Ron Paul: Abortion on Demand "Ultimate State Tyranny"

[Douglass Bartley]

Ron Paul: Abortion on Demand "Ultimate State Tyranny"

Please see http://rxpaul.townhall.com/g/49b34ee4-7e95-460e-b975-ce87a2eeb4de for article from Catholics for Ron Paul.

[shadowhooch]

To begin, I want to say I support Ron Paul's candidacy fully. I've never seen someone so genuine and honest running for President.

But this issue about abortion is the one that confuses me the most.

I read your linked article and it sounds like he believes life begins at conception and life and freedom must be universally protected.

However, I believe Ron Paul also has said, the bigger the morale dilemma, the more localized the decision should be. And consequently, I thought he was for the States deciding for themselves on the abortion issue and that it was out of the Fed's jurisdiction to decide.

But at the same time, according to the article, we can't have states deciding different classes of life like they did with slavery. So wouldn't that mandate a Federal decision on when life begins?

I'm simply confused on his approach to the issue. Any further feedback or info would be appreciated.

[beermotor]

The reality is we don't have abortion on demand, and never have. The Supreme Court decisions make that pretty clear.

Frankly, for me, I think this is possibly the absolute stupidest reason to base your decision to support a candidate on, as it is something that affects so few people in this country on a daily basis. Meanwhile, destructive policies (economic and foreign policy) create the horrible conditions that lead to the poverty that gives rise to desires for abortions.

[DeadheadForPaul]

To begin, I want to say I support Ron Paul's candidacy fully. I've never seen someone so genuine and honest running for President.

But this issue about abortion is the one that confuses me the most.

I read your linked article and it sounds like he believes life begins at conception and life and freedom must be universally protected.

However, I believe Ron Paul also has said, the bigger the morale dilemma, the more localized the decision should be. And consequently, I thought he was for the States deciding for themselves on the abortion issue and that it was out of the Fed's jurisdiction to decide.

But at the same time, according to the article, we can't have states deciding different classes of life like they did with slavery. So wouldn't that mandate a Federal decision on when life begins?

I'm simply confused on his approach to the issue. Any further feedback or info would be appreciated.


I agree. I have a feeling that Dr. Paul is trying to appeal to the Republican base more by stressing his pro-life stance. I'm personally pro-choice but agree with Dr. Paul that it should be left in the hands of the states rather than the federal government dictating policy which affects all the states when it has no authority to do so. Honestly, why does it matter if he is pro-life if he will not be making a decision with regard to it when he is in office? I think it's to convince the GOP that Ron Paul isn't some anti-war liberal

[ThePieSwindler]

All he means is that the State musn't FUND abortion. Notice he says:


...although it[liberty] can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands.

He is against any federal involvement in abortion - mainly against a pro-abortion piece of legislation, but againt a ban as well. He believes the state should have no power to take money from citizens that are against abortion and use it to fund abortion, either.

[shadowhooch]

I agree. I have a feeling that Dr. Paul is trying to appeal to the Republican base more by stressing his pro-life stance. I'm personally pro-choice but agree with Dr. Paul that it should be left in the hands of the states rather than the federal government dictating policy which affects all the states when it has no authority to do so. Honestly, why does it matter if he is pro-life if he will not be making a decision with regard to it when he is in office? I think it's to convince the GOP that Ron Paul isn't some anti-war liberal

Yeah, this is the only issue I don't fully understand where he stands.
Regarding it being left up to the states.......isn't that the exact opposite of what Abraham Lincoln did with the Emancipation Proclamation by declaring Slavery rights revoked instead of leaving it up to the states? I know the Civil War wasn't specifically fought over slavery. But I thought that was the whole point of Lincoln's "A house divided cannot stand." As he said, we cannot go on being a country half slave and half free.

If left up to the states, wouldn't that be exactly what we have on our hands? Was Abraham Lincoln wrong on defining human rights universally instead of letting the states decide?

In my mind, abortion rights are based on the decision on when a life truly begins. I don't know the answer to that. But I think that answer should be universally applied.

Anyway, no this isn't the most important issue of the day. Personally I think Foreign Policy is the biggest issue and that's what I am basing my vote on. I think Ron Paul is dead on with his foreign policy and many other issues.

At the same time, abortion is a very significant reason why people vote. And understanding his stance and the implications of his approach is also very important.

[foofighter20x]

The Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" slaves in the Confederate states (which the U.S. obviously had no jurisdiction over at the time). Obviously, then, it had no effect on those states deemed in rebellion.

