PDA

View Full Version : Other: Did Ron Paul Convince you on Abortion?




EBounding
04-16-2012, 08:07 PM
Just curious, because he convinced me about the immorality of the wars and the real danger to our civil liberties. He seems to be the only pro-life candidate/politician who could actually convince people about the immorality of abortion because of his stance on other issues. Just curious though, not trying to start a debate about abortion.

Napolitanic Wars
04-16-2012, 08:15 PM
I was already being converted to that position but he helped a lot.

fisharmor
04-16-2012, 08:17 PM
No, seeing pictures of tiny dismembered heads and arms convinced me.

Sola_Fide
04-16-2012, 08:19 PM
Francis Schaeffer convinced me.

sevin
04-16-2012, 09:58 PM
Yea I changed my mind after reading Revolution: A Manifesto. He describes a time when he was still a student and saw a late-term abortion. They pulled out a living baby, put it in a bucket and pretended it wasn't there. Meanwhile in another room doctors were working hard to save a baby that was about the same size because the mother wanted it. That story really got me thinking.

insidemanpoker
04-16-2012, 10:16 PM
Yea I changed my mind after reading Revolution: A Manifesto. He describes a time when he was still a student and saw a late-term abortion. They pulled out a living baby, put it in a bucket and pretended it wasn't there. Meanwhile in another room doctors were working hard to save a baby that was about the same size because the mother wanted it. That story really got me thinking.

Easy to argue with that kind of example, but how do you respond regarding issues of a girl pregnant for like 4 weeks where the baby is certainly not even close to developed like that yet? Again, not trying to start an argument one way or another, but just curious how you reply to that example if you are trying to have a genuine debate? It IS different than 20 weeks. Whether that matters from an ethical standpoint is up for debate but you get my point...

ican'tvote
04-16-2012, 11:13 PM
He convinced me that it's ok to have libertarian views and be against abortion.

PierzStyx
04-16-2012, 11:56 PM
No, seeing pictures of tiny dismembered heads and arms convinced me.

Ye gods, this exactly. For me it was incredible to meet a candidate who openly supported the views on abortion I already held.

PierzStyx
04-17-2012, 12:02 AM
Easy to argue with that kind of example, but how do you respond regarding issues of a girl pregnant for like 4 weeks where the baby is certainly not even close to developed like that yet? Again, not trying to start an argument one way or another, but just curious how you reply to that example if you are trying to have a genuine debate? It IS different than 20 weeks. Whether that matters from an ethical standpoint is up for debate but you get my point...

Go read Liberty Defined. He treats it in detail. Essentially you have human rights naturally, because you are human. And if you trace the growth of a person all the way back to the conception stage it is still a human sperm and a human egg forming a human zygote. If our rights come to us because they are imbedded in our very humanity, then even at this early stage of development rights would still exist because what is being formed is a human being and it is being formed from human parts. The paramount right of all rights is the right to life (as in "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness") and if you wish to protect all other rights you must protect the right to life. Any "right" a woman may have to an abortion is overridden by that right to life the child has because you only have a right to something until your rights threaten the lief of another, i.e. a woman getting an abortion threatens the life of the child. Abortion is the greatest initiation of force against an innocent indefensible being imaginable.

sevin
04-17-2012, 06:12 AM
Easy to argue with that kind of example, but how do you respond regarding issues of a girl pregnant for like 4 weeks where the baby is certainly not even close to developed like that yet? Again, not trying to start an argument one way or another, but just curious how you reply to that example if you are trying to have a genuine debate? It IS different than 20 weeks. Whether that matters from an ethical standpoint is up for debate but you get my point...

Well, if the baby in the story was 8 months along, what about 7 1/2 months? Still a baby or just a fetus? If it's a baby, what about 7 months? What about 6 1/2? Where does one draw the line between baby and fetus? I eventually concluded that a baby is a baby no matter how small.

fisharmor
04-17-2012, 06:23 AM
Well, if the baby in the story was 8 months along, what about 7 1/2 months? Still a baby or just a fetus? If it's a baby, what about 7 months? What about 6 1/2? Where does one draw the line between baby and fetus? I eventually concluded that a baby is a baby no matter how small.

Another example I picked up over the years:
Say you're driving down the road.
You see a 1' cube cardboard box in the middle of the road.
You do not know its contents.
It could be full of 8 penny nails.
Or it could be completely empty.

The pro-abortion position is analogous to running over the box because, as everyone knows, it's probably empty.

People don't ever run over the box on purpose, though.
And if they would just look at the pictures, they'd see it too: the box is, actually, full of nails.

Republicanguy
04-17-2012, 06:41 AM
In theory it sounds good, but it doesn't work in practice.

jkr
04-17-2012, 07:32 AM
yep!

slamhead
04-17-2012, 07:46 AM
He convinced me to have stronger convictions in what I already knew in my mind to be immoral. My position is more pragmatic. Abortions will never go away whether they are legal or not. He did convince me that with the absence of a constitutional amendment stating when life begins the issue is better served by the states and local communities and would be the fastest way to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

NoOneButPaul
04-17-2012, 08:14 AM
Certainly got me to reconsider my stance nationally but i'm still of the mindset abortion is a 10th amendment issue...

Pennsylvania
04-17-2012, 08:14 AM
No. Rothbard's argument has not be sufficiently refuted.

NoOneButPaul
04-17-2012, 08:16 AM
Well, if the baby in the story was 8 months along, what about 7 1/2 months? Still a baby or just a fetus? If it's a baby, what about 7 months? What about 6 1/2? Where does one draw the line between baby and fetus? I eventually concluded that a baby is a baby no matter how small.

I draw the line when the fetus can actually live outside of it's mother...

No Free Beer
04-17-2012, 08:18 AM
I have something called MORALS.

Pro-life. Forever.

Weston White
04-17-2012, 04:51 PM
What about these aspects for consideration:

1. An infant’s legal date of birth is not at some set stage while still within the womb, but when it passes through the birth canal or otherwise exits from the mother.

2. Isn’t the mother in essence a form of continued life support for the infant until it is has reached a fully developed stage and can sustain its own bodily functions and operations (i.e., without the continued connection to the mother, the infant would certainly pass away)?

3. What about the rights of one’s relatives or one’s own self to terminate life support for the infirmed, gravely ill, dying, brain-dead, etc? Should not the same concept apply to pre-births, that is given to reasonable circumstance?

4. Surely, there will come a time in the nearing future when timely scientific testing will show undoubtedly that an infant if born will suffer lifelong debilitating mental illness, retardation, physical handicap, deformities, etc.; would it not be unnecessarily cruel to force birth in such tragic instances?

5. While, certainly, there is a point in time during the stages of pregnancy that the mere notion of an abortion becomes entirely ludicrous or even sacrilegious, in the greater sum of the “prolife” debate, isn’t it truly a personal family choice more than a civil concern designed to maintain the goodness of all social morality?


Ultimately, as to Ron Paul’s personal stance on the subject, I wholly agree the entire matter should be left to the individual states, period. While, should the national government desire, it is well within its breadth to establish the definition of life, the meaning of life, etc., etc., but that is the entire extent of its powers of grant. Ron Paul is entirely within his rights to hold a personal position on either side of the abortion debate, just as I or anybody else is. However, personal choice should remain as a gift bestowed by individual responsibility, not to be dictated by public law; save for when such enters the realm of imprudence or callous impropriety.

Primarily, I feel that the infamous media has been trying to turn this into yet another misconception to volley against Ron Paul, just as they have with his declaration to end the fraudulent “war on drugs”, so as to be taken to mean that he wants to legalize all drugs (or even their preposterous “isolationist” label they persistently dole about), utterly nonsensical and contriving I say.

