PDA

View Full Version : Life: Definition of life




buster2209
12-15-2011, 01:21 PM
I've been following Ron Paul for a bout 5-6 years now and agree with him about 99% of the time.

Anyways, one of my friends asked me about this;


* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

which can be found on the Ron Paul 2012 website (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/)

I'm confused by this.....

Is this going to make abortion illegal? What about rape victims, molestation, etc? Won't this just push the abortion industry underground and create the same problems that the war on drugs have? What about the rights of the mother?

If anyone can elaborate on this, I would be grateful.

Thanks in advance

CaptUSA
12-15-2011, 01:31 PM
Dr. Paul is an obstetrician. Being that close to pregnancy his entire life has tought him lessons about the sanctity of life. Also, if he can be held criminally liable if he kills the fetus, then in some state courts, they already consider the fetus "life".

People have very deeply felt opinions on this matter, but from what I understand, Paul's position is that it is a state issue - just like murder, rape, or robbery.

Icymudpuppy
12-15-2011, 01:55 PM
On a recent republican party survey, one of the questions asked was "Do you believe life begins at conception?" Yes/No. No option for other.

I am a biologist by education. Technically, the sperm and egg are both live cells, though incomplete and unable to replicate in zygote phase, they are nonetheless still a living cell of their parent organism. Life, therefore has not technically "Begun" since life first came to be some indeterminate time in the prehistoric past. It has been a continuous cycle since then.

The question is really a religious question and should be framed as one. The question should be... "do you believe the soul occupies a human life at its conception?". I am not a theologian enough with every conceivable spiritual text to answer that question, and so I should at least have the option to answer "I don't know". I left the boxes blank, and wrote in "I don't know".

If given a choice, I would want to live in a state in which abortions are legal, but restricted to situations within the first trimester and of involuntary insemination, life threatening circumstances, or non-rape or non-life/death situations requiring the consent of the parents if the girl is underage, her husband if of age and married, or her live-in boyfriend if not married, and the procedure can never be paid for with taxpayer money.

buster2209
12-15-2011, 02:15 PM
I wasn't looking for a discussion of if this is right or wrong, I was more looking at the legality of it.

Where does the Constitution allow this act to be passed?

If RP believes this is a state issue, then what's the point in the act?

dannno
12-15-2011, 02:19 PM
I wasn't looking for a discussion of if this is right or wrong, I was more looking at the legality of it.

Where does the Constitution allow this act to be passed?

It allows the states to define life as beginning at conception so that states can protect life. It gives the states more power in this area, which is the Constitutionally correct position.

Personally I'm pro-choice and pretty much agree with what icymudpuppy said. I also agree that criminalizing abortion would be an affront to the privacy of a woman during her pregnancy, which should be sacred.

Others believe that human life should be protected and human life begins and conception. Many people here have basic philosophical disagreements on the issue, but I think we can all agree that it can be better handled locally or at the state level than at the federal level, which is Ron Paul's position.

playboymommy
12-15-2011, 02:28 PM
nobody explains it better than danno :)

Krugerrand
12-15-2011, 02:31 PM
On a recent republican party survey, one of the questions asked was "Do you believe life begins at conception?" Yes/No. No option for other.

I am a biologist by education. Technically, the sperm and egg are both live cells, though incomplete and unable to replicate in zygote phase, they are nonetheless still a living cell of their parent organism. Life, therefore has not technically "Begun" since life first came to be some indeterminate time in the prehistoric past. It has been a continuous cycle since then.

The question is really a religious question and should be framed as one. The question should be... "do you believe the soul occupies a human life at its conception?". I am not a theologian enough with every conceivable spiritual text to answer that question, and so I should at least have the option to answer "I don't know". I left the boxes blank, and wrote in "I don't know".

If given a choice, I would want to live in a state in which abortions are legal, but restricted to situations within the first trimester and of involuntary insemination, life threatening circumstances, or non-rape or non-life/death situations requiring the consent of the parents if the girl is underage, her husband if of age and married, or her live-in boyfriend if not married, and the procedure can never be paid for with taxpayer money.

I just want to point out that there are many pro-life atheists that recognize the unique human organism that comes into being at conception. It is not a religious question.

see: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

fisharmor
12-15-2011, 02:50 PM
The question is really a religious question and should be framed as one. The question should be... "do you believe the soul occupies a human life at its conception?". I am not a theologian enough with every conceivable spiritual text to answer that question, and so I should at least have the option to answer "I don't know". I left the boxes blank, and wrote in "I don't know".

Do non-white humans have souls? Surely you must realize such has been argued in the past.
Do people in comas have souls? How about the insane, or people with advanced Alzheimers?
That's a real arbitrary line you're drawing there and I hope you come to understand at some point that allowing anyone at all to draw it for you puts you at risk of being on the wrong side of it at some point.

There is no logic in allowing for that line to be moved. If you place any importance on human life, the line belongs in a position that includes as many human lives as possible.



Is this going to make abortion illegal? What about rape victims, molestation, etc? Won't this just push the abortion industry underground and create the same problems that the war on drugs have? What about the rights of the mother?

No, he has repeatedly stated that he does not favor abortion being illegal on the federal level, for the same reason that murder is not illegal on the federal level.
You can take all of your exceptions and wrap them up into less than 1% of the abortions that happen.
There is never any threat to the mother's life.
When taken in the whole, the number of rapes and molestations is statistically insignificant.
Abortion is used as birth control. Plain and simple.
There are lots of other birth control methods out there. They are available.
I think it's interesting when people drag rape into it, though. I need to point out, every time, that when you bring the rape question into the equation, you're not being profound or forcing anyone to think.
What you're doing is lessening the seriousness of rape more than it is already lessened.
If rape is truly such a horrible thing, let's deal with it. Chopping up a little person and sucking them into a vacuum doesn't do anything to mitigate rape.

That said, no, I don't think that the sanctity of life act passes constitutional muster. But it's a damned sight closer to being constitutional than Roe is.
I would much rather have the federal government drop Roe and Doe and remain silent on the issue thereafter.
Ron Paul has admitted previously (when voting to ban partial birth abortions) that this is one issue he breaks his constitutionalism over. Technically that's wrong. I'm not withdrawing support over it.

Beorn
12-15-2011, 02:51 PM
I just want to point out that there are many pro-life atheists that recognize the unique human organism that comes into being at conception. It is not a religious question.

see: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Right.

I would add that in most of the bioethics literature the conversation has moved away from "when human life begins?" There really is no scientific question that a new homosapien life exists upon conception.

The real question is philosophical and the appropriate question is: when does a person exist? So this is a matter of personhood.

Personally I think it's dangerous and wrong to view personhood as anything other than an inherent human attribute.

bluesc
12-15-2011, 02:53 PM
I wasn't looking for a discussion of if this is right or wrong, I was more looking at the legality of it.

Where does the Constitution allow this act to be passed?

If RP believes this is a state issue, then what's the point in the act?

Already been covered, but the act would simply take the decision away from the federal government and handed back to that states. He answers it in detail during this interview from today:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PPm_B-EdOU

buster2209
12-15-2011, 02:55 PM
I think it's interesting when people drag rape into it, though. I need to point out, every time, that when you bring the rape question into the equation, you're not being profound or forcing anyone to think.
What you're doing is lessening the seriousness of rape more than it is already lessened.
If rape is truly such a horrible thing, let's deal with it.

Lets not blow stuff out of proportion ok? As I stated in the OP, I am a fan of Ron Paul. I wanted clarification on his policy because a friend of mine asked me. There is a strong likelihood she will vote for him but wanted to know more about this part of his policy.

bluesc
12-15-2011, 02:57 PM
Lets not blow stuff out of proportion ok? As I stated in the OP, I am a fan of Ron Paul. I wanted clarification on his policy because a friend of mine asked me. There is a strong likelihood she will vote for him but wanted to know more about this part of his policy.

Yeah this subforum is simply to discus RON's views. This has been covered in many replies in this thread, including mine. Listen to him in the above video.

buster2209
12-15-2011, 03:01 PM
Yeah this subforum is simply to discus RON's views. This has been covered in many replies in this thread, including mine. Listen to him in the above video.

Thank you for the video. It cleared it up for me and I will forward it to my friend.

Flugel89
12-15-2011, 03:03 PM
I just want to point out that there are many pro-life atheists that recognize the unique human organism that comes into being at conception. It is not a religious question.

see: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

It's an ideological question. I'm non-religious (I say "non-religious" because atheism is a religion. :P http://firstchurchofatheism.com) and I believe in life at conception, but I don't condone violence (read government action) against those who believe differently than I.

I do agree that it can be best handled at a state/local level.

bluesc
12-15-2011, 03:03 PM
Thank you for the video. It cleared it up for me and I will forward it to my friend.

Make sure it's clear to her that while he is extremely pro-life in his personal views, it will be a state's right issue under his presidency.

buster2209
12-15-2011, 03:07 PM
Make sure it's clear to her that while he is extremely pro-life in his personal views, it will be a state's right issue under his presidency.

The first part of the above sentence I did tell her but I was caught off guard by what he states on his campaign page. At first, it appears he is pushing his pro-life ideals at the federal level. Now I know it means devolution of powers from the federal to the state level with regard to abortions.

bluesc
12-15-2011, 03:08 PM
That I did tell her but I was caught off guard by what he states on his campaign page. At first, it appears he is pushing his pro-life ideals at the federal level. Now I know it means devolution of powers from the federal to the state level with regard to abortions.

Yep. Many people become confused by it. Be sure to thank her for her vote for Ron Paul!

dannno
12-15-2011, 03:38 PM
Thank you for the video. It cleared it up for me and I will forward it to my friend.

It sounds like your friend is pro-choice. Many people who are pro-choice are trained to vote only for candidates who are pro-choice because being pro-choice is the only logical position, and vice versa with many who are pro-life. It is like a single issue litmus test for them. The problem is because many pro-life politicians also want to legislate morality, and generally those who are pro-choice are against that. Ron Paul supports gays rights to getting married and individuals rights to consume drugs/alcohol and believes in legalized prostitution (though it is already legal at the Federal level). He doesn't want to tell people what to do, as long as they aren't hurting anybody. His position on abortion is in line with these beliefs.

If your friend is still having trouble with his position, I like to remind people that there have been many pro-life Presidents since Roe vs. Wade and nothing has changed. Ron Paul can bring the troops home on day 1 without congressional approval. He cannot overturn Roe vs. Wade. Ron Paul is more concerned about the economy, our foreign empire and our Constitution than the single issue of abortion.

Icymudpuppy
12-15-2011, 03:45 PM
I just want to point out that there are many pro-life atheists that recognize the unique human organism that comes into being at conception. It is not a religious question.

see: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

I agree, it is uniquely human. But a fertilized dog egg is also a unique canine organism. Why protect the human embryo more than the canine embryo? What differentiates the human from the dog?

In science, nothing, they are both complex organisms with features that make the dog a better sniffer, listener, and runner, and the human a better see-er and thinker. The question is, does a dog have a soul? The bible and koran say no. The Bhagavad-gita, tao-te-ching, and teaching of buddha say yes.

Since they can't even agree on whether the dog has a soul, then how is there to be a consensus on when that soul enters the organism, or when that organism takes possession of the soul? Once again, that is a theological question.

The atheistic pro-lifers should be consistent and be full animal rights advocates too since science make no separation between the uniqueness of a human DNA strand and a dog DNA strand.

Icymudpuppy
12-15-2011, 04:29 PM
Do non-white humans have souls? Surely you must realize such has been argued in the past.
Do people in comas have souls? How about the insane, or people with advanced Alzheimers?
That's a real arbitrary line you're drawing there and I hope you come to understand at some point that allowing anyone at all to draw it for you puts you at risk of being on the wrong side of it at some point.

There is no logic in allowing for that line to be moved. If you place any importance on human life, the line belongs in a position that includes as many human lives as possible.

No doubt. Indeed, many religions would say just that... Orthodox Judaism says only jews with maternal jewish ancestry traceable to Noah's wife can claim to have Adamic souls. No maternal lineage, means no soul. I have heard that certain Mormon sects believe only white people have souls. Dangerous territory, and above my pay-grade in regards to theology. From a scientific standpoint, as mentioned by a previous poster, a unique DNA strand of life comes into being at conception when two RNA zygotes combine to form a double helix and begin the process of replication. That is undeniable, but what makes that strand of a human more special than a similar strand of any animal. Somebody mentioned "Personhood". You can be a unique DNA embryo, and not be a person. What defines a person? Webster's defines person as "A HUMAN INDIVIDUAL". Obviously since an embryo and fetus are integrated with the mother via the umbilical, the unborn can't be a person by that definition because they are inseparable from the mother, and thus not an individual. The philosophical points that can be brought to bear on this subject are phenomenal.