NOT FOR FEIGNT OF HEART! - NEW VIDEO: "Why Ron Paul is Pro-Life"

[ronpaulfan]

I think a reason many women have a hard time supporting Ron Paul is because of his stance on abortion. I hope this video helps them understand why he is pro-life, even if they disagree with him.

I have to warn you, it made me cry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k-me7FdnYg

[ronpaulfan]

Also, if you haven't already, please read this to connect with the Republican base: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=37580

[ronpaulfan]

I think a reason many women have a hard time supporting Ron Paul is because of his stance on abortion. I hope this video helps them understand why he is pro-life, even if they disagree with him.

I have to warn you, it made me cry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k-me7FdnYg

I heard somewhere that 12% of men support Ron Paul but only 2% of women support him. We have to reach out to both women and Republicans if we are going to win the nomination.

[Hope]

I'm pro-choice and I really don't think this video is in any way effective at bring more pro-choice men and women to Ron Paul's side.

[goldenequity]

I really didn't know what a partial birth abortion was until I saw this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_W75zh1j2I

[Pete Kay]

I've heard him tell that story before. It's very moving.

I found out that my girlfriend was pregnant when we were just teenagers. My first response was a feeling of love. Immediately I felt the need to make her safe and protect my child. Even though I was just a kid, I knew that I had to be responsible for my actions. The thought never even crossed my mind to want to kill my baby before he was even born. I just don't why people have been taught this act of violence against your own offspring is acceptable. Why would you want to harm yourself? That's what a child is. A child is a continuation of your own self. A passing of life to another generation. Why would anyone choose to end their own bloodline? I just don't understand this concept.

[Pete Kay]

I'm pro-choice and I really don't think this video is in any way effective at bring more pro-choice men and women to Ron Paul's side.

I think the label "pro-choice" is a misnomer. Everyone has a choice. If you choose to have sex with someone then be prepared to accept the consequences. You should just say that you are "pro-abortion" because that's what the essence of that position means. Saying "pro-choice" is a distrotion of what the whole issue is really about.

[Ron Paul Fan]

You should just say that you are pro-killing innocent babies because that's what the essence of that position means. You can't protect liberty without protecting life. It's a great movie ronpaulfan. A very sad story and one that every American should hear.

[Broadlighter]

I've heard Ron Paul's story about witnessing a partial birth abortion. The doctors put a crying newborn in a trash receptical and the baby cried until it died.

I'm generally pro-choice, but I would find it hard to remain so if I was in Dr. Paul's shoes. I think that getting the Federal Government out of the business of ruling on abortion is a step in the right direction. I also think the states should follow the same example. It's the ultimate stalemate between two principles of common law - no government has the right to take a life and no government has the right to restrict one's freedom.

The problem with passing laws that determine who or what a person is or when a person becomes a person gives the government a power it shouldn't have. Once that measure has been defined, it now motivates political forces to change that definition. Person's came into existence before there were any governments and governments exist because of persons - not the other way around.

Dr. Paul makes a good point about a Doctor's liability. If a doctor makes a mistake that costs a wanted fetus its life, he's liable for the damages. A fetus either has rights or it doesn't have rights and the laws seem to be schizophrenic about this. I'm not sure if I'm not a little schizo about it either.

I don't think the debate over this issue will ever be solved by politics or legislation. It's too personal and too polarizing.

[ronpaulyourmom]

I take a more nuanced position, in that I'm only willing to support an abortion under any circumstance if it's performed in the first trimester. I think there's a powerful case to be made that life doesn't begin at conception, but instead at we would call self-awareness.

That said, the anarchist in me doesn't like laws one way or the other... but I would certainly hope that nobody decides to have an abortion, especially after the first trimester.

[Pete Kay]

You should just say that you are pro-killing innocent babies because that's what the essence of that position means. You can't protect liberty without protecting life. It's a great movie ronpaulfan. A very sad story and one that every American should hear.

I agree. I'm not trying to gang up on hope, because her position can be for what she feels are very vaild reasons. I just know from personal experience that I could never have considered killing my child. My son is ten now. I was just a teenager when he was born. Lots of people told us to abort him. To kill him. I was shocked and hurt that people thought that it was okay to suggest to kill my baby. My child! Pregnancy is a beautiful thing. It really makes me sad that some people see it as an abomination.

[Ron Paul Fan]

I agree. I'm not trying to gang up on hope, because her position can be for what she feels are very vaild reasons. I just know from personal experience that I could never have considered killing my child. My son is ten now. I was just a teenager when he was born. Lots of people told us to abort him. To kill him. I was shocked and hurt that people thought that it was okay to suggest to kill my baby. My child! Pregnancy is a beautiful thing. It really makes me sad that some people see it as an abomination.

You are so right Pete. Life does begin at conception and abortion is murder. Pro life or pro murder? I choose pro life and I'm so happy that you chose pro life as well. I could never consider killing my child either. My own offspring. It's good to hear that your son is alive and well. Bringing a child into this world is a beautiful experience and nobody knows that better than Dr. Paul.

