Pro-Life - No room for nuance

Extremism and Absolutism is never the answer...

Thats how it works in less civilized societies... like the ones we are fighting in right now...

Life is ugly... we kill to eat... we die... babies are born horribly deformed... life is ugly..

If you do not take into account this fact then the pro lifers are 100% correct... however this fact is to be taken into account because it is real... you cannot pretend the world can be perfect... it cannot. Science is on the verge of making pregnancy totally controllable and then there will be almost no abortions and the pro lifers can be happy... and woman can be free of government interference...

This thread is such a waste of energy. This controversy will not be resolved in this forum, nor should it. How is this helping the campaign? It's just diverting energy.

www.paulforronpaul.com

Much like the tax protesters did in NH. And suffer the consequences.

If it is murder, then you have the right and authority to intervene using deadly force to stop the practice. Someone did in florida, was convicted and executed. Is he a hero for defending life, avenging murder, and stopping abortion, or is he something else because he exceeded his lawful authority?

If you don't have the authority personally, why do you think the president OR the federal government has the same authority? Where do they get the authority? Where would you get the authority? If you can't answer, then be quiet until you learn the answer.

Even changing the constitution does not change reality. Alcohol prohibition was added - and later rescinded, and it merely caused the constitution itself to become weaker and laughable. Justice Tawney could not make Dred Scott a non-person. But these mirror the usurpation you desire.

Federalism is also a principle of law. And this is subtle - the founders didn't craft a document to create a Utopia, but to balance and enumerate only the specific powers necessary to hold the states in a union and NO MORE - they didn't even end slavery. They wanted to avoid the power coalescing so it would one day be tyrannical - but it always ratchets upward to accomplish some good cause, and when that cause is done, it becomes and stays evil. Every evil of the federal government - every fear of the IRS, FBI, or even things like the FDA invading your home to take away your nutritional supplements or the DEA to take away your medicine - comes from them usurping authority over the individual. The federal government should only deal with the states and foreign governments. The states should leave it - as in old common law - to the county sheriffs to deal with the people in a county.

And where would the evil you do end even if it could prevent abortion? If you found a book of black magic and could conjure up Mephistopholes and trade your soul to stop abortion? Nuclear blackmail? Vote Hitler in - he did stop the taxi murders!

Morality must be built upon a foundation, and one of those cornerstones is "Never intentionally do evil or use evil means even for a good end". Federal power is like nuclear energy, or even black magic. Too dangerous to use even for the most urgent problems. Beyond a very narrow coordination of the individual states, it is evil.

But that is the reason neither an individual nor a President can stop abortion. A murderer can commit murder for what they think is a good reason even to stop another murder, and a tyrant can equally order abortion stopped. Abortions stopped for about two weeks just after 9/11/01.

Abortion is to be stopped at the state level or below. States, like individuals can choose evil, and should be dealt with as someone who is evil. Some evils are crimes, but others aren't, and even correcting them ought to be done with care. The civil rights movement broke the back of racism, but cross-district busing ordered by judges disintegrated the cities. Every use of a power out of its proper level and context will ultimately cause more evils than those you seek to destroy. Even in stopping abortion. And I doubt I consider it any less a holocaust than you do.

Several justices of the supreme court have joined with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pohl Pot. But the answer is not to become like them. All the above were able to accomplish their genocides because there was too much power in the central dictatorial government.

There is a scene in "The Fellowship of the Ring" where Frodo offers the ring of power to Galadriel. Her response was "Instead of a dark Lord, you would have a dark Queen; everyone would love me and despair". The point being that such power always corrupts and destroys. Ron Paul IS Ron Paul because he rejects the power in the same way - and for the same reasons. You would have him become a tyrant in this. But if he would become tyrant to solve this, why not every other issue?

Go ask the candidates, now that any US Citizen can be labeled an "enemy combatant" and denied habeas corpus without judicial review if they will simply label every abortionist and supporter as an enemy combatant and imprison them, and confiscate every dollar from these "designated terrorist" organizations and put them on the "no fly" list which is not subject to review either? EVERY one of the other candidates has supported these powers. And some of them claim also to be pro-life. Why didn't Bush send in the jackboots into Florida to rescue Terri Schiavo (much like Clinton did with Elian Gonzales, or for that matter send in tanks as in Waco)? That is what you are asking of Ron Paul, but I'm curious what all the other candidates have to say (and I've asked but have gotten no responses).

