Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Greatest Speech Ever Made Before Congress?

Posted 2 years ago on March 11, 2012, 8:21 a.m. EST by JoeTheFarmer (2654)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Forget about the man, forget about elections since he will not win, forget about any other issues. Watch this speech. I challenge anyone to find a speech by a congressman that is more daring or more accurately hits the mark on this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7zCWAmO9OM

I think everyone should see this speech.

65 Comments

65 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

It is a real shame this man cannot ever be elected President.

But there is a reason why, isn't there?

And anyone who runs and is elected Prez finds out the hard cold realities of having to work with Congress. Obama found this out. He had a lot of good intentions going in. Then he had to wake up and face the awful facts. As I have said many times before, it doesn't really matter who sits in the Oval Office, whether they be wunderkind, mega-genius, or supermortal. Congress makes the laws and Congress has the power. This would be ok if Congress wasn't a dysfunctional broken mess --- but it IS!!!

So no man, woman, or chimpanzee stands a chance with a pos monstrosity like Congress. The Prez just takes the heat from We The People because it's easier for the media to focus on one person than an entire Congress.

So Ron Paul should be thankful in a way. No one stands a chance as Prez. Congress is fk'd, so We are fk'd. I would like to remember Ron Paul for who he is, than how he would be vilified as President.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Why couldn't Ron Paul have recognized payroll tax payers as having private property rights to social security benefits? Millions and millions and millions are counting on social security. His stance is an absolute campaign victory killer.

Paul Craig Roberts:

"I suggested that Ron Paul should acknowledge that people who have paid a payroll tax all their working lives have private property rights to Social Security and Medicare benefits.

"A number of libertarians replied, as I knew they would from my long years of association with them, with their standard dogmatism that the minimum wage causes unemployment and that Social Security and Medicare are government programs not private property. " http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/01/27/how-ron-paul-could-win/

"Ron Paul is the only candidate for president in either party who is committed to resurrecting the Constitution. Without the Constitution we cease to be American citizens and become subjects of a tyrannical police state. My complaint is that the only candidate who could bring back the Constitution cannot be elected because of the inflexibility and sectarianism of his base." http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/01/22/more-on-ron-raul/

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

This will prove to be a historically important speech, reaching far beyond his and our days. I applaud Paul for the courage to speak up and tell the truth.

[-] 3 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Paul isn't afraid to say or do the right things and seek real change. But, I've come to realize that the majority of Americans are too afraid to support him for that very reason. I think the majority of Americans exhibit Stockholm Syndrome and identify more with corruption than they do with what is right. It sounds ridiculous but in reality we see this way of thinking around the globe in every incidence of oppression. There are women who stay with abusive spouses because it's all they know and because staying in a familiar 'climate' (or mindset, socioeconomic group or government) is easier than trying to adapt to change-- so people believe. It's all about fear of the unfamiliar or unknown. We are creatures of habit. History continues to repeat and people continue to produce more ' repeaters'.
We can't solve a problem with the same mindset that created it. Change the way we think and then real change will follow.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2707) 2 years ago

good post Gillian agree with all of that!!!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Wow, nice post! It is very thought provoking.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

This is why numbers should be the focus for this movement. Once people are involved, I think it will give them a sense of empowerment. The education will come as a result of curiosity as long as they have an entire movement behind them, making them feel safe to learn.

