Ron Paul Speaks to Supporters at Ames Straw Poll: The Mainstream Has Come Our Way 13/8/2011

Ron speaking to he's supporters.

He speaks about how the mainstream is approaching him, economy, removing incometax and liberty.



Ron Paul's Speech in Ames, Iowa (another one same date).
Life is precious! Speaks about 9/11 and the patriot act, war,foreign polecy and the Fed.
Also speak about abortion 1.36-2.41 here he gives a plain stupid example that has nothing to do with abortion...useually he say alot of good and speak about freedom and liberty, but seam's like he try to set up religious boundries on this subject.

reply to post by Mimir


I think you missed the point he was trying to make regarding life with that 'plain stupid example', as you put it.

Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by Mimir

 

I think you missed the point he was trying to make regarding life with that 'plain stupid example', as you put it.

edit on 15-8-2011 by DIDtm because: (no reason given)

Thats a question of morale and ethics. You will find a lot of Pro's and Con's in the following link. The text below covers my standing, except for the fact that i think you need some "maxage" of the unborn. in Denmark that line is 12 week's, i can't say if thats the "perfect line" im not a doctor.

A human indeed does not become a full person until consciousness. And consciousness doesn't occur until well after the birth of the childWhy abortion is morale

And yes i think the example is stupid because what he descibe is a unborn human baby older than what should be accepted. You wont find alot of doctors supporting the story about how abortionbaby's act when born.

"we cannot play God,...". I'm not religious so that argument seams invalid and im happy he useually dont "excuse" hes act's to God like some US presidents do.

"..., all life is precious!" I would say to a certain extent, how is Your toughts about the preservation of mosquitos or HIV-virus ? It depends on the objective You use which brings us back to ethics and moral.

Edit: Again I'm no doctor, but there may be reasons to make a late abortion/termination because of complications. That should be very rare, but could explain Ron's experience....i dunno.
Anyway's......this is not an attemp to make him look bad, he still talk alot more sence than most of the poleticians and probably would get my vote if i lived in the US.

reply to post by Mimir


Well I'm not going to directly agree nor disagree with you because to be frank I do not feel like getting into a debate of any sort today.

I will say though as you stated you are not a doctor.. I felt that I should remind you that Ron Paul is a doctor.

He isn't a PHD either.. He's a medical doctor... and OB/GYN to be exact.. I for one think that he is more qualified to speak on the subject of reproductive policy than thou art..

Just saying...

double post

I am personally appalled by abortion except in extreme healthcare cases where a doctor has to make an informed life or death decision.

On the other hand, I stand with Ron Paul, it isn't really a matter for legislation by the Federal Government! They can stay out of it, and let states and Doctors and mothers decide.

My youngest boy was born by emergency C-section at the end of the second trimester. He was fully aware, and conscious, and he has grown into a perfectly normal little 3 year old monster. Other mothers are choosing to have abortions into the 3rd trimester and pretend those are not real babies. They are indeed real babies, and they should be made aware of it.

Abortion is not a subject for Ron Paul to campaign for or against, but his strict Constitutional stance means that he is necessarily against the Federal Government making the decision. He can be a PRO-LIFE candidate, and still be against the government interfering.

That is my stance. I abhor abortion in 99% of cases, but I still don't support some over-arching Federal law making decisions that doctors and families should be making on their own.

During the debates, Ron Paul used the example of Rape. In the instance of a rape, we might sentence the offender to 5 or 10 years in prison, but we sentence the baby to death? It doesn't make sense. We can't legislate for every possible scenario, we have to give the government boundaries, and people responsibilities.

reply to post by getreadyalready


That's roughly 26 week's which is way older than whats allowed in many countries. Good thing hes sound and healthy From you'r description theres no doubt 25 or 26 weeks would be to late.


Again i dont know if the last date should be 2 or 14 week's. Let science and doctors come to a sound conclusion about that, and leave all the religious hokus pokus out of it. I'm convinced that birthnurses/doctors would support antiabortion if Ron's story is true and they have to throw away crying babies every day. I believe you would see a few stories in the media too.

reply to post by Mimir


I think you completely ignored the most important statement in getreadyalready's post.. So I'll reiterate and reinforce..

Ron Paul could be the most pro life anti abortion person on earth... however he is against the federal government being the ones to make the decision..

