I really hate it when people lie while raping me.

Paul would be OK with the hospital providing emergency contraceptives -- unless it's a private run hospital that doesn't treat harlots. Or if the woman is mixed race and the private hospital doesn't treat products of miscegenation. Or the woman is black and the private run clinic doesn't treat coons. Or......

I'm personally pro-choice, so this is one of Pauls stances which directly conflicts with my beliefs, but it's pretty clear he just means to exclude women who use rape as an excuse for getting an abortion.


EDIT: also, he's clearly not advocating abortion here either. His solution is to prevent fertilization, which is directly in line with his beliefs.


At some point you must know you're just trolling to generate hate for a guy you don't believe in. I don't necessarily believe in him as much as I used to either, but this is silly, and is the exact same childish game that has brought political discourse to the level of the grade-school special-needs-mentality that's pandered around by the mainstream media.

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.

ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

please provide statistics. how many women fabricate rapes as an "excuse" to get an abortion? >> ^artician:

I'm personally pro-choice, so this is one of Pauls stances which directly conflicts with my beliefs, but it's pretty clear he just means to exclude women who use rape as an excuse for getting an abortion.

EDIT: also, he's clearly not advocating abortion here either. His solution is to prevent fertilization, which is directly in line with his beliefs.

At some point you must know you're just trolling to generate hate for a guy you don't believe in. I don't necessarily believe in him as much as I used to either, but this is silly, and is the exact same childish game that has brought political discourse to the level of the grade-school special-needs-mentality that's pandered around by the mainstream media.

Wait, did Paul just give a schrodinger's womb defense? That was some creative hypocrisy.

>> ^peggedbea:

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

This x1000

lmao. Okay @NetRunner. I give.

smh.

he mentions a woman possibly coming into the ER 7 months pregnant after having been raped. Is it even possible, legally, to get an abortion at such a late stage? At 7 months, that is pretty much a formed baby. I mean... there have been cases of premature babies with a lot less than 7 months of development.

I'm not sure how you would gather statistics of females using rape as an excuse for abortion, and distinguish between those who actually have been raped or not. It's not like you could survey rape victim abortions with a questionnaire on whether or not it was really a rape or just an excuse to get the abortion.

First of all, there's no real set definition of rape as I've understood it, so it's entirely up to the woman to decide in gray area-cases. The way it works in my country, a woman can discover that the intercourse she partook in willingly and consentingly at the time, was in fact rape and as such she can file for rape charges. The term rape is so incredibly powerful for at the same time being so incredibly vague. This, I think, is the heart of the matter with what Paul's trying to get at, saying he would allow an abortion of a rape victim in the emergency ward but would be hesitant to someone 7 month pregnant.

Hilariously poor wording by him here, but this is one of those lose/lose-cases in US interviews. Had he defined what he meant by "honest rape", he'd been attacked for the definition whatever it would be. Now he's just attacked for not defining it.

>> ^entr0py:

Wait, did Paul just give a schrodinger's womb defense? That was some creative hypocrisy.


Yep. and while we're on the subject...

>> ^entr0py:

Wait, did Paul just give a schrodinger's womb defense? That was some creative hypocrisy.


That's very good. For you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5RvDorEnMc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

>> ^EMPIRE:

he mentions a woman possibly coming into the ER 7 months pregnant after having been raped. Is it even possible, legally, to get an abortion at such a late stage? At 7 months, that is pretty much a formed baby. I mean... there have been cases of premature babies with a lot less than 7 months of development.


In Canada it's legal right up until the very last second before birth. And heaven forbid anyone in our country discuss that might be too far, you'll be branded some woman hating neo-con trying to remove the rights of everyone who isn't a white male.

Yeah... that's way too much. I'm pro-choice, but having an abortion that late should be murder. Here in Portugal I think the law only permits up to 10 weeks, and I'm fine with that. >> ^bcglorf:

>> ^EMPIRE:
he mentions a woman possibly coming into the ER 7 months pregnant after having been raped. Is it even possible, legally, to get an abortion at such a late stage? At 7 months, that is pretty much a formed baby. I mean... there have been cases of premature babies with a lot less than 7 months of development.