It didn't free a single slave in any state that wasn't in rebellion.


It's really one of the biggest lies of Civil War history...

The Emancipation Proclamation was purely a political move to get European financial backers behind the Northern war effort. It did not free a single slave anywhere.

[ThePieSwindler]

Ron Paul believes abortion is murder. Murder and other violent crimes is/are left up to the states. Ron Paul also introduced legislation that would make ALL personal issues state-level decisions. He wants it left up to the states, mainly because he believes it is a violent crime, but also because he believes it should be debated on a state/personal level, and that at the very least washington does not have the wherewithal or knowledge to effectively debate or make a ruling on the subject. I don't see whats hard to grasp about that.

[shadowhooch]

Ron Paul believes abortion is murder. Murder and other violent crimes is/are left up to the states. Ron Paul also introduced legislation that would make ALL personal issues state-level decisions. He wants it left up to the states, mainly because he believes it is a violent crime, but also because he believes it should be debated on a state/personal level, and that at the very least washington does not have the wherewithal or knowledge to effectively debate or make a ruling on the subject. I don't see whats hard to grasp about that.

Yeah, that's what I understand too. It just seems to contradict what was done with slavery and segregation.

But maybe someone can brush me up on my history. Did the US not force the state's hands on the slavery issue? Maybe each state did eventually repeal slavery, I don't know. I'm asking the question.
What about segregation? Was that state decided? Could a state segregate people if it wanted to?

I've heard Ron Paul say that we have to change people's minds individually and then let them voice their opinions on the state level. Maybe that is what happened in the cases above (slavery, segregation, etc). Just wondering if that was the case or if it is a Federal law. Thanks again for any input. I'm just looking to be educated on the matter. :)

[LibertyEagle]

I think it might be difficult for some to understand that Dr. Paul differentiates between his personal beliefs and whether the federal government should have a role in so legislating. Most people who say they're against something, try to use government largesse to force their belief on everyone else; Dr. Paul does not.

So, even though he personally is against abortion, he believes that constitutionally, the decision should be left up to the individual states and We the People.

[SeanEdwards]

The philosophy of liberty is based upon the idea that every individual owns their own life. That means laws banning suicide are clearly in defiance of liberty and are as much an example of state tyranny as any state supported abortion.

Abortion is a ticklish dilemma since there is the liberty of the fetus to consider. But there is also the dilemma of unintended consequences of crafting a society where women are forced under color of law to carry unwanted children to term. Application of such a policy is likely to be just as dehumanizing and evil as the worst abortion procedure it was intended to prevent.

As well, this whole theological basis for demanding no human interference with reproduction is totally irrational and utterly unconvincing to the non-religious. Shall we make the law of the land follow a church doctrine, even for those individuals who are not members of the church? Should parents be forced by law to not use advances in science to try and prevent their offspring from having preventable diseases, such as tay-sachs? That, to me, is an insane position.

The church has tried in the past to stifle the advance of science. In fact, it seems to be a favorite passtime of church leaders. While I respect the right of bible thumpers to believe in talking snakes, and all their other nonsense, I totally reject the idea that they have any right to impose that nuttiness on me. I do not support state mandated abortion, or state mandated life. These are two sides of the same tyrannical coin, and neither has a place in a free republic.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

Abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, neither are other similar issues, i.e. gay marriage.

Therefore, unless 3/4 of the states were to ratify a Constitutional amendment, the issues are best handled via the 9th and 10th Amendments--lettting the states decide.

Doesn't really matter how someone feels personally...personal feelings cannot trump the framework given to us by the founders.

[Douglass Bartley]

Eagle explains the confusion well. Beermoter adds to it.

Beermoter is way off in saying that abortion affects so few in their daily lives. The "practice" in the US has, ugh, affected, rather permanently, some 45 million over 34 years, or some 1.3 million a year, or 3500 on a daily basis. Not to speak of workforce shortages and illegal immigration.

[Douglass Bartley]

The reality is we don't have abortion on demand, and never have. The Supreme Court decisions make that pretty clear.

Frankly, for me, I think this is possibly the absolute stupidest reason to base your decision to support a candidate on, as it is something that affects so few people in this country on a daily basis. Meanwhile, destructive policies (economic and foreign policy) create the horrible conditions that lead to the poverty that gives rise to desires for abortions.


I might also add that supreme court decisions are among the worst of authorities for the validity of a proposition, especially when they are written like statutes as was the case in Roe.

