Ron Paul

[Dempublicents1]

From a purely legal standpoint, the man has the exact same reproductive rights as the woman - the right to determine the extent to which his body participates in the reproductive process. It's due to biology that his participation is such a small part of the process, not the law.

That's a load of horse shit and anyone with a neuron and an axon to rub together for warmth knows it. If abortion procedures did not exist, this would be 100% true. But because they do, the decision to get one is ultimately the woman's, not the man's.

Of course the decision to get an abortion is ultimately the woman's and not the man's. She's the one who is pregnant. If, by some miracle, he gets pregnant, then the decision is his.

Getting rid of abortion procedures wouldn't change the fact that a woman's role in the reproductive process is much more extensive, and that she therefore has more decisions to make that affect it. She would still decide how much prenatal care to get, how to change (or not change) her diet and habits. She would determine whether or not to try for natural childbirth. And so on. All of this would be her decision because she is the one who gets pregnant.

When it comes right down to it, you're arguing with biology, not the law.

I seriously don't understand how you could type this with a straight face.

Because it's true. The law is not responsible for biological inequities.

Second, you can try ad hominem attacks on The New Republic, but that conspicuously ignores the content of the piece -- the undeniably racist statements printed under Ron Paul's name in his own newsletter.

TCt, didn't you get the memo? We're meant to believe that Ron Paul is actually a politician who allows such things to go out in his name and never even bothers to look at them. In other words, we're meant to believe that Paul is incompetent, rather than racist

Suggesting Federal courts have overstepped their bounds does not opposition of civil rights make.

The supposed "overstepping" is protection of individual rights. If the courts were "overstepping" by doing so, Paul is making a statement that said rights do not exist. By trying to take such matters out of the federal courts, so that citizens have no way to legal venue in which to take their state governments to task for infringing upon individual rights, he is making it clear that he does not believe said rights actually exist.

Like I've said before, my problem with Paul is that he is too authoritarian. In many issues, he supports stripping individuals of rights, and giving the authority over them to the state governments instead.

[Milks Empire]

the uterus is just as much a part of a fetus as it is a mother.

I don't think you know what a uterus is.

At least - I hope so, because if you do, this isn't ignorant - it's dumb.

i know what a uterus is. how is is ignorant? the fetus is attached to and enclosed in the uterus. it's survival is dependent upon it. for all intents and purposes it is an extension of itself until birth.

Wrong. Take a cell from the uterus, a cell from the fetus, and a swab from the woman's mouth.

Fetal DNA vs. Uterus DNA - not a match
Swab DNA vs. Uterus DNA - perfect match*

The uterus is an extension of the mother, not the fetus. It is solely the discretion of the mother as to what she does with it. An adult wouldn't be allowed to be plugged into a woman's uterus against her will. Why should anything else?
*barring chimerism

Edit: Posted before viewing concession speech.

[Mortshnefran]

Wrong. Take a cell from the uterus, a cell from the fetus, and a swab from the woman's mouth.

Fetal DNA vs. Uterus DNA - not a match
Swab DNA vs. Uterus DNA - perfect match*

The uterus is an extension of the mother, not the fetus. It is solely the discretion of the mother as to what she does with it. An adult wouldn't be allowed to be plugged into a woman's uterus against her will. Why should anything else?
*barring chimerism

i was arguing devil's advocate and have already admitted my arguments had no base

[Melkor Unchained]

Of course the decision to get an abortion is ultimately the woman's and not the man's. She's the one who is pregnant. If, by some miracle, he gets pregnant, then the decision is his.

You're not paying a goddamn lick of attention, as usual.

BECAUSE THAT DECISION EXISTS, THE MALE HAS NO SAY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE FETUS BECOMES A HUMAN BEING. You can pussyfoot around it all you want; it's the truth. Even though the decision is ultimately NOT HIS, he is still legally responsible for it if the woman chooses to carry the baby to term.

Getting rid of abortion procedures wouldn't change the fact that a woman's role in the reproductive process is much more extensive, and that she therefore has more decisions to make that affect it. She would still decide how much prenatal care to get, how to change (or not change) her diet and habits. She would determine whether or not to try for natural childbirth. And so on. All of this would be her decision because she is the one who gets pregnant.