In the end such a “hot topic” as this one, really only serves to polarize those already united on much more substantial and pressing matters. We are in fact far off in necessity or perfection from even attempting to square away this matter. Should we not instead be focusing our efforts and energies on more of a top down approach?

flynn
04-17-2012, 04:55 PM
Nope, but he did convince me of having a second look at the current system and made me realize government shouldn't decide what time during the pregnancy of a potential human being is considered life. But in the end, it is still up to the mother.

Sola_Fide
04-17-2012, 05:01 PM
No. Rothbard's argument has not be sufficiently refuted.

Pffft.... I've seen it destroyed by posters here. Ron goes out of his way to mention how Ayn Rand and Rothbard were wrong on the abortion issue too in The Revolution and Liberty Defined.

Tankbot85
04-17-2012, 05:21 PM
Nope, but he did convince me of having a second look at the current system and made me realize government shouldn't decide what time during the pregnancy of a potential human being is considered life. But in the end, it is still up to the mother.

Pretty much this.

What others do with their loves is none of my business.

kylejack
04-17-2012, 05:35 PM
No, he didn't. I am in favor of legal and safe abortion.

Keith and stuff
04-17-2012, 05:39 PM
No. I already thought murdering a baby wasn't the best thing.

Sola_Fide
04-17-2012, 05:45 PM
No, he didn't. I am in favor of legal and safe abortion.


Being Pro-Life Is Necessary To Defend Liberty by Ron Paul

Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.

Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.

We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.

A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.

A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.

We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.

I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.

Sola_Fide
04-17-2012, 05:45 PM
dbl....

dannno
04-17-2012, 05:52 PM
Ron Paul reminded me that not all people who are pro-life people are pre-marital sex haters like most people who are pro-life seem to be.. Most people (mainstream Republicans) who are pro-life they seem to hate the idea of people have pre-marital sex more than they seem to hate the idea of the actual murdering of the fetus. They have this attitude that seems to emanate this concept that a baby is some how punishment for the pleasure of having sex, and to avoid that punishment, or responsibility, goes against God's plan. These are the same people who are very much against contraception.

Ron Paul has helped me to explain to a lot of progressives that there are actually Republicans who have legitimate concerns against abortion and aren't just caught up in the anti-sex part. People who say that it is not consistent for a libertarian to be pro-life are easily knocked down, and although I am pro-choice I can see how being pro-life is also a consistent position for a libertarian to hold.

dannno
04-17-2012, 05:55 PM
Being Pro-Life Is Necessary To Defend Liberty by Ron Paul

That is dependent on the assumption that a fetus is a human life. Not everybody believes that a fetus is fundamentally human during the first tri-mester or two. Most people can agree that it becomes fundamentally human at some point before being born.

Jingles
04-17-2012, 06:12 PM
I've gone back and forth on the issue personally for many of years for I can absolutely completely understand both sides of the argument. I was a never an ardent "pro-lifer" in my neocon days but simply supported the positions for it was what republicans "believed". I was really rather "liberal" on social policy as an atheist neocon, but just conformed my view to the party line. At the moment I think evictionism is generally correct (for it addresses both self-ownership as well as "the life of the fetus"), but it's more of defining "what is life" is the issue for me. I also don't want to use state action against people who may view this differently. I just think abortion will become less relevant as we gain even better control of our reproductive processes and etc...

But in the grand scheme of things abortion is probably the absolute least important issue to me.

kylejack
04-17-2012, 11:40 PM
Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law.

I read this part and thought he was going to go in to an argument about why an embryo with, say, 20 cells is a human being deserving of protection, but he didn't, so I maintain my position. Killing a fetus that has no sense of feeling, no sentience, no thought processes, is absolutely not the same as killing a baby with all its faculties.

For me, the timing of abortions is a legitimate point of inquiry, but not the legality of killing a zygote that has just implanted.

Sola_Fide
04-18-2012, 12:19 AM
Well, there have been so many threads on this and I've spent so much time trying to do what Ron Paul suggested for me to do: try to convince pro-abortion libertarians how inconsistent they really are. But hey, you can only spend so much time doing it I guess. Some people (in this thread) are perfectly content with inconsistency...and I believe that inconsistency stems from a hatred of God. My opinion...take it or leave it.

For now, I will just remain with Ron Paul on this issue. He is right...as usual.

Karsten
04-18-2012, 12:22 AM
Abortion and immigration are 2 issues that I disagree with Ron Paul on. I'm pro-choice (on everything) and for open borders.

Feeding the Abscess
04-18-2012, 12:23 AM
This is really the only way I can see how to deal with the rights of a fetus as a human being:

If this is true (a fetus being human), no human has the right to force someone else to care for it and sustain their life; as such, neither does a fetus. Arguing otherwise would logically mean that rights belong to groups of people rather than individuals. Ethically, forcing a woman to sustain a fetus against her will is no different than forcing us to sustain people who choose not to work.

This also means that killing the fetus, unless its presence is a mortal threat to the mother, is not permissible. Evicting the fetus, however, is not murder; otherwise, declining to give a sandwich to a starving man would be murder.

Arguing that the State should enforce regulation of this issue is a grave error. Forcing the sustenance of an individual at the hand of another person is an ethical defense of the entirety of the welfare state; from Social Security and Medicare all the way to food stamps and free housing.

I could also go into consequentalist reasoning, namely that the surest way to make a problem more potent, wider-ranging, and with further violation of rights is to involve the thieving death machine that is the State. Or that eviction allows the chance for someone else to voluntarily care for it, and could possibly spur an increase in early life technology, saving an untold number of lives. Or supplementing all of this with repealing all restrictions on adoptive services.

Adhering to the principles I've laid out above will lead to a greater respect for life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

If somebody wants to argue that the fetus is not human, and also possesses the ability to force another human to sustain its life... have fun.

Sola_Fide
04-18-2012, 12:25 AM
Abortion and immigration are 2 issues that I disagree with Ron Paul on. I'm pro-choice (on everything) and for open borders.


A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs. ...

Indy Vidual
04-18-2012, 01:12 AM
He convinced me that it's ok to have libertarian views and be against abortion.

You 'guys' do know we need a lot more college-age girls around here don't you?
Ever wonder why there is (generally) such a lack of women in the ranks?
Pro-choice is the Libertarian way!

Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state (http://www.issues2000.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Abortion.htm)

JohnM
04-18-2012, 02:45 PM
No, it was high school biology that convinced me on abortion.

It was because Ron Paul was anti-abortion that I was willing to listen to his opinions on a lot of other subjects - and willing to change my mind.

floridasun1983
04-19-2012, 12:58 AM
Well, I am and always have been ardently pro-life. Perhaps its the fact that I am an adopted child, and realizing the option of being killed before I got a chance was a very real possibility, drove my development of that viewpoint.

I actually don't agree with Dr. Paul on the issue though. I contend that the 5th amendment protects the unborn from being killed without due process of law, and thus being in the Bill of Rights, is the supreme law of the land and is not a state issue. Dr. Paul seems to believe that this is a state issue. Its a strange position to be in, because I am a huge State's Rights supporter. I suspect that if I ever got the chance to discuss it one on one with Dr. Paul the difference would be in what is considered "Personhood."

I do absolutely agree with Dr. Paul though that the real issue is the morality of a nation that performs such terrible acts in the first place, and making it illegal will not simply solve the problem anymore than making drugs illegal has solved that one.

thequietkid10
04-20-2012, 06:11 PM
I suppose I'm a pragmatist at heart.

For me, it is not enough to say "life begins at conception," humans take lives all the time, life that is much more advanced then a "fetus." And I'm not talking about war. For me it's a question of humanity. Humanity for me is the ability to think and to perceive the world around you. So for me abortion is acceptable up until the 8th week.