[Pete Kay]

I take a more nuanced position, in that I'm only willing to support an abortion under any circumstance if it's performed in the first trimester. I think there's a powerful case to be made that life doesn't begin at conception, but instead at we would call self-awareness.

That said, the anarchist in me doesn't like laws one way or the other... but I would certainly hope that nobody decides to have an abortion, especially after the first trimester.

When my girlfriend had her first ultra-sound she was in her first trimester. Our baby was so small then that they couldn't find him with a normal ultra-sound. They brought in a special internal ultra-sound inserted through the vagina that projected a 3d image on the screen. The doctor searched for a while and then he found him! My son. He was only the size of pea, but there he was with little arms and legs kicking and moving. I remember feeling so much joy. That was my child. I don't care if he had awareness or not. He was alive and there was no way in hell I would ever consider killing him.

[Benaiah]

Most people who are "pro-choice" are against the following:

- my choice in where to send my kid to school (vouchers)
- my choice on gun ownership
- my choice in how I keep and spend my money
- my choice on smoking in public places (well, those who smoke)

The worst part is that I am forced to pay for abortions (1/3rd of an abortion is paid for with our taxes). What kind of "pro-choice" is that? I'm forced to pay for something I believe is murder?

Pro abortion is what it is, not pro choice.

[Pete Kay]

Most people who are "pro-choice" are against the following:

- my choice in where to send my kid to school (vouchers)
- my choice on gun ownership
- my choice in how I keep and spend my money
- my choice on smoking in public places (well, those who smoke)

The worst part is that I am forced to pay for abortions (1/3rd of an abortion is paid for with our taxes). What kind of "pro-choice" is that? I'm forced to pay for something I believe is murder?

Pro abortion is what it is, not pro choice.

You are right. I constantly hear the argument by women saying that "It's my body and I should be able to 'choose' what I want to do to it." Well, yes that's true, but a human child isn't some parasite that you should just choose to surgically remove. And what about a father's choice? If some guy "chooses" to not support his baby then why do the courts force him to pay child support? It's his life and his body. Why should he be forced to pay for the consequences of his actions? A women doesn't have to. She can just abandon her baby or kill it before it's born. It all makes no sense whatsover.

[Ncturnal]

I thought of myself as pro-choice in the past but it was a minor issue for me as I felt it was necessary to take the responsibility to avoid the pregnancy in the first place. Dr. Paul has changed my stance on the abortion issue and I support his position fully. You can't defend liberty without defending life and he's correct when he says we are grossly inconsistent on the issue.

That said.....


The worst part is that I am forced to pay for abortions (1/3rd of an abortion is paid for with our taxes). What kind of "pro-choice" is that? I'm forced to pay for something I believe is murder?

Not to sound shrewed in any way, but it's a lot cheaper to fund that abortion than it is to fund welfare for the mother and child for 18+ years, or fund the child in foster care because the mother gave it up, not to mention the societal costs later inflicted by child that grew up "unwanted". I'm not justifying abortions by that statement but merely pointing out that under our current welfare system, we pay one way or another, unless the parents take personal responsibility. Clearly the costs of the abortion to the taxpayers cannot be the basis for the issue as aborting is a far less expensive option. I think a big part of this issue this points back to economic problems in this country. I'd guess one of the biggest reasons for abortion is due to the financial responsibility required to raise a child and I can see how a potentially single mother or young couple would feel overwhelmed, feel scared, and feel like they are up against a hopeless situation. In many cases it is hopeless, and although that doesn't shed the issue of personal responsibility, many times mistakes happen. Again, I'm not saying that justifies it but rather I understand what I think to be a big reason for it. It gets more difficult with each year that passes for people to survive on their own, much less with a child. Clearly there is no easy answer and Dr. Paul is right; the more complicated the issue, the more local it needs to be dealt with. The federal government has no place in the issue.

[Benaiah]

My point was that I'm being forced to subsidize something I view as murder.

[richard1984]

I have yet to watch the video (which I am dreading at the moment :(), but I'd like to raise a question before I do:

How many women (who are not clinically psychotic) have multiple abortions? It seems to me that one abortion is (assumably) traumatic enough to, perhaps, prevent the need for a second one. It seems to me that women who have multiple abortions probably have significant brain/mental disabilities and/or environmental hardships that make it difficult to live a principled life.
You know?

I just wonder how many women get a second abortion.

[jj111]

This video is not very persuasive IMHO. Avoid discussing abortion unless the other person insists on discussing it. Abortion is a wedge issue which politically divides people.

[Pete Kay]

I have yet to watch the video (which I am dreading at the moment :(), but I'd like to raise a question before I do:

How many women (who are not clinically psychotic) have multiple abortions? It seems to me that one abortion is (assumably) traumatic enough to, perhaps, prevent the need for a second one. It seems to me that women who have multiple abortions probably have significant brain/mental disabilities and/or environmental hardships that make it difficult to live a principled life.
You know?

