Ultrasound before Abortion in Texas, Ron supports

[presence]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=27e_1326652916

Rachel Maddow calls him a hypocrite Nazi.

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

From the baby's perspective... I would want my mother and doctor to have to see my heart beat before they killed me. I should be allowed a last ultrasound to prove my existence.

Life, Liberty, pursuit of an Ultrasound

Rachel is trying to turn this into Libertarian hypocrisy however.

thoughts?

presence

[Lavitz]

I saw this when it aired and still can't find the full interview for context. His statement is pretty vague, saying "it should always have been a Texas state position" and then following it by saying "just like the Supreme Court should never have heard Roe v. Wade" makes it seem like he may have just been stating that it's a states rights issue, the authority to pass such a law should lie with Texas and not the federal government, and he wasn't taking a position one way or the other.

On the other hand, I'm sure Ron thinks this is a good idea, although I'm not sure if he supports a law requiring it. Though given that he supports states passing laws against abortion altogether, I wouldn't be that surprised at all, but the fact remains that Maddow really didn't support her case that Ron is suddenly a "big government interventionist" with anything other than one line, no context, and only in one area.

[Sola_Fide]

Why would people be sensitive about seeing their baby before they have him murdered?

It's just a mass of tissue, right?

[MelissaWV]

It's not hypocrisy. Ron's position has always been that he is personally Pro-Life, and that it is up to the states to decide the line after which it's no longer a bunch of cells and is suddenly a person worthy of protection and legal status.

[kylejack]

Dammit, Ron.

[kylejack]

Why would people be sensitive about seeing their baby before they have him murdered?

It's just a mass of tissue, right?
Because they don't want an ultrasound device shoved inside them. The new state law requires a transvaginal ultrasound, not the over-the-belly kind.

[eduardo89]

Why would people be sensitive about seeing their baby before they have him murdered?

It's just a mass of tissue, right?

Exactly. If its nothing more than a unwanted parasite, why not get to look at it before you cleanse your body of the unwanted tumor.

[Lavitz]

Also, Ron wrote an whole booklet explaining how his position on abortion is perfectly consistent with the philosophy of liberty, back in 1983. Maybe Maddow should give it a read: http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf

[eduardo89]

Also, Ron wrote an whole booklet explaining how his position on abortion is perfectly consistent with the philosophy of liberty, back in 1983. Maybe Maddow should give it a read: http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf

I think that book is absolutely amazing. It's one of the best defenses for the pro-life position in relation to the philosophy of liberty. Not that bring pro-life even needs any justification, since there is no moral or ethical justifications for murdering an innocent human being.

[Lavitz]

Because they don't want an ultrasound device shoved inside them. The new state law requires a transvaginal ultrasound, not the over-the-belly kind.

Well obviously if you do believe that it is just a mass of tissue, then yes it will appear to be a violation of personal liberty. But if you know that Ron strongly believes that it is a human life then I don't see how people can claim that he's a hypocrite or a general big-government supporter because he believes in government exercising one of its few legitimate functions: defending human life.

[kylejack]

As always, it comes back to whether or not a fetus is a human being, and at what stage of development.

[eduardo89]

Because they don't want an ultrasound device shoved inside them. The new state law requires a transvaginal ultrasound, not the over-the-belly kind.

I'm sure the unborn child doesn't want to be killed either. And over the belly ultrasounds don't show anything before 12 weeks or so.

[Sola_Fide]

Because they don't want an ultrasound device shoved inside them. The new state law requires a transvaginal ultrasound, not the over-the-belly kind.

Well, they are going to have scissors shoved inside them to cut their babies head off...what is so bad about have an ultrasound device first?

[eduardo89]

Well, they are going to have scissors shoved inside them to cut their babies head off...what is so bad about have an ultrasound device first?

Because its their body, right to choose, forcing women, back alley abortions, coat hangers, sexism, blah blah blah. (All bullshit arguments)

[RockEnds]

I'm sure the unborn child doesn't want to be killed either. And over the belly ultrasounds don't show anything before 12 weeks or so.

That is absolutely not true. I had an ultrasound at 10 weeks, and there was no problem whatsoever finding the embryo. I came home with a picture.

[kylejack]

Well, they are going to have scissors shoved inside them to cut their babies head off...what is so bad about have an ultrasound device first?
Because it is performing a medically unnecessary procedure as a pre-condition to another procedure, like giving a man an anal probe before his appendectomy.

[eduardo89]

That is absolutely not true. I had an ultrasound at 10 weeks, and there was no problem whatsoever finding the embryo. I came home with a picture.

You're right, it's until around 8-10 weeks where they don't really show anything except for a dot on the screen, that's why they do transvaginal ultrasounds at the early stages, although the heartbeat can already be easily heard by week 6 in virtually every case. It also depends on the individual, on my ex we had a hard time getting a good look until week 14.

[eduardo89]

Because it is performing a medically unnecessary procedure as a pre-condition to another procedure, like giving a man an anal probe before his appendectomy.

Abortion is a medically unnecessary procedure. What illness does it alleviate or cure?

[Sola_Fide]

Because it is performing a medically unnecessary procedure as a pre-condition to another procedure, like giving a man an anal probe before his appendectomy.

What is wrong with a "medically unnecessary procedure"? The abortion is a medically unnecessary procedure.

[bcreps85]

Put this in perspective guys.

1. He's not advocating the FEDERAL government passing this law, but rather the state of Texas. His position has always been about states rights. As a result of states making their own decisions, I find it plausible that liberal states will have abortion legalized and conservative states won't.

2. Although many of us probably believe that life begins at conception and therefore abortion should be illegal, this isn't even stopping the woman from getting an abortion. It is simply making her go through an uncomfortable medical procedure before she decides to continue with premeditated murder. I'd say she's getting off easy, and the baby is ultimately getting the short end of the straw.

Nothing is black and white. On the surface it may seem wrong to make the woman do a "medically unnecessary" procedure, but where is the consideration for the baby in this picture? Where is the exercise of personal responsibility? This is a woman who was "adult" enough to have sex, despite any connected risks, and she should be willing to accept responsibility for her actions.

I'm not even religious and this is my stance, so I don't really see what the fuss is about. My opinion is that liberals simply want to skirt their personal responsibilities because they have never grown up...

[kylejack]

Abortion is a medically unnecessary procedure. What illness does it alleviate or cure?
I made no comment on its necessity.

[kylejack]

What is wrong with a "medically unnecessary procedure"? The abortion is a medically unnecessary procedure.
Having something shoved inside is uncomfortable, and it shouldn't be required by the government.

[jersdream]

You cannot force a doctor to show pictures of an aborted fetus. It is a violation of the doctor's first amendment rights.

[kylejack]

Put this in perspective guys.

1. He's not advocating the FEDERAL government passing this law, but rather the state of Texas. His position has always been about states rights. As a result of states making their own decisions, I find it plausible that liberal states will have abortion legalized and conservative states won't.

2. Although many of us probably believe that life begins at conception and therefore abortion should be illegal, this isn't even stopping the woman from getting an abortion. It is simply making her go through an uncomfortable medical procedure before she decides to continue with premeditated murder. I'd say she's getting off easy, and the baby is ultimately getting the short end of the straw.

Nothing is black and white. On the surface it may seem wrong to make the woman do a "medically unnecessary" procedure, but where is the consideration for the baby in this picture? Where is the exercise of personal responsibility? This is a woman who was "adult" enough to have sex, despite any connected risks, and she should be willing to accept responsibility for her actions.

