Banning abortion doesn't make sense to me.

[NoOneButPaul]

10th amendment is really the way to go with all the social issues...

 

[PierzStyx]

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.

How in HADES can you morally justify that? If a woman is KILLING a child, or a doctor is KILLING a child, then they are committing one of the grossest acts of violence one can commit -murder. And that against the ones most unable to defend themselves against the attack. To stand back and let someone get away with what you acknowledge as murder is evil.

 

[PierzStyx]

Its simple. The Doctor acknowledges that our rights are inherent in our humanity. We gain rights for simply being humans. And it is always so. Whether a fetus is a fully developed human is irrelevant. Our rights are imbedded in our very human-ness (if you will) and our human-ness, or humanity, is based on our genetic material. Human egg and human sperm combine to form a human zygote. This is clearly distinguishable from other mammals in that it is human. So even then, in the earliest beginnings of life, it has rights. Now, obviously it cannot enact all those rights. That is what makes it so important that we protect the foundational right of all rights, of the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" none other can exist if first the right to life is not preserved.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Why?? it is not a red herring.

I must have been mistaken. Carry on...

 

[SL89]

I must have been mistaken. Carry on...

Oh never mind. The product of irresponsible acts of passion have no bearing on the matter.

 

[Billy_McBong]

You know the unborn is harmed because it ends up dead.

If the unborn cant realize it's alive nor feel pain then who has been harmed? Forcing a women to bear(and raise) a child she doesn't want to have obviously will create a lot of harm. Not only for the mother but for the child who most likely grow up in a bad environment.

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.

Uh no I didn't come here with another agenda not even sure what angeda you are susspecting me of having haha. If people don't wanna talk about it they can simply ignore my thread.

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

That's very debatable whether embryos and fetuses are human life. That should be a decision which is made by the pregant lady not by the government.

Our rights are imbedded in our very human-ness (if you will) and our human-ness, or humanity, is based on our genetic material. Human egg and human sperm combine to form a human zygote. This is clearly distinguishable from other mammals in that it is human. So even then, in the earliest beginnings of life, it has rights.

Why should it have rights? Merely because it has the genetic code to grow into a full human? I would say being born makes us a unique life form separate from that of the mother. But since this is such a debatable issue it should be left up to the person who is carrying said zygote, not decided for her by the government.

But again I feel people are missing the point. I'm not as much looking to discuss whether abortions are morally right or wrong. I'm asking how enforcing this morallity by law could possibly be a practical and good idea. It obviously wouldn't make abortions stop happening. Even when they were illegal women still had them, except they were forced to have them done in a much much much worse fashion then they are now. We should not be putting the health and lives of adult US citizens at risk over the life of an embryo.

 

[BamaAla]

You know what we haven't had in about 35 minutes? A good argument over abortion...we should do that.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Uh no I didn't come here with another agenda not even sure what angeda you are susspecting me of having haha. If people don't wanna talk about it they can simply ignore my thread.

Sorry Billy McBong, I didn't know you came here for a serious conversation. At the same time, there is a lot of pointless divisiveness in the last week or so. Sometimes it's hard to separate the wheat from the chafe. We hope that new people who are recently learning about Ron Paul do come here.

 

[emazur]

Banning, either at the state or federal level, doesn't make much sense to me either. States have historically banned contraception and actually caused women to have more illegal abortions:


Ron wisely said that states can't ban contraception b/c that would violate the interstate commerce act (this isn't something he's consistent on though: he says states can ban drugs but wouldn't that also be a violation of interstate commerce?)

Apparently, abortion is most prevalent where it is illegal:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_...on-where-its-illegal-where-are-rates-highest/

The new global abortion study - that's published in the Jan. 19 issue of The Lancet - is from the U.S.-based Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization. Researchers found a link between higher abortion rates and regions with more restrictive legislation, such as in Latin America and Africa. They also found that 95 to 97 percent of abortions in those regions were unsafe.

Experts couldn't say whether more liberal laws led to fewer procedures, but said good access to birth control in those countries resulted in fewer unwanted pregnancies.

About 47,000 women died from unsafe abortions in 2008, and another 8.5 million women had serious medical complications. Almost all unsafe abortions were in developing countries, where family planning and contraceptive programs have mostly levelled off.

"An abortion is actually a very simple and safe procedure," Gilda Sedgh, study author and senior researcher at the Guttmacher Institute, said. "All of these deaths and complications are easily avoidable."

If abortion was banned by certain states in America, they would almost certainly just travel across state lines to have their abortions performed. Abortion is illegal is Ireland and the women just go to Britain to get them done:

The British Department of Health has released figures which reveal that 12 Irish women travel across to Britain to have abortions every day. Abortion is illegal in Ireland.

