# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Liberty Defined - Dr. Paul on Abortion

## White Bear Lake

On Amazon, you can read the table of contents, introduction, and first chapter of Liberty Defined. The first chapter is on the topic of abortion:

http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Define...der_145550145X

Some really good stuff there.

I just ordered the book - can't wait for it to arrive!

(BTW, it's currently #48 in books and #4 in politics)

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

$#@!! - we just lost a ton of dem/independent support

----------


## fisharmor

> $#@!! - we just lost a ton of dem/independent support


Probably, but not for the reason you are thinking.
I think the chapter could have been a lot more coherent.  He does make some great points, but this particular chapter isn't pulling the grand argument together like he does normally.
I love him because he's convincing.  He addresses the opposition, and constructs arguments for why that position isn't as good as the one he espouses.
I don't think he did - or generally does - as good a job with the topic of abortion as he does with, for instance, empire building.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> $#@!! - we just lost a ton of dem/independent support


No.  Dems/Independents might now wake up to true Liberty

----------


## Krugerrand

> $#@!! - we just lost a ton of dem/independent support


There are a lot of pro-life democrats.  Plus, they tend to also be the anti-war democrats.  So - the issue helps with the DEMS he stand a chance of getting.  The pro-abortion DEMS were never going to vote for him anyway.

----------


## Lothario

his argument is pretty reasonable - it's not easy for dem/independents to address and refute his arguments and remain unmoved.

----------


## SWATH

> $#@!! - we just lost a ton of dem/independent support


Yes because true defenders of liberty champion our God given Constitutional right to extract an infant from the womb prematurely and place it in a bucket and pretend not to notice that it is crying and fighting to breathe, then after it suffocates to death, throw it in the trash.

----------


## fade

> Yes because true defenders of liberty champion our God given Constitutional right to extract an infant from the womb prematurely and place it in a bucket and pretend not to notice that it is crying and fighting to breathe, then after it suffocates to death, throw it in the trash.


Now that just made me feel bad....

----------


## FrankRep

> $#@!! - we just lost a ton of dem/independent support




*Ron Paul, CPAC 2011 Straw Poll Winner*


*Flashback:*

*H.R.1094 - Sanctity of Life Act of 2007*

Sponsor: *Ron Paul*

*(1)* human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
*(2)* the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure:

*(1)* protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
*(2)* prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> There are a lot of pro-life democrats.  Plus, they tend to also be the anti-war democrats.  So - the issue helps with the DEMS he stand a chance of getting.  The pro-abortion DEMS were never going to vote for him anyway.


Not true.  in the early days of the campaign last time fully a third of our support came from that camp and they loved his "It's a state issues, not federal" stance.  That support evaporated when he started talking about the issue, and just like in the book - goes on at length about his personal views, mentioning his political stand as an afterthought - in this case after 6 pages, at the end.

That and it's the first chapter.  Most pro-choice people are going to be totally turned off by that an put the book down before they start reading.

Most liberals think he wants to ban abortion at a federal level because he presents the topic so poorly.  He really needs to keep his personal views out of it, and address the matter politically.  That would be the last 2 paragraphs of the chapter.  Period!

----------


## sailingaway

I think it is a shame he alphabetized the chapters.  I do think he should have put the 'catchiest' chapter first, just to engage the reader.  I look forward to receiving my copy today.

----------


## jmdrake

> $#@!! - we just lost a ton of dem/independent support


I am flabbergasted by the naive notion that the way forward is for Ron Paul to try to hide his own record.  Ron Paul has been an outspoken opponent of abortion *for decades*.  Do you think if he won the GOP primary, where his stance on abortion actually *helps* him, that the left isn't going to dig up all of his speeches from the house floor attacking abortion and use that against him?  The *only* way to deal with this issue is head on and try to convince leftists that either they or wrong (which they are) or that this isn't that big of a deal (which it isn't).  That strategy can work.  How do I know?  Because I used to be a pro-choice leftist myself.  I started to re-think abortion after listening to Alex Jones talk about it.  (Yes, I know.  Chicken Littles here think he hurts the liberty movement.  Nothing could be further from the truth).  But it was Ron Paul's consistency on being pro-life and antiwar that won me over to the pro-life side.  It solve the argument I've seen for years on forums between the right and the left.  The left would say "You care nothing about children because you ignore all of the dead Iraqi babies from our bombing campaigns and sanctions".  The right would say "You care nothing about children because you turn a blind eye to the millions of abortions done in this country every year".  Now I say "A pox on both your houses."  Thank you Ron Paul.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think it is a shame he alphabetized the chapters.  I do think he should have put the 'catchiest' chapter first, just to engage the reader.  I look forward to receiving my copy today.



It might have been the most genius thing to do if he wants to win

----------


## dannno

> The pro-abortion DEMS were never going to vote for him anyway.


Not true, I've convinced MANY pro-choice people to support RP, people who vote on the issue of abortion, because I convinced them that states should be able to decide it and/or his positions on many other issues are way more important.

I honestly don't even know anybody who is pro-life who I am not related to. Pretty much everybody in CA is pro-choice.

----------


## nate895

> Not true.  in the early days of the campaign last time fully a third of our support came from that camp and they loved his "It's a state issues, not federal" stance.  That support evaporated when he started talking about the issue, and just like in the book - goes on at length about his personal views, mentioning his political stand as an afterthought - in this case after 6 pages, at the end.


To be fair, I think that is because his position on the issue (as expressed in this chapter) is inconsistent. He says on p. 4 "What really is so different between the fetus one minute before birth and a newborn one minute after birth? Biologically and morally, nothing." Prior to this he says on p. 2 "If a state were to legalize infanticide, it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government, which is required by the Constitution." So, on p. 4, infanticide is equivalent to abortion, and on p. 2, a state that allows infanticide is guilty of a constitutional violation. Carried out logically, the only legitimate thing for Paul to say at this point is that a state that allows abortion is guilty of not having a republican form of government. Of course, he somewhat denies this later on to make it seem like he takes a middle-of-the-road position. It's an irreconcilable contradiction.

----------


## Maximus

This will only help him with primary voters.

----------


## dannno

> To be fair, I think that is because his position on the issue (as expressed in this chapter) is inconsistent. He says on p. 4 "What really is so different between the fetus one minute before birth and a newborn one minute after birth? Biologically and morally, nothing." Prior to this he says on p. 2 "If a state were to legalize infanticide, it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government, which is required by the Constitution." So, on p. 4, infanticide is equivalent to abortion, and on p. 2, a state that allows infanticide is guilty of a constitutional violation. Carried out logically, the only legitimate thing for Paul to say at this point is that a state that allows abortion is guilty of not having a republican form of government. Of course, he somewhat denies this later on to make it seem like he takes a middle-of-the-road position. It's an irreconcilable contradiction.


I really want RP to win, and if this helps him win then great I'm all for it, but I'm getting the feeling that campaigning around here is going to be completely pointless.

----------


## nate895

> I really want RP to win, and if this helps him win then great I'm all for it, but I'm getting the feeling that campaigning around here is going to be completely pointless.


Go out to the Central Valley. It is full of conservatives.

----------


## sailingaway

> I really want RP to win, and if this helps him win then great I'm all for it, but I'm getting the feeling that campaigning around here is going to be completely pointless.


Right where I am it will be.  But other California areas not so much.  California will award delegates by area, so we have to figure his best districts and hit those hard.

----------


## dannno

> Go out to the Central Valley. It is full of conservatives.


You're right, there are places to go in the general area, but my home ground, my neighborhood around here, really not so good..

----------


## nate895

> You're right, there are places to go in the general area, but my home ground, my neighborhood around here, really not so good..


