Did Ron Paul Convince you on Abortion?

[Sola_Fide]

Well, there have been so many threads on this and I've spent so much time trying to do what Ron Paul suggested for me to do: try to convince pro-abortion libertarians how inconsistent they really are. But hey, you can only spend so much time doing it I guess. Some people (in this thread) are perfectly content with inconsistency...and I believe that inconsistency stems from a hatred of God. My opinion...take it or leave it.

For now, I will just remain with Ron Paul on this issue. He is right...as usual.

[Karsten]

Abortion and immigration are 2 issues that I disagree with Ron Paul on. I'm pro-choice (on everything) and for open borders.

[Feeding the Abscess]

This is really the only way I can see how to deal with the rights of a fetus as a human being:

If this is true (a fetus being human), no human has the right to force someone else to care for it and sustain their life; as such, neither does a fetus. Arguing otherwise would logically mean that rights belong to groups of people rather than individuals. Ethically, forcing a woman to sustain a fetus against her will is no different than forcing us to sustain people who choose not to work.

This also means that killing the fetus, unless its presence is a mortal threat to the mother, is not permissible. Evicting the fetus, however, is not murder; otherwise, declining to give a sandwich to a starving man would be murder.

Arguing that the State should enforce regulation of this issue is a grave error. Forcing the sustenance of an individual at the hand of another person is an ethical defense of the entirety of the welfare state; from Social Security and Medicare all the way to food stamps and free housing.

I could also go into consequentalist reasoning, namely that the surest way to make a problem more potent, wider-ranging, and with further violation of rights is to involve the thieving death machine that is the State. Or that eviction allows the chance for someone else to voluntarily care for it, and could possibly spur an increase in early life technology, saving an untold number of lives. Or supplementing all of this with repealing all restrictions on adoptive services.

Adhering to the principles I've laid out above will lead to a greater respect for life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

If somebody wants to argue that the fetus is not human, and also possesses the ability to force another human to sustain its life... have fun.

[Sola_Fide]

Abortion and immigration are 2 issues that I disagree with Ron Paul on. I'm pro-choice (on everything) and for open borders.

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.

...

[Indy Vidual]

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

You 'guys' do know we need a lot more college-age girls around here don't you?
Ever wonder why there is (generally) such a lack of women in the ranks?
Pro-choice is the Libertarian way!

Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state

[JohnM]

No, it was high school biology that convinced me on abortion.

It was because Ron Paul was anti-abortion that I was willing to listen to his opinions on a lot of other subjects - and willing to change my mind.

[floridasun1983]

Well, I am and always have been ardently pro-life. Perhaps its the fact that I am an adopted child, and realizing the option of being killed before I got a chance was a very real possibility, drove my development of that viewpoint.

I actually don't agree with Dr. Paul on the issue though. I contend that the 5th amendment protects the unborn from being killed without due process of law, and thus being in the Bill of Rights, is the supreme law of the land and is not a state issue. Dr. Paul seems to believe that this is a state issue. Its a strange position to be in, because I am a huge State's Rights supporter. I suspect that if I ever got the chance to discuss it one on one with Dr. Paul the difference would be in what is considered "Personhood."

I do absolutely agree with Dr. Paul though that the real issue is the morality of a nation that performs such terrible acts in the first place, and making it illegal will not simply solve the problem anymore than making drugs illegal has solved that one.

[thequietkid10]

I suppose I'm a pragmatist at heart.

For me, it is not enough to say "life begins at conception," humans take lives all the time, life that is much more advanced then a "fetus." And I'm not talking about war. For me it's a question of humanity. Humanity for me is the ability to think and to perceive the world around you. So for me abortion is acceptable up until the 8th week.

[The Free Hornet]

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.

Yes.

When pro-life becomes pro-state intervention into our private medical affairs, it has gone too far. Many things can be deemed necessary to liberty. Famously, Thomas Jefferson thought education was so important, it ought to be taxpayer financed. He was wrong.

