Who disagrees with Paul that life beings at conception?

[andrewgreve]

I do. How do you think the abortion issue will affect support for Paul's campaign? My dad, for example, likes all of Paul's financial policies, but will not vote for him because of his views on abortion.

Ron Paul's thoughts on the matter:
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

How do you feel that Paul introduced this legislation?:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776

"SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'."

[fj45lvr]

When does life begin Andrew?? I'm curious.

[cujothekitten]

I disagree with him but it's not a big issue for me. I feel that he'll make the morning after pill and plan B more available so abortion isn't really necessary in my view... unless the mother’s life is at risk of course.

[Dominic]

I happen to agree with him, but I think if people agree with his overall philosophy of a federal government restricted by Constitutional limits, then it ought to be a non-issue.

Ron Paul doesn't want to have a federal abortion ban, he wants to leave it up to the states where the issue belongs.

[Mr. White]

I'd agree life begins at conception, but I'm very much pro-choice. I feel that decision is between the woman and God.

Anywho, this is THE only issue I've found dividies anyone I talk to. I've talked to pro-lifers that hate him for it and pro-choicers that hate him for it.

Whatever the case, I stress to people that this polarizing issue is nothing compared to the economic and soverign future of our country.

[slantedview]

I'm still torn. But one interesting argument I heard from either Paul or a supporter:

The California court indirectly deemed an unborn fetus as a person being that it charged Scott Peterson with 2 deaths when he killed his wife and unborn child, not just 1 death.

[amberj]

I disagree with his pro-life position, but in my opinion, what is really important here? Whether or not we can choose to have an abortion, or whether or not we can chooose anything at all? I'll sacrifice that one to have freedoms everywhere else.

[andrewgreve]

Whatever the case, I stress to people that this polarizing issue is nothing compared to the economic and soverign future of our country.

I agree, Mr. White.

[Santana28]

i think the point is moot, and is obviously his own personal opinion as a Doctor.

but from a legal standpoint it is absolutely hypocritical to prosecute people for harming an unborn fetus while at the same time allowing (and funding) abortions.

LIFE does begin at conception. that's not the argument. the argument is whether consciousness begins, or pain, or emotions, etc etc. cells multiplying = life, so you can't argue that conception isn't an act of life. To get theological, its the question whether the fetus has a "soul" yet or not.

I don't know all these things! I can't answer them, and i'm not about to force my opinion on other people. But i think whenever there is doubt - we should err on the side of life.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

I agree with him.

I also agree it's a state issue.

I also have no problem with the morning after pill.

[risiusj]

Who here hates how social issues are always the first things that sway how people vote?

I hate it. What does it matter what the president thinks about gay marriage, abortion, etc.
If the system is run properly, the president will never have to make a decision on those sorts of things.

[mconder]

I'd agree life begins at conception, but I'm very much pro-choice

Would you be pro-choice after the birth of the child or even a week before birth?

[walt]

this is a side issue. the issue of freedom and our looming bankruptcy are far far more important. Take time to consider this.

[njandrewg]

not really a big issue, considering it would be a state issue. Making it 1 way or another on the federal level just pisses off 50% of the country no matter what you choose.

+ on the state level some states may come up with a better policy than making it 1 way or another.

[nullvalu]

Andrew, I'm curious too.. when does life begin if not at conception? during birth?

I'd like to point out to people who think that, that a baby can be born 3-4 months before term and go on to live a healthy life.. Should it not be considered a real life for those 3-4 months before it has reached term?

[hells_unicorn]

I agree with Paul's position, as well as the fact that this issue is not a tool for a tyrannical federal abortion ban or continued allowance. When the issue is taken up in Pennsylvania I will likely side with the "only to save the life of the mother" version of the law, which is pretty much the traditional Catholic position. That call can only be made by a physician like Dr. Paul and argued to a judge, not by an elected politician or a priest.

[Craig_R]

I think abortion should be okay till formation of a brain, after that its a person and murder.

I also think the president has no say on the matter whatsoever so it doesnt matter if I agree with pauls position here or not, tho I can live with his position

[david.griffus]

It is a touchy issue. I like for people to have the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy at an early stage. Late-term abortions are barbaric. If the baby could survive outside the mother, then I guess I am against aborting it. I don't know. I don't think that much about it.

[jj111]

If you look at the definition of "life" you will find that life is a continuum. The millions of sperm in an ejaculation are living things. They move, they have DNA, - what makes them move if they are not alive? If they sit around for a while they will eventually die, and stop moving.

The same is with an unfertilized egg. It is alive. It conducts processes that a living thing does.

Now an egg has only 23 chromosomes, and a sperm only 23 chromosomes. I think the term is haploid. When they combine, the DNA combines and they have 46 chromosomes, becoming diploid.

These are all variations of the continuum of life. Life is a continuum. There are some living things in biology that live independently for half their life cycle in a haploid state, the other half in a diploid state.

Now there is a different question when you ask, when does the life become a "human being." You might argue that a sperm or egg are not a "human being."

Legal questions are based on legal theory. It is all theory.

There is no science that can answer the ethical question as to whether or not abortion is "ethical."

It is a legal and political question as to how a government and how a government-controlled legal system addresss abortion issues.

Personally, I believe life begins BEFORE conception, that life is a continuum, that sperm is alive, and that the unfertilized egg is alive. Conception is simply changing from one form of life to another - a union of two haploids to produce a diploid.

Personally, I would prefer all levels of government stay out of this issue completely. I would also prefer to live in a society where our court systems are completely disassociated from a monolithic "sovereign" government and politics. This is a tall order to achieve politically, but it theoretically could be done in a society, and in fact has been done in other societies in the past. For details, read "For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard.

[slantedview]

Who here hates how social issues are always the first things that sway how people vote?

I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE IT!!!

Who cares if gays can marry, a few people you don't know and will never meet can have abortions, children recite or don't recite a pledge in a classroom, etc.

None of this shit matters when we don't have jobs, or country is going further into debt, our monetary system is edging towards collapse, our troops are overseas and being killed, etc.

[Mr. White]

I'd agree life begins at conception, but I'm very much pro-choice

Would you be pro-choice after the birth of the child or even a week before birth?

Prior to the birth of the child.

I personally think abortion, morally, is comparable to murder, but I don't think it should be prosecuted, or persecuted.

I do however think the decision should be left to the woman and her conscience, creater, God, etc.

[nullvalu]

I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE IT!!!

Who cares if gays can marry, a few people you don't know and will never meet can have abortions, children recite or don't recite a pledge in a classroom, etc.

None of this shit matters when we don't have jobs, or country is going further into debt, our monetary system is edging towards collapse, our troops are overseas and being killed, etc.

True enough.. I think these social issues are all just meant to keep our eyes off the ball.. the real issues that face our country, yet are never mentioned in the Old Media.

[Mr. White]

I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE IT!!!

Who cares if gays can marry, a few people you don't know and will never meet can have abortions, children recite or don't recite a pledge in a classroom, etc.

None of this shit matters when we don't have jobs, or country is going further into debt, our monetary system is edging towards collapse, our troops are overseas and being killed, etc.


There's a slippery slope, but I understand your perspective.

Some folks however, and I've talked to 5 of them thus far, will not be swayed. Just shrug and move on to the next.

[paulaholic]

I've always struggled with this issue. I guess I would be considered pro-life, but I see both sides. If abortions were made illegal, then the women who really needed them (rape victims, life endangered), would not have access to a safe method of getting one. The last thing we need is abortions being performed by amateurs in back alleys.

However, I feel this issue is quite minor. I can't stand when people choose to make it the centerpiece of their political beliefs. I don't think it's a religious issue, either. I hate that many Christian churches are using their influence to try to get their way in this matter. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with my stance, and that should be the same for everyone else.

[jj111]

I'd agree life begins at conception, but I'm very much pro-choice

Would you be pro-choice after the birth of the child or even a week before birth?

Murdering of babies right after birth has been perpetrated by a very small percentage of parents, in various societies, for various different reasons. In the US, it is usually a result of mental instability in the one who kills the infant. Usually these perpetrators are not given capital punishment, but usually some reduced sentence. In other cultures, there are certain situations where infanticide is condoned and considered justified. These I believe are unusual cases in all societies, and they are very difficult to understand and deal with as a society.

Such cases are very exceptional. When you think of the motivation, it would be entirely different from other types of murder.

Is it murder when you are a soldier in a foreign war and you bomb someone's house and kill the civilians inside? Homicide? These types of homicide appear to be thousands of times more frequent than infanticide by a parent. It seems like parental infanticide is a small issue compared to the much larger issue of warfare, where hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians are murdered by strangers....

To me the people who plan, design, implement, and profit from engaging in and perpetuating foreign wars is a sign of much greater moral turpitude than a rare case where a mentally unstable parent kills their newborn.

[klamath]

Like every other issue he doesn't believe the federal government should be deciding this. As far as personally changing his belief, it will never happen. I think that this quote will explain it.

"It was pretty dramatic for me,” he says, “to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”

[maggiebott]

This would never be an issue if men could bear children. I'm pro choice but remember my daughter's young teen friends getting abortions without parental knowledge while their parents remained clueless.

[UtahApocalypse]

The point is that Dr. Paul has his view, but will not enforce it on others.He wants to leave the issue up to the states to decide for themselves.

[DeadheadForPaul]

While Dr. Paul is personally pro-life, he would leave it up to the states, so it seems like a non-issue

I'm personally pro-choice for a number of reasons. I'm primarily pro-choice because unwanted children make up a disproportionate number of criminals. Typically, abortion is a last resort for poor, uneducated, single mothers. Prominent economist and best-selling author Steven Levitt would back me up by pointing to the direct relationship between the availability of safe, legal abortions and a reduction in crime 16-20 years later. See here for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

Additionally, I think that population growth is getting out of control and we don't need more people living off government welfare either

Really, I think there are just a bunch of cells until about the second trimester. Maybe I just studied too much bio and not enough theology

And I know someone is going to jump on the controversial statements I made and talk about personal responsibility ("If you have sex, be ready for the consequences"). Well, I agree 100% in theory. However, this is the real world, and I know that some uneducated 16 year old with a crack addition is not going to be thinking that through. I don't think that it should be MY personal responsibility to take care of her child when he/she becomes dependant on social services or robs/kills my family. There are statistics to back up the fact that these children make up a disproportionate number of the people in prison

[purepaloma]

I agree with Ron Paul - however this issue should not be an important one going into 2008.

[rich34]

Is your dad getting an abortion any time soon?

Not trying to be a smartA$$ here, but I mean come on! He has to see the bigger picture here. Ron Paul is the only candidate that is going to be able to get this country through the troubleing times ahead. The other candidates smile, nod their heads, but they don't even have a clue as to what's going on, just like the current ding dong in the White House.

And besides. Congressman Paul has already said that he's going to leave it up to the states to decide their own abortion laws. That's as fair as you're ever going to get it.

[slantedview]

I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE IT!!!

Who cares if gays can marry, a few people you don't know and will never meet can have abortions, children recite or don't recite a pledge in a classroom, etc.

None of this shit matters when we don't have jobs, or country is going further into debt, our monetary system is edging towards collapse, our troops are overseas and being killed, etc.
I guess to me, the importance of issues should be based on how many people they effect. Troops overseas, troubled economy, rising healthcare costs, broken patent/copyright system, curtailed freedoms... this effects all of us. Does abortion or gay marriage effect all of us? Most of us? Any of us? Hardly.

They are definately a distraction from the real issues that ACTUALLY effect us.

[jj111]

Really, I think there are just a bunch of cells until about the second trimester. Maybe I just studied too much bio and not enough theology

When you think about it, we all might be considered "just a bunch of cells." I also am pro-choice. It should be between your family and your doctor, not the government's business.

[jj111]

I guess to me, the importance of issues should be based on how many people they effect. Troops overseas, troubled economy, rising healthcare costs, broken patent/copyright system, curtailed freedoms... this effects all of us. Does abortion or gay marriage effect all of us? Most of us? Any of us? Hardly.

They are definately a distraction from the real issues that ACTUALLY effect us.

Also known as "wedge issues" - TPTB will try to "divide and conquer" the population - that is a time-tested strategy.

[emilysdad]

If you look at the definition of "life" you will find that life is a continuum. The millions of sperm in an ejaculation are living things. They move, they have DNA, - what makes them move if they are not alive? If they sit around for a while they will eventually die, and stop moving.

The same is with an unfertilized egg. It is alive. It conducts processes that a living thing does.

Now an egg has only 23 chromosomes, and a sperm only 23 chromosomes. I think the term is haploid. When they combine, the DNA combines and they have 46 chromosomes, becoming diploid.

There are all variations of the continuum of life. Life is a continuum.

Now there is a different question when you ask, when does the life become a "human being." You might argue that a sperm or egg are not a "human being."

Legal questions are based on legal theory. It is all theory.

There is no science that can answer the ethical question as to whether or not abortion is "ethical."

It is a legal and political question as to how a government and how a government-controlled legal system addresss abortion issues.

Personally, I believe life begins BEFORE conception, that life is a continuum, that sperm is alive, and that the unfertilized egg is alive. Conception is simply changing from one form of life to another - a union of two haploids to produce a diploid.

Personally, I would prefer all levels of government stay out of this issue completely. I would also prefer to live in a society where our court systems are completely disassociated from a monolithic "sovereign" government and politics. This is a tall order to achieve politically, but it theoretically could be done in a society, and in fact has been done in other societies in the past. For details, read "For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard.

I am pro life. I agree life begins at conception as this was the Creators design to create a life.

I am a bottom line person, my crux. To me, with a couple exceptions, abortion is the result of irresponsibility on the part of both sexes. The easy fix. I also understand others don't share that view and I accept that.

I agree the issue belongs in the States, not the Federal government.

[Santana28]

if the states are able to decide individually - if it is such a big issue for you, then you have the option of moving to another state whose views you support. As of now, if you disagree - you have no place else to go, unless you leave the country. And unlike America, we can not just waltz into someone else's country and tell them to cater to us.

[fj45lvr]

liberty means nothing without life.

[DeadheadForPaul]

When you think about it, we all might be considered "just a bunch of cells." I also am pro-choice. It should be between your family and your doctor, not the government's business.

Heh, you know what I meant. There's really no advanced development until around the second trimester. In fact, during the first stages of the development of the human embryo, the stages are almost identical to our evolutionary stages (fish gills, etc).

And I agree. It is a private matter

[Douglass Bartley]

Dr. Paul, from the first words of his speech at Iowa Poll obviously believes abortion is the most important liberty issue. for obvious reasons. He's the first pol. ever to give the issue top priority.

And there is no doubt in my mind that the federal government has the authority to stop it, but not to allow it. See 14th Amendment giving congress power to enact legislation to protect life. An unborn baby is a life and a person.

[BillyDkid]

I don't have a problem with saying life begins at conception - because it does, but that doesn't make it a human being. I was a little bothered by Ron's speech in Iowa. He sounded much more strident - particularly on the abortion issue - than he has in the past. Before he sounded like there was room for honest disagreement and comprimise. In Iowa he sounded like there was no room at all for comprimise. I oppose abortion generally, however, I don't think that terminating a pregnancy at the earliest possible stage is even roughly equivalent to any abortion after 5 or 6 months and I certainly support the use of the "morning after" pill. In fact, many women know that birth control pills can function in much the same way. I think the only reasonable approach is draw a line at a particular stage of pregnancy at which abortion is no longer allowable. Dr. Paul gave me the impression that he would like to ban abortions altogether. I will always support Ron Paul, but I am concerned he may have lost some of the people who were considering him with that speech.

[jj111]

Dr. Paul, from the first words of his speech at Iowa Poll obviously believes abortion is the most important liberty issue. for obvious reasons. He's the first pol. ever to give the issue top priority.

And there is no doubt in my mind that the federal government has the authority to stop it, but not to allow it. See 14th Amendment giving congress power to enact legislation to protect life. An unborn baby is a life and a person.

There are a lot of problems that libertarians like myself have with the 14th Amendment.

1. It was not the original intent. If it had been, it would have been in the original Constitution or Bill of Rights.

2. It does not talk about God-given rights, it talks about government-granted "privileges." This turns the concept of liberty as discussed in the Declaration of Independence upside down.

I would recommend you do some research on scholarly critiques of the 14th Amendment. I am completely in favor of the abolition of slavery, but the 14th Amendment is not as simple as that. I would prefer getting rid of the 14th Amendment, and adding a new Amendment which simply says, "Human slavery is prohibited," or something like that.

All of the above notwithstanding, Dr. Paul says that the Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to create a federal ban on (or regulation of) abortions.

[Johnnybags]

anyway, no matter who wins they do not have the authority to change the law of the land. Only the supreme court does, not the President, anyone who would not pick a President based solely on this view with so many other real day to day problems out there should not be voting anyway. Anyone who thinks a Dr. who delivered 4000 babies will not come down on lifes side is crazy, that ole what if the life of the mother point is at stake is rarely seen. I do not think anyone would not say the procedure cannot be performed in that case. No matter, the issue will be the last thing on peoples minds by the election, its the economy stupid, which will be teetering on depression.

[BillyDkid]

Andrew, I'm curious too.. when does life begin if not at conception? during birth?

I'd like to point out to people who think that, that a baby can be born 3-4 months before term and go on to live a healthy life.. Should it not be considered a real life for those 3-4 months before it has reached term?Clearly, there is some point during development at which a fetus can be considered a person, but a zygote or a blastula is, simply, not a person. It is this all or nothing posture on both sides that poisons everything.

