Did Ron Paul Convince you on Abortion?

[Bman]

If the question is if I have become pro-life because of Ron I would have to say no.

It's not that abortion is right. It's not that we shouldn't try to prevent unwanted pregnancies that lead to these decisions. It's what I see as a humane action towards people who decide to have or give abortions. I think society should strive for the day that we commit no acts of murder, but there's no punishment I can give to a person that would be worse than their own guilt. Look at Norma McCorvey. That poor woman knows she made a mistake. Wishes that someone could have stopped her. Hopefully she can help someone make a better decision. I still don't think she should be jailed. Nor do I think anyone else should. I think Ron is wrong to want government to have a say in this. It means he is for the use of force. This is an area where I think force is not an answer.

[Roxi]

Sort of. I was always pro life for myself, kind of judged people who did it (okay I totally judged them), but still thought it was the choice of the parents involved.

I can't say when, or if it was anything specific, but even being a Voluntarist, I view it as murder, and should be dealt with as murder is in the state that it happens.

[Sola_Fide]

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.

Dear Awake,

Please post more often.


SF

[Tankbot85]

Nope. Still Pro Choice. It is none of my business what personal decisions people make between them and their doctor.

[Eagles' Wings]

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.



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.

+rep

Interesting ideas.

[KingRobbStark]

I keep hearing the typical "Her body, her choice" mantra, but I have a mantra of my own, "My semen, my say."

If you don't accept that, then don't expect any child support.

[economics102]

I'm in favor of abortion being legal at every stage. This is possibly the one issue Ron Paul has not convinced me on.

However, Ron Paul has helped me understand the argument in favor of the fetus' right to life, and while I don't agree with the ultimate conclusion, I have a lot more respect for the argument and understand how he comes to his conclusion.

Certainly I can understand why someone who has spent his life delivering babies would feel strongly on this issue.

On the other hand, as someone else in this thread pointed out, there are no shortage of tragic stories involving pregnant women who suffer due to pregnancies.

Further, tragic stories don't trump principle. For example, if certain economic regulations actually improve the economy, that does not morally justify interfering with free trade.

So, not convinced, but Ron Paul has had a substantial impact on how I view the issue.

[cajuncocoa]

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.

Yes, he did. I was leaning that way after doing some research on eugenics, but Ron Paul knocked it out of the park.

[nasaal]

No. This is the issue I am most at odds with when it comes to Ron Paul. I don't care about the issue so it doesn't effect my desire to see a Ron Paul presidency, but if I did care about it it might be a deal breaker.

[Adrock]

Ron Paul didn't change my mind on abortion. He did help me better understand why I am Pro-Life. That better understanding did convince me on war though. I feel like I have a much more consistent viewpoint on life now.

[presence]

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 disagree.

I believe that we should shift the cutoff line from "viability" to "embryo/fetus transition" which occurs at week 10/12. I'm a believer in intravaginal ultrasound if you want such a procedure to prove the child is not over a certain legal weight indicative of organ development; a brain. I think there should be a legislated weight of maximum embryo size to be aborted, for all social reasons to abort, simple as that. As it stands 80% of all abortions currently occur before week 12 anyway. I also agree with an abortion to prevent eminent mortality of the mother, at her request, up until the time of birth. I'd go so far as to say that there needs to be a representative of the people to record aborted embryo weight factored into the cost of the procedure, and the doctor (or anyone else performing the procedure) would be liable for manslaughter charges over a certain weight. Perhaps a three strikes rule. Generally, I believe aborting fetuses is wrong and criminal, but I have no problem with pre-organ-development embryos in light of the various social reasons to abort.

presence

[EBounding]

Ron Paul didn't change my mind on abortion. He did help me better understand why I am Pro-Life. That better understanding did convince me on war though. I feel like I have a much more consistent viewpoint on life now.

Same here. Even when I supported the wars, I was still uncomfortable with "collateral damage" and the fact that the wars were never declared. It feels great not to have that conflict anymore.

When it comes to abortion, viability is irrelevant; it's the respect for human life that matters. We need to respect life whether the child is in the womb or thousands of miles away in a warzone that we don't see.

[CaptUSA]

Reasonable people can disagree where to draw this line.

(Personally, I think once the zygote is properly impregnated, all bets are off. In my view, this allows for a morning after pill that prevents impregnation. Similar to Dr. Paul's view, but not entirely.)