The Free Hornet
04-20-2012, 07:09 PM
In the end such a “hot topic” as this one, really only serves to polarize those already united on much more substantial and pressing matters.

Yes.

When pro-life becomes pro-state intervention into our private medical affairs, it has gone too far. Many things can be deemed necessary to liberty. Famously, Thomas Jefferson thought education was so important, it ought to be taxpayer financed. He was wrong.

1) "life begins at conception" is at odds with the morning after pill or emergency contraception. To many in the pro-life crowd, preventing implantation should be no different than throwing the fetus (fertilized egg) on the sidewalk. Why is it not?

2) "life begins at conception" requires a faith-based approach as to what makes us human. There is nothing holy about our DNA even when combined with the DNA of another. Our brains, free will, and our individuality are what matter. That takes more than a few weeks.

3) Something can be immoral without the state intervening to stop it. That is the core of the liberty philosophy. A government big enough to stop abortion is nothing none of us claim to want, so why push for Federal definitions of life?

4) If you try to ban abortion, you won't win. You won't help the children - born or unborn. The liberty message is supposed to bring us together, but the abortion issue is one that tears us apart. Look at the government's war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terrorism. What exactly do you think the government can do right?

5) Properly understood, government is there to resolve matters when our rights are in conflict or threatened. When Joe assaults Bob or Mary thinks Sarah stole her money. Government as an advocate for the fetus is a dangerous thing and it won't stop with preventing abortions. The mother is either a better advocate for the unborn or in little-to-no position to be a mother. Getting an abortion means "not ready to be a mother".***

In a libertarian world, all the tools that could be used to prevent abortion ought not exist. The state should not license professionals and your medical history should be private.

Regarding politics, libertarian pro-lifers destroy coalition opportunities. Why should pro-lifers budge while the pro-choice crowd stands their ground: Because the pro-choice crowd

1) advocates for less government power
2) recognizes the folly and ineffectiveness of government

When someone uses abortion as a liberty litmus test, they do the movement a diservice. For starters, we have a very poor understanding of what the other would legally permit. Late term? (Ron Paul no) Emergency contraception (early-term abortion)? (Ron Paul yes? How is dropping that egg OK by Jesus?). More so, we don't know what sort of legislation they promote to enforce this pro-life vision. Is it the death penalty, life in prison at taxpayer expense, a small fine? Do the mother-to-be and abortionist share the penaltly equally?

Can you be pro-life and NOT favor government regulation of the issue??? Pro-life is synanymous with "opposition to the legaliziation of abortion" but is that the same as "opposition to the decriminalization of abortion" and why can't one simply be "opposed to abortion"???

Instead of aligning itself with the "safe, legal, and rare" crowed, the pro-life movement has gone out of its way to demonize the middleground. AFAIK, the pro choice movement as a whole doesn't ostracize those who oppose taxpayer funded abortion. You'll be ostracized for not wanting universal butt-wiping, but that is another issue.

Disregarding the nutjobs who won't support Ron Paul because he is pro life, I don't think it is unfair to characterize the pro choice view as an inclusive one and the pro life one as exclusive. It didn't need to be that way, but it is.

To answer the thread's question, "No, Ron Paul did not convince me that the state ought to be more powerful than it already is." Clear enough?


*** I fully exclude those who want to be a mother but have health problems or a developing baby with health problems. Not all of us are ready to support a child needing long-term care and the government has ensured that you will go bankrupt trying.

dbenoy
05-28-2012, 07:44 PM
I'm a super opinionated guy and abortion is one of the few issues I struggle with. It's really complex and difficult.

Wags
05-30-2012, 04:39 PM
Nah, but the fact that Paul's views on abortion aligned with mine led me to seek out his views on other matters. He did sway me on other issues: non-interventionism, abolishing min wage, laissez-faire capitalism, and so on.


You 'guys' do know we need a lot more college-age girls around here don't you?
Ever wonder why there is (generally) such a lack of women in the ranks?
Pro-choice is the Libertarian way!

Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state

I'm a girl in college and I'm against abortion. If you're trying to suggest something about genders on this issue, I think it's irrelevant.


If this is true (a fetus being human), no human has the right to force someone else to care for it and sustain their life; as such, neither does a fetus. Arguing otherwise would logically mean that rights belong to groups of people rather than individuals. Ethically, forcing a woman to sustain a fetus against her will is no different than forcing us to sustain people who choose not to work.

This also means that killing the fetus, unless its presence is a mortal threat to the mother, is not permissible. Evicting the fetus, however, is not murder; otherwise, declining to give a sandwich to a starving man would be murder.

"No human has the right to force..."

Riddle me this: How does an unconscious fetus knowingly commit a crime against the mother?

If the fetus doesn't knowingly commit a crime, how does it then follow that we are to hold the fetus accountable, via death?

On your second point here, abortion and evicting a fetus are not the same thing. Abortion is an act to secure the death of the fetus. This is not a matter of simply "evicting" someone. The closest any abortion procedure comes to resembling an "eviction" is something very similar to a Caesarian section which cuts off the umbilical cord while the 6-7 month old fetus is still in the womb (correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe fetuses are said to develop "viability" at this point). Of course, when you cut off the oxygen like that, it results in the suffocation and death of the fetus. If the fetus were permitted to come out of the mother's body before cutting the cord, it would probably live. The C-section abortion is not close enough to an eviction. All abortion procedures aim to secure the death of the fetus.

crhoades
05-30-2012, 05:12 PM
Check out Ron Paul's book Abortion and Liberty (http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf) for an expanded argument on his views.

I was already a pro-life proponent (hence taking the effort to retype this book) but i must say I would like to have a sit down discussion with him on the case of rape and the morning after pill. He has broached it a couple of times but they were compressed and he didn't get his whole reasoning out.

muzzled dogg
05-30-2012, 08:25 PM
He reaffirmed that it's more local than federal

I go as far as to say that let each woman decide

awake
05-30-2012, 08:44 PM
Defending the idea of life logically involves the smallest and most delicate humans. Government funding and legislation of this moral issue should be stopped. I can't think of something more immoral than to force people (taxation) to fund a relentless attempt to convert a mothers womb into a lethal injection death chamber.

Dr. Paul sealed the deal on my views.

Supernaut
05-30-2012, 08:45 PM
No, and thankfully he never tried to push the issue down my throat. It never appeared to have been on of his main issues, and it shouldn't be.

Zach Vega
05-31-2012, 04:17 AM
Well, killing people should be illegal. That's just my take on it.

Tankbot85
05-31-2012, 05:23 AM
Nope, it is still a womans right to choose what she does with her body.

Kluge
05-31-2012, 05:40 AM
I put it in the same category as marriage: Get the gov't out of it completely. It's too complex for one person to make the decision for another from many points of view. Between a doctor/patient, and only those others as the woman decides.

HigherVision
05-31-2012, 06:04 AM
Just curious, because he convinced me about the immorality of the wars and the real danger to our civil liberties. He seems to be the only pro-life candidate/politician who could actually convince people about the immorality of abortion because of his stance on other issues. Just curious though, not trying to start a debate about abortion.

Nah, I was already against killing babies. I don't care if it makes certain women mad, sucking up to immoral women is for chumps. When I was younger though I might have said I was for it.


Nope, it is still a womans right to choose what she does with her body.

Under this logic women should be allowed to strangle people because after all her hands, her body.

