Abortion - The One Issue That Worries Me

[Akherousia]

I'm going to emphasize right now - this is NOT a thread to discuss the legitimacy or morality of Ron Paul's or anyone else's views on abortion, or really to discuss the issue of abortion in any way except as how it relates to Paul's campaign. While abortion is the one issue on which I completely disagree with Paul, I do not wish to argue with any of those who share his views, nor do I want to see any debate on the topic.

I'm making this thread in order to voice my concern over the potential effects of Paul's stance on abortion. I am not, of course, trying to change his or anyone else's position on the issue - I am simply stating the effects I predict his position will have on his nomination.

Paul disagrees with the other 12 Republican nominees on several issues, one very notable one being his stance on the Iraq War. While many may think this would hurt his nomination chances as the Republican candidate, since he does not hold with the current trend of opinion of the majority of voters in his party, I believe that his diverting stance on the issue will actually aid in his nomination.

I'll lay out a quick illustration here. There are 100 Republicans voting in the primaries, and of these 100, 70 are pro-Iraq War and 30 are anti-. For the 30 who are anti-, the issue is going to weigh very heavily in their consciousnesses and have a huge effect on their vote. While the 70 will split their nominations among the 12 pro-war candidates, most of the 30 will very likely vote for Paul because of how large of an issue the war is for them, giving Paul the advantage because of his diverting stance on this issue.

If Paul was pro-choice, something similar would occur with many of the pro-choice candidates. Since abortion is a HUGE issue for many people, many will base their vote largely on a candidate's stance on this issue. Paul puts himself in an awkward position by being anti-abortion but pro-gay marriage. There are very few individuals who hold his views on both of these issues, and anyone who holds a traditional view of the two (either pro-both or anti-both) and considers them both very large issues is very likely not going to vote for Paul. Therefore, I think because of his odd stance on abortion, Paul is very likely losing out on a large number of votes in the primaries.


EDIT: After seeing the first few replies, let me note that I am aware that he believes that the legality abortion should be an issue decided upon by the states. However, most pro-choice individuals, including myself, do not believe that ANY level of government should be able to restrict a woman's right to her own body. It does not matter to me or many other pro-choice people if he believes it is the Federal government's or state's right to decide. I would not want my girlfriend to have to go to another state to get an abortion, because I believe that an individual's right to his or her own body is one of the fundamental rights in any free system of government and should apply in all areas over which that government has influence. Most pro-choice individuals like myself believe abortion should be an individual's choice ANYWHERE in America, and therefore the cries of "he believes it's a state's decision!" does nothing to appease my concern.

[nayjevin]

just educate people that he is the ONLY candidate who does not believe it is within his power as president to legislate this. it is a state issue.

[PatriotOne]

It certainly can be a polarizing issue. I worry a little about it myself but since RP's stance is that the states should decide it soften's the blow I think.

[Electrostatic]

He's pro-states rights. He does not believe that the federal govenrment should have ANY say in abortion....

That said, you can not change the personal beliefs of an OB/GYN who has helped give birth to over 4,000 live babies....

[paulitics]

I think he is pro states rights over the monolithic federal governmnets intrusion on social issues. I lean pro choice myself but would prefer it to be handled at the state issue because I know how divisive this issue is on a state to state basis. A state should have the choice, and the citizen has the right to leave the state.

[nayjevin]

A state should have the choice, and the citizen has the right to leave the state.

Precisely -- and it seems like I say this over and over in my conversations about the Constitution / Republic / Ron Paul conversations. It is the key to a free republic.

[specsaregood]

Paul puts himself in an awkward position by being anti-abortion but pro-gay marriage. ... Therefore, I think because of his odd stance on abortion, Paul is very likely losing out on a large number of votes in the primaries.

You misunderstand. He is PRO-constitution.

He is not "pro-gay marriage" he is Anti-federal government regulation of marriage.
He is not "anti-abortion", he is PRO-states rights.

Seriously, it is tough to argue against him when he wants to make sure to leave this up to the states and smaller/local government. Because voters can still get what they want by affecting their state/local governments.

[ThePieSwindler]

Would you want him to be a pro-choice republican? That would give him much less of a chance of getting ANY republican voters on his side. I think where he is now is fine. Gay marriage is much less of an issue to most christian conservatives than abortion.

But what this all boils down to is his pro-federalism, states rights, etc stance. Thats what you need to tell people. He says it himself - the government cannot legislate morality.

[kylejack]

Read the Serenity Prayer. This is something we have no control over.