In Canada it's legal right up until the very last second before birth. And heaven forbid anyone in our country discuss that might be too far, you'll be branded some woman hating neo-con trying to remove the rights of everyone who isn't a white male.

Much like the theoretical woman at the hospital swallowing Plan Bs like Tic Tacs, @NetRunner is taking NO CHANCES that Paul might win the nomination!

To be frank, I think you (and others) are missing the point.

Ron Paul, as I see it, is addressing an obvious problem with a system that would allow medical treatment (early-stage abortion, or the prevention of pregnancy) only for rape victims, namely that you'd have to have a way of turning away (EDIT: and identifying) women who sought abortions for reasons other than rape. He's not suggesting a rubric for doing so (I don't think the interview format would have allowed him to), nor is he making any assumptions about the nature of rape victims or rapists. (Remember: he's a trained obstetrician-gynecologist. I'd bet he knows more about sexual assault than most of us do.) The phrase "honest rape" (yes, a terribly chosen phrase) is part of an attempt to address the problem described above, one which he didn't adequately explain.>> ^peggedbea:

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

I don't see why this video is worth all the hubbub.

I couldn't agree more.

@NetRunner, your treatment of Ron Paul is a curious thing to me. You're an intelligent and thoughtful person, as far as I can tell, and yet you seem to be content with fostering political conversations that center on sound bytes and missteps rather than on frank, honest, and direct addresses of issues and ideas. (I'm thinking of your last three Ron Paul videos in particular.) And, like @artician wrote, that sort of approach is as unhelpful as the sensationalistic and sound-byte-driven approach made by many outlets in the mainstream media.
>> ^artician:
[...]

At some point you must know you're just trolling to generate hate for a guy you don't believe in. I don't necessarily believe in him as much as I used to either, but this is silly, and is the exact same childish game that has brought political discourse to the level of the grade-school special-needs-mentality that's pandered around by the mainstream media.

@aurens I responded to artician on his profile page.

I don't really want the comment thread to devolve into some debate about me. If you wanna join the wider discussion about Ron Paul going on here, that's fine. If you just want to make complaints about me, take it to my profile, and I'll be happy to discuss it there.

Wow, look at Ron squirm.

I honestly can't see this twitchy, shifty looking bloke becoming president. And that's before I hear stuff like "honest rape".

It's a pretty indefensible position he's taking.

He's saying:

"If you can bring yourself to front up to a hospital/clinic fast enough that the sperm haven't even reached the egg yet, I'll be ok with you stopping the sperm being able to fertilise the egg"

"But in all other cases, well, you've obviously taken too long, it's now 'a life' and I've backed myself into a corner saying I can't condone that... so tough"

He's trying to make out like he has a heart and is giving an option for women who have been honestly raped.

Heaven forbid that they take some time to get over the trauma, or have a hard time building the courage to ask for the treatment... nope, in his world it's just a routine procedure they should get done after an apparent routine rape.

Fucking hell... why again do people think he's the messiah?

I disagree. He's discussing what HE SEES as a way around a system that outlaws abortion period. A system that he is on record, in favor of, btw.

In the cases of "honest rape" he is not opposed to emergency contraception. The phrase "honest rape" is anti-woman, victim blamey, proto-fascist rhetoric. I have 0 problem with his stance on emergency contraception. I also have no problem with a system that disallows late term abortion, except in cases when the mothers life is in danger. Late term abortion is ghastly. I'm against it. But "late term abortion" is also another pro-life rhetorical device. To make the entire arena of reproductive choice emotionally repulsive. The instances of late term abortions are extremely rare, but there's tons of hype about it out of the mouths of pro-lifers.

So, his rhetoric is abhorrent. Add this to his revisionist speeches in front of confederate flags, insanely rascist newsletters with his name on it, and I find it hard to believe that it's all an accident. I'm no longer buying that he's just a doting, old, confused by stander instead of a misogynistic, racist old dinosaur from the 1950's.

