Ron Paul on the Abortion issue

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

when you consider that many of the people who would see it done do not support public assistance once the child is born, do not support increasing the availability of birth control options or sex education and actually would make it harder to get birth control if given the opportunity while teaching kids to "just say no" to sex.

Exactly.

It almost like these folks believe that life begins at orgasm, not conception.

The Orgasm Police.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

The Orgasm Police.

*snorts* Hahahahaha

[BeyondBewildered]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I'll try to ask this as straightforwardly as possible...

What if life really does begin at conception? Wouldn't the abortion issue then be more complex than just one person's decision?

Ooo, finally, you sort of said it. You'd like to eliminate my reproductive rights. Thanks. And that is all the change that Ron Paul has a snow ball's chance in hell of accomplishing. To answer your question, in short, NO!!! At length... see below.

Um, life does begin at conception. Most pro-choicers realize that embryos are actually alive. Cells are dividing, it's alive. THAT is NOT the issue. The issue is what rights does it have. And what rights do I have over what grows inside MY uterus. Currently, abortion is the only issue that I can think of where people actually justify forcing a person to give up a part of their body and risk their life to provide life to another. THAT is the slippery slope. If we outlawed abortion, what door does that open.

Look at it in a way that actually might effect you. Let's say you have a child and your child needs your kidney to survive, or maybe just a liver chunk, or bone marrow. Of course you'd give your kidney to your kid, but should the goverment be able to force you? Sedate you, kicking and screaming. I don't think so. We currently don't give actual verifiable human beings rights over another person's body, even when their death is impending, even when it is their parents. Why is the embryo so much more important?

What it really boils down to is that you want to feel special and holy for being a human. And you'd like to prove it by forcing me to have children. How convenient.

Granting human rights at conception also opens up a different can of worms that tends to turn me into a baby factory. Most people don't get it, but there aren't really any forms of birth control that prevent conception 100% of the time. Spare me a link to how "the pill" works. That is not the only form of birth control, and it thins the uterine lining to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, which happens even though the pill can and does frequently prevent ovulation. IUD's, the only form of birth control suitable for me, do jack for ovulation and just plain kick those embryos right outta the womb. I got flack for "having an abortion every month" from relatives when I first got mine.

So, for the zillionth time (not to you DL) when you outlaw abortion on the basis of granting rights at conception (extra rights actually) you are in practice eliminating ALL REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM AND BIRTH CONTROL. Not that any prolifers will admit that, but that is what you are actually trying to do. Really, you are. The Pope gets it, I really don't see why it is that hard for everyone to see that it is an all or nothing decision. You either have a choice, or you don't. Baby Factory or Body Sovereignty, cut and dry. There is NO MIDDLE GROUND where you can "just get on birth control."

Additionally, it has been proven time after time, study after study, regardless of culture or country that outlawing abortion does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO STOP ABORTION. The rate of abortion stays EXACTLY the same. The ONLY difference is the safety of said abortions. Many people are unaware of this, but abortion has been around for thousands of years. There were medically performed abortions in ancient Rome. There are countless herbal remedies available to primitive peoples, and most are significantly more dangerous that traditional medically supervised abortions. Then there are the back alley, knitting needle up the cervix kinds of abortions. It is not the government's job to legislate morality based on hypotheticals and "what if's." They are supposed to do what best for the people, and safe legal abortion is in the best interest of the public health. That is what should matter.

So no, I don't think that the fact that you feel special for being a human life form should affect my rights to medical care and reproductive freedom. I cannot believe intelligent people actually want to take away the sovereignty I have over my own body based on completely unverifiable "well, what ifs." I swear, it's like I wake up every morning in the Twilight Zone.

But again, go Ron Paul. C'mon, shout the whole agenda from the rooftops, not just the fluffy stuff that will bring liberal votes. "Save the Snowflake Babies!"

[Dan.Linehan]

I'm not necessarily for abortion being made illegal. That doesn't sound effective. But things aren't nearly as black and white as you are making them either.

What if the baby is 6 months old and could easily survive on its own if the mother simply got a C-Section rather than an abortion? That's called viability, which apparently starts at around 22 weeks (5.5 months)..

If you are going to draw a line in the sand, why not draw it based on viability, rather than on the notion that the baby has no rights one minute before its born and full person-hood the minute after?

Also, the argument that "taking away a woman's rights is a slippery slope" is no more slippery than determining person-hood arbitrarily, based merely on location..

But, since only about 1.4% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark, this is mostly a moot point.

Back to Ron Paul.

The libertarian perspective, according to Wikipedia is this,

The U.S. Libertarian Party platform[4] states that "abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides". It holds that abortion should be legal but neither state-funded or required because "the government should be kept out of the question".

Rather than pre-judging the solution in specific cases as abortion law does, the Libertarian Party says the real solution is for citizens to look to the voluntary and subsidiary institutions – person, family, religion – actually competent in the matter[5] noting that people are often hindered from sensible acts by government policies with effects such as encouraging abortions, making adoptions difficult, hindering contraception, or turning child support into a lucrative racket.

Makes sense.

Ron Paul is definitely way, way more Pro-life than the typical Libertarian though.

Lest you think it's just a minor issue for him, consider the obscure fact that Paul has written not one but two books arguing for the necessity of a pro-life libertarianism: 1983's Abortion and Liberty and 1990's Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue. And lest you think he has since changed his views on abortion, ponder what he's saying now. On June 4, 2003, speaking in the House of Representatives, Paul described "the rights of unborn people” as “the greatest moral issue of our time."

But, I'd have to say, since he has delivered 4,000 babies, and written two books, maybe he knows a thing or two about it.

And for Paul, that's a deeply personal concern. His prior job as a doctor -- he has delivered over 4,000 babies -- plays an important role. In his New York Times Magazine profile of Paul, Christopher Caldwell writes: "He remembers seeing a late abortion performed during his residency, years before Roe v. Wade, and he maintains it left an impression on him. 'It was pretty dramatic for me,' he says, 'to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.'"

Source.

It was specifically a late term abortion that RP witnessed yet he seems to be staunchly against all abortions, not just late term ones.

[Groundless]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Exactly.

It almost like these folks believe that life begins at orgasm, not conception.

The Orgasm Police.

Every sperm is sacred you know.......

or so says Monte Python......and the Catholic Church.

[Groundless]

Abortion is murder just like euthanasia is murder. Either life is sacred not to be snuffed out by you and I or it isn't.

The question of whether or not murder really matters is the question I ask. Why is this life ending so important? Is it our ego clinging to our individualness? What do we fear?

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Groundless

Abortion is murder just like euthanasia is murder. Either life is sacred not to be snuffed out by you and I or it isn't.

Life? Do you mean like the insects and bacteria we kill every day?

Or do you mean human life? In which case, is a foetus human? It's a lot more like the aforementioned bacteria than it is like you and I.

This, of course, is a trick question: In practice it's a sliding scale: a 2-week old foetus is roughly 5% of a human being (or is it an exponential scale?).

So how does that compare to say, a chimpanzee, which is genetically 95-98% human (depending on how you count)? Is killing a chimpanzee murder? How about a mouse? They're as human as an early foetus too.

Please conclusively and indisputably answer these questions (and all the questions that spin off them). Then feel free to make unequivocal comments like "abortion is murder like euthanasia is murder".

P.S. One should immediately be suspicious of any black and white answer. The world is sufficiently complicated that a binary answer is unlikely to have taken all factors into consideration.

[Brutha]

Either life is sacred

Sacred is a religious word. Religion shouldn't justify certain political laws.
Laws should be based on moral principles shared by religious and non-religious people.

But, I'd have to say, since he has delivered 4,000 babies, and written two books, maybe he knows a thing or two about it.

There are a lot of people who have written books about the topic. Making an argument by authority that one of those people is right because he has written a book is bad reasoning.

If you are going to draw a line in the sand, why not draw it based on viability, rather than on the notion that the baby has no rights one minute before its born and full person-hood the minute after?

I don't think that there are many people who hold that position. If you would kill {aspiring_to_clarity}'s child while it is still in her body against her will I guess she would want that you can be prosecute for crimes against that baby.

I also think that most prochoicers could life with a limit of three or four months. That how the German law works and nobody campains here for more choice.

That's called viability, which apparently starts at around 22 weeks (5.5 months)..

The problem with the term viability is that it will go to zero as the amount of technical options progress.

Also, the argument that "taking away a woman's rights is a slippery slope" is no more slippery than determining person-hood arbitrarily, based merely on location..

You can't define person-hood nonarbitrarily. You have to draw for example a line of how many years ago the first person lived. When did your first ancestor with person-hood live?
What exactly constitues a person will also be an important question in the future when we aren't bound be our DNA anymore and can freely manipulate it.
Just saving everyone who shares enough DNA with humans to be human won't work there.

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

What if the baby is 6 months old and could easily survive on its own if the mother simply got a C-Section rather than an abortion?

I apologize for my ignorance, but is it possible in the states to abort so late??

I've always been pro-choice, I think it's important that women have the right to decide what happens with their pregnancy. But here, you can only abort before week 10 or 12. After that, it's illegal.

If you define life beginning at conception, of course this doesn't make any difference. But still, for my personal feeling aborting something that looks like a small kidney is not the same as aborting something that already looks and moves like a real baby.

[kat]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

I apologize for my ignorance, but is it possible in the states to abort so late??

I've always been pro-choice, I think it's important that women have the right to decide what happens with their pregnancy. But here, you can only abort before week 10 or 12. After that, it's illegal.

If you define life beginning at conception, of course this doesn't make any difference. But still, for my personal feeling aborting something that looks like a small kidney is not the same as aborting something that already looks and moves like a real baby.

Yes, it's possible to get late-term abortions in the States. They happen, but are very infrequent, and usually for serious medical conditions, such as severe encephalitis. In the cases where this would be used as a reason for an abortion, the fetus's head can swell to well over a foot (30 cm) in diameter, making it impossible for a woman to survive giving birth to it, as well as causing severe brain damage to the fetus itself.

Between having a woman die giving birth to a severely handicapped and essentially brain-dead child, who also won't live long, or having a late-term abortion, I personally consider the ethical decision straightforward. Yours may be different from mine.

No one likes late-term abortions. Sometimes, they are the least bad option.

[BeyondBewildered]

Dan, you used the term "life begins at conception." Now you're talking about viability. It IS that black and white when you grant rights at conception, because that would eliminate all birth control as well. Not that they ever put it that way in the pamphlet of course. I'm sorry, I thought you were being "straightforward".

This whole six month C section thing you're talking about is downright creepy. Government mandated surgery and government owned preemies. And I get to pay for it! A totally unnecessary precedent to set. I'm confused how "libertarians" are okay with granting the majority control over a woman's body. I'm enraged that I'd have to fit the bill not only financially, but also bear the social and environmental burden of passing Paul's morality into law. He gets to die alot sooner than his precious snowflake babies will, he doesn't get the choke on the hot air of the future and rummage for scraps in the dumps.

Ron Paul is not just any ol' pro life libertarian. He's playing with a deck of crazy cards all his own. It's even scarier that he was an OBGyn, because people use that to justify his insanity. My last gynecologist put me through 3 years of ill health effects from hormonal birth control and 3 miscarriages before I figured out she was giving me the options her morality wanted to give me. They sure think they know a thing or two about it all right. They are also personally, financially, and professionally vested in women having more babies.

Despite the fact that Ron Paul thinks "The Constitution was written to restrain the government, never to restrain the people.", he also describes himself as an "an unshakable foe of abortion." Indeed, he feels "Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty."

THE MOST important issue. Yet everyone talks about the Fed, the war on drugs, and ending the war in Iraq. That might be more important to you, but it isn't to him. You'll get the freedoms his personal morals will allow you to have. Ron Paul is pro freedom when it suits himself, and then only. But he and mini religious theocracies he'd create won't be taking anything from you, Dan, which is why it is probably worth it for you. It makes me physically anxious.

[BeyondBewildered]

I hit submit too early, the double posting and many edits were unintentional.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Also, the argument that "taking away a woman's rights is a slippery slope" is no more slippery than determining person-hood arbitrarily, based merely on location..

Wait a sec, isn't that exactly what Ron Paul will accomplish? Won't many more of our rights be determined on "location" and the morality of the majority. The state will arbitraily decide when a person is a person, and that definition will vary from state to state. So will reproductive freedom. In some places it will be eliminated, arbitrarily, by location. Personal freedom, huh?

The slippery slope isn't "taking away a woman's rights." It's defining "life" and granting rights at conception, which is again, the terminology you have used. Because further down that slope is the elimination of birth control. The "line in the sand" is drawn WAY before the partial birth abortion which I *think* you're now speaking of. What if some states ban birth control based on this philosophy? Personal freedom?