If abortion is legal then men should be under no obligation to pay child's support to a woman. He should have the same ability to thwart his responsibilities that she does. We live in a misandrist culture when a woman has every right to kill the baby growing inside her if she doesn't want to assume responsibility for parenting it but if a man doesn't want to assume this same responsibility watch out. He's a deadbeat dad, a no good chump. He needs to 'man up' and 'take care of his'. But when the same standard is applied to a woman it's all 'back off!' 'Her body, her choice!' Well that's a bullshit anti-male double standard and no one who's truly for liberty should support it. & by the way I think that the idea of 'getting the government out of it' is utopian and silly. That to me just seems like a way to dodge the issue and not take a stand on it. Government certainly will stay in it, probably for our whole lives. So we should try to affect the laws that we live under under our government, because realistically it isn't going anywhere. And if that means alienating some people I say fuck it, even if it's people you want to have sex with.

BestVirginia
05-31-2012, 07:42 AM
After reading Liberty Defined, I definitely came away with an evolved view on abortion. At this point, I am personally against it. But there are a couple problems:

1. The line between fetus and human is too blurry.

2. If abortion were to be outlawed, they would still happen. Only in much more unsafe conditions for the mother.

3. Woman SHOULD have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies, just as much as men. At some point however, it is not just THEIR body we are talking about.

If I could manage to sort out those issues, I'd have a much clearer idea on abortion. But I don't, and this is not a critical issue for me, so it rests in a sort of mental purgatory for me.

brandon
05-31-2012, 07:55 AM
Nope I'm still pro-choice.

Athan
05-31-2012, 08:38 AM
Yup. Ron Paul did indeed fully convince me.

At the time, I was just fustrated with the pointlessness of the debate (it was going nowhere) and how it was simply being used as a wedge issue for each side. Dr. Paul gave me a clear conscience and understanding of the position. I could also trust him, and not feel just some fool was trying to make me pull the lever for a party. It means more than you think to simply tell the truth all the time.

fr33
05-31-2012, 09:08 AM
I was always pro-life but people like Ron Paul set me straight on the death penalty so now I'm truly pro-life.

jmdrake
05-31-2012, 09:34 AM
Just curious, because he convinced me about the immorality of the wars and the real danger to our civil liberties. He seems to be the only pro-life candidate/politician who could actually convince people about the immorality of abortion because of his stance on other issues. Just curious though, not trying to start a debate about abortion.

Ron Paul's consistency on being pro life for unborn American babies and living Arab babies (anti war) definitely clinched the deal for me becoming pro life. But I started having second thoughts about abortion when I saw how eager the left was to see the life of Terri Schiavo. True that's "end of life" instead of the beginning of life. And I'm not mad at those with differences of opinions on either side. But the way MoveOn.org tried to make pulling the plug on her a cause celeb shocked me and got me thinking. Also learning about the racism of Magaret Sanger (thanks Alex Jones and others) gave me great pause. I handed out fliers for Ron Paul at a pro life rally and found out that most pro lifers seemed like pretty decent people. (Shocker I know!) Then when sign waiving for Dr. Paul at the 2008 primary, I met a Hillary Clinton supporter who kept badgering me about how Dr. Paul should "just support Hillary". I explained to her that he simply disagreed with Hillary on certain key issues. She kept badgering me further so I brought up abortion. She acted like I had just kicked her puppy. After droning on and on about the usual "How dare he try to control my body" crap, she went on to say "There wouldn't be so many people in prison if there were more abortions". Of course it was fine that she was a single mom because she was responsible. Needless to say most of the people in prison are black and she was white. If I had had any food in my stomach I would have thrown up. This confirmed what I had already begun to suspect. Liberal doesn't necessarily mean "not racist" and conservative doesn't necessarily mean "racist" and I shouldn't blindly embrace every policy some party says I'm supposed to embrace.

Kluge
05-31-2012, 09:42 AM
Ron Paul's consistency on being pro life for unborn American babies and living Arab babies (anti war) definitely clinched the deal for me becoming pro life. But I started having second thoughts about abortion when I saw how eager the left was to see the life of Terri Schiavo. True that's "end of life" instead of the beginning of life. And I'm not mad at those with differences of opinions on either side. But the way MoveOn.org tried to make pulling the plug on her a cause celeb shocked me and got me thinking. Also learning about the racism of Magaret Sanger (thanks Alex Jones and others) gave me great pause. I handed out fliers for Ron Paul at a pro life rally and found out that most pro lifers seemed like pretty decent people. (Shocker I know!) Then when sign waiving for Dr. Paul at the 2008 primary, I met a Hillary Clinton supporter who kept badgering me about how Dr. Paul should "just support Hillary". I explained to her that he simply disagreed with Hillary on certain key issues. She kept badgering me further so I brought up abortion. She acted like I had just kicked her puppy. After droning on and on about the usual "How dare he try to control my body" crap, she went on to say "There wouldn't be so many people in prison if there were more abortions". Of course it was fine that she was a single mom because she was responsible. Needless to say most of the people in prison are black and she was white. If I had had any food in my stomach I would have thrown up. This confirmed what I had already begun to suspect. Liberal doesn't necessarily mean "not racist" and conservative doesn't necessarily mean "racist" and I shouldn't blindly embrace every policy some party says I'm supposed to embrace.

Personally, I've found that many white liberals are quite racist, hence their support for abortion/welfare/affirmative action, etc. They think that black people need them to "make it," like they're some benevolent parental figure.

And they rarely realize it.

Kluge
05-31-2012, 09:42 AM
dupe

jmdrake
05-31-2012, 09:45 AM
Personally, I've found that many white liberals are quite racist, hence their support for abortion/welfare/affirmative action, etc. They think that black people need them to "make it," like they're some benevolent parental figure.

And they rarely realize it.

Well those ready to have Clarence Thomas "put back in the fields" or "strung up" certainly are.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc

WhistlinDave
05-31-2012, 10:09 PM
As someone who believes in Karma and Reincarnation, the issue is not quite as black and white for me as it might be for others. Because at the point when the baby becomes sentient and capable of feeling pain and suffering, in my world view, the person (baby) chose that body to inhabit, and they chose that family and/or mother and that life circumstance in order to work on whatever Karmic task(s) they are working on this time around, on their path to eventual enlightenment.

So I believe the baby who is aborted, and who is old enough to feel it, chose that experience this time around in order to work off some significant Karmic debt from a past lifetime or lifetimes. Therefore, the baby isn't an innocent, unwilling participant. That person chose to be there and needs to be there, as crazy as that might sound.

I imagine perhaps someone who caused a great deal of death and suffering to others might come back hundreds or thousands of times or more in order to experience the horror of being killed in the womb. (Hitler, for example. He's got quite a lot of bad Karma to work off, and might spend a lot of time getting aborted over and over before he can move on to experience any semblance of a lifetime again. Complete speculation on my part, and yes, probably sounds pretty crazy to most people who are unfamiliar with the ideas of Karma and Reincarnation.)

Now... Even if that's the way it works, that still does not make it OK from a moral standpoint unless there are other factors (unsafe pregnancy/danger to mom, etc.). Because if a baby is sentient, i.e. old enough to feel pain and suffering, then the people doing this to them (the mother and the doctor) are now committing an act that is causing suffering to another being for one's own convenience or profit, and so this is bad Karma for the adults, and they'll need to deal with that Karma at some point. If not in this lifetime, then in some other one.

The thing about Karma and Reincarnation is, it's the only theological philosophy that allows bad things to happen to babies and other innocent people and still allows you to have Cosmic Justice (or in Christian terms, a "just God."). I suppose that's why I've always gravitated to this belief, because I do choose to believe in an omnipresent consciousness at the base core of the fabric of the Universe, that maintains a perfectly balanced, just equation in the end, but the Biblical concepts of God and morality are way too inconsistent and leave far too many unanswered questions for my preference. (e.g. How can you have a just and loving God and have innocent babies aborted, or kids born starving in thirld world countries, or born deformed and/or suffering, etc... You can't. Unless you have Karma and Reincarnation, that is. Atheism didn't resonate with me any more than Catholicism did... But I digress...)