Oh, and as an OB/GYN, he should be WELL aware of the various psychological and emotional states of victims of sexual assaults. He should be well aware that we all don't just immediately rush over to the emergency room screaming "rape". And that just because we didn't do that, it doesn't mean we weren't "honestly" violated.
>> ^aurens:

To be frank, I think you (and others) are missing the point.
Ron Paul, as I see it, is addressing an obvious problem with a system that would allow medical treatment (early-stage abortion, or the prevention of pregnancy) only for rape victims, namely that you'd have to have a way of turning away (EDIT: and identifying) women who sought abortions for reasons other than rape. He's not suggesting a rubric for doing so (I don't think the interview format would have allowed him to), nor is he making any assumptions about the nature of rape victims or rapists. (Remember: he's a trained obstetrician-gynecologist. I'd bet he knows more about sexual assault than most of us do.) The phrase "honest rape" (yes, a terribly chosen phrase) is part of an attempt to address the problem described above, one which he didn't adequately explain.>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

Ron Paul! UPVOTE!! Hell yeah, Ron Paul!! GO RON GO!
Ron Paul speaks the truth! He ain't afraid to tell it like it is!

Wait...

Damn it!

all anyone has done here is draw their own ideological line in the sand, and throw shit at any dissent. for shame, sifters.

If you want to bitch about Ron Paul's definition of life (which he justifies in parallel to our current legal system) at least bother to elaborate as to why you happen to know what counts as a human.

I never took the person's pulse before I stabbed them, so you can't prove they were alive. So it's not murder.

Can't eliminate all grey areas under a law, because you need to make an exemption for when someone you know or a big donator needs to skate on something. IE his daughter or grand-daughter gets pregnant by a black man.

>> ^Porksandwich:

I never took the person's pulse before I stabbed them, so you can't prove they were alive. So it's not murder.
Can't eliminate all grey areas under a law, because you need to make an exemption for when someone you know or a big donator needs to skate on something. IE his daughter or grand-daughter gets pregnant by a black man.


a guess your joking, but i don't get it. if your trying to imply that abortion is murder i have to agree, but its a stretch to say that we live in a society that never condones murder.... actually i think your just being an idiot

Wait the fucking hell what? I am so confused...pro-emergency contraceptive... Pro-choice to a moderate degree...

All he does is state something in a "whoops" manner. I think, and this may be a stretch (not) that he meant, "If the woman is honestly raped." Not that the rape itself was honest. What that statement is like, um, when we say "hm, um, well what happened was, and then I said, so like I was saying," or the thousands of other ways we preface our speeches with.

It doesn't help that Ron Paul knew this was a lose-lose question where he either gets labeled a hater of freedom fucktard or a baby killer.

Honestly this interviewer is the reason why politics is fucked up. Scare people into lying...and make them liars...

I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.

Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."

(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)

>> ^peggedbea:

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

>> ^CaptainPlanet:

>> ^Porksandwich:
I never took the person's pulse before I stabbed them, so you can't prove they were alive. So it's not murder.
Can't eliminate all grey areas under a law, because you need to make an exemption for when someone you know or a big donator needs to skate on something. IE his daughter or grand-daughter gets pregnant by a black man.

a guess your joking, but i don't get it. if your trying to imply that abortion is murder i have to agree, but its a stretch to say that we live in a society that never condones murder.... actually i think your just being an idiot


Ron Paul states that he believes life begins at conception. And prior to this he says that there is no chemical, medical, legal evidence of a pregnancy when administering the treatment to stop the progression of possible conception.

I liken that to saying that you could justify murder by arguing that you have no reason to believe the guy didn't die of natural causes a split second before he was shot/stabbed/ran over. So while it would have been murder, you can't 100% prove due to lack of chemical, medical and legal evidence that he was expired mere seconds before I would have killed him. So at best I stabbed/shot/ran over a corpse that hadn't hit the ground yet.

And I agree, that does sound idiotic.

In the case of someone having a natural death right before something that would have otherwise killed them, they would argue that you intended to kill the guy and ended all chances of him being saved from the natural causes (heart attack, brain bleed, whatever) by your actions. It's more about the intent. If you are giving someone drugs/treatments to abort or prevent any possible pregnancy after the fact, your intent is clear. If you were pregnant you aborted it, if you were not the treatment was unnecessary....but the intent was still the same.