I just wonder how many women get a second abortion.

My sister got two abortions. My parents made her. She was very traumatised about both of them and regrets them to this day. She got pregnant both times when she was just 15. I got my girlfriend pregnant when I was just 17. My parents told me to convince my girlfriend to abort my child and I told them to go to hell. The sad part is that after my son was born my parents have been filled with guilt about making my sister abort her children. There seems to be a disconnect in people's minds from a living, breathing baby and a developing fetus. In my mind they are the same and should be protected.

[tsetsefly]

I think the label "pro-choice" is a misnomer. Everyone has a choice. If you choose to have sex with someone then be prepared to accept the consequences. You should just say that you are "pro-abortion" because that's what the essence of that position means. Saying "pro-choice" is a distrotion of what the whole issue is really about.

actually I would say i am pro-life, I respect the rights of the living women not some fetus...

and it always is funny how christians say "if youre going to have sex be prepared to bear the consequences" like they want everyone to "pay" for their sins so for them the thought of abortion is not " oh a fetus is getting destroyed" its "someone had sex and they will get awya without paying the consequences!, that cant happen!"...
really pathetic....

[Broadlighter]

The worst part is that I am forced to pay for abortions (1/3rd of an abortion is paid for with our taxes). What kind of "pro-choice" is that? I'm forced to pay for something I believe is murder?


Where in Roe v. Wade does it require that abortions be partially paid for by taxpayer money? I never hear pro-choicers argue about this aspect of abortion rights. I only hear about it from the pro-life side.

[MedicSean37]

I take a more nuanced position, in that I'm only willing to support an abortion under any circumstance if it's performed in the first trimester. I think there's a powerful case to be made that life doesn't begin at conception, but instead at we would call self-awareness.



I agree. Except the whole first trimester may be too long. Not for sure. I've always looked it as any point at which there is a developing brain or human like structure. With that reasoning I fully support the Plan B pill, stem cell research, and allow time for rape patients.

[Ncturnal]

My point was that I'm being forced to subsidize something I view as murder.

I agree. The could be said for the Iraq war.

[Benaiah]

//

[Pete Kay]

actually I would say i am pro-life, I respect the rights of the living women not some fetus...

and it always is funny how christians say "if youre going to have sex be prepared to bear the consequences" like they want everyone to "pay" for their sins so for them the thought of abortion is not " oh a fetus is getting destroyed" its "someone had sex and they will get awya without paying the consequences!, that cant happen!"...
really pathetic....

I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic. My feelings about this have nothing to do with religion. A fetus is a life. It's not a thing. Having a sliding scale on what qualifies a human life to deserve to live is a very twisted concept. Are mentally retarded people's lives worth less than a normally developed person?

Taking responsibility for you actions is not just some Christian concept, it's the way of the world. As a father, I have an obligation to my son to provide for him and care for him. Using your logic, I should just be able to abandon him without living up to my responsiblilties because, hey, I'm a free person. I have rights and free will. Why should I be forced into the slavery of raising a child?! I shouldn't have to pay jack squat for his care, because that's an imposition on my freedom! Yeah, makes sense huh?

[greendiseaser]

Most people who are "pro-choice" are against the following:

- my choice in where to send my kid to school (vouchers)
- my choice on gun ownership
- my choice in how I keep and spend my money
- my choice on smoking in public places (well, those who smoke)


Just to point out what i view as a very obnoxious paradox:

support of "pro-life" on the grounds that "pro-choice" is really "pro-murder",
followed by annoyance at people who want to limit public smoking.

Cigarettes can KILL you, and second hand smoke is even more DEADLY.

You can't choose to kill a fetus,
but you should be allowed to walk around waving poison in my face?

I now have to walk around you or go the other way or whatever?

How about those stupid people who wont let you set up your sniper rifle in public and randomly pull the trigger?

Your personal right to freedom and liberty is not allowed to infringe upon mine.
One of MY rights is to be in public with out the fear of someone else murdering me for no reason.

[Pete Kay]

Just to point out what i view as a very obnoxious paradox:

support of "pro-life" on the grounds that "pro-choice" is really "pro-murder",
followed by annoyance at people who want to limit public smoking.

Cigarettes can KILL you, and second hand smoke is even more DEADLY.

You can't choose to kill a fetus,
but you should be allowed to walk around waving poison in my face?

I now have to walk around you or go the other way or whatever?

How about those stupid people who wont let you set up your sniper rifle in public and randomly pull the trigger?

Your personal right to freedom and liberty is not allowed to infringe upon mine.
One of MY rights is to be in public with out the fear of someone else murdering me for no reason.

I never understood this logic. I don't smoke. I hate it. I can't stand being around people who smoke. But if I go to a restaurant where people are smoking, I leave. I go and find a restaurant where there is no smoking allowed. A restaurant, a mall, or a bar are private business. What place is it for the government to tell private businesses what kind of clientel they can have?