[Roxi]

Paul puts himself in an awkward position by being anti-abortion but pro-gay marriage.


correct me if im wrong but you are indicating that RP is pro gay marriage?
this is incorrect, RP is anti gay marriage but still believes this should be left up to the states...same as abortion
that way if you oppose your states law on either issue, you have the freedom to move to another state


edit: sorry if i repeated earlier posts as i hadnt seen them when i posted

[ThePieSwindler]

correct me if im wrong but you are indicating that RP is pro gay marriage?
this is incorrect, RP is anti gay marriage but still believes this should be left up to the states...same as abortion
that way if you oppose your states law on either issue, you have the freedom to move to another state


edit: sorry if i repeated earlier posts as i hadnt seen them when i posted

His actual statement on the issue is that marriage, whether hetero or homosexual, should at LEAST be left up to the states, at MOST be a completely-non governmental issue alltogether except to enforce the contract and deal with divorce settlements. Ill try to dig up the speaking engagement where he says this, i think it was the KC event.

[johnrocks]

having it on the state level could/would actually allow the people to better decide. The govt. of Ma. for example may keep it legal while the Govt. in La. may totally outlaw. The people in the pro life states wh still believe in choice can go to a state that has it legal to perform.

[FreedomLover]

He's pro-states rights. He does not believe that the federal govenrment should have ANY say in abortion....

That said, you can not change the personal beliefs of an OB/GYN who has helped give birth to over 4,000 live babies....

QFT :cool:

[Exponent]

Something to think about: Murder isn't a federal issue (or at least I don't think it is), and no one complains about its status. So why should abortion be a federal issue?

[Silverback]

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I dislike the phrase "states rights"

Not only does it bring slavery to the minds of millions of Americans, it's also utterly false.

Governments don't have rights, individuals do. Governments have powers. I don't think I've ever heard Dr. Paul use the term "states rights" and neither should we.

Federalism or leave it to the states or anything but that.

Single-issue pro-choice voters would be more likely to vote Dem anyway. It's a tough issue that even libertarian philosophy has no answer to, whatever the LP has decided.

Rons stance is as perfect as any can be for a Republican, electorally speaking.

[Electrostatic]

Point taken...

[Wyurm]

The problem here is that someone like Dr. Paul hasn't been in the whitehouse in our lifetimes. So its hard to understand his viewpoint.

Dr. Paul is anti-abortion, however he also said very clearly that the constitution does not allow the federal government to regulate abortion.

Would this mean that some states could make anti-abortion laws? Yes

But if you are pro-choice, keep in mind that there is a very real possibility of Roe vs Wade being overturned. If that were to happen, you could very easily lose that choice in any state.

[BillyBeer]

But if you are pro-choice, keep in mind that there is a very real possibility of Roe vs Wade being overturned. If that were to happen, you could very easily lose that choice in any state.

Abortion would be overturned in the Bible Belt and some states of the Mountain West (Wyoming, Utah, Idaho).

[RonPaulCult]

As a far left liberal that believes very strongly in pro-choice this stance of Ron Paul's weighed heavily on me at first. In the end I was wise enough to understand that Ron Paul personally does not agree with abortion but he isn't out to ban it either.

For somebody running for president he has the perfect stance. He's against it but he would still allow it to be legal (just at state level). This stance can appeal to BOTH sides of the issue. Most candidates of both parties pick one side or the other and turn off the other side from ever voting for him or her.

If I didn't know what an honest man Ron Paul I would think this was a sneaky political trick to get elected.

Besides he will make clear in the debates that he isn't out to get rid of abortion completely in this country. He'll explain he wants the role of the President as outlined in the constitution and that role doesn't put the man in the white house in charge of banning all abortions.

Also I believe when he picks judges for the supreme court he will pick FAIR judges.

[richard1984]

EDIT: After seeing the first few replies, let me note that I am aware that he believes that the legality abortion should be an issue decided upon by the states. However, most pro-choice individuals, including myself, do not believe that ANY level of government should be able to restrict a woman's right to her own body. It does not matter to me or many other pro-choice people if he believes it is the Federal government's or state's right to decide. I would not want my girlfriend to have to go to another state to get an abortion, because I believe that an individual's right to his or her own body is one of the fundamental rights in any free system of government and should apply in all areas over which that government has influence. Most pro-choice individuals like myself believe abortion should be an individual's choice ANYWHERE in America, and therefore the cries of "he believes it's a state's decision!" does nothing to appease my concern.

I get the impression that Dr. Paul is mainly against third trimester abortions. From what I've heard him say on the issue, it sounds as if he is discussing issues largely derived from the third trimester of pregnancy. I think that his stance might be similar to "decide early or forget it."

This is a very interesting issue in this campaign for the pure and simple fact that Dr. Paul is an OB doctor and has delivered over 4,000 babies.

Personally, I think that this is one of Dr. Paul's strongest selling points (at least in my mind). I also respect the opinion of such a person far more than I respect the opinion of someone without such impeccable credentials.

Let's face it: Dr. Ron Paul is a genius. There is no question about it. And I, personally, have the humility to recognize when someone's opinion outweighs mine (due to experience, expertise, etc.).
And besides, I agree with Dr. Paul on the role the Fed should play in abortion issues. No one up there (except for, perhaps, Ron Paul) as any legitamate right to tell others what to do--and Dr. Paul won't do that.