It's an argument basically boils down to: It's an abortion, only if you can prove they were pregnant. But there is no other reason to perform it besides the chance of pregnancy. So why is it not abortion/attempted abortion when the intent is there? And how can he say life begins at conception, but then do these procedures that are designed to prevent or end conceptions before they are legally, medically, and chemically provable?


It's a half joking, devil's advocate kind of argument. We don't give our ages from the day we were conceived, but we definitely begin life prior to our "birth day". So there needs to be a upper limit instated by law, and a general understanding that the doctors and clinics should make sure all information and choices are presented before doing anything permanent. It should definitely not be a spur of the moment choice, where a patient can walk in to a doctor with no previous discussion and say they want an abortion and have it carried out with no information to other options. Once presented with the options, and as long as it's under the legal time limit window, then I don't think anyone can say it should have been any other way than the people involved in it.

I don't technically have a problem with what Ron Paul is saying here, but he states something contrary to his own beliefs. 7 months is probably too far along, the kid could probably survive outside of the mother's body at that point. But if he believes birth begins at conception, doing things to prevent conception that ALSO ends conception and justifying it as no medical/legal/chemical proof of conception....that's just hypocritical.

That kind of grey area lurking to satiate the need for abortions, but still sticking to your hardline statements is chicken shit justification.

>> ^spoco2:

It's a pretty indefensible position he's taking.
He's saying:
"If you can bring yourself to front up to a hospital/clinic fast enough that the sperm haven't even reached the egg yet, I'll be ok with you stopping the sperm being able to fertilise the egg"
"But in all other cases, well, you've obviously taken too long, it's now 'a life' and I've backed myself into a corner saying I can't condone that... so tough"
He's trying to make out like he has a heart and is giving an option for women who have been honestly raped.
Heaven forbid that they take some time to get over the trauma, or have a hard time building the courage to ask for the treatment... nope, in his world it's just a routine procedure they should get done after an apparent routine rape.
Fucking hell... why again do people think he's the messiah?


Did I watch a different video then everyone here? He said at 7 months...its a bit different...vastly different than the way you note it. Seriously, wtf am I missing? And if someone says he implied something I got a problem with that.

Basically, "Emergency contraceptive okay even if it is a life. Don't wait till you're about to have the baby." That's it from this vid. He doesn't say anything about waiting a week to get the courage and lose out, or a month or two.

Otherwise he would (If I recall) leave it to the states (Which means, in effect, make it 1000% legal to have an abortion. Maybe a bit inconvenient for those who live in some states that outlaw it, but then crossing the border of one state to another isn't an outright prohibition.)

@Lawdeedaw What you're missing is his initial take, his trying to say that you have this window where there is not yet an implanted egg, and that is an ok window to abort, because he says 'an hour after or a day after you're in limbo'

He splits it into two things, 7 months or immediately after, before egg fertilisation. That's his two extremes that he himself says here.

He doesn't give you a week or two, because after that he see it as abortion because he says life begins at conception.

That's what's in this video. A man who says he is against abortion from the point of conception, and the only way out for rape victims he can give in the example that he's saying here, is to do something in that tiny window between the man coming and the sperm reaching the egg.

Yeah, yeay, that's great Ron

In my opinion, here's what Ron Paul did wrong in just these 90 seconds:

1. He said life begins at conception.
   
   
2. He said he's okay with emergency contraception after intercourse, because you can't know for certain whether you're a baby-murderer or not.
   
   
3. He said there's no legal or moral problems with killing people, as long as you weren't 100% sure in advance that your actions would kill people.
   
   
4. When asked a hypothetical about one of his daughters being raped, he independently raised the question of whether his daughter might just be lying about the rape to trick him into letting her get an abortion, because, you know, all women do that, even your own flesh and blood, apparently...
   

So that Ron Paul guy tripped up, huh? Good thing the rest of us are completely on top of that simple 'pro-life vs pro-choice' question in every circumstance. Seriously, is there any point of view on this topic that doesn't need caveats or have exceptions?

