Abortion - The One Issue That Worries Me

[Akherousia]

Let's face it: Dr. Ron Paul is a genius. There is no question about it. And I, personally, have the humility to recognize when someone's opinion outweighs mine (due to experience, expertise, etc.).
And besides, I agree with Dr. Paul on the role the Fed should play in abortion issues. No one up there (except for, perhaps, Ron Paul) as any legitamate right to tell others what to do--and Dr. Paul won't do that.

Or, you can take your own stance on issues based on your own philosophies and not blindly follow someone because of credentials that, in this case, have nothing to do with a stance on the morality of an issue. I'd trust a professor of ethics far more than an OB doctor on the issue of abortion, though I wouldn't take the views of either as anything more than an opinion. I'll decide my own stance on issues, thanks.

And furthermore, as much as I adore and support Paul, I wouldn't call him a genius by any stretch of the definition of the word. The sort of hero-worship you're demonstrating may just cause others to elevate his supporters to a cult-status. I'm really hoping there aren't many like yourself out there, because I'd hate for another famous individual I greatly admire to be considered a cult leader. Ayn Rand and Anton LaVey are enough.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

EDIT: After seeing the first few replies, let me note that I am aware that he believes that the legality abortion should be an issue decided upon by the states. However, most pro-choice individuals, including myself, do not believe that ANY level of government should be able to restrict a woman's right to her own body. It does not matter to me or many other pro-choice people if he believes it is the Federal government's or state's right to decide. I would not want my girlfriend to have to go to another state to get an abortion, because I believe that an individual's right to his or her own body is one of the fundamental rights in any free system of government and should apply in all areas over which that government has influence. Most pro-choice individuals like myself believe abortion should be an individual's choice ANYWHERE in America, and therefore the cries of "he believes it's a state's decision!" does nothing to appease my concern.

So do you then want to turn this into a thread debating abortion itself? He is morally pro-life. No rationalizing on yours or any other pro-choicer's part is going to change that. If that is a stumbling block to you or other pro-choice voters out there, its unfortunate, because its not going to change. Now, he is not going to support a blank ban on abortion, because he doesnt think the federal government should regulate it at all. But he certainly isn't going to further the pro-choice cause. I honestly think most states would outlaw third trimester abortion but would allow it in the first trimester, as it is much easier to argue for the rights of the mother when it is a zygote, rather than a baby that could be given birth to and kept alive (which is possibly at about any time during the third trimester - i think most rational people would consider them a human by this point). If a woman seriously cannot decide whether or not she wants an abortion for 6 months, i'm sorry, but... that is just completely irresponsible. For someone who has a right to their own body, the woman who would wait until the third trimester to have an abortion sure does not know how to take care of it [her body]. (note: if having the baby would threaten the mothers life, then it is not an abortion, it is a medical procedure to save the mother's life at her choosing, which does indeed take prescidence over the unborn child. Thats not what im talking about here).

This paragraph here makes it seem like you are trying to provoke an ethical discussion about abortion, when originally it was assumed by most that you meant simply to understand his stance and find a compromise on the matter. The issue worries you, and is obviously a stumbling block. You are going to have to grapple with its effect yourself, i'm afraid. I personally am glad he is morally pro-life, or he would stand no chance getting the republican nomination, to deal with, in my opinion, far greater problems in our nation.

 

[Akherousia]

I posted my own belief and that of most pro-choice individuals in order to express why the "he's for the state's right to choose!" posts did nothing to quell my concern, not in order to provoke an ethical discussion. If you would have read that in the context of "I believe it should be an individual's right, and what part of the government regulates it doesn't matter to me, because none should," you would have understood.

 

[austin356]

I talked with a diehard liberal (copy woman at the Office Despot)

She asked about abortion and saw on my copies that he was "pro-life". She basically implied that was a deal breaker for her. But then I said that he does not think the Federal government should decide and that the different states should be able to legalize/ban as they wish. She agreed and said she thought that was the most "sensible" position to the issue. I dont think it ever occured to her that someone could be pro-life, but unwilling to Federally ban abortion....... 60% of the nation may be in favor of abortion rights, but if they properly understand the situation 75% of the population will agree with Ron that DC should not make the decision.

 

[DjLoTi]

The fact that he has delivered 4,000 babies puts him at a better position then I (and most) to judge on this issue.

 

[Akherousia]

The fact that he has delivered 4,000 babies puts him at a better position then I (and most) to judge on this issue.

Why? What does the physical act of removing a baby from a woman have to do with ethics and morality in any way?

 

[ThePieSwindler]

I posted my own belief and that of most pro-choice individuals in order to express why the "he's for the state's right to choose!" posts did nothing to quell my concern, not in order to provoke an ethical discussion. If you would have read that in the context of "I believe it should be an individual's right, and what part of the government regulates it doesn't matter to me, because none should," you would have understood.

I did indeed read your post, and i KNOW you weren't trying to provoke debate, because i understood the intent of this thread. That tacked on paragraph just made it seem a bit more like it though, since the federalism response seemingly was tough to swallow for you. Unfortunately, if abortion is a really, REALLY big issue for you or friends you are trying to talk with, and you or they are pro-choice and don't think there should ever be any kind of restriction on your "right to choose", then Paul probably isn't the best candidate for you. However, you must realize that he will not too do much to change the current system because of a democratic majority in congress, and because he will leave it up to the states, not his own power. I don't think the possibility that you might have to travel to another state to have an abortion is enough to risk losing other liberties by voting for someone who will expand federal power (everyone but Paul). Hey, at least if you have an abortion, you won't have to worry about your kid being implanted with an RFID chip!

Note: I respect your view on this issue, but i'm just stating the reality of the fact that, if you want a candidate who will quell your specific concern on this, Ron is not that candidate. Federalism is the way to go, as he sees it - showing that he is staying true to his role as a statesman and upholder of the constitution. Abortion may not be bad, but it certainly isn't up to the federal government to decide that based on faulty SCOTUS cases.

 

[Akherousia]

It's not a huge issue for me, and that's why I'm here and voicing this concern. Unfortunately, though, a lot of pro-choice individuals do consider it a very large issue. I see it as a violation of a fundamental human right, but personally I'm into safe sex practice, and a law on abortion will probably never have an effect on me personally. Therefore, I choose to put more emphasis on issues which have direct consequence in my life.

 

[Jeremie in Minnesota]

Why? What does the physical act of removing a baby from a woman have to do with ethics and morality in any way?

Well, let me ask you a question. Are you a doctor or a woman? Both?

 

[richard1984]

Or, you can take your own stance on issues based on your own philosophies and not blindly follow someone because of credentials that, in this case, have nothing to do with a stance on the morality of an issue. I'd trust a professor of ethics far more than an OB doctor on the issue of abortion, though I wouldn't take the views of either as anything more than an opinion. I'll decide my own stance on issues, thanks.

Yes, perhaps. But don’t forget (for example) what led us into the Iraq “war”--people taking their own, uninformed stance. You are encouraging ignorance.

And furthermore, as much as I adore and support Paul, I wouldn't call him a genius by any stretch of the definition of the word. The sort of hero-worship you're demonstrating may just cause others to elevate his supporters to a cult-status. I'm really hoping there aren't many like yourself out there, because I'd hate for another famous individual I greatly admire to be considered a cult leader. Ayn Rand and Anton LaVey are enough.

First of all, you’re an ass (no offense, but you are--i.e., you insult rather than explain). Second of all, he probably does have an extremely high IQ, which would (perhaps) “officially” label him as a “genius.” I, personally, can't think of many other people who have accomplished as much a Dr. Paul has in his lifetime. I'm not sure I can think of anyone. Can you?

I respect Dr. Paul. I think he should be our president.
Why don't you?

 

[Akherousia]

No, but I am a philosophy major who understands that an issue dealing with an individual's right to his or her own body belongs in the realm of ethics and not science.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

No, but I am a philosophy major who understands that an issue dealing with an individual's right to his or her own body belongs in the realm of ethics and not science.

Ok, i have a response to that (a bit less vitrolic than richards though..), but i don't want to state it because we would be getting into an abortion debate rather than a Ron Paul debate. Let's not do that, and lets not perpetuate what you told us, and we assumed (or i did, at least) that you did not intended to discuss in this post.

Yes, perhaps. But don’t forget (for example) what led us into the Iraq “war”--people taking their own, uninformed stance. You are encouraging ignorance.



First of all, you’re an ass (no offense, but you are--i.e., you insult rather than explain). Second of all, he probably does have an extremely high IQ, which would “officially” label him as a “genius.” I, personally, can't think of many other people who have accomplished as much a Dr. Paul has in his lifetime. I'm not sure I can think of anyone. Can you?

I respect Dr. Paul. I think he should be our president.
Why don't you?

Goes for you too, homes.

 

[Jeremie in Minnesota]

No, but I am a philosophy major who understands that an issue dealing with an individual's right to his or her own body belongs in the realm of ethics and not science.

