Life begins at conception

[Number19]

I do not wish to engage in a discussion of the definition of "life", but want to clarify RP's position on this issue. My understanding is that RP has supported federal legislation that defines life as beginning at conception. The first question should be whether this is correct.

But, supposing he does support this legislation, what is the Constitutional argument to back such a position. I believe that this would require a Constitutional Amendment.

I would also support my position by stating that the 14th Amendment states that "All persons born...in the United States..." and then continues that these "persons" cannot be denied "life, liberty or property". I do not not find, in the Constitution, any language which expands the definition of "person" to the unborn embryo.

So, what is Ron Paul's explanation for his position that Congress has the power to pass such legislation?

[mrsat_98]

The preamble embraces the idea. Consider the definition of posterity.

[Number19]

The preamble embraces the idea. Consider the definition of posterity.Your comment is new to me. My initial thought is that your definition and expansion of the definition and meaning of "posterity" is equal to the liberals expansion of the commerce clause. Posterity refers to future generations with no hint as to when "life" begins.

My point is if this meaning is to be applied to the Constitution, it will require an Amendment, because, as it is currently worded, the Constitution makes no clear distinction.

I'm wanting to know if anyone has Ron Paul's arguments or explanations in this regard. He is the recognized Constitutional expert among our following.

[eduardo89]

Ron Paul supports a federal sanctity of life amendment, right? I think that's your answer.

[kuckfeynes]

What is the legislation in question? Kind of important...

I would agree that a new amendment would be the only appropriate way to usurp the clear distinction set forth by the 14th.

[Number19]

What triggered today's questioning is this comment from LegalEagle:

Many people misunderstand what President Paul would do about abortion. He would not just leave it up to the 50 states to decide for themselves. What he wants to do is to have a federal law that defines life beginning at conception. #95 at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?347964-PPP-teases-with-NH-tweets/page10

At Wikipedia I found that the current legislation is HR1096 and the text leads me to the same conclusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

A quick look at the text of the actual legislation found no Constitutional justification that empowers Congress to take this action. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1096:

I'm almost certain I will face questioning on this issue in the coming months of my own campaign and I'm finding I'm in total disagreement with Ron Paul on this issue - it can only be addressed by Amendment and cannot be addressed by legislation.

[MJU1983]

Science says that life begins at conception. That is the real debate on the abortion issue. No government legislation will change the hearts and minds of people who treat human life like garbage.

[FreeTraveler]

It amazes me that people don't realize that amendment would usher in a reign of terror that would make Alcohol Prohibition and the War on Drugs look positively benign by comparison. If people will risk imprisonment for a drink of booze or a toke of grass, you think they won't risk the same to avoid raising an unwanted child for 18 years?

Definately the one place where Dr. Paul and I part company in a big way.

And it's worth noting that both those previous instances of prohibition were instituted in the name of "the children" as well.

[Boss]

It amazes me that people don't realize that amendment would usher in a reign of terror that would make Alcohol Prohibition and the War on Drugs look positively benign by comparison. If people will risk imprisonment for a drink of booze or a toke of grass, you think they won't risk the same to avoid raising an unwanted child for 18 years?

Definately the one place where Dr. Paul and I part company in a big way.

And it's worth noting that both those previous instances of prohibition were instituted in the name of "the children" as well.

Might want to check your premises here. The slippery slope implication of ushering in "a reign of terror..." is incredibly weak by the analogy you provided.

[PaulConventionWV]

I do not wish to engage in a discussion of the definition of "life", but want to clarify RP's position on this issue. My understanding is that RP has supported federal legislation that defines life as beginning at conception. The first question should be whether this is correct.

But, supposing he does support this legislation, what is the Constitutional argument to back such a position. I believe that this would require a Constitutional Amendment.

I would also support my position by stating that the 14th Amendment states that "All persons born...in the United States..." and then continues that these "persons" cannot be denied "life, liberty or property". I do not not find, in the Constitution, any language which expands the definition of "person" to the unborn embryo.

So, what is Ron Paul's explanation for his position that Congress has the power to pass such legislation?

Did you read my posts in the other thread? It doesn't HAVE to expand on that definition. You can define life as beginning at conception and still have the 14th amendment apply just as much as it did before.

