Ron Paul for President 2012

I applaud my opponents's confindence in Ron, however this debate is not based on personal opinion, but on core evidence and fact. RE-REBUTTAL By opponents biggest attack on my abortion contention was that Ron Paul's abortion policy deals with the issue of preventing the abortion of a pregnancy caused by irresponsible citizens. While this is partially true, my opponent completely neglects the fact that Ron Paul's abortion policy prevents any form of abortion including those required to save the mothers life. {1} Now not only is this unconstitutional as it gives the federal government the power to cross the line between governmental issues and our personal life, it also denies us the ability to make life saving decisions, thus completely destroying our already limited liberty. My opponent talks about morality in which he ask the question, "Who became the judge and who has been granted the authority to take the life away?" This question is one asked virtually every time the question of abortion is brought up; however, just like most questions, this questions one without an answer free of controversy. Following Paul's policy, we are giving the federal government the power to decide the ultimate answer to this question. In his last rebuttal, my opponent makes this statement "My conclusion along with Mr. Paul's is that doctors/patient have the power to overstep the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die." This statement proves that my opponent does not fully comprehend Paul's policy towards abortion. His policy is to abolish all form of abortion and his only justification is a personal anecdote which I proved wrong in m first AC. please read my first evidence and please read the full article. "So tell me whats the difference between killing a baby one minute before birth or killing a baby one minute after birth?" This statement is absolutely absurd for the reason being that abortion does not occur one minute before birth, but at most 20% weeks after pregnancy(very rare) {2}. At this state, the baby is not considered a child or even a human being(according to many pro abortion activists), it is considered a fetus. And to answer your question, the difference between killing a fetus and a child, is the fact that the parents choose to keep the child rather than perform an abortion. Both action cannot be of equal weight as one (scenario A) s of personal choice, so the amount of grief expressed or even felt for the abortion is far lesser than that of scenario B(one minute after birth) Since my opponent is clearly pro life, lets examine some scenario's: Scenario 1: A fifteen year old girl is raped. She becomes pregnant, and chooses the option of abortion only to find out that abortion has being outlawed by Ron Paul. She goes home crying and with no other option, delivers the baby. She takes the baby home and looks at him/her. With pure hatred in her eyes, she puts the baby down on her couch and goes off to drink in the kitchen. The baby starts to cry and she yells across the room SHUT UP! This makes the baby cry even louder. She gets up, grabs a knife, walks to the living room and starts to stab the child. With each stab, she yells SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!...When she is done, the baby is dead with multiple stabs across his chest. "As for bringing our troops home. This is an excellent solution to resolve hostility because of our meddling affairs in other countries." Even if we bring back our troops, there is no guarantee that this would decrease the hostility between the United States and other countries. The fact is that bringing back troops will not serve as a solution to global hostility. As long as we remain a global power, there is no way to avoid hostility with a rival nation. Bringing back troops will no longer keep enemy troops at bay, but it will allow them to come to the U.S where they now have the ability to harm the United States both economically and physically. "The jobs lie here, its just people are to damn unmotivated to care and would rather suck off the government for economic purposes. it the victim mentality that people develop." With a 9.4 unemployment rate, its quite fair to say that the problem lies in the amount of jobs and the economic state, rather than the people. U.S. adds jobs, but it's hardly enough to accommodate the United States population as a whole.{3} Bringing back troops will only increase the Unemployment rate within the United States. "The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. Given the year it was ratified in 1913, the same year the Federal Reserve was established can't mean anything good came from the 17th amendment. This amendment was a provision which superseded article 1 section 3 in the constitution. Given this power and how Ron Paul is a strict unconstitutionalist exemplifies proof in how he takes his oath very seriously and he believes the constitution should not be manipulated in this manner or any manner." The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. Abolishing this would mean that the United States population has no say in terms of who goes into power. Abolishing the 17th amendment will destroy the republican ideals that served as the foundation to our nation. {4} Sources: 1}http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2}http://www.abortionno.org... {3}http://www.seacoastonline.com... {4}http://en.wikipedia.org...