1) "life begins at conception" is at odds with the morning after pill or emergency contraception. To many in the pro-life crowd, preventing implantation should be no different than throwing the fetus (fertilized egg) on the sidewalk. Why is it not?

2) "life begins at conception" requires a faith-based approach as to what makes us human. There is nothing holy about our DNA even when combined with the DNA of another. Our brains, free will, and our individuality are what matter. That takes more than a few weeks.

3) Something can be immoral without the state intervening to stop it. That is the core of the liberty philosophy. A government big enough to stop abortion is nothing none of us claim to want, so why push for Federal definitions of life?

4) If you try to ban abortion, you won't win. You won't help the children - born or unborn. The liberty message is supposed to bring us together, but the abortion issue is one that tears us apart. Look at the government's war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terrorism. What exactly do you think the government can do right?

5) Properly understood, government is there to resolve matters when our rights are in conflict or threatened. When Joe assaults Bob or Mary thinks Sarah stole her money. Government as an advocate for the fetus is a dangerous thing and it won't stop with preventing abortions. The mother is either a better advocate for the unborn or in little-to-no position to be a mother. Getting an abortion means "not ready to be a mother".***

In a libertarian world, all the tools that could be used to prevent abortion ought not exist. The state should not license professionals and your medical history should be private.

Regarding politics, libertarian pro-lifers destroy coalition opportunities. Why should pro-lifers budge while the pro-choice crowd stands their ground: Because the pro-choice crowd

1) advocates for less government power
2) recognizes the folly and ineffectiveness of government

When someone uses abortion as a liberty litmus test, they do the movement a diservice. For starters, we have a very poor understanding of what the other would legally permit. Late term? (Ron Paul no) Emergency contraception (early-term abortion)? (Ron Paul yes? How is dropping that egg OK by Jesus?). More so, we don't know what sort of legislation they promote to enforce this pro-life vision. Is it the death penalty, life in prison at taxpayer expense, a small fine? Do the mother-to-be and abortionist share the penaltly equally?

Can you be pro-life and NOT favor government regulation of the issue??? Pro-life is synanymous with "opposition to the legaliziation of abortion" but is that the same as "opposition to the decriminalization of abortion" and why can't one simply be "opposed to abortion"???

Instead of aligning itself with the "safe, legal, and rare" crowed, the pro-life movement has gone out of its way to demonize the middleground. AFAIK, the pro choice movement as a whole doesn't ostracize those who oppose taxpayer funded abortion. You'll be ostracized for not wanting universal butt-wiping, but that is another issue.

Disregarding the nutjobs who won't support Ron Paul because he is pro life, I don't think it is unfair to characterize the pro choice view as an inclusive one and the pro life one as exclusive. It didn't need to be that way, but it is.

To answer the thread's question, "No, Ron Paul did not convince me that the state ought to be more powerful than it already is." Clear enough?


*** I fully exclude those who want to be a mother but have health problems or a developing baby with health problems. Not all of us are ready to support a child needing long-term care and the government has ensured that you will go bankrupt trying.

[dbenoy]

I'm a super opinionated guy and abortion is one of the few issues I struggle with. It's really complex and difficult.

[Wags]

Nah, but the fact that Paul's views on abortion aligned with mine led me to seek out his views on other matters. He did sway me on other issues: non-interventionism, abolishing min wage, laissez-faire capitalism, and so on.

You 'guys' do know we need a lot more college-age girls around here don't you?
Ever wonder why there is (generally) such a lack of women in the ranks?
Pro-choice is the Libertarian way!

Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state

I'm a girl in college and I'm against abortion. If you're trying to suggest something about genders on this issue, I think it's irrelevant.

If this is true (a fetus being human), no human has the right to force someone else to care for it and sustain their life; as such, neither does a fetus. Arguing otherwise would logically mean that rights belong to groups of people rather than individuals. Ethically, forcing a woman to sustain a fetus against her will is no different than forcing us to sustain people who choose not to work.