Well, that's the problem with living in Berkeley.

Edit: At least that's where I thought you live. I can't remember for sure though.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not true.  in the early days of the campaign last time fully a third of our support came from that camp and they loved his "It's a state issues, not federal" stance.  That support evaporated when he started talking about the issue, and just like in the book - goes on at length about his personal views, mentioning his political stand as an afterthought - in this case after 6 pages, at the end.
> 
> That and it's the first chapter.  Most pro-choice people are going to be totally turned off by that an put the book down before they start reading.
> 
> Most liberals think he wants to ban abortion at a federal level because he presents the topic so poorly.  He really needs to keep his personal views out of it, and address the matter politically.  That would be the last 2 paragraphs of the chapter.  Period!


Not true.  On page 2 he mentions the states right issue when he says "Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states".  And on page 5 he endorses the "day after pill" for "very early pregnancies and victims of rape".  *That* position is going to cost him in the primary, we being pro *life* is all that matters, but it's the correct stance.  I applaud his courage instead of bemoaning the loss of single issue narrow minded voters on the left.  It was also smart to lead with the personal anecdote as opposed to talking about vague policy.  That's a technique that many leftist propagandists like Michael Moore use to good effect.  The personal experience helps explain what *drives* the policy.  You have to be a cold hearted SOB to think that what happened to the "unwanted fetus" described in the first paragraph as being placed alive to die in a bucket was somehow okay.  Alas many have cold hearts.  "Because iniquity will abound, the love of many will wax cold."  After the uncalloused reader is drawn in by the story, he will be interested to see if there is a solution that fits within his ethos.  I believe Ron Paul presented a solution that fits within the ethos of most Americans.  An *overwhelming* majority of Americans want to see some restrictions on abortions.  But most want it to remain in some form, especially for the emotionally charged issue of rape victims.  The position Ron Paul lays out of giving the question back to the states, only having a federal role for late term abortions (infanticide) and personally endorsing the day after pill would win over most Americans if they took the time to listen.

----------


## ChaosControl

I can honestly say if he wasn't pro-life I would have never given him a second look. I say good that he is pro-life. He values life, unlike so many, be it whether they support murdering your own kids or murdering people in foreign countries. Sadly most people have no regard for life and support both murdering people in foreign countries and murdering their own kids.

I also would not respect someone who tries to play politics with it. He is pro-life, he says he is pro-life, and has put forth pro-life legislation. He isn't like those hacks who say they are pro-life but then support government pushing pro-abortion crap.

----------


## nate895

> I can honestly say if he wasn't pro-life I would have never given him a second look. I say good that he is pro-life. He values life, unlike so many, be it whether they support murdering your own kids or murdering people in foreign countries. Sadly most people have no regard for life and support both murdering people in foreign countries and murdering their own kids.


I am absolutely, 100% with you. I would never support a candidate that I do not believe is pro-life. Never, ever. That is a defining political issue of this age, and it is only appropriate that it starts out the book (although that was more due to the alphabet, but it's still appropriate). I am not a single-issue voter and wouldn't consider voting for someone just because they were pro-life, but it is the most important issue to me.

----------


## Matthew Zak

How do we CONVINCE people that States won't all ban abortion if his bill is passed?

----------


## ChaosControl

Well yes, that issue alone won't make me vote FOR someone, but it would prevent me from voting for someone.
It is being pro-life, anti-war, pro-liberty that gets my vote. Which of course is why I typically vote third party in general elections.

----------


## dannno

> Well, that's the problem with living in Berkeley.
> 
> Edit: *At least that's where I thought you live. I can't remember for sure though.*


May as well.

----------


## TNforPaul45

> I am flabbergasted by the naive notion that the way forward is for Ron Paul to try to hide his own record.  Ron Paul has been an outspoken opponent of abortion *for decades*.  Do you think if he won the GOP primary, where his stance on abortion actually *helps* him, that the left isn't going to dig up all of his speeches from the house floor attacking abortion and use that against him?  The *only* way to deal with this issue is head on and try to convince leftists that either they or wrong (which they are) or that this isn't that big of a deal (which it isn't).  That strategy can work.  How do I know?  Because I used to be a pro-choice leftist myself.  I started to re-think abortion after listening to Alex Jones talk about it.  (Yes, I know.  Chicken Littles here think he hurts the liberty movement.  Nothing could be further from the truth).  But it was Ron Paul's consistency on being pro-life and antiwar that won me over to the pro-life side.  It solve the argument I've seen for years on forums between the right and the left.  The left would say "You care nothing about children because you ignore all of the dead Iraqi babies from our bombing campaigns and sanctions".  The right would say "You care nothing about children because you turn a blind eye to the millions of abortions done in this country every year".  Now I say "A pox on both your houses."  Thank you Ron Paul.


This ^^

Ron Paul's record is the only thing that separates him from the pond scum we call Washington DC.

----------


## belian78

> Not true.  in the early days of the campaign last time fully a third of our support came from that camp and they loved his "It's a state issues, not federal" stance.  That support evaporated when he started talking about the issue, and just like in the book - goes on at length about his personal views, mentioning his political stand as an afterthought - in this case after 6 pages, at the end.
> 
> That and it's the first chapter.  Most pro-choice people are going to be totally turned off by that an put the book down before they start reading.
> 
> Most liberals think he wants to ban abortion at a federal level because he presents the topic so poorly.  He really needs to keep his personal views out of it, and address the matter politically.  That would be the last 2 paragraphs of the chapter.  Period!


Completely agree with this, I think it was very misguided to go on at length about his personal opinions instead of focusing on the purely political aspect of it.  I also agree that this will cause many that would have normally read the entire book and possibly agree with its contents, to put the book down and dismiss it completely.  As sad as that is, its true.

----------


## Legend1104

Don't ruin the book for those of us who have not read it.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> How do we CONVINCE people that States won't all ban abortion if his bill is passed?


Washington, D.C. never will.




> Completely agree with this, I think it was very misguided to go on at length about his personal opinions instead of focusing on the purely political aspect of it.  I also agree that this will cause many that would have normally read the entire book and possibly agree with its contents, to put the book down and dismiss it completely.  As sad as that is, its true.


Personal opinions aren't always harmful, I think. Sometimes I'd like to know if my two Georgia republicans senators have any personal convictions of their own, but alas, _they just do whatever they think will get them re-elected_, which often means that they never hesitate to sacrifice their principles (if they ever have any to start with).

----------


## dannno

> Sadly most people have no regard for life and support both murdering people in foreign countries and murdering their own kids.


I don't think you should disparage people who disagree about what the definition of "your own kids" is. Nobody wants to murder their own kids, but many people think early term abortion is ok, and think they are completely different things. It's a matter of opinion. When a woman has a miscarriage, some women don't think "oh, that's my kid that just died", some of them think "oh, that could have been my kid, dammit!!". It's just a different way of looking at it, and I don't see either opinion as any more valid than the other, which is why I respect other people's opinion on the topic and am pro-choice.

I'm agnostic on the issue of whether early term abortions are 'good' or 'bad' and respect those who value early term fetuses and wish to keep them alive.. you have every right to do so. I don't like the idea of invading people's and businesses' privacy on private matters, and I think a fetus belongs to the mother and it is her decision until the child is able to survive under the care of someone else outside the mother.

----------


## dannno

> Don't ruin the book for those of us who have not read it.



*Spoiler Alert*

lol, it's not a fictional story with a plot, it's just about political issues..

----------


## jmdrake

> How do we CONVINCE people that States won't all ban abortion if his bill is passed?


Simple logic.  If abortion foes had enough clout to ban abortion *in every state in the union* then they would have *more* than enough clout to get the 2/3rds majority needed to pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

----------


## K466

It is also on Google books, where you are allowed to pick a couple of chapters to read. I read "Capital Punishment", "Discrimination", and "Zionism". I generally liked what I read. I hope the book gets in the top 5 at Amazon.

----------


## Krugerrand

> I don't think you should disparage people who disagree about what the definition of "your own kids" is. Nobody wants to murder their own kids, but many people think early term abortion is ok, and think they are completely different things. It's a matter of opinion. *When a woman has a miscarriage, some women don't think "oh, that's my kid that just died", some of them think "oh, that could have been my kid, dammit!!".* It's just a different way of looking at it, and I don't see either opinion as any more valid than the other, which is why I respect other people's opinion on the topic and am pro-choice.
> 
> I'm agnostic on the issue of whether early term abortions are 'good' or 'bad' and respect those who value early term fetuses and wish to keep them alive.. you have every right to do so. I don't like the idea of invading people's and businesses' privacy on private matters, and I think a fetus belongs to the mother and it is her decision until the child is able to survive under the care of someone else outside the mother.


A personal suggestion - if you are ever faced with a woman who had a miscarriage - don't ever frame the loss as what could have been her child.

----------


## nate895

> Simple logic.  If abortion foes had enough clout to ban abortion *in every state in the union* then they would have *more* than enough clout to get the 2/3rds majority needed to pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion.


However, if the pro-choice advocate has any shred of logic, he will recognize that Ron Paul's position on the issue is inconsistent. There is no reason for a pro-choice person (at least one who holds that as a core tenet of their political beliefs) to side with Paul. His logic clearly demands that all states ban abortion. Even though he denies this, he is simply denying what his premises clearly demand.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't think you should disparage people who disagree about what the definition of "your own kids" is. Nobody wants to murder their own kids,


Do the names "Andrea Yates" and "Susan Smith" mean nothing to you?




> but many people think early term abortion is ok, and think they are completely different things. It's a matter of opinion. When a woman has a miscarriage, some women don't think "oh, that's my kid that just died", some of them think "oh, that could have been my kid, dammit!!". It's just a different way of looking at it, and I don't see either opinion as any more valid than the other, which is why I respect other people's opinion on the topic and am pro-choice.
> 
> I'm agnostic on the issue of whether early term abortions are 'good' or 'bad' and respect those who value early term fetuses and wish to keep them alive.. you have every right to do so. I don't like the idea of invading people's and businesses' privacy on private matters, and I think a fetus belongs to the mother and it is her decision until the child is able to survive under the care of someone else outside the mother.


We actually went through a miscarriage.  I still have the books that the OBGYN gave my wife explaining to her how she really had lost a child and she had a reason to grieve and that people who hadn't gone through this really couldn't understand it.  It's ironic that the same medical industry that claims that it's *not* a child when it's an elective abortion, turns around and consoles women who have miscarriages by saying "It's ok to cry because it really *was* a child".  Cognitive dissonance anyone?

----------


## jmdrake

> However, if the pro-choice advocate has any shred of logic, he will recognize that Ron Paul's position on the issue is inconsistent. There is no reason for a pro-choice person (at least one who holds that as a core tenet of their political beliefs) to side with Paul. His logic clearly demands that all states ban abortion. Even though he denies this, he is simply denying what his premises clearly demand.


I beg to differ.  I don't think Ron Paul is demanding that states ban abortion, especially considering that he endorsed the abortion pill.  I think he's setting a framework for the people of the states to *choose* life and hence *choose* to ban abortion.  Choose ye this day whom ye will serve....

----------


## Krugerrand

One thing ... the RP's discussion of the abortion issue as it relates to his campaign seems exceptionally calculated.  I think it will help him in the primary - which is obviously crucial to getting to the general election.  I think if he gets to the general election he should be able to get a good commercial of women who put trust in Ron Paul as their Gynecologist.  I think that would really hit home for women.

----------


## nate895

> I beg to differ.  I don't think Ron Paul is demanding that states ban abortion, especially considering that he endorsed the abortion pill.  I think he's setting a framework for the people of the states to *choose* life and hence *choose* to ban abortion.  Choose ye this day whom ye will serve....


Read post #15:




> To be fair, I think that is because his position on the issue (as expressed in this chapter) is inconsistent. He says on p. 4 "What really is so different between the fetus one minute before birth and a newborn one minute after birth? Biologically and morally, nothing." Prior to this he says on p. 2 "If a state were to legalize infanticide, it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government, which is required by the Constitution." So, on p. 4, infanticide is equivalent to abortion, and on p. 2, a state that allows infanticide is guilty of a constitutional violation. Carried out logically, the only legitimate thing for Paul to say at this point is that a state that allows abortion is guilty of not having a republican form of government. Of course, he somewhat denies this later on to make it seem like he takes a middle-of-the-road position. It's an irreconcilable contradiction.

----------


## Matthew Zak

Who's going to perform an abortion if it's considered murder? That is what pro-choice people want to know.

----------


## fisharmor

> I beg to differ.  I don't think Ron Paul is demanding that states ban abortion, especially considering that he endorsed the abortion pill.  I think he's setting a framework for the people of the states to *choose* life and hence *choose* to ban abortion.  Choose ye this day whom ye will serve....


I didn't get that he was "endorsing" the abortion pill.  I got that he was making an attempt at a logical argument. i.e.:
Birth control is legal.
The morning after pill is the same pill as birth control.
Should abortions become illegal, the odds of getting caught using birth control pills in this manner is minute.
Therefore, the law will never stop abortions.
Assume that abortion is a liberty issue.
It therefore also follows that in order to achieve liberty in this issue, extralegal methods must be employed.

I stand by my original assessment: his writing doesn't get this across.  I actually wasn't sure what he was trying to say until I wrote it out.  I'm still not convinced that it's the whole story.  I'm disappointed.

----------


## dannno

> Do the names "Andrea Yates" and "Susan Smith" mean nothing to you?


That's very rare, but I doubt they ever wanted themselves to be in the position they were in that led them to do that. 





> We actually went through a miscarriage.  I still have the books that the OBGYN gave my wife explaining to her how she really had lost a child and she had a reason to grieve and that people who hadn't gone through this really couldn't understand it.  It's ironic that the same medical industry that claims that it's *not* a child when it's an elective abortion, turns around and consoles women who have miscarriages by saying "It's ok to cry because it really *was* a child".  Cognitive dissonance anyone?


Ya I'm not denying many women feel this way (krug)

----------


## dannno

> Who's going to perform an abortion if it's considered murder? That is what pro-choice people want to know.


Apparently the mother, or someone who performs medical procedures on the black market. 

Banning abortion doesn't stop it from happening, I wish we would stop subsidising it though.

----------


## DeadheadForPaul

I agree with those whom believe Dr. Paul should simply advocate a 10th amendment approach to abortion - even though we all know he personally opposed abortion

That said, it seems to me that this is a calculated move to gain support in the primaries.

During the 2008 primaries, most people only knew of Dr. Paul's foreign policy - mainly because he brought it up in every freaking question when it was unnecessary (the man needs to know his audience).

Once people learned about his anti-spending positions, he became a darling of the GOP and Tea Party.

I've had a friend whom recently became a huge Dr. Paul fan based on his pro-life position, and due to that, explored his other positions

----------


## nate895

> I agree with those whom believe Dr. Paul should simply advocate a 10th amendment approach to abortion - even though we all know he personally opposed abortion


Will anyone seriously address that this logic fails in light of what Paul does to argue against abortion? His arguments demand that any state that does not protect the unborn be guilty of not upholding a republican form of government, which is unconstitutional. Of course, a state could secede over the issue and I don't think Paul, nor anyone, should interfere, but that is what his logic demands. His logic demands that any state that would not uphold a law against abortion to leave the Union.

----------


## FrankRep

> Will anyone seriously address that this logic fails in light of what Paul does to argue against abortion? His arguments demand that any state that does not protect the unborn be guilty of not upholding a republican form of government, which is unconstitutional. Of course, a state could secede over the issue and I don't think Paul, nor anyone, should interfere, but that is what his logic demands. His logic demands that any state that would not uphold a law against abortion to leave the Union.


I though Ron Paul calls Abortion a State Issue, not Federal. He's personally Against abortion/murder.

----------


## low preference guy

> His logic demands that any state that would not uphold a law against abortion to leave the Union.


That's not the impression at all I got from reading the abortion chapter in Liberty defined. He defended the moral pro-life position strongly, but advocated a states rights approach. It's clear in the chapter that he doesn't demand a state with an abortion law to leave the union. He expects laws to be different in different states. That the solution is not perfect, but it's the best one can do.

----------


## nate895

> I though Ron Paul calls Abortion a State Issue, not Federal. He's personally Against abortion/murder.





> That's not the impression at all I got from reading the abortion chapter in Liberty defined. He defended the moral pro-life position strongly, but advocated a states rights approach. It's clear in the chapter that he doesn't demand a state with an abortion law to leave the union. He expects laws to be different in different states. That the solution is not perfect, but it's the best one can do.


Read the threads you are commenting on:




> To be fair, I think that is because his position on the issue (as expressed in this chapter) is inconsistent. He says on p. 4 "What really is so different between the fetus one minute before birth and a newborn one minute after birth? Biologically and morally, nothing." Prior to this he says on p. 2 "If a state were to legalize infanticide, it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government, which is required by the Constitution." So, on p. 4, infanticide is equivalent to abortion, and on p. 2, a state that allows infanticide is guilty of a constitutional violation. Carried out logically, the only legitimate thing for Paul to say at this point is that a state that allows abortion is guilty of not having a republican form of government. Of course, he somewhat denies this later on to make it seem like he takes a middle-of-the-road position. It's an irreconcilable contradiction.

----------


## jmdrake

> To be fair, I think that is because his position on the issue (as expressed in this chapter) is inconsistent. He says on p. 4 "What really is so different between the fetus one minute before birth and a newborn one minute after birth? Biologically and morally, nothing." Prior to this he says on p. 2 "If a state were to legalize infanticide, it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government, which is required by the Constitution." So, on p. 4, infanticide is equivalent to abortion, and on p. 2, a state that allows infanticide is guilty of a constitutional violation. Carried out logically, the only legitimate thing for Paul to say at this point is that a state that allows abortion is guilty of not having a republican form of government. Of course, he somewhat denies this later on to make it seem like he takes a middle-of-the-road position. It's an irreconcilable contradiction.





> Read post #15:


Sorry, but there is no contraction.  Ron Paul draws a distinction between very early abortions, in which case he thinks an abortion pill is acceptable, and late term abortions where you can see the live fetus struggling for breath in the bucket.  Here's the direct quote on the abortion pill.

_Very early pregnancies and rape can be treated with the day after pill which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner._

Now to *some* pro lifers that is not good enough.  So some states might go so far as to ban the abortion pill if given the chance.  Some states would allow it.  Ron Paul would not interfere with states that chose to allow "morning after" pills.  But Ron Paul would override states that allowed late term abortions.  Exactly where he would fall on the "in between" situations (from embryos that have attached to the uterine walls to non viable fetuses) isn't clear from the chapter.  But he is clear (and consistent) on where he stands on the extreme positions.

----------


## jmdrake

> Will anyone seriously address that this logic fails in light of what Paul does to argue against abortion? His arguments demand that any state that does not protect the unborn be guilty of not upholding a republican form of government, which is unconstitutional. Of course, a state could secede over the issue and I don't think Paul, nor anyone, should interfere, but that is what his logic demands. His logic demands that any state that would not uphold a law against abortion to leave the Union.


You are mistaking abortion in general with late term abortion that Dr. Paul called "infanticide".  Dr. Paul drew a distinction between very early term abortions (where to him a "morning after" pill is acceptable) and late term abortions which he deemed infanticide (rightly IMO).

----------


## jmdrake

> That's very rare, but I doubt they ever wanted themselves to be in the position they were in that led them to do that.


Well using that argument, women don't want to have abortions since most would want to be in the position where one would be needed.  Further most murderers don't want to murder using your argument.  Who wants to be so jealous of his ex wife that he kills her and her lover?  Who wants to be double crossed in a drug deal?  That said, Susan Smith killed her kids because she wanted to leave her husband for a man that she was having an affair with.  She was operating from a totally selfish point of view and wasn't "led" into anything.




> Ya I'm not denying many women feel this way (krug)


You're missing my point.  I'm not saying that many women feel that way.  I'm saying *the medical industry TELLS them to feel that way when it's a miscarriage, but then tells them to feel a different way when it's an elective abortion*.  Do you see the policy contradiction?

----------


## belian78

This thread is a microcosm of why Ron wouldn't have a chance to be elected.  Just watch, I expect no less than 15 pages of replies.  

I wish he would just leave this GD topic out of it altogether.  This took every bit of excitement I had for diving into this book, and threw it out the window.  Now go ahead and flame away.

----------


## Maximus

> This thread is a microcosm of why Ron wouldn't have a chance to be elected.  Just watch, I expect no less than 15 pages of replies.  
> 
> I wish he would just leave this GD topic out of it altogether.  This took every bit of excitement I had for diving into this book, and threw it out the window.  Now go ahead and flame away.


Then skip the chapter and read the rest of it

----------


## nobody's_hero

He does mention that the only Constitutionally considerable crimes are treason, counterfeiting, piracy, and slavery. 

It's a *Constitutionally*-based argument when he's addressing the approach the government _could_ take on the issue, by relegating the power back to the states. 

When he's talking about his own view on abortion and that of society's, it's a* moral/ethical* one.

That's what I gathered from the chapter. I just brought the book home from the store and as usual, I'm loving a Dr. Paul book (and I hate reading books, so there you go).

----------


## jmdrake

> I didn't get that he was "endorsing" the abortion pill.  I got that he was making an attempt at a logical argument. i.e.:
> Birth control is legal.
> The morning after pill is the same pill as birth control.
> Should abortions become illegal, the odds of getting caught using birth control pills in this manner is minute.
> Therefore, the law will never stop abortions.
> Assume that abortion is a liberty issue.
> It therefore also follows that in order to achieve liberty in this issue, extralegal methods must be employed.
> 
> I stand by my original assessment: his writing doesn't get this across.  I actually wasn't sure what he was trying to say until I wrote it out.  I'm still not convinced that it's the whole story.  I'm disappointed.


I don't think he's making that argument at all.  That would be like saying "You can't keep rat poison away from people, so infanticide should be legal".  You have to pile up too many inferences on top of what Ron Paul actually said to reach the conclusion you did.

Further I actually appreciate the way this book is written and I wish I could have read it a year and a half ago when I was debating abortion in my constitutional law class.  The professor framed the question in terms of competing interests (state's interest in promoting life, woman's interest in personal autonomy etc).  I forgot the exact point I made, but the professor countered with "What about cases of rape"?  I said that could be an exception.  A feminist responded with "Well if abortion is murder then why allow a rape exception?"  That was a straw man of course because I had never used the term "murder", but of course many pro lifers do.  Ron Paul's position on differentiating between the age of the unborn instead of the circumstances of the pregnancy is superior.  If a woman is raped or got drunk or was just irresponsible, she has the same choice in a Ron Paul world.  She can choose *immediately* after intercourse to stop the pregnancy before it ever truly gets started.  If not, she's made a "choice" to go through with it.  It's really a stroke of genius on Dr. Paul's part.  And it's consistent with the position Rand took in the primary.

----------


## Brett85

> Not true.  in the early days of the campaign last time fully a third of our support came from that camp and they loved his "It's a state issues, not federal" stance.  That support evaporated when he started talking about the issue, and just like in the book - goes on at length about his personal views, mentioning his political stand as an afterthought - in this case after 6 pages, at the end.
> 
> That and it's the first chapter.  Most pro-choice people are going to be totally turned off by that an put the book down before they start reading.
> 
> Most liberals think he wants to ban abortion at a federal level because he presents the topic so poorly.  He really needs to keep his personal views out of it, and address the matter politically.  That would be the last 2 paragraphs of the chapter.  Period!


So you're saying that Ron is going to run against Obama in the Democratic primary?

----------


## nate895

> Sorry, but there is no contraction.  Ron Paul draws a distinction between very early abortions, in which case he thinks an abortion pill is acceptable, and late term abortions where you can see the live fetus struggling for breath in the bucket.  Here's the direct quote on the abortion pill.
> 
> _Very early pregnancies and rape can be treated with the day after pill which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner._
> 
> Now to *some* pro lifers that is not good enough.  So some states might go so far as to ban the abortion pill if given the chance.  Some states would allow it.  Ron Paul would not interfere with states that chose to allow "morning after" pills.  But Ron Paul would override states that allowed late term abortions.  Exactly where he would fall on the "in between" situations (from embryos that have attached to the uterine walls to non viable fetuses) isn't clear from the chapter.  But he is clear (and consistent) on where he stands on the extreme positions.


That has nothing to do with what I said. Ron Paul equated infanticide and abortion. He said that a state that allowed infanticide was guilty of a constitutional violation. Therefore, a state that allows abortion is guilty of a constitutional violation. That is as simple as logic can get. That has nothing to do with the *practicality* of banning abortion pills.

----------


## jmdrake

> This thread is a microcosm of why Ron wouldn't have a chance to be elected.  Just watch, I expect no less than 15 pages of replies.  
> 
> I wish he would just leave this GD topic out of it altogether.  This took every bit of excitement I had for diving into this book, and threw it out the window.  Now go ahead and flame away.


Right.  The way to win the general election is to purposefully lose the primary by only focusing on issues that many republicans still disagree with him on like the wars.    If Christian conservatives read the book because they are excited about the abortion issue and get convince to support him on other issues as the read on, all the better.  My only concern is that some will go ape over the "morning after pill".  But hopefully that's too small of a fringe to make a difference.

----------


## jmdrake

> That has nothing to do with what I said. Ron Paul equated infanticide and abortion. He said that a state that allowed infanticide was guilty of a constitutional violation. Therefore, a state that allows abortion is guilty of a constitutional violation. That is as simple as logic can get. That has nothing to do with the *practicality* of banning abortion pills.


Ron *never* equated abortion *in general* to infanticide.  From the 1st paragraph of the first page, to the parts you were citing about there being "no difference between a baby still in the womb and a baby born a minute later" he was talking about *late term abortion*.  That is "as simple as logic can get".

----------


## nate895

> Ron *never* equated abortion *in general* to infanticide.  From the 1st paragraph of the first page, to the parts you were citing about there being "no difference between a baby still in the womb and a baby born a minute later" he was talking about *late term abortion*.  That is "as simple as logic can get".


P. 3 "So the time line of when we consider a fetus 'human' is arbitrary after conception, in my mind." 

Face it: Ron Paul's position on this issue is full of cognitive dissonance, and that's why we're arguing about it.

----------


## jmdrake

> So you're saying that Ron is going to run against Obama in the Democratic primary?


Maybe he thinks enough democrats might cross over and vote for Ron Paul in the primaries since Obama will run uncontested.  I have actually talked to a few of my democrat friends about that.  That said, for them abortion wouldn't be a rate limiting step.  One naively thinks Ron Paul would be easier for Obama to beat.  (The joke is on him).  The others just like the idea of an antiwar republican running.  They assume from jump that they are going to disagree with Ron Paul on a lot of issues and plan to vote for Obama in the general.

----------


## nate895

Does anyone notice that I'm the only that's _actually_ quoting him?

----------


## dannno

> You're missing my point.  I'm not saying that many women feel that way.  I'm saying *the medical industry TELLS them to feel that way when it's a miscarriage, but then tells them to feel a different way when it's an elective abortion*.  Do you see the policy contradiction?


Ya, but from a psychological perspective it's probably more healthy.

----------


## dannno

> He does mention that the only Constitutionally considerable crimes are treason, counterfeiting, piracy, and slavery. 
> 
> It's a *Constitutionally*-based argument when he's addressing the approach the government _could_ take on the issue, by relegating the power back to the states. 
> 
> When he's talking about his own view on abortion and that of society's, it's a* moral/ethical* one.
> 
> That's what I gathered from the chapter. I just brought the book home from the store and as usual, I'm loving a Dr. Paul book (and I hate reading books, so there you go).


Is that sort of like how he would like to see drugs legalized at the state and local level in order to maximize personal liberty, but wants to leave it to states?

----------


## jmdrake

> P. 3 "So the time line of when we consider a fetus 'human' is arbitrary after conception, in my mind."


You missed the very next sentence.  No make that the next paragraph:

_It's interesting to hear an abortion supporter squirm when asked if they support a mother's right to an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy.  They inevitably don't support such an act {editor's note: Some here at RPF do sadly}, but every argument that is made for abortion in the first month is applicable to late abortion as well.  It's still the mother's body.  It's still her choice.  Due to changed circumstances, she may well have strong compelling social reasons to prevent and assume its obligations, even in the third trimester.  This is a dilemma for the proponents of choice and they should be challenged as to where the line should be drawn._

So no.  Ron Paul doesn't say "at the first month it's infanticide and most be banned at the federal level".  He does say the pro choice side should be challenged with regards to early term pregnancies.  That challenge should happen at the state level.  Since no one can put forward an argument that isn't just laughable as to why abortion shouldn't be allowed in the third trimester, late term abortion (infanticide) should be banned period.

The next paragraph further drives this point home.

_Another aspect of this debate needs to be resolved:  If an abortion doctor performs a third-trimester abortion for whatever reason, he is paid a handsome fee and it's perfectly legal in some states.  If a frightened teenager, possibly not even knowing she is pregnant, delivers a baby and kills it, the police are out en masse to charge her with homicide.  What really is so different between the fetus one minute before birth and a newborn one minute after birth?  Biologically and morally nothing.  We must also address the grim question of what should be done with a newborn that inadvertently survives an abortion.  It happens more than you might think.  Doctors have been accused of murder since the baby died after delivery, but that hardly seems just.  The real question is, how can an infant have such relative value attached to it._

Dr. Paul goes to *great lengths* to point out that he's talking about late term abortion when talking about infanticide.  You took one sentence out of context and IMO misinterpreted it.




> Face it: Ron Paul's position on this issue is full of cognitive dissonance, and that's why we're arguing about it.


Nope.  There is no cognitive dissonance here.  It's a complex issue and its open to interpretation.  I believe you've come up with what is clearly the wrong interpretation.  We're "arguing" because you're insisting that your interpretation must be the correct one.  Anyway, I'll leave you to your arguing.  I need to go study.

----------


## jmdrake

> Does anyone notice that I'm the only that's _actually_ quoting him *out of context*?


Fixed it for ya.

And for the record I quoted him in this thread before you back in post 22.  I made the point that Dr. Paul supported the morning after pill for "very early pregnancies.  Again:




> Not true.  On page 2 he mentions the states right issue when he says "Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states".  And on page 5 he endorses the "day after pill" for "very early pregnancies and victims of rape".  *That* position is going to cost him in the primary, we being pro *life* is all that matters, but it's the correct stance.  I applaud his courage instead of bemoaning the loss of single issue narrow minded voters on the left.  It was also smart to lead with the personal anecdote as opposed to talking about vague policy.  That's a technique that many leftist propagandists like Michael Moore use to good effect.  The personal experience helps explain what *drives* the policy.  You have to be a cold hearted SOB to think that what happened to the "unwanted fetus" described in the first paragraph as being placed alive to die in a bucket was somehow okay.  Alas many have cold hearts.  "Because iniquity will abound, the love of many will wax cold."  After the uncalloused reader is drawn in by the story, he will be interested to see if there is a solution that fits within his ethos.  I believe Ron Paul presented a solution that fits within the ethos of most Americans.  An *overwhelming* majority of Americans want to see some restrictions on abortions.  But most want it to remain in some form, especially for the emotionally charged issue of rape victims.  The position Ron Paul lays out of giving the question back to the states, only having a federal role for late term abortions (infanticide) and personally endorsing the day after pill would win over most Americans if they took the time to listen.

----------


## Brett85

> Maybe he thinks enough democrats might cross over and vote for Ron Paul in the primaries since Obama will run uncontested.


VERY few Democrats would actually do that.  The vast majority of GOP primary voters are pro life conservatives.  This idea that Ron needs to appeal to liberals is beyond dumb.  Only 18% of Americans identify themselves as liberals, and most of them would never support Ron because of his purely free market views, not his views on abortion.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

Am I the only one who read he said the morning after pill (he called it the day after pill) caused an abortion? Because that's just not true. It prevents conception from happening in the first place, like other birth control.

----------


## Depressed Liberator

I have never fully agreed with Ron Paul on abortion.  Would he make it a federal issue though?

----------


## fisharmor

> You have to pile up too many inferences on top of what Ron Paul actually said to reach the conclusion you did.


He actually wrote every one of the premises and conclusions I listed.
If I'm grasping at straws, it's because the chapter doesn't make a $#@!ing point.
Is it a constitutional issue?  Yes.  Has he said that before?  Yes.  Is that the point of the chapter?  Not the way it's written.
All he has done is taken a pretty rock-solid pro-life position and smeared mud all over it by insinuating that the morning after pill is ok.
He poisoned his own well.  He didn't have to.  The bottom line is that he's not 100% anti-abortion, because he committed one to print.

----------


## White Bear Lake

> I have never fully agreed with Ron Paul on abortion. Would he make it a federal issue though?


I'm pretty sure he would.


BTW, I believe this opening paragraph is BRILLIANT.  We can debate the merits of what he said all we want but poltically this position is necessary.  In the GOP, abortion is the defining issue and for a good reason.  If you can't protect the right to life of your most innocent and vulnerable citizens, what chance do you have of protecting the rights of life, liberty, and property for others? Foreign Policy, Immigration, Taxes, etc all come after being pro-life.  A candidate who is not solidly pro-life has *a 0%* chance of getting the nomination nowadays. And that's a fact.

Putting this issue at the very front will really help him amongst GOP voters in Iowa and SC who don't really know much about him, pick up the book, and see how much he agrees with them on the abortion issue.  After he gets them hooked with that issue, then he can persuade them on some of other more difficult issues like foreign policy.  Alot of his viewpoints obviously don't jive with the typical GOP positions.  On abortion though, the odds that a typical GOP primary voter disagrees with his stance is slim to none.

I think this book is more addressed at convincing typical GOP voters that he is the best candidate and less at appealing to the hardcore libertarians who are already on his side.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> He actually wrote every one of the premises and conclusions I listed.
> If I'm grasping at straws, it's because the chapter doesn't make a $#@!ing point.
> Is it a constitutional issue?  Yes.  Has he said that before?  Yes.  Is that the point of the chapter?  Not the way it's written.
> All he has done is taken a pretty rock-solid pro-life position and smeared mud all over it by insinuating that the morning after pill is ok.
> He poisoned his own well.  He didn't have to.  The bottom line is that he's not 100% anti-abortion, because he committed one to print.


So he's not 100% pro-life because he's not against birth control? Because the morning after pill doesn't cause an abortion.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Is that sort of like how he would like to see drugs legalized at the state and local level in order to maximize personal liberty, but wants to leave it to states?


I think that's a fair analogy, yes. Bottom line, even Ron Paul thinks that a top-down approach will not be effective. Societal changes must take place before any _real_ change is noted, regardless of government policy. However, since Roe v. Wade, we _have_ had a top-down policy in effect.

----------


## JCLibertarian

This is one of the few issues I disagree with him on. Honestly, I don't think enough people use birth control/abortions nearly enough. But he has little to no power on this issue as the executive, so it doesn't concern me, or change my vote. Quite frankly, anyone who votes solely on the issue of abortion either way is a fool in my mind, and would have never voted for Ron Paul if this sways their opinion. All this means is they aren't truly committed to free markets and non-intervention.

----------


## JCLibertarian

Banning abortions won't stop them, most libertarians understand this. It will just drive them underground, making them more expensive, less available to the poor, and less safe for those poor people as well.

----------


## JCLibertarian



----------


## Michael Landon

I don't have the book yet, I'm getting it tomorrow so I'm not going to comment on what he said in the book but I would like to address the issue of pregnancy by rape.  

Should anyone be forced to keep a baby through rape?  Better yet, should anyone that is a victim of a crime, any crime, be forced to continue bearing the results of that crime?  Apples and oranges here, but if a Jewish man has his home vandalized with swatikas and "die jew" painted on it should he be required to keep it there or should he be allowed to paint over it to help with the healing of the attack?

- ML

----------


## White Bear Lake

> I don't have the book yet, I'm getting it tomorrow so I'm not going to comment on what he said in the book but I would like to address the issue of pregnancy by rape.  
> 
> Should anyone be forced to keep a baby through rape?  Better yet, should anyone that is a victim of a crime, any crime, be forced to continue bearing the results of that crime?  Apples and oranges here, but if a Jewish man has his home vandalized with swatikas and "die jew" painted on it should he be required to keep it there or should he be allowed to paint over it to help with the healing of the attack?
> 
> - ML


I understand what you're saying but I just want to state the counterargument.  Should the baby be punished for the misfortune of the mom?  Should money be taxed away from you to support some guy who was swindled and lost everything?

----------


## jmdrake

> He actually wrote every one of the premises and conclusions I listed.


Really?  Please tell me exactly were to find Ron Paul saying:

*Should abortions become illegal, the odds of getting caught using birth control pills in this manner is minute.*

I'm not disagreeing with you that the above statement is true.  But *Ron Paul didn't say it*.  Thus it's not accurate to say that was the basis of his position.

Here's another "quote" that Ron Paul never said:

*Birth control is legal.*

Again, that's true.  But there's no reason it *has to remain* true in the future.  Some pro life absolutists would ban the birth control pill because it can be used early term "abortions".  Ron Paul, from what he wrote in this book, doesn't fall in that camp.  




> If I'm grasping at straws, it's because the chapter doesn't make a $#@!ing point.


Maybe it doesn't "spell it out", but it does make a powerful point.  There is general consensus that a fetus in the 3rd trimester is indeed a person and deserves protection even at the federal level.  There is no real consensus that an embryo that hasn't even been implanted on the uterine wall is a person, so Ron Paul would not advocate for prohibition of "morning after" pills at either the federal or state level.  In between those two extremes, he would seek to challenge the "pro-choice" crowd to rethink their positions and move the line were "choice" is acceptable to as early in the pregnancy as possible.




> Is it a constitutional issue?  Yes.  Has he said that before?  Yes.  Is that the point of the chapter?  Not the way it's written.


He grounded his position that the federal government should bar late term abortions (infanticide) in Article IV section 4.

_The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence._




> All he has done is taken a pretty rock-solid pro-life position and smeared mud all over it by insinuating that the morning after pill is ok.
> He poisoned his own well.  He didn't have to.  The bottom line is that he's not 100% anti-abortion, because he committed one to print.


The pro-life crowd has long been tripped up by the "rape and incest" hypothetical.  Ron Paul has shown a common sense way out of this.  It makes more sense to say that any woman can have a morning after pill than it is to say "No abortions for anybody, except for cases of rape and incest".  The latter option simply encourages women who want an abortion and weren't raped to lie for the sake of having an abortion.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't have the book yet, I'm getting it tomorrow so I'm not going to comment on what he said in the book but I would like to address the issue of pregnancy by rape.  
> 
> Should anyone be forced to keep a baby through rape?  Better yet, should anyone that is a victim of a crime, any crime, be forced to continue bearing the results of that crime?  Apples and oranges here, but if a Jewish man has his home vandalized with swatikas and "die jew" painted on it should he be required to keep it there or should he be allowed to paint over it to help with the healing of the attack?
> 
> - ML


That's the *beauty* of Ron Paul's position that everyone seems to be missing.  The problems with the "rape exception" are: 

1) it unfairly punishes a child for his rapist father
2) it encourages women who weren't raped to lie and claim they were just to get an abortion.

Instead, the "morning after pill" option gives the rape victim, the woman who got drunk, and the woman that was just being irresponsible the same chance to get out of having to carry the baby *as long as she makes her choice early enough*.

----------


## Krugerrand

> Maybe it doesn't "spell it out", but it does make a powerful point. There is general consensus that a fetus in the 3rd trimester is indeed a person and deserves protection even at the federal level. There is no real consensus that an embryo that hasn't even been implanted on the uterine wall is a person, so Ron Paul would not advocate for prohibition of "morning after" pills at either the federal or state level. In between those two extremes, he would seek to challenge the "pro-choice" crowd to rethink their positions and move the line were "choice" is acceptable to as early in the pregnancy as possible.


The way I understood the section was that RP would include morning after pills as immoral however he simply concedes there is no practical/constitutional means to prevent them.

----------


## Brett85

> Banning abortions won't stop them, most libertarians understand this. It will just drive them underground, making them more expensive, less available to the poor, and less safe for those poor people as well.


Banning murder won't stop people from committing murder, most libertarians understand this.  It will just drive murder underground, making it harder to achieve, less available to people who really need to do it, and also less safe for the person who's doing it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

^^^

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Here we go again...this is an issue hyped by the media, by those who propagate the false left/right paradigm, and by those who want to distract from other issues.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## ChaosControl

> I don't think you should disparage people who disagree about what the definition of "your own kids" is. Nobody wants to murder their own kids, but many people think early term abortion is ok, and think they are completely different things. It's a matter of opinion. When a woman has a miscarriage, some women don't think "oh, that's my kid that just died", some of them think "oh, that could have been my kid, dammit!!". It's just a different way of looking at it, and I don't see either opinion as any more valid than the other, which is why I respect other people's opinion on the topic and am pro-choice.
> 
> I'm agnostic on the issue of whether early term abortions are 'good' or 'bad' and respect those who value early term fetuses and wish to keep them alive.. you have every right to do so. I don't like the idea of invading people's and businesses' privacy on private matters, and I think a fetus belongs to the mother and it is her decision until the child is able to survive under the care of someone else outside the mother.


It is just dehumanizing a child to make one feel better about their actions, it is no different whatsoever from when society dehumanized other races so they could justify slavery.

Whether you believe it is a human life or not, it is. Whether you believe it is murder or not, it is. I don't really care if someone thinks it isn't a child, that doesn't mean it is acceptable for them to murder their kid.

A miscarriage is a loss of the child, a horrible event. Not a loss of a potential child. Once conception occurs, there is a child in existence the very same as when the child is born, simply a different stage of development.

A child doesn't belong to his or her parents. A child may be the responsibility of his or her parents, but they are not property. So no they do not "belong" to the mother.

Obviously we don't want some sick Orwellian society monitoring people who are pregnant 24/7. But we can at least make the procedure illegal and close down clinics. Sure there will be illegal procedures that occur, but we can seek to at least lessen the procedure. This will also ensure that no tax funding ever goes to abortion.

----------


## ChaosControl

> especially considering that he endorsed the abortion pill.


Wait a minute, what?

----------


## fisharmor

> Am I the only one who read he said the morning after pill (he called it the day after pill) caused an abortion? Because that's just not true. It prevents conception from happening in the first place, like other birth control.


No, I read that too, which is why I'm disappointed.  He confused the day-after pill with RU-486, which is fairly common.  Common enough that I did it again, which is why I reacted the way I did.
I'm big enough to admit I was wrong on that count.  They are not the same thing, and as long as we're not talking about RU-486 I have very little problem with that portion of the chapter.




> Sorry, but there is no contraction.  Ron Paul  draws a distinction between very early abortions, in which case he  thinks an abortion pill is acceptable, and late term abortions where you  can see the live fetus struggling for breath in the bucket.  Here's the  direct quote on the abortion pill.
> 
> _Very early pregnancies and  rape can be treated with the day after pill which is nothing more than  using birth control pills in a special manner._
> 
> Now to *some* pro lifers that is not good enough.


No, it's not good enough.  If he's talking about the morning-after pill, and not RU-486, then why did he say "very early pregnancies", when the point of the morning-after pill is that it is _not_ an abortifacient?
I'm a computer programmer.  I don't have to memorize what drugs do.  But why the $#@! is an OB/GYN making this mistake _and committing it to print_?
I still stand by my original assessment: the chapter doesn't make a coherent point.

If you're so on about the rape loophole, why do you keep talking about abortion at all?  Why does he say that rape can be "treated" with drugs, when it needs to be treated, ideally, with hedge clippers?
The rape problem is just that - _a rape problem_.
 When we fail to address the rape problem when talking about rape, how is that not tantamount to reducing its seriousness?  Why do we accept that because some terrible thing happens, we gotta keep this other terrible thing legal?  What possible sense is there in not addressing the first terrible thing first, as opposed to using it as an excuse for another?

----------


## ChaosControl

> Am I the only one who read he said the morning after pill (he called it the day after pill) caused an abortion? Because that's just not true. It prevents conception from happening in the first place, like other birth control.


I've discovered people mean different things when they say conception. I thought it was always to mean fertilization, but some mean implantation by it.

The morning after pill prevents implantation, but not fertilization. So if one says conception and means implantation, then you're correct in saying that it prevents conception, but if one says it like I always thought to mean fertilization, then no it destroys what is already conceived. Therefore it is abortion in my view. I don't oppose contraceptive birth control like condoms, but I oppose any abortifacient oral birth control like the morning after pill.

----------


## jmdrake

> LOL... that is the funniest pile of $#@! propaganda I have read thus far.  IT IS A HYPOCRISY! VIOLENT PRO-LIFER HYPOCRITES HAVE BEEN SCREAMING ABOUT WHEN LIFE STARTS IN OTHER THREADS but now that Ron Paul is ok with some abortions everyone is fully on board.


Really?  Your reading skills are that bad?  Find in the other thread where anyone said anything against the morning after pill?  In fact *I pointed out in that thread that Rand had already endorsed it because technically conception hasn't happened at that point*.

The problem with the abortion debate is the extremist.  Violent extremists like you who are ok with killing a baby 1 minute before birth, more violent extremists who are ok with even killing toddlers, and pro life extremists who think that a fertilized zygote should be treated the same as a fetus.  Most Americans are in the middle.  Sorry to disappoint you.

----------


## specsaregood

> Here we go again...this is an issue hyped by the media, by those who propagate the false left/right paradigm, and by those who want to distract from other issues.


Dr. Paul doesn't see it as a Red Herring but a fundamental piece of understanding freedom.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, I read that too, which is why I'm disappointed.  He confused the day-after pill with RU-486, which is fairly common.  Common enough that I did it again, which is why I reacted the way I did.
> I'm big enough to admit I was wrong on that count.  They are not the same thing, and as long as we're not talking about RU-486 I have very little problem with that portion of the chapter.


Hmmmm....I didn't see RU-486 mentioned at all.  But continue.




> No, it's not good enough.  If he's talking about the morning-after pill, and not RU-486, then why did he say "very early pregnancies", when the point of the morning-after pill is that it is _not_ an abortifacient?
> I'm a computer programmer.  I don't have to memorize what drugs do.  But why the $#@! is an OB/GYN making this mistake _and committing it to print_?


Cool.  I'm a programmer too.  (My life before law school).  And this is my first encounter with the word "abortifacient".  Looking up the word this is the first hit I got.  (Birth control pills being used as abortifacents).




Anyway, I'm not sure what you're upset about.  The point is that the morning after pill can stop a pregnancy after intercourse.  (Hence the name).  Maybe I was wrong in calling it an "abortion pill".  (Ron Paul didn't use that term, I did).  I do know that some in the pro life movement are against the morning after pill.  




> I still stand by my original assessment: the chapter doesn't make a coherent point.
> 
> If you're so on about the rape loophole, why do you keep talking about abortion at all?  Why does he say that rape can be "treated" with drugs, when it needs to be treated, ideally, with hedge clippers?


 How do hedge clippers solve the problem of a woman who may be pregnant from rape and not want to carry the rapist's baby to term?  If your argument is that "hedge clippers" can "cut of the rapist's too", that does nothing for the woman unless she's Lorena Bobbit.  Nor does it help move the pro life position forward with people who just can't get past the "say if it was a rape" argument.




> The rape problem is just that - _a rape problem_.
>  When we fail to address the rape problem when talking about rape, how is that not tantamount to reducing its seriousness?  Why do we accept that because some terrible thing happens, we gotta keep this other terrible thing legal?  What possible sense is there in not addressing the first terrible thing first, as opposed to using it as an excuse for another?


What makes abortion "this terrible thing"?  For me it's that it kills a tiny human with a beating heart, brain waves and the ability to feel pain.  If you're talking about a zygote, I'm not sure it's that terrible.  If it is, the in vitro fertilization should be banned because it creates untold number of "tiny humans" that are either going to be destroyed someday or may be kept frozen indefinitely.  Perhaps you are right that it's all the same (if that is your position).  Perhaps your not.  But the conscience of society needs to be changed if your going to go there.  The first step clearly is banning all late term abortions at the federal level, as opposed to the halfway "partial birth abortion" measure that was previously passed.  Anyway, that's the way I see it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Am I the only one who read he said the morning after pill (he called it the day after pill) caused an abortion? Because that's just not true. It prevents conception from happening in the first place, like other birth control.


Actually he didn't say that.  I mistakenly called this an endorsement of the "abortion pill".  Here's the actual quote:

_So if we are to ever have fewer abortions, society must change again.  The law will not accomplish that.  But that does not mean that the states shouldn't be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion.  Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than birth control pills used in a special manner.  These very early pregnancies could never be policed regardless.  Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her moral choice._

Now if people want to split hairs, I suppose technically the woman isn't "pregnant" at the time the morning after pill works.  But to most lay people "conception" = "fertilization" as opposed to "implantation".  What is more salient?  Whether or not the zygote has attached to the uterine wall, or how developed it is?  There may come a day when a baby can be brought to term without ever even being in the womb.

----------


## ChaosControl

This actually troubles me a lot going forward...

Oh... 


> If it is, the in vitro fertilization should be banned because it creates untold number of "tiny humans" that are either going to be destroyed someday or may be kept frozen indefinitely.


I am one who opposes both the morning after pill and in vitro fertilization for this very reason. Also I think if you cannot have children in the traditional manner that there are many children who need homes and you should adopt.

----------


## QueenB4Liberty

> Actually he didn't say that.  I mistakenly called this an endorsement of the "abortion pill".  Here's the actual quote:
> 
> _So if we are to ever have fewer abortions, society must change again.  The law will not accomplish that.  But that does not mean that the states shouldn't be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion.  Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than birth control pills used in a special manner.  These very early pregnancies could never be policed regardless.  Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her moral choice._
> 
> Now if people want to split hairs, I suppose technically the woman isn't "pregnant" at the time the morning after pill works.  But to most lay people "conception" = "fertilization" as opposed to "implantation".  What is more salient?  Whether or not the zygote has attached to the uterine wall, or how developed it is?  There may come a day when a baby can be brought to term without ever even being in the womb.




Ok thanks for that quote.




> The hormone in the morning-after pill works by keeping a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs  ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormone in the morning-after pill also prevents pregnancy by thickening a woman's cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.
> 
> *The hormone also thins the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.*
> 
> You might have also heard that the morning-after pill causes an abortion. But that's not true. The morning-after pill is not the abortion pill. Emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion.


So that is what you are talking about? I guess I've never really given much thought to where I think life begins.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Dr. Paul doesn't see it as a Red Herring but a fundamental piece of understanding freedom.


His book is taking 50 top issues and applying his philosophy to them. As the media and others have made abortion a huge issue, he pretty much had to include it. His personal opinion is also strong based on his experience and profession, so he gave his view.

He did not give his opinion on circumcision. If the media made a big deal about it, and asked every single politician their views on it, and constantly brought the issue up for heated debates, would he have to give his opinion? Would it change the relative "importance" of the subject just because the media (and the establishment) started making it a big deal, and using it as a red herring?

When Ross Perot was running for President, they tried to ask him about his stance on abortion. He basically said it was a distraction and refused to discuss it. IMHO, the best answer ever from a politician.

----------


## Krugerrand

> Actually he didn't say that.  I mistakenly called this an endorsement of the "abortion pill".  Here's the actual quote:
> 
> _So if we are to ever have fewer abortions, society must change again.  The law will not accomplish that.  But that does not mean that the states shouldn't be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion.  Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than birth control pills used in a special manner.  These very early pregnancies could never be policed regardless.  Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her moral choice._
> 
> Now if people want to split hairs, I suppose technically the woman isn't "pregnant" at the time the morning after pill works.  But to most lay people "conception" = "fertilization" as opposed to "implantation".  What is more salient?  Whether or not the zygote has attached to the uterine wall, or how developed it is?  There may come a day when a baby can be brought to term without ever even being in the womb.





> This actually troubles me a lot going forward...
> 
> Oh... 
> I am one who opposes both the morning after pill and in vitro fertilization for this very reason. Also I think if you cannot have children in the traditional manner that there are many children who need homes and you should adopt.





> The way I understood the section was that RP would include morning after pills as immoral however he simply concedes there is no practical/constitutional means to prevent them.


It really seems to me that RP never says that morning after pills are okay - he just admits that there is virtually no way to enforce them.  I'm w/ you on this on CC.  I think RP is too - but I also don't think there's no reasonable way to stop it.  At least, that's what I gathered from reading RP's first chapter.

----------