However, one thing we can all agree on is that this decision is not best placed in the hands of a federal government.

[GunnyFreedom]

Before Ron Paul I was pro life but deeply ashamed of it. After Ron Paul I was pro life and no longer ashamed.

[philipped]

Nope. Still Pro Choice. It is none of my business what personal decisions people make between them and their doctor.

This.

[eduardo89]

I respect Ron's position, but I don't necessarily agree with him that it should be handled at the state level, nor do I consider him 100% pro-life as he is not against contraception and morning after pills, which are completely anti-life.

That said, I think Ron is miles ahead of 99% of the rest of Congress when it comes to this issue.

[MaxPower]

I was pro-life before I had ever heard of Ron Paul, though I was greatly pleased, in the course of learning about him, to see how closely his understanding of the abortion issue matched mine.

[amartin315]

He made me appreciate the pro-life point of view more, but I am still pretty much pro-choice.

I think it should be left to individual states, or better yet, individual courts to decide who is on the wrong side of the 'non-agression principle' in every individual case.

For example, if a woman was raped she never agreed to have the fetus inside her and thus she is off the hook.

If a woman was not raped, she has to face up to her decision to have sex and carry the baby to term.

I do not believe in an incest exception. That is still consensual and studies show not all babies born of incest inevitably have deformities.

I agree with the view that the woman ought to be able to evict the baby from her property. However I also understand that a court order to evict might involve waiting just a little bit longer until the baby is ready to come out naturally or the court order might involve 'eviction on the spot.'

For all of this you would probably need special "abortion courts" that are able to make decisions much more speedily than regular courts so as not to render decisions moot.

[jmdrake]

He made me appreciate the pro-life point of view more, but I am still pretty much pro-choice.

I think it should be left to individual states, or better yet, individual courts to decide who is on the wrong side of the 'non-agression principle' in every individual case.

For example, if a woman was raped she never agreed to have the fetus inside her and thus she is off the hook.

If a woman was not raped, she has to face up to her decision to have sex and carry the baby to term.

I do not believe in an incest exception. That is still consensual and studies show not all babies born of incest inevitably have deformities.

I agree with the view that the woman ought to be able to evict the baby from her property. However I also understand that a court order to evict might involve waiting just a little bit longer until the baby is ready to come out naturally or the court order might involve 'eviction on the spot.'

For all of this you would probably need special "abortion courts" that are able to make decisions much more speedily than regular courts so as not to render decisions moot.

Ron's position on the morning after pill best deals with the rape exception question. Nobody would say that a child born of rape should have any less rights than a child born of consensual sex so why the exception? Because any woman could claim she was raped for abortion purposes. The morning after pill should be available to anybody, rape victim or not. Then theirs no motive to lie if it's not a rape. A rape victim should be able to make up her mind quickly that she doesn't want to carry the baby to term. If she waits past the window where the morning after pill works then she's made a choice for life.

[amartin315]

Ron's position on the morning after pill best deals with the rape exception question. Nobody would say that a child born of rape should have any less rights than a child born of consensual sex so why the exception? Because any woman could claim she was raped for abortion purposes. The morning after pill should be available to anybody, rape victim or not. Then theirs no motive to lie if it's not a rape. A rape victim should be able to make up her mind quickly that she doesn't want to carry the baby to term. If she waits past the window where the morning after pill works then she's made a choice for life.

In the rape exception, the woman still has a right to choose... or not to choose. You cannot force her to make a decision, life or death, of another human being (even if that human being is technically by your definition of the morning after pill, still unborn.) Not only can you not do so, but it is morally wrong to force someone who has just been raped to make a decision of such gravity...within any allotted time frame, let alone by the morning after. As long as that baby is inside her she can choose 'evict' or 'not evict.'

When a woman has consensual sex, she has made a choice that she has to live by. No one forced her to make a choice on the spot.

I would not make an exception for incest, unless it was underage incest of course, in which case the rules of rape apply.

There also needs to be an exception for threats to the life of the mother, however rare those cases may be.

EDIT: As to the case of people who lie about whether or not they've been raped, that is just something you have to live with. If it is later found that she lied, she is liable for punishment.