I'm not even religious and this is my stance, so I don't really see what the fuss is about. My opinion is that liberals simply want to skirt their personal responsibilities because they have never grown up...
Not everyone believes that a human being exists at conception.

[Sola_Fide]

I made no comment on its necessity.

Of course you didn't. Because if abortion is not necessary, and it is performed, then arguing against another unnecessary procedure would undercut your entire argument that medically unnecessary procedures need not be performed.

[eduardo89]

Not everyone believes that a human being exists at conception.

And those people are wrong.

[Invi]

So then, because of her poor decision making, and her own lack of taking responsibility, it is okay to force a woman to take a probe up her vagina ahead of the one she will deal with right before her abortion?

That is the impression I am getting from some of you.
I understand you are pro-life, but I had at least assumed you would not be for forcing someone to undergo what is basically medical rape. Seeing the heartbeat, while it would likely be uncomfortable, is not the big deal here.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Not everyone believes that a human being exists at conception.Not everyone believed blacks were humans.

I personally don't care about a consensus on human rights.

[MelissaWV]

Hi. Thread. Topic. Get back on it?

The question was not whether or not you think life begins at conception. It was whether or not Ron was being a hypocrite.

[eduardo89]

Of course you didn't. Because if abortion is not necessary, and it is performed, then arguing against another unnecessary procedure would undercut your entire argument that medically unnecessary procedures need not be performed.

Abortion can't even be considered a medical procedure. Medicine is the science of healing. Pregnancy is not a disease, murder is not healing.

[kylejack]

Of course you didn't. Because if abortion is not necessary, and it is performed, then arguing against another unnecessary procedure would undercut your entire argument that medically unnecessary procedures need not be performed.
Not really, because one is a consensual procedure that a person is requesting while the other is one they are being coerced into doing by the government.

[Sola_Fide]

Having something shoved inside is uncomfortable, and it shouldn't be required by the government.

Would you be kind enough to extend this right to not "have things shoved inside you" to the baby who is about to have his head cut off by scissors?

No, you won't. Because you do not have a consistent worldview of liberty.

[kylejack]

Anyway, not too much point in continuing this discussion with people who believe that life begins at conception. No meaningful discussion can be had between people who operate from fundamentally different premises.

[eduardo89]

Hi. Thread. Topic. Get back on it?

The question was not whether or not you think life begins at conception. It was whether or not Ron was being a hypocrite.

No Ron is not a hypocrite. He believes in states rights, and if a state wants to legalize the murder of the unborn, but put a million hoops for the soon-to-be murderer woman to have to jump through, including looking at and listening to her future victim's heart beat then so be it. Abortion is not a right, so why should it be treated as one?

[Sola_Fide]

Not really, because one is a consensual procedure that a person is requesting while the other is one they are being coerced into doing by the government.

Excuse me.

What baby do you know of who has consented to their own decapitation?

[eduardo89]

Not really, because one is a consensual procedure that a person is requesting while the other is one they are being coerced into doing by the government.

When did the child consent to being killed?

[Echoes]

Not everyone believed blacks were humans.

I personally don't care about a consensus on human rights.

This and this.

[eduardo89]

Anyway, not too much point in continuing this discussion with people who believe that life begins at conception. No meaningful discussion can be had between people who operate from fundamentally different premises.

And not much point discussing with someone so arrogant that believes they have a right to murder another human being simply because that person has not been born yet and is therefore not a human.

[kylejack]

Eduardo and Aqua Buddha, it isn't a child or a baby, it's a fetus which does not yet have the sentience of a newborn child. Which gets back to my previous post,


Anyway, not too much point in continuing this discussion with people who believe that life begins at conception. No meaningful discussion can be had between people who operate from fundamentally different premises.

[eduardo89]

Eduardo and Aqua Buddha, it isn't a child or a baby, it's a fetus which does not yet have the sentience of a newborn child. Which gets back to my previous post,

Call it whatever you want, child, baby, fetus. Doesn't change the fact that it is a human being.

[Golding]

Because it is performing a medically unnecessary procedure as a pre-condition to another procedure, like giving a man an anal probe before his appendectomy.Evaluation pre-invasive procedure is medically necessary. Women who are of childbearing age undergo gynecological exams for routine evaluation of appendicitis symptoms. I'm not saying it should be government enforced, but I agree that it would feasibly be malpractice not to do the ultrasound.

[kylejack]

The medical community consensus is that an invasive ultrasound is not needed.

[eduardo89]

The medical community consensus is that an invasive ultrasound is not needed.

Source?

[mosquitobite]

So then, because of her poor decision making, and her own lack of taking responsibility, it is okay to force a woman to take a probe up her vagina ahead of the one she will deal with right before her abortion?

That is the impression I am getting from some of you.
I understand you are pro-life, but I had at least assumed you would not be for forcing someone to undergo what is basically medical rape. Seeing the heartbeat, while it would likely be uncomfortable, is not the big deal here.

Do you realize that in an abortion they will be sticking things up inside the woman too? First they have to dilate her cervix with a drug. (Most likely Cytotec which is an anti-ulcer drug used OFF LABEL and is dangerous) Then they will put her under and insert a vacuum to suck out the "tissues". After, she will be sent home with pain pills for intense cramps.

Most likely, it will forever affect her infertility.

As for whether this ultrasound will make a difference? I don't think so - it looks like a piece of rice, then a bean, and it takes a couple weeks before it starts to look "human" so I'm not sure I agree with the transvaginal ultrasound.

(I would think the doctors do this anyways, but most likely after the woman is asleep)

[mosquitobite]

Evaluation pre-invasive procedure is medically necessary. Women who are of childbearing age undergo gynecological exams for routine evaluation of appendicitis symptoms. I'm not saying it should be government enforced, but I agree that it would feasibly be malpractice not to do the ultrasound.

Not to mention, we have pap smears every year or SHOULD. LOL!

As someone who had plenty of transvaginal ultrasounds with my pregnancies and pap smears regularly - I'll take the vaginal ultrasound any day of the week!

[Invi]

Evaluation pre-invasive procedure is medically necessary. Women who are of childbearing age undergo gynecological exams for routine evaluation of appendicitis symptoms. I'm not saying it should be government enforced, but I agree that it would feasibly be malpractice not to do the ultrasound.

From what I understand, there is already an ultrasound done prior to the procedure.
This mandates a separate ultrasound before that, and a 24 hour waiting period in between that ultrasound and the procedure.
I could be wrong, as I am having trouble finding the text of the law, but this is what I have been seeing in various articles.

[Paulitics 2011]

We're trying to win a GOP Primary? Thank you to Maddow for bashing us!

[Invi]

Do you realize that in an abortion they will be sticking things up inside the woman too? First they have to dilate her cervix with a drug. (Most likely Cytotec which is an anti-ulcer drug used OFF LABEL and is dangerous) Then they will put her under and insert a vacuum to suck out the "tissues". After, she will be sent home with pain pills for intense cramps.

Most likely, it will forever affect her infertility.

As for whether this ultrasound will make a difference? I don't think so - it looks like a piece of rice, then a bean, and it takes a couple weeks before it starts to look "human" so I'm not sure I agree with the transvaginal ultrasound.