This also means that killing the fetus, unless its presence is a mortal threat to the mother, is not permissible. Evicting the fetus, however, is not murder; otherwise, declining to give a sandwich to a starving man would be murder.

"No human has the right to force..."

Riddle me this: How does an unconscious fetus knowingly commit a crime against the mother?

If the fetus doesn't knowingly commit a crime, how does it then follow that we are to hold the fetus accountable, via death?

On your second point here, abortion and evicting a fetus are not the same thing. Abortion is an act to secure the death of the fetus. This is not a matter of simply "evicting" someone. The closest any abortion procedure comes to resembling an "eviction" is something very similar to a Caesarian section which cuts off the umbilical cord while the 6-7 month old fetus is still in the womb (correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe fetuses are said to develop "viability" at this point). Of course, when you cut off the oxygen like that, it results in the suffocation and death of the fetus. If the fetus were permitted to come out of the mother's body before cutting the cord, it would probably live. The C-section abortion is not close enough to an eviction. All abortion procedures aim to secure the death of the fetus.

[crhoades]

Check out Ron Paul's book Abortion and Liberty for an expanded argument on his views.

I was already a pro-life proponent (hence taking the effort to retype this book) but i must say I would like to have a sit down discussion with him on the case of rape and the morning after pill. He has broached it a couple of times but they were compressed and he didn't get his whole reasoning out.

[muzzled dogg]

He reaffirmed that it's more local than federal

I go as far as to say that let each woman decide

[awake]

Defending the idea of life logically involves the smallest and most delicate humans. Government funding and legislation of this moral issue should be stopped. I can't think of something more immoral than to force people (taxation) to fund a relentless attempt to convert a mothers womb into a lethal injection death chamber.

Dr. Paul sealed the deal on my views.

[Supernaut]

No, and thankfully he never tried to push the issue down my throat. It never appeared to have been on of his main issues, and it shouldn't be.

[Zach Vega]

Well, killing people should be illegal. That's just my take on it.

[Tankbot85]

Nope, it is still a womans right to choose what she does with her body.

[Kluge]

I put it in the same category as marriage: Get the gov't out of it completely. It's too complex for one person to make the decision for another from many points of view. Between a doctor/patient, and only those others as the woman decides.

[HigherVision]

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.

Nah, I was already against killing babies. I don't care if it makes certain women mad, sucking up to immoral women is for chumps. When I was younger though I might have said I was for it.

Nope, it is still a womans right to choose what she does with her body.

Under this logic women should be allowed to strangle people because after all her hands, her body.

If abortion is legal then men should be under no obligation to pay child's support to a woman. He should have the same ability to thwart his responsibilities that she does. We live in a misandrist culture when a woman has every right to kill the baby growing inside her if she doesn't want to assume responsibility for parenting it but if a man doesn't want to assume this same responsibility watch out. He's a deadbeat dad, a no good chump. He needs to 'man up' and 'take care of his'. But when the same standard is applied to a woman it's all 'back off!' 'Her body, her choice!' Well that's a bull$#@! anti-male double standard and no one who's truly for liberty should support it. & by the way I think that the idea of 'getting the government out of it' is utopian and silly. That to me just seems like a way to dodge the issue and not take a stand on it. Government certainly will stay in it, probably for our whole lives. So we should try to affect the laws that we live under under our government, because realistically it isn't going anywhere. And if that means alienating some people I say $#@! it, even if it's people you want to have sex with.

[BestVirginia]

After reading Liberty Defined, I definitely came away with an evolved view on abortion. At this point, I am personally against it. But there are a couple problems:

1. The line between fetus and human is too blurry.

2. If abortion were to be outlawed, they would still happen. Only in much more unsafe conditions for the mother.

3. Woman SHOULD have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies, just as much as men. At some point however, it is not just THEIR body we are talking about.

If I could manage to sort out those issues, I'd have a much clearer idea on abortion. But I don't, and this is not a critical issue for me, so it rests in a sort of mental purgatory for me.

[brandon]

Nope I'm still pro-choice.