[LibertyExtremist]

In my opinion, abortion is murder and it is wrong. I have always felt this way and I felt the same way as an atheist, deist, and a Christian. That being said, I believe that there are certain circumstances where an abortion might be justified (rape, incest, fetal abnormalities, threat to mother's life, etc.).

[jmdrake]

In the rape exception, the woman still has a right to choose... or not to choose. You cannot force her to make a decision, life or death, of another human being (even if that human being is technically by your definition of the morning after pill, still unborn.) Not only can you not do so, but it is morally wrong to force someone who has just been raped to make a decision of such gravity...within any allotted time frame, let alone by the morning after. As long as that baby is inside her she can choose 'evict' or 'not evict.'

Sure you can. At some point she's not allowed to make the "choice" to wrap the newborn up and throw it in the dumpster just because she was a rape victim. And not making a choice is a choice. Saying it's morally wrong to "force" someone to make a choice is an infantile approach to rape victims. When a woman is raped she has the choice to go to the hospital and get a rape kit done so that there is evidence to use later in a trial. Any honest police officer would say "I can't make you do that. But if you don't it will be much more difficult to get a conviction." Life is about choices. Calling choices immoral makes no sense.

When a woman has consensual sex, she has made a choice that she has to live by. No one forced her to make a choice on the spot.

I would not make an exception for incest, unless it was underage incest of course, in which case the rules of rape apply.

There also needs to be an exception for threats to the life of the mother, however rare those cases may be.

EDIT: As to the case of people who lie about whether or not they've been raped, that is just something you have to live with. If it is later found that she lied, she is liable for punishment.

It's difficult enough to prove a woman lied about rape by a particular man. It would be pretty much impossible to prove that a woman lied about being raped by some unnamed stranger. And your proposal is grossly unfair to the baby that didn't choose to have a rapist as a father.

[amartin315]

Sure you can. At some point she's not allowed to make the "choice" to wrap the newborn up and throw it in the dumpster just because she was a rape victim. And not making a choice is a choice. Saying it's morally wrong to "force" someone to make a choice is an infantile approach to rape victims. When a woman is raped she has the choice to go to the hospital and get a rape kit done so that there is evidence to use later in a trial. Any honest police officer would say "I can't make you do that. But if you don't it will be much more difficult to get a conviction." Life is about choices. Calling choices immoral makes no sense.

The choice she always has is not whether to throw the baby in the dumpster, but whether to 'evict' the baby from her motherly care or not. If she chooses to evict the baby after it is 'born' (outside the womb) then the decision to 'evict' must be done reasonably, taking into account the baby's right to life. It is not unreasonable to expect the mother to leave the baby in the care of some other person. Inside the womb, it is impossible to 'evict' without harming the baby, therefor all considerations for the baby's life have been made and unfortunately the sad scientific reality is that the baby must die in order to respect the mother's rights.

She has a right to live her life without someone coming along and saying "you must shove this pill down your throat or else..." (or else carry a baby for 9 months.) In that case she is a victim of aggression and has no responsibility to any other person.

It's difficult enough to prove a woman lied about rape by a particular man. It would be pretty much impossible to prove that a woman lied about being raped by some unnamed stranger. And your proposal is grossly unfair to the baby that didn't choose to have a rapist as a father.

It's difficult to prove and it's unfair to babies, but that's tough. I believe the non-aggression principle doesn't always lead to "fair" or "happy" outcomes.

[jmdrake]

In my opinion, abortion is murder and it is wrong. I have always felt this way and I felt the same way as an atheist, deist, and a Christian. That being said, I believe that there are certain circumstances where an abortion might be justified (rape, incest, fetal abnormalities, threat to mother's life, etc.).

I once argued that position until a pro abortion advocate argued that if I really believed abortion is murder then why would I be okay with murdering a child who's father was a rapist? Note that I had not argued the "abortion is murder" point that you have. So I hope you can see the problem in trying to hold both the "It's murder" position and the "Well if it's rape it's okay" position.

[jmdrake]

The choice she always has is not whether to throw the baby in the dumpster, but whether to 'evict' the baby from her motherly care or not. If she chooses to evict the baby after it is 'born' (outside the womb) then the decision to 'evict' must be done reasonably, taking into account the baby's right to life. It is not unreasonable to expect the mother to leave the baby in the care of some other person. Inside the womb, it is impossible to 'evict' without harming the baby, therefor all considerations for the baby's life have been made and unfortunately the sad scientific reality is that the baby must die in order to respect the mother's rights.