Anyway... I do think once the baby is sentient (able to feel and suffer), even if the victim chose to be there it is still an act of murder on the part of the perpetrator; abortion is some pretty bad Karma for those doing it. I believe people shouldn't do it. I just don't know if I should have government enforce this belief without exception.

I think I agree with Dr. Paul this should not be regulated on the Federal level, and should be left up to the states for a few reasons:

1. As others have already pointed out, people are going to obtain unsafe abortions if it's made illegal across the board;

2. People could vote with their feet; California could keep it legal while North Carolina could make it illegal, and anybody living in a state where it's illegal could still conceivably cross state lines to go get a safe one elsewhere; and

3. Since there will probably always be people who believe it's not murder, and they are going to do it whether I like it or not, then all I can say is, their Karma is on their own head, and I can't make it my concern beyond perhaps trying to convince them to reconsider their viewpoint. To do otherwise (ban abortion at the Federal level) is impractical. You can't make everyone happy, truly, on this issue, but having the government enforce it one way or the other for everyone will simply be too difficult and unenforceable unless done at the state level, with the presumption that some states will probably never outlaw it.

Ron Paul didn't change my mind on this, and I agree with his position on what the government should do, even if for slightly different reasons.

I hope my unconventional beliefs (in this part of the world, anyway) don't cause any controversy here on an otherwise uncontroversial topic.

amateur libertarian
06-03-2012, 06:11 PM
Congressman Ron Paul is the man! No questions about that. As Sevin said in an earlier post, Ron Paul's vivid description of an abortion as a medical student was compelling. I've always that it was morally wrong, but hearing a champion of liberty like Ron Paul articulate only confirmed my intuition.

dillo
08-01-2012, 11:10 PM
no, I dont even really feel abortions are immoral. But even if I did, I certainly wouldn't want the federal government enforcing it.

Bman
08-01-2012, 11:30 PM
If the question is if I have become pro-life because of Ron I would have to say no.

It's not that abortion is right. It's not that we shouldn't try to prevent unwanted pregnancies that lead to these decisions. It's what I see as a humane action towards people who decide to have or give abortions. I think society should strive for the day that we commit no acts of murder, but there's no punishment I can give to a person that would be worse than their own guilt. Look at Norma McCorvey. That poor woman knows she made a mistake. Wishes that someone could have stopped her. Hopefully she can help someone make a better decision. I still don't think she should be jailed. Nor do I think anyone else should. I think Ron is wrong to want government to have a say in this. It means he is for the use of force. This is an area where I think force is not an answer.

Roxi
08-02-2012, 12:19 AM
Sort of. I was always pro life for myself, kind of judged people who did it (okay I totally judged them), but still thought it was the choice of the parents involved.

I can't say when, or if it was anything specific, but even being a Voluntarist, I view it as murder, and should be dealt with as murder is in the state that it happens.

Sola_Fide
08-02-2012, 12:30 AM
Defending the idea of life logically involves the smallest and most delicate humans. Government funding and legislation of this moral issue should be stopped. I can't think of something more immoral than to force people (taxation) to fund a relentless attempt to convert a mothers womb into a lethal injection death chamber.

Dr. Paul sealed the deal on my views.


Dear Awake,

Please post more often.


SF

Tankbot85
08-02-2012, 06:26 AM
Nope. Still Pro Choice. It is none of my business what personal decisions people make between them and their doctor.

Eagles' Wings
08-02-2012, 09:22 AM
Nah, I was already against killing babies. I don't care if it makes certain women mad, sucking up to immoral women is for chumps. When I was younger though I might have said I was for it.



Under this logic women should be allowed to strangle people because after all her hands, her body.

If abortion is legal then men should be under no obligation to pay child's support to a woman. He should have the same ability to thwart his responsibilities that she does. We live in a misandrist culture when a woman has every right to kill the baby growing inside her if she doesn't want to assume responsibility for parenting it but if a man doesn't want to assume this same responsibility watch out. He's a deadbeat dad, a no good chump. He needs to 'man up' and 'take care of his'. But when the same standard is applied to a woman it's all 'back off!' 'Her body, her choice!' Well that's a bullshit anti-male double standard and no one who's truly for liberty should support it. & by the way I think that the idea of 'getting the government out of it' is utopian and silly. That to me just seems like a way to dodge the issue and not take a stand on it. Government certainly will stay in it, probably for our whole lives. So we should try to affect the laws that we live under under our government, because realistically it isn't going anywhere. And if that means alienating some people I say fuck it, even if it's people you want to have sex with.+rep

Interesting ideas.

KingRobbStark
08-02-2012, 09:51 AM
I keep hearing the typical "Her body, her choice" mantra, but I have a mantra of my own, "My semen, my say."

If you don't accept that, then don't expect any child support.

economics102
08-02-2012, 01:50 PM
I'm in favor of abortion being legal at every stage. This is possibly the one issue Ron Paul has not convinced me on.

However, Ron Paul has helped me understand the argument in favor of the fetus' right to life, and while I don't agree with the ultimate conclusion, I have a lot more respect for the argument and understand how he comes to his conclusion.

Certainly I can understand why someone who has spent his life delivering babies would feel strongly on this issue.

On the other hand, as someone else in this thread pointed out, there are no shortage of tragic stories involving pregnant women who suffer due to pregnancies.

Further, tragic stories don't trump principle. For example, if certain economic regulations actually improve the economy, that does not morally justify interfering with free trade.

So, not convinced, but Ron Paul has had a substantial impact on how I view the issue.

cajuncocoa
08-02-2012, 01:56 PM
Just curious, because he convinced me about the immorality of the wars and the real danger to our civil liberties. He seems to be the only pro-life candidate/politician who could actually convince people about the immorality of abortion because of his stance on other issues. Just curious though, not trying to start a debate about abortion.Yes, he did. I was leaning that way after doing some research on eugenics, but Ron Paul knocked it out of the park.

nasaal
11-04-2012, 02:31 PM
No. This is the issue I am most at odds with when it comes to Ron Paul. I don't care about the issue so it doesn't effect my desire to see a Ron Paul presidency, but if I did care about it it might be a deal breaker.

Adrock
11-04-2012, 02:54 PM
Ron Paul didn't change my mind on abortion. He did help me better understand why I am Pro-Life. That better understanding did convince me on war though. I feel like I have a much more consistent viewpoint on life now.

presence
11-04-2012, 02:58 PM
Well, if the baby in the story was 8 months along, what about 7 1/2 months? Still a baby or just a fetus? If it's a baby, what about 7 months? What about 6 1/2? Where does one draw the line between baby and fetus? I eventually concluded that a baby is a baby no matter how small.

I disagree.

I believe that we should shift the cutoff line from "viability" to "embryo/fetus transition" which occurs at week 10/12. I'm a believer in intravaginal ultrasound if you want such a procedure to prove the child is not over a certain legal weight indicative of organ development; a brain. I think there should be a legislated weight of maximum embryo size to be aborted, for all social reasons to abort, simple as that. As it stands 80% of all abortions currently occur before week 12 anyway. I also agree with an abortion to prevent eminent mortality of the mother, at her request, up until the time of birth. I'd go so far as to say that there needs to be a representative of the people to record aborted embryo weight factored into the cost of the procedure, and the doctor (or anyone else performing the procedure) would be liable for manslaughter charges over a certain weight. Perhaps a three strikes rule. Generally, I believe aborting fetuses is wrong and criminal, but I have no problem with pre-organ-development embryos in light of the various social reasons to abort.

presence

EBounding
11-13-2012, 08:21 AM
Ron Paul didn't change my mind on abortion. He did help me better understand why I am Pro-Life. That better understanding did convince me on war though. I feel like I have a much more consistent viewpoint on life now.