[-] 3 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Yes, good point. With the exception of rebels and mavericks, most folks need to feel a part of a majority in order to feel safe in their beliefs. However, we are up against a complacent mindset that is fueled by so many things in our culture now...technology that we allow to think for us, SOL tests that discourage deeper and critical thinking, corporate oppression that limits our choices, etc.. There are still folks out there who believe that companies and government know what is truly best for us and provide the best products and services in the world. They never question anything. I don't have kids but I can only imagine how difficult it is for a parent to find time to question the safety of what their children eat and to find time to research it...hence, the other contributor to our ignorance is lack of time to educate ourselves. Then there is the other issue of truly not wanting to know because people feel powerless to make change, overwhelmed by all that threatens us today and it's easier just to ignore the truth and hope for the best. On a positive note, when I see that the news is beginning to report on specific issues like pink slime in our hamburger, I can't help but believe that the OWS movement has been a very influential source of inspiration to others to seek the truth and expose the corruption. Pink slime has been reported on for a few years and even one FDA agent told Americans that he would never feed hamburger to his children. Even Jamie Oliver demonstrated how hamburger was made in the USA. But, no one seemed to listen and continued to purchase hamburger " meat". Yet, when the story is exposed on mainstream nightly news, thousands of Americans called in panicked and are now seeking organic beef which supports organic farmers which supports a healthy environment, healthy people and results in a passive change in the way we conduct agriculture in this country. Slowly but surely, more will awaken to the truth and be inspired to question authority.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

My folks worshiped FDR and considered him the greatest President to which I countered "What about Lincoln," and they always had to qualify their point of view that FDR was the greatest modern President. It's hard to name the Presidents between Andrew Jackson and Lincoln. They were an ignominious bunch and often called that by historians, but that was a period a real Congressional greatness with great orators like Daniel Webster.

To me the greatest and most democratic and revolutionary period in American history was the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War. Of course public school history texts tend to dismiss this precisely because of how democratic and revolutionary it was and it was a period in which Congress completely eclipsed the power of the Presidency, which stands to reason. After all it is only logical for real democracy that a collective institution would be superior to the power of an individual.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

What did you think of this speech? I am not talking about oration skills, I am talking about subject matter and do you agree with the points he makes?

I also like this one on the same subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

Listen to www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXJ-9QyJtEg

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

On target. He'd be one of the BEST presidents! AMerica would be reborn for the better!

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Americans are conditioned to buy name brands. The illusion of quality and safety for a price. Same with politicians, but the price we pay is corruption, loss of freedoms, and no real say in government. We desperately need to get some balls and vote for people that are not name brand. Only then will we see real change.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Whether they claim to be supportive of OWS or not there is not a single Congressional Representative, not even Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich who was prepared to stand with us at any occupation and get busted with us when the cops evicted us. That to me is the only real support, especially for someone with the stature and position of an elected official. Nothing less from a person in that position is (and of course this is only my personal opinion) is either adequate or satisfactory,

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

In broad propagandistic terms I have little to quibble with in regards to Ron Paul's views on foreign and military policy, though I disagree with him on nearly everything else and find him inconsistent in many areas. Is he, for example, a libertarian or a conservative? His opposition to women's control over their own bodies would seem to me inconsistent with my understanding of what libertarianism is all about. But ultimately in a corporatist age libertarianism itself (which is really a modern restatement of classical liberalism) is an historical anachronism and guys like Paul essentially end up being shills for corporatism.

There is a germ of sophistication in Paul's analysis which he unfortunately does not develop. The bipartisan foreign and military policy of the imperial American state may not serve the interest of the vast majority of Americans, but it is beholden to the corporate power which that state is organized to serve,

There has always been an isolationist wing in the Republican Party, Regardless of their differences on other issues Pat Buchanan is also part of that wing, and while they might superficially appear similar, that isolationism is really profoundly different from the international solidarity of OWS. The Declaration of the Occupation, for example, openly expresses its solidarity with the popular struggles of the people of the world, a way of thinking that is inconceivable to Paul's self centered isolationism.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I do not want to come off as pushing the man as a candidate. I do not expect him to have a even a small chance to win.

that said, he is anything but an isolationist. The fact that you are not blowing people up does not make you an isolationist. He has always said that economic ties are more powerful than sanctions which only work against us in the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNOMmUQYlC4&t=1m2s

As for his pro life stance I will forgive him on that. He is an obstetrician and has delivered over 4,000 babies and sees it as more than a woman's body. He believes there are two lives involved in the decision. Here was the turning point for him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc

In the early days of this country people were considered property rather than individuals based on the color of their skin. They had no civil rights. Today some are considered part of the woman's body and not an individual because they are not fully to term yet.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Whether it is true or not Paul's explicitly stated interests are the interests of the people of the United States whereas the stated interests of OWS are the peoples of the world, Therein lies the difference and the difference is cosmic.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

By the way, here is what he has to say about OWS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieJmrxV1Hk4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9nFmz-lKug

And here he is after a Mic Check at his speech. You can see security asking him what to do and he is fine with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSKLredTAMk

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I don't really care what Ron Paul or any elected official at any level has to say about OWS, What matters to me is are they willing to stand with us, get busted with us and go to jail with us. I don't know of a single elected official at the federal level who has been willing to extend to us that level of solidarity, The only elected officials that I am aware of that have extended to us that level of solidarity have been a handful of municipal councilors and perhaps a couple of state legislators. It might be argued that elected officials have more important things to do, but that is not my position, I don't think there is anything more important, especially for people who claim to "represent" us.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I am surprised that you don't care what any elected official has to say about OWS. I believe it is quite important that our representative believe.

I also believe it is more effective and important for him to speak at a national debate being broadcast globally than come speak in the park. Especially when the media is ignoring us there. None of those other candidates would dare make those comments of support.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

What elected officials DO with regard to OWS is considerably more important to me than anything they have to say about it and what they do in actual solidarity with OWS and as OWS activists is to me considerably more important than any legislation that they might draft even in support of OWS or OWS principles or values, As it says on the home page of this web site, "we don't need Wall Street or politicians to build a better world." I agree with that and to me the logic of that for an elected official, the only real agreement that they can have with our movement is not to say that they are in agreement with our movement or even to advocate legislation in support of our movement, but to get down to an encampment with a tent and join our movement or pitch a tent on the Capitol steps, They, virtually all of them, are clueless as to what solidarity really means, Certainly anyone with the stature of an elected official would attract more media attention by physically demonstrating their solidarity with the movement than in any speech or legislation that could be conceptualized, They really don't understand this at all and even when they have come to general assemblies and have been given the opportunity to speak if they would only wait their turn, they tend to assume that they are being rejected because they are being treated democratically rather than deferentially,

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think he ads more value where he is bringing the message of crony capitalism and global militarism to the national debate.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

If any elected official actually joined an encampment it would be a huge shot in the arm for the movement as a whole and, depending on the exact level of their position the number of people who would actually join the movement because of such an act (and I mean join, not some elusive notion of support) would be incalculable. Before he took office Obama promised to put on walking shoes and join workers picket lines. The uprising in Wisconsin gave him the perfect opportunity to do that, which he declined,

Rather than trying to make deals with the IMF the elected social democratic leaders of Europe ought to be out in the streets leading the very demonstrations against the austerity measures they are advocating in the halls of their parliaments, That is what the people elected them for after all, to lead, Whether they are the elected representatives of Congress in the United States or parliamentary representatives in Europe they should be leading the people and since the people are in the streets it seems logical to me that that is the place from which their leaders should be leading them,

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

We are apart on austerity as well. I believe the folks in Greece are overly pampered and expect too much from government. Rioting in the streets because the government wants to increase the retirement age from 61 to 63!

People are living longer, are healthy longer, and should not expect the government to star handing them a paycheck at 63 for doing nothing. What ever happened to family and community? People used to take care of their parents. Now they want to drop them off at a government run retirement home.

The role of government is not to take care of us. That is our duty to ourselves and our family. The role of government is to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

austerity is about plan an efficient living

a gray shirt for everyone

austerity is about living simply and frugally

the role government plays in providing austerity is open

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Austerity is

"An official action taken by a government in order to reduce the amount of money that it spends"

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

that's a "government spending reduction"

austerity is rationing

and frankly being used as a euphemism

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Well "reducing the amount of money spent" compels you to either ration services, eliminate services, or find a way to lower the cost of providing them.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

austerity suggest simply living reduction in services means a people must be dependent on a private source

but efficiency suggests an ordered distribution of needs which could mean more government

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

thanks for bringing this up

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I can't say that I'm an expert on Greece, but from what I've read the austerity that they are being faced with sounds really gruesome and unpleasant and not merely depriving the pampered masses of unnecessary luxuries, It seems to me like the wholesale privatization of the entire culture.