Nice "no, but let me qualify myself" answer. Bottom line, he is who is he is, and it will only aid him in winning the nomination. A pro-choice republican who won't win the nomination? Rudy Guiliani.

Just want to point out, you singlehandedly turned this thread into exactly what you said you did not want it to.

 

[pdog]

No, but I am a philosophy major who understands that an issue dealing with an individual's right to his or her own body belongs in the realm of ethics and not science.

The position that Ron Paul and many other Pro-Life people advocate is that a zygoat/embryo/fetus is not a female body part like an ovary or a fallopian tube. Rather it is an individual, like you or me, with its own DNA structure and individual will to live that deserves the right to life you and I deserve under the constitution.

At what point does an individual come into existance? (from conception to birth) ? I do not know, honestly. But I choose to side of error.

I mostly base my belief, as a kind of geek, on an episode of Star Trek.

It is where Geordi LaForge visits a planet that discards pre-natal children who are born with defects to help them with some crises. He looks, with his artificial eyes, at one of the technitions and says basically (to paraphrase)... In your world, I would have been aborted because of my blindness. What right do you have to say that I am worthless, that I have nothing to give to the world ?

And so I feel the same way about those who say that unplanned children who are born should be aborted.

Be that as it may, I do think that a blanket ban on all aborition is highly unlikely and those who are disturbed by Ron Paul's position on this matter should have little fear. His vote is worth it despite your anti-abortion views.

 

[pdog]

Ah, the name of the Star Trek Episode is called "The Masterpiece Society" (Season 5, Episode 13)

Key quote "He reflects on the irony of the fact that technology from a blind man’s visual prosthetic device – a man seen as disabled who would have been terminated as a fertilized cell in the genetically engineered colony – supplies the answer which saved the society"

 

[richard1984]

First of all, I want to apologize for my "vitriolic" response. But I do respect Dr. Paul's opinion on this subject. I also admit that I don't know enough on the subject to issue my own definitive response.

Also, I am a philosophy major, too (as well as a psychology major--for practicality's sake). --I’m trying to get married.

Anyway, I don’t want to get in an argument over abortion, either. I think the point that I wanted to make (even if I failed at clarity) was that Dr. Paul probably has a better perspective/opinion on this topic than any of the other candidates do.
I’m sorry I came across sounding so “extreme.”

(Also, I apologize for my imperfections. I really don’t know the “right answer” to this issue.)

 

[Harald]

One second after conception vs one second before birth

I think during NH NPR interview with Laura Knoy, Ron Paul said that THERE IS a difference between aborting one second after conception vs one second before birth. Different states may pick a different point between those two extremes according to the views of their citizens.

 

[robatsu]

Here is my view: Abortion is murder. That being said, I don't think that the federal government has license to regulate this issue. Nevada has gambling, some of the states have defacto gay marriage, other places have dry counties. If enough people can get together in some area of the nation and legalize culling unwanted babies, fine. Just keep the tyrants in Wash. DC out of it.

Furthermore, I think Dr. Paul's approach is in the long run at least ok with abortion advocates, in that while he isn't going to give them a medal for the act, he concedes if they can form a local political unit that is ok w/this practice, you go grrl. What honest abortion rights person who doesn't have an agenda to force their vision of morality on others could disagree with that?

 

[JaredR26]

Firstly, Ron Paul is not the kind of Politician who will change his opinions about something because it is more popular. I can understand his personal opposition to abortion.

Secondly, if it becomes clear to me that Ron Paul would support, or allow a ban of abortion at a federal level, he will lose my vote. I love RP and I have donated several times, but I cannot bend on this issue. 98% of the people pushing for abortion laws are religious righters who want to push ALL of their beliefs on the entire country, with no regard for others' rights. In addition, I think more banning abortion is more immoral than allowing it.

Ron Paul just needs to be VERY careful what he says about the issue. Some of his writing has indicated that he would be willing to support a federal ban on abortion if there were no other alternative, which scares me. I think leaving it up to the states is an acceptable solution, in some places the majority is really in favor of RRer's. Worst case those in those states oppressed by the right can travel or (better yet move) to another state.

 

[Mom4Ron]

Forgive me if this has already been stated. It's late and I'm about to turn in.

There are several issues that can be a bit intimidating with regard to his campaign, but only if we forget just why states' rights are so important.

By leaving issues up to the several states, to be affected and determined by the residents of that state and the officials that they elect, then the voice of the individual becomes stronger and causes the laws to more closely reflect the values of the citizens who reside in that state.

As individuals, we have very little actual voice in Federal government, but with the state government, our leverage is greater.