If you had any real desire to read the scientific literature concerning a fetus, you wouldn’t be asking me on my blog. You’d be in the library reading medical studies.

As such, I believe this to be a simple baiting technique, where you hope that I incompletely quote a scientific study. Then, you respond by quoting some other study (most likely by a religious fanatic) that “contradicts” the one I referred to.

I’m not playing that game, sorry.

Thank you for your respectful disagreement with Ron Paul’s principles…it’s nice to read something that isn’t just frothing at the mouth.

The issue of abortion, however, really isn’t about “the right to life”–that’s pure demagoguery–nor is it about your right to protect your own body.

Rather, the issue is about science. Plain and simple.

Stay with me here.

If your position were scientifically proved, without a shadow of a doubt, through tests and observation and lucid evaluation, that a fetus is not a human being, then I, for one, would abandon my opposition to the practice of abortion. Sure, there would still be the rabid, wild-eyed religious fanatics who would continue to oppose, but lots of reasonable people like me (if I may presume to call myself so) would change our tune. We respect science and its findings, and if it finds a fetus is non-human, then so be it.

Similarly, if science were to prove that the fetus is, in fact, a human being, without a shadow of a doubt, through tests and observation and lucid evaluation, I am confident that many reasonable people such as yourself would change your tune. Why would you? Not because you are already “pro-life,” you simply disagree with people like me on what, scientifically, constitutes human life.

I hope I make myself clear. Really, everyone is “pro-life” and everyone is “pro-choice.” The real question is: is a fetus, scientifically speaking, a human being? That is the question. The ONLY question.

So here is my question to you: what evidence is there–scientific, documented, lucidly evaluated evidence–that a fetus is not a human being (even at conception)?

If you would rather not respond on this forum, please send me an email at jamesviccor21@gmail.com.

I am not trying to argue with you, or sway you, or anything. I am simply asking an intellectually honest question, and I would appreciate elucidation.

Thank you
Walker

Personally, I support Roe v Wade, as I’m pro-choice, not anti-choice (I think “pro-life” is propangadist position), but Ron Paul is just promoting we treat the issue constitutionally.

As president, he can’t do a thing about abortion, except, of course, nominate judges that would overturn Roe v Wade. But that’s the same group that he’s trying to take the power from in the first place. This basic point logically destroys any argument that he would/could anyway promote an anti-abortion agenda after getting elected.

And if you believe that there are “inalienable rights” that come from “nature and natures god” that no government (which includes states) can take away then Ron Paul is full of shit. How can you have inalienable rights, life liberty persuit of happiness, Bill of Rights, etc… if it just depends on which state you live in?

Abortion isnt murder either. Murder is a crime against order that the government can pass a law against because its in the countrys interest and is not a infringement of someones rights. Making abortion illegal is the opposite for both.

Youre right, Paul isnt a libertarian. I dont know what the hell he is; he seems more like a ’states rights’ conservative to me.