I am 100% Pro Choice

I am also supporting Ron Paul 100%

Ron Paul's stand on this (as his stand with everything) comes from the Constitution. The if you read Article 3 you will see the limits of the Judiciary. Murder, (even that of the unborn) is a crime that is tried and punished in the state.

While I agree with you that abortion should not happen anywhere in the U.S, I would much rather have it be illegal SOMEWHERE in the U.S (if the state chooses it) rather than what we have now where it is illegal NOWHERE (since the Federal court decided Roe v. Wade).

I think RP's idea to remove the juristiction from the Supreme Court (effectively overturning Roe v. Wade) would be a step in the right direction. It would also not force our beliefs on states where the PEOPLE decide that they want to have this abomination legalized.

This issue has no solution, it will always serve as a division between people.

If we let this issue sidetrack us now, we won't have the luxury of freedom to decide without a constitution.

I think Ron Paul has it right, that the states should decide, because our federal government has its hands full protecting our liberty (ha ha)

just my 2 cents....

Dr. Ron Paul argues from his scientific, medical background that human life begins at conception. The issue of abortion can be solved by simply doing as Ron suggests. Either congress or the president declare the person-hood of the unborn. In that instant the unborn are automatically protected by the same laws in every state as everybody else. Ron Paul has said more than once that he believes this is the proper course of action to take and it is almost instant as opposed to waiting many years for an amendment to be ratified.

Ron Paul's is the best, most pure, quickest, and most constitutionally permitted position. Ron Paul's solution stops abortion more effecivley and much faster than any other proposal out there.

Leaving it to the states is consistent with the philosophy of personal freedom. The states can be viewed as 50 independent legislative laboratories.

I agree life begins at conception. The embryo is not dead for x number of days and then becomes alive later. The question is not when life begins since the egg and sperm are alive even before conception. The question is when does this human body represent in legal terms a human being granted the right to life by the Creator. Similarly for Christians the question is when does the soul enter the person's body? Again according to the bible this happens at conception for John the baptist while a six month old fetus recognized the presence of the newly conceived Christ in Mary's womb.

But this is a question of politics not Christianity. There is a practical difference. Ron Paul marks the difference at the point of development where pregnancy can be consistently confirmed, at I believe about three weeks after conception. Before that period of development any legislation would be difficult to enforce with a strong measure of just and equal treatment.

I argue that if it is left to the individual states a consensus would arise which would shame the majority of residents of those remaining states which promoted late term abortions. In not too many years there would be a better set of laws across the land than we have today. Laws more consistent with human ethical instincts and scientific findings.

It is not practical for Christians to not compromise politically on this issue. Refusing to release this question to the individual states perpetuates nationwide (federal) hard line pro choice positions which do much more harm to the unborn.

We who are Christians can continue to insist as a point of argument the human right to life begins at conception at the same time adopting a practical position in the political arena which can end the status quo and greatly improve our nationwide treatment of the unborn.

So what's next then? An amendment to prohibit death by hanging? Or by using a #2 pencil to bludgeon a 42 year old woman with one leg?

We don't need to be specific, we just need to let the States decide. If it is indeed murder, there are already laws that cover the crime.

Dr. Ron Paul is staunchly pro-life. He is on record as explaining his reasoning in terms of science and fact from his knowldedge as a Scientitst and Doctor. He has delivered more than 4000 babies.

Those with no background in science who deny the personhood of the unborn are at odds with Dr. Ron Paul's conclusions as a medical doctor.

Ron Paul's position on this issue is clear. Besides denying all public funding of abortion he has two positions, one of which makes him the most pro-life candidate in this race.

First and as everybody knows, he supports the repeal of Roe v Wade. I would think any logical constitutionalist would agree with this.

Second, and more importantly, Dr. Paul has said that Congress through legislation or the president through executive order can simply declare the person-hood of babies in womb which would, without any amendment to the Constitution stop abortion in its tracks. Doing this is also perfectly within the powers granted by the Constitution. This single position makes Dr. Paul by far the most pro-life candidate in the race for President. And not just pro-life, by the way, but WHOLE life even opposing the death penalty.

Just one of the many reasons Dr, Ron Paul is my choice for president. Others talk lots of talk, but Ron Paul has the courage and sincere conviction to walk the walk.

I notice us all over. In posts, forums, blogs etc. spreading the word online about Dr. Paul. This is wonderful.

