Banning abortion doesn't make sense to me.

[Billy_McBong]

I agree with RP on a lot of things but his stance on abortion bothers me. Most people on here seem to agree with him so hopefully I'll get some good thought-provoking responses. Even if one believes that human life begins at conception and is personally against abortion I don't see how the government getting involved and banning it would be a good idea producing a positive outcome. Like with drugs, prostitution, gambling, anything that people want, making it illegal doesn't make it disappear it merely moves it underground. Banning abortion will not stop women from having them. But it would make abortions very dangerous and much more traumatizing. Keeping it legal and regulating it makes it a safe medical procedure. If abortion was banned there would presumably be an exception for victims impregnated because of rape. This loophole would certainly be abused since anyone wanting an abortion could try to claim this to get it done legally. I get why someone personally would be morally against abortion, I don't get wanting to force this moral belief onto everyone using legal measures. Can someone please give me a reasonable explanation why the the law should compromise the liberty of a fully grown women to do what she wants with her own body to protect the life something living inside her which for weeks doesn't even have a working brain?

 

[bluesc]

He doesn't support banning abortion at the federal level.

Like with drugs, prostitution, gambling,

You realize that Ron would be perfectly fine with the states banning all of those things too, right? He may not agree with the decision, but he wouldn't override the states with federal law.

 

[TheGrinch]

He believes it is a states-rights issue, so if anything this would probably enusre that it will still be legal in some places, while illegal in others. One thing's for sure though, the federal government wouldn't be pumping in money to fund it.

And frankly, there are so many far more important issues in this election cycle than something that seems to turn every election cycle into divisive partisan demogoguery that everyone is not possibly going to agree on.

 

[Keith and stuff]

As bluesc said, Ron Paul isn't about banning abortion. Ron Paul clearly doesn't like abortion. He is against it, if you will. He delivered 1000s of wonderful babies into this world. He wants to end Roe V. Wade. It isn't a federal issue and he is correct. Just like almost all other crimes, it may only be looked at as a legal issue by states or local governments (if states allow that.)

Personally, if a woman wants to kill her baby, I will not use force to stop her, nor will I attempt to use force to punish her after the fact. I will also not use force to stop a doctor, nor will I use force to punish a doctor after he kills the baby. I do not have the money to pay for someone to use force to do such things, and I feel it is immoral to take money from taxpayers to force them to support the use of force in such a case. I'm certain, the people I live wouldn't ban abortion if Roe V, Wade ended. In fact, I'm pretty sure that not a single Northeastern state would ban abortion. Perhaps a handful of states would ban abortion. I don't know. If they did, there would likely be massive boycotts.

Here is the before Roe V. Wade map. I think most of the states where it used to be banned would vote to keep it legal now, if it came to that. People get scared when they look at that map but I don't think it is at all an accurate map for today. For example, most Catholics in New England are now hardly practicing or non-practicing Catholics. In my opinion, most states were in the process of legalizing abortion before Roe V. Wade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Abortion_before_Roe

He answered this question very well in one of the debates. He said something like it should be handled by the states as other violent acts are handled.

Edit: If specsaregood is correct about Ron Paul supporting a theoretical amendment to ban abortion, that is fine. There is just about 0% chance any such amendment could pass.

 

[specsaregood]

He doesn't support banning abortion at the federal level.

You realize that Ron would be perfectly fine with the states banning all of those things too, right? He may not agree with the decision, but he wouldn't override the states with federal law.

Bullshit. He has said many times he would support a federal ban on abortion; but that it would require an amendment to the constitution to do so. He is against banning it unconstitutionally; but he would support and vote for an amendment.

 

[James Madison]

With drugs, prostitution, and gambling, only the individual participating in the activity is harmed. Abortion harms the child, an innocent bystander.

 

[bluesc]

Bullshit. He has said many times he would support a federal ban on abortion; but that it would require an amendment to the constitution to do so. He is against banning it unconstitutionally; but he would support and vote for an amendment.

I stand corrected.

 

[robert9712000]

I guess it depends if you believe its murder.

To me it is.So its silly to me, for people to say its a right for me to murder my baby.You can debate all day long about when life begins,but the libertarian view is you have the right to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else.I'd say taking there life fits that description.The libertarian view is also that a individual should be responsible for there actions,So they should have either not had sex if they weren't willing to accept the possible responsibility or they could use protection.I have no problem preventing it to begin with,but once its happened i feel your responsible.

As far as rape and threatening the mothers life.As horrible as rape is i feel the woman would be just as wrong to end that life,I have no problem with her giving the baby up for adoption after birth to give the child a chance at life.