That being said, life beginning at conception is the ONLY way to define it because any other way creates an arbitrary standard of what constitutes a human being. If you define life as beginning at conception, then there is no arbitration and all people are protected. If we do not define life as beginning at conception, then the Constitution cannot protect anyone because it nullifies the idea that life is important and creates a sliding scale of perceived importance in human beings. The arbitrary line of coming out of the womb is pretty unreliable. Why stop there? The baby can be killed as long as it is not "independent."

These are examples of what you might expect people to say if life doesn't receive a firm definition. You MUST have a definition of life in order to protect ANY life, so life beginning at conception is the only way to define it because it is the only one that guarantees ALL human beings protection no matter what. If you have an arbitrary definition on a sliding scale of time after the child is conceived, then the Constitution will inevitably have failed in protecting some human life because the arbitrary standard that is selected cannot always be enforced.

See, if you define life as beginning somewhere in the stages of birth after conception, then SOME abortions are legal according to men, but the only way to completely enforce it is to define life as beginning at conception. Therefore, the states can either declare it legal or not legal based on that definition. If you do not define it that way, there is wiggle room and the definition is unclear, so some human beings are going to get murdered despite the Constitution. At least with a clear definition like conception, you know whether it was legal or not, and the Constitution will not have been mocked.

[squarepusher]

maybe murder should be legal and we should leave it up to God to give punishment

For example: Physician assisted suicide

[PaulConventionWV]

It amazes me that people don't realize that amendment would usher in a reign of terror that would make Alcohol Prohibition and the War on Drugs look positively benign by comparison. If people will risk imprisonment for a drink of booze or a toke of grass, you think they won't risk the same to avoid raising an unwanted child for 18 years?

Definately the one place where Dr. Paul and I part company in a big way.

And it's worth noting that both those previous instances of prohibition were instituted in the name of "the children" as well.

You are misunderstanding the point of the amendment. It would be to define life, not to make a law regarding abortion. The states can do whatever they want, but the federal definition is kind of redundant, in a way, because it is the only way you can Constitutionally guarantee that all human beings are, indeed, protected citizens under the Constitution. I'm not even convinced that you need an amendment, but that kind of amendment has been made before, such as in race relations and women's voting. Even though it wasn't expressly illegal before the amendment, the right of women and minorities to vote and receive protection under the Constitution was enshrined via the 13th/14th amendments.

[kuckfeynes]

I was under the impression that the Sanctity of Life Act was to give states more authority to interpret the law, not subject them to more federal mandating.

He said something at a debate this year when asked about the morning after pill that really struck me... He said "I don't see how you would police it."

I think that is an important acknowledgement of the slippery slope of absolute personally invasive enforcement of a pro-life agenda.

[Number19]

Did you read my posts in the other thread? It doesn't HAVE to expand on that definition. You can define life as beginning at conception and still have the 14th amendment apply just as much as it did before.

That being said, life beginning at conception is the ONLY way to define it because any other way creates an arbitrary standard of what constitutes a human being. If you define life as beginning at conception, then there is no arbitration and all people are protected. If we do not define life as beginning at conception, then the Constitution cannot protect anyone because it nullifies the idea that life is important and creates a sliding scale of perceived importance in human beings. The arbitrary line of coming out of the womb is pretty unreliable. Why stop there? The baby can be killed as long as it is not "independent."

These are examples of what you might expect people to say if life doesn't receive a firm definition. You MUST have a definition of life in order to protect ANY life, so life beginning at conception is the only way to define it because it is the only one that guarantees ALL human beings protection no matter what. If you have an arbitrary definition on a sliding scale of time after the child is conceived, then the Constitution will inevitably have failed in protecting some human life because the arbitrary standard that is selected cannot always be enforced.

See, if you define life as beginning somewhere in the stages of birth after conception, then SOME abortions are legal according to men, but the only way to completely enforce it is to define life as beginning at conception. Therefore, the states can either declare it legal or not legal based on that definition. If you do not define it that way, there is wiggle room and the definition is unclear, so some human beings are going to get murdered despite the Constitution. At least with a clear definition like conception, you know whether it was legal or not, and the Constitution will not have been mocked.I just want to be clear on one point. You write "...Constitution cannot protect anyone because it nullifies the idea that life is important...You MUST have a definition of life in order to protect ANY life...". Exactly where in the Constitution is "life" protected?