[jjockers]

The argument is this:

If the 'child' cannot exist w/o the mother, then the mother has the right to terminate the 'child'.

Therefore, the life or death of the child hinges on technological limitations.

By a similar argument, can a single parent decide to terminate a completely dependent post-birth child? Physically/mentally retarded children, for instance. What about if that child was born from rape?

To say that abortion is a private issue is to say that murder is a private issue.

Abortion is a domestic issue so the local governments should deal with it. However, the federal government is responsible for protecting life and liberty. When can we declare "life"? Again, that is a technological limit.

[Douglass Bartley]

I guess to me, the importance of issues should be based on how many people they effect. Troops overseas, troubled economy, rising healthcare costs, broken patent/copyright system, curtailed freedoms... this effects all of us. Does abortion or gay marriage effect all of us? Most of us? Any of us? Hardly.

They are definately a distraction from the real issues that ACTUALLY effect us.

By your test of the importance of issues based on how many are affected, abortion becomes the major issue--45 million in the US alone. Not to speak of the economic problems abortion has caused.

[marcella]

Yes a lot of people are for Pro Choice unless they are in the womb

[jj111]

I don't have a problem with saying life begins at conception - because it does, but that doesn't make it a human being. I was a little bothered by Ron's speech in Iowa. He sounded much more strident - particularly on the abortion issue - than he has in the past. Before he sounded like there was room for honest disagreement and comprimise. In Iowa he sounded like there was no room at all for comprimise. I oppose abortion generally, however, I don't think that terminating a pregnancy at the earliest possible stage is even roughly equivalent to any abortion after 5 or 6 months and I certainly support the use of the "morning after" pill. In fact, many women know that birth control pills can function in much the same way. I think the only reasonable approach is draw a line at a particular stage of pregnancy at which abortion is no longer allowable. Dr. Paul gave me the impression that he would like to ban abortions altogether. I will always support Ron Paul, but I am concerned he may have lost some of the people who were considering him with that speech.

I did not think Dr. Paul's speech was the best, but Dr. Paul has said repeatedly that he understands that abortion is a very difficult and complicated subject, and for that reason, it is best deal with on a more local level, such as state, local, or simply between the family and their doctors. He says that the state governments have the authority to deal with it, but I don't think Dr. Paul has said he WANTS the state governments to ban abortion. I think for Dr. Paul it is a moral issue, more important than a legal issue. It is also a political issue in that many people are politically passionate about this issue.

[Hook]

Im with jj111, every sperm is sacred! :)

[Bob Cochran]

If the 'child' cannot exist w/o the mother, then the mother has the right to terminate the 'child'.
This argument is logically lame.

A newborn baby, or a young child for that matter, cannot exist without the mother, father, or SOMEONE to care for h(er/im). Does this mean we should be able to kill a child until (s)he can get a job to support h(er/im)self?

Also, as I'm sure you are aware, it is possible to keep fetuses alive outside the womb at younger and younger ages.

[Bob Cochran]

Yes a lot of people are for Pro Choice unless they are in the womb
Yeah, exactly. If the unborn people were as vocal, as, say, gays......and could DEMAND they get a shot at life, things would be a lot different.

It's very easy to snuff out a class of people who are helpless and silent, isn't it?

[Elwar]

I believe life begins at conception, though it is not a "human" until it distinguishes itself from other animals.

It is not something I would want to determine myself. I would leave that to doctors to determine. Dr. Paul certainly has decent enough credentials for me to trust his opinion in this situation.

Legally though, whichever way you put it, it's a determination of whether or not it is murder or not. Murder is a state issue.

[american2]

I strongly agree with Ron Paul that life begins at conception. Anyone who has seen an ultrasound knows that an unborn child is just as human as everyone else. This is not a religious matter or matter of personal morals.

This being said, I do not want it to be a devisive issue in his campaign, and I will gladly campaign along side pro-choice individuals in order to regain our civil liberties, and reform the country.

I hope that pro-choice individuals will not be turned off by Paul's rhetoric, as we must work together to return to a limited constitutional government.

[RevolutionSD]

I disagree with RP but who cares?

Abortion is a tiny issue and I find this disagreement completely trivial and meant to be divisive.

What's more important, changing the course of history and saving the country or making sure that 100% of the states have legal abortion?

[ARealConservative]

I agree with him.

But I also agree with the concept that a government without the teeth to give people what they want wont remain a government for long.

So the perfect compromise is to pass this power down to a lower form of government and allow the people to migrate to areas that best fit their beliefs.

tell your dad to lose the red state vs blue state mentality as it is destroying the very fabric this country was founded on. Join the revolution of the people for the people.

[fj45lvr]

but I am concerned he may have lost some of the people who were considering him with that speech.

this is kind of ironic because there are lots of people that will be "lost"....let's see, a whole bunch of IRRESPONSIBLE folks concerning the welfare state and this issue, a massive amount of gov. employees, those profiting of fiat currency and war, a passle of lobbyists and politicians...when you start to wittle away the "dead weight" here is there enough of a "majority" left to win an election when you're an honest guy that speaks what you actually believe instead of what you think people want to hear???

[libertarianguy]

test

[beermotor]

i think the point is moot, and is obviously his own personal opinion as a Doctor.

but from a legal standpoint it is absolutely hypocritical to prosecute people for harming an unborn fetus while at the same time allowing (and funding) abortions.

LIFE does begin at conception. that's not the argument. the argument is whether consciousness begins, or pain, or emotions, etc etc. cells multiplying = life, so you can't argue that conception isn't an act of life. To get theological, its the question whether the fetus has a "soul" yet or not.

I don't know all these things! I can't answer them, and i'm not about to force my opinion on other people. But i think whenever there is doubt - we should err on the side of life.


I am as anarchist as they come, but the more I think about it (and go through the process of trying to make babies myself ... with my wife, not in a lab or anything), the more I start to feel like he is right. I've always been a very peaceful type of guy, violence is really insane, to me, and I think he's right, there's something fundamentally wrong with our attitudes towards life, at all levels. And I think he may be right, that may be a consequence of the way government has injected itself into the debate.

My argument to the pro-choicers who refuse to accept Paul is simply this: if you centralize a right in the Federal state, all you do is make it that much easier for a bad president (e.g., Bush) to get elected and abuse that right, or destroy it. It is monumentally hard to change a federal law, compared to a state law, or even a local ordinance. So if you truly are pro-choice, even about other things, decentralization is your biggest and most effective weapon. Centralizing things just allows power to be abused, it's the wrong way to go for classical liberalism.

[ZandarKoad]

I happen to agree with him, but I think if people agree with his overall philosophy of a federal government restricted by Constitutional limits, then it ought to be a non-issue.

Ron Paul doesn't want to have a federal abortion ban, he wants to leave it up to the states where the issue belongs.

Right on. It's a non-issue: the states will decide, and Ron Paul will make sure that the states CAN decide. Some pro-life and some pro-choice would force the entire nation to abide by their rules. Both are wrong. According to the constitution, the states have this right. I believe individual STATES can and should be able to dictate these issues.

And yes, life does indeed begin at conception.

[jjockers]

This argument is logically lame.

A newborn baby, or a young child for that matter, cannot exist without the mother, father, or SOMEONE to care for h(er/im). Does this mean we should be able to kill a child until (s)he can get a job to support h(er/im)self?

Also, as I'm sure you are aware, it is possible to keep fetuses alive outside the womb at younger and younger ages.

I'm talking about physically not being able to survive w/o the mother. Yes, I agree, it is possible to keep fetuses alive outside the womb at younger and younger ages - thus the technological limitation. When technology allows women to inexpensively remove the 'child', while keeping it alive, then will abortion still be legal?

Difference:
baby can't survive outside mother: baby is part of mother so mother can make her own decisions concerning baby.

The baby has no rights until it can distinguish itself as a being capable of surviving outside of another being. That is argument I here quite often.

Personally, I am pro life and agree with Dr Paul.

[LibertyEagle]

It seems we are falling for the very same thing that others do, when they don't understand how he can pass earmarks on to the Appropriations Cmte., then turn around and vote against them.

Dr. Paul wants Roe v. Wade overturned. But not just because he disagrees with abortion in principle, but because he doesn't see anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to legislate it at the federal level. He wants this decision returned to the states to decide. Why could anyone have a problem with this?

[Douglass Bartley]

There are a lot of problems that libertarians like myself have with the 14th Amendment.

1. It was not the original intent. If it had been, it would have been in the original Constitution or Bill of Rights.

2. It does not talk about God-given rights, it talks about government-granted "privileges." This turns the concept of liberty as discussed in the Declaration of Independence upside down.

I would recommend you do some research on scholarly critiques of the 14th Amendment. I am completely in favor of the abolition of slavery, but the 14th Amendment is not as simple as that. I would prefer getting rid of the 14th Amendment, and adding a new Amendment which simply says, "Human slavery is prohibited," or something like that.

All of the above notwithstanding, Dr. Paul says that the Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to create a federal ban on (or regulation of) abortions.

Here the research I did:
Congress Has Power to Prohibit Elective Abortions
Monday, July 23, 2007 3:05 PM



Congress Has Power to Prohibit Elective Abortions
Wednesday, May 09, 2007 8:10 PM


Congress Has Power to Prohibit Elective Abortions


5TH, 9TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION PROTECT UNBORN LIFE

(2nd Edition [change in title and format only]-Humbly submitted)

1. A Fetus is a Life and a Person

1.1. We start with the proposition that the “fetus” is a life and therefore a person, both biologically and colloquially. I’ll skip the biological for which there is vast material readers can find for themselves. Instead I’ll rest on the colloquial argument: as Ann Coulter once said, no one gives “a fetal shower” or says “My fetus is due next May”, or “My fetus’s tiny legs are kicking my ribs.”

1.2. I have assumed that, despite the claims of some, the 14th Amendment [see below para. 2.9.-2.10. ] is actually valid.

1.3. What then are the federal constitutional provisions that apply to the protection of life?

2. Pertinent Federal Constitutional and Other Provisions

2.1. Article 1, §8, Cl. 1. Federal Legislative Powers: “The Congress shall have Power * * *”

2.2. Article 1, §8, Cl. 17: District of Columbia and Federal Properties: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square), as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the [building] of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings . . . .”

2.3. Article 4, §3: Federal Territory Power: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States . . . .”

2.4. Article 1, §8, Cl. 1 and Cl. 18: Necessary and Proper Laws: [1] “The Congress shall have Power * * * [18] “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

2.5. Article 3, §2: Federal Judicial Power: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under . . . the Laws of the United States . . . .”

2.6. Amendment 5: Federal Due Process: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .”

2.7. Amendment 9: Unenumerated Rights: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

2.8. Declaration of Independence: Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property; Government’s Duties to Secure Those Rights: “. . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . .”[1]

2.9. Amendment 14, §1: Protections of persons from unlawful state action. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

2.10. Amendment 14, §5: Enforcement Power: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of [Amendment 14].”

3. Reasoning and Conclusions

A: Federal Locale Cases

3.1. There are two types of cases in which the question of federal power over abortion arises: federal locale cases and state locale cases. Federal locale cases arise from the federal government’s power to legislate for federal enclaves. Because of its exclusive federal legislative power over the District of Columbia, federal properties, and federal territories, congress has power to adopt statutes governing those locales, just as state legislatures have power to enact legislation that is proper under the state’s constitution.

3.2 Those statutes could rightly include one that would prohibit all abortions in those locales except when the mother established that the mother’s life was or would be endangered by the continuation of the pregnancy. In cases of imminent danger to the mother—i.e. cases where any delay in the abortion would likely be fatal—no due process for the infant could rightly be required. The mother’s life exception would be both “necessary” and “proper” because of the mother’s right of self-preservation.[2]

3.3. In non-emergency cases arising in federal enclaves, however, congress’s statute could rightly mandate pre-abortion notice, hearing, and an opportunity to be heard. That is to say, where there was medical doubt about whether the abortion was really necessary, no life-threatening emergency pending, and time permitting, the court could appoint a guardian ad litem both to represent the unborn infant and to ensure there was adequate proof that the intended abortion was really necessary. In all cases where the mother alleged that the pregnancy was life-threatening, the cases would have to be given the top court calendar priority (as with death penalty cases).

3.4. For non-emergency cases in those federal enclaves, congress would be bound to make the legislation comport with the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause (which applies only to the federal government). The 5th says, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” That command would require a judicial hearing in all non-emergency cases where an abortion was sought; for due process requires notice, a judicial hearing for one whose life, liberty, or property is imperiled, and also a fair opportunity to be heard. [3]

3.5. In non-emergency, federal enclave cases, only federal courts (or perhaps federally-established local courts) would have jurisdiction to hear the cases, because no state would have the territorial jurisdiction to hear them.

3.6. Another ground for establishing a federal enclave abortion restriction law is the concept of equal protection of the laws. Unlike the 14th Amendment, the 5th Amendment does not have an Equal Protection Clause. However, the 9th Amendment (which binds only the federal government) is undergirded by the Declaration of Independence’s proclamations that “all men are created equal” and “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”. Those provisions in effect supply federal equal protection guarantee; and that guarantee would also constitute a foundation for a federal enclave abortion restriction statute.

B. State Locale Cases

3.7. In state locale cases, we have a different set of constitutional rules, but the same result—Congress can restrict the states from enacting laws allowing elective or medically unnecessary abortions on two grounds.

3.8. First via the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause (applicable only to states). The 14th says in part, “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and goes on to give congress power to “enforce” those provisions. Therefore Congress has the power (and maybe the constitutional duty) to enact due process protections for the unborn, measures that would override any and all state laws that permit elective abortions in non-life threatening cases.

3.9. As a matter of enforcing 14th Amendment due process requirements, congress could rightly enact the type of restricting statute referred to in Para. 1 above, except that here the federal courts and the state courts would have, as a matter of constitutional law, a concurrent jurisdiction; for state courts appear to have concurrent jurisdiction over “Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under . . . the Laws of the United States . . . .”

3.10. Note that in state situs cases, there is another 14th Amendment ground upon which a federal abortion restriction could stand: “[no state may] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

3.11. How does 14th ‘s Equal Protection Clause fit in with the other Amendment 14, §1 provisions? The citizenship clause was designed to give natural born and naturalized persons state and U.S. citizenship; the Privileges and Immunities clause to put all U.S. citizens, including newly-citizenized blacks, within a state on equal footing with the other citizens of that state in order to prevent legislative discriminations and to prevent 2nd class citizenship; and the Due Process Clause to insure that all persons, citizens or not, were afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard in judicial proceedings against them.

3.12. Conventional wisdom seems to be that the Equal Protection Clause is a guarantee both against discriminatory legislation and discriminatory administration or application of law; and legions of cases have used equal protection to strike down discriminatory legislation.[4] However, that “wisdom” is misguided, for it ignores the word “protection”, makes the Privileges and Immunities clause redundant, and disregards the contextual backdrop of the 14th Amendment. The word “protection” and the history of enactment show that equal protection was designed not to get at discriminatory legislation in matters of civil rights (that was the job of privileges and immunities), but only at discriminatory enforcement, administration, or application of existing law.[5]

3.13. At the time the 14th was adopted, blacks were being regularly brutalized by gangs of thugs and killed by lynch mobs. Their properties were being destroyed. The “abysmal failure of the South to protect blacks” was an American disgrace that needed to be quickly remedied.[6] The remedy the framers devised was the Equal Protection Clause, which by its terms required states to protect blacks by enforcing laws against mayhem, murder, and so on.

3.14. Professor Raoul Berger makes the point well:

What then is the substantive content of the words "equal protection of the laws"? The almost exclusive focus on "equal" has obscured the significance of the word "protection." Yet it is "protection" that is the subject of discourse; "equal" is the modifier. Whatever "protection" is furnished must be "equal." What, it needs to be asked, was to be protected? The abysmal failure of the South to protect the "person and property" of blacks against violence and murder, to safeguard the means whereby they could exist, furnishes the answer. That approach can rescue analysis from treating the word "equal" as if it were a crystal ball. "Protection," if given, must be impartial.[7]

3.15. That conclusion is not only supported by the word “protection” and by the context, but also by the fact that the privileges or immunities clause[8] was the “legislative equality clause”, the clause by which legislative discrimination against resident blacks and migrating blacks was prohibited. The problem equal protection addressed was how to guarantee that every person, citizen or otherwise, within a state was entitled to the same law enforcement protection, and the immediate effect was that blacks could legally insist, for example, on the same police protection as whites.

3.16. The same rationale applies to unborn persons: state law enforcement must guarantee the same police protection to unborn babies as it does for all other persons.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Found in the United States Statutes at Large, p.1 @ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=124


[2] I realize that the unborn child also has rights of self-preservation (through a proxy), but I’ll skip that issue for now.

[3] “The fundamental requiste of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U.S. 230, 236, 44 S. L. ed. 747, 750, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 620; Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427, 436, 45 S. L. ed. 1165, 1170, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 836. And it is to this end, of course, that summons or equivalent notice is employed.” Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914) @ http://supreme.justia.com/us/234/385/case.html



[4] E.g.: Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) (welfare residency requirements); Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982) (gender segregation in schools); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977) (discrimination in social security benefits for women); Phyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (statute barring children of illegal aliens from public schools).

[5] See, for example, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) (unequal administration of law).