The threatening her life part i will admit is my own personal conviction in faith and i can't convincingly back it up with a logical justice,but my opinion is (which i know will draw flack) that nothing is a definite even by a doctors determination of potential problem towards the mother,so since its not a definite i wouldn't want to kill a future life on a possible life threatening scenario ,but would leave the outcome in Gods hand.

 

[The Free Hornet]

He doesn't support banning abortion at the federal level.



You realize that Ron would be perfectly fine with the states banning all of those things too, right? He may not agree with the decision, but he wouldn't override the states with federal law.

I'm not sure that he is "perfectly fine with the states banning" anything in particular, rather that it is not the role of the Federal government. There are three reasons for this:

1) The Constitution
2) He is a libertarian, in principle
3) Control is better when local and accountable (Federal is neither)

E.g., you could "ban" abortion in your household and banish anybody who has an abortion. You may have to live with some extra kids and grandkids, but you put your foot down and get to feel all moralistic.

 

[No Free Beer]

A lot of people are talking about "states rights," and they are correct. This issue is a states rights issue.

That being said, I will, with great pride, declare that I am vehemently pro-life. But, whether it's on the state level or not, if abortion were made illegal, there would be blood on the streets. Just look at what women were doing in the fifties and sixties. It was disgusting. At least now, women are safe and it's done with a professional. Just think about all the young females who would be scared to tell their parents that they are pregnant (desperation) , so they try and abort their own baby themselves, and end up hurting or killing themselves.

It's a very complex issue. I wish there was a way we could ban all abortions, I just don't see how it would work.

I am always open to ideas.

 

[Billy_McBong]

For those who think Ron Paul wants it to be completely left up to states please go check out the Sanctity of Life Act which RP has reintroduced to congress numerous times. It defines life as beginning at conception.

With drugs, prostitution, and gambling, only the individual participating in the activity is harmed. Abortion harms the child, an innocent bystander.

How do you know the unborn is harmed? If it's brain isn't developed enough then it cannot feel pain anymore than vegetables can. Regardless whether it's morally right or wrong isn't really the issue I'm trying to debate. I don't see how the benefits from banning it would outweigh the problems banning it would cause.

And frankly, there are so many far more important issues in this election cycle than something that seems to turn every election cycle into divisive partisan demogoguery that everyone is not possibly going to agree on.

I completely agree that it's not the most important issue but that's no reason to not discuss it. It's not like his stance on this stops me from supporting him or anything, just baffles me.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Please read this if you truly want to know RP's position

http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

Response from Ron Paul Campaign:
Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge

Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USA’s goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President.

I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation.

As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Court’s misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected.

It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision.

What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins.

Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not.

This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path.

Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty.

 

[bluesc]

I'm not sure that he is "perfectly fine with the states banning" anything in particular, rather that it is not the role of the Federal government. There are three reasons for this:

1) The Constitution
2) He is a libertarian, in principle
3) Control is better when local and accountable (Federal is neither)

E.g., you could "ban" abortion in your household and banish anybody who has an abortion. You may have to live with some extra kids and grandkids, but you put your foot down and get to feel all moralistic.

I meant "fine" in the legal sense, hence why I was sure to add "He may not agree with the decision, but he wouldn't override the states with federal law."

Him being governor of a state would give us a much better idea of how he would like to see society develop.

 

[AME3]

Ron Paul is an MD! He took an oath to preserve and revere life and views the subject of abortion through an entirely different prism. Personally I have a lot more respect for an MD who sees it this way, versus a Dr Tiller...
Kinda like a clergymans leaning towards pacifism...it shouldn't be a real shocker...

 

[LibertyEagle]

As bluesc said, Ron Paul isn't about banning abortion. Ron Paul clearly doesn't like abortion. He is against it, if you will. He delivered 1000s of wonderful babies into this world. He wants to end Roe V. Wade. It isn't a federal issue and he is correct. Just like almost all other crimes, it may only be looked at as a legal issue by states or local governments (if states allow that.)

Personally, if a woman wants to kill her baby, I will not use force to stop her, nor will I attempt to use force to punish her after the fact. I will also not use force to stop a doctor, nor will I use force to punish a doctor after he kills the baby. I do not have the money to pay for someone to use force to do such things, and I feel it is immoral to take money from taxpayers to force them to support the use of force in such a case. I'm certain, the people I live wouldn't ban abortion if Roe V, Wade ended. In fact, I'm pretty sure that not a single Northeastern state would ban abortion. Perhaps a handful of states would ban abortion. I don't know. If they did, there would likely be massive boycotts.