[FreeTraveler]

Might want to check your premises here. The slippery slope implication of ushering in "a reign of terror..." is incredibly weak by the analogy you provided.
Srsly? You're not thinking it all the way through. Read this excerpt (http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle485-20080921-02.html) from Hope, a novel of a libertarian president, by one of the pre-eminent libertarian thinkers in the field, L. Neil Smith, and tell me if that's the kind of America you're working for.



Alex read the proposed bill before he commented. "Well, if nothing else, gentlemen, its brevity is commendable. It simply bans abortion anywhere within the United States, their territories, on US military bases overseas, or on American ships at sea. So where's the rest of it?"

Senator Peters looked confused. "The rest of it, Mr. President?

"That's right, Senator, the rest of it. When I was a schoolboy, before the Roe vs. Wade decision, something like 50,000 women a year were dying from botched abortions of one kind or another, either self-inflicted, or at the hands of some back-alley butcher. What that tells us is that, whatever the law may decree, women will still take huge risks to control their own destinies."

"Excuse me, Mr. President, I'm afraid I don't follow you."

Alex nodded. "Well for example, you don't want American women skulking off to Canada or Mexico to get their abortions, do you? So where's your provision for physical examinations at the borders to detect pregnancies leaving the country, or terminated pregnancies coming back in?"

The man reddened. "I... we never thought of that, Mr. President."

Alex nodded. "I wondered whether you gentlemen had thought this matter through completely. Here's another thing: if you seek to outlaw abortions, you're going to have to add an enforcement clause to this legislation, aren't you? And you may even have to create a whole new federal bureaucracy to do the enforcing. I certainly can't imagine any existing law enforcement agency that I'd care to see doing it, can you?"

Alex was morally certain that they had thought of those two points, hoping the president would overlook them. The looks on their faces tended to support his suspicions. Whoever had said the devil was in the details had been right. Heaven knew what details these three had in mind.

"And then," he added, "there'll have to be agency regulations that go along with the law and sustain it. To begin with, I suppose you gentlemen realize that you'll have to insist on mandatory monthly pregnancy testing for every female in the country, from puberty to menopause."

"M-mandatory—" Peters sputtered to a stop.

"I don't know what it'll cost, gentlemen, but it's going to be horrendously expensive—and extremely unpopular," Alex mused. "Maybe you'll want to require women to show up once a month down at the local offices of the... well let's call it the 'Pregnancy Enforcement Administration', shall we? Or maybe you can just issue them a home pregnancy test kit every month and they can use it and send in the results—although can you trust them to be that honest? You'll also have to accept the fact that you'll be creating a whole new underground market for false test results."

"Mr. President, I—"

Alex interrupted. "All pregancies, of course, will have to be registered immediately with the PEA, and every pregnant woman in the country will be required to undergo frequent psychological evaluation to determine whether she's become an abortion risk during the past couple of weeks. And of course she'll have to report for regular compulsory physical examinations to make sure she and the baby remain healthy. Here I thought you three gentlemen were against socialized medicine."

And that's only about a third of it. The tip of the iceberg. I've had enough of the DEA. I don't want a PEA. Do you? Srsly. Is that the kind of America you envision? It's not for me. Sorry.

[SisCyn]

I'm wondering how a Sanctity of Life amendment would affect fertility treatments where eggs are fertilized in vitro.

This has become so successful that many eggs that were fertilized and not implanted in the mother are left frozen in storage. If life begins at conception, might not the freezing of fertilized eggs be banned?

[Number19]

OK, just so not to leave a question dangling out there, unanswered, there are two places in the Constitution where "life" is protected - the 5th Amendment and then the 14th Amendment which applies the protection of the 5th Amendment to the states. Both of these say "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...".

[Davy Crockett]

Srsly? You're not thinking it all the way through.

If the life at conception wing were really serious, they would set up a fund to pay for all expenses to carry every unwanted fetus to birth, adopt the new born, and be responsible for all medical expenses themselves, and not leave it to the rest of us to pay for the costs.

Until they are willing to do this, their argument is nothing but idle talk by busy bodies who are more interested in meddling in other people's affairs according to their religious beliefs.

[PaulConventionWV]

I just want to be clear on one point. You write "...Constitution cannot protect anyone because it nullifies the idea that life is important...You MUST have a definition of life in order to protect ANY life...". Exactly where in the Constitution is "life" protected?

I mean, are you really going to argue that it doesn't? It protects human beings. That's basically what I'm saying. Human being life begins at conception. The two can't be separated. They have to go together. If the life is conceived, it is a human life, not just "life." That would be absurd.

Beside, it does nothing to my previous point, which is that you can't have an arbitrary definition of when a fetus becomes a human being with rights. If you do, then the Constitution is ineffective at protecting all American citizens. The only way to ensure that people are protected under the Constitution is to give the human being rights as soon as they are conceived. To say that conceiving a child brings no implication that it is human is just absurd to me and, frankly, downright barbaric.

[PaulConventionWV]

Srsly? You're not thinking it all the way through. Read this excerpt (http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle485-20080921-02.html) from Hope, a novel of a libertarian president, by one of the pre-eminent libertarian thinkers in the field, L. Neil Smith, and tell me if that's the kind of America you're working for.


And that's only about a third of it. The tip of the iceberg. I've had enough of the DEA. I don't want a PEA. Do you? Srsly. Is that the kind of America you envision? It's not for me. Sorry.

How many times do I have to say it? The amendment does not seek to create any law regarding abortion. It's just a definition, and states can do with it what they will.

[John F Kennedy III]

Science says that life begins at conception. That is the real debate on the abortion issue. No government legislation will change the hearts and minds of people who treat human life like garbage.

This.

[PaulConventionWV]

If the life at conception wing were really serious, they would set up a fund to pay for all expenses to carry every unwanted fetus to birth, adopt the new born, and be responsible for all medical expenses themselves, and not leave it to the rest of us to pay for the costs.

Until they are willing to do this, their argument is nothing but idle talk by busy bodies who are more interested in meddling in other people's affairs according to their religious beliefs.

You don't listen very well because I've made a pretty cogent Constitutional argument. I'm not peddling my religious beliefs. The idea that we can pay for everyone's fetus is absurd. The fact that we believe life begins at conception in no way implies that we need to intervene in other people's decisions. We persuade rather than force. Do you not understand what the principle of non-aggression is all about? Have you really not matured to the point where you can understand that someone can be philosophically opposed to something without meddling in other people's affairs?

[John F Kennedy III]

I think a solution would be a federal law stating that abortion is murder and make it mandatory that the doctor and mother be charged with pre-meditated murder.

Another solution would be to allow individual states to make such a law without interference from the US government.

I know this is slightly off topic, just my thoughts on it.

[John F Kennedy III]

If the life at conception wing were really serious, they would set up a fund to pay for all expenses to carry every unwanted fetus to birth, adopt the new born, and be responsible for all medical expenses themselves, and not leave it to the rest of us to pay for the costs.

Until they are willing to do this, their argument is nothing but idle talk by busy bodies who are more interested in meddling in other people's affairs according to their religious beliefs.

Yay for big government policies!

[eduardo89]

I think a solution would be a federal law stating that abortion is murder and make it mandatory that the doctor and mother be charged with pre-meditated murder.

Another solution would be to allow individual states to make such a law without interference from the US government.

I know this is slightly off topic, just my thoughts on it.

I think the US Constitution should be changed to explicitly state that life begins at conception, the right to life begins then and that no state may legalize the murder of the unborn. The states then should write their individual laws and enforce them how they see fit, as they currently do with murder laws.

[SisCyn]

According to Wikipedia:


The Rand Consulting Group has estimated there to be 400,000 frozen embryos in the United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation#Cryopreservation

Conception has taken place. Has life begun for them?

[John F Kennedy III]

I think the US Constitution should be changed to explicitly state that life begins at conception, the right to life begins then and that no state may legalize the murder of the unborn. The states then should write their individual laws and enforce them how they see fit, as they currently do with murder laws.

Perfect. Then whatever state I'm in at the time I can try to get them to make it a mandatory pre-meditated murder charge.

[John F Kennedy III]

According to Wikipedia:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation#Cryopreservation

Conception has taken place. Has life begun for them?

Yes.

[eduardo89]

Perfect. Then whatever state I'm in at the time I can try to get them to make it a mandatory pre-meditated murder charge.

Yup.

[Feeding the Abscess]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJeikpqfbg

@36:45 is the relevant part.

No one answer for all, no federal laws, no amendments to the Constitution. Not the prerogative of the fed gov to be involved.

I'm left with the conclusion that any and all statements he makes about life beginning at conception and that laws don't make or change morality are his beliefs and philosophic view; his legal view is that states should decide their own policy.