It's impossible to watch a video with one of the biggest cunts in existence interviewing anyone I'm supposed to be making a judgement on, too distracting

I feel like I may have already addressed this a few comments up.
It's the pro-life rhetorical devices he's using. I get an innocent slip of the tongue. I make them constantly. But it's all adding up to a picture of a misogynistic, rascist old dinosaur. And maybe he's even misogynistic and rascist in the way my elderly family members are. I love them anyway and over look their archaic viewpoint an awful lot, but I don't want them making, passing and enforcing laws on everyone elses behalf.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.
Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."
(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)
>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

>> ^kymbos:

So that Ron Paul guy tripped up, huh? Good thing the rest of us are completely on top of that simple 'pro-life vs pro-choice' question in every circumstance. Seriously, is there any point of view on this topic that doesn't need caveats or have exceptions?


But that's exactly the problem with what Paul's saying. Abortion is not a simple moral issue, and this whole "life begins at conception" and the move to criminalize abortion is an attempt to force people to view it as a black & white issue.

The answer I'd hope most fathers would give to the hypothetical question Paul was asked is "No, I'll be there for her no matter what she chooses to do." Not, "If she's not lying about the rape, I might let her have a morning after pill, but beyond that, yeah she's gonna carry her rapist's baby to term whether she wants to or not."

I'm not saying that I'm absolutely certain the former is the morally correct position, I'm just saying I'm pretty damn sure the second is morally wrong on several levels.

I understand you, NR. My point is that if any one of us was in Paul's position, we'd end up compromised by our opinion, because it's diabolically complicated. Life is diabolically complicated. Or not. Depending on the circumstance.

>> ^kymbos:

I understand you, NR. My point is that if any one of us was in Paul's position, we'd end up compromised by our opinion, because it's diabolically complicated. Life is diabolically complicated. Or not. Depending on the circumstance.


Which is why we try not to make overly simple laws that don't take that complexity into account.

My personal view point on it is that in a complicated situation, it's up to the woman to decide. Yes, some sensible limits should be put in place (6/7 months seems long enough to make a decision) and there will always be tragic fringe cases, but we should deal with that on a case by case basis.

But as far as I am concerned, RPs "libertarianism" loses all credibility when he starts arguing for government control over women's bodies.

Actually, fuck it, I'm already on this soapbox, so here goes.

His position is seriously fucked up. He wants to remove laws protecting people from corporations, discrimination and so on, while at the same time enacting a law that allows government control over a woman's body? It's actually retarded, and frankly I've lost all respect for him.

We need to get Fat Bastard off that Subway diet and back between the stirrups where he belongs.

Sigh, it's really hard arguing with people when you don't disagree in the first place.

While we're on the subject, when was the last time you saw any one of Obama's fawning libmedia water-carriers ask a difficult or morally-ambiguous question?

CRICKETS.

I like how his examples test the extremes. Right after the intercourse vs. 7 months into a pregnancy? That's a logical fallacy called "slippery slope".

Heh, got a kick out of this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/10/1062904/-Dr-Ron-Paul-s-newsletter-of-medicine

No problem, just use Honest Rape Detector Spray by Ronco

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by DerHasisttot.

I don't think you quite understand the mechanics of conception... Just because there's semen in a woman doesn't mean she's conceived. Emergency contraceptives are no different than birth control. They prevent conception from happening. >> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^CaptainPlanet:
>> ^Porksandwich:
I never took the person's pulse before I stabbed them, so you can't prove they were alive. So it's not murder.
Can't eliminate all grey areas under a law, because you need to make an exemption for when someone you know or a big donator needs to skate on something. IE his daughter or grand-daughter gets pregnant by a black man.

a guess your joking, but i don't get it. if your trying to imply that abortion is murder i have to agree, but its a stretch to say that we live in a society that never condones murder.... actually i think your just being an idiot