[Douglass Bartley]

I do not support state mandated abortion, or state mandated life. These are two sides of the same tyrannical coin, and neither has a place in a free republic.

Have you forgotten the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments?

[jblosser]

Let me try putting it this way:

Ron Paul believes life begins at conception, and the inalienable rights of the individual apply from conception.

At the national level, this means:
- Individuals (from conception) cannot have their speech, or religous freedom, or freedom of the press, or right to bear arms, etc. infringed *by the state*.
- Individuals (from conception) cannot have their life, liberty, or property removed *by the state*, except by due process of law.

Simply put, nothing else is relevant at the national level. This means that the only place abortion applies at the national level is in cases where the state would be mandating them for some reason, and in that case due process would have to be invoked. But it's not really speculation to say Ron Paul would support maintaining eg the 1st or the 2nd for the unborn if the question came up... it just doesn't particularly apply in reality. All the rights the national government is responsible for not infringing in its laws or actions are pretty much irrelevant to someone who can't talk yet, born or otherwise. (Within reason; obviously government has means to trample on the seizure and life rights of any human being, but again, unborn or even 1 year olds in gitmo would be a rare occurance.)


At the state level, life begining at conception means:
- Laws against murder apply to the unborn.

There is no real doubt that Ron Paul would work for protection of the unborn *as a voter* *in his own state*. But he simply doesn't have authority or position to affect the laws of other states, or even the laws of his own state except as an individual voter. If the people in his state or other states want to make various things legal or illegal, that's where the authority lies under the Constitution.

[shadowhooch]

Thanks jblosser. That was a good summary.

I would still like to know whether slavery and segregation laws are on the state level or if they are at the Federal level. Anyone know? Thanks again.

[jblosser]

First, I applaud you asking these questions.


Yeah, this is the only issue I don't fully understand where he stands.
Regarding it being left up to the states.......isn't that the exact opposite of what Abraham Lincoln did with the Emancipation Proclamation by declaring Slavery rights revoked instead of leaving it up to the states? I know the Civil War wasn't specifically fought over slavery. But I thought that was the whole point of Lincoln's "A house divided cannot stand." As he said, we cannot go on being a country half slave and half free.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln was absolutely opposed to the notion of states' rights. Lincoln was a centralist. You have no doubt heard people talking around here about Hamilton as the centrist that gave us the first national bank... the progression of idealogy goes Hamilton -> Clay -> Lincoln. Each one studied and put on a pedestal the one before.


If left up to the states, wouldn't that be exactly what we have on our hands? Was Abraham Lincoln wrong on defining human rights universally instead of letting the states decide?

Lincoln took the country to war because he wanted to enforce a central government view of things. Slavery was an issue he used to popularize his actions to some parties (but not all parties, and not even everyone in the north, which was philosophyically more racist than the south). This is very comparable to the current attacks from the MSM against Ron Paul with respect to the welfare state/poor, nationalized medicine, Iraqis who need freedom, etc. It is a standard political ploy. But the central issue of the civil war was nationalizing the government vs. keeping the power divided between the states, and yes, I would say Lincoln was wrong both in his beliefs and his actions in defense of those beliefs.


Yeah, that's what I understand too. It just seems to contradict what was done with slavery and segregation.

But maybe someone can brush me up on my history. Did the US not force the state's hands on the slavery issue? Maybe each state did eventually repeal slavery, I don't know. I'm asking the question.
What about segregation? Was that state decided? Could a state segregate people if it wanted to?

Lincoln forced the states' hand on the states' rights issue. He used slavery to do this, he used other issues as well (protectionist tarrifs, a new national bank, and other issues came into play as well).

The states did not repeal slavery individually because they never got the chance. It would no doubt have happened: slavery was a hot topic worldwide at that point, and other nations were dealing with it legally. The US was the only country that ended it as part of a war. It was heading out because of moral concerns as well as economic ones; the industrial revolution was making slave labor obsolete. Dr. Paul mentions this in the first Bill Maher interview.

Instead, there was a war, the nationalizers won, and as part of their centralization demands they ended slavery with constitutional amendments in a way that extended the national government reach into the states. This is what the war was really about.



I've heard Ron Paul say that we have to change people's minds individually and then let them voice their opinions on the state level. Maybe that is what happened in the cases above (slavery, segregation, etc). Just wondering if that was the case or if it is a Federal law. Thanks again for any input. I'm just looking to be educated on the matter. :)

It is what happened in every other country in the world that ended slavery peacefully. It is not what happened here, though it would have.

[shadowhooch]

Thanks again Jblosser. Very informative.

