PDA

View Full Version : Life: What is Paul's FULL view on abortion?




Cyberbrain
02-14-2012, 07:37 PM
I'm asking for his personal view, not what he'd do as pres. I know he is pro-life, I know he personally wants abortions banned. I know he wants it to be a criminal offense and a role of the states. I know he has stated several times that he's open to punishments for the mother and/or doctor depending on the circumstances. I know he believes life begins at conception and a fetus should have constitutional rights as a person. And as recently as the Piers Morgan interview I know he believes it's reseaonable to give a woman estrogen 36-48 hours after sex (where biologically an egg has not had enough time to travel to the uterus and implant itself).

But does he believe a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted baby to term? What does he believe should be done instead of abortion?

I've searched his website, these forums, and his videos and some of his writings on the topic but I cannot find his answer. I have my own view on this but I also have an intellectual curiosity on his view on this.

Gurv720
02-14-2012, 11:40 PM
"But does he believe a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted baby to term? What does he believe should be done instead of abortion? "

It shouldn't be up to the federal government. He's pro life and as you mentioned above, believes only under certain circumstances such as rape would an abortion be acceptable.

That point aside, it isn't as relevant as to what he believes in (even though he states what that is) because those decisions should be left up to the states to decide.

y0kkles
02-25-2012, 12:33 PM
I respect Ron Paul's stance on the life issue. I believe it was back in 2008, he was the only candidate that attended the annual pro-life event in DC.

ronpaulhemp
02-26-2012, 12:59 PM
Honestly, the abortion issue is one of the issues I have the hardest time explaining to people on the phone during phone banking. I really don't fully understand the issue myself. How can someone claim that something is a life with inherent rights as such, but at the same time concede that under his policy a state may not choose to prosecute an act of violence against this life? It's been very difficult to grasp and fully explain this position to people.

LibertyEagle
02-26-2012, 01:03 PM
This is the best explanation that I have seen:


Response from Ron Paul Campaign:
Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge

Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USAís goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President.

I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation.

As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Courtís misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected.

It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision.

What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins.

Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not.

This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path.

Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty.
http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

Freespeech468
03-04-2012, 10:45 AM
HE personal view is the ONLY view backed up by Scientific Evidence, and Reasoning.

a Human Karyotype contains 23 Chromosomes necessary for all its wonderful functions to sustain and reproduce a human being on the outside world. Digestion, immunization, all of which require the genetic codes written in the DNA of human beings. an egg can carry only an X chromosome (of the X and Y chromosomes), whereas a sperm may carry either an X or a Y; thus the male sperm determines the sex of any resulting "zygote", if the zygote has two X chromosomes it will develop into a female, if it has an X and a Y chromosome, it will develop into a male.

However, a Zygote contains all the necessary genetic information (23 Chromosomes) when two "gamete" fuse (sperm + Egg). if we were to extract this Zygote and look at its genetic code we HAVE to conclude this code is EXACTLY identical to a Human Genome. THUS this Zygote is Scientifically identified as HUMAN!

Under the Declaration of Independence ALL humans are endowed with unalienable Rights under there "creator" (personally im an Atheist) that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

jcannon98188
03-04-2012, 11:16 AM
Honestly, the abortion issue is one of the issues I have the hardest time explaining to people on the phone during phone banking. I really don't fully understand the issue myself. How can someone claim that something is a life with inherent rights as such, but at the same time concede that under his policy a state may not choose to prosecute an act of violence against this life? It's been very difficult to grasp and fully explain this position to people.

Because it is not a federal issue unfortunately. Murder is not a federal crime, it is a state crime. Technically, a state could legalize murder if they wanted to. It is the same issue as with drug use. Dr. Paul is against drug use. But he knows that it is not the governments job to decide if you can or cannot do drugs. That is the problem with following the constitution. We have to hold to it, even when it is not popular, or easy.

Voluntary Man
03-04-2012, 11:40 AM
1) life begins at conception.

2) abortion ends a life.

3) Roe v. Wade needs to be repealed.

4) authority to regulate abortion needs to be fully returned to the states.

pcgame
03-04-2012, 01:17 PM
ron paul does NOT believe abortion is acceptable even in rapes.

Brett85
03-04-2012, 02:00 PM
Technically, a state could legalize murder if they wanted to.

No, they couldn't! The 5th and 14th amendments contain a right to life which would prevent a state government from legalizing murder. What Ron wants to do is to pass a federal law that states that life begins at conception, clarifying that the unborn have the same legal protections under the 5th and 14th amendments. The states would still be in charge of passing and enforcing laws against abortion, but Ron's legislation would essentially force the states to write and enforce these laws.

eduardo89
03-04-2012, 02:14 PM
"But does he believe a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted baby to term? What does he believe should be done instead of abortion? "

It shouldn't be up to the federal government. He's pro life and as you mentioned above, believes only under certain circumstances such as rape would an abortion be acceptable.

That point aside, it isn't as relevant as to what he believes in (even though he states what that is) because those decisions should be left up to the states to decide.

No, he doesn't. He doesn't buy that rape exception bs.

Feeding the Abscess
03-05-2012, 03:50 AM
No, he doesn't. He doesn't buy that rape exception bs.

He endorses the morning after pill and an estrogen shot to prevent implantation after a rape, which would be murder under the personhood definition.