Ron Paul states that he believes life begins at conception. And prior to this he says that there is no chemical, medical, legal evidence of a pregnancy when administering the treatment to stop the progression of possible conception.
I liken that to saying that you could justify murder by arguing that you have no reason to believe the guy didn't die of natural causes a split second before he was shot/stabbed/ran over. So while it would have been murder, you can't 100% prove due to lack of chemical, medical and legal evidence that he was expired mere seconds before I would have killed him. So at best I stabbed/shot/ran over a corpse that hadn't hit the ground yet.
And I agree, that does sound idiotic.
In the case of someone having a natural death right before something that would have otherwise killed them, they would argue that you intended to kill the guy and ended all chances of him being saved from the natural causes (heart attack, brain bleed, whatever) by your actions. It's more about the intent. If you are giving someone drugs/treatments to abort or prevent any possible pregnancy after the fact, your intent is clear. If you were pregnant you aborted it, if you were not the treatment was unnecessary....but the intent was still the same.
It's an argument basically boils down to: It's an abortion, only if you can prove they were pregnant. But there is no other reason to perform it besides the chance of pregnancy. So why is it not abortion/attempted abortion when the intent is there? And how can he say life begins at conception, but then do these procedures that are designed to prevent or end conceptions before they are legally, medically, and chemically provable?

It's a half joking, devil's advocate kind of argument. We don't give our ages from the day we were conceived, but we definitely begin life prior to our "birth day". So there needs to be a upper limit instated by law, and a general understanding that the doctors and clinics should make sure all information and choices are presented before doing anything permanent. It should definitely not be a spur of the moment choice, where a patient can walk in to a doctor with no previous discussion and say they want an abortion and have it carried out with no information to other options. Once presented with the options, and as long as it's under the legal time limit window, then I don't think anyone can say it should have been any other way than the people involved in it.
I don't technically have a problem with what Ron Paul is saying here, but he states something contrary to his own beliefs. 7 months is probably too far along, the kid could probably survive outside of the mother's body at that point. But if he believes birth begins at conception, doing things to prevent conception that ALSO ends conception and justifying it as no medical/legal/chemical proof of conception....that's just hypocritical.
That kind of grey area lurking to satiate the need for abortions, but still sticking to your hardline statements is chicken shit justification.

Stop raping yourself, stop raping yourself!
>> ^Yogi:

I really hate it when people lie while raping me.

Ok, so what he is actually trying to distinguish between is "before conception" and "after conception". The sticking point is when is conception?
If you buy into the axiom that life starts at conception, this makes sense. Preventing life from starting is fine, but destroying it is murder. I understand what is meant by it.

It's not a very good argument, but it does make internal sense.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I don't think you quite understand the mechanics of conception... Just because there's semen in a woman doesn't mean she's conceived. Emergency contraceptives are no different than birth control. They prevent conception from happening.

It also does not mean conception or the beginnings of it has not begun. I searched for a bit, and I'll admit that I couldn't find much information on it because anything mentioning abortion has like a bazillion articles. But I did find one where high levels of estrogen can cause miscarriages, but no supporting articles since it's not really that important to me. Abortion is up to the individuals involved in said pregnancy.

My point I was making is that Ron Paul states that there is no medical/legal/chemical evidence of conception at that point, so he is saying that it has not taken place because of this. And is justifying estrogen injections as a preventative. I am saying that if you are going to be a staunch "conception is life" advocate, you should not be doing things that may end early stage conceptions...which high doses of estrogen probably would.

It's like saying lack of light coming from a single bulb proves that there is no electricity on in the house, instead of your testing method being inadequate. If conception is life and something you are administering as a preventative can end conceptions, you are risking ending conceptions. And this is why it is chicken shit justifications to me, if you want to make a 100% statement like "Conception is life" then risking terminating early conceptions that can't be legally/medically/chemically proven at that stage is making your argument lip service.

Personally I think abortion with upper limits are fine, 4 maybe 5 months. Certainly not 7, since babies are born prematurely and survive at that point. And I have no problem with him using estrogen to end early conceptions. I do have a problem with someone making a statement and then arguing that he can go ahead and do it anyway because there's no proof it's actually ending a conception.

And I return back to my murder argument that I think is a good example of the argument he's trying to make here.

