Overturning Roe V Wade is the constitutional thing to do...abortion rights belong in the hands of the states not the feds...
As fo rdefining life at conception...he;s an OB/GYN that adores children...seems a good trait not a bad one ESPECIALLY since unless absolutel science says so life will BNEVER be defined at conception so its really a non issue.
Oh and IF science did define life at conception at least it were defined by the proper athority, science...not religion, ideals or personal feelings and as such the defentition should be honored and respected...
My only question is what exactly is so scary/wrong/bad about a fetus actually being a human life?
The court of scientific opinion is still out on the issue of life...but i'm fully willign to accept the verdic it hands down.
the ramifications of life being defined at conception are the problem. i agree that constitutionally it should not be in the hands of the federal government, but neither should sex education.
For a second after reading his issues page, I thought I might be able to hop on board the Ron Paul train, but then I got down to the "negate Roe v. Wade" part and didn't see anything on gay marriage/civil unions. Oh well, I'm back to being a woman without a candidate.
Then I saw the wiki page and saw his stance on gay marriage, which is basically, it's a state issue, which i can agree with, however he did vote to de-fund same sex adoptions. So a same sex couple can't raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple? That's not so cool.
Comments 9
Reply
As fo rdefining life at conception...he;s an OB/GYN that adores children...seems a good trait not a bad one ESPECIALLY since unless absolutel science says so life will BNEVER be defined at conception so its really a non issue.
Reply
My only question is what exactly is so scary/wrong/bad about a fetus actually being a human life?
The court of scientific opinion is still out on the issue of life...but i'm fully willign to accept the verdic it hands down.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment