Abortion and Liberty?

[SwooshOU]

Certainly, I have no weight in my opinion above any other person, but I personally define a person as a human being that is capable of consciousness.

What is consciousness and how is it measured?

 

[dannno]

OP, the best way to argue to people who are pro-choice is to show them that while many pro-life people are not reasonable, the pro-life position is a reasonable one to hold.

What I mean is that people who are pro-life often are pro-war, and this is contradictory. There are also a lot of people who are pro-life because they don't want young people having so much pre-marital sex. These two things turn many people away from the pro-life position simply because the people who hold the belief often seem so unreasonable.

However there are a lot of people who hold the pro-life belief that are completely reasonable. They want to protect the life of the individual, and allow them to make the decision. In that respect they are fighting for individual liberty of the child, and to them, abortion is actually murder and not just some attempt at preserving Christian heritage.

It's also not a bad idea to show people how the roots of organizations like Planned Parenthood were in eugenics, and Margaret Sanger who started the organization is a pretty disgusting person.

Even though I'm pro-choice, I actually was the first to use the term "abortion industrial complex" as far as I know. Abortions are expensive and they don't need to be. There are natural abortive remedies that cost less than a few dollars. Combine a couple herbs, make some tea, drink it for 5 days straight early on in the pregnancy and you have a miscarriage. Many women who delay getting an abortion do so because it is expensive or violent and they don't want to deal with it. If they simply had to drink some tea or take a pill, then nobody would have to worry about the cost and I think we would see less women trying to get late term abortions.

 

[Shane Harris]

self awareness doesnt even occur until long after the baby is born tho. the question is does the fetus have legal rights. currently it does (killing a pregnant woman is double homicide). babies do not solely belong to the mother. its only half hers. 99% of the time its their own fault for getting pregnant and it should not be legal to take away a life because of your own stupidity. kids will get adopted. and anyone who says no life is better than being an orphan is out of their mind and does not deserve to make such an assumption. everyone deserves to be born. i have no sympathy for women who get pregnant. rape and incest are a microscopic minority of abortions and still dont merit killing the baby. as reagan put it: I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.

 

[robert68]

...
And it shouldn't be about when the brain develops, as the soul is present before there is a brain, and the presence of a soul is what determines of something is alive in the ultimate and spiritual sense, though I understand that not everyone understands that the soul exists.

You're the first from-conception-on opponent of abortion rights from this forum I've seen, with a definition of human life that mentions or includes the soul. The "Life at Conception Act" Ron Paul cosponsored earlier this year doesn't mention the soul either. They have an atheist definition of human life when it comes to the subject of abortion.

 

[Shane Harris]

some people are severely mentally challenged and are NEVER "self aware". do they not have life? are their lives worthless or inconsequential? should we just put them out of their misery? the philosophy of abortion is not a philosophy of freedom but a philosophy of death and leads to relative value of life.

 

[Crickett]

@teacherone: Thank you for the welcome.

Perhaps I may soon find this thread in the state of debate, but I am not concerned as much with so many individuals' feelings about the matter. What I would like to know, is how Ron Paul would answer the questions I pose.

Cake, Ron is pro life. He just feels that there should be no FEDERAL law mandating either way. I do not think one could agree with every thing from any politician in any event, any way. But I see so much hypocrisy in people's beliefs, altogether. Some are Pro-choice. A woman should be able to do what she wants with her OWN body. Of course that does NOT mean she can do heroin, smoke, kill herSELF, or have sex for money.
Many who scream PRO-LIFE, do not give a rat's ass when our troops get killed killing many others around the world, innocent or not. Ron is one of those people who reveres life, period. He is no hypocrite. He would not FORCE his views on any. My own view has been to forget the brainwave thing. If it does not BREATHE, eat and crap it is not a human by any other standard. My views, however, have been substantially modified by the ones of Ron Paul. I do not really stand up for those very firm former beliefs any more.

 

[Yieu]

You're the first from-conception-on opponent of abortion rights from this forum I've seen, with a definition of human life that mentions or includes the soul. The "Life at Conception Act" Ron Paul cosponsored earlier this year doesn't mention the soul either. They have an atheist definition of human life when it comes to the subject of abortion.

The first you've seen? I am sure there are more. The soul is often not mentioned in this debate because Atheists do not believe it exists, so people tend to argue points that Atheists might be able to reasonably accept and/or understand. And it is inaccurate to call me a "opponent of abortion rights". First, it is not accurate to say "abortion rights," because it is more a privilege than a right -- rights are about life and liberty and abortion stands against life and is liberty is not involved. Also, opponent is a negative term. It is more accurate to say "proponent of the right to life."

Anyway, consciousness, self-awareness, and life are all by-products or effects of the presence of the soul. Anywhere those effects are found, the spirit/soul exists.

The simple fact of the matter is that once the child is a zygote, it is its own unique individual -- a unique lifeform distinct from the mother and father.

The use of the term "person" in this debate is a bit misleading, because "person" is technically a legal term. A zygote is an individual life or entity distinct from the mother -- so it is not about "her body" -- it is about the child's body.

And I do not believe the force of law should be used to prevent or prosecute women who have had, may have had, or may have an abortion, because that gets into all sorts of unsavory government action against individuals. I merely warn that Karma is a dangerous thing to play around with; they might not like the effect that comes back to them.

 

[Cake]

Lets not confuse the issue: being able to have an abortion is not about human liberty (it is a moral issue of who can rightfully be to be an arbiter of life),

Morality is subjective. The government has no business setting moral norms. The government only has the responsibility to ensure that one's actions do not deprive another of liberty.

and it is not about the woman's body, it is about the child's body.

It is about what point the two can be viewed as separate persons with separate rights.

it shouldn't be about when the brain develops, as the soul is present before there is a brain, and the presence of a soul is what determines of something is alive in the ultimate and spiritual sense, though I understand that not everyone understands that the soul exists.

That is a religious belief, and between you and your creator. The soul may or may not exist, or may or may not be present a certain times during gestation. St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, believed that we were first mineral, then vegetable, then animal, and then became human during the quickening (usually moments before pregnancy). However, a society under social contract should not create laws based on belief systems. As rational beings we should base our laws in science and logic, not emotions of faith. One's religious beliefs and morals should not another's mundane liberty.

 

[playboymommy]

I think this is the best statement to explain Ron Paul's pro-life view:

In regards to abortion and gay marriage, Paul's first response is that it's none of the federal government's business to dictate those decisions. Although Paul opposes abortion philosophically, he is adamantly against forcing his personal beliefs on others. He supports the states' right to determine their own laws. Pro-choice progressives who demand a federal abortion policy seem no better than zealot pro-lifers who wish to forcefully impose their beliefs. Ron Paul doesn't solve this divide, but proposes the only sensible middle ground.

 

[Yieu]

Morality is subjective.

I disagree. We may have different understandings of what morality is, but I believe there is an absolute moral standard. Not everyone may agree that the standard is what I believe it is, but ultimately for it to be morality there must be some standard. Perhaps not everyone knows or understands it, but morality implies a standard.

The government has no business setting moral norms. The government only has the responsibility to ensure that one's actions do not deprive another of liberty.

I agree on all points in this quote!

It is about what point the two can be viewed as separate persons with separate rights.

It is a unique and separate individual once it has its own unique DNA, which is the zygote stage. The zygote is the single celled stage right after the two reproductive cells combine. It is alive and unique at that point

Trying to base it on consciousness or brain waves leaves too much up in the air, too many questions.

However, a society under social contract should not create laws based on belief systems.

Not so keen on the whole "social contract" thing, but I certainly would not want to have laws from religions other than mine set in place that would persecute me for having a different faith, so I agree that laws should not be based on religion, which is why the 1st Amendment protects us against having an official establishment of religion.

One's religious beliefs and morals should not another's mundane liberty.

Correct, although again, abortion is not an issue of liberty. I would not stop people from having abortions, just as I do not try to stop people from other sins, nor would I send the law after such people. But that doesn't make it an issue of liberty -- the liberty issue is whether the life is allowed to exist. Liberty does not mean liberty to kill. Because at least in the spiritual sense, Karma will dish out a punishment. Being aborted is sometimes a way that Karmic punishments are dealt out...

And in case this point was not yet understood, I am against the use of force for violence. I'm against the use of force to conduct abortions, but I'm also against the use of force to prevent them. I'm against the use of force. This is why I am pro-life (but do not wish to use the force of law against others) and also against war and other forms of killing.

 

[klamath]

Morality is subjective. The government has no business setting moral norms. The government only has the responsibility to ensure that one's actions do not deprive another of liberty.







That is a religious belief, and between you and your creator. The soul may or may not exist, or may or may not be present a certain times during gestation. St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, believed that we were first mineral, then vegetable, then animal, and then became human during the quickening (usually moments before pregnancy). However, a society under social contract should not create laws based on belief systems. As rational beings we should base our laws in science and logic, not emotions of faith. One's religious beliefs and morals should not another's mundane liberty.

It is about what point the two can be viewed as separate persons with separate rights.

Sorry all laws are based on the morallity of the society they are written. There is no natural law based on science and logic why I can't kill you and take your property and freedom. If it enhances my life and family to take yours why shouldn't I based on science and logic? Would it be wrong to do so, yes but that's moral.

 

[playboymommy]

What business is it of anyone but that woman if she is pregnant or not?

If she chooses to keep it under wraps and hires an undocumented person to perform the procedure would we even know enough to care?

If she chooses to involve her family or go to her regular physician, who is the public to demand her personal records from her private relationships?

From my standpoint... NO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN ABORTION.... NO PUBLIC FUNDING TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

What they do with their private lives and private funds is none of my business.

I agree with this. If there is a federal ban on abortion we'll see an increase in women dying from unsafe procedures. Does that loss of a life not bother a pro-lifer? I don't think women have a right to an abortion but rather the option. Yes, I think it's sad that many women feel this is their only option but it's none of my business nor is it anyone else's, as long as the procedure is not paid for with tax dollars.

 

[Shane Harris]

would anyone care if someone killed their 4 year old in private? that seems to be how people are treating this. certainly its better that the child is killed with private funds rather than public funds but the fact remains that a child was killed and the government, at least at the local or state level, absolutely has the right, IMO, to protect the life of this child. abortion is murder and murder is not okay in a free society.

 

[Cake]

What is consciousness and how is it measured?

Good question. Perhaps, I was not elaborate enough. Initially, I felt the implication was clear that the existence of a brain is required. Currently, with medical science we do not know at what point the developing brain is capable of some level of consciousness. That is something we may not ever know. However, we do know that consciousness cannot exist as we know it without a brain--hence--defining at least a minimum of 5 weeks, which is the amount of time that is takes for the brain to begin to develop. Personally, I might go a step further and say that until 7 weeks when the brain develops into five parts with visible cranial nerves, consciousness is not existent.

We do not know at what point a brain is capable of consciousness, but we do know that no level of consciousness--as we know it--can exist without a brain. Ron Paul being a physician, truly must have a scientific viewpoint on the matter. That is my concern, and leads to my inability to articulate his stance clearly to others on the matter. Quite frankly, many I have talked to have a legitimate concern of contradiction in this matter.

 

[Cake]

It is about what point the two can be viewed as separate persons with separate rights.

Sorry all laws are based on the morallity of the society they are written. There is no natural law based on science and logic why I can't kill you and take your property and freedom. If it enhances my life and family to take yours why shouldn't I based on science and logic? Would it be wrong to do so, yes but that's moral.

Your inability to kill someone within the confines of the law does not require, and perhaps is not at all rooted in morality. To kill someone would be an interference with their liberty and life, both protected by the Constitution.

While I agree that social contracts are often tainted with moral and religious beliefs, neither is necessary to ensure a just law.

 

[Yieu]

would anyone care if someone killed their 4 year old in private? that seems to be how people are treating this. certainly its better that the child is killed with private funds rather than public funds but the fact remains that a child was killed and the government, at least at the local or state level, absolutely has the right, IMO, to protect the life of this child. abortion is murder and murder is not okay in a free society.

You do bring up a good point, but then there is a bit of a fuzzy area where they might even try to investigate miscarriages that the woman wanted to carry to term, and we don't need that level of government looking over our shoulders, so it is hard to draw that line.

 

[klamath]

Your inability to kill someone within the confines of the law does not require, and perhaps is not at all rooted in morality. To kill someone would be an interference with their liberty and life, both protected by the Constitution.

While I agree that social contracts are often tainted with moral and religious beliefs, neither is necessary to ensure a just law.

What is a just law?

 

[Cake]

What is a just law?

In this context, a law that does not contradict another, or exceed the Power of the government under socially contractual limitations.

 

[Cake]

Is the pertinent question, "How to convince pro-choice* women and men to vote for Ron Paul?".

[* or pro-abortion if that works better]

I would advocate the following,

* Stress all the ways Ron Paul would free individuals to address their own medical concerns without state intervention (hello RU-486 - if heroin is legal, how can RU-486 be illegal? )

* Stress getting government OUT of the patient-doctor relationship

* Ron is pro-freedom and that is more important

* The likely worst case scenario is that an individual's state passes some unpalatable law and the Supreme Court - not Ron Paul - upholds their right to do so. So the battle is on the state and judicial levels.

* Issues like viability, stem-cell research, birth control technologies are always changing as are the morals about these issues. Ron Paul does not want the Federal government exceeding its constitutional power.

* The only risk is if a constitutional amendment is passed. This requires 2/3rds of the House and Senate and 3/4ths of the state legislatures (or ratifying conventions which has been used only once, to repeal prohibition). The President has ZERO authority to pass or block an amendment. (Am I wrong?)

* Argue that, while some AND Ron Paul care vary deeply about the abortion issue, most of us want to restore our republic and not fall like the the USSR or get owned like Greece by foreign creditors.

* Add getting rid of the Patriot Act and other unconstitutional snooping powers which may be how a ban is enforced. A law that can't be enforced is - however unpalatable - not as harmful/effective.

Anywho, I think the thread/argument is best focused on how to market Ron Paul to people who are hardliners one way or the other. This battle won't end here regardless of the presidential vote.

While I appreciate the talking-points, I do not wish to distract individuals from the issue. I present Paul on intellectual grounds, where an answer to each question is forthcoming and thorough. This is not something many individuals can over look, and since Iowa, many a discussion has led to the subject. I would even suggest that a medical, scientific or legal answer would be beneficial to the campaign. It is certainly, detrimental that he articulate that he is not in favor of a federal law against all abortions.

 

[Cake]

I agree with this. If there is a federal ban on abortion we'll see an increase in women dying from unsafe procedures. Does that loss of a life not bother a pro-lifer? I don't think women have a right to an abortion but rather the option. Yes, I think it's sad that many women feel this is their only option but it's none of my business nor is it anyone else's, as long as the procedure is not paid for with tax dollars.

I don't want to sound cold, but if a woman chooses--of her own informed free-will--to have an unsafe procedure that results in serious infection or death, that is her problem, not the problem of the government. The idea that some people may make ignorant choices is not enough to justify devaluing the life of another. What I mean, is that at some point the human cells that could potentially become a person, do in fact become a person. Once a person becomes a person, that person has rights and protections.

If it is in fact a "person" that is being killed in an abortion, or other cause, it would in legal terms be homicide. The issue is defining at what point a "person" becomes a "person". Do not, however, assume that this would be an easy feat. Despite the political controversy over the issue, it is a very complex subject in scientific and medical terms also.

Nonetheless, it is difficult to define human life that lacks a brain as a "person" while simultaneously allowing a person with a birth defect to have extra limbs, or even an extra body removed, if it was the product of a sperm and embryo forming a zygote. After all, how could we consider a single human cell, the product of a fertilized embryo a "person" and not consider a person born with only one brain and two bodies a murderer if they had one body removed? Regardless of what scientific, medical, or legal definition we entertain, it is difficult to define something a "person" if it does not have a brain.