(I would think the doctors do this anyways, but most likely after the woman is asleep)

Yes, I do understand. The issue I am pointing out is consent. One thing she is consenting to, another she is not.
And yes, before it is brought up again, I am fully aware the baby cannot consent to anything itself.

[Bonnieblue]

There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about Dr. Paul's position on the issue. Life begins at conception: a sperm fertilizes an egg and a new living being, in embryo, genetically other that either the mother of the egg and the father of the sperm, comes into being. This most innocent of all life deserves the same protection as the life of any other human. If one wishes to live by a non-existent right conjured up ex nihilo as an "emanation from the penumbra of the Bill of Rights" as the Court antecedent to Roe V. Wade asserted, then one must also live my state intervention on behalf of the unborn, actually not at all an equivalent intervention since the mother must undergo the merely inconvenience of a sonogram while the unborn must undergo the deadly inconvenience of being killed. It is simple. The State of Texas cannot, as long as Roe V. Wade prevails, stop a mother from murdering the fruit of her womb; it can, however, if that is what she chooses to do, require her to undergo a procedure that most pregnant women today undergo who are trying to carry to term, to understand that the creature within her womb is not a mere mass of flesh, not an alien parasite in her belly as some assert. Once she has had the sonogram, she can still have it killed as was her intent. That is protected by "law" and aided and abetted by the abortion industry while makes billions of dollars in and on the process.

[RickyJ]

It's not hypocrisy. Ron's position has always been that he is personally Pro-Life, and that it is up to the states to decide the line after which it's no longer a bunch of cells and is suddenly a person worthy of protection and legal status.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that we have that are unalienable, so no state should have the say over ending these rights. This is and should be a federal issue since it involves unalienable rights of man. Abortion is murder, no state should be able to say that it isn't.

[eduardo89]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that we have that are unalienable, so not state should have the say over ending these rights. This is and should be a federal issue since it involves unalienable rights of man. Abortion is murder, no state should be able to say that it isn't.

I agree. And Ron agrees. That's why he's pushed for a federal definition of life as begining at conception. That would disallow the states from legalizing the murder of the unborn. Enforcing it, however, should remain a state issue just like current murder laws are.

[Echoes]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that we have that are unalienable, so not state should have the say over ending these rights. This is and should be a federal issue since it involves unalienable rights of man. Abortion is murder, no state should be able to say that it isn't.

Bravo, bravo.

[MelissaWV]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that we have that are unalienable, so not state should have the say over ending these rights. This is and should be a federal issue since it involves unalienable rights of man. Abortion is murder, no state should be able to say that it isn't.

Okay, so at what point is it life, and who are you to say that definitively for everyone else? You do realize distinctions of this sort are already decided at a state level, where definitions vary as to what constitutes murder versus manslaughter, for instance, or whether or not the killing of a pregnant woman will result in one or two charges?

I'm pretty sure that every single state is going to have a line somewhere. There is a point at which killing is killing, and legal protection is granted. That point simply varies. I do not think making it "conception" and outlawing most birth control will not be of help, let alone investigating every miscarriage and assuming every woman instantly knows when she is pregnant, hence responsible for any harm to the fetus by her actions. This is much more complicated than simply saying "it's murder" without any specifics. Questions of this sort are better decided on a local level.

And there are ways around every law. You could mandate that no abortion clinic be built within a mile of a school, church, or place where children gather (for fear of violence against the clinic, maybe) in your county, for instance. You could make that range larger and larger until there are no clinics in your area. You could effectively ban abortion in your area. Of course, then when your neighbor miscarries, you will have whispers that she might have helped it along, taken a drug, and police will be probing around to "investigate" while the corpse is taken away for examination.

It's lovely to be pro-Life, but people don't like to think past "it's murder," do they?

[klamath]

Right on RP! Sticking by your principals like you always do. Glad you are disappointing the prokillers that had talked themselves into thinking you were a prokeller..

[tod evans]

But.....but......what about the father?
When, if ever does he get a say-so?

Oh-yeah this is only a womans issue:(

[onlyrp]

Why would people be sensitive about seeing their baby before they have him murdered?

It's just a mass of tissue, right?

I think it's a great idea, if seeing a picture of a baby changes your mind, you ought to see it. Hopefully it doesn't. Because it's not quite fair to hire somebody to do something you're not willing to do.

[Invi]

But.....but......what about the father?
When, if ever does he get a say-so?

Oh-yeah this is only a womans issue:(

He doesn't, apparently. Doesn't seem right, but there doesn't seem to be a way to make it right, either.


I think it's a great idea, if seeing a picture of a baby changes your mind, you ought to see it. Hopefully it doesn't. Because it's not quite fair to hire somebody to do something you're not willing to do.

You can opt to not see the images, and instead only get a verbal description.

[tod evans]

He doesn't, apparently. Doesn't seem right, but there doesn't seem to be a way to make it right, either.


Yup...he only comes into play when money can be extracted....There are lots of laws that "protect" mother and child for both parents behavior.
Fathers deserve equal protection under law, both in regards to potential abortions and full term births.
Trying to put the issue of abortion off on the state neglects the fathers rights but still assigns him full responsibility for the mothers sole decision.

[Hyperion]

If abortion has to be legal(and I think it shouldn't, I'm pro-life), it's a shame Rachel Maddow wasn't among the victims.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Soon to follow: Paul jaywalks across small town avenue--does he think he's above the law?

[Humanae Libertas]

Ron Paul is wrong on this issue. Yes, the fetus shouldn't be killed. However, anti-abortion folks are also violating someone's rights when they get government to step in.

Pro-Choice & Pro-Life = smokescreen

[Feeding the Abscess]

The issue isn't around life, it's around a stupid government mandate.

[Maximus]

It sounds more like the media is putting it's spin on the issue and not letting the good doctor speak for himself (shocker!).

In either case, this is sort of like the government requiring a murderer to ensure a clean crime scene before his crime. It is absurd. But then again killing an innocent human being is absurd. I think ultimately Dr. Paul would oppose a government regulation requiring an ultrasound before an abortion; but he feels that the added burden before the murder would save lives, and thus he supports it in a practical sense rather than a philosophical sense.

[bcreps85]

In any case, the important things are that Ron Paul isn't a hypocrite because this is consistent with what he has always said, and that this argument cannot be "won". To those of us who believe that live begins at conception, abortion is deplorable, and essentially murder. To those who do not, it is a lifeless mass of flesh, or a parasite feeding on the mother who chooses to terminate it.

I'm not omnipotent, but I'll stand by my believes til the death, as I'm sure my opponents will. At the end of the day, we are all in this fight for one reason, and one reason only - liberty. The topic of debate here is not the only pillar of liberty to fight for, and the fact is that our government, left unchecked, will cause far more harm than this one issue through murder, maiming, and false imprisonment within a fairly small period of time.

Let's get this country back on track, then we can get back to this debate. If this country is prosperous again, I get the feeling that this issue will become far less prevalent...

[presence]

I think ultimately Dr. Paul would oppose a government regulation requiring an ultrasound before an abortion; but he feels that the added burden before the murder would save lives, and thus he supports it in a practical sense rather than a philosophical sense.