[Akherousia]

Let's face it: Dr. Ron Paul is a genius. There is no question about it. And I, personally, have the humility to recognize when someone's opinion outweighs mine (due to experience, expertise, etc.).
And besides, I agree with Dr. Paul on the role the Fed should play in abortion issues. No one up there (except for, perhaps, Ron Paul) as any legitamate right to tell others what to do--and Dr. Paul won't do that.

Or, you can take your own stance on issues based on your own philosophies and not blindly follow someone because of credentials that, in this case, have nothing to do with a stance on the morality of an issue. I'd trust a professor of ethics far more than an OB doctor on the issue of abortion, though I wouldn't take the views of either as anything more than an opinion. I'll decide my own stance on issues, thanks.

And furthermore, as much as I adore and support Paul, I wouldn't call him a genius by any stretch of the definition of the word. The sort of hero-worship you're demonstrating may just cause others to elevate his supporters to a cult-status. I'm really hoping there aren't many like yourself out there, because I'd hate for another famous individual I greatly admire to be considered a cult leader. Ayn Rand and Anton LaVey are enough.

[ThePieSwindler]

EDIT: After seeing the first few replies, let me note that I am aware that he believes that the legality abortion should be an issue decided upon by the states. However, most pro-choice individuals, including myself, do not believe that ANY level of government should be able to restrict a woman's right to her own body. It does not matter to me or many other pro-choice people if he believes it is the Federal government's or state's right to decide. I would not want my girlfriend to have to go to another state to get an abortion, because I believe that an individual's right to his or her own body is one of the fundamental rights in any free system of government and should apply in all areas over which that government has influence. Most pro-choice individuals like myself believe abortion should be an individual's choice ANYWHERE in America, and therefore the cries of "he believes it's a state's decision!" does nothing to appease my concern.

So do you then want to turn this into a thread debating abortion itself? He is morally pro-life. No rationalizing on yours or any other pro-choicer's part is going to change that. If that is a stumbling block to you or other pro-choice voters out there, its unfortunate, because its not going to change. Now, he is not going to support a blank ban on abortion, because he doesnt think the federal government should regulate it at all. But he certainly isn't going to further the pro-choice cause. I honestly think most states would outlaw third trimester abortion but would allow it in the first trimester, as it is much easier to argue for the rights of the mother when it is a zygote, rather than a baby that could be given birth to and kept alive (which is possibly at about any time during the third trimester - i think most rational people would consider them a human by this point). If a woman seriously cannot decide whether or not she wants an abortion for 6 months, i'm sorry, but... that is just completely irresponsible. For someone who has a right to their own body, the woman who would wait until the third trimester to have an abortion sure does not know how to take care of it [her body]. (note: if having the baby would threaten the mothers life, then it is not an abortion, it is a medical procedure to save the mother's life at her choosing, which does indeed take prescidence over the unborn child. Thats not what im talking about here).

This paragraph here makes it seem like you are trying to provoke an ethical discussion about abortion, when originally it was assumed by most that you meant simply to understand his stance and find a compromise on the matter. The issue worries you, and is obviously a stumbling block. You are going to have to grapple with its effect yourself, i'm afraid. I personally am glad he is morally pro-life, or he would stand no chance getting the republican nomination, to deal with, in my opinion, far greater problems in our nation.

[Akherousia]

I posted my own belief and that of most pro-choice individuals in order to express why the "he's for the state's right to choose!" posts did nothing to quell my concern, not in order to provoke an ethical discussion. If you would have read that in the context of "I believe it should be an individual's right, and what part of the government regulates it doesn't matter to me, because none should," you would have understood.

[austin356]

I talked with a diehard liberal (copy woman at the Office Despot)

She asked about abortion and saw on my copies that he was "pro-life". She basically implied that was a deal breaker for her. But then I said that he does not think the Federal government should decide and that the different states should be able to legalize/ban as they wish. She agreed and said she thought that was the most "sensible" position to the issue. I dont think it ever occured to her that someone could be pro-life, but unwilling to Federally ban abortion....... 60% of the nation may be in favor of abortion rights, but if they properly understand the situation 75% of the population will agree with Ron that DC should not make the decision.

[DjLoTi]

The fact that he has delivered 4,000 babies puts him at a better position then I (and most) to judge on this issue.

[Akherousia]

The fact that he has delivered 4,000 babies puts him at a better position then I (and most) to judge on this issue.

Why? What does the physical act of removing a baby from a woman have to do with ethics and morality in any way?

[ThePieSwindler]

I posted my own belief and that of most pro-choice individuals in order to express why the "he's for the state's right to choose!" posts did nothing to quell my concern, not in order to provoke an ethical discussion. If you would have read that in the context of "I believe it should be an individual's right, and what part of the government regulates it doesn't matter to me, because none should," you would have understood.