Last year 4,422 women who used abortion clinics in Britain gave Irish addresses.

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Ir...ons-every-day-by-the-dozen.html#ixzz1rKNKKsZI

Stats show that many women who have abortions now go on to have children later. Reasons given for abortion (2004):
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

Not ready for a(nother) child†/timing is wrong 25
Can’t afford a baby now 23

It can be argued that a women who does abort now when she isn't ready is a woman who doesn't abort later when she is in the position to better care for a child. Also, many women who have an abortion do so b/c they feel it would detract from raising the children they already have:
http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...tatistic_the_majority_of _women_who_ter.html

But why do mothers have so many abortions in the first place? Jones co-authored a qualitative study titled "I Would Want To Give My Child, Like, Everything in the World: How Issues of Motherhood Influence Women Who Have Abortions," which found that most mothers who abort say they are doing so to protect the kids they already have. As Jones points out, that rationale is tough to demonize politically, especially when you consider that most women making this choice are contending with some combination of low income, unemployment, and a lack of health insurance, or are struggling to raise kids on their own.

Even if abortion was banned, I doubt it would last very long.

I don't know when to define when a fetus becomes a human, but I don't believe it begins at conception. It's a potential life as far as I'm concerned. FYI, Wikipedia says that 25% to 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage (spontaneous abortion)

Prospective studies using very sensitive early pregnancy tests have found that 25% of pregnancies are miscarried by the sixth week LMP (since the woman's Last Menstrual Period).[53][54] However, other sources reports suggest higher rates. One fact sheet from the University of Ottawa states, "The incidence of spontaneous abortion is estimated to be 50% of all pregnancies, based on the assumption that many pregnancies abort spontaneously with no clinical recognition.

All that said, although I oppose bans on abortion, people who find it morally repugnant (or people who just don't want pay) should be forced by government to help pay for abortion, so any federal or state money that goes an organization that provides abortion services needs to come to a stop.

Also, I mostly agree with what Peter Schiff says about abortion:

 

[LibertyEagle]

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.

I said you were incorrect and you were. The only exception to it was when you went back and added an edit to your post to mention that specsaregood might be right. He also said you were incorrect.

It's not a big deal. I was confused about Dr. Paul's position for a long time too. It just didn't seem logical to me. It all made sense when I saw that note from Ron Paul. That is why I posted it here, in hopes it would clear things up for others too.

 

[LibertyEagle]

10th amendment is really the way to go with all the social issues...

It's not a social issue. It is taking the life of another human being.

 

[dancjm]

Ron has pointed out that the law reflects the attitudes of the people. It's the attitudes of the people that must be changed. The aim would be over time to appeal to people on an intellectual and moral level in the hopes of influencing a change in attitudes. Just writing laws does not work.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

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 don't want one answer for all, I don't want federal laws, I don't want amendments to the Constitution. I just don't think it's the prerogative of the federal government to be involved.

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.

Ron Paul obviously doesn't believe that, otherwise he'd be a mass murderer for prescribing hormonal birth control, morning after pills, and estrogen shots after a rape to prevent implantation. Worse, he'd be promoting mass murder by saying all of these are good things in national interviews.

 

[Kluge]

Ban abortion all day long, from all angles--you will never, ever be able to stop it. It's been going on almost as long as prostitution.

There is a better way--education.

 

[Working Poor]

Ban abortion all day long, from all angles--you will never, ever be able to stop it. It's been going on almost as long as prostitution.

There is a better way--education.

You are right about education but it really needs to come from the parents. I think sex ed in schools has made teen pregnancy rates rise.

I think women need to have much better talks with their daughters. Girls need to be taught to recognize when they are ovulating. This would solve so many problems. It would make women start paying attention to their bodies. I think every girl going thru puberty should be given an ovulation test kit. I think boys need to see their sperm under the microscope. If these functions are handled in a scientific manner I think everyone would have more respect for each other and themselves.

 

[No Free Beer]

How in HADES can you morally justify that? If a woman is KILLING a child, or a doctor is KILLING a child, then they are committing one of the grossest acts of violence one can commit -murder. And that against the ones most unable to defend themselves against the attack. To stand back and let someone get away with what you acknowledge as murder is evil.

Because Keith is a hypocrite. If he can't morally justify protecting innocence, he cannot justify his position on the wars.

 

[No Free Beer]

As I wrote above, I am pro-life. It's a big issue with me. In fact, I couldn't be w/ a woman who would be pro-choice, just wont happen.