I'll grant that some of the inequities in the process are biological in nature, but the existence of abortion procedures (nevermind that I'm not actually arguing against them, only that the issue should be couched in different terms) puts the ball 100% in the woman's court. There's all this high-toned and fancy talk about having an "equal share" in the creation of a baby, but the fact of the matter is that's not how it works. You're really grasping at straws here; I think you're letting your history of arguing against me no matter what I say dictate your position more than anything resembling "logic." Take a step back from the monitor and think about it for a nanosecond or five, I promise it makes sense.

[Mortshnefran]

would a law requiring that a woman have a signed agreement by the man stating he consented to the birth in order for there to be a child support claim be right? i think maybe that needs to be a separate post.

[Trve]

You're not paying a goddamn lick of attention, as usual.

I love when Mods are beligerant pricks. If anyone said this kind of stuff to a Mod they would get warned. Some Mods are fair and dont abuse their position. You, however, Melkor, do.

BECAUSE THAT DECISION EXISTS, THE MALE HAS NO SAY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE FETUS BECOMES A HUMAN BEING. You can pussyfoot around it all you want; it's the truth. Even though the decision is ultimately NOT HIS, he is still legally responsible for it if the woman chooses to carry the baby to term.

Thats because, for the time the fetus is in the woman, the man does jack shit. His body doesnt get fucked up because of it. He doesnt have the threat of DEATH through child birth. He wont develop post-partum. Dont pretend like during the pregency, the male has nearly as much at stake as the women does as your excuse to espouse your typical bullshit about how poor men are treated unfairly.

Youre not making any god damn sense, but thats usual.

And if you warn me over anything I said in this post, Ill appeal it, because Im taking the exact same tone you are, you're 'Modliness'.

[Dempublicents1]

Of course the decision to get an abortion is ultimately the woman's and not the man's. She's the one who is pregnant. If, by some miracle, he gets pregnant, then the decision is his.

You're not paying a goddamn lick of attention, as usual.

BECAUSE THAT DECISION EXISTS, THE MALE HAS NO SAY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE FETUS BECOMES A HUMAN BEING.

And that is entirely based on the fact that the fetus is inside the woman's body. He also has no say in whether or not the fetus gets adequate nutrition, or whether or not it is affected by prescription drugs that the woman needs, or whether or not the woman goes with natural birth or chooses a c-section - all of which could also determine whether or not a living baby is born.

The woman is pregnant, the man is not. It is her body, not his. She isn't being granted any rights that he doesn't have by being able to retain control of her own body, just as he retains control of his.

You can pussyfoot around it all you want; it's the truth. Even though the decision is ultimately NOT HIS, he is still legally responsible for it if the woman chooses to carry the baby to term.

I never argued that the decision was his - only that there is no inequity in rights because a woman gets to make a medical decision that a man does not, just as there is no inequity of rights represented by the fact that a man can get a vasectomy and a woman cannot.

And yes, both parents are equally responsible for any offspring that results from their reproductive actions. One can certainly argue that this should not be the case. I have, at times, argued that perhaps no one should bear the responsibilities of parenthood without explicitly agreeing to them. I've gone back and forth on the "paper abortion" idea. But abortion is a separate issue entirely.

I'll grant that some of the inequities in the process are biological in nature, but the existence of abortion procedures (nevermind that I'm not actually arguing against them, only that the issue should be couched in different terms) puts the ball 100% in the woman's court.

....which is a direct product of the biological fact that she is the one who is pregnant.

There's all this high-toned and fancy talk about having an "equal share" in the creation of a baby, but the fact of the matter is that's not how it works.

Actually, that's exactly what I've been saying. The man actually does very, very little in the process of creating a baby. But, for what he can do, he determines his participation in the process. And, for what a woman can do, she determines her participation in the process. Her participation is longer, so she has more points at which she can end that participation. It doesn't change the fact that we're talking about a biological inequity, rather than a legal one.