In reading this forum for fascinating additions to the conversation about this prickly subject I noticed myself avoiding all but a few posts.....why?

BLOCK TEXT

Block text is bad and no-one will read it. I'm sorry to say but in the new ADHD digital age poeple need some space between their text.

Each sentacne must be given breathing room so that your concept can be digested in managable bites.

Even a few sentences at a time will work but a huge block of text is a big sign saying "HEY DON'T READ THIS, SKIP ON TO SOMETHING MORE QUICKLY READ AND COMPREHENDED!"

I know we have well reasoned and thoughtful answers to questions and detractors but this message is lost if no-one wants to invest the time to read a huge unbroken block of text.

So, in conclusion, we can more effectively spread the word by ventilating our text a bit. K, Thanks.

Anyone who really wants to answer that question should read this: http://l4l.org/library/my...

If you disagree with its conclusions you should be prepared to refute it with science and logic, not rhetoric and appeals to emotion. Some times what feels right isn't right no matter how much you don't like it. Reality is that which does not go away just because you don't believe it.

Inibo

Ron Paul: He wants to get out of Iraq, pronto!

Bygons....

Yes abortion is a hot topic, but lets worry about it AFTER Ron Paul is elected.

We must not be divisive amongst ourselves. Look at all the time wasted on this thread, myself included, that would be BETTER spent campaigning for RON PAUL..

Let us all agree to disagree on this one and let this thread die and go hand out some slim jims!!

FOCUS PEOPLE .....Ron Paul

I thinks it's sick. We are pissed off about torture but feel a woman giving her doctor the OK to crush a fetus up, suck it out of her, and thow it in a bucket is humane. The world had a case of RAGE over Vick fighting dogs, but killing a child is okay as long as we can define life to support our view. When I was young a Liberal, I didn't think much of it. I was on board with saying it's a woman's right, why not, it's not my body. Then I grew up and became a Husband and a Father. Now I'm far more conservative. After seeing my children's ultrasound, I'll be damn If you can convince me that they were not alive in her womb. I would be a fool to believe that even though I'm could hear their heart beat, they were still not considered alive and had no rights. Come on people, give me a break. We act like these woman just became pregnant all of a sudden. There is only one way you can get pregnant. Unprotected sex. You can choose to protect yourself and avoid this; however, if you choose not to, then accept what happens. You can even take the morning after pill to prevent you from becoming pregnant. Now you have a way of bailing yourself out for being reckless. We need to stop thinking of a fetus as just the womans. If a woman gets an abortion and it comes to find out that the father actually wanted the baby, then what happens. NOTHING. In his eyes, she just murdered his child, in society's eyes, she was wiithin her right. This is cazy. Even though the child may grow to live to at least 70, since the first 9 months are in the womb of a woman, she alone decides if it lives or dies. I hate to break this to the Pro-Choice folk, but once you become pregnant, the fetus becomes more important than you. You can't smoke, do drugs, drink, or party like you want because you will harm the fetus. The FETUS has a right to be healthy. It has a right to be born, It has a right to live. Even though it is inside of you, it's not you; therefore, it has it's own rights and must be protected. If abortions are okay, then Televise them. Start showing them in Hollywood movies right after the out of place sex seen. When have seen childbirth on TV, show childdeath. Let the world see what happens to the fetus and let us decide once and for all if it is murder. This will never happen. Why, no one has the stomach for it. SAW IV, no problem. An ABORTION, now thats just sick. So lets stop kidding ourselves and hide behind a definition to allow woman to kill a child. Aren't we upset at Bush for the same thing. Hiding behind a definition to torture people. And don't give me the whole, "what if it's a rape crap'. LISTEN, educate our woman and let them know that rape is horrible and not to be afraid to report it immediately. Preach to all that if you are raped, tell the police, go the doctor so they can examine you and give you the pill. No abortion necessary. Let's stop looking for ways to save face. Call it what it is. MURDER. If it is outlawed at the Federal Level, I don't too many states will alow it. Who wants to be the state that has every irresponsible person flocking to your doctors to kill a fetus. And who will pay for it. Will the people of the state want their tax dollars going to fund abortions. It will be interesting to see what happens. Letting the State decided will allow us to see exactly where the heart of the American people will shift.

over on the Disagreement thread. Reposted here.

http://dailypaul.com/node...

Abortion position...different view
On October 29th, 2007 Tannim says:
I disagree with his abortion position, but for different reasons than one might expect. But I'm still supporting him anyway. I respect his personal experience in the are from his OB work and I can live with that, at least for now.