[devil21]

Just to point out what i view as a very obnoxious paradox:

support of "pro-life" on the grounds that "pro-choice" is really "pro-murder",
followed by annoyance at people who want to limit public smoking.

Cigarettes can KILL you, and second hand smoke is even more DEADLY.

You can't choose to kill a fetus,
but you should be allowed to walk around waving poison in my face?

I now have to walk around you or go the other way or whatever?

How about those stupid people who wont let you set up your sniper rifle in public and randomly pull the trigger?

Your personal right to freedom and liberty is not allowed to infringe upon mine.
One of MY rights is to be in public with out the fear of someone else murdering me for no reason.

Your liberty also allows my liberty. He stands for personal liberty BUT also allowing the states to pass their own laws as the Constitution intended. Comparing a sniper rifle scenario makes no sense for obvious reasons (I hope!). The beauty of supporting RP is that we do not all agree on every issue. Abortion is one of those issues. But we all respect and deeply want a President that tells the truth and sticks to his principles no matter what. Even if we don't like particular principles of his we can fight those principles when necessary.

It's almost comical to think that I want to elect a President so that I can fight him on any given issue I dont agree with. But at least I know where he stands so the playing field is even and not subject to change by special interest money. If that makes sense....

[tremendoustie]

The fundamental question is at what point a person becomes a person. For some reason, pro-choicers often cast the debate as a "choice" or "privacy" issue. A person has a right to privacy in their own home, but they can't kill their toddler in it, no matter what they think of its personhood. We just need to have a rational discussion about a reasonable definition for the beginning of life, without namecalling from either direction. As Paul suggests, this should be done at the state level, and certainly not by the courts, which is no debate at all.

For my part, I think the idea that a couple of cells is a person is absurd, as is the idea that a baby 5 minutes before birth is somehow not a person, but will be 5 minutes later. I submit that our definition of death is that a person's heart stops beating and they no longer have brain waves, so why should the point at which a baby has a heart beat and exhibits brain waves not be the beginning of life?

[Benaiah]

The fundamental question is at what point a person becomes a person. For some reason, pro-choicers often cast the debate as a "choice" or "privacy" issue. A person has a right to privacy in their own home, but they can't kill their toddler in it, no matter what they think of its personhood. We just need to have a rational discussion about a reasonable definition for the beginning of life, without namecalling from either direction. As Paul suggests, this should be done at the state level, and certainly not by the courts, which is no debate at all.

For my part, I think the idea that a couple of cells is a person is absurd, as is the idea that a baby 5 minutes before birth is somehow not a person, but will be 5 minutes later. I submit that our definition of death is that a person's heart stops beating and they no longer have brain waves, so why should the point at which a baby has a heart beat and exhibits brain waves not be the beginning of life?


If we used heartbeat and brain waves as a definition, there would be no abortions. Heart starts beating around 4 weeks, and brain waves are detected around 5-6 weeks. Most abortions happen well after this, because they don't even realize they're pregnant until they're late (after 4 weeks).

[ronpaulfan]

I apologize to all the pro-choice people out there. I've been debating for weeks whether or not to post the clip, but, in the end decided we should not shy away from any of Dr. Paul's positions (even those we disagree on). We should learn about all of them to educate others and to look again at our own beliefs. I personally was very pro-choice until learning more of the details behind how an abortion is done.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think a reason many women have a hard time supporting Ron Paul is because of his stance on abortion. I hope this video helps them understand why he is pro-life, even if they disagree with him.

I have to warn you, it made me cry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k-me7FdnYg

What stance on abortion? To leave it to the states? Well, hey, boo hoo too bad, he's running for the GOP nomination here. Your country is going down the drain, and all they think about is his personal opinions on abortions? ha. This is what happens when you protect the weak in society; this line of thinking has turned me from a minarchist to an anarchist

[Hope]

I apologize to all the pro-choice people out there. I've been debating for weeks whether or not to post the clip, but, in the end decided we should not shy away from any of Dr. Paul's positions (even those we disagree on). We should learn about all of them to educate others and to look again at our own beliefs. I personally was very pro-choice until learning more of the details behind how an abortion is done.

I just hope that so many of the pro-life people who have posted in this thread realize that the answer to the question of, "How do we get more pro-choice people to Ron Paul's side?" is not, "Show them pro-life literature and movies! Yeah!" Because that just isn't going to work in most cases, it will only drive them away.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I just hope that so many of the pro-life people who have posted in this thread realize that the answer to the question of, "How do we get more pro-choice people to Ron Paul's side?" is not, "Show them pro-life literature and movies! Yeah!" Because that just isn't going to work in most cases, it will only drive them away.

Yup. What a dumb thing to do.

[Hope]

Yup. What a dumb thing to do.

Almost as dumb as making abortion, of all things, the major "Will I vote for 'em?" factor in our political process! I mean, we've had Bush in office for almost eight years, a guy who opposes abortion as vehemently as they come...and the sky has not fallen. Well, it might, but not because of abortion. :o Gah. I wish people wouldn't fall for these distractions.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Almost as dumb as making abortion, of all things, the major "Will I vote for 'em?" factor in our political process! I mean, we've had Bush in office for almost eight years, a guy who opposes abortion as vehemently as they come...and the sky has not fallen. Well, it might, but not because of abortion. :o Gah. I wish people wouldn't fall for these distractions.

I understand why he is pro-life. It's not a personal matter, he just thinks life begins at conception, he doesn't view abortion as a privacy matter. Still, he's going to leave it to the states, so what does it matter anyway?

Is it right to murder someone? That's his same reasoning when it comes to abortion, but he wants to let the states decide, I believe he opposes a federal ban.

[Bruehound]

I am amazed at how many people on this board make the assumption that women are monolithically pro choice. THEY ARE NOT.

You can more accurately predict/stereotype a persons positon on the Life issue based on age and maturity rather than by gender.

And to rebutt another popular misconception(no pun intended), being pro life is perfectly consistant with libertarian philosophy.

[noxagol]

I used to be pro-abortion myself (yes I call it that in real life, I don't go around saying pro-choice and pro-life, they are misnomers) in high school, but honestly, thats just because I thought Republicans were evil and since they were anti-abortion I had to be pro-abortion. But, in my defense, I didn't really give a damn either way, I didn't give two shits about anything political.

Since I have heard Ron Paul speak at a debate way back in May or June, I have become incredibly political and have begun to think things through with the philosophy of rights and liberty in mind. I came to this all seemingly important (it's just a wedge to fuel the partisan politics) issue and came to the conclusion that the issue isn't whether or not abortions are wrong or OK, it is a question of "When does human life begin and what criteria are we going to use?". This is where we all differ on opinion. Some of us, myself included believe that human life begins at conception, others believe that it begins at some other point in gestation, and some believe that it begins at birth only. This is where the problem comes in because I have had exactly ONE debate on the issue where we didn't get into some emotional or religious aspect of this issue, and that was with my socialist/commie friend who is intelligent (though a little misguided I think because he is a commie), and we were able to debate using logic and facts instead of using emotions and religions. I have no respect for those who use emotion and religion to make their case on this issue even though I agree with their end result.

I believe that life begins at conception because the zygote to me is just a very very early stage of human life. It is like a maggot, which is a fly larvae. It is just a stage of fly development. I think, if I recall correctly from my high school biology class, that they even classify a maggot as a fly. The zygote, the stage of human life immediately after conception, is just a stage of human life. It might not have emotions, brainwaves, heartbeat or any sensory input, but it is working on it and if all goes well it will develop these things. I could also see how it could be considered not alive or human life, but the fact that it does not require any outside forces other than nutrients and oxygen from the mother offers evidence that it is in fact human life because it will develop on its own into something more complex and self sustaining.

Another good point to make, which comes from wikipedia, is that when sperm and egg come together, the unique genotype for the soon to be person is created. This I think is when life begins because if nature is allowed to take its course this will develop into a breathing bouncing baby.

As for the argument of birth control, I feel that adoption is a much better option than abortion. If your concern is that you do not want to raise a child, well first you should undergo sterilization surgery to begin with, and second you should find someone to adopt your baby upon birth. There are many people in this country looking to adopt a baby and this I believe is a far better alternative than abortion to getting out of raising a child. The adopters should be the ones to pay for all the medical expenses to further lift the burden off of the soon to be mother and as soon as the baby is born, custody goes to the adopting person/people.

Now, I believe that since the developing embryo/fetus is alive it has a right to its life and this cannot be taken away for ANY reason, except if it is absolutely required to protect the life of the mother. In this instance, the mother is protecting her own life such as is her right. How often this may come up, I have no idea. I do not support abortion in cases of rape or incest however, because I believe the child's right to its life trumps any of that. The right to life trumps all rights in my opinion. I do not believe that the mother has the right to kill the developing embryo/fetus just because she disagrees with the way that it was conceived. I know that this will probably not be a popular position but it is one based in logic and reasoning based on rights.

So in conclusion of my semi-long spiel: Life begins at conception because at this point, the person has their unique genotype established which is the first building block of life and the zygote is just the very beginning of human development. If you want to argue that life begins when development ends, then you are saying that a 3 year old is still not alive and we never are alive until we reach the prime of our life. The right to life trumps all other rights and the only time it is OK for the mother to abort the developing embryo/fetus is threatening her life and the procedure is absolutely necessary to save her life, period. It is a piss poor form of birth control, adoption is a far better option.

And to end, I am not religious in any way and I have zero respect for people who are anti-abortion who's sole basis is "Children are a gift from God". Those people can shove that argument up their ass because that argument is precisely why I use to be pro-abortion.

And to really end, the real debate should be, at what point does life truly begin? If it is arbitrary, then it either begins at birth or conception, the two extremes of fetus development. If it is not, then what is the criteria that determines when it does. If you cannot create a criteria, then it is arbitrary, and we are left with birth vs conception.