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

But, since only about 1.4% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark, this is mostly a moot point.

Not to Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

It was specifically a late term abortion that RP witnessed yet he seems to be staunchly against all abortions, not just late term ones.

You didn't even touch on his wanting to stop the disposal of frozen embryos. I wonder whose uterus he plans to use and who he thinks should pay for that. Staunch doesn't quite cover it. The man is cracked.

You really think that Paul's states rights system will give us more personal freedom, and fits with the Libertarian viewpoint of individual freedom? Do you realize how religious and oppressive things can get at the local level, and that the rights of the moral minority won't be protected at all? It isn't that easy to move for everyone. And what happens to the people that can't find a majority to fit their morality? Where is their personal freedom?

[BeyondBewildered]

Originally Posted by Dharma

Here's how we fixed slavery -

That is how we made slavery illegal and unconstitutional. We didn't fix a thing. There are currently more slaves in the US now, than at any other time in history. Literal, owned by another person slaves, not the rat race variety. Lots are immigrants, imported in the modern day by our citizens to be sex slaves and indentured servants. It is still a huge issue, even though we passed a law.

Abortion cannot go to the state level. My state has an anti abortion trigger law, and my government takes enough of my money to enforce their morals as it is. Astoundingly, in the land of the free, there is no way we could get the 3/4 needed to grant a person sovereignty over their own body. We are a stone's throw away from the bronze age here.

[BeyondBewildered]

Originally Posted by Groundless

Abortion is murder just like euthanasia is murder. Either life is sacred not to be snuffed out by you and I or it isn't.

The question of whether or not murder really matters is the question I ask. Why is this life ending so important? Is it our ego clinging to our individualness? What do we fear?

It isn't. And you obviously mean human life. Ironically, this viewpoint allows quite a bit of life snuffing. Human life needs all the "lesser" life to have a planet that can sustain human life.

What do I fear? The 11+ billion people that will soon be fighting with me for food and water, after they've collapsed my civilization.

I'm sorry, you're all caught up with being human and declaring other peoples morality "murder" and you're the one asking about one's ego clinging to "individualness?" Well, you have declared yourself "Groundless" so it works.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Dharma

They are also allowed to move if they want.

Originally Posted by seeker5

At least, with the states, even if 49 states choose to make abortions illegal and one state is pro-choice, then you can always travel to that one pro-choice state.

That's easy to say as a man of presumably decent means.

Not so much if you are a poor 15 year old girl with no money, no transportation and no one in your life willing to help you.

We need to protect certain rights that may never pertain to us for those who have no voice or means.

[Groundless]

Originally Posted by BeyondBewildered

It isn't. And you obviously mean human life. Ironically, this viewpoint allows quite a bit of life snuffing. Human life needs all the "lesser" life to have a planet that can sustain human life.

What do I fear? The 11+ billion people that will soon be fighting with me for food and water, after they've collapsed my civilization.

I'm sorry, you're all caught up with being human and declaring other peoples morality "murder" and you're the one asking about one's ego clinging to "individualness?" Well, you have declared yourself "Groundless" so it works.

I never meant human life only. You assumed so.

I do not fear the scenario you paint for the future even though it will probably be as you say.

***I'm sorry, you're all caught up with being human and declaring other peoples morality "murder" and you're the one asking about one's ego clinging to "individualness?***

I see the point was missed. Understandable really. I was just saying life is life. That is all. Your ego is indeed clinging if you have the fear you have. It is all ok by me either way, why isn't it for you?

[BeyondBewildered]

Originally Posted by Groundless

I never meant human life only. You assumed so.

I do not fear the scenario you paint for the future even though it will probably be as you say.

***I'm sorry, you're all caught up with being human and declaring other peoples morality "murder" and you're the one asking about one's ego clinging to "individualness?***

I see the point was missed. Understandable really. I was just saying life is life. That is all. Your ego is indeed clinging if you have the fear you have. It is all ok by me either way, why isn't it for you?

Alright. I'm sorry, truth be told, I was kept up late with unnecessary thoughts of other's oppression.

I'd never have used the word fear myself. More like a concern, that I have for other people. I'm armed, and crafty.

If you'd like to know the thing of it, I don't really give a hoot about murder. I value animal and vegetative life over human life, because I'm selfish, and I value my physical experience more than others. Steve has an ideology that make that okay, and that' s why I'm here.

[uberinquisitive]

I am pro-choice, and support Ron Paul.

Personally, Rob Paul is fervently anti-abortion. Let's not sugar coat it: he thinks it is barbaric and disgusting. Personally, I don't agree with him.

Now, if he wanted to make abortion illegal on a federal level, then I would not support him. However, he would never have the federal government ban abortion. Instead, he wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. To me, this is acceptable.

The abortion to slavery comparison, to me, seems a bit sensationalist.

[Jennihul]

Abortion is a litmus test to any potential candidate insofar as how they will or will not support individual rights. It is what it is.

I commend Ron Paul for being upfront and he has the right to be pro-life. I am pro-life and pro-choice but that happens to include the belief that already living people have first dibs in decisions over unborn ones. And that women have the final say in how their uterus is to be used. I believe that no one can tell me what to do with my body, even though many try.

Therefore, I would not vote for Ron Paul based on that one issue. Even if he is the best candidate, overall.

Jennifer

[Angela]

Originally Posted by uberinquisitive

The abortion to slavery comparison, to me, seems a bit sensationalist.

What do you mean, sensationalist? When a powerful group assumes dominion over the bodies of other humans, that's enslavement. Nothing sensational about it; that straight out oppression. Why sugar-coat it?

[schola]

Originally Posted by Angela

I strongly disagree. That's like letting individual states deciding whether or not to allow slavery. Indeed, opposition to a woman's right to freedom over her own reproductive functions is the same as being in favor of slavery.

As strongly against it as you might feel, as a free thinking individual, you have to respect others' rights to a different opinion.

You are advocating enforcing your morals onto others while turning around and complaining about them doing it to you.

[CeciL]

I'm pro-choice... However, basing your opinion on whether your allowed to kill an irresponsible fertilized baby over all the other reasons seems a bit morbid. Doesn't it?

[Brutha]

You are advocating enforcing your morals onto others while turning around and complaining about them doing it to you.

There is a difference between enforcing morals by forbidding something and enforcing morals by allowing something.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Brutha

There is a difference between enforcing morals by forbidding something and enforcing morals by allowing something.

They're two halves of the same coin.

Pro lifers would say allowing abortion is forbidding a fetus's right to life.

[Brutha]

They're two halves of the same coin.

Pro lifers would say allowing abortion is forbidding a fetus's right to life.

To keep that analogy you would have to say that the morals are forced upon the fetus. But the fetus is no person on which morals could be forced upon (at least in Angela's mind).

[schola]

Originally Posted by Brutha

To keep that analogy you would have to say that the morals are forced upon the fetus. But the fetus is no person on which morals could be forced upon (at least in Angela's mind).

But in another person's mind, it is a person.

Part of being a free thinker is stepping outside your own belief system and trying to see the issue through your opponent's eyes.

[Dharma]

The arguments here fall to the floor if you let go of any victim attachment. So far the fetus and women have been depicted as victims in this thread.

You have to ask yourself, is victimhood natural in this world or did we create it?

How do you create a victim anyway? You let go of any responsibility for your creatorship of the moment. "Something from the outside is doing this to me and I can't do anything about it. "

Could people, no, women really create a reality where they block other women from getting abortions even if they are pro-choice? Sure. It's right here.

Could we be so identified with our mental positions of "I'm right" that we hide our creatorship of this moment? Sure.

Could a being actually have the choice to physically manifest in this world through a fetus and then change it's mind? Can two beings (mother,fetus) co-create a short term pregnancy? Something not right about that?

If I don't believe I create my reality, I am powerless to change it. To work with the issue of abortion I have to look inside myself to where I choose life and death; to where I make decisions based on what I think the future will be like vs being in the moment with my choice; to how I use shame and guilt; and to my addiction to right and wrong.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Dharma

You have to ask yourself, is victimhood natural in this world or did we create it?

Isn't creation natural?

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Isn't creation natural?

Yes.... It also seems hiding creation/creatorship from ourselves is something we do too.

[Andrew Brunelle]

Abortion is not a federal issue or a state issue. It is a personal issue. The person who is having the baby grow inside of her is the person who should decide whether or not it lives or is terminated.