AGREED

I didn't realize this thread had gone so long. Just read through it all. Thanks everyone for all your input. A bit of my own two posts below:

presence

[sailingaway]

She can't use libertarianism as PRACTICED BY SOMEONE ELSE WHO ISN"T PRO LIFE and claim that Ron Paul who IS pro life is a hypocrite. Or rather, she can claim anything she wants but it isn't so, because he never pretended to NOT be pro life. She just is a bigot when it comes to classifying someone as 'libertarian'. But he doesn't really call himself that. He speaks of the libertarian position, but I've heard him calling himself a Constitutional Conservative, pointing out that the Constitution is a very libertarian document.

[presence]

Eduardo and Aqua Buddha, it isn't a child or a baby, it's a fetus which does not yet have the sentience of a newborn child.

Just curious kylejack... where do you draw the line? You're not waving a flag for the 9th month, 3 days before due date, partial-birth skull-crushing are you?

See link:

UNBORN BABY WEEK BY WEEK: WEEK 10 (http://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-10-weeks_1099.bc?intcmp=timeline)

Unlike the fundamentalist anti abortion crowd, I like the idea of Roe v. Wade... I just think 6-7 months "viability" is a ridiculous cut off.

If I had to bargain before God and man on this issue I'd lay the line of the "spark of life" at WEEK TEN... Until the end of week 9, when its an embryo, there is choice... at week 10 when it qualitatively transcends to become what we all recognize as a fetus; with organs and a brain... thats murder.

If you want an abortion, for whatever reason, fine... get off your ass and do it in the first nine weeks; you damn well know whats up by then and you have plenty of time to do something about it... If week 10 passes, organs and brain complete: that to me is the spark of life. And I'm with Ron... If We the PEOPLE are going to stand back and let you destroy the embryo inside of you in good conscience, then you're getting a vaginal ultrasound first so the doctor knows for certain it isn't one of OUR fetal persons; and you, the embryo, and the good doctor are gonna sleep on it for one last night to make sure its right on all your consciences. And if either of you are found to have skirted the law in guity conscience (mens rea) and put an end to a fetal person's hiccuping, stretching, or kicking in week 10, 11, or beyond: You go to jail.

I doubt anyone would be winning hearts and minds with billboards picturing concord-grape sized embryo's in the 9th week.

presence

[kylejack]

Just curious kylejack... where do you draw the line?

http://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-10-weeks_1099.bc?intcmp=timeline

Unlike the anti abortion crowd, I like the idea of Roe v. Wade... I just think 6 months is ridiculous.
See, this is a much more interesting discussion for me, but radicals on both sides rarely want to discuss that. I wouldn't say I'm qualified to say, but I could be persuaded to supporting something before viability, I think.

[presence]

Well? Qualifications aside... scan through baby center. I'm not "qualified" either... But I am alive, I do have a kid; which I remember clearly kicking and hiccuping inside of his momma, and I do believe in individual liberty. As a matter of due course in civil society there MUST BE A LINE. I don't think many believe that line is at the moment of birth. The radical fundamentalist place it at conception. Anywhere near 'viability" makes me cringe.

I say we put the line at embryo/fetus transcendence. It seems to me to be a more appropriate and responsible "middle path". Mom has options... baby has rights... the law is clear, and there's a lot less fundamentalist billboard fodder.

thanks for entertaining me,

presence

[Invi]

If you want an abortion, for whatever reason, fine... get off your ass and do it in the first nine weeks; you damn well know whats up by then and you have plenty of time to do something about it...

Not to make a comment on one side or the other in this post, but there are a lot of women who do not know they are pregnant by 10 weeks. It happens. Some go much later than that before they find out, whether it be because they are continuing to have a monthly cycle, or are just ignorant of the changes that are taking place.

[presence]

Not to make a comment on one side or the other in this post, but there are a lot of women who do not know they are pregnant by 10 weeks. It happens. Some go much later than that before they find out, whether it be because they are continuing to have a monthly cycle, or are just ignorant of the changes that are taking place.

A lot? How do you not notice a failure to bleed for a full week... not once but twice after unprotected sex? Especially w/ half of all women experiencing weeks 2-9 of morning sickness? Not to mention swollen breast, back pain, and the like. You say, some women continue to have their period through their pregnancy? Really? Gimme a link.

Denial and not knowing are two different things. I think you're talking about an extreme case moreso than "a lot". At what point in a pregnancy would you suspect that most self-aware women get an incling? Don't mind my being rude, but I think you'd have to be strung out on some pretty good drugs not to notice what's up by week 10. My wife had been puking every morning for 5 weeks by then, her boobs doubled in size, and her nipples tripled; she was looking at me glaze-eyed at week three when I said we need an EPT.

Clearly the trouble becomes if you drive "the line" too early... you don't give the woman opportunity to make a choice and if you place "the line" to late you're violating the child's rights. If there's no happy line to be placed due to overlap of competing factors on both sides... then the issue becomes moot and you have to go with the fundamentalists: the woman gets no rights. Going back to the baby chart I posted a few post ago... which week are you willing to kill at?

I take the stance if the woman can be "responsible and aware enough" to make a firm decision before the embryo becomes a fetus... then she can do what she will with her body. Otherwise she forgoes that right and the child has state protection.

oh.. kylejack if you're still reading... go back and fix your link on the "Could Ron Paul Still Win Maine? " thread. You apparently beat me to that one; I was too busy w/ bb code.

presence

edit to add:

I found this on wiki:

"Despite all the signs, some women may not realize they are pregnant until they are quite far along in their pregnancy. In some cases, a few women have not been aware of their pregnancy until they begin labour. This can be caused by many factors, including irregular periods (quite common in teenagers), certain medications (not related to conceiving children), and obese women who disregard their weight gain. Others may be in denial of their situation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

Anybody got statistics on what percent of women are aware at each week of gestation. The only one I found was at week 4, 40% are aware.

So the question becomes what do you do with a raped obese teen on drugs not knowing what's up... given my week ten law. I still gotta believe there is denial occuring and at some point that baby has rights.

[angelatc]

Because they don't want an ultrasound device shoved inside them. The new state law requires a transvaginal ultrasound, not the over-the-belly kind.

Well, I'l williing to bet its smaller than the vacuum tube that literally sucks a baby apart.

[angelatc]

A lot? How do you not notice a failure to bleed for a full week... not once but twice? And weeks 6-9 of morning sickness? Some women continue to have their period through their pregnancy? Really? Gimme a link.

presence

Yeah, and it's not as uncommon as you might think. BUt it's not really a period - it's spotting. If you're a light bleeder normally, you could mistake it for a period.

To be honest, my periods were always terribly irregular, and I was never big on keeping track of them on a calendar either. I was usually either celibate or careful, but I never had trouble imagining that other women might not realize their period was really really late if they were like me.

[angelatc]

Ron Paul is wrong on this issue. Yes, the fetus shouldn't be killed. However, anti-abortion folks are also violating someone's rights when they get government to step in.

Pro-Choice & Pro-Life = smokescreen

One of the legitimate functions of government it to protect life.

[PaulConventionWV]

Eduardo and Aqua Buddha, it isn't a child or a baby, it's a fetus which does not yet have the sentience of a newborn child. Which gets back to my previous post,

But it will unless it is stopped. The point is that you have to force it to stop. Just like children are unable to consent, you can't assume a future child would be okay with ending it even before they knew it was happening.

Beside, does this mean the child doesn't have sentience while in the womb? I would beg to differ and science would be on my side, as Dr. Paul well knows. Do you think it is okay to abort a baby one minute before birth? What is your standard on what counts as a real human baby? Dr. Paul says there is little difference between a baby only a couple months into pregnancy and one minute before birth.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, I do understand. The issue I am pointing out is consent. One thing she is consenting to, another she is not.
And yes, before it is brought up again, I am fully aware the baby cannot consent to anything itself.

Then would you mind to clarify why you draw a distinction? It's not enough to say you are aware. You have to justify your inconsistency.

[Cabal]

Well? Qualifications aside... scan through baby center. I'm not "qualified" either... But I am alive, I do have a kid; which I remember clearly kicking and hiccuping inside of his momma, and I do believe in individual liberty. As a matter of due course in civil society there MUST BE A LINE. I don't think many believe that line is at the moment of birth. The radical fundamentalist place it at conception. Anywhere near 'viability" makes me cringe.

I say we put the line at embryo/fetus transcendence. It seems to me to be a more appropriate and responsible "middle path". Mom has options... baby has rights... the law is clear, and there's a lot less fundamentalist billboard fodder.

thanks for entertaining me,

presence

I tend to agree. Frankly, I don't know of any reasonable excuse for an abortion to take place following the first trimester, generally speaking. Irresponsibility doesn't qualify. When the baby begins to take human form, and develops clearly recognizable biological human features, it is quite obviously a human that ought to be afforded the same natural rights as all other humans.

Especially these days, with as much prevention as there is now, and with as easily accessible as most of it is, there's just no excuse outside of irresponsibility as far as I can tell. If you're sexually active, particularly without employing some form of protection, and you aren't mindful about the potential of pregnancy, that qualifies as irresponsibility to me.

Responsibility and liberty go hand in hand. As for forced sonograms, particularly those of the intrusive persuasion, I'm not really a fan of that path.

[Eagles' Wings]

Early on in my life I concluded that the Right To Life was a fundamental right at all stages of human development. I believe this for the preborn, for the elderly, for those with special needs, for those on death row.

Since federal dollars are already spent to advance the cause of abortion, why not federal dollars spent to educate mothers through ultrasound pictures. Ask anyone who works at a center that advocates BIRTH options, an ultrasound does change minds for LIFE.

[otherone]

Porn kills trillions more babies than abortion does.

[bolil]

Porn kills trillions more babies than abortion does.

lolwut? Explain yourself!

[angelatc]

lolwut? Explain yourself!

Careful what you wish for.... :)

[CaptUSA]

I don't really like this measure, but I can see where it comes from.

This is the problem with abortion. I'm 100% pro-life, but I have serious concerns about the state enforcing anti-abortion measures. It's difficult to protect the unborn while not violating the rights of the living. Do we really want the government to dictate to doctors which procedures they need to perform prior to killing a human? Again, I see the rationale, but I'm afraid of the door being opened here.

[angelatc]

Early on in my life I concluded that the Right To Life was a fundamental right at all stages of human development. I believe this for the preborn, for the elderly, for those with special needs, for those on death row.

Since federal dollars are already spent to advance the cause of abortion, why not federal dollars spent to educate mothers through ultrasound pictures. Ask anyone who works at a center that advocates BIRTH options, an ultrasound does change minds for LIFE.

I know women who regret having an abortion. Really, really, regret it too. 20 years later, crying a little when they share it. I don't know anybody who wishes they'd had one.

Society is viscous - they tell us that women with kids are a turn off, getting pregnant if you're not married is sinful, kids are a burden....you get that message all your life as a girl. I sincerely believe that a lot of women would change their minds if they saw the little heart beating.

I "get" that the libertarians don't think the government should force anybody to do anything, but this is as much a part of reversing the brainwashing as a medical procedure.

[otherone]

lolwut? Explain yourself!


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

[Danke]

beat me to it ^

[Tankbot85]

And those people are wrong.

And i believe that you are wrong.

[eduardo89]

And i believe that you are wrong.

Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

[otherone]

Some people believe big government should be chained to the yoke of their own morality. Others believe government fails when it tells the other fella what to do.

[MaxPower]

So long as Roe vs. Wade unconstitutionally prevents them from outlawing abortion altogether, I'm happy to see a hurdle placed in the way that might help to discourage some abortions. Since I do not view elective abortion as a legitimate act which falls within the purview of valid "liberty" in the first place, I do not think these "Violation-of-her-rights/government-intrusion/invasive-procedure" objections hold water. The government is perfectly free to screw with people who are in the process of committing acts of aggression, insofar as I'm concerned.

[erowe1]

I can see why some libertarians would be against this. But I can't see why any merely "pro-choice" people would have a problem with it.

What are you afraid of Rachel? Some girls might end up making the choice you don't want them to make?

[kylejack]

I can see why some libertarians would be against this. But I can't see why any merely "pro-choice" people would have a problem with it.

What are you afraid of Rachel? Some girls might end up making the choice you don't want them to make?
Well, people don't like to have unnecessary procedures performed on them. I'd rather not have a prostate exam before having a cavity operated on, for example.

[erowe1]

Well, people don't like to have unnecessary procedures performed on them. I'd rather not have a prostate exam before having a cavity operated on, for example.

Would you want your teeth x-rayed first?

And since when do people object to unnecessary procedures? This is nothing compared to plenty of medical regulations out there now that the left seems happy with.

[kylejack]

Would you want your teeth x-rayed first?
Only if it assisted the doctor in performing the operation. Abortion doctors will sometimes use the over-the-belly ultrasound, but transvaginal ultrasound is totally unnecessary.

[PaulConventionWV]

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

This has nothing to do with abortion. Can't you see the difference between a sperm and an egg that has already been fertilized? It's all about the decisions you make, and if you go that far, it's a decision you have to live with. There's no problem with not going there in the first place. The "every sperm" argument is complete hogwash, and I don't see how anyone can even think that has any congruity to this issue.

[kylejack]

This has nothing to do with abortion. Can't you see the difference between a sperm and an egg that has already been fertilized? It's all about the decisions you make, and if you go that far, it's a decision you have to live with. There's no problem with not going there in the first place. The "every sperm" argument is complete hogwash, and I don't see how anyone can even think that has any congruity to this issue.
God is not keen on those who spill their sperm on the ground. He executed Onan.

[eduardo89]

God is not keen on those who spill their sperm on the ground. He executed Onan.

Well at least you got the story right this time. Last time you claimed God forced him to rape his sister-in-law...

[kylejack]

Well at least you got the story right this time. Last time you claimed God forced him to rape his sister-in-law...
God's will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.

[otherone]

The "every sperm" argument is complete hogwash, and I don't see how anyone can even think that has any congruity to this issue.

Which would explain why you believe the argument to be hogwash. The problem, my dear sir, is not that abortion is legal, the problem is that millions of your countrymen do not consider it murder. As long as their is moral dissonance, the issue remains unresolved. In the meantime, if you are against abortion, don't have one.

[eduardo89]

Which would explain why you believe the argument to be hogwash. The problem, my dear sir, is not that abortion is legal, the problem is that millions of your countrymen do not consider it murder. As long as their is moral dissonance, the issue remains unresolved. In the meantime, if you are against abortion, don't have one.

That's why I think abortion providers should be sentences to the exact same treatment they give unborn children. They should have their heads crushed in.

[otherone]

That's why I think abortion providers should be sentences to the exact same treatment they give unborn children. They should have their heads crushed in.

When the bible comes up short, Christians often reach for their trusty copy of Hammurabi's Code.

[eduardo89]

When the bible comes up short, Christians often reach for their trusty copy of Hammurabi's Code.

I'm just pro-death penalty for murders, which is a Biblical position.

[erowe1]

Which would explain why you believe the argument to be hogwash. The problem, my dear sir, is not that abortion is legal, the problem is that millions of your countrymen do not consider it murder. As long as their is moral dissonance, the issue remains unresolved. In the meantime, if you are against abortion, don't have one.

But given that it is murder, what difference does it make that some people say it isn't? Should someone get away with murdering a black man by using the excuse that they don't consider black people human?

[otherone]

I'm just pro-death penalty for murders, which is a Biblical position.
...and one wonders why they keep the old testament around....

[Feeding the Abscess]

Who is going to pay for these? Insurance companies? The state? Federal government? The patient? The doctor? Under what authority does the government derive the power to force people to undergo a medical procedure? Opposition of socialized medicine and support of this just doesn't jive.

Mandates are bad. I oppose them.

[otherone]

But given that it is murder, what difference does it make that some people say it isn't. Should someone get away with murdering a black man by using the excuse that they don't consider black people human?

I'd assume most of you now consider African-Americans human, which is why you may no longer have them as property, although the bible allows it. 'moral dissonance'.

[MaxPower]

Who is going to pay for these? Insurance companies? The state? Federal government? The patient? The doctor? Under what authority does the government derive the power to force people to undergo a medical procedure? Opposition of socialized medicine and support of this just doesn't jive.

Mandates are bad. I oppose them.
They aren't "forcing people to undergo a medical procedure;" they're making it a prerequisite to having an abortion. Elective abortion is not a right, and people having them are committing aggression. The non-aggression principle applies to those who are not at present violating it themselves.

[erowe1]

I'd assume most of you now consider African-Americans human, which is why you may no longer have them as property, although the bible allows it. 'moral dissonance'.

Most people also consider human fetuses human.

But is that really what you think makes it right or wrong? What "most" people think about it? So if most people thought it wasn't murder if the victim was black, that would make it so?

[eduardo89]

Most people also consider human fetuses human.

But is that really what you think makes it right or wrong? What "most" people think about it? So if most people thought it wasn't murder if the victim was black, that would make it so?

That's moral relativism for you...

[Sola_Fide]

I'd assume most of you now consider African-Americans human, which is why you may no longer have them as property, although the bible allows it. 'moral dissonance'.

No it doesn't. You have no idea what your talking about.

[otherone]

That's moral relativism for you...

Most Catholics believe every sperm is sacred....so onanism should be outlawed?

[otherone]

No it doesn't. You have no idea what your talking about.


Then how was it justified by Christians for 400 years? Or was the bible-belt against slavery the whole time, and the damn liberals have been spreading lies again?

[erowe1]

Then how was it justified by Christians for 400 years? Or was the bible-belt against slavery the whole time, and the damn liberals have been spreading lies again?

Which is your position? That the Bible supports owning African American as slaves? Or that some Christians used to support it? Those aren't two ways of saying the same thing.

[cajuncocoa]

Well, they are going to have scissors shoved inside them to cut their babies head off...what is so bad about have an ultrasound device first?Beat me to it. I've already +1 rep'd you...can't do again, but I would if I could.

[craezie]

Who is going to pay for these? Insurance companies? The state? Federal government? The patient? The doctor? Under what authority does the government derive the power to force people to undergo a medical procedure? Opposition of socialized medicine and support of this just doesn't jive.

Mandates are bad. I oppose them.

It is part of the procedure, and should be mandated because it is essential to the principle of informed consent. When you undergo a medical procedure, it is the physician's duty to ensure that you understand exactly what you are doing, and the risks and implications inherent in the procedure. When people are thinking that the 12 week baby is just a parasitic mass of tissue, it may wake them up to show them a fully formed human being with every body part and a beating heart. I don't know how even a pro-choice person can be against fully informing the patient.

There are lots of other parts of medical procedures that are mandated -- sterilizing the tools before a surgery for example. It is rolled into the cost of the procedure, similar to this ultrasound. Considering that the clinic already has the machine and needs diagnostically and to ensure safe procedures, the additional cost is extremely minimal anyway.

[Sola_Fide]

Then how was it justified by Christians for 400 years? Or was the bible-belt against slavery the whole time, and the damn liberals have been spreading lies again?

What Christians are you talking about? Samuel Adams, the abolitionist? William Wilberforce who ended slavery in England?

I suppose you're going to tell me next that African tribesmen were influenced by the Bible to sell their fellow Africans to international slave-traders.

[MaxPower]

I'd assume most of you now consider African-Americans human, which is why you may no longer have them as property, although the bible allows it. 'moral dissonance'.
This is one of those obnoxious pseudo-historical claims masses of people ignorantly latch onto in spite of its clear-cut spuriousness. When the Bible talks about "slavery," it refers to a system thoroughly distinct from the chattel slavery of African Americans which existed in our country through the mid-19th century-- one reason the word describing people in this situation has alternately been translated as either "slave" or "servant." The "slavery" depicted in the Bible did not consist in cradle-to-grave ownership by one person over another, was not race-specific, was a state people could sell themselves into or out of, involved a much different legal status (for example, "slaves" could themselves own "slaves"), and was set to be cancelled every seven years-- there is a good case it was more akin to indentured servitude than chattel slavery.

[eduardo89]

Most Catholics believe every sperm is sacred....so onanism should be outlawed?

No because it is not a human being. It is a precursor to life, so it is morally wrong to spill sperm, but it is not a violation of another human being's rights and therefore the government should not be involved.

[otherone]

What Christians are you talking about? Samuel Adams, the abolitionist? William Wilberforce who ended slavery in England?

I suppose you're going to tell me next that African tribesmen were influenced by the Bible to sell their fellow Africans to international slave-traders.

wow.....you are a southern apologist! You seem to have a handle on the topic....so how did landowners justify their right to own african slaves? Did they know they were doing evil and just kinda ignored it?

[erowe1]

wow.....you are a southern apologist! You seem to have a handle on the topic....so how did landowners justify their right to own african slaves? Did they know they were doing evil and just kinda ignored it?

It looks to me like you have no clue about the whole subject, so you're belatedly fishing for someone to help you avoid looking stupid.

[Feeding the Abscess]

It is part of the procedure, and should be mandated because it is essential to the principle of informed consent. When you undergo a medical procedure, it is the physician's duty to ensure that you understand exactly what you are doing, and the risks and implications inherent in the procedure. When people are thinking that the 12 week baby is just a parasitic mass of tissue, it may wake them up to show them a fully formed human being with every body part and a beating heart. I don't know how even a pro-choice person can be against fully informing the patient.

There are lots of other parts of medical procedures that are mandated -- sterilizing the tools before a surgery for example. It is rolled into the cost of the procedure, similar to this ultrasound. Considering that the clinic already has the machine and needs diagnostically and to ensure safe procedures, the additional cost is extremely minimal anyway.

So when you agree with something, it should be mandated by the government. Not voluntarily by the physician, the hospital, or even the insurance company. But the government, and all the force that it entails.

Okay.