He gets a rap for being a bad politician, but going philosophic on the topic of abortion is a brilliant move in a Republican primary.

[Number19]

This is only repeating FreeTraveler, but how do you even tell if a woman is pregnant? Are you going to regulate and control home pregnancy tests? Are you going to regulate and control any herbal or medicinal substance which has abortive properties? Do you support ObamaCare? Do you support RomneyCare? Do you support ConservativeCare? Do you support Big Government? Are you going to make midwifery illegal? How far are you willing to go to force compliance with the abortion law?

[eduardo89]

This is only repeating FreeTraveler, but how do you even tell if a woman is pregnant? Are you going to regulate and control home pregnancy tests? Are you going to regulate and control any herbal or medicinal substance which has abortive properties? Do you support ObamaCare? Do you support RomneyCare? Do you support ConservativeCare? Do you support Big Government? Are you going to make midwifery illegal? How far are you willing to go to force compliance with the abortion law?

No. But it's well within the Government's authority to ban the manufacture, importation, sale, prescribing and use of pills whose sole purpose is to abort a child. Also, medical clinics are routinely inspected to make sure they comply with state standards, so during those checks a check to make sure it's not being used as an abortion clinic should be made. Furthermore, I think that any call with an accusation of an abortion made to the police should be treated and investigated just like any other murder case.

I don't believe in going through medical records or inspecting every pregnancy test without reasonable suspicion and a warrant.

[Feeding the Abscess]

No. But it's well within the Government's authority to ban the manufacture, importation, sale, prescribing and use of pills whose sole purpose is to abort a child. Also, medical clinics are routinely inspected to make sure they comply with state standards, so during those checks a check to make sure it's not being used as an abortion clinic should be made. Furthermore, I think that any call with an accusation of an abortion made to the police should be treated and investigated just like any other murder case.

I don't believe in going through medical records or inspecting every pregnancy test without reasonable suspicion and a warrant.

Guns are manufactured, imported, sold, and used for the sole purpose of killing people. Should we ban guns?

Also, if we are to pass an amendment outlawing abortion, why not murder? Theft? Other crimes?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJeikpqfbg

@36:45 is the relevant part.

No one answer for all, no federal laws, no amendments to the Constitution. Not the prerogative of the fed gov to be involved.

I'm left with the conclusion that any and all statements he makes about life beginning at conception and that laws don't make or change morality are his beliefs and philosophic view; his legal view is that states should decide their own policy.

He gets a rap for being a bad politician, but going philosophic on the topic of abortion is a brilliant move in a Republican primary.

Two more quotes to support my hypothesis:

We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need.

Q: You have said that you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. If you believe that, how can you support a rape exception to abortion bans, and how can you support the morning-after pill? Aren't those lives just as innocent?

PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant; if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know how you're going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.

[eduardo89]

Guns are manufactured, imported, sold, and used for the sole purpose of killing people. Should we ban guns?

Also, if we are to pass an amendment outlawing abortion, why not murder? Theft? Other crimes?

We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need.


The sole purpose of a gun is not murder, rather hunting and self defense. The sole purpose of an abortion pill is murder. Huge difference. A drug like mifepristone has no other use except murdering the unborn.

I don't think we need necessarily need an amendment outlawing abortion, but I do believe we need one clarifying when life starts and extending the constitutional protections to the unborn.

Also, I agree, there is no need for a federal abortion police. All violent crime, and that's what an abortion is, is best handled by the states as it currently is.

[SisCyn]

No. But it's well within the Government's authority to ban the manufacture, importation, sale, prescribing and use of pills whose sole purpose is to abort a child.

You do realize that the morning after pill is nothing but the same hormone that is in common birth control pills. In fact, birth control pills can be used as such, so now we are talking about banning contraceptives.

The IUD also does not prevent an egg and sperm from joining either, just makes the uterine lining unfavorable for implantation of the embryo.

[Davy Crockett]

You don't listen very well because I've made a pretty cogent Constitutional argument. I'm not peddling my religious beliefs. The idea that we can pay for everyone's fetus is absurd. The fact that we believe life begins at conception in no way implies that we need to intervene in other people's decisions. We persuade rather than force. Do you not understand what the principle of non-aggression is all about? Have you really not matured to the point where you can understand that someone can be philosophically opposed to something without meddling in other people's affairs?

