered but also the severely disabled and comatose may be murdered.

2. You are equating scarcity of evidence with no evidence. There is enough scientific investigation to show that fetuses have sensations of pain. The fact that you cannot possibly see how a fetus feels has no effect on reality. The uterus is designed to host a fetus; you're equating once again your speculation on unborn life with reality and have decided it must be torturous. Even if it were torturous, it does not justify an even more torturous killing.

3. You clearly have never studied anatomy in your life. Body parts do not have separate DNA from the rest of the body, and the sensations of a fetus are not felt by the mother. A body part would have identical DNA and the sensations would be felt by the person who has said body part.

4. The relationship between a mother and a fetus is not parasitic, it is mutualistic. There are multiple health benefits to pregnancy, including a reduced risk of breast and ovarian cancer and remission of eating disorders and autoimmune disorders. Yet this entire argument demonstrates an ignorance of biology; all symbiosis is between organisms of different species. Therefore, the relationship between the fetus and the mother cannot be any form of symbiosis, though again, it is best described as mutualistic.

5. A fetus is a distinct entity from a person with a parasitic twin. Parasitic twins are incompletely formed human beings that rely on their independent twin for survival, and this is detrimental to the health of the autosite. In cases where removal is attempted, it may result in the death of both, such as in the case of Rebeca Martínez, born with craniopagus parasiticus (a parasitic twin with a head and undeveloped body), whom was operated upon and died. I would argue that the principle of double effect permits the attempt to remove parasitic twins as the intention is not to kill the parasitic twin but to save the life of the autosite. This does not change the fact that the parasitic twin is a human being with a rational soul and thus endowed with the dignity of a human being; arguing otherwise would reduce personhood to an argument of aesthetics as it does not have the appearance of a fully-formed human being.

6. Surgery on malformed limbs disgusts you, therefore, abortion should be legal? This is a fallacious argument. You claim abortion disgusts you as well, then why do you support it?

Your entire argument is based on aesthetics and emotion rather than biology and metaphysics.

1. I can agree with

1. I can agree with rational, but I don't see what absolute proof you have, derived from logic, that there exists a soul or even why it matters if there is a soul. If there is and it is separate, then murder of the soul would be impossible. If there is and it is one with the body, then you would conclude that the soul is the mind and its consciousness which is little understood. And the last sentence is a contradiction. If we define life as being conscious, then by definition we CANNOT possibly murder that body/conglomeration or organs and organisms which has no consciousness. If we define life in terms of brain function, then it is possible to murder someone who is comatose or unborn. But if the brain is not functioning, has never functioned, or is broken beyond repair to a functioning state, then when correctly defined, it is possible to destroy the organic 'life' without having committed murder. With abortion we might argue that the brain will or might function in the future, and therefor it is possible to murder that person. But I would argue that life has not existed, and it is not possible to murder a life which does not exist. The future is contingent and every decision in the past has uniquely and distinctly altered who (say) I am. By, for example, not having altered my sex during pregnancy, they have killed the woman who would have existed today in order to have produced me.

2. There is not enough evidence to show that fetuses feel pain. At best, there is evidence to show that they feel pain starting around 20 weeks. I did not say my speculations about what a fetus feels had a bearing on reality. It was what it was, speculation. The statement you made about the uterus being designed for a purpose is contentious enough with the "design" part, but I'll also say the body was "designed" to grow over time causing things like shin splints and menstrual cramps. Those hurt, and they can hurt a lot. Something being "designed" to do something does not mean it is not painful. Finally with the last sentence you have presumed an abortion to be not only painful, but actually more painful than living in a uterus. Leaving behind the fact that you already prohibited me from speculating on pain, I'll just throw out examples of who we kill people on death row with lethal injection. Assuming there isn't a glitch, it is not painful at all.

3. Right only half the Dna comes from the mother. Still I don't know what bearing that has on this conversation. But you are right, the mother does not feel the fetus sensations nor could she considering the fetus also does not feel sensations.

4. Sure the mother may take a few health benefits but the baby has a capacity to kill the mother too. I was merely taking the dictionary definition of parasite and it does fit. I don't know where you got your definition, but it doesn't sound like one that came out of a specialized scientific dictionary.

5. Right so it is ok to operate on parasitic twins. The parasitic twin with a body and no brain function can be deprived of organic life because it has no conscious life. The siamese twin cannot unless the two agree. A fetus does not have the requisite brain function as I mentioned above since it has never existed before and it impossible to take a nonexistent life (in terms of brain function.)

+ Consider a baby born with Anencephaly. Certainly it is impossible to take the life of a baby that has never had brain function, and if it were to be allowed to continue its organic life, it would never have a capacity to create a conscious life.

+ Consider a baby has no rational capacity to determine if he wants to live or not. There have been cases relatively recently dubbed "wrongful life" suits, where the baby was prohibited from 'dying' in the womb and their life proved to be so miserable that they wish they had never lived. The basic principle here is that what happens in the future to a being that has no rationality to decide for itself cannot be assumed to be preferable or not preferable.