I did indeed read your post, and i KNOW you weren't trying to provoke debate, because i understood the intent of this thread. That tacked on paragraph just made it seem a bit more like it though, since the federalism response seemingly was tough to swallow for you. Unfortunately, if abortion is a really, REALLY big issue for you or friends you are trying to talk with, and you or they are pro-choice and don't think there should ever be any kind of restriction on your "right to choose", then Paul probably isn't the best candidate for you. However, you must realize that he will not too do much to change the current system because of a democratic majority in congress, and because he will leave it up to the states, not his own power. I don't think the possibility that you might have to travel to another state to have an abortion is enough to risk losing other liberties by voting for someone who will expand federal power (everyone but Paul). Hey, at least if you have an abortion, you won't have to worry about your kid being implanted with an RFID chip! ;)

Note: I respect your view on this issue, but i'm just stating the reality of the fact that, if you want a candidate who will quell your specific concern on this, Ron is not that candidate. Federalism is the way to go, as he sees it - showing that he is staying true to his role as a statesman and upholder of the constitution. Abortion may not be bad, but it certainly isn't up to the federal government to decide that based on faulty SCOTUS cases.

[Akherousia]

It's not a huge issue for me, and that's why I'm here and voicing this concern. Unfortunately, though, a lot of pro-choice individuals do consider it a very large issue. I see it as a violation of a fundamental human right, but personally I'm into safe sex practice, and a law on abortion will probably never have an effect on me personally. Therefore, I choose to put more emphasis on issues which have direct consequence in my life.

[Jeremie in Minnesota]

Why? What does the physical act of removing a baby from a woman have to do with ethics and morality in any way?

Well, let me ask you a question. Are you a doctor or a woman? Both?

[richard1984]

Or, you can take your own stance on issues based on your own philosophies and not blindly follow someone because of credentials that, in this case, have nothing to do with a stance on the morality of an issue. I'd trust a professor of ethics far more than an OB doctor on the issue of abortion, though I wouldn't take the views of either as anything more than an opinion. I'll decide my own stance on issues, thanks.

Yes, perhaps. But don’t forget (for example) what led us into the Iraq “war”--people taking their own, uninformed stance. You are encouraging ignorance.


And furthermore, as much as I adore and support Paul, I wouldn't call him a genius by any stretch of the definition of the word. The sort of hero-worship you're demonstrating may just cause others to elevate his supporters to a cult-status. I'm really hoping there aren't many like yourself out there, because I'd hate for another famous individual I greatly admire to be considered a cult leader. Ayn Rand and Anton LaVey are enough.

First of all, you’re an ass (no offense, but you are--i.e., you insult rather than explain). Second of all, he probably does have an extremely high IQ, which would (perhaps) “officially” label him as a “genius.” I, personally, can't think of many other people who have accomplished as much a Dr. Paul has in his lifetime. I'm not sure I can think of anyone. Can you?

I respect Dr. Paul. I think he should be our president.
Why don't you?

[Akherousia]

No, but I am a philosophy major who understands that an issue dealing with an individual's right to his or her own body belongs in the realm of ethics and not science.

[ThePieSwindler]

No, but I am a philosophy major who understands that an issue dealing with an individual's right to his or her own body belongs in the realm of ethics and not science.

Ok, i have a response to that (a bit less vitrolic than richards though..), but i don't want to state it because we would be getting into an abortion debate rather than a Ron Paul debate. Let's not do that, and lets not perpetuate what you told us, and we assumed (or i did, at least) that you did not intended to discuss in this post.



Yes, perhaps. But don’t forget (for example) what led us into the Iraq “war”--people taking their own, uninformed stance. You are encouraging ignorance.



First of all, you’re an ass (no offense, but you are--i.e., you insult rather than explain). Second of all, he probably does have an extremely high IQ, which would “officially” label him as a “genius.” I, personally, can't think of many other people who have accomplished as much a Dr. Paul has in his lifetime. I'm not sure I can think of anyone. Can you?

I respect Dr. Paul. I think he should be our president.
Why don't you?


Goes for you too, homes.

[Jeremie in Minnesota]

No, but I am a philosophy major who understands that an issue dealing with an individual's right to his or her own body belongs in the realm of ethics and not science.

Nice "no, but let me qualify myself" answer. Bottom line, he is who is he is, and it will only aid him in winning the nomination. A pro-choice republican who won't win the nomination? Rudy Guiliani.

Just want to point out, you singlehandedly turned this thread into exactly what you said you did not want it to.

[pdog]

No, but I am a philosophy major who understands that an issue dealing with an individual's right to his or her own body belongs in the realm of ethics and not science.

The position that Ron Paul and many other Pro-Life people advocate is that a zygoat/embryo/fetus is not a female body part like an ovary or a fallopian tube. Rather it is an individual, like you or me, with its own DNA structure and individual will to live that deserves the right to life you and I deserve under the constitution.

At what point does an individual come into existance? (from conception to birth) ? I do not know, honestly. But I choose to side of error.

I mostly base my belief, as a kind of geek, on an episode of Star Trek.