You're really grasping at straws here; I think you're letting your history of arguing against me no matter what I say dictate your position more than anything resembling "logic." Take a step back from the monitor and think about it for a nanosecond or five, I promise it makes sense.

I think you need to examine yourself there. If you look back into threads that have been made on this very subject (and they have been plentiful), you'll see me making the exact same argument. It has nothing to do with you.

[The Holy Deus]

I am A Ron Paul Supporter for here a just ten reasons of my many why I support him:

1. Pro-Life suppoter
2. Pro- Gun
3. Plans on lowering taxes
4. A real constitutionalist
5. Voted aganist the war in Iraq
6.Paul voted to end trade restrictions in Cuba
7.Paul supports stem-cell research generically, as evidenced by his authoring the Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007
8.Paul believes in smaller government
9.Paul voted against the REAL ID Act of 2005, an Act to create federal identification-card standards, which has been challenged as violating the Constitutional separation of powers doctrine, and other civil liberties
10. HE ACUTALLY ARES ABOUT THWE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

[The Holy Deus]

Can someone update me on the dicussion since I just joined it?

[Melkor Unchained]

And that is entirely based on the fact that the fetus is inside the woman's body.

It's not "entirely" based on the fact that it's in her body--it can be in her body and she can still decide not to carry the child to term. It becomes a human being when she wants it to not (just) because it's "in her body" but because she chose not to get an abortion.

The woman is pregnant, the man is not. It is her body, not his. She isn't being granted any rights that he doesn't have by being able to retain control of her own body, just as he retains control of his.

The fuck she isn't! Both parties, of course, control their bodies during the creation of the fetus, but only one of them can decide to actually have it and that decision happens to be legally binding to the other party!

I never argued that the decision was his - only that there is no inequity in rights because a woman gets to make a medical decision that a man does not, just as there is no inequity of rights represented by the fact that a man can get a vasectomy and a woman cannot.

Don't feed me that crap. If there was no way to abort a fetus, you'd be right. But because there is, she has the power to make a "medical decision" that is legally binding to the man for the next eighteen years. What is so hard about this?

And yes, both parents are equally responsible for any offspring that results from their reproductive actions. One can certainly argue that this should not be the case. I have, at times, argued that perhaps no one should bear the responsibilities of parenthood without explicitly agreeing to them. I've gone back and forth on the "paper abortion" idea. But abortion is a separate issue entirely.

And I'm not saying women shouldn't have that right, I'm only saying that there ought to be some way to make it fair for both parties (not that I have the foggiest idea what that way might be). I'm not sure what "paper abortion" is, so if I've misunderstood this point I apologize. I just think it's a tad unfair that a woman can rope a man into paying child support for a baby he would just as soon not have. It's easy enough to say "Well then just don't have sex" or whatever, but that's just not realistic. Accidents happen, and not everyone who has sex is ready to have a child. Luckily, I steer clear from this whole hornets nest by being terrible with women, so it's not an issue I'm likely to face any time soon.

....which is a direct product of the biological fact that she is the one who is pregnant.

AND the fact that abortion procedures are both legal and relatively common. You're only looking at one side of the issue here. You can't just say "its because she's the one who's pregnant" over and over again and pretend to have that be some kind of argument against the fact that abortion allows women to make a decision, essentially, that the man both cannot make for himself and also happens to carry the attendant legal implications. You'll never be faced with the possibility of being forced to pay for a child that you don't want. I might.

Actually, that's exactly what I've been saying. The man actually does very, very little in the process of creating a baby. But, for what he can do, he determines his participation in the process. And, for what a woman can do, she determines her participation in the process. Her participation is longer, so she has more points at which she can end that participation. It doesn't change the fact that we're talking about a biological inequity, rather than a legal one.

Uhhh, no. Like I've pointed out several times (and will probably have to point out several more times, judging by how this is going) it becomes a legal issue because the man is expected to provide for the baby once it's born. From where I sit you seem to be treating the issue as resolved once the baby is physically born, but that's not the case as millions of males across the country can most definitely attest.