1. Logic is the philosophy of

1. Logic is the philosophy of the analysis of the structure of argument, one cannot "derive from logic" anything. Regardless, the existence of the immortal element of the human person, commonly called the soul, is evident from the ability of the human person to comprehend concepts that transcend the material world, such as mathematics. You cannot weigh the number three. The ability of the human person to participate in activity that transcends space, time, and matter, such as mathematics, shows that the human person must contain a factor that is itself transcendent and not bound by space, time, and matter. Action follows being, therefore, the human must have a transcendent quality. The existence of the soul matters because if there is no distinction between the brute animal and the rational animal, there is no basis for morality and therefore all things are permissible. The soul is not one with the body, the soul is the factor that makes the human body a human body. The presence of amino acids, bones, muscles, and organs do not make the human body a human body. All animals have these. You go on to equate to life with brain function, yet the brain is not necessary to sustain life under all circumstances. There exist animals that can live without a brain, such as the chicken. In the case of human brain death, there exist multiple cases documented in medical literature wherein a patient has entered into a state of brain death and later recovered. Therefore, we cannot define human life as the presence of brain function, or any life, due to the possibility of survival without a brain, as can be observed in multiple non-human animals. This argument relies on a materialistic world view. You go on to make a red herring argument about the contingency of the future, which conveniently brings the debate back to its centerpiece: How can we know the future is contingent of we do not have a quality that transcends time?

2. The argument of fetal pain is another red herring. The popular obsession with pain distracts from the main point of the argument; it implies that if one does not feel pain, it is morally acceptable to kill them. One would not claim that it is morally acceptable to inject morphine directly into a person's heart because it would kill them painlessly; yet we can still show that the killing of the human person is murder. The argument from pain is a distraction.

3. No, none of the DNA comes from the mother. Half of the fetus's chromosomes come from the mother. You again are showing an ignorance of basic biology. You continue to deny the evidence for neonatal perception, but it is irrelevant to the argument because it hinges on a utilitarian world view where avoidance of pain is the highest good.

4. That is interesting, because the non-specialized Concise Columbia Encylcopedia defines parasite as "organism that obtains nourishment from another living organism (the host). The hose, which may or may not be harmed, never benefits from the parasite. Many parasites have more than one host and most cannot survive apart from their host. Parasites include bacteria (e.g., those causing tuberculosis), invertebrates such as worms (e.g., tapeworm), and vertebrates (e.g., the cuckoo, which lays its eggs in the nests of other birds.)" A parasitic symbiotic relationship requires the parasite to depend on the host, a fetus can survive outside of the mother after a certain span of time. The key point is that a parasitic symbiotic relationship is between two radically different species. If I eat uncooked ham and get a tapeworm, the tapeworm is a parasite, because I am not a tapeworm.

5. You are falsely assuming that the brain is the center of consciousness while ignoring the well-documented evidence for near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences. Yet, this does not justify the direct killing of an anencephalic baby. It is against the natural law to directly kill any creature that is not posing a direct and actively aggressive threat to your life. The argument that we should kill the anencephalic is a denial of the virtue of compassion and implies a self-centered utilitarian world view. The fact that the anencephalic child will live a short and inconvenient (to others) life does not justify the killing. To respond to the second part of the argument, you are again arguing from a utilitarian world view that equates convenience and pleasure with value. The very fact that a person dislikes their life is not justification to end it, and the argument can be used to support an anti-abortion position because, as you said, the child cannot decide whether it wants to live or not, therefore, it might decide that it wants to live. I am going to be slammed by the libertarian element on this website, but we are not owners of our body, our bodies are part of ourselves, our self belongs to God. Therefore, we have a natural responsibility towards our own body, as property of God. The very fact that we refuse this responsibility does not alter or negate the existence of it; it only shows that we are refusing our natural responsibilities. If a person is genuinely suffering, they deserve compassion and therapy, not enabling. I would venture to argue that anyone involved in a "wrongful life" lawsuit is not genuinely interested in relief of their suffering, but merely money and attention, but I am getting offtrack from the original point of the argument, that abortion is immoral.

JustLiberty4US's picture

CDC Abortion Stats

It shouldn't make a difference that you are male and have a strong opinion about abortion.

The CDC website lists many useful facts on the number of abortions, age, race, etc. Thousands of late term abortions are done each year, many with babies who are viable outside the womb. It's barbaric and history will judge us harshly. Just think if we lived in a culture that promoted keeping our babies, rather than disposing of them. Instead we turn on the tv, or learn in our schools, how easily the "problem" is solved.


Also, we forget the women who have gone through the horrific procedure without follow-up psychological support and care. These (often) young women live the rest of their lives in regret due to a culture that pushes them to do something violent.

Dr. Paul wrote in "Liberty Defined," that if we let the states handle the issue, it would save many lives. His position does not seem good enough for some people. I think this is a step in the right direction.

well, one of 1988vote is female and one is male--

and we sympathize.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I bet it is hard for guys...

but it is not really much easier for women. The times I have been in those conversations, I am immediately treated as a 'traitor to women', and it is assumed you are a "right wing extremist nut"! They shut down, and throw up walls, before I even open my mouth. And the funny thing is they will accuse you of having the closed mind... because you are trying to have a civil discussion about it. It is a subject that has a lot of heavy emotions surrounding it. Difficult for anyone trying to input some logic I think... regardless of sex.

"I don't know if the world is full of smart men bluffing
or imbeciles who mean it."

reedr3v's picture

On this extremely complex, divisive subject,

I find a soft approach helps open the discussion. I point out that Ron Paul, in his Liberty Defined, takes no hard line; he states his personal conviction but does not advocate force of federal law in imposing it because the issue is one of cultural/social/personal morality and needs to be addressed on that basis for lasting resolution -- not one to be decided by force of law.
I further point out that RP is the one statesman who primarily is interested in discussion of principles and personal responsibility/virtue, not in superficial, hard line divisive partisanship.
The point is, almost everyone needs to look deeper into this issue. Going with MSM sound bites is inadequate.

Dr. paul favors a right to

Dr. paul favors a right to life amendment. I am fully convinced by what I have observed on his views of abortion in the press and in his books that he would favor a bill outlawing abortion in all the states. He thinks the states should decide only because it is the next best thing.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeles

I totally Agree!

I totally Agree!

juan maldonado