What I'm most impressed with is the fighting spirit of the Greek people who clearly are not taking all this sitting down. While it may not be sufficient it is still an inspiration to popular social movement around to globe,

Given levels of unemployment reducing the retirement age seems to me not only humane, but a rational approach to opening up labor markets,

I don't exactly know what a troll is. I think it means someone who is hostile to OWS and while the style of your approach is certainly genteel enough, you really don't seem very supportive of the values of OWS as I read and understand them, much less an OWS activist,

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I would say I agree with at least half of what OWS stands for. I don't think everyone in a movement has to agree 100% on every issue. You have to admit there are all sorts in the movement. Some want to eliminate money, some want to establish global communism, some want move to direct democracy on the internet, some would prefer total anarchy. Some just want to see more honesty and accountability in our current political system.

I am against crony capitalism, corporate influence on government, bailouts, borrowing to fund wars, tax loopholes for those with accountants. When OWS started the mantra was "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out" That is what attracted me.

On the other hand, the biggest difference I have with many is that I do not believe government is the answer to all of our problems. Based on historical evidence I do not have faith in government run programs. When government becomes a monopoly, the quality of service goes down and the costs go up. Look at the military, the post office, Medicare, public schools and just about everything else they control.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Agreeing with a movement and actually being part of it are IMHO two very different things. For one thing the notion of "agreement" suggests some distance and the more distant one is from anything the less assured one can be of exactly what it is that one is agreeing to, Do you keep up with the Occupied Wall Street Journal or any of the publications of any of the occupations anywhere or of the general assembly postings of any occupation anywhere? If not how can you say that you agree with the movement? If you agree with half of what the movement stands for, which half would that be? I don't mean to be hostile here. I'm genuinely curious.

I'd certainly agree that there are all sorts in the movement, but certain tendencies are more dominant and influential than others and there are also only a handful of written documents that have been approved by a consensus of any body of the movement and it seems to me that if OWS can be said to have any "policy" at all it is embodied in the few written documents adopted at local general assemblies.

While there are certainly a lot of people around the edges of OWS that would tend to look to the state for solutions, that is hardly a consensus within the movement and in fact the "official" documents of the movement tend to point in exactly the opposite direction, Indeed one of the major complaints of both erstwhile supporters and critics of the movement is that it makes no demands and while not exactly "official" the home page of this web site states that we don't need Wall Street or politicians to build a better world, That doesn't strike me as making demands on the state.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

There is no reply on your other link.

I have read that Declaration document (more than once) and consider it a laundry list of assorted complaints. I have also seen folks say that it is not the charter of the movement. It is just a list of "They have..."

It seems that you believe that if I don't agree that "They have poisoned the food supply" I am not an OWS supporter.

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City was created by a local GA. For someone who talks about a "global perspective" it seems silly to claim a document created by a few dozen people in Manhattan speaks for the entire Occupy Movement.

Nowhere does it say that if you are not 100% in alignment with the NYC GA than you are against us. The movement is supposed to be open to many points of view. That was the mission statement I remember hearing when this all started.

Nor do I agree with your stance that if you are not marching and camping out with us we do not want your opinion on what we are doing or support. I do not live near Manhattan and have a famly to support. It is not practical for me to leave my family and camp in Zuccatti park.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

No. I don't think that it is essential to agree with all of the grievances of the Declaration to be active in OWS. It is also only my personal opinion, but I would draw a distinction between "support" and actual activity in OWS. Many people who I have interacted with on this forum don't seem to find such a distinction meaningful or useful. To me, frankly that is a cop out.