[6] Berger, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, p. 123. Senator Wilson stated, "Thousands and tens of thousands of harmless black men . . . have been wronged and outraged by violence, and hundreds upon hundreds have been murdered." Id. at 111.

[7] The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, pp. 122-123.

[libertarianguy]

test

[SwooshOU]

If anything, Ron Paul GAINED supporters because of his strident Pro-Life stance. I know that many libertarians and supporters of Ron Paul are Pro-Choice, but keep in mind, we are trying to get him nominated as a REPUBLICAN. Emphasizing his Pro-Lifeness will help Ron Paul with a majority of Republicans.

To the point, I think the abortion issue is very important. The main point is "What is it?" If there is any question, we don't kill it, because life is worthy of preserving. If it is not alive, then there is no debating it as there is no harm in killing something that isn't alive.

[angelatc]

I disagree with him but it's not a big issue for me. I feel that he'll make the morning after pill and plan B more available so abortion isn't really necessary in my view... unless the mother’s life is at risk of course.

Something that not a lot of women know is that a "morning after pill" of sorts has long been available. Taking a double or triple dose of regular ol' birth control pills the day after has a remarkably impressive effectiveness rate. But because women aren't supposed to have sex, the clinics and doctors were forbidden from discussing that with patients.

I think that letting a pharma company come out with a product that only does what other products can already do is just a scam. (Imagine that.)

I hate abortion arguments. Banning abortion is just as stupid as making drugs illegal. The bottom line is that women who want to have abortions are going to have abortions. Rich women can go out of the country, poor women get stuck in back alley dirty clinics. Yes it's ugly, and I wish that the world was emotionally mature enough to truly to embrace all life, but people, largely the Christian right, all too often reduce pregnancy to some bizarre penance for having sex. That's the very condescending attitude that drives thousands of women to the point of shame, embarassment, and pregnancy termination.

Yes, I'm pro-choice and I don't give a fff about when life begins. But I also think that there is no Constitutional right to an abortion.

It's my understanding that the whole RvW thing was decided as a privacy issue, with the nature of doctor/patient confidentiality being the key. With the new healthcare database looming, that argument will become a moot point.

[libertarianguy]

test

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Doesn't matter what his view is on abortion. Doesn't matter what his view is on jaywalking or drugs or rape. Because he knows those things aren't to be handled at the federal level.

You can go duke it out in your state legislature as to whether rape should be legalized or not. Or jaywalking, or whatever your criminal code issue is today.

[Nash]

I agree that life begins at conception but I also am pro-choice. I think it's basically invasive and impractical to actually enforce anti-abortion laws so I'm against them for that primary reason.

But in terms of priority, the abortion issue barely cracks the top 10 in terms of things that are important to me.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

that logic, taken to it's extreme, argues that forcing all other citizens of your state to abide by your rules is wrong too, and that individuals should decide themselves, which effectively allows abortion. My argument, and i believe this to be the only legally irrefutable argument, is that abortion cases should be treated the same way that any other potential murder case is resolved. And that is by the state legislature, courts, and police, with the federal government only stepping in to loosely enforce the confusing fourteenth amendment

You can swing your fist to the extent that you don't hit my nose. There is disagreement over whether a fetus has a nose. The courts seem to think that is the case when a fetus is harmed or killed outside of abortion. Again, this is just something every state is going to have to decide.

California may decide it will allow abortion up to the age of five. That's their prerogative, as repugnant as most would find that. Iowa could, on the other hand, outlaw birth control. These are the extremes and neither scenario is likely, but those terms would be up to the voters in those states. You can move if you don't like it.

[pyrazole2]

I've read all this, but still don't have a good feel for it...at least in terms of how to talk to people about it.

I'm so used to discussing politics with big L-Libertarians...abortion is really a non-issue for us. The liberty to have or not have an abortion. The liberty to have a trial by jury, letting the jury determine guilt or innocence with regard to a fetus. These are the issues. You rarely, if at all hear about a (L) candidate discussing their own abortion issues.

Of course, Ron's an (R), so it has to be discussed...but don't you see that many people 'don't get it', when you explain that it's an issue for the states. They act like the president is a dictator and can determine what we can and cannot do....as if there weren't a couple of other branches of government out there. Is there a better way to say it other than: "RP is pro-life, but believes that the people should decide what they want in place at a local level"?

[Roxi]

two things. It doesn't matter what RP's personal abortion beliefs are, he only wants to stop funding abortion and thinks its a state issue on its legality.

and you can only agree or disagree if you have seen both sides, join a pro life and a pro choice meetup or activist group and listen to both sides before you decide what you believe or stand for....

the only worse thing than single issue voting is voting without being informed of all sides and aspects

[JAHOGS]

hey andrew, What comes first, the egg or the chicken?

[libertarianguy]

test

[dsentell]

Doesn't matter what his view is on abortion. Doesn't matter what his view is on jaywalking or drugs or rape. Because he knows those things aren't to be handled at the federal level.

Okay, Dr. Paul is an ob/gyn, what do you think his personal feelings toward abortion would be?

But it does not matter what his views are on this issue. You are unnecessarily creating division among the Revolutionary ranks. Being divided will only result in our being conquered:( .

We must remain united by continuing to rally behind Ron Paul's national message for freedom, prosperity and peace!

[BillyDkid]

I have to add this - Dr. Paul's personal views on abortion are all well and good and I am inclined to agree with him for the most part - however, assuming Dr. Paul was able to win the GOP nomination, the last thing on earth we need him running as is the "pro-life" candidate. I realize he believes the feds have no business dealing with this issue and Roe vs. Wade should be over turned, but if that is the centerpiece of his campaign he is doomed from the start. The fact is most Americans DO believe in "the right to choose" and we don't want this campaign to be about hot button issues - we will lose that way certainly. Keep the message and liberty and taxes and individual responsibility and corporate welfare and shrinking government - that is the stuff that appeals to those on the right as well as on the left. He can not paint himself into a corner with the abortion stuff.

[Mr. White]

Go donate, or pass out slimjims, we're already behind him.... this accomplishes nothing.

[danda]

Personally, I think that "when does life begin?" is asking the wrong question. As other posters have noted, sperm are alive, yet trillions of them die and nobody sheds a tear.

I think the question we should be asking is: Can the fetus feel pain or not?

If it can *feel* itself being torn apart, then that to me, is an inhumane act, and a murder.

Scientists can probably tell us when the brain is capable of feeling pain. However, the easiest line to draw is before/after the brain starts producing detectable brainwaves.

I would be more comfortable with Dr. Paul's position if it was based on this type of rationale, rather than conception, which is just 2 cells getting together.

Agree? Disagree?

[Mort]

The fact is most Americans DO believe in "the right to choose" and we don't want this campaign to be about hot button issues - we will lose that way certainly.


That is not a fact. We have never had a national vote on the issue. That is actually part of the reason it is such a hot button issue in this country.

However, I agree we shouldn't make this a big issue in our campaign.

[drednot]

I'm pro-choice but agree that life begins at conception.

I think there's good reason not to consider killing a fetus to be murder, at least by secular reasoning.

If we analyze why all successful civilizations have shunned the killing of innocents, I think the only secular conclusion we can draw is that knowledge of the possibility of being assassinated out of the blue, or having a loved one assassinated out of the blue, leads individuals to take such extreme precautions that they cannot contribute fully to a productive society. Essentially, transaction costs go through the roof in civilizations where the killing of innocents is permissable.

In other words, people change their behavior given the prospect of murder.

Since a fetus can't alter it's behavior to reduce its contribution to civilization, and since the only bond a fetus can have formed is with its parents, civilization has no vital interest in respecting its rights if the parents want to abandon it.

Having said that, I'm fine with Dr. Paul's stance on overturning Roe v. Wade as we should not pick and choose which powers not delegated to it by the Constitution the federal government gets to keep.

[angelatc]

Okay, Dr. Paul is an ob/gyn, what do you think his personal feelings toward abortion would be?


Most abortion doctors are Gynecologists.

Rgardless, the issue for me is shoving it back into the spotlight. If we need a COnstitutional Amendment to protect women's rights to medical care, then let's do it. That way we can quit worrying about how long the current treaty will hold.

[Sematary]

I do. How do you think the abortion issue will affect support for Paul's campaign? My dad, for example, likes all of Paul's financial policies, but will not vote for him because of his views on abortion.

Ron Paul's thoughts on the matter:
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

How do you feel that Paul introduced this legislation?:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776

"SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'."


I happen to agree with him on the fact that life begins at conception. And, if you explain to your father that Ron Paul's position is to return the matter to the states (where it belongs) that there will be states where abortion is perfectly legal and other states where it's not. His bill is nice but won't go anywhere. And, I think the good Dr would tell you - he is not going to pander for a vote. His beliefs are rock solid and THAT is why we support him.

[Douglass Bartley]

No responses to the case I laid out a few pages ago?

[sleeper]

I do. How do you think the abortion issue will affect support for Paul's campaign? My dad, for example, likes all of Paul's financial policies, but will not vote for him because of his views on abortion.

Ron Paul's thoughts on the matter:
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

How do you feel that Paul introduced this legislation?:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776

"SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'."

Might I say your dad can't have it all. If there is more good than bad I would take that. To take more bad than good. Well that is just down right idiotic I will have to say.. Ron Paul is the only candidate that can offer more good than bad to any one person. I have never seen a sane person take more bad than good when it comes to choices.

[jj111]

Personally, I think that "when does life begin?" is asking the wrong question. As other posters have noted, sperm are alive, yet trillions of them die and nobody sheds a tear.

I think the question we should be asking is: Can the fetus feel pain or not?

If it can *feel* itself being torn apart, then that to me, is an inhumane act, and a murder.

Scientists can probably tell us when the brain is capable of feeling pain. However, the easiest line to draw is before/after the brain starts producing detectable brainwaves.

I would be more comfortable with Dr. Paul's position if it was based on this type of rationale, rather than conception, which is just 2 cells getting together.

Agree? Disagree?

Again this is all subjective. Your criteria now is "pain." Pain is very subjective. How do you know that plants cannot "feel" "pain"? If you watch an elapsed-motion film of plants, you will see that they move around quite a bit. Some trees in the rainforest actually "walk" (very slowly of course). How do you know that a plant has no soul or consciousness?

[B964]

I believe life begins at conception.
I am not sure when that life becomes human and not just a cluster of cells.
I believe woman have a right to control thier own body.
I believe they are many ways to avoid becoming pregnant.
I believe woman will still get abortions, legal or not, safe or not.

I believe it is a local government, church and personal issue, not a federal issue.

This issue will NEVER be solved and agreed upon by everyone.

[Estanislao]

I think Paul's stance comes from more a legal standpoint.

I think it's also important to distinguish between life and soul.

Obviously, life is created. (a tumor could be considered life) the question is, is it a separate soul, or when does an actual soul inhabit it.

When you look at it this way, it becomes a subjective religious issue in which there is NO way to determine this. We do NOT know the mind or function of God, and this cannot be seriously addressed by anyone.

Therefore, the Constitution saves the day, let the states decide.

Row vs Wade is a federal mandate and basically unConstitutional for this reason and therefore should be overturned.

That does not mean abortions will be illegal.

I think we've been under so much government control, we've forgotten what it means to be free thinking individuals. And to function without government oversight.

[Omnis]

Late post, but, like I said before in some other thread, I think the actual life of the baby begins with the first heartbeat.

[robatsu]

I think Paul's stance comes from more a legal standpoint.

I think it's also important to distinguish between life and soul.

Obviously, life is created. (a tumor could be considered life) the question is, is it a separate soul, or when does an actual soul inhabit it.

When you look at it this way, it becomes a subjective religious issue in which there is NO way to determine this. We do NOT know the mind or function of God, and this cannot be seriously addressed by anyone.

Therefore, the Constitution saves the day, let the states decide.

Row vs Wade is a federal mandate and basically unConstitutional for this reason and therefore should be overturned.

I agree with all of the above, that it is impossible to determine when life is imbued with soul and that the Constitution is silent on this point. My personal belief is that since it is impossible to tell where on the spectrum from conception to birth this becomes a person, the safest way to ensure you aren't committing murder is to assume that a meaningful life begins at conception, since this is a crystal clear demarcation point. I would vote for state/local laws against any abortion.

I also think that the whole debate about women's "rights" on this issue tends to ignore any discussion of concurrent "obligations/responsibilities" to do no harm.

[libertarianguy]

test

[wgadget]

I haven't read any of these posts, but you can see "life" on the end of a pin under a microscope. If it's alive, it has life, and Ron Paul is right.

[Politeia]

Here's a thought: If life does not begin at conception, when does it begin? Personally, I have never heard of a human being who did not begin life as a fetus. If "life" begins later than conception, there must be some such cases, no? IOW, if, say, "life" begins in the second trimester, then there must be human beings whose life began at that time, and not before. Or the third, or whatever. If human life does not begin in the form of a fetus, there must be human beings who never were fetuses. Maybe we should ask the stork.

The bottom line for me in the present instance is that Dr. Paul is correct: the feddle gummit has no authority to rule in these matters, at least not without a Constitutional amendment (which I think would be a very bad idea). Is there a national law defining murder and penalties therefor? Addressing such matters was not the purpose of the Founders. Only in an empire are such matters decided from the Center (and yes, the European Union is an empire). So, leave it with state and local communities to deal with, like other matters that have to do with relations between individuals and social harmony.

And no, the appeal to the "right to privacy" doesn't hold water -- unless you will agree that I can kill you without committing a crime, so long as I get you to come into my home first.

Meanwhile, though I regard deliberate abortion as not significantly different from murder, I don't favor making it illegal -- if only because unenforceable laws degrade respect for the rule of law as a whole. There must be some other way of dealing with the situation.

It's interesting to note that although abortion proponents (I abhor the calculated, dishonest euphemisms "pro-choice" and "pro-life") generally present the issue as a simple conflict of the genders (i.e. dictatorial men oppressing innocent, abused women), there are in fact many women who are anti-abortion (including, I assume, Mrs. Paul) -- in fact, the anti-abortion movement is in great part led by women. Maybe we could put all the women in America in a big room and not let them out until the issue has been decided? (I'd guess mops and buckets would be in order.)

For me, the fact that apparently a large portion (perhaps a majority) of American women seem to be unwilling (or maybe unable) to handle their sexuality -- i.e. their ability to create new human life -- responsibly, brings larger issues into question.

What is the difference between an adult and a child? One word: Responsibility. In the past, women have been treated as not-fully-responsible beings, like children in some sense, thus not allowed to be fully free in their behavior -- for their own good, to protect them against just such problems as unwanted pregnancy. Women have chafed at these limitations, and in recent times have gotten them removed. Yet they still seem unwilling to acknowledge the responsbilities that necessarily come with the freedom they insist is their right.

There can't be very many people nowadays who are unaware of what exactly causes pregnancy. The simple, certain way to avoid unwanted pregnancy is not to do what causes it. If, however, as some seem to insist, women are simply not in control of their sexuality, then perhaps, like children, their freedom to act should be constrained for their own good?

Note that if a man (see earlier post about Scott whoever) causes the death of a fetus, he can and often will be charged with murder. So in effect we have two sets of laws, one for women, and one for men. This is the original paradigm that has led to the present situation, where all kinds of "groups" have been given special exceptions from the laws that others must obey. Either all citizens are equally subject to the same laws, or not. If not, you have Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more [or less] equal than others." If in fact we are going to have separate laws for women, then women's "citizenship" status should also be separately defined, in every detail. They cannot be both equal and not-equal at once, not if we want to have a workable social order.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

I submit that a republican form of government cannot work unless all those who are full citizens therein are fully responsible -- precisely because in a republic there is no higher authority than the citizen. That's where the buck must stop, because there's nowhere further it can go. If some "citizens" claim special exemption from full responsibility, other citizens must bear greater burdens. Once you start down that road, it is only a matter of time before the republican experiment collapses.

From the fact that this issue is still such an undecided mess, I can only conclude that the 19th Amendment was a huge mistake, that women were and are not ready for full citizenship. Now there's an issue that will bring everyone together.

[crhoades]

From Wikipedia on the dissenting opinions:

Associate Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist wrote emphatic dissenting opinions in this case. Justice White wrote:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.[2]

White asserted that the Court "values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries." Despite White suggesting he "might agree" with the Court's values and priorities, he wrote that he saw "no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States." White criticized the Court for involving itself in this issue by creating "a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it." He would have left this issue, for the most part, "with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs."

Rehnquist elaborated upon several of White's points, by asserting that the Court's historical analysis was flawed:

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.[1]

From this historical record, Rehnquist concluded that, "There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted." Therefore, in his view, "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

[jacksit]

Does abortion or gay marriage effect all of us? Most of us? Any of us? .

Well, abortion definitely affects the 3,000 people killed everyday. And it's not just a social issue. Would we be importing so many immigrants if we hadn't killed 40 million citizens in the last 3 decades. Same-sex marriage and civil unions will increase government expenditures to subsidize homosexual relationships. That's more expense for everyone. It will also undermine the family as legal relationships are changed to accomodate the interests of homosexuals at the expense of traditional marriage rules.

[Buzz]

I'd agree life begins at conception, but I'm very much pro-choice. I feel that decision is between the woman and God.

How does that work exactly? It's one thing to condone the killing of something that you don't consider to be human life, but how can you condone the killing of something that you DO consider to be an innocent human life?