She has a right to live her life without someone coming along and saying "you must shove this pill down your throat or else..." (or else carry a baby for 9 months.) In that case she is a victim of aggression and has no responsibility to any other person.

You are going by what you call reasonable.

It's difficult to prove and it's unfair to babies, but that's tough. I believe the non-aggression principle doesn't always lead to "fair" or "happy" outcomes.

Except you aren't following NAP. You are supporting aggression against the unborn based on whether or not the mother made some poor choice early on. If the baby isn't a baby then fine. There's no aggression if the mother has an abortion for whatever reason. If the baby is a baby then you can't say "Well it's a violation of NAP if the mother was a slut and aborts it but it isn't a violation of NAP if she was raped and aborts it." An innocent person's rights cannot be dependent upon the victimhood of the aggressor.

[staerker]

Imago Dei.

[amartin315]

You are going by what you call reasonable.



Except you aren't following NAP. You are supporting aggression against the unborn based on whether or not the mother made some poor choice early on. If the baby isn't a baby then fine. There's no aggression if the mother has an abortion for whatever reason. If the baby is a baby then you can't say "Well it's a violation of NAP if the mother was a slut and aborts it but it isn't a violation of NAP if she was raped and aborts it." An innocent person's rights cannot be dependent upon the victimhood of the aggressor.

An innocent person's rights aren't dependent on the victimhood of the aggressor. The baby always has a right to life. It's just that the mother ALSO has a right to her bodily integrity, however you want to call it. There are two competing rights.

That's why it's important to have a concept of "reasonableness", which is why I would make the decision in court on a case by case basis as I originally said. Courts deal with the word "reasonable" all the time. They have it down to a science almost. It's not a difficult concept to apply.

When a rape victim gets raped, she has, against her will, been provided with a choice. Evict or do not evict. She has been presented with a situation where she must make a decision or else carry a baby to term. It is a decision under duress, not only because it comes as the result of rape, but also because she is faced with grave consequences for either action that she could decide to take. If she decides life, then she is faced with carrying a baby to term. If she chooses death, then she is faced with the prospect of a thought that might haunt her for the rest of her life. Under these circumstances, it is unreasonable to force her to make choices under duress in a short amount of time. Decisions made under duress are violable.

Ergo, she is never considered to be responsible for the baby in her womb. The baby does have a right to life, but since the mother never made the free choice to waive the rights to her body, she retains those rights. We have competing rights. The woman has no right to take the baby's life, but the baby has no right to the woman's body. The woman is free to take away her body in the most reasonable way possible. As a sad consequence, the baby dies. There is no reasonable (or other) way to evict a baby in the womb without it dying.

Just imagine if the Jehova's witness comes on my lawn. I want him to go away. It is reasonable for me to escort him off my property. It is unreasonable for me to shoot him and escort him off my property. All else being equal of course.

[jmdrake]

An innocent person's rights aren't dependent on the victimhood of the aggressor. The baby always has a right to life. It's just that the mother ALSO has a right to her bodily integrity, however you want to call it. There are two competing rights.

A mother doesn't give up that right to bodily integrity simply by voluntarily sleeping with someone. So it's till a "competing right" if that's the way you want to cast it. And reasonable is giving the rape victim two choices. You can take an abortion pill now, or you can wait until the baby can be "evicted" without harm to your or the baby. With modern incubation technology that is not nine months as you asserted. Further, decades ago we had the ability to do embryo transplants.

http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/FetalAdoption.htm

That's why it's important to have a concept of "reasonableness", which is why I would make the decision in court on a case by case basis as I originally said. Courts deal with the word "reasonable" all the time. They have it down to a science almost. It's not a difficult concept to apply.

When a rape victim gets raped, she has, against her will, been provided with a choice. Evict or do not evict. She has been presented with a situation where she must make a decision or else carry a baby to term. It is a decision under duress, not only because it comes as the result of rape, but also because she is faced with grave consequences for either action that she could decide to take. If she decides life, then she is faced with carrying a baby to term. If she chooses death, then she is faced with the prospect of a thought that might haunt her for the rest of her life. Under these circumstances, it is unreasonable to force her to make choices under duress in a short amount of time. Decisions made under duress are violable.