So perhaps you should be looking at the stance of your state government if he is elected.. They will be the ones making the Abortion decision.

reply to post by DaMod


Well i got it.
Let the individual states do that decision.
..The consequence could be that some states chooce to regulate it beyond logic. Same time other states could chooce to allow abortion in the 25th month.........good argumentation there.
Sorry but in this particular case i think some regulation or guidelines is needed to avoid both extremities.


Edit.....I'll stop argue about abortion since my only goal with these video's was to share, not to argue about ethics.

reply to post by Mimir


The end of the 2nd Trimester,
my baby was at 26 weeks when born by C-section.
He weighed 2 lbs, 0 oz.
An abortion would still have been perfectly legal at that time, and in fact it was an option the doctors asked us to consider.

But, DaMod is right. No matter how PRO-LIFE I am, or Ron Paul is, we still don't believe this is a question for the Federal Government to be answering.

If some politician decided that we should legislate it, then we would have to call in and question all of our existing laws, because how can it be legal to kill a baby that is capable of surviving on its own, and call it a "choice," but at the same time press manslaughter charges against the driver of a car, or an abusive boyfriend that accidentally kills the same baby and call it a "crime." How can we sentence an innocent baby to death, but give a rapist-father a minimal sentence?

I don't believe Ron Paul should get into this fight whatsoever, but if some politician does decide to get into this fight, they better have some rock solid answers that make sense, because all of these talking points and religious rhetoric are not going to cut it anymore!!

In my opinion, regardless of my Pro-Life stance, this is not an abortion issue, this is a disparity of law issue, and an issue of legislating morality, where we have no business legislating!

reply to post by Mimir


Well I see where you are coming from.. There is a good reason Ron Paul wants it to be this way..

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." -- 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution

This would be one of the powers reserved for the states along with..

Drinking Age
Smoking Age
Status of Substance Legalization
Gun Ownership
Gay Marriage
etc..
etc..

Personally I do not think this is a bad thing mainly because people are different in every region of the country.. From north to south and east to west many of the differences are black and white in comparison..

An example would be that some states Oppose things like Gay Marriage for instance whereas another state would let that legislation just sail through..

Many things currently are already up to the states as per the 10th Amendment.. However the Federal Government found a loophole which became apparent when the drinking age was changed to 21.. States that did not comply were threatened with their Highway Money.. Snake in the grass tactic if you ask me..

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Mimir

 

The end of the 2nd Trimester,
my baby was at 26 weeks when born by C-section.
He weighed 2 lbs, 0 oz.
An abortion would still have been perfectly legal at that time, and in fact it was an option the doctors asked us to consider.

Not in Denmark the "deadline" is 12 weeks. Unless theres serious complication You would be send too jail here.
I cant and wont ever argue for abortion of a 26week embryo, because the embryo is too evolved, like your description also show's.

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by Mimir

 

Well I see where you are coming from.. There is a good reason Ron Paul wants it to be this way..

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." -- 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution

This would be one of the powers reserved for the states along with..

Drinking Age
Smoking Age
Status of Substance Legalization
Gun Ownership
Gay Marriage
etc..
etc..

Personally I do not think this is a bad thing mainly because people are different in every region of the country.. From north to south and east to west many of the differences are black and white in comparison..

An example would be that some states Oppose things like Gay Marriage for instance whereas another state would let that just sail through..

In most cases i agree with both You, Ron and You'r constitution, BUT not on this issue where we talk about potential "murders on children". You obviously ignored my latest post, where i gave an example on why You can't go without some kind of regulation. What You and You'r constitution does is simply throwing away its responcebility. By letting the state get the call, You only risk some of these state's out of ignorance kill sound and healty unborn children, because they may disagree with mainstream-scientist's and doctors on when abortion would be ok...
I guess thats ok in your perspective?

Theres a diffrence on if we talk about Drinking Age, Smoking Age, Status of Substance Legalization, Gun Ownership, Gay Marriage etc. or if we talk about when killing an embryo is murder and when is it not. You need some kind of regulation with gunownership offcause, but honestly i dont see why You would regulate or make rules on all these subjects. I tought You want freedom of choice not condemnatory rules from the state/government or you'r religious belief's.



And this is to those who allways pull the religious card in this kind of discussion:
All life is precious! How about HIV-virus, cancercell's or plague, its God's creations shouldent we fight to keep them in existence?