[JuniorNJ]

I'm rather ignorant to this topic, never actually spent much time thinking about it and what I feel is correct...but I will pose my question and hope to get some responses regarding it.

If you kill a pregnant woman, aren't there laws that state it is a double murder because she is pregnant? Or at least, isn't that what prosecution will often seek? If this holds water then I see no way how one can say abortion is not murder. With that point, I'm really not sure where I stand. This is a hard one for me.

-j

[noxagol]

I'm rather ignorant to this topic, never actually spent much time thinking about it and what I feel is correct...but I will pose my question and hope to get some responses regarding it.

If you kill a pregnant woman, aren't there laws that state it is a double murder because she is pregnant? Or at least, isn't that what prosecution will often seek? If this holds water then I see no way how one can say abortion is not murder. With that point, I'm really not sure where I stand. This is a hard one for me.

-j

I think the Scott Peterson trial, the one where a woman's husband killed her and she was pregnant, was treated as a double murder, and it was in California of all places.

[JMann]

Though I don't support abortion and I'm totally against Roe v. Wade I do support some abortion rights and use the 'pro-choice' name in order to try and gain choice across the board. My problem with making abortion illegal is because of all the unwanted children that would be around and hated by many single moms. Not a perfect argument I understand but in one of the areas I would agree with W is that you can't make it illegal until you change the hearts and minds of the public that it isn't ok to suck infants out of the womb and throw them away.

The best way I think to move away from abortion is allowing for what I call 'male abortions'. Give men the same right of choice as women over their bodies. If a man doesn't want a child and the woman does the man should be able to legally end any financial responsibility of the child and have freedom of choice of whether or not to be a father. This would give him the same choice of his life and body that a woman now has that a man doesn't.

[literatim]

When I was younger, as soon as I became political and started looking at the world around me, I became pro-life. There is no justification in killing innocent human life.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I now believe in extraction without killing, what am I?

[Ron Paul Fan]

I am pro life and that's why I'm against abortions and the Iraq war. They are both unjust murders. We need to work to prevent both. Dr. Paul has the right constitutional position on abortion and that's the 10th Amendment. I think this is a great video to show to people. Look at all the posts in this thread from people who were once pro murder, but have since been converted to pro life from listening to Dr. Paul. He is right about so many things and this is no exception. Life begins at conception and abortion is murder. You can't protect liberty without protecting life.

[jumpyg1258]

I am pro-choice however that doesn't mean I agree with the way some abortions are done or how far along you can be when it is done.

[leipo]

I don't judge others on this issue. It's not important to me.

[RonPaulStreetTeam]

well that's why this video shouldnt even really be out there.
His stance on abortion upsets me.
And everyone I know.
We all disagree with him on taking away womens choice.

But will he? No one is clear on it.
He will overturn RvW he says for sure.
what does that mean? Make it federally illegal making him a huge hipocrit in federal involvement?
he has NOT said what he will do with this.

but anyways, I never bring up abortion as I will lose the supporter right away.

p.s. I am in Oakland (San Francisco Bay Area)

[Ron Paul Fan]

He has said he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade and leave it up to the states per the 10th Amendment or the Constitution of the United States of America. Dr. Paul is not a hypocrite. He doesn't want to take away a woman's choice. He wants to leave it up to the states to decide!

[robert4rp08]

Yes, Ron Paul is pro-life. IT MUST BE MADE CLEAR though that his personal view on the topic is not why he would repeal Roe vs. Wade; Abortion is too complex and should be a state issue. Period!

In an ideal world, I would be pro-life. As it stands now, I'm pro-choice because it's such a complex issue, e.g., pregnancy due to violent crime, incest, maternal death, etc. I definitely think there's a gray area between pro-life and pro-choice that needs to be explored.

[RonPaulStreetTeam]

He has said he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade and leave it up to the states per the 10th Amendment or the Constitution of the United States of America. Dr. Paul is not a hypocrite. He doesn't want to take away a woman's choice. He wants to leave it up to the states to decide!

yeah I know his views and leaving up to the state.

but he has NEVER said that about abortion, i think we all just auto assume based on his other speeches.

I reallllly need a link to him specifically talking about abortion and leaving it up to state.

because the only ones out there have him saying he will over turn RvW and abortion is murder and life at conception. Sooo it sounded to me like he will make it a murder crime.

I think we all tricked ourselves into the leave it up to the state based on his other thoughts.
am I right?

link please? I need it for many people.

[noxagol]

We all disagree with him on taking away womens choice.


I am curious, I am not trying to attack you or anything, but please explain this. I have never been able to properly debate this. How does a women's right to chose, and I mean simply the right of anyone to make choices period, not necessarily choosing abortion or not, work in this issue?

[Ron Paul Fan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

"I consider abortion an act of violence...but for the most part all acts of violence are handled by state law."

