PDA

View Full Version : Life: Ron's stance on abortion - Im confused?




Butchie
01-14-2012, 06:57 PM
Not that I consider abortion to be a make or break issue, however, Ron - not me, not you - says he believes life begins at conception, so based on that stance - again, not YOUR personal stance - how can he say that is a state issue? If a baby, at any stage is a life, why doesn't he defend it. To me it is the same as saying: "Well, if a state considers 6ft tall men to be candidates for abortion (I'm 6ft BTW), than that is a state issue".

I agree, as much as possible, authority should be given to the states, but when we are pressed on just what IS the role of the Fed Govt I should think protecting innocent life is one of the few areas where the Fed should intervene, now you can dispute me or Ron on where life begins, but if you believe life begins in the womb shouldn't you defend it?

P.S. Please don't bring up the Death Penalty because 1. Ron is against it. 2. That is more an issue of an "eye for eye" as opposed to taking an innocent life.

lucent
01-14-2012, 06:59 PM
Wrong forum, for one. Second, read Ron Paul's statement (http://www.personhoodusa.com/files/Keith%20Ashley/Ron%20Paul%20Personhood%20Statement_0.pdf).

ConsideringRonPaul
01-14-2012, 07:00 PM
shouldn't this be in the "Ron on the issues" forum.

lucent
01-14-2012, 07:01 PM
shouldn't this be in the "Ron on the issues" forum.

Yep. This forum is for news and grassroots organization.

tremendoustie
01-14-2012, 07:03 PM
Not that I consider abortion to be a make or break issue, however, Ron - not me, not you - says he believes life begins at conception, so based on that stance - again, not YOUR personal stance - how can he say that is a state issue? If a baby, at any stage is a life, why doesn't he defend it. To me it is the same as saying: "Well, if a state considers 6ft tall men to be candidates for abortion (I'm 6ft BTW), than that is a state issue".

I agree, as much as possible, authority should be given to the states, but when we are pressed on just what IS the role of the Fed Govt I should think protecting innocent life is one of the few areas where the Fed should intervene, now you can dispute me or Ron on where life begins, but if you believe life begins in the womb shouldn't you defend it?

P.S. Please don't bring up the Death Penalty because 1. Ron is against it. 2. That is more an issue of an "eye for eye" as opposed to taking an innocent life.

Murder and rape are currently also handled at the state level -- just about all violent crime is.

lucent
01-14-2012, 07:05 PM
Also, Ron Paul has stated in his book Liberty Defined, that if any state legalized murder, they could be charged with not holding to a republican form of government.

MelissaWV
01-14-2012, 07:08 PM
Ron is basing his definition of the beginning of life on many things. He does not, however, think that it should be imposed on everyone else.

Where do you draw the line?

Conception? Then various forms of birth control will be outlawed, including the morning after pill. You would more or less end in vitro fertilization. You would have women liable for spontaneous miscarriages resulting from personal (mis)behavior when they might not even have known they were pregnant. You would have later miscarriages investigated. How would you like the police questioning the women in your life if they had just miscarried? Poking and prodding... maybe collecting the "evidence" to be investigated in a lab? Treated like a criminal during a very heartbreaking experience, just to make sure she didn't induce it, of course.

Implantation? A lot of the above would still apply.

Heartbeat? Well when is that? It's different for each fetus, and how is the mother supposed to know the exact hour after which it is going to be murder? How will a judge/jury determine all of that after the fact? "I induced a miscarriage, but I swear its heart wasn't fully formed yet."

Brain function? The above still applies.

Now we're getting later and later into the pregnancy. A child may have distinguishing characteristics at this point, even looking like one parent or another. In fact, some premature births may survive at this point. What to do? Some parents will fight for that collection of underdeveloped cells, going through hell and high water to keep it alive in an incubator, etc.. Another set of parents will fight for the right to collapse that collection of underdeveloped cells' skull and suction it out.