All this religious superstition allways used in these kind of argumentations is is extremly borring and predictable when argueing on a US forum.

I do not understand how so many americans talk about freedom and civil rights, but at the same time support som middleage religious enslavement. Wake up!
Religious argumentation = void / non-existing,

it's useually just interpretation's on thousand year old fantasynovel's. You'r "God's" dont exist in my world. Dont use in You'r for argumentation if You want to keep You'r credibility. I could just read the interpretate same lines in another way.
Yes those "religious" book's really is written in a smart way that let you interpretate and potentialy read a new story every time you open it, but it does not make it real or the truth.
And yes the religious books does contain many truth's, but most of it is straight foreward bollock. Theres a saying...it goes like this

The best lies, are those that contain some grain's of truth

I'm truely sorry if someone feel hurt about the above statements, it never was my agenda, but You forced me to make that post.... PEACE.

reply to post by Mimir


The reason we don't like over-arching Federal Laws, is because every situation is unique.

What about the case of severe abuse and incest of a young girl, maybe 12 or 13. The pregnancy is covered up until late into the second trimester when she finally escapes and gets help. The doctors find plenty of potential health problems in the fetus, and it is the product of rape and incest, plus the girl is far too young to be a mother. The baby will likely survive, but never be self-sufficient and require life-long care from a mother not much older than the baby. I can see a Doctor, and a victim's advocate, and the young mother deciding that it is better to abort, even at that late stage, and I might agree with them.

Also, what about a difference of opinion among doctors? One doctor decides to abort a complicated pregnancy because the mother's life is in danger, but another doctor reviews the case and thinks both lives could have been saved, and now the first doctor could face criminal charges?

Like I said, I am pro-life, but I think the laws need to be on a more local level, and there needs to be plenty of flexibility in administering the laws. A Federal law is incapable of flexibility.

Our Constititution provides very limited power to the Federal Government, and everything else falls to the states. It isn't a shirking of responsibility, it is just a better way of making sure the human element is apparent in the administration of all laws.

On the same note, I despise 10-20-Life and all other mandatory sentencing laws. I despise 3-strike laws, and I despise all of the "nanny-state" laws like SeatBelts and Drinking ages. Most of those laws are State laws, not Federal, and they still get mis-used. Nothing is perfect, but the smaller the government the better!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Mimir

 

The reason we don't like over-arching Federal Laws, is because every situation is unique.

Every situation is unique agreed, but You can still make general guidlines or even laws to avoid risk of late aborts, except for the special cases like the one You descibe next.

What about the case of severe abuse and incest of a young girl, maybe 12 or 13. The pregnancy is covered up until late into the second trimester when she finally escapes and gets help. The doctors find plenty of potential health problems in the fetus, and it is the product of rape and incest, plus the girl is far too young to be a mother. The baby will likely survive, but never be self-sufficient and require life-long care from a mother not much older than the baby. I can see a Doctor, and a victim's advocate, and the young mother deciding that it is better to abort, even at that late stage, and I might agree with them.

Good example on why You cant have a law without makeing it flexible. Thats also why i use the word guideline instead of law. In You'r example theres no doubt, in my eyes, that abortion would be the best option for the girl, even if the fetus was healthy.
I just hope that in these kind of cases doctors can make it painless and in a way so the child dont feel/see whats comming....I wouldent like to be the one doing the surgery...or makeing the decision. And in a way it's not fair I ask doctors too do it, but sadly there's no perfect solution's or answer's on the suject of abortion's.
However this is not very common, so hopefully only a few doctors would have to do stuff like this.

Also, what about a difference of opinion among doctors? One doctor decides to abort a complicated pregnancy because the mother's life is in danger, but another doctor reviews the case and thinks both lives could have been saved, and now the first doctor could face criminal charges?

What if the second doctor gets hes will and both mother and child dies...or if only the mother die leaving the child with one parent (hopefully). Should the second doctor face crimnal charges?

Like I said, I am pro-life, but I think the laws need to be on a more local level, and there needs to be plenty of flexibility in administering the laws.

I fully agree.

A Federal law is incapable of flexibility.

But the state's is alot better at this? I would think the federal government had to make some solid guideline's. Not too remove Your states right to decide if its legal or not, but to avoid things run out of hand and one of the states decide abortion is ok untill 32th week in general.