[Sola_Fide]

This is one of those obnoxious pseudo-historical claims masses of people ignorantly latch onto in spite of its clear-cut spuriousness. When the Bible talks about "slavery," it refers to a system thoroughly distinct from the chattel slavery of African Americans which existed in our country through the mid-19th century-- one reason the word describing people in this situation has alternately been translated as either "slave" or "servant." The "slavery" depicted in the Bible did not consist in cradle-to-grave ownership by one person over another, was not race-specific, was a state people could sell themselves into or out of, involved a much different legal status (for example, "slaves" could themselves own "slaves"), and was set to be cancelled every seven years-- there is a good case it was more akin to indentured servitude than chattel slavery.

That's right. And in the New Testament we have the example of manumission with Philemon and Onesimus, and we have the admonition to seek legal means out of our servitude when possible.

When Paul is admonishing Philemon to free Onesimus, he says "charge any outstanding debt to me", indicating that the "slavery" that was being described was an indentured servitude for economic reasons (i.e. Onesimus had debt), not chattel slavery.

[otherone]

It looks to me like you have no clue about the whole subject, so you're belatedly fishing for someone to help you avoid looking stupid.

Not at all. Interpreting the bible to justify public policy today is no different then interpreting the bible to justify public policy 200 years ago. If you think that southern clergymen didn't use the bible to condone slavery then you are being deliberately obtuse. Until you get people to agree that a fetus is a person, you won't change public policy, no matter what your beliefs are.

[MaxPower]

I can see why some libertarians would be against this. But I can't see why any merely "pro-choice" people would have a problem with it.

What are you afraid of Rachel? Some girls might end up making the choice you don't want them to make?
This is an excellent point; in principle, Rachel Maddow and other "pro-choicers" who are left liberals clearly have absolutely no problem with piling arbitrary requirements on private practices. They are selectively invoking anti-government-intrusion rhetoric where it suits them-- which, of course, begs the question: Why does it suit them to stop this particular requirement? Because they are not simply "pro-choice" as they describe themselves; rather, at base, they actively want women to go through with abortions.

[kylejack]

When Paul is admonishing Philemon to free Onesimus, he says "charge any outstanding debt to me", indicating that the "slavery" that was being described was an indentured servitude for economic reasons (i.e. Onesimus had debt), not chattel slavery.
Nah, the debt was money that Onesimus had stolen from his master before fleeing.

[Sola_Fide]

wow.....you are a southern apologist! You seem to have a handle on the topic....so how did landowners justify their right to own african slaves? Did they know they were doing evil and just kinda ignored it?

I am not a Southern apologist. Like Samuel Adams and John Brown, I would have been one of those Calvinists who believed strongly in abolition.

I believe that history will look back on America's history of abortion and compare it to slavery...and wonder why some Christians in the culture engaged in it, defended it, or looked the other way with both.

[MaxPower]

So when you agree with something, it should be mandated by the government. Not voluntarily by the physician, the hospital, or even the insurance company. But the government, and all the force that it entails.

Okay.
This argument would work if we were talking about a non-aggressive exercise of liberty; since we are not, those practicing it forfeit their appeal to the protection of the non-aggression principle.

[Feeding the Abscess]

This argument would work if we were talking about a non-aggressive exercise of liberty; since we are not, those practicing it forfeit their appeal to the protection of the non-aggression principle.

And forcing a woman to carry to term against her will is also aggression. There is a third way, one that doesn't involve government force. The private property position - evictionism.

[eduardo89]

And forcing a woman to carry to term against her will is also aggression. There is a third way, one that doesn't involve government force. The private property position - evictionism.

Having sex? Learn the potential consequences first and then decide whether to engage in that behavior.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Having sex? Learn the potential consequences first and then decide whether to engage in that behavior.


It has been objected that since the mother originally consented to the conception, the mother has therefore “contracted” its status with the fetus, and may not “violate” that “contract” by having an abortion. There are many problems with this doctrine, however. In the first place, as we shall see further below, a mere promise is not an enforceable contract: contracts are only properly enforceable if their violation involves implicit theft, and clearly no such consideration can apply here. Secondly, there is obviously no “contract” here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity. And thirdly as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave contracts. Even if this had been a “contract,” then, it could not be enforced because a mother’s will is inalienable, and she cannot legitimately be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her will.

There are other implications, as well:


Another argument of the anti-abortionists is that the fetus is a living human being, and is therefore entitled to all of the rights of human beings. Very good; let us concede, for purposes of the discussion, that fetuses are human beings—or, more broadly, potential human beings—and are therefore entitled to full human rights. But what humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host? Clearly no born humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either.

Ultimately, it comes down to this:


In short, it is impermissible to interpret the term “right to life,” to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that life.

View this in the prism of government force, rather than a view of personal and social interaction, and it will make more sense.

[eduardo89]

View this in the prism of government force, rather than a view of personal and social interaction, and it will make more sense.

It doesn't. The protection of life is a legitimate use of governemnt force.

[erowe1]

There are other implications, as well:



Ultimately, it comes down to this:



View this in the prism of government force, rather than a view of personal and social interaction, and it will make more sense.

The problem is, that's all wrong. Parent's have an obligation to care for their children. Children own property in their parents, much like slavery. If I abandoned my 2 year old and told her to fend for herself, that would be a crime against natural law. And it would have been if it happened while she was still in the womb too.

[Feeding the Abscess]

It doesn't. The protection of life is a legitimate use of governemnt force.

I'm not talking about killing the fetus. I'm talking about rejecting the use of force to require one person to sustain the life of another.

[eduardo89]

I'm not talking about killing the fetus. I'm talking about rejecting the use of force to require one person to sustain the life of another.

And I'm talking about using force to prevent the murder of another life.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The problem is, that's all wrong. Parent's have an obligation to care for their children. Children own property in their parents, much like slavery. If I abandoned my 2 year old and told her to fend for herself, that would be a crime against natural law. And it would have been if it happened while she was still in the womb too.

Of course parents have an obligation to care for their children. To stretch that into a legal obligation would be a grave mistake, and you would agree that it would be a mistake. This is what I'm referring to.

[kylejack]

Having sex? Learn the potential consequences first and then decide whether to engage in that behavior.
Not everyone decides to have sex before having sex.

[eduardo89]

Of course parents have an obligation to care for their children. To stretch that into a legal obligation would be a grave mistake, and you would agree that it would be a mistake. This is what I'm referring to.

I have no problem with it being a legal obligation. Actually I'll take that a step further, it ought to be a legal obligation.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I have no problem with it being a legal obligation. Actually I'll take that a step further, it ought to be a legal obligation.

Then you believe in positive rights, and have no moral or logical basis on which to object to the redistribution of wealth.

[otherone]

In short, it is impermissible to interpret the term “right to life,” to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that life.


This is a very interesting statement. In essence, if abortion were illegal, the pregnant woman would then become an agent of the state?

[eduardo89]

Then you believe in positive rights, and have no moral or logical basis on which to object to the redistribution of wealth.

Haha comparing an obligation to support your kids to redistribution of wealth.

[lester1/2jr]

this is riduculous. If yuo can't manage to get abortion outlawed you have to try again not do stuff like this.

[Eagles' Wings]

IMHO, an ultrasound is not necessary during pregnancy. It has become popular. So, forcing any woman, under any circumstances to have an ultrasound is a form of tyranny.

Allowing tax dollars to flow into Life Care Centers, who promote ultrasounds to help women decide for LIFE is "fair" in the sense that tax dollars flow into Planned Parenthood for their myriad services, one being ending preborn life through abortion.