Like you said. Life isn't fair. All you've done is transferred unfairness from mother to child. And at no point is the pregnancy is there a lack of duress for the choice so that really isn't worth factoring into the argument. It's better for the mother to make the choice early in the pregnancy. She doesn't know the child's sex. There is less wear and tare on her own body. At this point there is no nervous system or heartbeat so it's less arguably a "life." In fact most consider the morning after pill not to be an abortion at all as it usually (some argue always) works by preventing the egg from being released. So you're asking a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant to make the only sensible choice possible.

Ergo, she is never considered to be responsible for the baby in her womb. The baby does have a right to life, but since the mother never made the free choice to waive the rights to her body, she retains those rights. We have competing rights. The woman has no right to take the baby's life, but the baby has no right to the woman's body. The woman is free to take away her body in the most reasonable way possible. As a sad consequence, the baby dies. There is no reasonable (or other) way to evict a baby in the womb without it dying.

Just imagine if the Jehova's witness comes on my lawn. I want him to go away. It is reasonable for me to escort him off my property. It is unreasonable for me to shoot him and escort him off my property. All else being equal of course.

I'm not sure where you are going with the JW analogy. Are you suggesting that you don't ever agree with a mother, even a rape victim, taking an action that kills the fetus? That's the Walter Block argument. (Evictionism). I can go along with that position. I don't think it should be relegated only to victims of rape though. But that doesn't seem to be what you were saying earlier.

[LibertyExtremist]

I once argued that position until a pro abortion advocate argued that if I really believed abortion is murder then why would I be okay with murdering a child who's father was a rapist? Note that I had not argued the "abortion is murder" point that you have. So I hope you can see the problem in trying to hold both the "It's murder" position and the "Well if it's rape it's okay" position.

Absolutely and that is why I said "might" be justified in my post. Excluding rape, I think that the other positions are certainly justifiable (abnormalities, incest, threat to mother's life), however, the issue I think is a bit muddy when it comes to rape as it was not something that the woman consented to, thus why should she have to suffer the consequences of carrying a rapists child? I'm not saying that necessarily justifies an abortion, but it kind of complicates the issue. Also, I'm not disagreeing with your logic here, just thinking out loud.

[amartin315]

A mother doesn't give up that right to bodily integrity simply by voluntarily sleeping with someone. So it's till a "competing right" if that's the way you want to cast it. And reasonable is giving the rape victim two choices. You can take an abortion pill now, or you can wait until the baby can be "evicted" without harm to your or the baby. With modern incubation technology that is not nine months as you asserted. Further, decades ago we had the ability to do embryo transplants.

http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/FetalAdoption.htm



Like you said. Life isn't fair. All you've done is transferred unfairness from mother to child. And at no point is the pregnancy is there a lack of duress for the choice so that really isn't worth factoring into the argument. It's better for the mother to make the choice early in the pregnancy. She doesn't know the child's sex. There is less wear and tare on her own body. At this point there is no nervous system or heartbeat so it's less arguably a "life." In fact most consider the morning after pill not to be an abortion at all as it usually (some argue always) works by preventing the egg from being released. So you're asking a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant to make the only sensible choice possible.



I'm not sure where you are going with the JW analogy. Are you suggesting that you don't ever agree with a mother, even a rape victim, taking an action that kills the fetus? That's the Walter Block argument. (Evictionism). I can go along with that position. I don't think it should be relegated only to victims of rape though. But that doesn't seem to be what you were saying earlier.

Consider a Jehova's witness on my yard. He has a right to life. I have a right to property. The reasonable thing to do is to kick the JW off my property if I dont want him there. I don't have a right to shoot him in order to get him off my property. If he refuses to leave peacefully, then I have the right to shoot him in order to make him leave, even though he has a right to life. We are balancing the rights of the two people. We apply a reasonableness standard based on the circumstances.

If I had invited the JW to my property and promised his father he could stay there for 9 months, then that changes the circumstances. I voluntarily waived certain rights to my property. Now it is not only unreasonable to ask the JW to leave, it is certainly also more unreasonable to shoot him if he doesnt comply.

EDIT: Now consider again the JW in my yard with no 9 month agreement. I don't have to decide, right as soon as the JW comes on my property, whether or not I want to hear more from him. I can wait and let him say a few words, or I can let him talk to me for hours, and I can still have the right to say GTFO. And then, if he doesn't comply, his right to life becomes moot.