Comment: A question and a comment for you.

(See in situ)

A question and a comment for you.


Was it President Bill Clinton who introduced partial birth abortion? Do we know for sure Presidents never get involved in this issue? I mean, they get involved in everything else they're not supposed to. However, I think most right-to-lifer's concern with this election is appointing the new Supreme Court Justices. They feel if they have a pro-life President, he will appoint pro-life Justices and repeal Roe v Wade. Of course, we on the DP know this wouldn't happen, because it hasn't happened yet since Reagan, as one by one appoint those who never repeal it. Anyway, aren't they all from or in bed with the CFR? (Council on Foreign Relations)

Personal Opinion – since you gave yours, I'd like to give mine:

The only reason for law is for the protection of our liberties. Exercising my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot violate anther's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or I am in violation of the law. For example, it is anyone's right to get as drunk as he absolutely pleases (including liver damage and dying young, etc – that is his right) – but it is not his right to drive under the influence and kill innocent people. This has then moved out of the realm of his rights to their rights because he abused their right to life.

I'm sure you and those who love you are happy that your mother didn't exercise some supposed personal right to terminate you with an impersonal doctor (that she probably wouldn't even remember this doctor's name) – rather those who love you are grateful that she exercised YOUR right to LIFE itself! And thus you have a life. Without her decision for a baby's right to life, your heart would not be currently pumping; you could not even complain now, (albeit rightfully) about the state of our Nation, foreign policy, Federal Reserve, etc. You could not make a plea for Gary Johnson or anything else.

We're not talking about what color to paint the hospital. We're talking about “an act of violence committed against another person, albeit a small one in a special place” (Ron Paul from Liberty Defined) If these methods of termination were done to us after birth through any age, they would be considered torture and inhumane – which I'm sure you're against torture to the death.

Furthermore, research has shown terrible depression and suicides in women several years AFTER they've committed an abortion (Yes, I used the word committed because its violence and pre-meditated). In addition to that, women who've committed abortions also have a higher rate of breast cancer – how many women would want to sign up for these blessed “rights” several years into the future? As in many things in this system, people are not being told the full story. This frustrates we on the DP to no end in many, many areas – but cancer? Depression? Suicide?

I think this is a deeper issue than libertarians sometimes give it credit for, and I don't agree that the people who think they're exercising a fabricated “right” to terminate another life for their convenience win in the end. I think they lose the right of a clear conscience without the saving power of Christ and I think they lose health and I think we as a nation have probably lost some geniuses who would have invented some amazing medical cures – maybe even one that would have saved the lives of the parents, had they allowed that baby to live. What if our Nation wouldn't even be in its current deplorable state because of the Statesmen and Freedom Fighters whose lives were snuffed out? How many Ron Pauls have we as a Nation eliminated? I just think we need a balanced perspective on this. Even something as simple as property rights would be stronger if people and government didn't have the “right” to take a person's life simply because they didn't have a birthday yet. Property, sound money, soldier's lives, etc are all contingent upon right to life. Without it, we have no other rights.