That being said, I feel that banning it would cause such danger all across the country. When women wouldn't be allowed to see professionals (Doctors), they would find other means. In desperate situations, they would try to do it themselves, especially younger women. Think about this: A high school girl, or college girl finds out she is pregnant and her parents are strict pro-lifers. She is scared and doesn't know what to do. She tries to do it herself and not only kills the baby (which would happen anyway), but hurts herself, possibly killing herself.

Someone above wrote, "education." We are way past that, guys. I am in college and I hear the way women talk to/about each other, when it comes to sex. It is very disturbing. The world has changed. Women have been brainwashed into believing they have the right to murder innocence. Also, all the sex that surrounds them, which is more acceptable these days, doesn't help their point of view. They have the attitude, "if guys can do it, so can we."

It's an extremely complex situation and I don't know what the answer is...and that is unfortunate.

 

[asurfaholic]

When my wife was pregnant, we tried a few experiments. One thing we did was put a cold ice pack on the side of my wifes belly. After a minute or so, the baby noticibly shifted away from the cold pack. Another thing we did was take a super bright flash light and shine it in, the baby started touching that area and became active.

So the baby can feel cold, and have a physical response to light, but can't feel pain? Please... maybe you just lack empathy and refuse to believe it, but the baby inside the womb is a real human.

Besides, once it is morally ok to kill a baby before its born, then soon it will be ok to kill it shortly after being born, due to defects or medical issues. Then it really seems unfair to me that a woman can choose to kill her inconvenient baby, but I can't kill my neighbor who had me arrested on false charges.

Kiling is wrong. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex. Take birth control if you must, but once a woman spreads her legs, she is opening the door for a new life to be created. This obviously should be taught in the family.

Even if you do get preggo, there are other options if you don't want it.... you know.. give it up for adoption, so the millions of people who want kids, but can't have them, can have one.

 

[No Free Beer]

When my wife was pregnant, we tried a few experiments. One thing we did was put a cold ice pack on the side of my wifes belly. After a minute or so, the baby noticibly shifted away from the cold pack. Another thing we did was take a super bright flash light and shine it in, the baby started touching that area and became active.

So the baby can feel cold, and have a physical response to light, but can't feel pain? Please... maybe you just lack empathy and refuse to believe it, but the baby inside the womb is a real human.

Besides, once it is morally ok to kill a baby before its born, then soon it will be ok to kill it shortly after being born, due to defects or medical issues. Then it really seems unfair to me that a woman can choose to kill her inconvenient baby, but I can't kill my neighbor who had me arrested on false charges.

Kiling is wrong. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex. Take birth control if you must, but once a woman spreads her legs, she is opening the door for a new life to be created. This obviously should be taught in the family.

Even if you do get preggo, there are other options if you don't want it.... you know.. give it up for adoption, so the millions of people who want kids, but can't have them, can have one.

I would just say that most people argue whether life begins at conception or not.

 

[wistfulthinker]

If the unborn cant realize it's alive nor feel pain then who has been harmed? Forcing a women to bear(and raise) a child she doesn't want to have obviously will create a lot of harm. Not only for the mother but for the child who most likely grow up in a bad environment.

We certainly can not measure harm by whether the target feels pain. If you were to use that measure, there would be no harm in cutting off the legs of a man who had suffered a spinal injury and had no feeling in his legs. Likewise, brains have no pain receptors so it would cause no harm to drill out bits of brain. That measure of harm just doesn't stand.

You also propose consciousness awareness of self as a measure of harm. By this measure, people with damage to certain parts of the brain, ante cephalic babies, people with late state degenerative brain diseases are caused no harm if killed. Again, the argument doesn't stand.

I guess I even question your notion of harm. I think you mentioned a carrot before. Since a carrot doesn't sense pain and doesn't know its alive, there's no harm in eating it. Well, pulling the carrot out of the ground still kills the carrot. It was alive and now it's not. Seems like harm to me.

The abortion debate isn't about whether the fetus is harmed; we all know that it is. It ends up dead. The debate is about whether society has a moral/legal obligation to protect this form of human life. There will always be mothers who kill their progeny -- some unborn, some born. We are debating at what point in the development of that progeny our laws should bar a stronger individual from taking a God given right to life.

That's very debatable whether embryos and fetuses are human life. That should be a decision which is made by the pregant lady not by the government.

But no one debates that even a zygote is alive. It meets all the scientific definitions of life. As do all the cells in your body, including the sperm and egg before fertilization. No one debates that the developing embryo is human. Just as a cell in your liver is a "human" cell. A living human cell. We are debating whether this form of human life is covered under the inalienable right to life upon which our constitution is based.

I'm not saying it's an easily answered question, but we need to engage in the debate honestly. Not pretend a zygote isn't alive or that harm is measured by the experience of pain.