[Athan]

Yup. Ron Paul did indeed fully convince me.

At the time, I was just fustrated with the pointlessness of the debate (it was going nowhere) and how it was simply being used as a wedge issue for each side. Dr. Paul gave me a clear conscience and understanding of the position. I could also trust him, and not feel just some fool was trying to make me pull the lever for a party. It means more than you think to simply tell the truth all the time.

[fr33]

I was always pro-life but people like Ron Paul set me straight on the death penalty so now I'm truly pro-life.

[jmdrake]

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.

Ron Paul's consistency on being pro life for unborn American babies and living Arab babies (anti war) definitely clinched the deal for me becoming pro life. But I started having second thoughts about abortion when I saw how eager the left was to see the life of Terri Schiavo. True that's "end of life" instead of the beginning of life. And I'm not mad at those with differences of opinions on either side. But the way MoveOn.org tried to make pulling the plug on her a cause celeb shocked me and got me thinking. Also learning about the racism of Magaret Sanger (thanks Alex Jones and others) gave me great pause. I handed out fliers for Ron Paul at a pro life rally and found out that most pro lifers seemed like pretty decent people. (Shocker I know!) Then when sign waiving for Dr. Paul at the 2008 primary, I met a Hillary Clinton supporter who kept badgering me about how Dr. Paul should "just support Hillary". I explained to her that he simply disagreed with Hillary on certain key issues. She kept badgering me further so I brought up abortion. She acted like I had just kicked her puppy. After droning on and on about the usual "How dare he try to control my body" crap, she went on to say "There wouldn't be so many people in prison if there were more abortions". Of course it was fine that she was a single mom because she was responsible. Needless to say most of the people in prison are black and she was white. If I had had any food in my stomach I would have thrown up. This confirmed what I had already begun to suspect. Liberal doesn't necessarily mean "not racist" and conservative doesn't necessarily mean "racist" and I shouldn't blindly embrace every policy some party says I'm supposed to embrace.

[Kluge]

Ron Paul's consistency on being pro life for unborn American babies and living Arab babies (anti war) definitely clinched the deal for me becoming pro life. But I started having second thoughts about abortion when I saw how eager the left was to see the life of Terri Schiavo. True that's "end of life" instead of the beginning of life. And I'm not mad at those with differences of opinions on either side. But the way MoveOn.org tried to make pulling the plug on her a cause celeb shocked me and got me thinking. Also learning about the racism of Magaret Sanger (thanks Alex Jones and others) gave me great pause. I handed out fliers for Ron Paul at a pro life rally and found out that most pro lifers seemed like pretty decent people. (Shocker I know!) Then when sign waiving for Dr. Paul at the 2008 primary, I met a Hillary Clinton supporter who kept badgering me about how Dr. Paul should "just support Hillary". I explained to her that he simply disagreed with Hillary on certain key issues. She kept badgering me further so I brought up abortion. She acted like I had just kicked her puppy. After droning on and on about the usual "How dare he try to control my body" crap, she went on to say "There wouldn't be so many people in prison if there were more abortions". Of course it was fine that she was a single mom because she was responsible. Needless to say most of the people in prison are black and she was white. If I had had any food in my stomach I would have thrown up. This confirmed what I had already begun to suspect. Liberal doesn't necessarily mean "not racist" and conservative doesn't necessarily mean "racist" and I shouldn't blindly embrace every policy some party says I'm supposed to embrace.

Personally, I've found that many white liberals are quite racist, hence their support for abortion/welfare/affirmative action, etc. They think that black people need them to "make it," like they're some benevolent parental figure.

And they rarely realize it.

[Kluge]

dupe

[jmdrake]

Personally, I've found that many white liberals are quite racist, hence their support for abortion/welfare/affirmative action, etc. They think that black people need them to "make it," like they're some benevolent parental figure.

And they rarely realize it.

Well those ready to have Clarence Thomas "put back in the fields" or "strung up" certainly are.