Same here. Even when I supported the wars, I was still uncomfortable with "collateral damage" and the fact that the wars were never declared. It feels great not to have that conflict anymore.

When it comes to abortion, viability is irrelevant; it's the respect for human life that matters. We need to respect life whether the child is in the womb or thousands of miles away in a warzone that we don't see.

CaptUSA
11-13-2012, 08:43 AM
Reasonable people can disagree where to draw this line.

(Personally, I think once the zygote is properly impregnated, all bets are off. In my view, this allows for a morning after pill that prevents impregnation. Similar to Dr. Paul's view, but not entirely.)

However, one thing we can all agree on is that this decision is not best placed in the hands of a federal government.

GunnyFreedom
11-13-2012, 09:10 AM
Before Ron Paul I was pro life but deeply ashamed of it. After Ron Paul I was pro life and no longer ashamed.

philipped
10-12-2013, 05:01 PM
Nope. Still Pro Choice. It is none of my business what personal decisions people make between them and their doctor.

This.

eduardo89
10-12-2013, 08:08 PM
I respect Ron's position, but I don't necessarily agree with him that it should be handled at the state level, nor do I consider him 100% pro-life as he is not against contraception and morning after pills, which are completely anti-life.

That said, I think Ron is miles ahead of 99% of the rest of Congress when it comes to this issue.

MaxPower
10-13-2013, 12:11 AM
I was pro-life before I had ever heard of Ron Paul, though I was greatly pleased, in the course of learning about him, to see how closely his understanding of the abortion issue matched mine.

amartin315
03-31-2015, 06:52 AM
He made me appreciate the pro-life point of view more, but I am still pretty much pro-choice.

I think it should be left to individual states, or better yet, individual courts to decide who is on the wrong side of the 'non-agression principle' in every individual case.

For example, if a woman was raped she never agreed to have the fetus inside her and thus she is off the hook.

If a woman was not raped, she has to face up to her decision to have sex and carry the baby to term.

I do not believe in an incest exception. That is still consensual and studies show not all babies born of incest inevitably have deformities.

I agree with the view that the woman ought to be able to evict the baby from her property. However I also understand that a court order to evict might involve waiting just a little bit longer until the baby is ready to come out naturally or the court order might involve 'eviction on the spot.'

For all of this you would probably need special "abortion courts" that are able to make decisions much more speedily than regular courts so as not to render decisions moot.

jmdrake
03-31-2015, 07:44 AM
He made me appreciate the pro-life point of view more, but I am still pretty much pro-choice.

I think it should be left to individual states, or better yet, individual courts to decide who is on the wrong side of the 'non-agression principle' in every individual case.

For example, if a woman was raped she never agreed to have the fetus inside her and thus she is off the hook.

If a woman was not raped, she has to face up to her decision to have sex and carry the baby to term.

I do not believe in an incest exception. That is still consensual and studies show not all babies born of incest inevitably have deformities.

I agree with the view that the woman ought to be able to evict the baby from her property. However I also understand that a court order to evict might involve waiting just a little bit longer until the baby is ready to come out naturally or the court order might involve 'eviction on the spot.'

For all of this you would probably need special "abortion courts" that are able to make decisions much more speedily than regular courts so as not to render decisions moot.

Ron's position on the morning after pill best deals with the rape exception question. Nobody would say that a child born of rape should have any less rights than a child born of consensual sex so why the exception? Because any woman could claim she was raped for abortion purposes. The morning after pill should be available to anybody, rape victim or not. Then theirs no motive to lie if it's not a rape. A rape victim should be able to make up her mind quickly that she doesn't want to carry the baby to term. If she waits past the window where the morning after pill works then she's made a choice for life.

amartin315
03-31-2015, 12:33 PM
Ron's position on the morning after pill best deals with the rape exception question. Nobody would say that a child born of rape should have any less rights than a child born of consensual sex so why the exception? Because any woman could claim she was raped for abortion purposes. The morning after pill should be available to anybody, rape victim or not. Then theirs no motive to lie if it's not a rape. A rape victim should be able to make up her mind quickly that she doesn't want to carry the baby to term. If she waits past the window where the morning after pill works then she's made a choice for life.

In the rape exception, the woman still has a right to choose... or not to choose. You cannot force her to make a decision, life or death, of another human being (even if that human being is technically by your definition of the morning after pill, still unborn.) Not only can you not do so, but it is morally wrong to force someone who has just been raped to make a decision of such gravity...within any allotted time frame, let alone by the morning after. As long as that baby is inside her she can choose 'evict' or 'not evict.'

When a woman has consensual sex, she has made a choice that she has to live by. No one forced her to make a choice on the spot.

I would not make an exception for incest, unless it was underage incest of course, in which case the rules of rape apply.

There also needs to be an exception for threats to the life of the mother, however rare those cases may be.

EDIT: As to the case of people who lie about whether or not they've been raped, that is just something you have to live with. If it is later found that she lied, she is liable for punishment.

LibertyExtremist
03-31-2015, 12:50 PM
In my opinion, abortion is murder and it is wrong. I have always felt this way and I felt the same way as an atheist, deist, and a Christian. That being said, I believe that there are certain circumstances where an abortion might be justified (rape, incest, fetal abnormalities, threat to mother's life, etc.).

jmdrake
03-31-2015, 01:07 PM
In the rape exception, the woman still has a right to choose... or not to choose. You cannot force her to make a decision, life or death, of another human being (even if that human being is technically by your definition of the morning after pill, still unborn.) Not only can you not do so, but it is morally wrong to force someone who has just been raped to make a decision of such gravity...within any allotted time frame, let alone by the morning after. As long as that baby is inside her she can choose 'evict' or 'not evict.'

Sure you can. At some point she's not allowed to make the "choice" to wrap the newborn up and throw it in the dumpster just because she was a rape victim. And not making a choice is a choice. Saying it's morally wrong to "force" someone to make a choice is an infantile approach to rape victims. When a woman is raped she has the choice to go to the hospital and get a rape kit done so that there is evidence to use later in a trial. Any honest police officer would say "I can't make you do that. But if you don't it will be much more difficult to get a conviction." Life is about choices. Calling choices immoral makes no sense.



When a woman has consensual sex, she has made a choice that she has to live by. No one forced her to make a choice on the spot.

I would not make an exception for incest, unless it was underage incest of course, in which case the rules of rape apply.

There also needs to be an exception for threats to the life of the mother, however rare those cases may be.

EDIT: As to the case of people who lie about whether or not they've been raped, that is just something you have to live with. If it is later found that she lied, she is liable for punishment.

It's difficult enough to prove a woman lied about rape by a particular man. It would be pretty much impossible to prove that a woman lied about being raped by some unnamed stranger. And your proposal is grossly unfair to the baby that didn't choose to have a rapist as a father.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKrW7vP8W00


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqeBHTxPkeA

amartin315
03-31-2015, 01:19 PM
Sure you can. At some point she's not allowed to make the "choice" to wrap the newborn up and throw it in the dumpster just because she was a rape victim. And not making a choice is a choice. Saying it's morally wrong to "force" someone to make a choice is an infantile approach to rape victims. When a woman is raped she has the choice to go to the hospital and get a rape kit done so that there is evidence to use later in a trial. Any honest police officer would say "I can't make you do that. But if you don't it will be much more difficult to get a conviction." Life is about choices. Calling choices immoral makes no sense.