The constitutional term of "person" is not the same as "life at conception". Your argument that you are not interfering in the personal decisions of others is rather spurious when you insist that a person begins at conception, because once that is "constitutionally" established, you will in effect ban any attempt to abort a fetus.

Did you know that in early America it was common practice to not give names to babies until they reached the age of two, when their parents were convinced that they were healthy enough to reach adulthood? You will find that interesting fact in The Patriot's History of the United States (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_if3dk3Os7yg/SZED6btPZ5I/AAAAAAAAEf0/gi8c_UWYScc/s320/Patriotshistory.jpg).

Did you also know that prior to World War II, America was the leading advocate of eugenics in the world, the science of building a healthy population, free of genetic diseases? Unfortunately, due to the NSDAP adopting the same policies, the science of eugenics was associated with the "evil Nazis" and was forbidden to carry on in America. As a result, the American population has become increasingly malformed and disease ridden. I am 46-years old and am perfectly healthy, but all around me, I see more and more evidence of the results of careless breeding over the last three generations. Now people like you insist on saving every fetus that modern science can keep breathing? People like you have gone mad.

Keep in mind that I am not advocating that we begin enforcing the practice eugenics again in America. I only insist that those who wish to ignore the practice of healthy procreation pay their own damn way and not depend on others to bail them out for their mistakes.

[Number19]

It's a question of Pandora's Box. Power will always be abused. I'd hate to see us win the battle to reestablish our freedom, only to plant the seeds that will be used to destroy freedom 50 years from now.

But it really is a mute issue because the issue is too divisive to pass. But what could happen is those who consider this a paramount issue could be enough to cause our revolution to fail. I can easily see this as an issue which will swing TX CD14 to the neo-cons. All my opponents are not only extremely socially conservative, but also extremely interventionists.

[SisCyn]

Did you know that in early America it was common practice to not give names to babies until they reached the age of two, when their parents were convinced that they were healthy enough to reach adulthood? You will find that interesting fact in The Patriot's History of the United States (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_if3dk3Os7yg/SZED6btPZ5I/AAAAAAAAEf0/gi8c_UWYScc/s320/Patriotshistory.jpg).


Seriously, Nature herself kills more babies than abortion ever has. Modern medicine has saved more than have been aborted.

I really have to wonder why men are so concerned about this, seeing how they will never have to experience an unwanted pregnancy. There are problems that are unique to every situation. We can't begin to guess a woman's reason to seek an abortion. Some are too horrible to contemplate.

Why don't you guys just make sure you always use your condoms, and then you won't have to worry about being responsible for any woman having to terminate a pregnancy.

[PaulConventionWV]

This is only repeating FreeTraveler, but how do you even tell if a woman is pregnant? Are you going to regulate and control home pregnancy tests? Are you going to regulate and control any herbal or medicinal substance which has abortive properties? Do you support ObamaCare? Do you support RomneyCare? Do you support ConservativeCare? Do you support Big Government? Are you going to make midwifery illegal? How far are you willing to go to force compliance with the abortion law?

Who are you talking to? As far as I know, nobody here has suggested an abortion law, unless you mean the states being able to do it, which it is their Constitutional ability to do so.

[PaulConventionWV]

Guns are manufactured, imported, sold, and used for the sole purpose of killing people. Should we ban guns?

Also, if we are to pass an amendment outlawing abortion, why not murder? Theft? Other crimes?



Two more quotes to support my hypothesis:

We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need.

Q: You have said that you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. If you believe that, how can you support a rape exception to abortion bans, and how can you support the morning-after pill? Aren't those lives just as innocent?

PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant; if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know how you're going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.

No, and guns are not made "for the sole purpose of killing people." I am sure you can think of a few other uses.

[PaulConventionWV]

The constitutional term of "person" is not the same as "life at conception". Your argument that you are not interfering in the personal decisions of others is rather spurious when you insist that a person begins at conception, because once that is "constitutionally" established, you will in effect ban any attempt to abort a fetus.

Did you know that in early America it was common practice to not give names to babies until they reached the age of two, when their parents were convinced that they were healthy enough to reach adulthood? You will find that interesting fact in The Patriot's History of the United States (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_if3dk3Os7yg/SZED6btPZ5I/AAAAAAAAEf0/gi8c_UWYScc/s320/Patriotshistory.jpg).