It is where Geordi LaForge visits a planet that discards pre-natal children who are born with defects to help them with some crises. He looks, with his artificial eyes, at one of the technitions and says basically (to paraphrase)... In your world, I would have been aborted because of my blindness. What right do you have to say that I am worthless, that I have nothing to give to the world ?

And so I feel the same way about those who say that unplanned children who are born should be aborted.

Be that as it may, I do think that a blanket ban on all aborition is highly unlikely and those who are disturbed by Ron Paul's position on this matter should have little fear. His vote is worth it despite your anti-abortion views.

[pdog]

Ah, the name of the Star Trek Episode is called "The Masterpiece Society" (Season 5, Episode 13)

Key quote "He reflects on the irony of the fact that technology from a blind man’s visual prosthetic device – a man seen as disabled who would have been terminated as a fertilized cell in the genetically engineered colony – supplies the answer which saved the society"

[richard1984]

First of all, I want to apologize for my "vitriolic" response. But I do respect Dr. Paul's opinion on this subject. I also admit that I don't know enough on the subject to issue my own definitive response.

Also, I am a philosophy major, too (as well as a psychology major--for practicality's sake). --I’m trying to get married.

Anyway, I don’t want to get in an argument over abortion, either. I think the point that I wanted to make (even if I failed at clarity) was that Dr. Paul probably has a better perspective/opinion on this topic than any of the other candidates do.
I’m sorry I came across sounding so “extreme.”

(Also, I apologize for my imperfections. I really don’t know the “right answer” to this issue.)

[Harald]

I think during NH NPR interview with Laura Knoy, Ron Paul said that THERE IS a difference between aborting one second after conception vs one second before birth. Different states may pick a different point between those two extremes according to the views of their citizens.

[robatsu]

Here is my view: Abortion is murder. That being said, I don't think that the federal government has license to regulate this issue. Nevada has gambling, some of the states have defacto gay marriage, other places have dry counties. If enough people can get together in some area of the nation and legalize culling unwanted babies, fine. Just keep the tyrants in Wash. DC out of it.

Furthermore, I think Dr. Paul's approach is in the long run at least ok with abortion advocates, in that while he isn't going to give them a medal for the act, he concedes if they can form a local political unit that is ok w/this practice, you go grrl. What honest abortion rights person who doesn't have an agenda to force their vision of morality on others could disagree with that?

[JaredR26]

Firstly, Ron Paul is not the kind of Politician who will change his opinions about something because it is more popular. I can understand his personal opposition to abortion.

Secondly, if it becomes clear to me that Ron Paul would support, or allow a ban of abortion at a federal level, he will lose my vote. I love RP and I have donated several times, but I cannot bend on this issue. 98% of the people pushing for abortion laws are religious righters who want to push ALL of their beliefs on the entire country, with no regard for others' rights. In addition, I think more banning abortion is more immoral than allowing it.

Ron Paul just needs to be VERY careful what he says about the issue. Some of his writing has indicated that he would be willing to support a federal ban on abortion if there were no other alternative, which scares me. I think leaving it up to the states is an acceptable solution, in some places the majority is really in favor of RRer's. Worst case those in those states oppressed by the right can travel or (better yet move) to another state.

[Mom4Ron]

Forgive me if this has already been stated. It's late and I'm about to turn in.

There are several issues that can be a bit intimidating with regard to his campaign, but only if we forget just why states' rights are so important.

By leaving issues up to the several states, to be affected and determined by the residents of that state and the officials that they elect, then the voice of the individual becomes stronger and causes the laws to more closely reflect the values of the citizens who reside in that state.

As individuals, we have very little actual voice in Federal government, but with the state government, our leverage is greater.

[JS4Pat]

Would you want him to be a pro-choice republican? That would give him much less of a chance of getting ANY republican voters on his side. I think where he is now is fine. Gay marriage is much less of an issue to most christian conservatives than abortion.
BINGO!

Hell even I would have a hard time supporting him if he were a Pro-Choice Republican.

[mikelovesgod]

The problem with this "issue" is that people just want their way. They don't want states to decide the issue because it's emotional when they want abortion.

[RP08]

I didn't read this entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been stated.

Earlier today I had this same conversation with a coworker who asked "how can someone say they are anti-abortion and pro-freedom in the same breath?"

My answer: "Ron Paul is a liberty champion for all people, including those people not quite born yet. At that point, it may not be just the mother's rights to consider."

To be clear, this is an issue that I, personally, haven't found 100% footing in because of health concerns and crime/other-related unwanted pregnancies. But, I am very strong on making sure it's not illegal to have 'safe and clean' medical procedures in the most "powerful" country on Earth.

[DeadheadForPaul]

You misunderstand. He is PRO-constitution.

He is not "pro-gay marriage" he is Anti-federal government regulation of marriage.
He is not "anti-abortion", he is PRO-states rights.

Seriously, it is tough to argue against him when he wants to make sure to leave this up to the states and smaller/local government. Because voters can still get what they want by affecting their state/local governments.

This poster is 100% correct. It is a state issue, and I would not even mention that Paul is personally pro-life unless you are certain that the person you are talking to is a hardcore pro-lifer

[ThePieSwindler]

Firstly, Ron Paul is not the kind of Politician who will change his opinions about something because it is more popular. I can understand his personal opposition to abortion.

Secondly, if it becomes clear to me that Ron Paul would support, or allow a ban of abortion at a federal level, he will lose my vote. I love RP and I have donated several times, but I cannot bend on this issue. 98% of the people pushing for abortion laws are religious righters who want to push ALL of their beliefs on the entire country, with no regard for others' rights. In addition, I think more banning abortion is more immoral than allowing it.

Ron Paul just needs to be VERY careful what he says about the issue. Some of his writing has indicated that he would be willing to support a federal ban on abortion if there were no other alternative, which scares me. I think leaving it up to the states is an acceptable solution, in some places the majority is really in favor of RRer's. Worst case those in those states oppressed by the right can travel or (better yet move) to another state.

Careful pulling percentages out of your ass. They tend to make you look less informed.

I get where you are coming from, but to Ron, his personal belief is that abortion is murder, and i commend him for being able to be so true to his principles of federalism that he would let that override his own personal beliefs on the abortion issue. He believes (and so do i) that the natural law right to life and liberty also supercedes the so called "right" to choose, via the social contract that is made between two consenting adults to engage in sex that might result in a child, and they assume that risk. The science generally supports this - a human zygote is distinctly and uniquely human, and the DNA at conception is a direct result of the copulation, where a diploid cell contains the DNA from the two haploid sex cells, resulting in the unique DNA. Sure, its not really an embryo until after the blastocyte phase. But it is distinctly human with the specific DNA for a specific development path (though the path the development can take differs, the information needed is all there). Destroying it destroys the information, and the chance of life for the human. Forget the verse in the bible that talks about God "forming in the womb" each human, its not a religious observation, its a scientific one. Ron Paul is a medical doctor, OB/GYN who has studied THIS EXACT TOPIC years and years and probably knows human biology A-Z far better than most of us, so when peole say he "is an OB/GYN so i understand his position on the matter" it has ALOT more to do with his scientific background than his religious - in fact he really never mentions God when he talks about his views on abortion. This is probably why his writing sometimes seems like he would not be completely against a federal ban on abortion.

The issue gets sticky in that you cannot really differentiate legally what the cause of birth was (rape, consensual sex with disregard for consequences, failure of contraceptions), so banning abortion would hurt alot of women who never intended to assume that risk and did not entered into that social contract. THAT is the right which i fear would be infringed upon by an abortion ban. Otherwise, the natural law right to life would supercede mother's right to convenience because of her social and biological contract, except in cases where her life is threatened (NO ONE will disagree with this, its not even an abortion, its a medical procedure to save the woman's life) or when she did not consent to that contract by her actions. Thus, the federal government CERTAINLY should not ban abortion outright, but should, as Paul has STATED CLEARLY, be left to the states. He has actually said that all deeply personal issues should be (and i think proposed a bill for this as well), and i completely agree, and i hope even FAR left-wing individuals would see the merit in this position.

Most likely what would happen if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, states would enact laws banning third trimester and partial birth abortions, and a few states would ban first trimester abortions. Personally, i think any woman who would wait until the third trimester to have an abortion should have her "reproductive rights" suspended :p , so third trimester abortion banning shouldn't be a huge issue.

Also, a big piece missing from the debate on either side is father's rights. The father is just as responsible for the fetus' existence as the mother is, and is just as important in the social contract. It is certainly not his "fault" that the evolution of mammalian reproductive systems (or Gods creation of them, the point works either way) has developed such that the mother is the carrier of the offspring. The father provided half the DNA, he has just as much a right to choose as the mother, provided he consents to the terms of the social contract (i.e. he doesn't leave the woman alone and is still in the picture and still involved with the woman). Unfortunately, this isn't how it plays out in the real world, but, in principles its how it should. Fathers who remain in the picture and would be willing to support the child and/or mother should have just as much say in the abortion decision as the mother.


Note: i realize the rhetoric on both sides is inherently controversial, as both "choice" and "life" imply life and liberty and the crux of the issue is basically which supercedes the other: the right of the woman to her own body, or the right of the fetus to life and pursuit of happiness.

[ThePieSwindler]

The problem with this "issue" is that people just want their way. They don't want states to decide the issue because it's emotional when they want abortion.

Exactly, and thats the big problem with this debate is that no side seems to want to give ground because it is SO personal. That means one thing is CERTAINLY clear, the federal government should IN NO WAY be involved, from both a practical and constitutional standpoint.

[Lesgov]

Akherousia, my daughter-in-law has the same reservation about Ron Paul that you do. There is no changing her mind on this.
My job is to try to make her look at other issues. If a person is voting on only one issue, they are not voting for much.
Most of us here probably have a certain thing they don't like about Dr. Paul, but if you weigh everything out, there is no one else that even comes close to his attributes.