The choice she always has is not whether to throw the baby in the dumpster, but whether to 'evict' the baby from her motherly care or not. If she chooses to evict the baby after it is 'born' (outside the womb) then the decision to 'evict' must be done reasonably, taking into account the baby's right to life. It is not unreasonable to expect the mother to leave the baby in the care of some other person. Inside the womb, it is impossible to 'evict' without harming the baby, therefor all considerations for the baby's life have been made and unfortunately the sad scientific reality is that the baby must die in order to respect the mother's rights.

She has a right to live her life without someone coming along and saying "you must shove this pill down your throat or else..." (or else carry a baby for 9 months.) In that case she is a victim of aggression and has no responsibility to any other person.




It's difficult enough to prove a woman lied about rape by a particular man. It would be pretty much impossible to prove that a woman lied about being raped by some unnamed stranger. And your proposal is grossly unfair to the baby that didn't choose to have a rapist as a father.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKrW7vP8W00


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqeBHTxPkeA

It's difficult to prove and it's unfair to babies, but that's tough. I believe the non-aggression principle doesn't always lead to "fair" or "happy" outcomes.

jmdrake
03-31-2015, 01:20 PM
In my opinion, abortion is murder and it is wrong. I have always felt this way and I felt the same way as an atheist, deist, and a Christian. That being said, I believe that there are certain circumstances where an abortion might be justified (rape, incest, fetal abnormalities, threat to mother's life, etc.).

I once argued that position until a pro abortion advocate argued that if I really believed abortion is murder then why would I be okay with murdering a child who's father was a rapist? Note that I had not argued the "abortion is murder" point that you have. So I hope you can see the problem in trying to hold both the "It's murder" position and the "Well if it's rape it's okay" position.

jmdrake
03-31-2015, 01:25 PM
The choice she always has is not whether to throw the baby in the dumpster, but whether to 'evict' the baby from her motherly care or not. If she chooses to evict the baby after it is 'born' (outside the womb) then the decision to 'evict' must be done reasonably, taking into account the baby's right to life. It is not unreasonable to expect the mother to leave the baby in the care of some other person. Inside the womb, it is impossible to 'evict' without harming the baby, therefor all considerations for the baby's life have been made and unfortunately the sad scientific reality is that the baby must die in order to respect the mother's rights.

She has a right to live her life without someone coming along and saying "you must shove this pill down your throat or else..." (or else carry a baby for 9 months.) In that case she is a victim of aggression and has no responsibility to any other person.

You are going by what you call reasonable.



It's difficult to prove and it's unfair to babies, but that's tough. I believe the non-aggression principle doesn't always lead to "fair" or "happy" outcomes.

Except you aren't following NAP. You are supporting aggression against the unborn based on whether or not the mother made some poor choice early on. If the baby isn't a baby then fine. There's no aggression if the mother has an abortion for whatever reason. If the baby is a baby then you can't say "Well it's a violation of NAP if the mother was a slut and aborts it but it isn't a violation of NAP if she was raped and aborts it." An innocent person's rights cannot be dependent upon the victimhood of the aggressor.

staerker
03-31-2015, 01:44 PM
Imago Dei.

amartin315
03-31-2015, 01:45 PM
You are going by what you call reasonable.



Except you aren't following NAP. You are supporting aggression against the unborn based on whether or not the mother made some poor choice early on. If the baby isn't a baby then fine. There's no aggression if the mother has an abortion for whatever reason. If the baby is a baby then you can't say "Well it's a violation of NAP if the mother was a slut and aborts it but it isn't a violation of NAP if she was raped and aborts it." An innocent person's rights cannot be dependent upon the victimhood of the aggressor.

An innocent person's rights aren't dependent on the victimhood of the aggressor. The baby always has a right to life. It's just that the mother ALSO has a right to her bodily integrity, however you want to call it. There are two competing rights.

That's why it's important to have a concept of "reasonableness", which is why I would make the decision in court on a case by case basis as I originally said. Courts deal with the word "reasonable" all the time. They have it down to a science almost. It's not a difficult concept to apply.

When a rape victim gets raped, she has, against her will, been provided with a choice. Evict or do not evict. She has been presented with a situation where she must make a decision or else carry a baby to term. It is a decision under duress, not only because it comes as the result of rape, but also because she is faced with grave consequences for either action that she could decide to take. If she decides life, then she is faced with carrying a baby to term. If she chooses death, then she is faced with the prospect of a thought that might haunt her for the rest of her life. Under these circumstances, it is unreasonable to force her to make choices under duress in a short amount of time. Decisions made under duress are violable.

Ergo, she is never considered to be responsible for the baby in her womb. The baby does have a right to life, but since the mother never made the free choice to waive the rights to her body, she retains those rights. We have competing rights. The woman has no right to take the baby's life, but the baby has no right to the woman's body. The woman is free to take away her body in the most reasonable way possible. As a sad consequence, the baby dies. There is no reasonable (or other) way to evict a baby in the womb without it dying.

Just imagine if the Jehova's witness comes on my lawn. I want him to go away. It is reasonable for me to escort him off my property. It is unreasonable for me to shoot him and escort him off my property. All else being equal of course.

jmdrake
03-31-2015, 02:39 PM
An innocent person's rights aren't dependent on the victimhood of the aggressor. The baby always has a right to life. It's just that the mother ALSO has a right to her bodily integrity, however you want to call it. There are two competing rights.

A mother doesn't give up that right to bodily integrity simply by voluntarily sleeping with someone. So it's till a "competing right" if that's the way you want to cast it. And reasonable is giving the rape victim two choices. You can take an abortion pill now, or you can wait until the baby can be "evicted" without harm to your or the baby. With modern incubation technology that is not nine months as you asserted. Further, decades ago we had the ability to do embryo transplants.

http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/FetalAdoption.htm


That's why it's important to have a concept of "reasonableness", which is why I would make the decision in court on a case by case basis as I originally said. Courts deal with the word "reasonable" all the time. They have it down to a science almost. It's not a difficult concept to apply.

When a rape victim gets raped, she has, against her will, been provided with a choice. Evict or do not evict. She has been presented with a situation where she must make a decision or else carry a baby to term. It is a decision under duress, not only because it comes as the result of rape, but also because she is faced with grave consequences for either action that she could decide to take. If she decides life, then she is faced with carrying a baby to term. If she chooses death, then she is faced with the prospect of a thought that might haunt her for the rest of her life. Under these circumstances, it is unreasonable to force her to make choices under duress in a short amount of time. Decisions made under duress are violable.

Like you said. Life isn't fair. All you've done is transferred unfairness from mother to child. And at no point is the pregnancy is there a lack of duress for the choice so that really isn't worth factoring into the argument. It's better for the mother to make the choice early in the pregnancy. She doesn't know the child's sex. There is less wear and tare on her own body. At this point there is no nervous system or heartbeat so it's less arguably a "life." In fact most consider the morning after pill not to be an abortion at all as it usually (some argue always) works by preventing the egg from being released. So you're asking a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant to make the only sensible choice possible.



Ergo, she is never considered to be responsible for the baby in her womb. The baby does have a right to life, but since the mother never made the free choice to waive the rights to her body, she retains those rights. We have competing rights. The woman has no right to take the baby's life, but the baby has no right to the woman's body. The woman is free to take away her body in the most reasonable way possible. As a sad consequence, the baby dies. There is no reasonable (or other) way to evict a baby in the womb without it dying.

Just imagine if the Jehova's witness comes on my lawn. I want him to go away. It is reasonable for me to escort him off my property. It is unreasonable for me to shoot him and escort him off my property. All else being equal of course.

I'm not sure where you are going with the JW analogy. Are you suggesting that you don't ever agree with a mother, even a rape victim, taking an action that kills the fetus? That's the Walter Block argument. (Evictionism). I can go along with that position. I don't think it should be relegated only to victims of rape though. But that doesn't seem to be what you were saying earlier.