People say that folks don't have the time to participate. When I was in grad school I knew single mothers who had two full time jobs and took a full course load, I admired them and didn't think I could do it, but people do it. Church attendence and active membership in voluntary associations is way down in this nation, Yet millions of people with full time jobs and more attend church and engage in other volunteer activities on a more than weekly basis. I suspect that 95% of the population lives within commuting distance of a GA. People aren't engaged in that activity because they choose not to be. That said, I'm really not judgemental about that lack of activity. Ultimately people choose not to be because they are out of practice. Like anything else, when you stop engaging in a particular behavior (like regular attendence in a voluntary association whether it is a church or a bowling league) you forget how to do it, but what is of special significance about OWS to me is that people steped away from their computer screens, went out into the streets and met each other.

Most GAs that are not connected with an encampment meet at most on a weekly basis.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I do read the journal and the posts on the GA sites, and declarations, and posts... I believe I already explained where I agree with some people on some topics.

I choose to be around the edges just as I chose to be around the edges of the tea party. I agree with some things in both movements and disagree with some things in both movements. Since I do not believe camping in Zuccatti park is the way to get things done I choose not to.

The majority of the people do not agree with most of what they see promoted my OWS. That is not my opinion it is a fact. We can talk about the 99% but even if we had 100,000 people marching or camping in the park (which never happened) that is only 0.031% of the people.

From what I can tell there are no "Official Documents" There are a lot who claim they posted an official document I would argue they are not official at all.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I think that the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City, which was passed by the New York City General Assembly very early on in the occupation when participation in the GA was quite large can reasonably be characterized as an "official" pronouncement of OWS but there are few other statements of which I am aware that reach that threshold.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

He is a member of the United States congress and he better be doing what is in the interest of the United States.

At the same time, building trade relations and diplomacy is much better for "the peoples of the world" than high tariffs, sanctions, drone attacks, occupations, bombings, and propping up brutal regimes.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Whether Paul's quaint, archaic and anachronistic notions of free trade are good for the peoples of the world or not, they are not at all the same as international solidarity from below which is at the root of OWS stated values,

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Somehow this went the way I did not intend. As usual rather than focusing on the need to end our military interventionist policies the thread turned into a Ron Paul on abortion, economics, and everything else.

I would hope that OWS would want to scale back the military industrial complex and our horrible foreign policies. It is a powerful argument.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Of course OWS wants to end militarism, but its solidarity with other popular social movements internationally is fundamentally different from an elastic view of military expenditures on the part of the corporate state,

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Abortion is not an issue; Roe vs Wade will never be overturned. But the taking of unborn human life should not represent the moral high ground, it should not be permitted to occupy space in our minds as an acceptable means of birth control. Because the reality is that emotion serves to inform that is it not.

[-] 1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

"His opposition to women's control over their own bodies" This is not inconsistent if you consider the life in the womb is a LIFE rather than simply a bunch of cell matter.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

At what point? The notion of when life begins (as whether or not clergy should have the right to marry) has been elastic even within the Catholic Church. For most of medieval history, for example, it was not assumed that "life" began of that a fetus possessed a soul until "quickening" that is until the fetus could actually be felt to be moving around within the mother's womb.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Life begins at the point of conception. That is the Catholic Church's position as if that matters to you anyway. Comparing what they believed in medieval times to today is ridiculous given the advances we've made in what we now know & can actually see. If not - go ahead - give me your idea of when life begins.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It might reasonably be argued that life actually begins before conception and that a sperm cell or a female egg in and of themselves represent life, not to be tampered with in any way by human beings, That I think is part of the logic of the Catholic Church's modern opposition to any form of birth control.

My point is that the position of the Church on nearly everything (including, for example, the divinity of Christ and the virgin birth and the right of clergy to marry) has been elastic over time,

I know of feminists who freely acknowledge that free abortion on demand (which is what they advocate) may well amount to murder in some instances but that the rights of a mother as a sentient being should trump those of a fetus, To me the rights of a fetus are like annimal rights. Rights in any meaningful sense to me extend only to sentient beings, Of course it is important to be humane to nonsentient beings, but that is quite different from acknowledging that they have rights in any meaningful sense of the word.