>> ^Porksandwich:

I never took the person's pulse before I stabbed them, so you can't prove they were alive. So it's not murder.

Maybe alter the wording to say "I couldn't find the person's pulse before I stabbed them......"

It's a little more complicated then this - rules and access vary provincially. In Alberta, for example, good luck finding a clinic which will preform an abortion past 20 weeks.

"Who Performs Late Term Abortions:

Hospitals and some clinics in Canada perform abortions on request up to about 20 weeks, and a
few centres do abortions up to 22 or 23 weeks. However, most of the very small number of
abortions performed over 20 weeks gestation in Canada are done to protect the woman’s physical
health, or because of serious fetal abnormalities. Such problems cannot be discovered until an
amniocentesis test is done on the fetus later in pregnancy. Rare abortions after 22 or 23 weeks
gestation are also done in Canada for some cases of lethal fetal abnormalities, where the fetus
cannot survive after birth.

Since abortion services after 20 weeks are not always readily accessible in all parts of Canada,
women are sometimes referred to clinics in the United States (Kansas, Washington State, and
Colorado). Such procedures and associated expenses may be funded in full or part by some
provincial governments."

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^EMPIRE:
he mentions a woman possibly coming into the ER 7 months pregnant after having been raped. Is it even possible, legally, to get an abortion at such a late stage? At 7 months, that is pretty much a formed baby. I mean... there have been cases of premature babies with a lot less than 7 months of development.

In Canada it's legal right up until the very last second before birth. And heaven forbid anyone in our country discuss that might be too far, you'll be branded some woman hating neo-con trying to remove the rights of everyone who isn't a white male.

>> ^lsue:

It's a little more complicated then this - rules and access vary provincially. In Alberta, for example, good luck finding a clinic which will preform an abortion past 20 weeks.
"Who Performs Late Term Abortions:
Hospitals and some clinics in Canada perform abortions on request up to about 20 weeks, and a
few centres do abortions up to 22 or 23 weeks. However, most of the very small number of
abortions performed over 20 weeks gestation in Canada are done to protect the woman’s physical
health, or because of serious fetal abnormalities. Such problems cannot be discovered until an
amniocentesis test is done on the fetus later in pregnancy. Rare abortions after 22 or 23 weeks
gestation are also done in Canada for some cases of lethal fetal abnormalities, where the fetus
cannot survive after birth.
Since abortion services after 20 weeks are not always readily accessible in all parts of Canada,
women are sometimes referred to clinics in the United States (Kansas, Washington State, and
Colorado). Such procedures and associated expenses may be funded in full or part by some
provincial governments."
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^EMPIRE:
he mentions a woman possibly coming into the ER 7 months pregnant after having been raped. Is it even possible, legally, to get an abortion at such a late stage? At 7 months, that is pretty much a formed baby. I mean... there have been cases of premature babies with a lot less than 7 months of development.

In Canada it's legal right up until the very last second before birth. And heaven forbid anyone in our country discuss that might be too far, you'll be branded some woman hating neo-con trying to remove the rights of everyone who isn't a white male.




Criminal laws on/against abortion are a federal matter though. And Canada has for some time now very clearly established that there is NO LAW against abortions. Current Canadian federal law in ALL provinces and territories makes all abortion, even up to 9 months, perfectly and completely legal.

Give me a break, this is an issue that solely consists of a new perspective and appreciation for LIFE. A basic value. A basic condition. Ron Paul is Pro-Contraceptives, not pro killing a developed child. Its always going to be a controversial issue and a blurred line, he says this 30 seconds later. You are a fool to take this out of context like this and not to appreciate the full richness of this conversation. This is a great interview with a lot of great insight into the might of a potential candidate. Shame on you videosift, shame on you youtube, shame on you people who support the debauchers clipping this interview.

Rape happens, its tragic, but contraceptives are readily available for everyone. Would you rather run down to the store and buy a $30 pill the day after or tragically kill a fetus for $400+ Grow some sense people.

Well I have to say that I disagree with you regarding your stance on late term abortions. I don't believe it should be criminal (for either doctor or patient) to undertake a medical procedure which concerns your own health and well-being. The point of the removal of laws against abortion is to decriminalize, not to encourage late term abortions or make them commonplace. What good would criminalization do?

But regardless of this disagreement, I felt that your first comment describing Canada's lack of abortion legislation "right up until the last second before birth" largely simplifies a complex issue and undermines the regulations which exist to get women the proper care when they need it (early in their pregnancy). This is why I replied.. I didn't mean to provoke an argument.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> Criminal laws on/against abortion are a federal matter though. And Canada has for some time now very clearly established that there is NO LAW against abortions. Current Canadian federal law in ALL provinces and territories makes all abortion, even up to 9 months, perfectly and completely legal.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

>> ^lsue:

Well I have to say that I disagree with you regarding your stance on late term abortions. I don't believe it should be criminal (for either doctor or patient) to undertake a medical procedure which concerns your own health and well-being. The point of the removal of laws against abortion is to decriminalize, not to encourage late term abortions or make them commonplace. What good would criminalization do?
But regardless of this disagreement, I felt that your first comment describing Canada's lack of abortion legislation "right up until the last second before birth" largely simplifies a complex issue and undermines the regulations which exist to get women the proper care when they need it (early in their pregnancy). This is why I replied.. I didn't mean to provoke an argument.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> Criminal laws on/against abortion are a federal matter though. And Canada has for some time now very clearly established that there is NO LAW against abortions. Current Canadian federal law in ALL provinces and territories makes all abortion, even up to 9 months, perfectly and completely legal.



But criminal law is an enormous part of the entire debate. Currently in Canada, it is perfectly and 100% legal to kill a fetus 1 hour before going in for a c-section. It is equally and completely 100% illegal, and considered one of the highest crimes in the nation to kill that exact same baby 2 hours later once the c-section has been completed. I say that's madness and more than just a little bit troubling.

I think you are far to quick to dismiss that situation as irrelevant or unimportant.

THE CORE ISSUE IS THIS

Sure ron paul is alright on some issues but thats purely by accident

he does not use science or reason to evaluate his poisotions as a result he is masively inconsistant and ilogical on lots of issues , this is the case with all the amercan goverment candidates for the running though granted i think paul is genuin and not running for cash or coperate intrest like some of the others.

WHAT USA NEEDS IS A PRESIDENT / PARTY THAT RUNS ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAKES DESICOINS BASED ON THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS AND ACTS TO PROTECT THE WEAKEST PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY MORE THAN THE STRONGEST ,STRIVING TO MAKE AMERICA A UNITED STATE. A place where people can live safely with good heath and resalable laws.

As it is amercas policy and laws represent and are decided by weard amalgamation of strong interest groups , large corperarations , religouse groups and private clubs of rich people. That then portends to be democracy for the people.

Sorry, like I told Jimms I have OCD and now that I have the free time I am going through un-replied comments... Its 5 AM and I can't sleep! I have issues...

The only part that I am confused about here is that Paul's position on abortion is like the elderly family members you mention shoving their point of view down your throat but not passing and not enforcing laws on everyone elses' behalf. He would advocate for State's to make "moral" laws but would not provide a federal law to blanket everybody.

In other words, if the federal government banned abortion like they did gay marriage, Paul would seek to rescind that law. And conservatives would be in an uproar because some States would make abortion legal. (California's laws on Pot sound an awful lot similar to the argument I make here... He would lift the ban.) He would be termed very liberal for that opinion. So it stands that I am confused...

>> ^peggedbea:

I feel like I may have already addressed this a few comments up.
It's the pro-life rhetorical devices he's using. I get an innocent slip of the tongue. I make them constantly. But it's all adding up to a picture of a misogynistic, rascist old dinosaur. And maybe he's even misogynistic and rascist in the way my elderly family members are. I love them anyway and over look their archaic viewpoint an awful lot, but I don't want them making, passing and enforcing laws on everyone elses behalf.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.
Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."
(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)
>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

Surprise Buttsechs!!!

is not honest rape...

vote for me and I'll give you an honest rape!