[quickmike]

Leaving it up to the state, like RP thinks we should do, is the perfect solution. That way, if you live in a state where they ban abortion, you can always move to another state where it is legal. The states that fall in line with the majority of the peoples wishes will be rewarded with population growth, and the ones that go against the peoples wishes will see their tax base shrink, thereby punishing them.

Thats the beauty of the free market on a state level.

[quickmike]

Akherousia, my daughter-in-law has the same reservation about Ron Paul that you do. There is no changing her mind on this.
My job is to try to make her look at other issues. If a person is voting on only one issue, they are not voting for much.
Most of us here probably have a certain thing they don't like about Dr. Paul, but if you weigh everything out, there is no one else that even comes close to his attributes.

You should ask her "ok, are you willing to keep your right to get rid of your baby in exchange for the government taking 50-60 percent of your income, and making your money more worthless year by year,forcing you to pay for government programs that ALWAYS fail, and getting into wars that kill more babies than all the abortions put together?"

[Capitalism]

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I dislike the phrase "states rights"

Not only does it bring slavery to the minds of millions of Americans, it's also utterly false.

Governments don't have rights, individuals do. Governments have powers. I don't think I've ever heard Dr. Paul use the term "states rights" and neither should we.

Federalism or leave it to the states or anything but that.

Single-issue pro-choice voters would be more likely to vote Dem anyway. It's a tough issue that even libertarian philosophy has no answer to, whatever the LP has decided.

Rons stance is as perfect as any can be for a Republican, electorally speaking.

As Meat Loaf once said, "you took the words right out of my mouth."

[Capitalism]

Well, here's an older article outlining why he opposes legal abortion: http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

I seem to recall reading that he once witnessed an aborted fetus left out to die on a table when he was in medical school, and he has opposed abortion ever since then. I will try to track down the source of that. It might have been in his book, A Challenge to Liberty, which I once borrowed from the library. (I xeroxed it but am not sure where I have put it since I moved.)

[smtwngrl]

having it on the state level could/would actually allow the people to better decide. The govt. of Ma. for example may keep it legal while the Govt. in La. may totally outlaw. The people in the pro life states wh still believe in choice can go to a state that has it legal to perform.

I agree. Ron Paul said that "300 million people are not going to agree about this issue."

[stalcottsmith]

I agree. Ron Paul said that "300 million people are not going to agree about this issue."

Folks -- getting back to the original poster's point -- this is actually a winner of an issue for Ron Paul. Abortion is only Extremely Important to about 20% of the party. (10% of most groups but 80% of Moralists who themselves only comprise 21% of the party)

I think Ron does well at expressing a good constitutional position that can keep moderate pro-choicers on board, while at the same time having the pro-life cred of delivering babies and a clear personal position to keep the super pro-life moralists happy. RvW was bad law and it's none of the federal gov's business.

Now if they would just take their fight to their states.... and 90% of the hostility would be removed by outlawing the worst of it while preserving options early in pregnancy. Most Americans have come to this point of view. Let the states scatter themselves on the map according to their cultural variations and we can put this mess behind us.

[Trance Dance Master]

All the people I've ever met who were pro-"choice" didn't have much passion for it and couldn't debate their position very well. In fact, I once had a friend who thought it would be great to outlaw abortion because he could make a lot of money doing them himself with wire clothes hangers.

[Thomas_Paine]

Ron is for getting the Federal Government OUT OF marriage and the abortion issue. Of course it is a state issue, it you believe the Federal Government should decide for the States then your contention is not with Ron Paul but with the Constitution.

[ZackM]

Folks -- getting back to the original poster's point -- this is actually a winner of an issue for Ron Paul. Abortion is only Extremely Important to about 20% of the party. (10% of most groups but 80% of Moralists who themselves only comprise 21% of the party)

I think Ron does well at expressing a good constitutional position that can keep moderate pro-choicers on board, while at the same time having the pro-life cred of delivering babies and a clear personal position to keep the super pro-life moralists happy. RvW was bad law and it's none of the federal gov's business.

Now if they would just take their fight to their states.... and 90% of the hostility would be removed by outlawing the worst of it while preserving options early in pregnancy. Most Americans have come to this point of view. Let the states scatter themselves on the map according to their cultural variations and we can put this mess behind us.

This is a great point. The key is articulating the position properly. Folks on both sides,all have to realize there is no constitutional amendment going to be ratified to either permit or ban abortions. "Abortion rights" are something that derives itself from an interpretation of the constitution based on privacy rights. At the same time, rights which are explicitely defined (like habeus corpus and gun ownership) seem to be constantly under attack.

In my opinion, someone who truly believes in a strict interpretation of the constitution should oppose the RvW ruling regardless of their abortion stance. If you firmly believe in a "woman's right to choose" then you have to decide what's more important - your viewpoint OR the rule of law.

I've heard Paul answer questions in this matter. Our elected officials in DC should first ask themselves if they have the constitutional authority to decide an issue, then they can decide it according to their beliefs/ideology.

