How does Dr. Paul justify authoring HR 1904 (defining life at conception)?

[Nihilist23]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/


In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

How does he justify doing this at a federal level? This is a sticking point for some people who are wary of Ron Paul and I don't have a good argument to counter with.

[loupeznik]

I can't wait for the first credit card for the unborn. How about life insurance?

[0zzy]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/



How does he justify doing this at a federal level? This is a sticking point for some people who are wary of Ron Paul and I don't have a good argument to counter with.

? This has always been his position. The legislation would overturn roe vs wade and bring it back to the states. They can decide whether or not to regulate abortion.

[jblosser]

There *is* a point where the Federal government cares about life, it's just not in relation to the question of (non-state-sponsored) murder.

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

If the Constitution invokes the word "life" then Congress has business defining life for those purposes. But those purposes are limited to that same Fed's own legit interactions with citizens.

It would also pragmatically get rid of Roe v Wade, which is a bad ruling. There are more direct ways like enforcing the 10th amendment but Ron tends to go after these things with every legal option available to him.

[NeoconPaulsupporter]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/



How does he justify doing this at a federal level? This is a sticking point for some people who are wary of Ron Paul and I don't have a good argument to counter with.

Life does begin at conception. That life continues to grow and develop it's features and faculties. Are there people under the impression that pregnant women carry dead embryos and fetuses inside them? That's just silly.

[Nihilist23]

? This has always been his position. The legislation would overturn roe vs wade and bring it back to the states. They can decide whether or not to regulate abortion.

He sponsored HR 300, a separate bill, which deals with negating Roe v. Wade. The idea behind 1904 is entirely different.

[Nihilist23]

There *is* a point where the Federal government cares about life, it's just not in relation to the question of (non-state-sponsored) murder.


How would the federal government have any right to define life domestically without interfering with a states right to define it another way?


"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

If the Constitution invokes the word "life" then Congress has business defining life for those purposes. But those purposes are limited to that same Fed's own legit interactions with citizens.

Could you give me a hypothetical example when the federal government would interact with citizens in such a way who, for instance, resided in a state that defined life as beginning after birth and abortion was legal?


It would also pragmatically get rid of Roe v Wade, which is a bad ruling. There are more direct ways like enforcing the 10th amendment but Ron tends to go after these things with every legal option available to him.

For that reason I agree with his sponsorship of HR 300, but I don't agree it relates to HR 1904.

[jabrownie]

HR 1904 is something which is designed to go before the U.S. Supreme Court. The second section limiting court jurisdiction on such an issue will basically force it there, and it will do so on the grounds of a constitutional question instead of some of the minor questions which have gone up in the past few years. Once there, the court will either have to do a one-sided polarization of the issue or overturn Roe v. Wade and let the states decide. It would put the court in a no win situation, and imho they'd have to reverse course and send this one back to the states.

Overall, it's an extremely smart piece of legislation with how it presents the question, however, it'll never see the light of day, so it's sort of moot.

[raiha]

I've never been able to reconcile the "Right to Life" for an embryo and the death penalty (that Dr Paul has only just recently changed his mind about)

[prolifer4paul]

The states wouldn't get to define when life begins. But as Dr. Paul often and consistently says, each state would have to deal with abortion the same way each state currently deals with plain old murder and other acts of violence.

So is it possible that some states will have very lenient slaps on the wrist? It is possible.

Vermont likes to slap the wrists of pedophiles, but no one is clamoring to make pedophilia a federal crime. That is the same argument that Dr. Paul makes in regards to abortion.

Other candidates clearly want to make abortion a federal crime. Lest any pro-lifer think this is preferable, one only need hear Fluffabee on MTP talking about how a doctor that knowlingly commits an abortion for money should not go to prison. Yeah, real consistent there Mike. But that's exactly the kind of compromise type crap that pro-lifers will get with Fluffabee.... dumb legislation that will never solve the real problem and will further devalue the life of the unborn.

[loupeznik]

Life does begin at conception. That life continues to grow and develop it's features and faculties. Are there people under the impression that pregnant women carry dead embryos and fetuses inside them? That's just silly.
Then there is life before conception. Is someone suggesting that eggs and sperm are dead?

[NeoconPaulsupporter]

Then there is life before conception. Is someone suggesting that eggs and sperm are dead?

Sperm and eggs are sperm and eggs. They do not develop from embryo all the way up to elderly. It's weird that I had to point out the difference.

[0zzy]

It's like:

You can have the federal government recognize marriage as a man and women.
But a state can change it however they may want to.

You can have the federal government recognize life begins at conceptions.
But a state can determine if it does, what that means, and how to regulate abortion.

[loupeznik]

Sperm and eggs are sperm and eggs. They do not develop from embryo all the way up to elderly. It's weird that I had to point out the difference.

I am not implying that they are the same thing. Just like I'm sure you are not implying that a embryo and a baby are the same thing.

[jblosser]

Could you give me a hypothetical example when the federal government would interact with citizens in such a way who, for instance, resided in a state that defined life as beginning after birth and abortion was legal?