Personal disclaimer: I have lost a child at birth. I know that pain and anguish firsthand. There is no hell like it, and I don't wish that on even my worst enemy. He was taken from me and my wife for medical reasons unknown and probably other reasons we'll never understand in this life. We didn't have a choice. Those that face the abortion decision do, but I know damned well that they have to live with their decision and take respnsibility for it, and I know that if they are faced with that decision and they want the child, the emotional and psychological ramifications are staggering. I cannot deny any person their right to make that choice like ours was. But I would never wish that on anyone either. Call me personally pro-life but politically pro-choice.

As for where I disagree with Dr. Paul:

The right to privacy is a federal right under the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. That was decided as precedent is Griswold v. Connecticut, which is the underlying foudnaton for Roe v. Wade. It is also settled law and is the foundation for a lot of other cases, most notably of late the landmark Lawrence v. Texas case. To remove a federal right to the state level legislatively not only violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment--since it does not revoke the federal right, since there is no constitutional amendment to properly do so, the net result is that a federal right is denied in some states, which violates the Supremacy Clause as well! But it also creates a *major* problem. There was a time in the 1850s when there was such a mismash of state laws over such a right. The result of that was the worst Supreme Court decision in history (although Kelo comes close!), a Civil War, and eventually the whole mess was rectified by the 13th and 14th Amendments. That court decision is a staple of American history: Dred Scott. We *don't* need to go there again.

Don't misunderstand me: I think abortions should be done safely and rarely, and that people need to be fully and properly educated and counseled on the medical and psychological and financial aspects of these situations in an unbiased manner. I don't approve of abortion as birth control, and I don't believe in government funding for it at any level. I also believe adoption promotion is not done as it should be, and while that is also an area government should not be mixed up in, the regulatory state these days certainly doesn't help anything there either. But short of a constitutional amendment, any other attempt to ban abortion by any other method would not pass muster in either a judicial court or the court of public opinion. That's why I think Dr. Paul misses the boat on this issue.

The law states constitutional rights begin at birth. That line is where it has been set and accepted for generations. To move that line back to conception is a move with drastic and far-reaching consequences, most of them negative, and there is no good reason to do it.

I've been of the opinion for many years that there is no constitutional authority for the U.S. government to be involved in this, but lately I've been wondering.
Does anybody know how Dr. Paul squares his "leave it to the states" position with the 14th Amendment? If a person has rights from the moment of conception, then isn't he/she covered by the requirement that no state "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws?" For example, if it's unlawful in Georgia to kill someone who was born 20 or 30 years ago, isn't the state violating the Equal Protection clause if it denies an unborn person the same protection?
I want to be able to explain Dr. Paul's position to other voters with confidence.

The states should have the right and authority, to write the rules and regulations and punishments FOR ACTS OF VIOLENCE - which abortion is (harm caused by hand or implement, with intent). Accompanied with the definition of life in SOLA (Sanctity of Life Act), the states would have the authority and ability to determine what punishment is appropriate for the level of violence in the act.

Dr. Paul often points out that the Federal government is inept with anything of such importance. Do you really want them to be the ones making the decisions on such an important subject? They have messed up everything they get their fingers into. Before you know it, they will enact a tax on every abortion and then we will be stuck with it...they will want their money and it will become a "profit and loss" issue for the Feds.

Dr. Paul is also very clear that this is why we have a Bill of Rights that protects us and a very specified Constitution that tells us what our representatives, judges and president are allowed to specifically deal with. The 10th Amendment is very clear that all things not spoken of in the Constitution are relegated to the states. However, there is an amendment process that addresses the shortcomings of our Constitution (i.e., the definition of "life")...thus an act like SOLA can be implemented to address those issues that were not foreseen.

Not even the states are allowed to remove life according to the 5th Amendment (without due process). SOLA would have given a modern/clear definition of what life is, within the constraints allowed to legislators and the president. This act was instituted by Dr. Paul and done so in accordance with the limited rights/job definition allowed a legislator by the Constitution. Further, were it enacted, the "states rights" issue would have become a non-issue, regarding abortion.

Dr. Paul addresses these issues in that fashion. He is the only one that does. And just because he wants the states to be the presiding factor over these issues, does not mean that he will sit back and not fight for life. His record says the exact opposite.