"Therefore it should be worked out at the state level."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXw4lNysT-U

"It's up to the state government."

Need any more links? Have you even watched any of his interviews?

[Bigboyen]

Move this thread - we don't need threads that devides the supporters. And Paul is a good choice both for pro life and pro choice. Leave it to the states and get this thread somewhere else in the forum.

[tremendoustie]

I think that if people would just sit down and think rationally about the issue, they'd realize the ONLY question is, when does life begin? After life begins, abortion is murder, and murder is not justified for socioeconomic reasons, privacy reasons, or any other reason. It's just immoral and illegal, period. Prior to life beginning, abortion is not immoral, since no life is being taken and no violence done, and the woman's right to privacy applies. Therefore, I think we could all have a more reasonable debate if we limited ourselves to debating when life begins, from a rational scientific perspective. If one believes that life begins at time X, it follows that it is murder thereafter, and that person should fight for laws banning it after that point. At the state level, a majority of the people will reach a compromise on the issue, and that will represent our decision as a society on the issue. This should be purely a scientific discussion IMO, and I think that that perspective might cut down on the demonization coming from both sides. As I said, brainwaves/heartbeat sounds reasonable to me, so I suppose I would support only the morning after pill or perhaps very very early abortions. Does anyone disagree for scientific reasons, and want to justify a different definition of the beginning of life -- or explain to me why this is not the way in which the debate should be framed?

[tremendoustie]

Move this thread - we don't need threads that devides the supporters. And Paul is a good choice both for pro life and pro choice. Leave it to the states and get this thread somewhere else in the forum.

I agree, we should move the thread.

[literatim]

I think that if people would just sit down and think rationally about the issue, they'd realize the ONLY question is, when does life begin? After life begins, abortion is murder, and murder is not justified for socioeconomic reasons, privacy reasons, or any other reason. It's just immoral and illegal, period. Prior to life beginning, abortion is not immoral, since no life is being taken and no violence done, and the woman's right to privacy applies. Therefore, I think we could all have a more reasonable debate if we limited ourselves to debating when life begins, from a rational scientific perspective. If one believes that life begins at time X, it follows that it is murder thereafter, and that person should fight for laws banning it after that point. At the state level, a majority of the people will reach a compromise on the issue, and that will represent our decision as a society on the issue. This should be purely a scientific discussion IMO, and I think that that perspective might cut down on the demonization coming from both sides. As I said, brainwaves/heartbeat sounds reasonable to me, so I suppose I would support only the morning after pill or perhaps very very early abortions. Does anyone disagree for scientific reasons, and want to justify a different definition of the beginning of life -- or explain to me why this is not the way in which the debate should be framed?

I think the question isn't when life begins because life is life; the sperm is alive, the egg is alive. The question is when does a separate human entity exist.

[RonPaulStreetTeam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

"I consider abortion an act of violence...but for the most part all acts of violence are handled by state law."

"Therefore it should be worked out at the state level."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXw4lNysT-U

"It's up to the state government."

Need any more links? Have you even watched any of his interviews?

ok so I am still not sure.
he wants to make it murder, conception at birth
and leave punishment up to the state?
what if a state is allowing "murders" to take place?
who will take action?

[Jerkface]

The video makes a good point. By the way, it's not graphic, Ron Paul simply gives a speech about an uncomfortable experience. But the video isn't pro-life propaganda. It's merely trying to get across the fact that Ron Paul is strongly against abortion, but he's willing to set his principles aside and make the proper interpretation of the Constitution his number one priority - that the states have the right to decide, regardless of how he personally feels. This, in my opinion, is what makes him.

[tremendoustie]

I think the question isn't when life begins because life is life; the sperm is alive, the egg is alive. The question is when does a separate human entity exist.

Exactly, that's better put.

[adpierce]

I'm vigorously pro-life but we're not addressing the key issue in the abortion debate here. Roe v. Wade is an abomination because of it's restrictions on state sovereignty. It violates 10th Amendment principles. The fact however is that the argument Roe v. Wade puts forth is that abortions should be allowed not because the State has no interest in protecting potential life (it does), but rather that the costs of back-alley abortions are prohibitive. When a back alley abortion happens not only will you destroy the chance for that life to come into the world you could even end your own life. Everybody sees pregnancy and a fetus as potential life regardless of when they say "life" happens, but we know that the life of the mother is extremely important... she has friends, family, and has contributed to society the infant has done none of those things. I'm presenting the other side to this argument not because I agree with it, but because the medical side to Roe v. Wade is the most powerful side of the argument. Ignoring it is a detriment to the pro-life position.

[Zeeder]

I agree with the Constitution. Murder, or whatever you want to call abortion, is a states issue. This is what make Ron Paul so awesome. Even though he probably wants to outlaw abortion, the constitution is what the President takes the oath to uphold.

Frankly, As a male, I'll don't really get a say in the whole thing. If your wife decides to have one, you are helpless really. Because when it comes down to it, it's HER decision.


