How does human life itself have no value? please explain? So what your stating is that the average joe who lets say isn't the most knowledgeable person or has achieved great things in life, well that his life is of no value?

Well said....not really. Try reading over his statement again and you'll find it does make sense, and is not a stab at emotion. It's a very logical way of putting it. How can one justify what form of life isn't important? In an abortion what alot of people don't seem to fully understand is that it's an actualy living human being inside the mother. So therefore to terminate the pregnancy they do have to kill the unborn child.

I just personally find it appualling how people can act as if its nothing and that because the child is unborn its life is meaningless, but thats just my opinion.

I'm not advocating that a fetus's life isn't important. I've never said that. But I do think that a woman's right to choose how to control her life is as important or more important. Its up to her to make the decision.

I'd rather she just use birth control in the first place and never get pregnant. But life isn't always that simple. I just don't prefer to impose my will on other people. And before those words get contorted, being pro-choice is not imposing your will on others. You can argue that it is, but giving people a choice is not imposing something on them. They are still entitled to make whatever decision they want.

His argument is just about semantics.  Whether people ask a pregnant woman abot her "baby" or her "fetus" is utterly irrelevant to the factual question of whether the thing in question is a person or not.  That is the debate worth having, not ranting about people making incorrect statements about a human body's stage of development.  

The quote is just pro-life propaganda about what he sees as pro-choice propaganda, and not any actual argument about abortion at all. 

It does have relevence because the question is as Dr. Ron Paul stated we try to classify human life as irrelevant when it suits are own selfish need. Human life is still human life wether its a baby in it's mother's womb or someone like me and you. It's just as he stated when someone doesn't want the baby we use terms like fetus or tissue to attempt justify killing the baby inside when it's not wanted (or the candy coated term of terminating the pregnancy). 

 You're missing the point and (to be fair) so, perhaps, was he. 

If people really think of it explicitly as a baby until they decide to get rid of it, and then think of it as a mere lump of flesh, then sure, they're hypocrites.  But that's in their own minds. 

The object of their thoughts does not change based on their thoughts about it.  Indeed, that's Ron Paul's entire point.  So the question is, which is the correct view?  Is it a tiny little person, or is it not a person yet?  You're assuming one answer to this question, but the quoted material does nothing to prove this. 

Not trying to be rude here but the problem is that I don't think you fully understand what he's trying to say, but thats ok I'll try and be a little more clear if your having trouble understanding.

 He was simply stating how in this society when a woman  is pregnant people will ask her how's the baby coming along and refer to it as a baby, yet when a woman who gets pregnant and does not want the child, we act as if that baby is just a pile of tissue, a fetus(depending on the stage ect) to help us justify killing the baby inside when its not wanted.

You need to re-read what he said because I think your confusing yourself . It's not assuming an answer to any question because there was no question, but merely stating how people act as if human life is less human when it suits them. That is a fact with most people.

If you look at it from the perspective that human life is precious then it does have a value, even if its unborn and in the womb of the mother, even if were just a pile of cells with metal activity and energy.

I'm going to assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that your looking at it from an athiest perspective. THats where are values differ then because I look at it from more of a spiritual aspect (and no not like the kooks you see on t.v)

I understand perfectly what he was trying to say.  In fact I restated the same thing that you restated.  If my restatement was substantially different from yours (except in the fact that it was couched inside an if/then construction as part of another point), then perhaps we actually do have a problem. 

My point is that what he said is only an indictment of the hypocrites who do that.  It says nothing to prove that they were right the first time -- that it actually is a baby (a person) instead of a bunch of developing human tissue that will someday become a person.  What if they were right with their second belief?  They're still hypocrites, but not murderers. 

Yes, exactly.  There is no question -- you're not even allowing the question to be asked, just making the assumption that the pro-life position is correct.  To use this as a pro-life argument is massively begging the question.  If you weren't intending to use this as a pro-life argument, but were merely preaching about people being hypocrites, then I'm sorry for assuming otherwise and please STFU. 

You mean I haven't convinced you (and I'm sure some others who rationalize their permissive attitude toward baby-killing).  You can't speak for others.  Which is not surprising in the least.  But your strawman argument does nothing for the debate.  It's like me saying you are anti-choice for not allowing the baby a choice.  It just ignores your view completely, even if it comports with my view.  Next you'll say that I only have such a position because I'm a religious fanatic or something.  Oh dear, we do go in circles, don't we?