Our Constititution provides very limited power to the Federal Government, and everything else falls to the states. It isn't a shirking of responsibility, it is just a better way of making sure the human element is apparent in the administration of all laws.

Again I agree it's good to get the decisions and decisionmaker's closer to the people. But in some cases like abortion which is an extremly emotional topic, clouding the mind of those involved. I prefere to follow the words of the mainstream scientist, doctor and physician, compared to listen to diffrent interpretation of morale and ethic's.

On the same note, I despise 10-20-Life and all other mandatory sentencing laws. I despise 3-strike laws,

Well here i tend to disagree, but the reson for that is that the Danish penalty system is far to soft. 10-20-life may be an exageration, but I would vote for double up if the crime is a repetition of the same type of crime that you did before.
In my small town there is a mean psycho who spend the last 30 year's of he's 47 year old life beating up people, selling drugs and other stuff.
He has been sentenced to jail 20+ times within those 30 years, sentences from a few months and up to 4-5 years in jail.
Every time he has been jailed he also beat someone up very badly, sometimes even molesting hes subject's.
Tell me why people like this shouldent be jailed for more than a few months, even thou he beat the crap out of some random bypasser and knocked out half of he's teeth's just because "glared in the wrong way".
If he had a doubleup sentence for repetitious crimes, the public wouldent have to "constantly" worry aslong as he's jailed.
(May be a extreme example, cause this dude is totally brainblown, he likes brawling and been in atleast a few hundred fistfights).

and I despise all of the "nanny-state" laws like SeatBelts and Drinking ages. Most of those laws are State laws, not Federal, and they still get mis-used. Nothing is perfect, but the smaller the government the better!

Agreed.


Last but least I'm not the toughtpolice, everyone is welcome to make their own decision on this subject.

reply to post by Mimir

Tell me why people like this shouldent be jailed for more than a few months, even thou he beat the crap out of some random bypasser and knocked out half of he's teeth's just because "glared in the wrong way".

I didn't say he shouldn't be jailed for a long time, I just don't think it should be mandatory, where the judge and jury have no say in it. The guy you mention, should get a long sentence, and the judge and jury involved should see his history and make that decision. On the other hand, we have folks that get a drug possession, and then a few years later they get in a typical bar fight, and then a few years later any little crime will mean a mandatory life sentence, and the judge and jury have no power to override it. The "mandatory" sentencing is a problem. In the US we have the right to a "trial by our peers," but the mandatory sentencing usurps that right.

Also, 3 strike laws make criminals more dangerous. For example, say I am just a typical pothead, but I'm not a danger to anyone but myself. After 2 strikes, I know I am facing a mandatory life sentence. You better believe I am not going in without a fight, so now every interaction with police becomes a tense life or death situation! There is now no difference between possession of a minor drug, and committing a murder. The law has made me far more dangerous than I would have been without the law.

In your example, the judges responsible for continually putting the guy back on the street need to be replaced.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Good points.

And yes the dude i descibe is also a pretty extreme example (just like the raped pregnant girl).

Originally posted by getreadyalready

On the other hand, we have folks that get a drug possession, and then a few years later they get in a typical bar fight, and then a few years later any little crime will mean a mandatory life sentence, and the judge and jury have no power to override it. The "mandatory" sentencing is a problem. In the US we have the right to a "trial by our peers," but the mandatory sentencing usurps that right.

Yep thats insane. But if the dude You describe repeatly do the same crime when he gets out its another talk. And I talk about certain substanial bad crimes like rape, murder, violence, kidnapping, rubbery, economic crimes, not about people who get's busted with a little weed or accidently speeded in the car for the second time.

Also, 3 strike laws make criminals more dangerous. For example, say I am just a typical pothead, but I'm not a danger to anyone but myself. After 2 strikes, I know I am facing a mandatory life sentence. You better believe I am not going in without a fight, so now every interaction with police becomes a tense life or death situation! There is now no difference between possession of a minor drug, and committing a murder. The law has made me far more dangerous than I would have been without the law.

Again I fully agree on this point. It is very easy to see the "evolution in crime" over the last 15 year's in Denmark. This is because they tried to make the penalty's longer, I have this confimed from local friends who used to be in a crimesyndicate. And the Danish laws aint very strict, I can only imagine how bad it owuld get if we introduced deathpenalty or sentences longer than 16 year's.

In your example, the judges responsible for continually putting the guy back on the street need to be replaced.

They just follow our law's.