Here is the before Roe V. Wade map. I think most of the states where it used to be banned would vote to keep it legal now, if it came to that. People get scared when they look at that map but I don't think it is at all an accurate map for today. For example, most Catholics in New England are now hardly practicing or non-practicing Catholics. In my opinion, most states were in the process of legalizing abortion before Roe V. Wade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Abortion_before_Roe

He answered this question very well in one of the debates. He said something like it should be handled by the states as other violent acts are handled.

Edit: If specsaregood is correct about Ron Paul supporting a theoretical amendment to ban abortion, that is fine. There is just about 0% chance any such amendment could pass.

You are incorrect.

Dr. Paul advocates defining life, at the federal level, as beginning at conception. Therefore, if anyone ended that life, it would be murder.

What is left up to the states is how to prosecute said murder and states differ on that.

 

[Keith and stuff]

You are incorrect.

Based on my whole post, I must disagree with you. I was certainly correct in at least part of my post. You saw the edit, correct? I'm actually pretty surprised that you said I was incorrect. I really didn't expect anyone to ever say that, especially after I went in to so much detail to even repeat what Ron Paul said and even edited my post.

 

[wistfulthinker]

How do you know the unborn is harmed? If it's brain isn't developed enough then it cannot feel pain anymore than vegetables can. Regardless whether it's morally right or wrong isn't really the issue I'm trying to debate. I don't see how the benefits from banning it would outweigh the problems banning it would cause.

You know the unborn is harmed because it ends up dead. One of the pragmatic (non-religious) principles upon which we judge the morality of an action is the consequences of that action. In the case of abortion, the short term consequences are that a human life ends. We also end up with a society in which women are morally confused -- told by their culture that an action is legally and morally okay; told by their conscious that it is not. Living with such cognitive dissonance isn't good for women or for the culture at large. We become, as a whole, less able moral judges. And, perhaps, eventually, less moral as a people. We must be careful not to mistake short term suffering for long term debasement. Nor short term ease with lasting happiness.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I agree with RP on a lot of things but his stance on abortion bothers me.

That is an interesting topic that can be discussed ad nauseum after the GOP convention.

The question that must be asked right now is did you come here with an innocent question, or do you have another agenda?

The abortion question is one that will not be answered right now to anyone's satisfaction. It can only be divisive. It is a red herring.

Let's drop it for now.

 

[SL89]

That is an interesting topic that can be discussed ad nauseum after the GOP convention.

The question that must be asked right now is did you come here with an innocent question, or do you have another agenda?

The abortion question is one that will not be answered right now to anyone's satisfaction. It can only be divisive. It is a red herring.

Let's drop it for now.

Why?? it is not a red herring. Life is life , the definition of a "viable" fetus changes daily. It is legal fact, that a woman that was beat by some punk and she aborted the baby can be charged with murder. Funny, that pro abortionists lobbied for third trimester termination and yet, as every year passes the same doctors are keeping the same so called fetuses alive earlier and earlier. It shames me that libertarians talk about personal responsibility, except in sexual matters. What a cop out. Keep the damn thing in your pants and or keep you legs closed. Sex was meant for procreation period. All this talk about legalizing drugs and the right to travel, How about the right to life??? Sex is good but, not worth murder. My wife and I time our love making. 3 of our 4 kids were unplanned, so what. I am an adult and I am married. Talk all you want about viability (nothing but a cheap excuse) It comes down to personal responsibility, SEX does not make a relationship. But, sex IS about procreation. It is a biological fact!

 

[Sam I am]

I agree with RP on a lot of things but his stance on abortion bothers me. Most people on here seem to agree with him so hopefully I'll get some good thought-provoking responses. Even if one believes that human life begins at conception and is personally against abortion I don't see how the government getting involved and banning it would be a good idea producing a positive outcome. Like with drugs, prostitution, gambling, anything that people want, making it illegal doesn't make it disappear it merely moves it underground. Banning abortion will not stop women from having them. But it would make abortions very dangerous and much more traumatizing. Keeping it legal and regulating it makes it a safe medical procedure. If abortion was banned there would presumably be an exception for victims impregnated because of rape. This loophole would certainly be abused since anyone wanting an abortion could try to claim this to get it done legally. I get why someone personally would be morally against abortion, I don't get wanting to force this moral belief onto everyone using legal measures. Can someone please give me a reasonable explanation why the the law should compromise the liberty of a fully grown women to do what she wants with her own body to protect the life something living inside her which for weeks doesn't even have a working brain?

But unlike drugs, prostitution and gambling, one person is making a decision about the life of another person