I think you need to examine yourself there. If you look back into threads that have been made on this very subject (and they have been plentiful), you'll see me making the exact same argument. It has nothing to do with you.

I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone (except my father) talk about abortion in anything resembling terms like this. Most of the opposition I've seen is along the lines of "omg it kills babies" or something equally inane. If someone else has made the same arguments I'm making, I've never seen it here (but maybe that's just because I haven't been around much lately).

[Dempublicents1]

I am A Ron Paul Supporter for here a just ten reasons of my many why I support him:

1. Pro-Life suppoter
2. Pro- Gun
3. Plans on lowering taxes
4. A real constitutionalist

Yeah, the guy who stood up in front of the House and announced his intention to break his oath of office and vote for a bill he believed to be unconstitutional is a real constitutionalist.

But since you probably agree with his vote because of #1, I'm sure you're willing to ignore the hypocrisy there.

5. Voted aganist the war in Iraq
6.Paul voted to end trade restrictions in Cuba

Both good things that I could also support.

7.Paul supports stem-cell research generically, as evidenced by his authoring the Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007

He supports some stem cell research, yes. But like most such legislation, certain stem cells are excluded from the process. I'm not a big fan of the government making such decisions - especially based on what amounts to religious objections. Interestingly, Paul is supposedly opposed to the government getting involved in such research as well, so I'm not sure why he's suddenly ok with incentivizing it.

8.Paul believes in smaller government

....at the federal level, and bigger government at the state level.

9.Paul voted against the REAL ID Act of 2005, an Act to create federal identification-card standards, which has been challenged as violating the Constitutional separation of powers doctrine, and other civil liberties

See my note under 5 and 6.

10. HE ACUTALLY ARES ABOUT THWE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

I don't see any evidence to believe that Paul cares about the American people any more than any politician - less than some.

Can someone update me on the dicussion since I just joined it?

Talk about Ron Paul and his policies, whether or not he's racist. Also, a side discussion about whether or not it is consistent to be both libertarian and in favor of banning abortion and, from there, whether or not there is a legal inequity between men and women created by the existence and legality of abortion.

[Valipac]

I'm not a big fan of the government making such decisions - especially based on what amounts to religious objections.

It's not really religious objections, it's scientific objections. No one can scientifically prove when life actually starts, and so it's a matter of science, not religion. Now, the position he hold is often identified with religious followers, but, it is not a religious objection.

[Justonnia]

Ron Paul FTW!

[Dempublicents1]

It's not "entirely" based on the fact that it's in her body--it can be in her body and she can still decide not to carry the child to term. It becomes a human being when she wants it to not (just) because it's "in her body" but because she chose not to get an abortion.

Yes. That is one decision that is made in the creation of a child. There are many such decisions - whether or not to have sex, what protection to use or not use, whether or not to seek emergency contraception, and eventually, whether or not to have an abortion.

And both persons are entitled to make those decisions, to the extend that they are personally involved.

The fuck she isn't! Both parties, of course, control their bodies during the creation of the fetus, but only one of them can decide to actually have it and that decision happens to be legally binding to the other party!

....which isn't a separate right of any sort. Both the man and woman retain control of their own bodies. The woman's body can create a baby from the union of the two gametes, while the man's body cannot.

In our current system, the birth of a child does create responsibilities for both parents, but that isn't a result of the existence of abortion procedures - it's a separate legal issue.

Don't feed me that crap. If there was no way to abort a fetus, you'd be right. But because there is, she has the power to make a "medical decision" that is legally binding to the man for the next eighteen years. What is so hard about this?

When he decides to have sex with her, he's making a decision that could have legally binding results on her for the next 18 years. They both are.

And I'm not saying women shouldn't have that right, I'm only saying that there ought to be some way to make it fair for both parties (not that I have the foggiest idea what that way might be). I'm not sure what "paper abortion" is, so if I've misunderstood this point I apologize. I just think it's a tad unfair that a woman can rope a man into paying child support for a baby he would just as soon not have. It's easy enough to say "Well then just don't have sex" or whatever, but that's just not realistic. Accidents happen, and not everyone who has sex is ready to have a child. Luckily, I steer clear from this whole hornets nest by being terrible with women, so it's not an issue I'm likely to face any time soon.

The "paper abortion" idea is one in which the man would be able to sign a legal document to the effect the he wants no part in raising the child before the child is born. Most people tend to limit his time for signing such a document to the same time period in which she could have an elective abortion. There is an argument that this would be more fair (although I would argue that both parties would have to have access to the same legal document).

Of course, such a move would also has the effect of removing protections from a true innocent in the process - the child

AND the fact that abortion procedures are both legal and relatively common. You're only looking at one side of the issue here. You can't just say "its because she's the one who's pregnant" over and over again and pretend to have that be some kind of argument against the fact that abortion allows women to make a decision, essentially, that the man both cannot make for himself and also happens to carry the attendant legal implications. You'll never be faced with the possibility of being forced to pay for a child that you don't want. I might.

I actually could be. I'm personally morally opposed to elective abortion, so I could be faced with carrying a child to term even if I didn't want it, because I might feel that carrying to term would be the better choice, even if I didn't want a child. At this point, that wouldn't be the case, but it could have been in an earlier time in my life.

Note that I'm not arguing that the situation is fair or good - simply that the things you have a problem with are biological. The process of reproduction (to the point of a baby being born) is incredibly uneven. The man's participation in it is momentary, while the woman's continues for 9 months. Because so much of it does take place in her body, this means that a man has very little legal decision making ability in the matter as well. In order to make that more "fair", we would actually have to either grant men more rights than a woman has, or fewer responsibilities.

Uhhh, no. Like I've pointed out several times (and will probably have to point out several more times, judging by how this is going) it becomes a legal issue because the man is expected to provide for the baby once it's born.

Which, as I have pointed out more than once, is a separate issue from that of abortion. If your argument is that the man should not be legally responsible for his child, make that argument. But it has nothing to do with a woman's ability to have an abortion.

I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone (except my father) talk about abortion in anything resembling terms like this. Most of the opposition I've seen is along the lines of "omg it kills babies" or something equally inane. If someone else has made the same arguments I'm making, I've never seen it here (but maybe that's just because I haven't been around much lately).

I've seen multiple threads on this subject pop up over the years - sometimes under the specific title "Paper abortion". It also seems to come up in any abortion debate. It's an issue I've gone back and forth on a couple of times now. Maybe you just don't generally involve yourself in those debates?

It's not really religious objections, it's scientific objections. No one can scientifically prove when life actually starts, and so it's a matter of science, not religion. Now, the position he hold is often identified with religious followers, but, it is not a religious objection.

(a) The objections to embryonic stem cell research have little to do with when life starts, since most such research has been done and continues to be carried out with embryos already slated for destruction. Human life or not, they're going to be destroyed.

(b) If science cannot define when life starts (which I would disagree with - as it certainly can provide time points that make sense for that), then it obviously isn't a scientific objection. It has to come from some other justification - which is usually religion.

[Allanea]

The supposed "overstepping" is protection of individual rights.

Yes, especially how Ricci protected individual rights. Or Raich.

[Dempublicents1]

The supposed "overstepping" is protection of individual rights.

Yes, especially how Ricci protected individual rights. Or Raich.

Those aren't the decisions that Paul was so bothered by that he wrote the "We the People Act". Those decisions were things like Lawrence v. Texas, Roe v. Wade, protections of religious freedom, and other protections of privacy throughout the years (ie. decisions that kept states from preventing individuals from using birth control), not to mention the fear that the courts might *gasp* enforce equal protection.

[Melkor Unchained]

The supposed "overstepping" is protection of individual rights.

Yes, especially how Ricci protected individual rights. Or Raich.

Those aren't the decisions that Paul was so bothered by that he wrote the "We the People Act". Those decisions were things like Lawrence v. Texas, Roe v. Wade, protections of religious freedom, and other protections of privacy throughout the years (ie. decisions that kept states from preventing individuals from using birth control).

For the record, I'll come back to your earlier post sometime tomorrow, but I'm too drunk and tired to deal with the majority of it right now. But suffice to say, I think we may potentially agree on a key issue; that of (now that you've explained it--I didn't know what the term meant) "paper abortions." I recognize that raising a child is as at least as much the woman's commitment as it is the man's (and in most practical situations, probably moreso, as the man is biologically much more likely to "cut and run"), whether he participates via child support or a more direct role in the physical upbringing of the child or not. I, for one, would not shrink from such a responsibility assuming I was willing to sleep with the woman, but something just doesn't sit right with me when it comes to the woman making a decision (essentially) on behalf of the both of them, immaterial of the man's wishes. I suspect we're arguing with each other on entirely personal terms; I, on behalf of a man who may or may not want the child, and you as a woman who might or might not feel the same way. I like to think I'm weighing both sides of the argument and I'm more than certain you feel the same way. But the legal framework of raising children--in this country, at least--assumes that the woman is powerless to raise the child on her own and requires physical or monetary support from the male, which is true sometimes but not always. My mother, for instance, probably made about 4-5 times as much as my father did while my brother and I were growing up, but was nonetheless legally responsible for paying a certain amount each moth even though she was more than capable of paying the entire sum herself. I realize that not always how it happens, but it's worth considering. The idea that women are (economically or otherwise) powerless in society is slowly becoming more and more obsolete.

[Mortshnefran]

I'm not a big fan of the government making such decisions - especially based on what amounts to religious objections.

It's not really religious objections, it's scientific objections. No one can scientifically prove when life actually starts, and so it's a matter of science, not religion. Now, the position he hold is often identified with religious followers, but, it is not a religious objection.

Life begins at conception, there is no scientific argument there, it is a complete cell and therefore life. the question no matter how it is phrased is really when does it become deserving of the same rights as born human. if you think about it scientifically it has to be when the brain reaches a certain level of maturation. the flip side is that those rights begin at conception and no matter how i think about it i can only come to one conclusion as to why someone would believe that, and it is that it has a soul which is a religious idea.

on a side i'm playing this game where you ride a giant sperm and dertroy tanks planes and helicopters which is exactly like abortion.

[Dempublicents1]

For the record, I'll come back to your earlier post sometime tomorrow, but I'm too drunk and tired to deal with the majority of it right now. But suffice to say, I think we may potentially agree on a key issue; that of (now that you've explained it--I didn't know what the term meant) "paper abortions." I recognize that raising a child is as at least as much the woman's commitment as it is the man's (and in most practical situations, probably moreso, as the man is biologically much more likely to "cut and run"), whether he participates via child support or a more direct role in the physical upbringing of the child. I, for one, would not shrink from such a responsibility assuming I was willing to sleep with the woman, but something just doesn't sit right with me when it comes to the woman making a decision (essentially) on behalf of the both of them, immaterial of the man's wishes. I suspect we're arguing with each other on entirely personal terms; I, on behalf of a man who may or may not want the child, and you as a woman who might or might not feel the same way. I like to think I'm weighing both sides of the argument and I'm more than certain you feel the same way. But the legal framework of raising children--in this country, at least--assumes that the woman is powerless to raise the child on her own and requires physical or monetary support from the male, which is true sometimes but not always. My mother, for instance, probably made about 4-5 times as much as my father did while my brother and I were growing up, but was nonetheless legally responsible for paying a certain amount each moth even though she was more than capable of paying the entire sum herself. I realize that not always how it happens, but it's worth considering. The idea that women are (economically or otherwise) powerless in society is slowly becoming more and more obsolete.

To be fair, the assumption being made isn't that a woman can't support a child on her own, it's that one person generally cannot support a child on their own. So *both* parents are considered to be equally responsible for a child. If a man has custody of the child, a woman is also expected to pay child support. The idea is that a child is entitled to support from both parents.

I'm open to the idea that having sex - or even carrying a pregnancy to term - should not necessarily mean that the parents have the legal responsibilities of parenthood. The legal responsibilities are to the child, and so the child's welfare should be paramount in how custody is legally handled, and I don't think having a parent - mother or father - in a child's life when that parent does not want to be there is a good thing. I could see changing the system such that someone would have to explicitly take on the mantle of parenthood, rather than having it assumed because of their reproductive choices, but I also think such a change would have consequences beyond those intended, and that is something that would have to be dealt with.

Life begins at conception, there is no scientific argument there, it is a complete cell and therefore life. the question no matter how it is phrased is really when does it become deserving of the same rights as born human.

The sperm cell and egg cell that combine to form the zygote are also both living cells, as are the cells they form from. When people talk about "when life begins", they aren't talking about life in the sense of "are the cells living?" They're asking when the entity is a living organism and, as you point out, more specifically, when does it obtain rights.

if you think about it scientifically it has to be when the brain reaches a certain level of maturation. the flip side is that those rights begin at conception and no matter how i think about it i can only come to one conclusion as to why someone would believe that, and it is that it has a soul which is a religious idea.

Science doesn't really define things like "when it deserves rights." Those are ethical and moral questions, not scientific ones. What science can give us is a measurement of when whatever criteria we come up with are met.

You are right, though, that most people argue the existence of a soul in the "life begins at conception" standpoint. Of course, one can also logically argue that it doesn't make sense for ensoulment to happen until after the point at which an embryo can undergo twinning, unless twins are considered to share a single soul. Problem is, that isn't something we can measure using scientific processes.

[The Cat-Tribe]

First, I love how you would cite a local NAACP president as an authority on racism. Convenient, isn't it? I know you usually defer to the NAACP on racial issues.

It is very useful, since he's arguing with YOU, and YOU respect the NAACP.

Nice deflection. Don't talk about the substance of any of what I said about Ron Paul and his record.

Regardless, a single local NAACP president who expressly qualified his statements as personal and not representive of the NAACP is NOT the same as the NAACP. Moreover, if you actually listen to Nelson Linder's interviews about Ron Paul, his statements aren't particularly persuasive. So he had dinner with Ron Paul and didn't think he was overtly racist. That doesn't mean Ron Paul's record magically vanishes.

Fourth, I'm afraid I'm never going to agree that a consistent opponent of civil rights is a "good guy" who is just being smeared by "hypersentive" liberals.

No, it is YOU who claim he is a consistent opponent of civil rights. Opposing the CRA-64 does not opposition of civil rights make. Suggesting Federal courts have overstepped their bounds does not opposition of civil rights make.

Are you denying that Ron Paul has consistently opposed civil rights? Name a civil rights law he supported. I won't hold my breath.

Do you deny that Ron Paul has proposed anti-desegregation legislation and other racist legislation?

[The Cat-Tribe]

:palm:

If you're going to accuse someone of being a racist, logic would dictate you'd listen to the people he's accused of being racist against. I'm not seeing any terrific minority outcry over Paul and his policies, and like I said earlier I've met waaaaayyyy more white guys who thought he was racist than black guys. I know my own personal experience is circumstantial at best, but its been my experience that the white middle class in this country is still carrying racial baggage from 150+ years ago. My best friend is black, and when we get together and drink (or ingest other chemical compounds ) race relations is a favorite topic of ours. He says he still comes across racism on a more or less daily basis, but I think we agree that it's remarkably over-politicized these days.

Also, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at accusing me of ad hominem against a magazine. All media outlets (and this isn't unique to that publication by any means) have an agenda of some sort, and that they're left-leaning is certainly not up for debate. Anything they have to say about their potential political opponents should be taken with a grain of salt, and I'd be glad to say the same if the shoe were on the other foot. Paul's newsletter, for example, is quite certainly published with the intention of promoting his policies as well. It's just the nature of the beast.

I didn't realize you had spoken to a representative sample of black people who were familiar with Ron Paul's writings and record and didn't think he was racist. As for "the people he's accused of being racist against," I personally do know African-Americans that feel Ron Paul is racist -- although the vast majority of people (black or white or other) don't know who Ron Paul is, let alone about his record.

As for the "over-politiciz[ation]" of racism, I again am not impressed by the views of one black person. Clarence Thomas is black, but that doesn't make him right about racial issues. Regardless, when we live in a country where between two otherwise equally qualified people employers would rather hire a white man recent released from prison for a felony than hire a black person with no criminal history, race continues to be an issue deserving of scrutiny.

Paul's newsletter speaks for itself with blatant examples of racial hatred and fear. That The New Republic has put those documents on the internet doesn't make their content any less offensive.

[The Cat-Tribe]

The supposed "overstepping" is protection of individual rights.

Yes, especially how Ricci protected individual rights. Or Raich.

A most curious statement. As has already been pointed out, Ron Paul's proposed gutting of constitutional rights wouldn't effect Raich and likely would have prevented the lawsuit in Ricci.

Further, how has the federal government overstepped in Ricci. If it weren't for the CRA (which you say you oppose) and the 14th Amendment, the plaintiffs in Ricci would even be able to bring a case!!!

[Blouman Empire]

I like some of Ron Paul policies but his economic policies (at least the ones he was touting in during the election) are whack and just bizarre and for that reason wouldn't really want him to gain any significant power.

And Obama's policies are good? SPEND, SPEND, SPEND! And then, we'll all be rich! Genius!

And where exactly did I say that? Opposition to one policy not in government does not mean you like policies of the government.

The economic policies that are touted by Peter Schiff, his economics adviser? The only reason those policies are considered whack and bizarre by the general populace is that they do not want to realize that our economy is fundamentally flawed. Look up any number of videos about Peter Schiff. 2 years before the recession hit, Schiff was going to all the major news channels and telling them that it was going to occur. No one listened to him, and he was laughed off of several shows. Now, we're the ones who look like fools.

So how exactly does placing the US into economic isolationism a good thing? The rest of your post has nothing to do with my post.

Men are allowed to abort all the foetuses in their bodies, just as women are.

That's like saying gays have the right to marry other people of the same sex just like non-gays.

[Trve]

The supposed "overstepping" is protection of individual rights.

Yes, especially how Ricci protected individual rights. Or Raich.

Those aren't the decisions that Paul was so bothered by that he wrote the "We the People Act". Those decisions were things like Lawrence v. Texas, Roe v. Wade, protections of religious freedom, and other protections of privacy throughout the years (ie. decisions that kept states from preventing individuals from using birth control), not to mention the fear that the courts might *gasp* enforce equal protection.

Ron Paul doesnt believe in personal freedoms (unless youre white Christian and male), and when he says that he wants to stop the government from getting involved, what he means is he wants to allow the states to brutally oppress you while neutering the government that actually matters (fed).

Hes just a free market crazy old bastard who cloaks himself in caring about 'personal freedoms' so he can appear consistant. And some idiots actually buy it.

[Melkor Unchained]

Paul's newsletter speaks for itself with blatant examples of racial hatred and fear. That The New Republic has put those documents on the internet doesn't make their content any less offensive.

I've read them and I'm not impressed. People are quick enough to laugh at the Onion headline "LA Rioters Demand Justice, Tape Decks" but to make a similar point in the real world is apparently unforgivable.

America is more divided by class than by race. Upper class whites hate the same behaviors in lower class whites/latinos that they see in lower class blacks. I won't pretend to know anything about your living situation, but I have actually physically lived among America's "lower class"--I was fortunate enough to have an apartment next to a halfway house and I walked "dangerous" streets on a daily basis. The people I encountered there were much more unified by their economic standing than by their skin color. I spent more months than I care to admit freebasing crystal meth in an apartment that was previously occupied by a man who raped and murdered his girlfriend. It was in all the papers before I moved in.

Surely you can see why I might regard your viewpoint as a little too "Ivory Tower" for my tastes. I've been there, I've lived it. I went from an upper-middle class suburban upbringing to the lower class "ghetto" in less than 6 months. Not that this makes me automatically correct, but it does give me an insight that I suspect you lack. Say what you want about the viewpoints of my black friend(s); but your contention that employers "would rather hire a white man recent released from prison for a felony than hire a black person with no criminal history" is completely fucking ridiculous.