[Paulitician]

I don't agree with Paul or other conservatives on this issue much. I myself am pro-choice but morally I don't like abortion. I think "life begins at conception" is both a lousy philosophical and scientific argument. It's too oversimplified for me. Scientifically, life is there before conception (the sperm I mean). New life is not created until/after conception. And it's not like conception is a simplistic, single step process or something. Philosophically, I think the better question to ask is when does a human person, not life, begin to exist? At the start of conception, at the end of conception, or at entirely different time along the whole pregnancy process? However, I agree with Paul 100% on handling the issue: overturn Roe v. Wade... leave it up to the individual states to decide for themselves.

[BarryDonegan]

i personally, have a really hard time understanding how having a doctor cut you open or insert a vaccuum and remove a baby fetus from your body is a natural right.

if a woman can terminate the pregnancy herself, without the assistance of someone else, through a natural biological process, then i could understand it far better. but when resources and external human force is required, this becomes a right of the actor, not of the recipient.

essentially, if you wanted to say a woman has the right to terminate her own pregancy, i can follow that, how a doctor has a right to go in and kill a fetus though, i dont get that part.

[Richandler]

I don't believe life begins at conception. You can't scientifically classify at 3 month old fetus as human. However I understand the concept of abortion it is horrible. I do believe a woman as a right to chooose though. I'm for Ron Paul because he would rather leave it up to the state. And I definatly agree that the 3rd trimester is way to late for an abortion.

[Politeia]

You can't scientifically classify at 3 month old fetus as human.

You can't? How would you classify it then? If left to complete its term of gestation, will such a fetus be born as a sea urchin? As a matter of fact, scientifically the situation is crystal-clear: a fetus with a human genome is human. If it has a different set of genes, it is a member of the species defined by that set of genes.

What you really mean is you don't think a 3 month old fetus is human because it doesn't look like you, and is incapable of playing poker (or whatever other capability or behavior you define as "human"). Interestingly, just such criteria were used not so long ago to define black people as not-quite-human. Or, ironically enough, to so define women.

[USPatriot36]

I agree with Ron Paul's position that this should be a state matter. There is no need for the Federal Government to interfere in this matter (like many of matters).
In general his position helps him with Republicans and people who disagree with 'life begins at conception' can still support him since he isn't trying to ban it, just transfer jurisdiction to the state governments where it belongs.

[LibertyEagle]

I agree with Ron Paul's position that this should be a state matter. There is no need for the Federal Government to interfere in this matter (like many of matters).
In general his position helps him with Republicans and people who disagree with 'life begins at conception' can still support him since he isn't trying to ban it, just transfer jurisdiction to the state governments where it belongs.

Exactly. I honestly don't understand what some here are upset about.

[ghemminger]

Wow...what a discussion. I knew that there would be much debate on this topic.
I hate to condenm anyone or judge anyone but personally...

I just can't dissagree with DR. Paul. I am Catholic and believe in Life begins at Conception! and that all actions interfering with the natural transmission of "life" is inherently misdirected.

One thing that is never answered is that the constitution protects ALL individuals....how can the State decide 2 months vs 4 months, is the difference between and individual and a mass of cells.

Going backwards, when is the Constitutional cutoff in protection for someones life? Who are we to determine that to a voiceless individual.

[Kuldebar]

I'd rather error on the side of life myself. Also, I find the idea of ending a pregnancy as a form of birth control rather irresponsible and abhorrent.

Outside of rape, pregnancy is entirely preventable and a matter of being responsible. In cases of rape, the question is whether the fetus should get the death penalty for the crime of the biological father.

But Incest and Rape aren't the norm here, most abortions are performed simply as a means of birth control. To me that's the underlying moral question.

But, we don't have perfect knowledge, so we need to get the matter handled on state and/or local levels. We don't want a one size solution fits-all for this moral question.

Whether abortion is murder or a medical procedure, the federal government should have no say, either yes or no.

[quickmike]

I do. How do you think the abortion issue will affect support for Paul's campaign? My dad, for example, likes all of Paul's financial policies, but will not vote for him because of his views on abortion.

Ron Paul's thoughts on the matter:
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

How do you feel that Paul introduced this legislation?:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776

"SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'."

Tell your dad good luck on finding a candidate that is 100% in step with his beliefs. If hes gonna nitpick on an issue that has no bearing on his life whatsoever since hes a guy, and will most likely never ever ever have an abortion himself(you never know with science these days).

I would bet your father was never gonna vote for ron paul anyway. He just used that as the excuse. Like hes saying "man, that ron paul guy sure has some good ideas, but wait............ what was that he just said?............ life begins at conception???????????? THE TYRANNY!!!!!!!!!! THAT ASSHOLE!!!!! ILL NEVER VOTE FOR HIM!!!!!"

No offense dude, but your dad sounds ridiculous.:D

[ghemminger]

You can't? How would you classify it then? If left to complete its term of gestation, will such a fetus be born as a sea urchin? As a matter of fact, scientifically the situation is crystal-clear: a fetus with a human genome is human. If it has a different set of genes, it is a member of the species defined by that set of genes.

What you really mean is you don't think a 3 month old fetus is human because it doesn't look like you, and is incapable of playing poker (or whatever other capability or behavior you define as "human"). Interestingly, just such criteria were used not so long ago to define black people as not-quite-human. Or, ironically enough, to so define women.

Great Argument...never heard it that way:)

[BarryDonegan]

people also forget, and i know this may sound harsh, but birth control IS an effective prevention of pregnancy via rape.

it has a 7% failure rate, so for a woman on birth control to get pregnant via rape would require her being raped a great many times and at a variety of points in her menstrual cycle.

there are some people who may not like to take birth control, but its usage in society is now very normal and pervasive, it wouldn't be unreasonable for a girl to take it preventatively even when not promiscuous for that reason. of course some would not be able to do that for hormonal or other health reasons, but the number of legitimate pregnancies sired by actual gun-to-the-head rape (not the changed-my-mind afterwards because i was drunk kind) is relatively small in the first place, especially in the face of the number of people who get abortions en masse.

[LibertyEagle]

Can someone explain something to me here? Dr. Paul's position is that the federal government should have no role in abortion, one way or the other. The decision should be made by each state and acted upon accordingly. Does anyone here have a problem with that?

[LibertyEagle]

people also forget, and i know this may sound harsh, but birth control IS an effective prevention of pregnancy via rape.



Well, the pill has been associated with cancer, so I'm not sure this is a great idea.

[stevedasbach]

I don't agree with him -- don't agree with the abortion anytime folks either.

Agree that it's a state issue, as are all other issues of criminal law.

[JC StyLEE]

I DO believe that life begins at conception...and so does Ron Paul. That is MY stance, but I do not enforce it on others.

The fact that he wants the states to take care of this, to me, is very logical. I believe in capitalism and democracy, and if the people of my state vote pro-choice or pro-life, then I will accept that decision. I know what I believe, and that is what is important to me. I HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DECIDE! and THAT is what Ron Paul is all about.

[Kuldebar]

Well, the pill has been associated with cancer, so I'm not sure this is a great idea.


Everything has been associated with cancer, hell humanity is cancer causing.

[quickmike]

adoption is always a good idea. All politics aside, personally, even if theres a good argument to say that a 1 week old fetus is not a human, why not just have the little bastard and give it up for adoption? Thats fair isnt it? Just incase life really does begin at conception? Or are these women so damn selfish they just say "screw that!!! im not walking around with that thing in my belly for 9 whole months!!!!" Sounds kinda petty to me. If you dont want the kid, just give it away when its born. Lots of people would like to have it. I just think abortion is pretty selfish from a personal standpoint. Deny the kid the chance to grow just because of the minor inconvenience of you carrying it around for less than a year........... man, thats a pretty cold person if you ask me.

[ghemminger]

adoption is always a good idea. All politics aside, personally, even if theres a good argument to say that a 1 week old fetus is not a human, why not just have the little bastard and give it up for adoption? Thats fair isnt it? Just incase life really does begin at conception? Or are these women so damn selfish they just say "screw that!!! im not walking around with that thing in my belly for 9 whole months!!!!" Sounds kinda petty to me. If you dont want the kid, just give it away when its born. Lots of people would like to have it. I just think abortion is pretty selfish from a personal standpoint. Deny the kid the chance to grow just because of the minor inconvenience of you carrying it around for less than a year........... man, thats a pretty cold person if you ask me.

Yeah there be a lot less abortion if guys had babies...I totally agree!

[Kuldebar]

Think of a dynamic society made up of communities that were built around shared values, the experiment of democracy would be back on track. Some things might not work out, but the harm would be limited and could be reversed.

People would have real and vested interests in the communities and states they chose to live in.

Each state and community would reflect the people that lived there. Think of how the Amish live, think how even now in these crazy times the Amish have managed to retain a lot of their identity. You don't have to be Amish to have that, as a free citizen you should be able to associate with others as you choose. Civil society arises from this simple well spring.

[inibo]

I have not read this entire thread because, frankly, I find this discussion tiresome. However, I did see a lot of "I think" this, "I believe" that. Please go read this:

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html


I. Introduction

The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be answered by human embryologists — not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question. Current discussions on abortion, human embryo research (including cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of mixed-species chimeras), and the use of abortifacients involve specific claims as to when the life of every human being begins. If the "science" used to ground these various discussions is incorrect, then any conclusions will be rendered groundless and invalid. The purpose of this article is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific" myths, and on the objective scientific facts that ought to ground these discussions. At least it will clarify what the actual international consensus of human embryologists is with regard to this relatively simple scientific question. In the final section, I will also address some "scientific" myths that have caused much confusion within the philosophical discussions on "personhood."

That's just the introduction. Read the whole thing, please.

If you disagree with the conclusions then I suggest you argue your point with science and reason, not your emotions or by grasping at straws to support your preconceived notions.

[quickmike]

Yeah there be a lot less abortion if guys had babies...I totally agree!

Also, by just the mechanics of it.................... a lot more painful too:D

[ikester8]

My $0.02:

There is no question that life begins at conception. As soon as the sperm and egg combine and the cells begin to multiply, it's alive, and human.

However, it is entirely dependent on its mother, who has the perfect right to evict the perceived trespasser at any time. Just because she had sex does not mean that she has made a contract with her baby to carry it to term. To get all Rothbardian on you, how on earth can a very young fetus enter into a legally-enforceable contract?

As Walter Block points out (and I hope I'm not repeating an argument stated above), abortion is both a killing and an eviction. His libertarian synthesis is that where it is possible to evict without killing, one must do so. (You don't have to try to save it necessarily, but you can't kill it.) But where one cannot evict without killing, well, that's too bad. But that's today. Who knows what tomorrow may hold?

I'm not saying Dr. Paul would support this synthesis. I'm quite sure he would not. But it seems to be to be as close a compromise between the rights of both mother and baby as can be imagined.

Meanwhile, moving this issue to the several States, or to the People, as the Constitution demands, is the best thing for all concerned at this point. Roe v Wade was an absolute horror of a decision, perhaps one of the worst cases of judicial legislation ever. It should have been nullified by the States immediately, regardless of how it ended up in each State.

[atilla]

i believe we should amend the constitution to read, "life begins at two years". that way we could completely test for all sorts of diseases and save billions in medical costs for supporting people who can't provide benefit to society.

the only exception would be for children of mary-kate and ashley, they would be honored as "children of the republic" from conception. also i wish to encourage everyone to support ron paul introducing a law mandating that mary-kate and ashley have their noses restored to the former natural form.

thank you.

[fj45lvr]

Just consider now if you will that the feds under the guise of the Endangered Species Act will go to almost any length to protect insects or flower (or their seeds) and there is a wide array of people that are motivated to file lawsuits and such over these things.....

what this at a minimum has to show people is that the reason that this is an "issue" to those that question the sanctity of life is that they do not value human life....most assuredly in contrast to an endangered seed, insect or mouse...that is just sickening.

There can be no liberty without life...there is no question that all kinds of decisions are made in life (many of which are poor and irresponsible) but inalienable rights are not something that are discretionary but rather given by God as our founders understood even if people and governments now and in the past don't.

[BarryDonegan]

Well, the pill has been associated with cancer, so I'm not sure this is a great idea.

abortion has been associated more clearly and directly with far greater health risk than an abstract association to cancer via birth control. most significant of which is a 5x likelyhood of suicide for women who have had one the year following an abortion.

lesser of two evils, so maybe it would be overdoing it or whatever, but my point is there are plenty of generally-safe pre-conception methods to avoid pregnancy, if its THAT important to you.


i guess my main point here is theres a lot of argument of definition on both sides, haha, so its clear there is no consensus here. i agree w/ dr paul that w should err on the side of life, and let the state and local govts make their own rulings.

[Politeia]

Exactly. I honestly don't understand what some here are upset about.

Americans have been trained to think of politics in terms of "issues", and to choose candidates by adding up lists of issues: "I agree with him on this, I don't agree with him on that." And candidates take "stands" on "issues" based on how many votes they think they can get by being pro or con on one issue or another, and put together a crazy-quilt out of the results.

Ron Paul is unique in that all his "positions" on "issues" are based on principle: the basic libertarian principle of non-aggression, which is essentially a restatement of the Golden Rule: Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself. Dr. Paul's campaign puts out a list of "issues" because that's what people expect, but the "issues" aren't the point; the principle is.

Furthermore, as it happens that the Constitution is a very good practical application of the non-aggression principle, Dr. Paul's "positions" are all based on the Constitution, and whether or not the Constitution grants power to the federal government over a particular matter.

This is why arguing with Dr. Paul's stance on one "issue" or another is fruitless: Unlike other candidates, he won't be convinced to change his stance on an "issue" just because it looks like he might get more votes by doing so. Unlike all other candidates, Republocrat or Demogogue, he won't violate his single, principled issue, the Constitution. That's a lot of his appeal, even though people don't understand it because they've just never seen anyone like him: There's actually someone there, not just a naked ambition that lives only to get votes.

And Dr. Paul is unique because he is the only candidate who is opposed to both abortion and arbitrary wars, because both violate the principle of non-aggression. All the other candidates either ("conservatives") think it's wrong to kill not-yet-born babies but perfectly okay to kill people who look different but have done us no harm; or ("liberals") think it's wrong to kill people who look different but have done us no harm but perfectly okay to kill not-yet-born babies; or (Hillary) think it's perfectly okay to kill anyone who gets in the way of having what you want. Only Hillary is "consistent" here, though her principle is quite different from Dr. Paul's: As a (woman) picketer put it on a sign, "She doesn't care; she just wants the power."

People are attracted to Dr. Paul because his message of Peace and Freedom is, in these times, like a sudden light in a dark room. But, from reading this and other forums, it's clear to me that many, perhaps most, of those who've been attracted to Dr. Paul in the last few months don't really understand what he's about. That's okay, you can learn (as I did 25 years ago, when I was converted from a left-liberal to a libertarian). Liberty is indeed attractive, but it does have a price, and one we're not used to paying: Responsibility. Once you get the hang of it, it's actually easier to start from principle, rather than having to keep track of where you stand on every issue. As Mark Twain said, "When you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything."

[fj45lvr]

duplicate

[andrewgreve]

Response to the "leave it up to the states" argument from my dad:

"But then you'll have some states pass laws against abortions and poor women in those states who can't afford to travel to other states will have illegal abortions which will result in their deaths and other complications."

[Politeia]

However, it is entirely dependent on its mother, who has the perfect right to evict the perceived trespasser at any time. Just because she had sex does not mean that she has made a contract with her baby to carry it to term. To get all Rothbardian on you, how on earth can a very young fetus enter into a legally-enforceable contract?

By your logic, then, if I tell someone e can come into my house, then say e is trespassing and kill em, it's not a problem? Just because I voluntarily did something that was at least likely to result in someone besides myself being inside my house, does not mean I made a contract to treat em like a guest? As for a legally-enforceable contract, this logic would seem to apply to a child of any age as well; so apparently you would condone killing (or at least evicting) children, on the grounds that as non-adults they cannot make contracts?

This tortured "logic" is a good example why much "libertarian" discourse ends up being ridiculous. A "libertarianism" which finds such convoluted rationalizations to break agreements is not truly libertarian, and truly deserves the common confusion with "libertine" in the public mind. Freedom without responsibility is simply license. License is not freedom; it is actually slavery, if not to an external master then certainly to ones own uncontrolled and selfish impulses.

Like most other human acts, sex has consequences. An adult, when acting, considers the consequences, including the possible consequences. I always wear a helmet when riding my bicycle; I know others who do not. I do not favor helmet laws; but I also do not consider a non-helmet rider whose head gets broken a "victim". Again, women seem to want to have it both ways: they want the "rights" of adults, and full citizens, without the responsibilities. Which in itself demonstrates that they are not yet adults.


I'm not saying Dr. Paul would support this synthesis. I'm quite sure he would not. But it seems to be to be as close a compromise between the rights of both mother and baby as can be imagined.

That's just the problem, this deification of "compromise". In fact, in matters of principle there is no "compromise": either something is right, or it is wrong. "Compromise" is the hobgoblin of little minds determined to rationalize a way to what they want, regardless of principle. Take a gallon of pure spring water; pour in a thimble of urine; what do you have? A "compromise".

Funny, you'd think women might be able to understand this, given that "there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant". But apparently many (most?) of them don't.