In Dr. Paul's eyes, the issue is whether a human life is involved (which he emphatically states that it is, from conception) and that it is the Constitutional mandate to protect human life at any level. This is why he is against the death penalty, as well (although he was not originally, but repented several years ago). No other candidate takes this stance, other than Governor Huckabee. I won't vote for him, due to his stance on the war and (too numerous to list here)...

I would rather have a President who will take power away from that beast of a federal government that we have, and give it back to us, than let that beast have the power it has been wielding so frivolously against us. I want to make the decision on how my children are educated. I want to be able to use my land in the fashion I choose. I want to be able to preach the Gospel on a street corner, at the top of my lungs without fear of being thrown into a gulag for my so called "hate speech." And I want a president, legislature and judiciary that actually works for me, not for themselves.

Until the Election is Won!

Chaplain Steve

Or abortion wouldn't be one of the hottest debate topics in the country. Personally, I agree with very early term abortions, but nothing else.

Economics deals with scarcity. Political economy deals with scarcity in the political realm.

We are limited in our time (especially), our money, our manpower and our other resources. We can't fight EVERY battle we'd like, but must choose among a number of possibilities those that are most urgent.

Right now, sovereignty and constitutional liberty are EXTREMELY urgent. If we lose our sovereignty, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition government for a redress of grievances" will no longer be possible -- not for abortion, gun rights, taxes or anything else. If we allow fedgov to strip us of our constitutional liberties, we invite a dictatorship that will destroy us whether our sovereignty disappears or not.

Much as some of us might like to deal with abortion now, we have to deal with the most pressing threats. Let's fight and win those first, and the rest will follow.

...and also 100% pro-Constitution.

Abortion is a crime under English common law. As a common-law issue, it was properly the domain of the colonies and the States until 1973.

It needs to be returned to them. It can then be dealt with by the people either directly or through their legislatures.

Abortion is a no win discussion in politics. This issue is too controversial and ends any positive forward moving progress in politics. It is a religious and moral issue. I am pro-choice and if you are too than Ron Paul is your best choice. You will never have enough people agree to ban abortions on a federal level. However, at state's level atleast some states may choose to ban abortions. The pro-choice agenda has a better chance if any at state level. Please lets move on to another topic

The role of government is to protect life and liberty.

The fetus/baby is alive 1 minute before birth, but it is legal to kill it then and not 1 minute after birth.

Abortion must be made illegal. This will not stop people from performing illegal abortions, but that is not the point. The point is that the role of government is to protect life and liberty.

I personally am pro-life or anti-abortion, however you want to look at it. However, when reviewing the ROLE of the Federal government, I must conclude that it has no authority in making a judgement one way or the other as to affect the entire Union.

This issue and MANY more volatile moral issues are under the jurisdiction and sovereign authority of the states.

For example - some folks think prostitution is "okay" while others think otherwise. In this instance of morality, each state and county and city has determined their own unique policy.

For those who want legal prostitution, they jump on a jet or car and travel to Nevada.

Similarly, though I don't agree with Abortion, if California allows it but Alabama doesn't, then let those folks travel to California.

Let each state decide for themselves according to the voters what they want - but let not those decisions affect the other 49 states.

As far as a woman's right to choose on the basis that the fetus, child, cells, "whatever" is "her body" - IF indeed the "thing" is her body, then I'd agree. However, from a purely biological standpoint, it or she/he is in fact not her body whatsoever.

Whether or not it can sustain life absent of intervention outside the womb doesn't negate the biological state of being unique and human.

What becomes difficult for pro-abortion proponents is clearly defining at what point we as society accept someone as being worthy of rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

I would think that anyone - whether retarded, handicapped, blind, or otherwise seemingly "useless", is certainly entitled to the same liberties as anyone else.

The freedom and liberty message is about making these liberties available to all people regardless of religion, color, ethnicity, physical appearance, net-worth, or any other purely subjective measure.

I would think a true embrace of liberty would necessarily reflect a pro-life/anti-abortion stance.

It is interesting that rather than look at abortion from this stance and debate the merits, most (if not all) pro-choicers opt instead to ask questions that are totally irrelevant like: "What about rape?! Why should the woman have to endure pain and suffering for something she never wanted?" or "What if the woman's life is in jeopardy?!"

Unfortunately, the rape happened and whether or not the woman discards the baby via churn-n-burn abortion procedure or delivers the baby. I don't know of any pro-life platform that requires women to keep the baby after a rape.

This innevitably causes the pro-choicers to then go on about how millions of babies are unwanted and it is somehow better to churn-n-burn a baby than to put it in a foster home where it will "most assuredly be abused".

What I find amusing or perhaps alarming is the many cases of animal cruelty. So rampant and widespread is animal cruelty that Animal Planet has a television show dedicated to highlighting this fact. Perhaps even more evidence of this widespread issue is the fact that municipalities around the country have recruited law enforcement officers - complete with above average pay and exceptional retirement pensions in an effort to stamp out animal cruelty.

I would imagine there is far less abuse and neglect to children than animals. So the "lets kill babies to prevent the certain doom and futility in foster homes" arguement doesn't really hold much water - in light of all the attention and back-breaking effort to care for unwanted cats and dogs.

As far as choosing a woman's life or the baby's life in a life threatening situation, it has always been a well established norm to do everything possible to save the woman. However, what we all seem to miss or gloss over, is the fact that each situation involving a pregnant woman where a physician can only save one, the physician is trained to evaluate quickly and comprehensively the "ideal" candidate under the current circumstances, current medical intervention available, and impending complications. This is probably the worst argument to advance pro-choice because it essentially is a non-issue.

Under this situation an actual abortion is not being performed nor is it intended as a stand-alone procedure, but rather the unfortunate result of a life-saving response.

I'm sorry meforronp, but I cannot disagree with your point any more vociferously. For the sake of full-disclosure, I will admit that I am pro-choice and presently have no qualms over abortion. (But I'm also against Roe v. Wade since I don't believe it is consitutional)

To insist that Ron Paul make ANY personal view public and part of his campaign, especially one that cannot and should not influence his governing, is to go against the entire purpose of the campaign. The campaign is about LIMITED GOVERNMENT, and it is not the place of the federal government to regulate abortion in any way. Even if one were to put abortion on the same level as murder (which I do not), you have to recognize that the federal government has no jurisdiction over murder. That is a responsibility left to the states as it is!

Ron Paul's personal opinions on abortion threfore, are no more relevant to his being a Federal official than his views on Cheese, American Idol, or Britney Spears. We're not electing someone we agree on everything with, we're electing someone to do a job. And that's to lead the country and get government out of our personal lives.

Practically, to take this view, you risk alienating a HUGE faction of RP's campaign, namely, pro-choice libertarians who have committed NOT to be hypocritical and emphatically support Ron Paul despite his abortion stance. That takes true character - and I would insist that any Pro-Life supporter also consider Libertarian candidates legitimate, even if they're pro-choice, so long as they adhere to constitutional principles like Ron Paul.

Lastly, let's all refrain from arguing about abortion. We all have our opinions, and given the 50/50 opinion split in this country, both are certainly legitimate. This is not the forum to convince people to change their minds. And I would further refrain from using inflammatory language like "murder" or "religious fanatics" since it just causes more infighting.

Only in a place like this does a hot topic like abortion spurn the majority of people taking place in the discussion to turn to the Constitution to find out if the authority to decide even exists.

makes me proud to be amongst such patriots...

As a true and faithful Federalist, Pro-Life Christian Ron Paul presents no threat to my Atheist Pro-Choice sensibilities. However he feels about the issue, The Good Doctor has pledged to cleave to the letter AND intent of the Constitution. Since neither the body of the work nor any Amendment makes mention of a Federal authority, the question remains properly with the States or the people respectively (pursuant to Amendment X).

Abortion is probably the most divisive issue among libertarians. Whether we lean "pro-choice" or "pro-life" is less significant than our understanding that every abortion is a tragedy, and that when FedGov inserts itself into the issue, it only serves to COMPOUND the tragedy.

Viva Agora!
LehrBoy
www.citizenduquesne.org

Regarding abortion, gay marriage, education and capital punishment. This is what the Constitution provided for, and what we should also honor. The Federal Government has a very limited role, per the Constitution, and any expanse of those powers we give at our own peril.

You are never going to win any argument on abortion. And like Ron Paul says, the federal government does not have the right to make any law banning it.

"Its time for a new Revolution! Ron Paul 2008"

If you believe that a person has absolute ownership of their body, then you are hopelessly stuck between defending the woman's rights versus the embryo's rights. An arbitrary line is going to get drawn someplace, and we'll be having this debate as long as humans are biological beings. It's tragic, and I think there are better places for both sides to spend their energy.