I will acknowlege that the Church has been consistent regarding its notion of life and for example has opposed capitol punishment as vigorously as it opposes abortion and for that I applaud it in that consistency. For me the defense of the life of a mass murderer and meeting the needs and desires of a pregnant woman are considerably more important than whatever "rights" an unborn fetus may be thought to have in law precisely because the former are sentient beings.

[-] 1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

wow ! you equate human life with animal life . So you didn't give me a clear definition of when you think life begins. "Fetus" is rather broad.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Could be that you could say life exits as part of the existence of a living sperm and egg quite apart from each other. Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn, What matters to me are the life, needs and desires of sentinent beings. I personally believe that all living humans, including infants, have a right to life. I do not believe that such a right ought to extend legally to unborn fetuses whether or not they might be considered living in any biological sense,

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

saying there is "life" as a sperm or egg separately is absurd. That's what the pro abortion people told you so you'd think it's no different than a fertilized egg therefore strengthening their case. So at what point is a fetus considered an infant? They also love to call them fetuses because it makes them seem less human. Is a baby born premature a fetus or human?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Nobody "told" me anything. I'm 69 years old, perfectly capable of forming my own opinions and undoubtedly precisely one of those pro abortion people whose influence you are so concerned will contaminate my thinking, A fetus is an infant at the moment of birth and at that point entitled to all the "rights" of any other human being. Premature infants, since they are actually born are at that point no longer fetuses,

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

OK - let me understand this correctly - so someone born @ 6months is a human being entitled to rights & a child in the womb @ 5 months is not and can be aborted on demand even though they are quite capable of living outside the womb?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

To me the whole matter of pregnancy is an issue to be discussed and settled by a woman and her physician. It is none of my business and I'm not especially interested in its technicalities. It is none of your business and it is most certainly none of the states business. The knotty problem comes with the issue of funding, especially funding for women who are not in a position to privately fund any medical procedure. That too, it seems to me, is a matter best left to a woman and her physician and to the extent that there are state funded medical programs the funding is one thing and whether a particular medical procedure is necessary or appropriate is really a decision of the patient and doctor and the state should no more intervene than it would intervene in a decision about an appendectomy.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

All that and you didn't answer the question. When does a fetus become a life? Where are you on taxpayer funding? That wasn't very clear. You compare the murder of a child to an appendectomy. Nice - now I know what I am dealing with.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

As I said, Scarlet, I really don't give a damn. It's simply not a question that I care anything at all about or am in the least bit interested in. For me that is an issue for a pregnant woman and her physician, and probably not for them. In my personal experience what they are mostly concerned with are the technical procedures of the procedure.

This is not to say that women who have abortions are not profoundly distressed by the whole experience. I have personally known several women who have had abortions and it is never a pleasant experience. On the other hand these women know exactly what they are doing and the last thing they need is somebody like you or me to sit in judgement of them. What they have needed, in my case, is somebody to be supportive of them and whatever decision they choose to make about their life, but it is their life and their decision, not mine or yours and what my views are about when life begins are not exactly irrelevant, but they would be unhelpful in the extreme in terms of being supportive of someone who has to make their own decisions about their own life.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

speak for youself.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Nice - you equate unborn children to rock crystals. Nice to see what we are dealing with. Good luck to you and your miserable existence.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Sentient beings have a miserable existence and zygotes are some how holy? We are clearly ships passing in the night.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

you don't give a damn when a fetus becomes a life? Nice. How about the woman I read about who had 36 abortions. Does she still deserve your support?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Yup. The thing about life is, different disciplines have different definitions of what it is. Philosophers have one definition, theologians another (and different theologians have different definitions), biologists another, etc. I suspect that botonists and zoologists have different definitions of life. Piaget has an interesting essay about how small children think clouds are alive and 500 years ago nearly everyone thought rock chrystals were alive. This is all very interesting and way too complicated for me. Different people are interested in different things and this one is not high on my list of things to cogitate about. I'm not even especially interested in whether I personally am alive or not. I like life and I like being able to do the things I can do when I am conscious and I dislike pain intensely, but it seems to me that not being alive is essentially not being conscious and one of the things that you wouldn't conscious of if you are not conscious is the fact that you are not conscious, so it doesn't really matter much does it?

