Comments on: The dark side of Ron Paul http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul/ Just another WordPress weblog Sun, 21 Feb 2010 20:31:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: EmorgelymmemO http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-44962 EmorgelymmemO Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:29:59 +0000 http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul/#comment-44962 What is bumburbia? What is bumburbia?

]]> By: Pfzwgvii http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-44544 Pfzwgvii Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:33:39 +0000 http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul/#comment-44544 Thanks!, Thanks!,

]]> By: ErypeWepDer http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-39624 ErypeWepDer Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:56:07 +0000 http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul/#comment-39624 mad <a href="http://forums.oscommerce.de/index.php?turgypossessor=44246" rel="nofollow">viagra onprocedure</a> urban encircling <a href="http://forums.oscommerce.de/index.php?strain" rel="nofollow">viagra onfigure</a> a dribble <a href="http://forums.oscommerce.de/index.php?in" rel="nofollow">viagra onpath</a> bucolic cotesides mad viagra onprocedure urban encircling viagra onfigure a dribble viagra onpath bucolic cotesides

]]> By: Hilary http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-30485 Hilary Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:42:50 +0000 http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul/#comment-30485 umm... Ron Paul will openly say that he is not a true Libertarian, based on his beliefs in Abortion, so what is the big argument about? He is anti-abortion, but he thinks that the states should regulate it, not the Federal Government, I don't know why that is so hard to understand. The Constitution of the United States calls for a much more limited federal government than it is now, and the Roe vs Wade ruling was in contradiction to the Constitution. umm… Ron Paul will openly say that he is not a true Libertarian, based on his beliefs in Abortion, so what is the big argument about?
He is anti-abortion, but he thinks that the states should regulate it, not the Federal Government, I don’t know why that is so hard to understand. The Constitution of the United States calls for a much more limited federal government than it is now, and the Roe vs Wade ruling was in contradiction to the Constitution.

]]> By: Shane http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-27139 Shane Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:55:39 +0000 http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul/#comment-27139 Walker, 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. Walker,

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.

]]> By: Walker Pfost http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul/comment-page-1/#comment-27127 Walker Pfost Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:09:41 +0000 http://www.shanebrady.com/2007/06/04/the-dark-side-of-ron-paul/#comment-27127 Hi, 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 Hi,

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

]]>