[angelatc]

I'm not talking about killing the fetus. I'm talking about rejecting the use of force to require one person to sustain the life of another.

That's more of the bullshit that drives women to the abortion clinic. It's not a burden - it's a baby.

There's something deeply wrong with equating motherhood to some sort of slavery. It's wrong on every level to want to kill your offspring. Nobody cares about the use of force argument. It's entirely philosophical, and has no bearing on reality.

Using your logic, women could abort in the 9th month.

[angelatc]

It is part of the procedure, and should be mandated because it is essential to the principle of informed consent. When you undergo a medical procedure, it is the physician's duty to ensure that you understand exactly what you are doing, and the risks and implications inherent in the procedure. When people are thinking that the 12 week baby is just a parasitic mass of tissue, it may wake them up to show them a fully formed human being with every body part and a beating heart. I don't know how even a pro-choice person can be against fully informing the patient.

There are lots of other parts of medical procedures that are mandated -- sterilizing the tools before a surgery for example. It is rolled into the cost of the procedure, similar to this ultrasound. Considering that the clinic already has the machine and needs diagnostically and to ensure safe procedures, the additional cost is extremely minimal anyway.

That's a good point too. If nothing else, it would ensure the doctor had verified the age of the fetus.

[heavenlyboy34]

She can't use libertarianism as PRACTICED BY SOMEONE ELSE WHO ISN"T PRO LIFE and claim that Ron Paul who IS pro life is a hypocrite. Or rather, she can claim anything she wants but it isn't so, because he never pretended to NOT be pro life. She just is a bigot when it comes to classifying someone as 'libertarian'. But he doesn't really call himself that. He speaks of the libertarian position, but I've heard him calling himself a Constitutional Conservative, pointing out that the Constitution is a very libertarian document.
He has on several occasions in recent years. There was an interview not too long ago when the newsletter issue was brought up. RP dismissed it because racism=collectivism=not libertarian. RP only plays down his libertarianism for specific audiences.

[PaulConventionWV]

God is not keen on those who spill their sperm on the ground. He executed Onan.

And you think you can just interpret that right away as "No sperm is to be wasted." We have a damn genius here, don't we?

[Evangelical_Protestant]

What's hypocritical is constantly crying about civil rights, and then robbing children the right to live.

Libertarians = do what you want AS LONG AS YOU HURT NOBODY ELSE. A fetus is somebody. So if you hurt it on purpose, you are a criminal.

[heavenlyboy34]

I am not a Southern apologist. Like Samuel Adams and John Brown, I would have been one of those Calvinists who believed strongly in abolition.

I believe that history will look back on America's history of abortion and compare it to slavery...and wonder why some Christians in the culture engaged in it, defended it, or looked the other way with both.
Southern/Confederate apologetics is not about defending slavery (except for a few fringe folks). It is about states' rights to secede and fighting back against Federal tyranny.

[PaulConventionWV]

Not at all. Interpreting the bible to justify public policy today is no different then interpreting the bible to justify public policy 200 years ago. If you think that southern clergymen didn't use the bible to condone slavery then you are being deliberately obtuse. Until you get people to agree that a fetus is a person, you won't change public policy, no matter what your beliefs are.

Can you not see the ridiculousness of this logic? If people use the Bible to justify slavery, does that mean the Bible justifies slavery? No, that means people used it that way. The Bible cannot be held accountable for what other people mistook it for because they wanted it to be true. The burden of proof doesn't lie on us to prove that they were interpreting it wrong. It lies on you to prove that they were interpreting it right. If you want to say that the Bible justifies slavery, then prove it.

We've already seen how the slavery of the Bible is not really slavery. You, however, have shown us that you possess a crucial bias against the bible. That is, you seem to think that those who used the Bible for evil are automatically right and we are the ones fooling ourselves. You don't even consider the idea that it could be the other way around, or at least you haven't admitted to it.

[PaulConventionWV]

And forcing a woman to carry to term against her will is also aggression. There is a third way, one that doesn't involve government force. The private property position - evictionism.

Who aggressed first? Do you think someone should be able to stop their attacker from acting? Better yet, do you think it is right for someone who witnesses aggression to try to stop it?

[PaulConventionWV]

Southern/Confederate apologetics is not about defending slavery (except for a few fringe folks). It is about states' rights to secede and fighting back against Federal tyranny.

That is correct, and don't anyone forget.

[erowe1]

Then you believe in positive rights, and have no moral or logical basis on which to object to the redistribution of wealth.

If you believe that parents have an obligation to care for their children, as you said, then you also believe in at least some positive rights, since another way of saying the same thing is that children have a right to the care of their parents.

[Brett85]

Because they don't want an ultrasound device shoved inside them. The new state law requires a transvaginal ultrasound, not the over-the-belly kind.

They don't have to get an ultrasound at all as long as they don't get an abortion.

[Brett85]

The issue isn't around life, it's around a stupid government mandate.

The law isn't mandating every woman in the state of Texas to get an ultrasound. If you don't want an ultrasound, then don't get an abortion.

[kylejack]

A fetus is somebody.
Nah. Not immediately at conception, anyway.

[otherone]

If people use the Bible to justify slavery, does that mean the Bible justifies slavery? No, that means people used it that way. The Bible cannot be held accountable for what other people mistook it for because they wanted it to be true. The burden of proof doesn't lie on us to prove that they were interpreting it wrong. It lies on you to prove that they were interpreting it right. If you want to say that the Bible justifies slavery, then prove it.


The Bible is a document. It doesn't justify anything outside of how it is interpreted. Some folks believe that the Bible 'justifies' the death penalty. Others believe that the Bible is against capital punishment. Some say the Bible disallows dancing. Others believe that the bible condemns homosexuality. There are hundreds of interpretations, depending on what denomination you talk to, or what agenda the interpreter has in making a particular claim. Obviously, I am not a Biblical scholar. I don't need to prove the bible condones slavery. I don't care about any interpretation, frankly, pro or con. I can say with some certainty, however, that for centuries, many Christians said the bible allowed for keeping slaves.

[jmdrake]

Hi. Thread. Topic. Get back on it?

The question was not whether or not you think life begins at conception. It was whether or not Ron was being a hypocrite.

Yep. And Ron was not being a hypocrite because he's always said that abortion should be a state issue.

[jmdrake]

Southern/Confederate apologetics is not about defending slavery (except for a few fringe folks). It is about states' rights to secede and fighting back against Federal tyranny.

Talk about a way to derail a topic. (Not blaming you). Anyway when Southern States had the chance to secede only over tariffs they chose not to do so with the exception of South Carolina. (Fellow southerner Andrew Jackson was president). When slavery was an issue (as specified in the southern declarations of secession) they chose to secede. Enough said.

[lester1/2jr]

the culture has to changed then the law will be changed. This does nothing for the pro life movement except make it look litigious.

[Brett85]

the culture has to changed then the law will be changed. This does nothing for the pro life movement except make it look litigious.

The pro life movement has to pass laws like this, because the Supreme Court prohibits the states from actually banning abortion. Laws that make it harder to get an abortion are necessary until the time that the states have the legal right to ban it outright.

[otherone]

The pro life movement has to pass laws like this, because the Supreme Court prohibits the states from actually banning abortion. Laws that make it harder to get an abortion are necessary until the time that the states have the legal right to ban it outright.


Washington needs to stop funding it. Washington (as well as the States) needs to stop rewarding women for having children they can't afford.