Finally, is the line viability? Is a fetus only a baby when you could cut the cord and the baby would survive? What happens to that couple, then, who want to keep their premature baby alive? Will the insurance company pay for it, considering that to the State the baby is not actually a baby?

There is a lot to consider there. I think most people draw their line pretty clearly, but when you get into the minutae of how it will be investigated, enforced, and punished, people are less clear.

Butchie
01-14-2012, 07:10 PM
Wrong forum, for one. Second, read Ron Paul's statement (http://www.personhoodusa.com/files/Keith%20Ashley/Ron%20Paul%20Personhood%20Statement_0.pdf).

I get that, but say a state votes in favor of abortion, shouldn't this be on area where the fed steps in? Also, how can I move this to the appropriate forum, sorry for posting it in the wrong place, but I see this issue come up alot, thought it would be fit for the main forum, but my apologies.

lucent
01-14-2012, 07:15 PM
Conception? Then various forms of birth control will be outlawed, including the morning after pill. You would more or less end in vitro fertilization. You would have women liable for spontaneous miscarriages resulting from personal (mis)behavior when they might not even have known they were pregnant. You would have later miscarriages investigated. How would you like the police questioning the women in your life if they had just miscarried? Poking and prodding... maybe collecting the "evidence" to be investigated in a lab? Treated like a criminal during a very heartbreaking experience, just to make sure she didn't induce it, of course.

Incorrect. The morning after pill prevents fertilization.

lucent
01-14-2012, 07:16 PM
I get that, but say a state votes in favor of abortion, shouldn't this be on area where the fed steps in? Also, how can I move this to the appropriate forum, sorry for posting it in the wrong place, but I see this issue come up alot, thought it would be fit for the main forum, but my apologies.

I just answered this. In his book Liberty Defined, he says that Congress could charge them for not maintaining a republican form of government.

LibertyEagle
01-14-2012, 07:17 PM
Read the campaign's response at the bottom of this page. It should clear things up for you.
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

MelissaWV
01-14-2012, 07:19 PM
Incorrect. The morning after pill prevents fertilization.

Inaccurate.


The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three modes of action (as does the regular birth control pill); that is, it can work in one of three ways:

1.The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
2.Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary;
3.It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.

It is not the way it happens every time, however the Morning After Pill works in such a way that conception may have already happened, and the fertilized egg does not implant. This is the same problem with all chemical birth control methods. There is a chance that they will flush out a fertilized egg.

lucent
01-14-2012, 07:51 PM
The United States FDA states that progestin-only ECPs like Plan B work by preventing ovulation. It also says "it is possible" that progestin-only ECPs may interfere with the blastocyst implanting in the uterine lining, and that they have no effect on pregnancies if taken after implantation.[114][115]

A number of studies in the 1970s and 80s concluded that emergency contraception could cause changes in the endometrium[116] that would prevent implantation of an early-stage embryo in the uterus. This research led many pro-life advocates, who believe that pregnancy begins at fertilization, to oppose ECPs as an abortifacient.

In recent years—especially in light of U.S. ethical controversy over the research's claims—the scientific community has begun to critically reevaluate the early studies. Recent studies in rats and monkeys have shown that post-ovulatory use of progestin-only and combined ECPs have no effect on pregnancy rates.[117][118] Studies in humans have shown that the rate of ovulation suppression is approximately equal to the effectiveness of emergency contraceptive pills,[119][120] suggesting that might be the only mechanism by which they prevent pregnancy.