On a personal level, the governments jurisdiction should end at the body. Whether abortion is murder or not, is completely irrelevant. If I shrunk all you guys down, ala innerspace with dennis quaid, and injected you into my body. Your in my country now. You have no rights.

[RonPaulStreetTeam]

I still don't get it.
he wants to make it murder, I get that.

but "leave it up to the states"
meaning states can decide if they allow murder or not?
If they do "allow murder" who punishes them?
the state says not me, we allow murderes here based on popular vote?

[Pete Kay]

I still don't get it.
he wants to make it murder, I get that.

but "leave it up to the states"
meaning states can decide if they allow murder or not?
If they do "allow murder" who punishes them?
the state says not me, we allow murderes here based on popular vote?

America was supposed to be a country of semi-autonomous states uniting a diverse range of people. In a free society people of common belief would congregate and form governments that reflect their beliefs. Iin Oregon they passed a law allowing assisted suicides. The Federal government stepped in and stopped this. Ron Paul opposed this action. Ron Paul believes if the people of Oregon want to allow assisted suicide then it is the state of Oregon, which represents their people to make that choice, not the Federal government.

[Sandy]

I agree with the Constitution. Murder, or whatever you want to call abortion, is a states issue. This is what make Ron Paul so awesome. Even though he probably wants to outlaw abortion, the constitution is what the President takes the oath to uphold.

Frankly, As a male, I'll don't really get a say in the whole thing. If your wife decides to have one, you are helpless really. Because when it comes down to it, it's HER decision.


On a personal level, the governments jurisdiction should end at the body. Whether abortion is murder or not, is completely irrelevant. If I shrunk all you guys down, ala innerspace with dennis quaid, and injected you into my body. Your in my country now. You have no rights.

You put them there, so you have the right to enslave or kill them? So the people who captured people from Africa and brought them over here decided that they have no rights because they now are in America......

The deliberate ending of the life of an unborn baby is irrelevant? That's like saying all murder is irrelevant, and that you should be able to do what you want with your body including using your fists to beat someone to death. It's irrelevant, jurisdiction should end at the body and I should be able to do what I want, including kill other people because hey...........it's my body and I should be able to stick a knife into another human using my hands. How dare anyone call it murder! It's my body!

What's happened to America? Conditioning. What once was unthinkable is now thinkable. Callousness, a disdain for personal responsibility, and a lack of understanding of what freedom means.

If people think that an unborn baby shouldn't have rights, then they must think that their own gov't should be able to euthanize them at a whim. Wow, governments have done that before. Like in the old USSR, where abortion was promoted as a 'choice'. I guess the government should have the 'choice' to kill any of us, hmmmm? When they see us as a nuisance, when they see us as irrelevant, when they don't consider us humans.

Let's condition people to think that abortion isn't horrendous so they will become callous/indifferent and voluntarily abort their own children! Exchanging real freedom for 'sexual freedom', and the 'right' to kill their own offspring. Yikes.

[aravoth]

It's no ones business but the father, the mother, and the doctor. The government can't make anyone a moral person.

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

The Pre-Persons

Past the grove of cypress trees Walter---he had been playing king of the mountain---saw the white truck, and he knew it for what it was. He thought, That's the abortion truck. Come to take some kid in for a postpartum down at the abortion place.
And he thought, Maybe my folks called it. For me.

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

He ran and hid among the blackberries, feeling the scratching of the thorns but thinking, It's better than having the air sucked out of your lungs. That's how they do it; they perform all the P.P.s on all the kids there at the same time. They have a big room for it. For the kids nobody wants.

[literatim]

I'm vigorously pro-life but we're not addressing the key issue in the abortion debate here. Roe v. Wade is an abomination because of it's restrictions on state sovereignty. It violates 10th Amendment principles. The fact however is that the argument Roe v. Wade puts forth is that abortions should be allowed not because the State has no interest in protecting potential life (it does), but rather that the costs of back-alley abortions are prohibitive. When a back alley abortion happens not only will you destroy the chance for that life to come into the world you could even end your own life. Everybody sees pregnancy and a fetus as potential life regardless of when they say "life" happens, but we know that the life of the mother is extremely important... she has friends, family, and has contributed to society the infant has done none of those things. I'm presenting the other side to this argument not because I agree with it, but because the medical side to Roe v. Wade is the most powerful side of the argument. Ignoring it is a detriment to the pro-life position.

You don't legalize murder because it will happen anyway or will have a negative effect on the murderer.



On a personal level, the governments jurisdiction should end at the body. Whether abortion is murder or not, is completely irrelevant. If I shrunk all you guys down, ala innerspace with dennis quaid, and injected you into my body. Your in my country now. You have no rights.

Your body is your property. So is your land, but if you invite someone, you can't murder them!


It's no ones business but the father, the mother, and the doctor. The government can't make anyone a moral person.

You forgot the the child that is in the womb too. Alas, it doesn't matter about the innocents because if they can't speak out for themselves, they don't get to defend their right to live.