The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central JetStar = Mitt (for flip flopping, not voting for)

In that case, surprisingly, we only disagree on 3. and 4.

While I was aware of Ron Paul abortion story, I see it more as a justification and make-believe story to protect his present faith-based believes from ridicule. While it is not impossible it would be unlikely to happen. First, there is no public record whatsoever of him participating in something like that. Second, late-term abortion would have been illegal at a time. Third, this story did not surface until fairly well into his political career.

Another issue, even if one to accept this story, it is inconsistent with his complete anti-abortion stance. Ron Paul is 100% anti-abortion, at any stage of this process, save early abortion in cases of rape and incest (and I think that it, but feel free to correct me Derid). His personal experiences are with late-stage abortions, and he doesn't mention reasoning for abortion in his story (maybe it was to save mother's life?).

So I am highly skeptical of his unverified, inconsistent and convoluted justification story, it is much likely that simplest explanation is true - that Ron Paul's faith is responsible for his stance.

4. I don't see how you can see spending as sufficient justification. It still unfairly targets a group - women, and it still in many cases tries to bypass existing laws and functionally (not legislatively) outlaw abortion. Correct procedure would be constitutional amendment, but this is not how Ron Paul is approaching this issue.

You said "you can believe", and you are very entitled to your flying spaghetti monster faith and I am not going to question it unless you start trying to force it on others. Until you can say medical community agrees the best outcome for the patient is, or overwhelming scientific consensus is, or greater societal benefit arises from is, it will still a faith-based belief.

As to "baby in the belly" is part of your belief, again not supported by anything other than your faith.

Abortion is a personal freedom.

I say this while laughing out loud "your a fucking idiot"

I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe him.

Also, I just do not consider it unfair targeting of any group. I would and do support, as I have made clear many times in the past, limiting all sorts of federal spending.

Now, if a Constitutionally sound State level program for health spending was in place that was meant to take the place of private insurance - and someone wanted to ban any abortion spending from such a plan, I would object to such a move.

Minor Spending vs. Fundamental Rights, what to pick?

The part right after that where I stated that this is not the issue at hand. I only included the first sentence in the interest of full disclosure.

Your argument is invalid because we only place value on human life.

If a woman could get pregnant all on her own I might be inclined to agree with the "its a woman's body" argument. The fact that it takes two people to create life, and that the child growing in her womb is 1/2 her and 1/2 the man nullifies that argument for me.