Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 101

Thread: Did Ron Paul Convince you on Abortion?

  1. #1

    Default Did Ron Paul Convince you on Abortion?

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



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    I was already being converted to that position but he helped a lot.

  4. #3

    Default

    No, seeing pictures of tiny dismembered heads and arms convinced me.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  5. #4
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    31,267
    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default

    Francis Schaeffer convinced me.

  6. #5

    Default

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

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sevin View Post
    Yea I changed my mind after reading Revolution: A Manifesto. He describes a time when he was still a student and saw a late-term abortion. They pulled out a living baby, put it in a bucket and pretended it wasn't there. Meanwhile in another room doctors were working hard to save a baby that was about the same size because the mother wanted it. That story really got me thinking.
    Easy to argue with that kind of example, but how do you respond regarding issues of a girl pregnant for like 4 weeks where the baby is certainly not even close to developed like that yet? Again, not trying to start an argument one way or another, but just curious how you reply to that example if you are trying to have a genuine debate? It IS different than 20 weeks. Whether that matters from an ethical standpoint is up for debate but you get my point...

  8. #7

    Default

    He convinced me that it's ok to have libertarian views and be against abortion.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    No, seeing pictures of tiny dismembered heads and arms convinced me.
    Ye gods, this exactly. For me it was incredible to meet a candidate who openly supported the views on abortion I already held.
    “Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by insidemanpoker View Post
    Easy to argue with that kind of example, but how do you respond regarding issues of a girl pregnant for like 4 weeks where the baby is certainly not even close to developed like that yet? Again, not trying to start an argument one way or another, but just curious how you reply to that example if you are trying to have a genuine debate? It IS different than 20 weeks. Whether that matters from an ethical standpoint is up for debate but you get my point...
    Go read Liberty Defined. He treats it in detail. Essentially you have human rights naturally, because you are human. And if you trace the growth of a person all the way back to the conception stage it is still a human sperm and a human egg forming a human zygote. If our rights come to us because they are imbedded in our very humanity, then even at this early stage of development rights would still exist because what is being formed is a human being and it is being formed from human parts. The paramount right of all rights is the right to life (as in "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness") and if you wish to protect all other rights you must protect the right to life. Any "right" a woman may have to an abortion is overridden by that right to life the child has because you only have a right to something until your rights threaten the lief of another, i.e. a woman getting an abortion threatens the life of the child. Abortion is the greatest initiation of force against an innocent indefensible being imaginable.
    “Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by insidemanpoker View Post
    Easy to argue with that kind of example, but how do you respond regarding issues of a girl pregnant for like 4 weeks where the baby is certainly not even close to developed like that yet? Again, not trying to start an argument one way or another, but just curious how you reply to that example if you are trying to have a genuine debate? It IS different than 20 weeks. Whether that matters from an ethical standpoint is up for debate but you get my point...
    Well, if the baby in the story was 8 months along, what about 7 1/2 months? Still a baby or just a fetus? If it's a baby, what about 7 months? What about 6 1/2? Where does one draw the line between baby and fetus? I eventually concluded that a baby is a baby no matter how small.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sevin View Post
    Well, if the baby in the story was 8 months along, what about 7 1/2 months? Still a baby or just a fetus? If it's a baby, what about 7 months? What about 6 1/2? Where does one draw the line between baby and fetus? I eventually concluded that a baby is a baby no matter how small.
    Another example I picked up over the years:
    Say you're driving down the road.
    You see a 1' cube cardboard box in the middle of the road.
    You do not know its contents.
    It could be full of 8 penny nails.
    Or it could be completely empty.

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

    People don't ever run over the box on purpose, though.
    And if they would just look at the pictures, they'd see it too: the box is, actually, full of nails.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  13. #12

    Default

    In theory it sounds good, but it doesn't work in practice.

  14. #13

  15. #14

    Default

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

  16. #15

    Default

    Certainly got me to reconsider my stance nationally but i'm still of the mindset abortion is a 10th amendment issue...
    It's just an opinion... man...

  17. #16

    Default

    No. Rothbard's argument has not be sufficiently refuted.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sevin View Post
    Well, if the baby in the story was 8 months along, what about 7 1/2 months? Still a baby or just a fetus? If it's a baby, what about 7 months? What about 6 1/2? Where does one draw the line between baby and fetus? I eventually concluded that a baby is a baby no matter how small.
    I draw the line when the fetus can actually live outside of it's mother...
    It's just an opinion... man...

  19. #18

    Default

    I have something called MORALS.

    Pro-life. Forever.
    "I am, therefore I'll think" - Ayn Rand

  20. #19

    Default

    What about these aspects for consideration:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    In the end such a “hot topic” as this one, really only serves to polarize those already united on much more substantial and pressing matters. We are in fact far off in necessity or perfection from even attempting to square away this matter. Should we not instead be focusing our efforts and energies on more of a top down approach?
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius


    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  21. #20

    Default

    Nope, but he did convince me of having a second look at the current system and made me realize government shouldn't decide what time during the pregnancy of a potential human being is considered life. But in the end, it is still up to the mother.
    Last edited by flynn; 04-17-2012 at 04:57 PM.

  22. #21
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    31,267
    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pennsylvania View Post
    No. Rothbard's argument has not be sufficiently refuted.
    Pffft.... I've seen it destroyed by posters here. Ron goes out of his way to mention how Ayn Rand and Rothbard were wrong on the abortion issue too in The Revolution and Liberty Defined.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flynn View Post
    Nope, but he did convince me of having a second look at the current system and made me realize government shouldn't decide what time during the pregnancy of a potential human being is considered life. But in the end, it is still up to the mother.
    Pretty much this.

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

  24. #23

    Default

    No, he didn't. I am in favor of legal and safe abortion.

  25. #24

    Default

    No. I already thought murdering a baby wasn't the best thing.
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  26. #25
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    31,267
    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kylejack View Post
    No, he didn't. I am in favor of legal and safe abortion.

    Being Pro-Life Is Necessary To Defend Liberty by Ron Paul
    Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  27. #26
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    31,267
    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default

    dbl....

  28. #27

    Default

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

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


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Being Pro-Life Is Necessary To Defend Liberty by Ron Paul
    That is dependent on the assumption that a fetus is a human life. Not everybody believes that a fetus is fundamentally human during the first tri-mester or two. Most people can agree that it becomes fundamentally human at some point before being born.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  30. #29

    Default

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

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

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law.
    I read this part and thought he was going to go in to an argument about why an embryo with, say, 20 cells is a human being deserving of protection, but he didn't, so I maintain my position. Killing a fetus that has no sense of feeling, no sentience, no thought processes, is absolutely not the same as killing a baby with all its faculties.

    For me, the timing of abortions is a legitimate point of inquiry, but not the legality of killing a zygote that has just implanted.
    Last edited by kylejack; 04-17-2012 at 11:42 PM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-09-2011, 06:12 PM
  2. How to convince someone to vote for Ron Paul
    By dude58677 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2008, 09:02 PM
  3. Convince me why Ron Paul (I am considering him)
    By HarbingerOfTruth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 01-23-2008, 01:55 PM
  4. Trying to convince my dad why Huckabee is bad and Ron Paul is good?
    By doronster195 in forum Marketing Strategy, Influence & Persuasion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-06-2007, 10:30 PM
  5. Want to Convince Support for Ron Paul Using the Constitution?
    By Richandler in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-24-2007, 10:58 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •