| |
  
|
||||||||||
12-year-old speaks out on the issue of abortion
Submitted by legalizeliberty on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 17:44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOR1wUqvJS4&eur This video moved me to tears and I wanted to share it with you. » |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
Welfare Issue is Easy to Resolve
Plan Parenthood performed 1.29M abortions in 2003 -- 1.37M in 2007
Each abortion cost around $800 per.
There is a huge profit to handing the dead fetus for stem cell research and to the cosmetic industry (does wonders for the skin dah-leeng).
Stop subsidizing as a first step -- remove all "forced" taxation or spending on the issue.
Now (under this situation) it's less costly for the average girl to keep it.
Just stop funding to delete it -- let them pay the full cost of their decision.
Ultimately they will cost to high.
I believe there is enough evidence to suggest abortions would drop by 40 to 50% -- that would save $450M (plus) per year.
Oh well -- just a thought
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
This is really scary stuff.
This is really scary stuff. Did you write that for your daughter? She's 12...this sort of brainwashing isn't right.
"People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people." - V for Vendetta
I had nothing to do with maker of this video
I saw it posted on rense.com and WND and decided to post it here.
The fact that I am living in the same city as this girl is pure "accident" Toronto has 3 million people....
from the article on WND its clear it the speech was written by her and not her parent.
peace patriot*)
"(Better) to be confused in the search for truth than fully confident and sound asleep in a dream of lies." ~ Michael Nystrom
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/09/10/statement-to-ron-pa...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57925480@N00/2660779139
Website:
http://www.libertypoet.com/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
"How can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire?" - Dr. Ron Paul
Not on content but on speech technique.
Setting the content to the side and purely an oppinion on her public speaking... I'd say she's pretty good for a 7th grader. I think public speaking is a very important skill. But so is critical thinking and argument. So as a teacher I would make the same student give an opposing view speech just like that immediately after. I think that would be a neat assignment.
This video is set to Private!
?
Video is private. Doesn't
Video is private.
Doesn't work. Anyone have a mirror?
Hope daddy never rapes her
Sorry, but that is a fact of life.
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
If Daddy rapes her, HE
If Daddy rapes her, HE should be brought to justice for it, not the innocent life that may result from his crime.
Paul4one
Read this thread...all the way down.....and MARVEL at the way we have been spoon fed this Bullshit line/way of thinking.
20 years ago you wouldn't have brought this up in public.
If you were a victum of rape, you would have quietly gone to a different county, had your child and placed it for adoption or left it in the care of others. (we) had a different mindset then. Life came first. We did not consider the curcumstances that brought it about, to be more inportant. And it was a personal choice. For some reason (brain washing) we now feel that we can decide for some one else what they should do. That is not very Constitutional thinking. What has surprised me about this whole subject is that I (untill my Ron Paul advent) would have sided with all those screaming "stop the abortions" not realizing that if you do then you stop the Constitution
My opinion is based upon my life.
I am a victim of rape, I had to face this decision. Fortunately, I was simply late, not actually pregnant. Rather than live with a rapist's baby in me, I had decided to kill myself if I was pregnant, at the mature age of 15. I was devoutly "pro-life" at the time, Rove v Wade had just come down.
Now I teach all the young women I meet about Nature's Law. I tell them which herbs grow near them that will end a pregnancy. They do not ever have to tell anyone they are pregnant. No one can write a law to trump Nature's Law. That law is the FIRST person alive has primacy rights.
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
Well said. And I don't think
Well said. And I don't think any woman should have to keep an embryo in these circumstances period.
This is true-each person
This is true-each person must decide for themselves. However, when it comes to the point that others must go against their own religious beliefs and help fund something they themselves are strong against, that is infringing on others' rights also, so I do believe it is not up to the government to decide, and as a taxpayer, I strongly oppose and will continue to oppose having my hard earned tax money spent on murder.
Ditto....it is a persons
Ditto....it is a persons choice. And like all the other choices we make, one we will have to live with. I do not judge or help pass laws to the contrary, that is not my purpose for being here. God Bless...
Your servant for freedom, Clay
Good job!