"The world’s black and white, good and bad, no matter what you hear. The people who say it isn’t have already chosen black." --Amos Walker

[ghemminger]

Response to the "leave it up to the states" argument from my dad:

"But then you'll have some states pass laws against abortions and poor women in those states who can't afford to travel to other states will have illegal abortions which will result in their deaths and other complications."

I highly reccomend to Stick it to your DAD...His moral compass is way off...focus on the "deaths" of millions of babies! Make references to the Holocost...some Germans tried to help...others ignored it...

He's the one mentioning "Death" Pro-choice = Pro-Death...just look at the pictures

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Kuldebar]

But I was told today by a staffer, that he wants his bill to pass, and then refuse to give states any federal funding for anything (like roads, etc.) if they allow abortions in their state. So you may not call it a ban, but it will act like one.


I don't think that staffer knew what they were talking about. I would not take this as "truth" until Paul says it himself.

[ghemminger]

That is what I thought too. But I was told today by a staffer, that he wants his bill to pass, and then refuse to give states any federal funding for anything (like roads, etc.) if they allow abortions in their state. So you may not call it a ban, but it will act like one.

To answer the initial question, it does not matter when life begins. We don't allow anyone to be subjugated to anyone in this society for any reason. What about an old man with Alzheimer's who can't take care of himself or he will die? Do we force any member of his family to take care of them no matter what?

Why is this pro-life argument always so anti a woman's life? Why does the zygote have more rights than the fully formed human woman? And what about the 9 year old who gets raped. Gonna force her to keep it too? Gonna send her up the river? Where do the rights of the woman come in? How come we have none.

No amount of arguments convince people either way on this subject. Speaking for myself...it become a matter of faith..how can you argue with someone's faith...apparently Ron Paul believes in a creator that is Pro-Life.

[Kuldebar]

Ever seen the pics of the dead teenagers who got illegal abortions? I guess you don't care about them, huh?


Well, if you live in a world that has careless disregard for human life, then such things will be more likely to happen.

Perhaps, societal values should be implicated and questions asked about why killing a fetus is considered a "solution" in the first place?

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[sunny]

I do whole heartedly. honestly - i don't see how it could not!

[fj45lvr]

"But then you'll have some states pass laws against abortions and poor women in those states who can't afford to travel to other states will have illegal abortions which will result in their deaths and other complications."

Whatever happened to the even more basic problem of responsibility for poor choices....this kinda sounds like the arguments you hear for why we have to PROVIDE a welfare state (as a right)...even for illegal aliens. Its ridiculous....I remember hearing a statistic a long time ago that said abortion (funded by tax payer money to these "doctors") was the #1 form of birth control for black women in inner cities (many getting multiple abortions).....c'mon that is just INSANE.

Read Pauls books (they are free online) he discusses some of these issues and particularly of the moral bancruptcy of our populous today (which there is no way for government to "fix")...it is immoral that these people can't take care of themselves by either laziness, ignorance or apathy...I've been with a woman for 20 years and she didn't get pregnant...its not that hard.

[ghemminger]

Two people at his campaign today basically said the same thing.

I don't know what to tell you if you want open arms from HQ on this issue:confused: You are an asset to the campaign and I hope you stay...even I do not aggree with all of RP issues.

You have to undeerstand that Pro-Lifers take that stand as a core -belief...many consider the only issue when voting. He is a Doctor who delivered 4000 kids.

Why are you so anti- Pro Life?

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Kuldebar]

I think it is becoming clear, at least to me, that Ron Paul is pulling one over on the pro-choice crowd with this states rights excuse. He doesn't want the states to make the decisions on their own. He wants to ban all abortions in all situations period. Using the force of the Federal Government to pressure the states into specific positions, well you might as well take away their right to choose because they won't be able to afford a choice.

So, as I was told today by a campaign member , if you are pro-choice, get out of this campaign, you don't belong here. Go support Hilary.

Don't you just love the people who "work" for this campaign?

You need to name names or report the individual to the Campaign.

I disagree that Paul is lying about his position. In fact, he is being bluntly honest.

Perhaps Paul would support a Constitutional Amendment banning Abortion, he has made his personal stance on abortion very clear. But, at least that would be the proper method to address the abortion issue unlike Roe -v- Wade.

Paul consistently says that the states should decide, he is not in the least bit ambiguous about this.

[ghemminger]

Yup, wanting liberty for women is a huge problem. Women don't deserve any. If you want to support a woman, then you need to get out of here, right?

Women deserve Liberty, even small ones:)

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[ghemminger]

My core belief is liberty. I will not throw any group under the bus to get it for a few. Period.

I was there when abortions were illegal. Were you? I will die if I get pregnant. Will you? Tell me about core values. Tell me when your 9 year old daughter is raped. Tell me when you are.

If this campaign is not about liberty then what is it about? Freedom for men? Freedom for the unborn? But not freedom for women?

All you people who have been alive with this freedom have no idea what it was like when it was gone.

Let's just go back to letting the states decide about slavery too. Why not? Shouldn't it be a state's right issue?

If you are going to force out all pro-liberty folks then good luck. Oh, that is what I call pro-choice.

Apparently you all are willing to put a woman to her death is it? for not wanting to have a child. Let's just outlaw birth control and masturbation while we are at it. So many unborn out there just waiting to come into this overcrowded earth.

You have the freedom to support any argument you feel you must. You be fighting a losing battle with this campaign:)

[ghemminger]

We all fight with our own internal Demons. It takes true courage to acept God's mercy...He can forgive all if we let him

[Kuldebar]

My problem with the whole issue of abortion is that people are afraid to acknowledge the reality of their actions.

We have to go through contortions in order to define what a fetus is in order to avoid the more in your face definition that considers it to be killing a human life.

Would it not be better to error on the side of life even if you aren't 100% sure if a fetus is human?

Just how many women really think abortions are a preferred form of birth control? I doubt very many really believe so.

But, there's sure a lot of women getting abortions in this country it seems. 1.3 million abortions a year, most of them occurring before the 12th week.

Right to privacy? Choice?

Well, sure that fine if it's just a medical procedure, but is abortion just a medical procedure?

It's uncomfortable to think of it as being something awful. But, what if it is something awful?

Let the people of the states decide whether abortion is murder or medical care.

[ghemminger]

I have a priest who is a very good friend and he said that many times these arguments we have on Moral issues comes from our existing lifestyle or actions that we have taken that completly blind us from seeing the "truth" Goodness is very simple for a child to recognize, but "Adults" are blinded by our experiences

[fj45lvr]

Why is this pro-life argument always so anti a woman's life? .

I think it's a huge stretch to characterize this as against a woman's "life" especially today with modern medical practices.


Why does the zygote have more rights than the fully formed human woman?.

Neither should have more than the other that is the whole point.


And what about the 9 year old who gets raped. Gonna force her to keep it too? Gonna send her up the river? .

I don't know of any "law" forcing people to keep their children.....I don't see the logic of the fact of having a baby is synonimous with "being sent up a river"?? I guess for some it is a "burden" or "inconvenience".

You think that "burdens" and "iconveniences" trump another persons life?? That is kinda screwed up.


Where do the rights of the woman come in? How come we have none.

People have rights to do almost anything but to take anothers life or cause damage to others....that's a expansive amount of liberty and freedom. Just be thankful that you weren't aborted to be able to enjoy it.

[maiki]

So... Why is it that we have one of these threads *every* *other* *week*? Yes, some Ron Paul supporters are pro-life. Yes, some of them are pro-choice. Ron Paul wishes to overturn Rv.W. so that states can institute their own laws against or for abortion, and remove federal funding for abortion.

Nobody is going to convince anyone else. At least move the thread to some other folder.

[Politeia]

That is what I thought too. But I was told today by a staffer, that he wants his bill to pass, and then refuse to give states any federal funding for anything (like roads, etc.) if they allow abortions in their state. So you may not call it a ban, but it will act like one.
I find this "report" suspicious. In fact, part of the point of this whole campaign is that the states should not be receiving any "funding" from the feddle gummint for anything. Of course such "funding" has been used to dictate the behavior of the states. There is no provision in the Constitution for any such "funding", so I would assume that President Paul would simply veto any bill which provided federal "funding" to any state for anything. Which would completely take care of the problem of federal "funding" being used to dictate states' behavior.


We don't allow anyone to be subjugated to anyone in this society for any reason.
Except "we" (not I, but you) do allow anyone who is not yet born to be subjugated to es mother, even to the point of being killed at whim.


Why is this pro-life argument always so anti a woman's life? Why does the zygote have more rights than the fully formed human woman?
Not so long ago, many were asking, why does a human male have more rights than a human female? Or a black human less rights than a white human? If you're going to start drawing lines between different types of humans, better be careful, 'cause it's going to come back and bite you.


And what about the 9 year old who gets raped.
9-year-old girls can become pregnant now? This whole hormones-in-everything fad has gotten way out of hand.


Where do the rights of the woman come in? How come we have none.
Under the Constitution, women have the same rights as men: no less and no more. If a man cannot kill at whim with impunity, then a woman should not have that freedom; if a woman can kill at whim with impunity, then any man should be able to do the same. That is, if you want to live in a Constitutional Republic.

If you don't want to live in a Constitutional Republic, but instead in a "democracy" of endlessly competing victim groups, where "both sexes are equal, but one sex is more equal than the other" -- then you're right at home now. But you might not like it, I'm guessing, since you seem to be involved with the Ron Paul campaign.


Yup, wanting liberty for women is a huge problem. Women don't deserve any.
Anyone "deserves" liberty, who is able and willing to be responsible for its use. Anyone who is not willing to be responsible, does not deserve liberty. This is not necessarily an absolute, all or nothing. When I was a teenager, my father told me I could have as much freedom as I was prepared to be responsible for. It was understood that there were some things I was not free to do -- e.g. drive the family car -- because I simply was not ready to assume the associated responsibility. That's how children are reared. But "freedom" without responsibility is poison -- for an individual, or for a society.

This is why so many people are passionate about this issue: A society which slaughters wholesale its own children is a psychopathic society, which will behave accordingly in every other area as well.


My core belief is liberty. I will not throw any group under the bus to get it for a few.
On the contrary, that apparently is exactly what you want to do. You want special privileges for females, and no rights for anyone who has the ill luck to have accepted an invitation to conception from a female who later changes her mind.


If this campaign is not about liberty then what is it about? Freedom for men? Freedom for the unborn? But not freedom for women?
It is about equal freedom for everyone, regardless of sex, race, religion, or other differences. Equal means equal: not more, not less. No special exemptions for this or that group.

I'm sorry, I know it's difficult. But that's life: nothing of consequence in life is easy. Two principles: (1) Freedom (or liberty) requires responsibility. (2) If you want freedom for yourself, you must be willing to allow equal freedom for others.


So many unborn out there just waiting to come into this overcrowded earth.
That is a separate issue. In fact I agree, and would prefer to see the human population maybe 1/10 what it is now. But killing is not the way to get there. The only way to get there without leaving a huge trail of karma -- and tens of millions of "souls" who have to come in again to complete their stories, again and again, every time they are aborted -- is by a fundamental change in human behavior, leading to a worldwide outbreak of self-restraint. Abortion as a solution for overpopulation is like heroin -- which was originally developed as a "cure" for morphine addiction (look it up).

I note that none of the abortion promoters ever seem to have been aborted themselves. There are, in fact, a small number of people who have been aborted and survived -- e.g. Gianna Jessen (http://www.giannajessen.com) -- none of whom, so far as I know, seem to be very enthusiastic about abortion.

All that said, again, I do not advocate making abortion illegal -- even on the state level -- because it will not work. If it would, that is if women were willing to handle their freedom -- their power (the greatest power in this world) to make new life -- responsibly, then it would not be necessary to make it illegal, because it wouldn't be happening anyway. So, since women do have the power to create life, and to destroy life, if they're not willing to restrain their use of the latter (which would not be necessary if they used the former responsibly), then the culture, to be sane, must return to treating them as what they are: human beings who cannot be expected to be responsible. That is, like children. It's the schizophrenic pretense that is most unhealthy.

And this goes double if it is true -- as many abortion proponents imply and some even state -- that women are not merely unwilling but actually incapable of controlling their sexual impulses. "I couldn't help it!" tearfully she cried. If this is truly the case, then women as a class -- before menopause at least -- must, for their own good, like children, not be allowed out without supervision. Which brings us right back to the Bad Old Days of the Patriarchy. No, I don't like it; I'd prefer to live in a culture of responsible adults. But reality must be faced.

I have an idea: Wall off a certain section of every city; some inner-city neighborhoods are already good candidates. Make that section a free-fire zone, in which anyone and everyone, male or female, any age, any color, can kill at will with impunity. Every state must have at least one, or several, places where this could be done. Thus any woman who wanted to contract for an abortion would have some place nearby to do so, in an appropriate environment, where everyone's "rights" would be equal -- i.e. the same as the "rights" of the child she's decided to kill. Then the issue would be clear: either a society based on the rule of law, with equal rights for everyone, or a society based on complete lack of law, with equal lack of rights for everyone. Take your pick.

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[BLS]

I do. How do you think the abortion issue will affect support for Paul's campaign? My dad, for example, likes all of Paul's financial policies, but will not vote for him because of his views on abortion.

Ron Paul's thoughts on the matter:
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

How do you feel that Paul introduced this legislation?:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776

"SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'."

Your Dad is a moron. Dont' worry..it happens to the best of us.

Look, it's simple. RP's views are strict, they NEVER waver, regardless of whether it's popular or not...and THAT IMO...is why I'll vote for him.

I may not agree with everything he stands for, but at least he's not a fucking liar.

Tell your old man that.

[Kuldebar]

Why don't we just make f*cking illegal unless you want a kid? That would solve the whole problem?

Wouldn't it be preferable to just use any number of available birth control methods other than abortion?

[PHenry]

I'd agree life begins at conception, but I'm very much pro-choice. I feel that decision is between the woman and God.

Lemme' see if I have this right. You agree that (human) life begins at conception, yet you state that you are "very much pro-choice". The "choice" being; do I destroy this human life or let it live? The civilized choice is obvious. Any society that allows people to kill their own offspring is, in my opinion, rushing headlong into barbarism.

You may feel that, as a man, this "choice" is none of your business. Let the woman decide but, please do me a favor and leave God out of the equation. Any woman that honestly asks God, "Do I kill my baby, or not?", knows the answer God would give.

That being said, I am glad that there are pro-abortion folks on board with Dr. Paul. And I can see how they can back him despite this disagreement. Abortion is here to stay, even if Roe v Wade is overturned and the matter returned to the states. Some states would ban it and some would allow it.

Bottom line, if you back Dr. Paul you're a friend of mine. We can put our differences aside and work for him. We can argue these other issues once we elect RP.

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Kuldebar]

What you are all missing is the Libertarian argument that no human has any more rights or less rights than another. That includes a fetus, an invalid, people who are life support: no one. To tell a woman that her rights must be subjugated to the rights of another human being is to give that fetus MORE rights than the woman. No matter what the woman wants, the fetus' needs trump and the woman's rights are lost.

No one can force you to take care of an invalid, a dying old man, or a person on life support.

You lead right back into the nanny state with your arguments. If we have to protect fetuses then why not children who are not fed well, or adults who are not fed well, or people who don't have Prada handbags (they really are lovely). You are back to the welfare state in toto. (It's Latin, I am not talking about Dorothy's dog).

If you do not take care of a person on life support it is murder, so don't give me that we are all free to murder each other crap. The question is one of liberty and who has what.

What gives the person inside the right to subjugate the person outside? We do not allow any other kind of subjugation.

If we do not spread Libertarian principles and learn to understand them, then it will not matter if RP becomes President because the country will not be ready for him.

He is wrong on this issue, plain and simple. But I find it astounding how willing all the pro-life people are to quash all the life out of anyone with a different opinion than them. I have never felt so much venom and hatred toward anyone with a different viewpoint.

Just wait all you women out there. You aint gonna likes a world where mens is your master and all they gots to do to you is gets you in the family way so yous can lose your job and be forced back into the kitchen.

What's next? Gonna ban birth control too? Why not.

This guy aptly stated it: All that said, again, I do not advocate making abortion illegal -- even on the state level -- because it will not work. If it would, that is if women were willing to handle their freedom -- their power (the greatest power in this world) to make new life -- responsibly, then it would not be necessary to make it illegal, because it wouldn't be happening anyway.

Women do not deserve freedom because they cannot handle it.

How many does it take to make a baby? I must have misheard in biology class.

This is the kind of subjugation that is evil. This is the moral righteousness that I object to. This is the kind of talk that makes me vomit.

And yes, moron above, some 9 year olds are able to make babies. Do you need a lesson in biology too?

What a bunch of hateful people you all are. Horrid.

So, the woman is being victimized by the fetus via some sort of slavery?

So, it's a matter of self-defense for the woman to kill the fetus?

Well, considering that most pregnancies result from the exercise of free will, shouldn't responsibility be expected? Especially when you're own actions create the "invalid"?

Your example of being forced to help an invalid doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

You know, it's called abortion because you are putting an end to something.

But, I suppose it's really all rather easy as long as you don't view the fetus as human. If it's just a medical procedure like removing a mole or a having a botox treatment, we can all go blissfully on and never have to see it for what it might just be.

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Guys, can we PLEASE let this post die? PLEASE? I thought about posting this request before, but didn't as that would kick it to the top again. But y'all keep posting. Please let my post be the last now.

[danda]

detectable brainwaves is not subjective. It is measurable, and repeatable.

