Just to point out, the position you stated here is an "appeal to consequence". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences What you are saying is that "if this is true, then we have problems". *If* life begins at conception, *then* we have to make absurd legal structures. The problem is that the legal hoops have no bearing on when life begins.
Logically, that argument is similar to "if 2+2=4, then these people will die, ergo 2+2 does not = 4." The problem is obvious, 2+2=4 regardless of who dies as a result of that fact. This is precisely what I mean by "there are no logical points".
Now, I personally would consider compromise a reasonable solution, again, I prefer the "keave it to the states" option, because it's really the only "american" option, but I can see other options. The problem is that to the RTL crowd, it's not a "grey area", not a "medical proceedure, it is the wanton remorseless murder of an innocent human being. To most of the fervent PC (pro Choice) crowd, *any* restriction of "abortion on demand" is tantamount to slavery. There may be others that are amenable to compromise, but I have spoken to upsettingly few of them.
I am not aware of Congressman Paul legislating on his RTL position. His general voting record has been to remove federal jurisdiction on the issue. The only meaningful exception has been the "partial birth abortion ban". He's an MD, and... well, even I, one who is called a sociopath in conversations with almost everyone, have issues with that proceedure. Ther *are* those that tend to legislate differently than their personal beliefs. Ron Paul votes almost invariably to reduce the federal government. Dr No is a nickname he has earned with honors.
no subject
Just to point out, the position you stated here is an "appeal to consequence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
What you are saying is that "if this is true, then we have problems". *If* life begins at conception, *then* we have to make absurd legal structures. The problem is that the legal hoops have no bearing on when life begins.
Logically, that argument is similar to "if 2+2=4, then these people will die, ergo 2+2 does not = 4." The problem is obvious, 2+2=4 regardless of who dies as a result of that fact. This is precisely what I mean by "there are no logical points".
Now, I personally would consider compromise a reasonable solution, again, I prefer the "keave it to the states" option, because it's really the only "american" option, but I can see other options. The problem is that to the RTL crowd, it's not a "grey area", not a "medical proceedure, it is the wanton remorseless murder of an innocent human being. To most of the fervent PC (pro Choice) crowd, *any* restriction of "abortion on demand" is tantamount to slavery. There may be others that are amenable to compromise, but I have spoken to upsettingly few of them.
I am not aware of Congressman Paul legislating on his RTL position. His general voting record has been to remove federal jurisdiction on the issue. The only meaningful exception has been the "partial birth abortion ban". He's an MD, and... well, even I, one who is called a sociopath in conversations with almost everyone, have issues with that proceedure. Ther *are* those that tend to legislate differently than their personal beliefs. Ron Paul votes almost invariably to reduce the federal government. Dr No is a nickname he has earned with honors.