Example of where this matters: A woman is serving in the Army and gets pregnant. Can her superiors order the pregnancy terminated? One argument would focus on her rights as a mother, and might win, but it wouldn't really be a Constitutional argument unless the baby is "property". Another argument would be focused on depriving the baby of life without due process of law, but only if the baby has life to be deprived of and is protected under the Constitution.

Substitute in this scenario anywhere else where the national government can make a move to deprive someone of life; they should be very limited, but we wouldn't be where we are today if the government wasn't good at overreaching. Or go back to the founders who had quite near the front of their mind things like press gangs and other government-sponsored piracy.

[loupeznik]

Example of where this matters: A woman is serving in the Army and gets pregnant. Can her superiors order the pregnancy terminated? One argument would focus on her rights as a mother, and might win, but it wouldn't really be a Constitutional argument unless the baby is "property". Another argument would be focused on depriving the baby of life without due process of law, but only if the baby has life to be deprived of and is protected under the Constitution.

Substitute in this scenario anywhere else where the national government can make a move to deprive someone of life; they should be very limited, but we wouldn't be where we are today if the government wasn't good at overreaching. Or go back to the founders who had quite near the front of their mind things like press gangs and other government-sponsored piracy.


The Army can charge her for getting a sun burn under destruction of government property. I'm not saying it's right.

[jblosser]

Sperm and eggs are sperm and eggs. They do not develop from embryo all the way up to elderly. It's weird that I had to point out the difference.

Science is not confused about when the life of an individual human organism begins. People like to pretend science isn't sure here because it lets them pretend this is somehow a question of science instead of a question of law. It IS a question of law, and the question is if we are going to have another exception in law that says it is legal to terminate the life of a human organism. We have existing exceptions for self-defense, war, etc. This one revolves around an arbitrary line pre-birth at which point protection under the law of the rights of the individual first applies.

[NeoconPaulsupporter]

I am not implying that they are the same thing. Just like I'm sure you are not implying that a embryo and a baby are the same thing.

Uh, they're the exact same individual organism. The abortion debate in this country has completely destroyed the basic understanding of the Human Life cyle. A person's life cycle starts from embryo up to elderly. Look, I'm not making this up.

Would you have me believe the embryo is not part of Human lifecyle chain? And no, sperm isn't.

[allyinoh]

Remember, if it's not a baby, you're not pregnant! =)

[RonPaulMania]

I've never been able to reconcile the "Right to Life" for an embryo and the death penalty (that Dr Paul has only just recently changed his mind about)

It might be difficult to imagine that an innocent baby in the womb of the mother is not comparable in justice to a murdering rapist. One is an act of aggression on innocence, the other is an act of justice in repelling criminal actions.

The reason why we do something is more important than how something is done.

[JS4Pat]

I've never been able to reconcile the "Right to Life" for an embryo and the death penalty (that Dr Paul has only just recently changed his mind about)

Abortion deals with the termination of an innocent life - which I believe government has an obligation to protect.

The Death Penalty deals with the termination of a life proven guilty by jury of his/her peers.

There is a difference, however I am opposed to both.

[Exponent]

Death penalty, murder, suicide, euthenasia, self-defense: All things that depend on a mostly agreed upon definition of what life is. And yet all of these things are regulated differently by different states. Thus, it should be clear that just because there exists a unified agreement about what life is, even if it were to exist in an official and legal manner at the federal level, it doesn't negate the possibility of dealing with it differently in different states. Some states might pass laws that specifically state that it is legal to terminate the life of an unborn child under certain criteria, and some states might even make these criteria very loose and broad. Others will have no such exceptions, and it would fall under the jurisdiction of existing murder laws.

And regarding innocence versus guilt (as when constrasting death penalty with abortion), self-determination versus the choice of another person (contrasting suicide with abortion), quality of life (like when considering euthenasia): these types of issues aren't relevant at a federal level, even with a federal definition of life. It is still up to the states on all other issues of dealing with the termination of life.

So no, I don't really think a federal definition of life would in any way hinder states in choosing how to deal with the issue. It would merely tidy up the more messy semantic issues that currently muddle the whole issue. It would probably more closely resemble euthenasia debates: No one disagrees that people are dying when euthenasia is performed; the debate is over whether it should be allowable or not, and when. I think the abortion issue could benefit from such a simplification of the debate as well, as it would really get to the heart of the disagreements, rather than all of the superficial junk clouding the issue.

[Nihilist23]

Thank you for the responses...I understand the issue more clearly now.

[inibo]

Then there is life before conception. Is someone suggesting that eggs and sperm are dead?

Eggs and sperm are not humans, they are alive, just like your fingernails are alive, but they are not humans.

Please read this: http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

It finally pushed me from a reluctant pro-choice position to a pro-life position.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into what he says, and perhaps some Ron Paul supporters won't want to accept it, but I have come to the conclusion that the decision Ron Paul want to return to the states is not so much whether abortion should be allowed, but rather how they should deal with the crime of aborting a human life. Based on my current understanding of the issue, I agree with him.