If you can measure brainwaves in a plant, please post a link to your results. Otherwise, what is your point exactly?


Again this is all subjective. Your criteria now is "pain." Pain is very subjective. How do you know that plants cannot "feel" "pain"? If you watch an elapsed-motion film of plants, you will see that they move around quite a bit. Some trees in the rainforest actually "walk" (very slowly of course). How do you know that a plant has no soul or consciousness?

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[quickmike]

Like I said before, and im not a religious person at all. I just think abortion is the most selfish thing someone can do besides sneaking up behind someone in line at the movie theatre and putting a bullet in his head just because you want to be first in line at the ticket booth. Isnt that kinda why people have abortions in the first place? They dont want a big stomach for 9 months, so kill it. "Its an inconvenience for me cuz now I cant go out partying with my friends" or whatever petty selfish reasons they might have for it. How would you feel if your mom told you she almost aborted you so she could go on that vacation she was planning all year, but unfortunately, she couldnt pay for it? Would you say "gee mom, thats too bad.................... sucks that the government wouldnt pay for it so you coulda gotten rid of my sorry ass and still had the money to go on vacation" Thats just great. Selfish f--ks

Ok, thats my last angry post on this subject folks:D

[fj45lvr]

What you are all missing is the Libertarian argument that no human has any more rights or less rights than another. That includes a fetus, an invalid, people who are life support: no one. To tell a woman that her rights must be subjugated to the rights of another human being is to give that fetus MORE rights than the woman. No matter what the woman wants, the fetus' needs trump and the woman's rights are lost

No one can force you to take care of an invalid, a dying old man, or a person on life support. ..

What womens rights are lost exactly? How is standing for pro-life making anyone to be forced with care?? we're talking about "living" not "taking care of".



You lead right back into the nanny state with your arguments. If we have to protect fetuses then why not children who are not fed well, or adults who are not fed well, or people who don't have Prada handbags (they really are lovely). You are back to the welfare state in toto. (It's Latin, I am not talking about Dorothy's dog). ..

we're talking about life and living NOT "nannying"...who out there is FOR abortion?? that is the twisted part because its sad all-the-way around and definetly something I would hope EVERYONE would want to never see and to AVOID.



What gives the person inside the right to subjugate the person outside? We do not allow any other kind of subjugation..

What exactly is the person "inside" subjugating the other person too??


He is wrong on this issue, plain and simple. But I find it astounding how willing all the pro-life people are to quash all the life out of anyone with a different opinion than them. I have never felt so much venom and hatred toward anyone with a different viewpoint. .

I guess I missed the part where someone showed you hatred. I wish you well as a brother to two adopted sisters (from unwanted pregnancy) and as a "mistake" of two underage teenagers...I hope that maybe you may believe differently (in the same way that I think supporters would like other people to discover Paul's ideas)



What's next? Gonna ban birth control too? Why not. .

thats just silly.


This guy aptly stated it: All that said, again, I do not advocate making abortion illegal -- even on the state level -- because it will not work. If it would, that is if women were willing to handle their freedom -- their power (the greatest power in this world) to make new life -- responsibly, then it would not be necessary to make it illegal, because it wouldn't be happening anyway..

Nobody can stop someone from taking life (just ask the Israelis). even though life is an unalienable right (and not a law).




This is the kind of subjugation that is evil. This is the moral righteousness that I object to. This is the kind of talk that makes me vomit. .

If you're not a fan of morality that's great but don't attack Paul because he has a morality which he logically explains (and he even states plainly in his writing that the gov. cannot "legislate morality" but Paul also clearly states that one of our fundamental problems in America is morality).

[aravoth]

Do I think he's right? I have no idea. Neither do any of you. In fact no one knows for sure. Which is why it's not supposed to be a federal matter.

[quickmike]

Do I think he's right? I have no idea. Neither do any of you. In fact no one knows for sure. Which is why it's not supposed to be a federal matter.

hear hear!!!

[Original_Intent]

What you are all missing is the Libertarian argument that no human has any more rights or less rights than another. That includes a fetus, an invalid, people who are life support: no one. To tell a woman that her rights must be subjugated to the rights of another human being is to give that fetus MORE rights than the woman. No matter what the woman wants, the fetus' needs trump and the woman's rights are lost.

No one can force you to take care of an invalid, a dying old man, or a person on life support.

You lead right back into the nanny state with your arguments. If we have to protect fetuses then why not children who are not fed well, or adults who are not fed well, or people who don't have Prada handbags (they really are lovely). You are back to the welfare state in toto. (It's Latin, I am not talking about Dorothy's dog).

If you do not take care of a person on life support it is murder, so don't give me that we are all free to murder each other crap. The question is one of liberty and who has what.

What gives the person inside the right to subjugate the person outside? We do not allow any other kind of subjugation.

If we do not spread Libertarian principles and learn to understand them, then it will not matter if RP becomes President because the country will not be ready for him.

He is wrong on this issue, plain and simple. But I find it astounding how willing all the pro-life people are to quash all the life out of anyone with a different opinion than them. I have never felt so much venom and hatred toward anyone with a different viewpoint.

Just wait all you women out there. You aint gonna likes a world where mens is your master and all they gots to do to you is gets you in the family way so yous can lose your job and be forced back into the kitchen.

What's next? Gonna ban birth control too? Why not.

This guy aptly stated it: All that said, again, I do not advocate making abortion illegal -- even on the state level -- because it will not work. If it would, that is if women were willing to handle their freedom -- their power (the greatest power in this world) to make new life -- responsibly, then it would not be necessary to make it illegal, because it wouldn't be happening anyway.

Women do not deserve freedom because they cannot handle it.

How many does it take to make a baby? I must have misheard in biology class.

This is the kind of subjugation that is evil. This is the moral righteousness that I object to. This is the kind of talk that makes me vomit.

And yes, moron above, some 9 year olds are able to make babies. Do you need a lesson in biology too?

What a bunch of hateful people you all are. Horrid.

Jennifer,

I have appreciated much of your contribution to this board. I am pro-life and would like to address your arguments. At the end of the day, I hope because we disagree does not make me hateful in your eyes, the fact that you support taking an innocent life so that a woman can "have control of her body" I do not think makes you hateful - just misled. My off the cuff response would be that if the woman controlled her body in the first place, then there wouldn't be another life to be arguing over whether she has the right to kill it.

I am glad that you refer to "the person inside" as opposed to the person outside, as that means that you regard the unborn as a person, which is more than our legal system can say. If you did not acknowledge the unborn as a person, my argument on that point (for the sake of those who don't) is that we havea complete set of human DNA, it is living, and in most cases, with 9 months time, is going to develop into a fully functional, healthy baby.

For the sake of argument, I will leave discussion of rape, severely deformed fetuses with little chance of survival, and other outlier cases to another discussion. Let's keep this discussion focussed on 1) Women who became pregnant thru consential sex (with or without birth control) 2) No abnormally lifethreatening complications, and 3) a fetus without severe deformity, i.e. to a degree that makes viability of the fetus unlikely.

First your libertarian argument that no person has more rights than any other person: agreed. However, certainly rights have a priority. i.e. a right to live certainly trumps a person's right to free speech. So a person does not have a right to use his free speech to encourage the killing of another person.

While people may differ on exactly what rights have what amount of importance, it should be clear to any reasonable person that a right to life is paramount. It is very hard to exercise your right to bear arms if you are not breathing. All other rights are dependent and therefore inferior to the right to life.

Another example is that individual's have a right to property, and violating another person's right to their property is theft. However, no one would condemn a person for theft if the thief's life depended on it (although a just society might still demand compensation...)

So when you refer to a fetus trumping a woman's rights, one reason that must be so is not because the unborn's rights have more importance than the woman's, but WHICH rights are being weighed against each other. The woman's right to control her own body vs the unborn person's right to exist.

Moving on to your analogy of a fetus to a person on life support or an invalid. The primary difference is that I as a person have no responsibility toward the person on life support. Suppose the person had a rare blood type and the only person who could donate that blood type is me. I am assuming according to libertarian principles that we agree that I should not be forced to open a vein to save the person's life.

However, if the person is on life support because I hit them while driving drunk, then it is certainly in my best interest to do so. Otherwise, I am going to be held resposible for manslaughter. In a similar way, the unborn is not responsible for the dependent situation it finds itself in. At least partially, within our agreed upon parameters, the mother has placed the person in a completely helpless and dependent position. As a co creator of this human life, does this deliver to her the right to destroy that life? No, because as you yourself stated, no person has more rights than another. If we accepted the argument that life creation grants a right to destroying said life, it would mean a parent could justifiably kill their child at any time.

The libertarian not only wants liberty, but accepts consequences for their actions. Abortion of a child that was conceived within the parameters of this argument is not accepting that responsibility at the cost of a human life. I am not a hateful person, I don't hate people that are pro-choice, although I feel regret that they have blood on their hands that I believe deep down they acknowledge. I feel abortion is a tragic mistake. Certainly if we step out of the framework I have been discussing and bring rape, severe deformation and pregnancy where the life of the mother is severely threatened are areas that merit further consideration than the brief outline of my pro-life position which I have outlined.

I am sure you have heard all this before, but you must understand that being pro-life is not that I want to dictate my will on women. That is not the case at all. It is the requirement I feel to defend those who cannot defend themselves.

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[danda]

Jennifer,

I can't speak on behalf of the campaign. I don't agree with Dr. Paul on the abortion issue either. Frankly, I wish he wouldn't bring it up. Nor do I agree with him on the immigration issue.

That said, I do agree with him on 95% of the other stuff. Which is about 60% more than any other candidate can claim. I think that a lot of us here supporting Ron Paul are in a similar position.

My honest belief is that if he does get into office, the benefits will *far* outweigh anything he might do in these two areas. And realistically, if he tried to overturn Roe v Wade when he gets into office, that would be a giant fight. Why waste the political capital, when there are bigger things like ending the war, the federal reserve, and the income tax?

I know you have been very active in supporting him, and I hope that you don't let some insensitive remarks from his staffers and people in this thread dissuade you from continuing your efforts for the first Jeffersonian candidate in 100+ years.

Okay, that's my final post in this thread. :)

[Politeia]

Would you all subject me to a death sentence?

This is NOT a hypothetical. I have been told by my brain surgeon that I would die if I got pregnant. I am married. I have a husband who likes to have his desires fulfilled. What is my choice in this world of yours?

What if I got pregnant in spite of several different precautions?

Okay, Jennifer, I will answer: If all this is true, then it would seem that a tubal ligation (is that the term?) would take care of your problem. To make sure, your husband might also have a vasectomy.

You seem to imply that you have no sexual desire, perhaps as a result of your illness? Or do you simply subscribe to the Victorian/feminist view that sex is an onerous chore entirely imposed on women by men? If the latter, perhaps you should reconsider the idea of marriage in toto -- since marriage is generally understood to involve exchanging sexual affection. Celibacy is an option.

Or see if your husband is willing to redefine the marraige as without physical sexuality. This is a traditional option in some cultures; in India it is called brahmacharya. I even once encountered a New Age semi-Christian cult whose members practiced sex only when procreation was desired, never otherwise. That was 40 years ago, I don't know if they're still around. If he is not willing to do so, then I'd suggest the marriage should be dissolved. That's freedom, for both of you. You can still be friends.

I am rather sick also, have been struggling with chronic illness for over 15 years. As it happens, one of the effects has been a considerable decline in libido, which, on reflection, I've found to be a relief. (Women seem to think that being a slave to sexuality is fun for men; I assure you it is a pain, though most men never get enough distance to see that. They just wear out and die first.) However, were I to find myself with an opportunity to engage in sexual relations, since I absolutely do not want to bring any new life into this world, I would have a vasectomy. As a friend of mine has done ("I don't want to be anyone's daddy!")

Even then, recognizing that there are no sure things in this life, if I engaged in sexual relations, I would do so with the understanding that I would deal responsibly with any possible consequences. Or I wouldn't do it. (BTW, my very first sexual encounter, in high school in 1961, did result in a child. That was a lesson. The mother and I considered marriage, but did not, which was probably for the best. She took some time off and had the child, who was adopted. It didn't kill her to do this. I am thankful she did not commit an abortion, and I am sure she is also. When we tried to find him 30 years later, we learned he had died in a motorcycle accident at age 15. That was my only offspring in this life.)

There are choices. You do not have to be a victim.

[PHenry]

That being said, I am glad that there are pro-abortion folks on board with Dr. Paul.


Did you mean pro-choice?

No, I don't like euphemisms, I prefer straight talk.

[bygone]

How do you think the abortion issue will affect support for Paul's campaign?

I think it doesn't matter. Right or wrong he has his opinion on it. He also says the federal government shouldn't be deciding this, and he's right. There is no one size fits all solution.

Here's an idea sure to make you vomit...

How about an abortion tax? The government really shouldn't be regulating this kind of thing. That's my beef with national healthcare. If we do that, then its likely we will lose our choice in medical care. Worse, the government may legislate morality more than it already does. Even worse, national healthcare will lead to national ID, and national chip implants.

Personally I agree with RP. See above, however.

[fj45lvr]

right on PHENRY!! I am glad to have all types on board as well....there is something very very refreshing about being able to actually unite together with different types of people that you wouldn't normally and all be working toward a greater good for our republic teetering as it is. It's actually quite amusing to hear others try to discribe the suppoters...its hilarious to have the "hippie", "peacenik", "spammer", etc. when Paul is the most conservative Congressmen in D.C. ....it cracks me up not only the thought of all the types and actually who we are, but how these people are at a loss for words to handle the man and the whole situation.

Don't go anywhere Jennifer!! battle through it and we'll all learn more in the process behind a breath of fresh air instead of the usual sellout suspects with egos, bank accounts, and cluelessness at their backs.

[angelatc]

No, I don't like euphemisms, I prefer straight talk.

It's not pro-abortion. It's pro-abortion rights.

[angelatc]

But if he is planning to put federal pressure on the states by taking away funding for roads and other things, then he is NOT leaving it to the states by any means. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be the only thing he federally defunded.

ANd if it is, it just means that we should organize and amend the COnstitution. That's the only way we can ever truly have the "right" to safe medical care.

[angelatc]

Like I said before, and im not a religious person at all. I just think abortion is the most selfish thing someone can do besides sneaking up behind someone in line at the movie theatre and putting a bullet in his head just because you want to be first in line at the ticket booth. Isnt that kinda why people have abortions in the first place? They dont want a big stomach for 9 months, so kill it. "Its an inconvenience for me cuz now I cant go out partying with my friends" or whatever petty selfish reasons they might have for it. How would you feel if your mom told you she almost aborted you so she could go on that vacation she was planning all year, but unfortunately, she couldnt pay for it? Would you say "gee mom, thats too bad.................... sucks that the government wouldnt pay for it so you coulda gotten rid of my sorry ass and still had the money to go on vacation" Thats just great. Selfish f--ks

Ok, thats my last angry post on this subject folks:D

But unless you're the father, it's really none of your business.

Women are people, not incubators. One size does not fit all. LIke it or not, some of them are going to terminate their pregnancy. Maybe it's selfish, maybe it's cowardice, maybe they just don't have a soul.

The point is when they decide to have abortions, they should have the right to see a doctor to have it done.

You can't stop other people from doing things you don't approve of, and freedom means that some people are going to make choices that you don't like.

Even women.

[Kuldebar]

But unless you're the father, it's really none of your business.

Women are people, not incubators. One size does not fit all. LIke it or not, some of them are going to terminate their pregnancy. Maybe it's selfish, maybe it's cowardice, maybe they just don't have a soul.

The point is when they decide to have abortions, they should have the right to see a doctor to have it done.

You can't stop other people from doing things you don't approve of, and freedom means that some people are going to make choices that you don't like.

Even women.

If everyone held your view of abortion as a private medical matter, you'd undoubtedly be right, but for people that view abortion as murder, your argument about it "being none of your business" won't fly.

[CMoore]

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. :p

[escapinggreatly]

It's always been hard for me to buy into the line of thinking that suggests that, with the infinite number of ways life is prevented every day, this one particular way to prevent a new person from being born is wrong. The math doesn't add up.

[Kuldebar]

It's always been hard for me to buy into the line of thinking that suggests that, with the infinite number of ways life is prevented every day, this one particular way to prevent a new person from being born is wrong. The math doesn't add up.


The difference is what happens after conception versus if conception was never allowed to occur.

But, I share Paul's personal opinion of abortion and also I agree with him that decision should be up to each state or local government.

You have to choose what you feel abortion is morally equivalent to:

-removing a mole

or

-ending a life

What you choose decides your outlook on the matter, obviously.

[LibertyEagle]

But unless you're the father, it's really none of your business.

Women are people, not incubators. One size does not fit all. LIke it or not, some of them are going to terminate their pregnancy. Maybe it's selfish, maybe it's cowardice, maybe they just don't have a soul.

The point is when they decide to have abortions, they should have the right to see a doctor to have it done.

You can't stop other people from doing things you don't approve of, and freedom means that some people are going to make choices that you don't like.

Even women.

I would agree with you, except for one small thing. The baby. Doesn't it at some stage, have any rights not to be murdered? I'm not sure what that stage is, but it certainly does at some point prior to being born.

[LibertyEagle]

I think it is becoming clear, at least to me, that Ron Paul is pulling one over on the pro-choice crowd with this states rights excuse. He doesn't want the states to make the decisions on their own. He wants to ban all abortions in all situations period. Using the force of the Federal Government to pressure the states into specific positions, well you might as well take away their right to choose because they won't be able to afford a choice.