[-] 0 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Paul may have adopted a different stance on issues like abortion since I last heard him speak about it. But, I do remember him saying that although he personally does not agree with abortion procedures, that he doesn't believe that it's constitutional for our government to dictate whether the procedure is ethical, legal or not. He believes that it's up to each state to decide that issue, not the job of the federal government. I wouldn't classify Paul as libertarian, conservative or dem. He's a constitutionalist for sure. At one time he was libertarian but then became a repub. in order that he could be more effective in congress. but as we know, his own party dislikes him. Could he be an effective president? probably not anymore than Obama because he's not really one of the ' boys'. I've noticed a big difference between Ron and his son as well. I don't like his son at all and yet, I really like Ron. I may not agree with all of his opinions but I do respect him for taking time to thoughtfully and intelligently examine issues instead of just making a mockery of the political process by selling out to big corps.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Abortion has always been available to middle class women even before it was legal in the US. It was not uncommon in the 1950s for middle class women to take a trip to Mexico to terminate a pregnancy. The real issue is how is it to be funded and whether Medicare and Medicaid funds are to be available to women for abortions who could not otherwise afford it.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

A lot of women died as a result of ' illegal' abortions that were performed by butchers. A lot of women died as a result of inserting coat hangers into their uterus. Not many women could afford to go to Mexico or had the ability to get there discretely. As far as funding abortions...many options are currently available to women to terminate pregnancies and most are affordable. The only time that an abortion should be covered, in my opinion, is if it's necessary to sustain the mother's life due to some other medical condition. I realize that women make mistakes but there needs to be accountability for lifestyle choices and not burden the system with the consequences of lacking commonsense and good judgment. There's a hidden agenda in all this bickering over abortion and birth control....population control for one thing ( genocide) I've been trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together but here's a few things I've noticed: Our birth rate is the lowest it's been in a hundred years

Some of the very poor are continuing to have children in the United States, at higher rates than many in the middle class, for several reasons.Those women often rely on government assistance and their children are not only a financial burden but have a lower chance of advancing beyond or out of poverty status- making them a further burden or just unproductive citizens Women from middle class are choosing not to have children because there is a 75 percent chance that only one child could result in financial ruin The wealthy are having children BUT, the wealthy don't constitute enough of our population to make up for the decline in low birth rate.

The birth rate for younger groups of women have fallen to all-time lows, whereas birth rates (with assistive technology) in women over 40 (who have enough career and financial success to afford it) have risen to all-time highs. IRONICALLY, a study recently reported that taking the birth control pill after the age of 40 will reduce some cancers in women by more than 50 percent. However, we also know that the pill can actually increase the rate of other, very aggressive and fatal cancers. Why would we not want women to have children after 40 and also put women at risk for an early death? Because it's more costly for women to have prenatal medical care after 40 since they require more medical tests, prenatal preventive work and also because there is a lot of genetic degradation of a woman's eggs by that age that could result in congenital defects/birth anomalies. These women will also be nearing retirement age which will put further burden on SS and Medicare.

I have noticed other trends too but these are just a few of my thoughts that remind me of ' ethnic cleansing/genocide'.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Lenin said that the proletariat (which is Latin for baby maker) had more children than the bourgeoise because they were more optimistic about the future, I suspect that he was being more than a bit tongue in cheek but I also believe that there is more than a grain of truth in that assertion.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of the modern birth control movement and a member of the Socialist Party was also rather a racist and advocate of genetic engineering,

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

hahahah yes, there is some truth to Lenin's statement...Ignorance is bliss I suppose. Then again, Jefferson once said something like, ' If ignorance is bliss, then why are there so many miserable people". hahaha

There's no doubt that someone needs to monitor population dynamics. However, ' their' methods are not always ethical or transparent. There are cures for cancer that have been well-established and yet suppressed by our government ( which is why I never donate money to those types of fund raising charities).

[-] 0 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

I was sure this one be the Sandra Fluke Red Light speech.