However, these studies have also shown that, in women who ovulate despite taking ECP before ovulation, there are changes in certain hormones such as progesterone and in the length of luteal phase.[119] These secondary changes might inhibit implantation in cases where fertilization occurs despite ECP use. Because of the difficulty of studying zygotes inside the uterus and fallopian tubes prior to implantation, both sides of this debate concede that completely proving or disproving the theory may be impossible.[117][121]

When used as a regular method of contraception, IUDs have been proven to act primarily through spermicidal and ovicidal mechanisms, but it is considered possible that these same mechanisms are also harmful to zygotes that have not yet implanted.[122]

Hormonal progestin-only and combined estrogen-progestin emergency contraceptives such as Yuzpe regimen or Plan B differ from the anti-hormonal drug mifepristone (also known as Mifeprex and RU-486). Yuzpe and progestin-only emergency contraception will have no effect if taken after implantation, whereas mifepristone can induce abortion if taken after implantation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Mechanism_of_action

I will point out that it is known that if it fails to prevent pregnancy, it can cause birth defects.

MelissaWV
01-14-2012, 07:59 PM
Yes, and from your own post:


These secondary changes might inhibit implantation in cases where fertilization occurs despite ECP use. Because of the difficulty of studying zygotes inside the uterus and fallopian tubes prior to implantation, both sides of this debate concede that completely proving or disproving the theory may be impossible.[117][121]

When used as a regular method of contraception, IUDs have been proven to act primarily through spermicidal and ovicidal mechanisms, but it is considered possible that these same mechanisms are also harmful to zygotes that have not yet implanted.[122]

My original point still stands, despite this detour.

lucent
01-14-2012, 09:27 PM
Yes, and from your own post:



My original point still stands, despite this detour.

An IUD is an intrauterine device, not the morning after pill.

lasenorita
01-14-2012, 10:07 PM
There's a whole section devoted to Dr. Paul's stance on abortion in his latest book.

Check out the book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (http://books.google.com/books?id=KGsAPgSJpIwC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT9#v=onepage&q&f=false).

Butchie
01-15-2012, 08:32 AM
There's a whole section devoted to Dr. Paul's stance on abortion in his latest book.

Check out the book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (http://books.google.com/books?id=KGsAPgSJpIwC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT9#v=onepage&q&f=false).

I have it right here next to me, already read it, still seems like a contradiction to me.

LibertyEagle
01-15-2012, 08:52 AM
I have it right here next to me, already read it, still seems like a contradiction to me.

Did you read this yet?
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

SisCyn
01-15-2012, 12:22 PM
Cutting to the chase, as I see it, a Life Begins at Conception amendment would eventually lead to making abortion and most forms of synthetic birth control illegal.

If you think about it, the development of birth control (more so than the legalization of abortion) is what allowed women to enter the workforce in mass, changing not only our economy, but the way we define family, too.

Fifty years ago, when I was growing up, I remember hearing my mother, who had just had her 5th child, tell someone that her doctor, a Catholic, refused to give her a tubal ligation or place her on the then innovative birth control pill. She had her 6th child 15 months later.

But that was not unusual. It was a rarity for families then to have only 1 or 2 children. My friends all came from families of 5, 6, 7, 8 children. My first employer was a lady who had had 14 pregnancies, 10 of whom were surviving children.

Yes, yes there was that heartbreak of miscarriage from having pregnancies too close together, or losing infant children or even older ones. It was hard to keep track of what everyone was up to with that many kids, let alone feed and clothe them all.

Dad went to work and with that many children, it was impractical to hire a sitter so that Mother could join the workforce. And if Mom was never to join the workforce, she didn't need a higher education or even complete her high school education.

I oftentimes do look back on those days with nostalgia. Big families, such as the one I came from, are awesome.

It was nice that mom was our primary caretaker, even though that through the years she became less and less effective.

I was the oldest and got lots of attention. The last ones more or less raised themselves.

Is this the ultimate goal of this amendment - a return to the world of the 1950s?

erowe1
01-15-2012, 12:23 PM
Murder is a state issue.

Protecting innocent life against murder is not a legitimate role of the federal government.

coot
01-21-2012, 08:04 PM
Ron answered this clearly in the South Carolina debate. Here's the Youtube video segment you're looking for: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cypg0Qvh__8
In this clip, Santorum LIES about Ron's 50% rating from Natl Right to Life. If you look up on NRTL website, Ron has 100% rating.