Though I may not agree with the state notion to decide morale issues, I do agree with Ron Paul that everything else should be (welfare, healthcare, education, etc).

Admittedly, many people (myself included) never take the time to question Federal involvement in the issues of today. For example, at first I thought it was absurd to hear Ron Paul say the Federal War on Drugs was a bad thing. But after he explains how treating drug users as criminals instead of people with a medical condition (addiction), how the illegality causes the price to skyrocket on something that costs nickels to create, how that perpetuates problems causing more crime, and how it could be better dealt with on a local level, it all makes a lot more sense. Unfortunately, many people don't get past the initial bad reaction to de-federalize the war on drugs, healthcare, welfare, and education long enough to hear it fully explained. :o

Even if I don't always agree, thank you Ron Paul for making me question and think about these things.

Go Ron Paul!

[Douglass Bartley]

Thanks jblosser. That was a good summary.

I would still like to know whether slavery and segregation laws are on the state level or if they are at the Federal level. Anyone know? Thanks again.

1. On the abortion question, my view is that it is a federal (as well as a state) question, for the reasons I stated in a recent article @ http://rxpaul.townhall.com/g/fcba85bd-8e8e-4ad1-bb68-5461b57085f9

2. Slavery is a federal constitutional issue, for the 13th Amendment bars it.

3. Legalized segregation presents a closer question. In 1954, as Brown v. Board was being decided, the court was divided 5-4 upholding the legality of segregation. Things switched around to 9-0 to strike down "legalized" segregation on 14th Amendment, equal protection grounds.

My own view is that state "legalized" segregation is unconstitutional on 14th Amendment Privileges or Immunities grounds as distinguished from equal protection grounds in that equal protection was designed as a protection not against legislation, but against unequal administration or enforcement of the law.

I'll be back in a while with the citation on abortion.

[Douglass Bartley]

I just republished my abortion article at http://rxpaul.townhall.com/g/fcba85bd-8e8e-4ad1-bb68-5461b57085f9 (http://rxpaul.townhall.com/g/fcba85bd-8e8e-4ad1-bb68-5461b57085f9)

[mikelovesgod]

The philosophy of liberty is based upon the idea that every individual owns their own life. That means laws banning suicide are clearly in defiance of liberty and are as much an example of state tyranny as any state supported abortion.

Abortion is a ticklish dilemma since there is the liberty of the fetus to consider. But there is also the dilemma of unintended consequences of crafting a society where women are forced under color of law to carry unwanted children to term. Application of such a policy is likely to be just as dehumanizing and evil as the worst abortion procedure it was intended to prevent.

As well, this whole theological basis for demanding no human interference with reproduction is totally irrational and utterly unconvincing to the non-religious. Shall we make the law of the land follow a church doctrine, even for those individuals who are not members of the church? Should parents be forced by law to not use advances in science to try and prevent their offspring from having preventable diseases, such as tay-sachs? That, to me, is an insane position.

The church has tried in the past to stifle the advance of science. In fact, it seems to be a favorite passtime of church leaders. While I respect the right of bible thumpers to believe in talking snakes, and all their other nonsense, I totally reject the idea that they have any right to impose that nuttiness on me. I do not support state mandated abortion, or state mandated life. These are two sides of the same tyrannical coin, and neither has a place in a free republic.

You have an ax to grind with institutionalized religion. Your entire paradigm is more irrational than the proponents you seek to marginalize. Christianity in general has been the proponent of science and your entire world-view comes from the PC world-view of modern universities of half-truths and obfuscations. If you accept the secular PC world-view without delving deeper that's your prerogative, but you decide to spew such inane demagoguery I recommend you do some more homework before misleading others to your gospel and your dogmas of false historical evidence.

For reference look up Thomas Woods book on the contributions of science from Christianity. You might be shocked, but I think your irrational nuttiness is nothing more than ad hominem excuses to not delve deeper. You remind of a rose that would look at a man and tell the man that it is the highest form of life. As irrational as that sounds, that is the same as a man telling others God doesn't exist, and to posit the non-sensical world-view of a religion based on theology is preposterous. Both are irrational, emotional beliefs and situations without any degree of perspicacity to analyze how contradictory such world-views are when analyzed.

Here is another view point to consider before continuing with you demagoguery:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html

Who knows, you might be open-minded to truth.

[Douglass Bartley]

Mike:

A definite hostility to religion exhibited by Mr. Edwards. Perhaps he will take what you said to heart and study the matter further. You said a whole lot of good things.