[WhistlinDave]

As someone who believes in Karma and Reincarnation, the issue is not quite as black and white for me as it might be for others. Because at the point when the baby becomes sentient and capable of feeling pain and suffering, in my world view, the person (baby) chose that body to inhabit, and they chose that family and/or mother and that life circumstance in order to work on whatever Karmic task(s) they are working on this time around, on their path to eventual enlightenment.

So I believe the baby who is aborted, and who is old enough to feel it, chose that experience this time around in order to work off some significant Karmic debt from a past lifetime or lifetimes. Therefore, the baby isn't an innocent, unwilling participant. That person chose to be there and needs to be there, as crazy as that might sound.

I imagine perhaps someone who caused a great deal of death and suffering to others might come back hundreds or thousands of times or more in order to experience the horror of being killed in the womb. (Hitler, for example. He's got quite a lot of bad Karma to work off, and might spend a lot of time getting aborted over and over before he can move on to experience any semblance of a lifetime again. Complete speculation on my part, and yes, probably sounds pretty crazy to most people who are unfamiliar with the ideas of Karma and Reincarnation.)

Now... Even if that's the way it works, that still does not make it OK from a moral standpoint unless there are other factors (unsafe pregnancy/danger to mom, etc.). Because if a baby is sentient, i.e. old enough to feel pain and suffering, then the people doing this to them (the mother and the doctor) are now committing an act that is causing suffering to another being for one's own convenience or profit, and so this is bad Karma for the adults, and they'll need to deal with that Karma at some point. If not in this lifetime, then in some other one.

The thing about Karma and Reincarnation is, it's the only theological philosophy that allows bad things to happen to babies and other innocent people and still allows you to have Cosmic Justice (or in Christian terms, a "just God."). I suppose that's why I've always gravitated to this belief, because I do choose to believe in an omnipresent consciousness at the base core of the fabric of the Universe, that maintains a perfectly balanced, just equation in the end, but the Biblical concepts of God and morality are way too inconsistent and leave far too many unanswered questions for my preference. (e.g. How can you have a just and loving God and have innocent babies aborted, or kids born starving in thirld world countries, or born deformed and/or suffering, etc... You can't. Unless you have Karma and Reincarnation, that is. Atheism didn't resonate with me any more than Catholicism did... But I digress...)

Anyway... I do think once the baby is sentient (able to feel and suffer), even if the victim chose to be there it is still an act of murder on the part of the perpetrator; abortion is some pretty bad Karma for those doing it. I believe people shouldn't do it. I just don't know if I should have government enforce this belief without exception.

I think I agree with Dr. Paul this should not be regulated on the Federal level, and should be left up to the states for a few reasons:

1. As others have already pointed out, people are going to obtain unsafe abortions if it's made illegal across the board;

2. People could vote with their feet; California could keep it legal while North Carolina could make it illegal, and anybody living in a state where it's illegal could still conceivably cross state lines to go get a safe one elsewhere; and

3. Since there will probably always be people who believe it's not murder, and they are going to do it whether I like it or not, then all I can say is, their Karma is on their own head, and I can't make it my concern beyond perhaps trying to convince them to reconsider their viewpoint. To do otherwise (ban abortion at the Federal level) is impractical. You can't make everyone happy, truly, on this issue, but having the government enforce it one way or the other for everyone will simply be too difficult and unenforceable unless done at the state level, with the presumption that some states will probably never outlaw it.

Ron Paul didn't change my mind on this, and I agree with his position on what the government should do, even if for slightly different reasons.

I hope my unconventional beliefs (in this part of the world, anyway) don't cause any controversy here on an otherwise uncontroversial topic.

[amateur libertarian]

Congressman Ron Paul is the man! No questions about that. As Sevin said in an earlier post, Ron Paul's vivid description of an abortion as a medical student was compelling. I've always that it was morally wrong, but hearing a champion of liberty like Ron Paul articulate only confirmed my intuition.

[dillo]

no, I dont even really feel abortions are immoral. But even if I did, I certainly wouldn't want the federal government enforcing it.