It constantly amazes me to read comments from the "so-called Libertarians" with their "non-aggression principle", twisting themselves into knots in an attempt to rationalize the senseless murder of an innocent child who cannot even defend itself.
Here's the fact:
They want "convenience murder" because it frees them from the responsibility of their licentious and irresponsible lifestyle. It's "too inconvenient" to have to pay a heavy price for their romping. So they make somebody else pay dearly for it. Somebody who is silent, and defenseless.
Then they talk all "high and mighty" about "rights to choose" and "who owns their body", and "what is life?" and "what the definition of 'is' is", and all sorts of other red-herrings to avoid having light shine on the horrific nature of their actions.
The stark truth?
The stark truth is that you've killed somebody to cover up your misdeeds, because you can't man-up to the responsibility of your actions. And then you wallow in the pig-sty of "political correctness" for your comfort.
Everything else is a cover-up to obscure the bare facts as they are.
Tens of millions are crying out from the grave for justice.
non-aggression principle
Please don't mischaracterize the non-aggression principle.
The principle states: No one may initiate force or threat of force against another person or their property.
Abortion is an initiation of force against another person (the unborn child), and therefore force can be used in retaliation against the person who initiated it.
Here is a 15 min. podcast with Lew Rockwell on this principle.
so which came first
I disagree with this principle because a fetus DEPENDS on the mother's womb for its entire survival, thus, it is NOT a seperate being until birth. It is part of that mother's body.
Ron Paul points out that as an OBGYN he can be sued for terminating a fetus. He can be sued by the mother, not the fetus.
The argument of abortion is a tool of misogyny to enslave women tot he state. It is not about life.
It would be very easy to end the practice of abortion as birth control, all the state would have to so is have father castrated.
Until we see that day, the day where men who sire abortions are held accountable, I see this argument as nothing but proof for hatred of women.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
I agree.
I would add that some of the motivation of pro-lifers is to punish women for engaging in sex by making them have a baby. It goes back to sexual repressions and the idea that sex is bad. Otherwise, why would some of these people say abortion is OK in cases of rape or incest?
It is clear that all killing is not murder. Governments gladly has people kill others if it serves the purpose of government, like in war for example. Killing in self defense is not murder. So even if you accept the idea that a fetus obtains rights at conception (with which I do not agree), terminating that fetus by abortion would only be murder if the law said it was.
Whenever something is accepted as moral by a large portion of the population, to make it a crime does not work to prevent it. Look at the drug laws which are violated by maybe even a majority. Look at the negative consequences the war on drugs has had. Before Roe vs. Wade, back alley abortions were not uncommon, but also they were more dangerous, and it was not infrequent to see a news account of someone who had died in the process.
In reality, this is a religious issue, and an attempt by certain people to impose their religious views on the rest of us. This should be obvious if you look at the simple fact that the religious right and Catholics are those who fill the ranks of the pro-life group.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
logic?
Assault and battery is immoral. Does that mean that we should decriminalize it? After all, people will do it anyway regardless of the law.
Yes, logic.
Assault and battery are not accepted as moral by a large percentage of the population. Even the people who commit it know it is immoral, and I doubt that many of them would argue that it should not be against the law.
This is not the same case with drug use or abortion. In these cases a large percentage of the population do not think it is immoral, and they do not think it should be against the law.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
Sounds like tyranny of the majority
I guess you believe in democracy.
Democracy is Not Freedom by Ron Paul
Well, that would be better than the tyranny of the minority,
which would be the case if the religious right managed to impose their views on everyone else.
Even Ron Paul who personally is against abortion, says it is not within the authority of the federal government, either pro or con. He further has commented that some states would decide one way and other states would decide differently, based on the consensus of the state's population.
This is hardly the tyranny of the majority. I do not agree with Ron Paul's personal religious beliefs, but I do agree with him on how the abortion issue should be resolved.
The unfortunate reality is that people with means will always be able to have safe abortions because they can afford to travel to where they are legal, while the poor will either be forced into the unsafe back alley's or have unwanted babies wherever abortion is outlawed. This will just further dumb down the averages.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
moral hazard
Put responsibility where it is belongs. It's not my responsibility to prevent back alley abortions.
By your logic the foreclosure bailouts are justified because if we don't bailout the "homeowners", they will lose their homes (which they "bought" at zero down). All investments have risks.
I really was hoping some one
I really was hoping some one else would post to you. As they have not , here is some food for thought.
"In reality, this is a religious issue"....NOT, it is a personal one and one that a person will have to live with the rest of their life. Government, states, and such concerned citizens should keep their noses in their own closet.
"...if you look at the simple fact that the religious right and Catholics are those who fill the ranks of the pro-life group." There are a lot of good and faithful Catholics (to each there own) out there. Unfortunately, there are very few to be found in the ranks of the church itself. Yes, they talk the talk. No, they don't walk the walk. The Vatican's #1 investment is a pharmaceutical company that provides most of Europe with their condoms. I guess when it comes to money, they can "over look" such little discrepancy's such as mouthing out about using birth control and yet make money from it at the same time?
If it is a personal issue, then why are many on the
religious right trying to make abortion a criminal act.
Many religions teach that life begins at conception and that termination of that life should be regarded as murder. There are contrary views held by a significant portion of the population. The push by those with religious indoctrination to have laws making abortion a criminal act seems to me to be an imposition of their views they got from their religion.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
I agree with Henry
And I think Henry is spot on this topic.
Abortion is a religious issue, like marriage. The state actually has no business in either. The state is involved and that is the problem.
I don't believe the state should provide abortions, but I do not think abortion should be illegal, I think abortion should be legal and that the male who sires an abortion is castrated.
You know, I have never heard any woman say that she was saving a thousand dollars to get pregnant so she could have an abortion. NO ONE WANTS abortion The fact the state profit off it is what is immoral.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Hi, mom?
Hi, mom?
Criteria?
So the criteria to determine whether someone is a seperate being is whether that person depends on another to stay alive?
What about infants? They depend on others to stay alive. They can't feed themselves, etc. So, then according to your criteria, infants are not separate beings until they cease depending on others to stay alive.
There is a distinction between an infant and a nonviable fetus.
An infant can be taken care of by someone other that his mother and he will survive. Up until a certain point of development, a fetus cannot be supported by anyone other than his mother. If she were to die, he could not be removed from her womb and survive.
The point at which a fetus becomes an independent life is the point where he can survive outside the mothers womb; before that, he is just a growth subject to the willingness of the mother to allow him to use her body.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
Infants are not seperate.
Infants get what I call the airplane rule.. could have another name I'm sure, but I call it, "The airplane rule".. Let's say a mother and infant are on an airplane and the plane comes into trouble, the air masks drop, The Airplane Rule says, "Parents Breathe first and make sure you have enough oxygen and then give your infant oxygen. A dead parent is unable to give an infant oxygen. They found a parents instict was to give the child oxygen first, but this is deadly, as a parent passes out and then they both die.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
A conscious decision
Abortion is the conscious decision to take an innocent life for whatever the reason may be. All life is created by God for a purpose. Now before all the flamers have a hey-day with the aforementioned statement and wondering why God would create babies with abnormalities, understand that God has a reason and a purpose for everything he does. Sickness, suffering, and pain were brought into the world due to the sin of man, not the will of God. For a parent to decide to end the life of an unborn child just because a doctor determines it to have "abnormalities" is stating that we know more than God. This is very dangerous ground to tread. I doubt that we will ever see Roe Vs Wade repealed, because it provides an easy way out for most of the situations. I do not believe that tax-payer dollars should be used in any way to fund abortions. If a person decides to have an abortion, for whatever reason, they should assume the full burden and responsibility for that decision (monetary and otherwise). Part of being a citizen is making decisions and taking on the responsibilities that decision creates.
Should the government be responsible for paying the debts of a gambler. Would the gambler be excused by the casino by saying.."Opps I did not mean for that to happen and I should not be responsible for my debt". Again, a person must be responsible for their actions. A woman who has a sexual relationship is gambling that she won't get pregnant. She has made a conscious decision to have the sexual relationship fully knowing the possible consequences of her actions. She has made her choice (thus satisfying the pro-choice claimers). Now she must act as a responsible citizen and take on the responsibilities of her "choice", not take the way out by "killing" the result of her actions.