No form of government will be perfect to all people. The more powers that are controlled locally and the more likely you will be to live in a town/city/state that reflects how YOU want to live your life.

If an issue is truly something you believe in so strongly that you believe it needs federal control, then lobby for a constitutional amendment. It's an imperfect document that certainly needs modernization as we deal with issues today that didn't exist 200+ years ago. But using the courts as a means to an end is not a true belief in the rule of law. And right now, abortion rights hang as result of court opinion, NOT by any legislation authorized under the US constitution.

These arguments aren't perfect, but I have as little desire to dictate my beliefs on the people of Montana as I do on the citizens of Canada.

That's my opinion anyway.

[Nefertiti]

Well, here's an older article outlining why he opposes legal abortion: http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

I seem to recall reading that he once witnessed an aborted fetus left out to die on a table when he was in medical school, and he has opposed abortion ever since then. I will try to track down the source of that. It might have been in his book, A Challenge to Liberty, which I once borrowed from the library. (I xeroxed it but am not sure where I have put it since I moved.)

If that is true, that is the kind of reasoning that might placate those who are pro-abortion and think the anti-abortion proponents are all a bunch of religious freaks. It's scientific reasoning, not religious, and chances are that abortion supporters support their view with science. They might not agree with his interpretation but they can agree with his methods of reasoning.

[Nefertiti]

His actual statement on the issue is that marriage, whether hetero or homosexual, should at LEAST be left up to the states, at MOST be a completely-non governmental issue alltogether except to enforce the contract and deal with divorce settlements. Ill try to dig up the speaking engagement where he says this, i think it was the KC event.

Please do dig it up. I really would like to see this.

[ZackM]

Please do dig it up. I really would like to see this.


Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized

Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.

That's just a short blurb, read the whole thing here.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=590 (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=590)

He does support laws like "The Defense of Marriage" act, which are intended to ensure that federal courts can't force state's to recognize marriages from other states. But he completely opposes any kind of federal definition on what marriage is as far as I can tell.

[Capitalism]

No, but I am a philosophy major who understands that an issue dealing with an individual's right to his or her own body belongs in the realm of ethics and not science.

And yet, in your signature you quote Ayn Rand, who said ethics was a science. (See page 13 of The Virtue of Selfishness. And yes I know her position on abortion.)

And honestly, do you think Ron Paul bases his political positions on something other than ethics?

[jj111]

correct me if im wrong but you are indicating that RP is pro gay marriage?
this is incorrect, RP is anti gay marriage but still believes this should be left up to the states...same as abortion
that way if you oppose your states law on either issue, you have the freedom to move to another state


edit: sorry if i repeated earlier posts as i hadnt seen them when i posted

I believe I have heard Ron Paul say either at a rally and/or interview that if he had his way, government would completely withdraw from the "marriage" issue and allow it to be a matter to decided upon by individuals and voluntary organizations such as churches, and that if individuals wanted to make a legally binding contract of some sort, that they would be permitted by government to make a contract, just like individuals are allowed to make contracts on almost all other matters....

[ThePieSwindler]

Please do dig it up. I really would like to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajgBylfi03o

Its at about 4:30 in the video

[jj111]

And furthermore, as much as I adore and support Paul, I wouldn't call him a genius by any stretch of the definition of the word. The sort of hero-worship you're demonstrating may just cause others to elevate his supporters to a cult-status.

I don't think that recognizing high intellect or "genius" in a person is the same as "worship" or implies that supporters are in any way like "cult" members. I admire Ron's intellect, which I personally think is extremely high. And I do believe he has a tremendous skill in politics. I don't think I would shy from considering him a "genius" in ways....

[cjhowe]

I agree with RP's stance on it being a state issue. I also believe that reasonable people will disagree on this issue even when fully accepting the arguments of their opposition.

I'm personally pro-choice. I can listen to Ron Paul say that all life needs to be protected with the force of law. However, we constantly stray from that view.

Hospitals don't expend resources to save a premature baby weighing less than 500 grams even when there exists individuals wishing to take responsibility for the child.
We respect Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders.
We stand by and allow genocide to occur.
We allow for "collateral damage" in wartime without consequence.

I'm not suggesting that we should change our practice on any one of these issues. Just noting that we, as a society, don't view that all life needs to be protected.
In addition, I don't know where the viewpoint that life begins at conception comes from.

Judeo-Christian teachings suggest that life begins with man's seed or with breath. Meaning we should either allow abortion or outlaw male masturbation.

As much as someone wants to talk for science, science makes no ethical claims, much less on when life begins. If you were to look at science, you're still alive when you're dead. Cell death doesn't occur for days after you're legally pronounced dead (provided you're not embalmed). Does that life need to be protected as well?

Even if you were to come to a consensus on when life began, that would suggest a pregnant woman could be charged with child abuse if she smoked, drank, went in a hot tub, etc. This hardly looks to be a good place to draw the line for the good of society.