LibertyExtremist
03-31-2015, 02:58 PM
I once argued that position until a pro abortion advocate argued that if I really believed abortion is murder then why would I be okay with murdering a child who's father was a rapist? Note that I had not argued the "abortion is murder" point that you have. So I hope you can see the problem in trying to hold both the "It's murder" position and the "Well if it's rape it's okay" position.

Absolutely and that is why I said "might" be justified in my post. Excluding rape, I think that the other positions are certainly justifiable (abnormalities, incest, threat to mother's life), however, the issue I think is a bit muddy when it comes to rape as it was not something that the woman consented to, thus why should she have to suffer the consequences of carrying a rapists child? I'm not saying that necessarily justifies an abortion, but it kind of complicates the issue. Also, I'm not disagreeing with your logic here, just thinking out loud.

amartin315
03-31-2015, 08:28 PM
A mother doesn't give up that right to bodily integrity simply by voluntarily sleeping with someone. So it's till a "competing right" if that's the way you want to cast it. And reasonable is giving the rape victim two choices. You can take an abortion pill now, or you can wait until the baby can be "evicted" without harm to your or the baby. With modern incubation technology that is not nine months as you asserted. Further, decades ago we had the ability to do embryo transplants.

http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/FetalAdoption.htm



Like you said. Life isn't fair. All you've done is transferred unfairness from mother to child. And at no point is the pregnancy is there a lack of duress for the choice so that really isn't worth factoring into the argument. It's better for the mother to make the choice early in the pregnancy. She doesn't know the child's sex. There is less wear and tare on her own body. At this point there is no nervous system or heartbeat so it's less arguably a "life." In fact most consider the morning after pill not to be an abortion at all as it usually (some argue always) works by preventing the egg from being released. So you're asking a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant to make the only sensible choice possible.



I'm not sure where you are going with the JW analogy. Are you suggesting that you don't ever agree with a mother, even a rape victim, taking an action that kills the fetus? That's the Walter Block argument. (Evictionism). I can go along with that position. I don't think it should be relegated only to victims of rape though. But that doesn't seem to be what you were saying earlier.

Consider a Jehova's witness on my yard. He has a right to life. I have a right to property. The reasonable thing to do is to kick the JW off my property if I dont want him there. I don't have a right to shoot him in order to get him off my property. If he refuses to leave peacefully, then I have the right to shoot him in order to make him leave, even though he has a right to life. We are balancing the rights of the two people. We apply a reasonableness standard based on the circumstances.

If I had invited the JW to my property and promised his father he could stay there for 9 months, then that changes the circumstances. I voluntarily waived certain rights to my property. Now it is not only unreasonable to ask the JW to leave, it is certainly also more unreasonable to shoot him if he doesnt comply.

EDIT: Now consider again the JW in my yard with no 9 month agreement. I don't have to decide, right as soon as the JW comes on my property, whether or not I want to hear more from him. I can wait and let him say a few words, or I can let him talk to me for hours, and I can still have the right to say GTFO. And then, if he doesn't comply, his right to life becomes moot.

philipped
04-01-2015, 09:29 AM
He actually did not. It took my best friend telling me he chose life and his partner did not. And my other friend giving birth to his first daughter this morning. I was only looking at it conceptually when Ron Paul spoke of it, it effected me a lot more as I began to put myself in my friends shoes for some reason. Looking at how it effected my friend who currently isn't a father, and the one who became one today is what moved me away from being completely for abortion.

jmdrake
04-01-2015, 01:33 PM
Consider a Jehova's witness on my yard. He has a right to life. I have a right to property. The reasonable thing to do is to kick the JW off my property if I dont want him there. I don't have a right to shoot him in order to get him off my property. If he refuses to leave peacefully, then I have the right to shoot him in order to make him leave, even though he has a right to life. We are balancing the rights of the two people. We apply a reasonableness standard based on the circumstances.

If I had invited the JW to my property and promised his father he could stay there for 9 months, then that changes the circumstances. I voluntarily waived certain rights to my property. Now it is not only unreasonable to ask the JW to leave, it is certainly also more unreasonable to shoot him if he doesnt comply.

EDIT: Now consider again the JW in my yard with no 9 month agreement. I don't have to decide, right as soon as the JW comes on my property, whether or not I want to hear more from him. I can wait and let him say a few words, or I can let him talk to me for hours, and I can still have the right to say GTFO. And then, if he doesn't comply, his right to life becomes moot.

Not a good analogy as the JW voluntarily got on your property and could leave without violence. Here is a correct analogy.

You own a boat. You are in middle of the ocean. It's a 9 month journey until you get to port. There are no life rafts on your boat. There are two people on your boat that you decide you no longer want on. One is someone you invited on. The other was kidnapped by someone else and forced on your boat. Do you have more of a right to put the one who was kidnapped and forced on your boat off in the middle of the ocean to certain death than the one you invited on your boat?

jmdrake
04-01-2015, 01:34 PM
He actually did not. It took my best friend telling me he chose life and his partner did not. And my other friend giving birth to his first daughter this morning. I was only looking at it conceptually when Ron Paul spoke of it, it effected me a lot more as I began to put myself in my friends shoes for some reason. Looking at how it effected my friend who currently isn't a father, and the one who became one today is what moved me away from being completely for abortion.

Very moving story. Thank you for sharing.

amartin315
04-01-2015, 01:58 PM
Not a good analogy as the JW voluntarily got on your property and could leave without violence. Here is a correct analogy.

You own a boat. You are in middle of the ocean. It's a 9 month journey until you get to port. There are no life rafts on your boat. There are two people on your boat that you decide you no longer want on. One is someone you invited on. The other was kidnapped by someone else and forced on your boat. Do you have more of a right to put the one who was kidnapped and forced on your boat off in the middle of the ocean to certain death than the one you invited on your boat?


Yes

dannno
04-01-2015, 02:09 PM
No, but he made the position sound a lot more reasonable.

However I don't see any difference between a very early term abortion and pulling the fire alarm at a honey moon retreat.

jmdrake
04-01-2015, 02:24 PM
Yes

You might feel that way, but any court of law would convict you of murder just the same. Not so if you threw the kidnapper himself overboard.

jmdrake
04-01-2015, 02:27 PM
No, but he made the position sound a lot more reasonable.

However I don't see any difference between a very early term abortion and pulling the fire alarm at a honey moon retreat.

And that's why the morning after pill argument is so compelling. Most likely at this point we there hasn't even been fertilization. It is irresponsible for a woman who might not want to carry a rapists baby to say "Well....let me think about this for 5 months and get back with you."

amartin315
04-01-2015, 03:47 PM
You might feel that way, but any court of law would convict you of murder just the same. Not so if you threw the kidnapper himself overboard.

One certainly has less of a right than the other to the ship captain's food and his toilet for the next 9 month voyage.

24marinematt
04-13-2015, 08:16 PM
I believe late term abortions should absolutely be illegal, but I wouldn't call myself "pro-life". I'll just leave it at that.

Nirvikalpa
04-14-2015, 09:44 AM
No. My own personal experience in medicine and emergency services dealing with the underserved and uninsured flipped me from being vehemently pro-life to pro-choice.

I can only control my own choices and what I do with my own body. I don't feel it's within my right to impose my morality on anybody, and I want politics and politicians as far from the reproductive rights spectrum as they can possibly get.

Terry1
04-14-2015, 10:18 AM
Ron Paul isn't pro abortion--he's anti-government sanctioned/funded by the taxpayers for abortion. He believes in the right for people kill their unborn, but at their own peril, cost and consequence and not others who don't believe in it. Let them answer to God and let God be their only judge and jury.