Did you also know that prior to World War II, America was the leading advocate of eugenics in the world, the science of building a healthy population, free of genetic diseases? Unfortunately, due to the NSDAP adopting the same policies, the science of eugenics was associated with the "evil Nazis" and was forbidden to carry on in America. As a result, the American population has become increasingly malformed and disease ridden. I am 46-years old and am perfectly healthy, but all around me, I see more and more evidence of the results of careless breeding over the last three generations. Now people like you insist on saving every fetus that modern science can keep breathing? People like you have gone mad.

Keep in mind that I am not advocating that we begin enforcing the practice eugenics again in America. I only insist that those who wish to ignore the practice of healthy procreation pay their own damn way and not depend on others to bail them out for their mistakes.

A lot of cultures throughout history have embraced barbaric practices that include murder and sacrifice. It doesn't make a damn difference as to what our policy should be. Defining life wouldn't ban any attempt to abort a fetus. If a state wants to legalize murder, they should consult their state constitution and amend it if they want to do so.

I don't care what early Americans did because it doesn't change the morality of murder. That was a very poor argument.

The difference between me and you is that you embrace the legalization of systematic murder in order to create some dream world in which everyone is beautiful and perfect. Don't tell me about going mad.

I'm curious as to how you would use eugenics. Would you use government force to make people with "bad" babies abort them, or would you simply create an organization that reaches out to people to murder their child in the interest of your idealization of the perfect world?

[gauss]

So a fetus is alive. Does that mean it OWNS its body? To me the issue of abortion is of property rights. I keep coming back to the intuition that although it is alive, it is wholly and utterly dependent on the mother. It is made up of cells borrowed from the mother. On the other hand, the fetus is not merely simple property. There seems to exist, quite naturally and without any of our intervention, a natural give & take relationship between mother and child. It exists throughout nature in some form or another. However, the wolf bitch may choose to abandon a weak pup, or two... in hard circumstances. There are a lot of not so easy decisions to be made.

It is a very messy issue. I think it is wise to deal with these kinds of issues at the state level. Same with drugs and prostitution.

[PaulConventionWV]

So a fetus is alive. Does that mean it OWNS its body? To me the issue of abortion is of property rights. I keep coming back to the intuition that although it is alive, it is wholly and utterly dependent on the mother. It is made up of cells borrowed from the mother. On the other hand, the fetus is not merely simple property. There seems to exist, quite naturally and without any of our intervention, a natural give & take relationship between mother and child. It exists throughout nature in some form or another. However, the wolf bitch may choose to abandon a weak pup, or two... in hard circumstances. There are a lot of not so easy decisions to be made.

It is a very messy issue. I think it is wise to deal with these kinds of issues at the state level. Same with drugs and prostitution.

Yes, everyone has a right to their body. Every individual is unique in that manner. If you don't think a fetus owns its body, then when does it? Anything after conception is just an arbitrary line at which you think it is fully human or deserving of its own body.

What's more, the cells aren't "borrowed." The fetus has no obligation to return them. There is really not action on the part of the fetus, anyway. It is simply taking the extra food that the mother takes in so that her internal processes can slowly build the form of a human baby over 9 months.

Also, I agree it should be dealt with at the state level, but I have no quarrel with a federal definition of life in order to create a common standard. After all, you have to have a common standard of what life is in order for the Constitution to effectively protect it.

[gauss]

I have no problem with a federal definition of life. But I don't take it as granted that all life is 100% sovereign. Nature/God has elected the human fetus's guardian to be it's mother. Occasionally the situation reverses, and a child is left to decide when to "pull the plug". I think guardians have a certain obligation not to be jerks, but to also make tough decisions on behalf of the life(s) they are guarding.

I think it is plausible that a fetus owns its body but not absolutely. I think the guardian relationship gives the parent authority over the child and responsibility for the child. I think this relationship changes as the child gets older. Eventually the child is grown and she has all of the responsibility and all of the authority for her own self. I don't take it as granted, but it seems plausible that a mother might have the responsibility and authority over the life of a fetus at an early stage.

[eduardo89]

You do realize that the morning after pill is nothing but the same hormone that is in common birth control pills. In fact, birth control pills can be used as such, so now we are talking about banning contraceptives.

The IUD also does not prevent an egg and sperm from joining either, just makes the uterine lining unfavorable for implantation of the embryo.

I was talking about mifepristone. The only use for that drug is murdering a living human being.