So, as I was told today by a campaign member , if you are pro-choice, get out of this campaign, you don't belong here. Go support Hilary.

Don't you just love the people who "work" for this campaign?

Jennifer, I believe that someone told you this, but I don't believe that Dr. Paul would try to pull the wool over our eyes. It's never been his style. I don't know who you talked to, but is there any chance these were new people, or volunteers? I've usually found I've gotten more informed answers by calling his Congressional office and talking to an aide, than directing a question of this nature to the campaign.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I disagree. I just don't believe government should be in the abortion debate. It should just not be a government issue. Just leave it alone.

[Roxi]

im still wondering when you think life does begin?

[Kuldebar]

I disagree. I just don't believe government should be in the abortion debate. It should just not be a government issue. Just leave it alone.


I would like to see the idea settled at the most local level possible, county or city level, I think this would allow for both viewpoints within large regions.

But, as a libertarian, if you believed that the fetus is human, I would expect you might take a different stance.

I have heard various arguments, here and in the past, but "eviction" does not usually involve ending a life, especially a life brought about by willful action.

The debate is emotional, so I tend to keep it simple and to error on the side of life and view the privacy and choice stance as canard solely because ending a life isn't a right to privacy or choice matter.

[FreedomLover]

Well, he is an OB/GYN. And he also is a christian who respects life, so it makes sense that he would be against it personally.

But he knows that it is a personal thing and should not be decided by government on the federal level.

For finding one person who won't vote for him for being pro-life, you will find 10 more potential republicans who wouldn't vote for him if he were pro-choice.

I personally agree with his position.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

im still wondering when you think life does begin?

Life begins when you have sex, unless she doesn't get pregnant, then it just doesn't happen. But the question is: Should government be in the business of outlawing abortion practices? If you outlaw abortion, only outlaws will have them! How in the hell can we possibly enforce this? You don't think they would have abortions anyway? By themselves? I just don't see how it's my business what other people do. I wouldn't want a girlfriend of mine having an abortion, but I don't really care what other people do! This is a collectivist belief. I'm not even pro choice, I'm just pro-not talking about it. Also, there is no definite answer to "when life begins," everyone has their own idea which usual reflects on if they're pro choice or pro life initially, so it's just always going to be a big debate.

I'd say, leave it to states, but on the state level, I'd support government staying the hell out of it. If I were governor or whatever, that'd be my policy. It's just a never ending battle : if America were strictly pro life, there would be abortions anyway. I America allowed abortion 100%, there would be outrage from parents, churches, groups.. so, why not actually raise your child better then? Maybe it should come down to parenting? If your daughter has had five abortions and is on welfare, then what does it say about you as a parent? :D There is no debate to murdering born babies, the debate is aborting the fetus. There's people that WANT TO, and then there are those that want to tell them what to do, so why is it my business that some girl had an abortion? Who cares. What are we gonna do, charge them with murder?

There's really no sense in even talking about it, people will go on thinking the same way.

[bygone]

I would agree with you, except for one small thing. The baby. Doesn't it at some stage, have any rights not to be murdered? I'm not sure what that stage is, but it certainly does at some point prior to being born.

It only has that right if you impose it by force and law. And when you do that, you can't stop it from happening, all you can do is punish people for doing it. At a greater risk to those who do it, and damnation of doctors that engage in the practice with the belief that if you are going to lose the baby, the mother shouldn't have to suffer too.

Good intentions pave the road to hell. You can take this harsh view of things further too. We, as people, only have a right to live if that right is imposed by force and law. And if that right is violated, people can only be punished for the action. People are killed every day despite laws to prevent it and police and jails that punish the offenders.

Making things illegal does not prevent things from happening. I have wondered if we can somehow remove an unwanted baby from a mother, with consent, and keep it alive. If we could do that, maybe you'd have a solution where everyone but people who wouldn't like to pay for it would be happy. Given the number of people who want children but can't have them, maybe even that problem could be solved.

The bottom line of the issue for me is that you cannot prevent a mother from getting an abortion, you can only punish them for doing so. How that action helps is not clear to me. This is similar to many other issues. There needs to be a better solution than killing the child if the mother doesn't wish to carry it; but I feel that the government forcing women to have children is wrong in so many ways and it leads to some things that RP is very vocal about being against.

It's not that I believe killing children is right; I do not. My daily life proves this. I simply don't believe that making it illegal to have an abortion will prevent it from happening; nor will it make the situation any better when it does; and that when you give the government this kind of power you are making a serious mistake.

I respect your opinion, I ask that you respect mine. This is a serious topic that can get heated easily. I do not mean to insult anyone with my opinion.

[kylebrotherton]

I strongly agree with Dr. Paul on this. But, as with many of his issues, he would let the states decide.

So, vote for Paul, and then you fight it out in your state legislature.

[Kuldebar]

Making things illegal does not prevent things from happening. I have wondered if we can somehow remove an unwanted baby from a mother, with consent, and keep it alive. If we could do that, maybe you'd have a solution where everyone but people who wouldn't like to pay for it would be happy. Given the number of people who want children but can't have them, maybe even that problem could be solved.



Interestingly enough, there's really cool book about that possibility:

http://www.kopubco.com/images/sk_kpc_cvr.jpg

Blurb:

Dr. Evelyn Fletcher is a surgeon caught in a maelstrom of controversy. She has secretly devised a surgical procedure that could alter the lives of millions. When the beautiful and successful Valerie Dalton walks into Fletcher's office for a routine abortion, the doctor realizes that she has found the perfect experimental subject.

Karen Chandler and her husband sought pregnancy for years with no success. They greet Fletcher's offer of a radically new procedure as a miracle. Karen, with no hesitation, agrees to undergo the clandestine surgery.

When little Renata is born and then falls deathly ill, only one person can save her life. A woman who does not even know her daughter exists. Under a barrage of media scrutiny, Valerie Dalton must face the courts with her lover in an unprecedented custody battle. Ultimately, she plumbs the depths of her shattered soul to find the answer to the conflict that rages within her and all society.

I do believe technology may eventually end the moral dilemma.

I've said a lot of things in this thread topic, but I too believe ultimately that the morality of the issue rests with the woman and whomever assists her in the abortion.

I believe murder is wrong, I have no problem with people losing their liberty if convicted by a fair and impartial trial. I am a strong supporter of jury nullification as well. I don't believe taking a human life is always murder. But, I believe that taking lives indiscriminately and wrongfully erodes the underpinnings of a society that individuals build together. Like principles, once broken, they aren't principles any longer and everything built upon them is a lie.

Ultimately, crimes that can't be detected can't be punished so it's simply becomes a matter of natural law, karma, God or conscience...or whatever.

I think abortions would have no major place in a civil society. I don't fool myself by thinking wouldn't happen. Child abuse, murder, rape, incests, fraud, theft all those myriads of things would still be part of the human condition.

But, there would be justice, compassion, accountability and responsibility to help counter the damage of such things.

[fj45lvr]

its so ironic to me that those who are so comfortable with abortion are often the ones who would be telling me as a private property owner that I couldn't do anything on my own land that might THREATEN TO HARM some kind of endangered insect!!! and they have NO PROBLEM with crap like the Endangered Species Act. How wicked and twisted is that?

Paul states that he has a friend that was a long time abortionist that gave it up after the advent of the ultra-sound and is now a strong advocate for life. Alot of the talk on the subject makes it more plausible to believe how easy it was for the SS to do what they did without impunity. Watch "Children of Men" a work of fiction and consider the subject.

[Politeia]

So... Why is it that we have one of these threads *every* *other* *week*?

There is a reason why this issue keeps coming up: because it is key, it encapsulates all the others. If you're uncomfortable with it, it's because you're uncomfortable with the truth. As Dr. Paul says, without respect for Life there can be no Liberty, and certainly no pursuit of real happiness.

I too was uncomfortable with Dr. Paul's presentation at the Iowa Straw Poll, his placement of the abortion issue first, with emphasis. Not because I disagree with him -- if I'm honest with myself I cannot -- but because I know how all my liberal friends will react. I've long ago quit talking to them about anything of consequence, because I find consistent rejection too painful.

But maybe it's just that Dr. Paul has more courage and integrity than I do. Might as well go right to the heart of the matter, and then let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise, maybe he's just wasting his time. Certainly, Ron Paul has shown the world a lifelong example of "Speak the truth, and fear no man." Ron Paul is a truthspeaker, a "soothsayer"; that's what sets him light-years apart from everyone else in politics. If what he says makes you uncomfortable, you have the opportunity to examine your own resistance to the truth.

Besides an opportunity for some folks to vent their ignorance, this discussion has also provided a demonstration of why the "Ron Paul Revolution" is almost certainly doomed to failure. Anyone who claims to support Ron Paul, but "disagrees" with him on this "issue", is just deluding emself. As I wrote above, Ron Paul's presentation is not a random pastiche of "issues" designed only to gather votes; it is all of a piece, a single issue. Call it the Constitution, or the Non-Aggression Principle, or the Golden Rule: it's all the same. You cannot "disagree" with him on one "issue" without rejecting everything he says.

As Dr. Paul also says, ultimately the question of abortion cannot be dealt with via the clumsy and superficial mechanism of the law. What's required is a moral sea-change in the culture. And nothing short of such a change will enable us to survive the coming tribulations, which we have brought on ourselves. That's why this "issue" inevitably comes to the fore, again and again. Without facing this "issue" squarely, there's no real point in talking about "solutions". Regardless of what other band-aids may be applied, this "civilization" will not survive so long as it is based on wholesale murder.

Just as the Welfare State and the Warfare State are the same Beast, and we can't feed the one without growing the other, even so are the credit/debt economy and the abortion culture two heads of a single monster as well. People are always talking about "for the children", but in truth Americans couldn't give a rat's ass for their children. For the sake of their obsessive indulgence in material greed, they are selling their children into unending debt slavery; for the sake of obsessive indulgence in sexual pleasure (though such mad compulsion is not really anything like pleasure), they are slaughtering their children by the millions.

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw. And, one must add, particularly in view of responses to this "issue", even from those who claim to love Liberty -- most women as well.

The real drug, of which all the others -- marijuana, alcohol, heroin, nicotine, caffeine, "credit" -- are merely symptoms, is self-delusion. If you can't speak the truth to yourself, you'll certainly never build truthful relationships with others.

As a bid for the presidency of the late, lamented United States of America, Ron Paul's campaign will be an abject failure. The American sheeple just won't stand for it. As an opportunity for individual awakening, his efforts will bear fruit if, perhaps, a few of us really look into the mirror of our own souls, and truly take stock. Ron Paul is a Teacher. Whether we hear is message is entirely up to us. God bless him for trying.

[georgia_tech_swagger]

I also disagree with Ron.

Does life begin at conception? Technically speaking.... yes. It's just as much alive as the bacteria on your stale leftovers, or the skin cells you constantly shed. Is it a human? Hardly.

I consider it a human when it has a brain, even a primitive one. I think therefore I am.

I'm pro-choice up until the formation of a brain. I would hope pro-lifers would at least provide exceptions for incest, rape, mortality risk to mother, a fetus that is genetically "incompatible with life", and those living at the poverty level who have no means to support a child, thus letting the pregnancy continue would be a burden to society.

[georgia_tech_swagger]

BTW -- wonder if Brownback would change his views on abortion if someone close to him had a rape pregnancy. Brownback is such a tool.

[Tn...Andy]

Don't agree it begins at conception.

Do think RP would move to leave it to the States, as it should be under the 9th and 10th.

Doesn't stop me from supporting him 100%

There will never be a candidate other than myself with whom I would agree 100% of the time, and even myself, I find contradictory.

[LibertyEagle]

That is what I thought too. But I was told today by a staffer, that he wants his bill to pass, and then refuse to give states any federal funding for anything (like roads, etc.) if they allow abortions in their state. So you may not call it a ban, but it will act like one.



Jennifer, I'm not sure who you talked to, but I just called Dr. Paul's congressional office and talked to the aide in charge of this area (Norman), who told me that he has never heard anything like this from Dr. Paul. Nor, does he believe it to be the case.

[BillyDkid]

No, I don't like euphemisms, I prefer straight talk.

There is a big distinction between being "pro-choice" and being "pro-abortion". I don't support abortion, but I do understand, just as RP himself has said, that there is room for honest disagreement and the issue is not simply black and white in all cases.

[hard@work]

I believe that abortion needs to be stopped at all costs. We have to do everything in our power to find a way to stop the unnecessary termination of unwanted pregnancy. I am outraged at the politicians for taking advantage of us all to get our votes without any real intent to solve the terrible issue of a woman going in for surgery to stop the birth of a child.

I am pro choice.


Ron Paul is my frikkin hero on this matter.

[jjschless]

The fact that we must abort a very natural and healthy process with such frequency speaks volumes about the corruption of our once noble values. This process, if elected as contraception not a remedy for health/rape, cannot be thought of in a benevolent sense. The fact remains that with the abundant availability of contraceptive aids and the ease of application of said aids, a great many individuals are simply lazy, thoughtless and/or careless. Those three words have never been a good excuse for anything.

[squirrelbrewer]

By week 3 the brain has started to develop. By week 5 the brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible.

I'm not a doctor, and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night, but I think it's sad when we feel we're justified in terminating life because we've already considered their existence as a burden on society. That's no fun.

[NoxTwilight]

I'd agree life begins at conception, but I'm very much pro-choice. I feel that decision is between the woman and God.

Anywho, this is THE only issue I've found dividies anyone I talk to. I've talked to pro-lifers that hate him for it and pro-choicers that hate him for it.

Whatever the case, I stress to people that this polarizing issue is nothing compared to the economic and soverign future of our country.

This is exactly my view. One of the things that has helped me accept this is that Dr Paul is the ONLY politician who explains his views in a logical and rational manner that doesn't incite the normal rage that this issue can bring out in people. At least for me.

I personally believe that life does begin at conception however I also believe that God gave us Free Will and it is a woman's choice to bring that life and person into the world. If that little soul isn't born to one woman, it will be born to another.

[risiusj]

Why do we continue talking about this issue?
It doesn't matter what a president thinks. Why so many people use the abortion issue as the main deciding factor for whom they vote for is beyond me.

[ThePieSwindler]

I also disagree with Ron.

Does life begin at conception? Technically speaking.... yes. It's just as much alive as the bacteria on your stale leftovers, or the skin cells you constantly shed. Is it a human? Hardly.

I consider it a human when it has a brain, even a primitive one. I think therefore I am.

I'm pro-choice up until the formation of a brain. I would hope pro-lifers would at least provide exceptions for incest, rape, mortality risk to mother, a fetus that is genetically "incompatible with life", and those living at the poverty level who have no means to support a child, thus letting the pregnancy continue would be a burden to society.

See heres the thing. You are arguing an interesting semantics battle here. First off, i dont think ANYONE (not even very conservative christians i know) would force a mother to die for her child, so thats really a strawman - of course, as Ron Paul says, the vast majority of the time that is not needed if the right conditions and tools are present. As far as life beginning at conception, the simple fact that it has 1) human DNA and 2) has the capacity to, in literally a couple of weeks, develop a brain, that makes the person uniquely human with a unique identity. All a brain is is a collection of those cells that have that DNA that have begun to diversify from stem cells.

I am completely against a federal ban on abortion, however, for two reasons. One, i believe that following the constitution and not federalizing abortion on principle alone is more important than the specific issue. Second, abortions will always be performed, so at the very least allow it to be a possibility, even if its harder to attain one (like, you have to drive to another state). Plus, i hesitate to put a one size fits all legislation because there MIGHT be a RARE case where the mother needs an abortion, or where rape has occured and the mother did not voluntary assume the risk of conception, thus i do believe she has the right to abort because she never "assigned" that assumed contract. Essentially, Ron Paul's stance on the issue to leave it up to the states is the best way to go for both sides, because if something is federalized, espcially in the form of a court ruling, then when some pro life judges come in and a case is brought before them, they might "take away" the "precious right" to abortion. Leaving it to the states prevents that dilemma.

[Eric21ND]

This is such a divisive issue that really distracts from more important things. Basically intelligent people can disagree on both sides. I'm pro choice, and I agree with Ron Paul on nearly every other issue, but this one really choked me up for a while. Ron Paul's personal position is pro-life but he wouldn't dictate that to the states. That's how I mediate it. Let's be honest nothing is really going to change in this country. I believe abortion is here to stay. Left up to the states, the majority would allow it anyway.

[RockEnds]

I've always been pro-choice. Dr. Paul's pro-life position perplexed me for quite some time. I've never based my vote on abortion. I'm sick to death of hearing about abortion. Since Dr. Paul made it a central issue, I had to think about it. After reviewing the issue, I realized Dr. Paul may well be correct.

If our rights are derived from a Creator, we possess our rights from the moment of Creation. If our rights are granted by government, we attain them at birth through citizenship. I think I'm going to have to change my pro-choice stance.

I'm not at all religious. I don't claim to understand the essence of the 'Creator', but I understand the essence of Liberty. I think Dr. Paul has a point. It's impossible to preserve liberty without preserving life from the moment of conception. Maybe it's not a matter of right or wrong; maybe it's a matter of Rights or privileges.

At the very least, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a little critical thinking. Most politicians don't have that to offer!

[max]

Let me get this straight. People are OK with america going bankrupt and a financial collapse.

TYhey are OK with being taxed to death.

Ther are OK with our troops dying for nothing.

They are OK with sleazy crooks and liars

just as long as their candidate is "pro-choice"???...Have you pro-choicers" ever heard of friggin birth control?????

Unfriggin believable

[mconder]

Technically, wouldn't you all agree that life begins even before the egg if fertilized. I mean the sperm seems to have some element of self determination. At what point would I call it a human life. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution and say it begins at conception, lest I enter into that "at what point do you call it life" argument, both sides having valid points to make. The women generally has a choice in the matter before she becomes pregnant. That is where the woman's choice in all this begins and ends...to get pregnant or not to get pregnant, that is the question. Isn't it? Of course there are those who are rapped or the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, in which cases I would favor the woman making the decision.

[max]

Technically, wouldn't you all agree that life begins even before the egg if fertilized. I mean the sperm seems to have some element of self determination.

at the exact moment of conception...everything you are today was determined (physically that is...but also some eklements of your personality too)

You should check out some of the videos of actual abortions..gruesome stuff. Thats how I became pro-life.

But regardless of what side of this issue u are on....i agree that people who base the entire reason for voting for or against a candidate on abortion are goofy.

If RP was pro-abortion...I'd still vote for him

[stevedasbach]

I agree that it's a state issue -- the bill he introduced simply provided the means to return the issue to the states.

IMO, if that happens, virtally every state will keep abortion legal during the first trimester with few if any restrictions, and virtually all will outlaw it post-viability with some special circumstance exceptions. There will be a lot of variation between states on how second trimester abortions are treated.

[Man from La Mancha]

Technically, wouldn't you all agree that life begins even before the egg if fertilized. I mean the sperm seems to have some element of self determination. At what point would I call it a human life. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution and say it begins at conception, lest I enter into that "at what point do you call it life" argument, both sides having valid points to make. The women generally has a choice in the matter before she becomes pregnant. That is where the woman's choice in all this begins and ends...to get pregnant or not to get pregnant, that is the question. Isn't it? Of course there are those who are rapped or the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, in which cases I would favor the woman making the decision.

Really, I don't have much sympathy for most woman over this. In this day and age there are many ways of birth control including not doing it. True the man is involved but who makes the final choice and bears the most consequences. Other than rape it is the woman. Killing a starting life is such a cruel and callus thing to do. All women have pro choice, just go oral. Doesn't bother me what ever she would like.:)

.

[Electric Church]

I'd agree life begins at conception, but I'm very much pro-choice. I feel that decision is between the woman and God.


The decision is the woman's not God's. God has already made a decision which is proved by the evidence of conception. The decision is the woman's: to decide to allow the child to live and be born or to decide to kill the child before birth. God lets her decide to do anything she wants.

[mconder]

God has already made a decision which is proved by the evidence of conception.

Would it be fair to say that when we nuked Hiroshima that God had already made the decision? I mean the laws of physics were out there and it just sort of like...happened.

[Politeia]

So far as I am aware, not one of the pro-abortion* partisans I have heard or read has ever been aborted emself. Not a very balanced sample.

*(I detest the euphemisms commonly used by both sides on the question: the issue is abortion, not "choice" or "life".)

[Man from La Mancha]

The decision is the woman's not God's. God has already made a decision which is proved by the evidence of conception. The decision is the woman's: to decide to allow the child to live and be born or to decide to kill the child before birth. God lets her decide to do anything she wants.Where does does God say this and using that logic why not kill it after it is born if it is the womans choice, because as Ron pointed out it is illegal to kill it before it is born as when the mother is mudered. I'm not a Church goer or into any religious or atheists texts opinions?.

.

[LibertyOfOne]

I believe that abortion needs to be stopped at all costs. We have to do everything in our power to find a way to stop the unnecessary termination of unwanted pregnancy. I am outraged at the politicians for taking advantage of us all to get our votes without any real intent to solve the terrible issue of a woman going in for surgery to stop the birth of a child.

I am pro choice.



You don't see the contradiction in your statement?

[ladyliberty]

Abortion in any form at any stage of pregnancy is murder. Period. End of Sentence.

Dr. Paul witnessed/observed an abortion performed when he was in med school and the infant that was alive and crying was dropped into a bucket and thrown out like garbage. If you don't think it is murder, then maybe you ought to witness it for yourself and then you might change your mind.

As far as what the Bible says - "Thou shalt not kill."

[quickmike]

blah blah blah blah............... compared to all the other problems facing the country right now, this is by far the least of our problems. I cant believe anyone on either side of this issue would put its importance above all else when choosing who to vote for in a presidential election. Sure life is important, but like RP says, its a state issue.

[LibertyOfOne]

This is nothing but a wedge issue. Once the dollar takes its final dive the last thing you would care about is abortions.

[Politeia]

I cant believe anyone on either side of this issue would put its importance above all else when choosing who to vote for in a presidential election.

Actually, there are many who do, and will. And, like it or not, it is a fundamental -- the fundamental -- issue. Note that the classic formulation of rights does not say, "Liberty, Property, and Life": Neither Liberty nor Property is possible without Life, and as Dr. Paul says, a culture which claims to value the first two while waffling on the third is in a state of denial which must, sooner or later, be fatal.

It was interesting to hear Dr. Paul defending himself from an attack from fanatical Christians on this issue in a recent radio interview; it may not have occurred to people on this forum that he may lose votes from some quarters because he's seen as too soft on it. He's doing the best he can with an issue that is ultimately non-compromisable. There's no such thing as a little bit dead.

[ladyliberty]

I have been anti-abortion since the day I got my voter's registration card when I was 18. I will NEVER vote, have NEVER voted, for any politician who declares themselves to be so-called "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion" - if they have so little regard for innocent human lives, how much do they care about what happens to the rest of us?

Abortion was invented in the concentration camps of WWII by Nazi physicians who wanted to perform all sorts of horrible experiments on their imprisoned subjects, whom they felt were less than human and certainly not worthy of life.

There are far too many methods to actually prevent unwanted pregnancies - up to an including sterilization - that does not result in the murder of a human being. Why should a drunken party and irresponsibility result in the death of a human being?

America is the only country I know of that murders its own babies and yet adopts Chinese and Hungarian babies.

[quickmike]

Well Ill tell ya what. When our country is bankrupt and the government goes belly up, you can bet your ass that nobody will be enforcing abortion laws either way. So the way I see it, it wont matter what the abortion laws are unless we get our house in order financially first. All the abortion or anti abortion laws in the world wont have a dimes worth of value with no government to enforce them. Get your priorities straight folks, or were in for some BAD times here in america. If you feel the need to argue with me on this point................. go back and read the first few sentences in this post until it sinks in.

[inibo]

Every time this issue is raised I will post this link:

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

I did not like it the first time I read it because it made me question my position on the issue. It also made me realize my position was based on shaky premises. If some one can refute it using scientific evidence, logic and reason--not opinions--I'd be happy to listen it because I still don't like it. I don't like getting old either, but there is nothing I can do about it.

Truth, like reality, is that which does not go away because you stop believing it.

[LibertyOfOne]

"A human zygote is a human being" Try not to bust a gut after reading that bit of nonsense. Does she even know the definitions of the words she is using? A zygote has no brain, no lungs, no heart, and no organ systems. It has nothing that comes close to what defines a human being.

Human being: a person
Person: a self conscious or rational being.

It sure is not a human being by any stretch of the imagination.

"A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being."

She just contradicted herself with the next sentence.

"It's an actual human being — with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities."

[Revolution9]

"A human zygote is a human being" Try not to bust a gut after reading that bit of nonsense. Does she even know the definitions of the words she is using? A zygote has no brain, no lungs, no heart, and no organ systems. It has nothing that comes close to what defines a human being.

Human being: a person
Person: a self conscious or rational being.

It sure is not a human being by any stretch of the imagination.

"A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being."

She just contradicted herself with the next sentence.

"It's an actual human being — with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities."

Guess you like your myths better than scientific fact. You act like there was no cites..or you completely ignored them..that is if you are referring to the link inbo posted. It is as correct a scientific interpretation as any I have read. I have always been a human being from day one. What about you.. What were you prior to being a human being?


Randy

[LibertyOfOne]

No amount of sources will make, "A human zygote is a human being", credible.

"What were you prior to being a human being?" A lump of genetic material stuck inside a bilipid membrane. The same thing you were at some moment in the past.

[Man from La Mancha]

Guess you like your myths better than scientific fact. You act like there was no cites..or you completely ignored them..that is if you are referring to the link inbo posted. It is as correct a scientific interpretation as any I have read. I have always been a human being from day one. What about you.. What were you prior to being a human being?


RandyI was soul waiting for a transdimensional vehicle I could reside in on the 3 dimension earth plane.:D

.

[dircha]

This is nothing but a wedge issue. Once the dollar takes its final dive the last thing you would care about is abortions.

Where I come from, politics has only 3 issues: Guns, Abortion, and Taxes.

Guns are good because that's how we got free from that damned King of England. Abortion is bad because God says it is. And if you give us any more Taxes... well whaddya think the guns are for?

[Politeia]

As far as what the Bible says - "Thou shalt not kill."

The problem with this quote is that it's incomplete: Thou shalt not kill what? It's pretty clear from the context that at the time it was written it meant "Thou shalt not kill fellow tribesmen": anyone who was not a member of the tribe in whose holy book this was written, was fair game. As were slaves, I suppose, as well as females. Nowadays there seems to be a consensus, though I've never actually seen it stated, that it means "Thou shalt not kill a human being" -- though quite a few people who claim to follow this teaching seem to be rather enthusiastic about killing human beings whom, again, they regard as members of other tribes.

Thus the endless argument over abortion in our culture: Is a fetus, or zygote, or whatever other name is applied to the pre-birth being whom most everyone seems to agree will be a human being after birth, human? If yes, then abortion must be prohibited by the commandment quoted above; if no, then it's not a problem. Endless energy, and endless trees and electrons, have been devoted by partisans on both sides to "proving" their preformed, and hardly disinterested, opinions on the matter.

The very title of this now 20+ page thread is an example of the (sometimes deliberate) lack of precision in many discussions of the issue: What is really being asked is "Who disagrees with Paul that human life begins at conception?" In so many of these arguments, what I find most interesting is what is unstated: premises and assumptions.

Here's an alternative look at the subject: When I became formally a Buddhist, I took on the Five Precepts which all Buddhists, lay and monastic, commit to follow. The first of those is commonly stated as "Do not kill." Literally (in the original Pali language) it reads "I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying life." Note that it does not say that the precept applies only to "human life" or any other definable type of life. Just "life".

As for "when life begins" -- or began -- that's one of the questions the Buddha famously refused to answer (along with others like "How big is the universe?"), stating only that the answer is inconceivable to the ordinary human mind. And, he said, it was irrelevant to his work, which was to share and teach the methods he had found which enable one to reduce, prevent and eliminate suffering.

In addition, for a Buddhist the question of "When did life (human or otherwise) begin?" is irrelevant to the First Precept, because it's not about whether or what kind of life is being destroyed, it's about the actor's intention, which determines the character of the act. There is no "sin" in Buddhism, but there is a distinction between what the Buddha called "skillful" and "unskillful" acts: the former tend toward reducing, preventing and eliminating suffering, while the latter tend toward increasing, creating and proliferating suffering -- which is exactly the opposite of what the Buddha, and those who follow his Path, want to accomplish.

While it is true that destroying life, in any form, causes the life destroyed to suffer, this again is not the real point of the Buddha's teaching. If it were, then, like Christians (and even non-Christian members of this culture), Buddhists would be drawn into endless arguments over whether or how much different forms of life are capable of experiencing suffering. For a sincere Buddhist, the Dalai Lama's observation that all creatures have in common the desire to avoid suffering and seek happiness is sufficient.

However, since it is the Buddha's understanding that everything we do comes back to us, one way or another (this is called the Law of Karma), the point of his teaching in the First Precept is this: If we believe we can reduce, prevent, or eliminate our own suffering by destroying life, in any form, we are committing an unskillful act, whose consequences we must eventually experience ourselves. Not because some stern deity will see to it, but as impersonally and inexorably as stepping on a rake and being hit on the forehead by the handle. If you do not wish to suffer, do not cause suffering.

Of course, this view depends on the assumption that destroying life causes suffering. Does it? Well, if I destroy your life, will you experience that as suffering, i.e. an experience you'd rather avoid? Q.E.D.

Having to deal responsibly with the consequences of our actions when we'd rather not is one form of suffering. From the Buddha's point of view, to avoid this "suffering" by destroying life, especially considering that this life was created by our own act, is certainly unskillful. Thus, in nearly all cases, a woman who commits an abortion (or hires it done) is morally no different than a burglar who is caught in the act and kills the witness. "See, I was forced to do it!" doesn't cut it. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

As I wrote above, I do not know of any abortion promoter who was aborted emself. (Though I do know of several abortion survivors who are vocal in their opposition to the practice -- which I find somehow unsurprising.) However, by simple logic, I find the conclusion unavoidable that anyone who commits an abortion, as a deliberate, intended act, must emself experience the consequences -- i.e. be the abortee next time around.

So for me, the issue is simple: just another instance of the Golden Rule. When "human" life begins is not the issue; the issue is whether one is behaving responsibly or not. We may believe we can escape suffering by "externalizing" it onto another creature, but ultimately this is a delusion.

[Original_Intent]

Whoever posted this...I agree with RP's position, but I sure don't see what the point of the thread is.

Possibility 1: We are going to change RP's mind. Probability 0.00000000001%.
Possibility 2: We are going to cause friction among the group, and/or convince some people that maybe RP is not their candidate. Probability unknown.
Possibility 3: No minds are changed no one either comes to support RP or leaves.

So the only real possibilities are no change or negative change, at least regarding getting RP elected.

[BarryDonegan]

it is bad debate skill to argue something over evidence that doesn't exist.

this is the problem with the abortion debate, its an argument over something unproven.

do you think life starts at conception? who cares what you think, how would you know, do you remember? are you a scientist? have you found a foolproof way to tell?

we can't know, and theres no scientific concensus. if you want to argue either the pro life or pro choice side you can't say that life either does or doesn't begin at conception, because its not scientifically proven either way.

i personally, oppose abortion because i don't know when life starts, and id prefer to err on the safe side, and not risk it. but thats an argument that is fair to both sides, it doesn't force anyone to accept an unproven fact.

[LibertyOfOne]

Where I come from, politics has only 3 issues: Guns, Abortion, and Taxes.

Guns are good because that's how we got free from that damned King of England. Abortion is bad because God says it is. And if you give us any more Taxes... well whaddya think the guns are for?

We should make laws based on the bible? Or what god said? Government should be devoid of religion. Laws should be based on reason and not religion. If the laws went the way of the bible than slavery would be legal. http://www.atheistresource.co.uk/jesusandslavery.html

[Revolution9]

No amount of sources will make, "A human zygote is a human being", credible.

"What were you prior to being a human being?" A lump of genetic material stuck inside a bilipid membrane. The same thing you were at some moment in the past.

You may view yourself as swampslime protoplasm. I am a divine being and the moment of conception my spirit chose my mother, due to morphological confluence of the coilings given rise to by the joining of sperm and egg of her and my father to create the separate entity as the best template for me to generate my projection into the 3D Universe via her pregancy, nourishment and subsequent birthing.

Energetically the moment the egg and sperm combine it is a receptacle for a divine soul to enter to give momentum, force and form to the vehicle of life and when that divine being is developed enough to deal with the intensity of the 3D experience it is born to it.

Best Regards
Randy

[Man from La Mancha]

You may view yourself as swampslime protoplasm. I am a divine being and the moment of conception my spirit chose my mother, due to morphological confluence of the coilings given rise to by the joining of sperm and egg of her and my father to create the separate entity as the best template for me to generate my projection into the 3D Universe via her pregancy, nourishment and subsequent birthing.

Energetically the moment the egg and sperm combine it is a receptacle for a divine soul to enter to give momentum, force and form to the vehicle of life and when that divine being is developed enough to deal with the intensity of the 3D experience it is born to it.

Best Regards
RandyI'm a divine being driving around in that swampslime photoplasm.:D

.

[Sematary]

I don't disagree with him at all and as for your father - he is entitled to his opinion and may vote for whom he pleases. No candidate can win over ALL the voters. The constitution should be enough. Personally, I would explain it to him this way - each state would have the right, and the opportunity, to decide what is in the best interst of THAT state and that means he would have more of a say in what happens.

[Sematary]

I was soul waiting for a transdimensional vehicle I could reside in on the 3 dimension earth plane.:D

.

I was... well, nothing. But at conception, I was a human being.

[ChooseLiberty]

Funny thing is - once the police state and martial law are in place all the people so worried about gay marriage, abortion and all the other non-issues won't have a choice since the commissariat will tell them what they can and cannot do.

Average Americans are simply mindless cattle chewing their cud, arguing about gay marriage or pro-choice and waiting for slaughter.



I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE IT!!!

Who cares if gays can marry, a few people you don't know and will never meet can have abortions, children recite or don't recite a pledge in a classroom, etc.

None of this shit matters when we don't have jobs, or country is going further into debt, our monetary system is edging towards collapse, our troops are overseas and being killed, etc.

[LibertyOfOne]

There are far more important issues like the falling dollar, debt, deficit, war, and unchecked forth amendment violations. Ron's stance on the issue is a constitutional one. At least he has respect for the 10th amendment.