conflicted on abortion issue

[Cigaboo]

I, like many Ron Paul supporters, have developed a lot of enthusiasm for the movement. But there is one point that irritates me sometimes - the abortion issue. It is clearly a difficult ethical issue - moreso than most issues, and I have personally sided on pro-abortion due to my perspective of ethics. I can understand why Ron believes the way he does, but since his view differs from mine, unlike all of the other issues I debate with others in regard to Ron Paul, I have no defense.

I realize that it's fortunate to have found a candidate that I can agree with 95% on, but that other 5% can be a bit nagging. Anybody else feel this way?

 

[bbachtung]

I hope that you can console yourself with two things:

(1) Ron Paul just wants to get the federal government out of the abortion-legalizing or -outlawing business;

(2) Ron Paul is honest and consistent, so you know what you're getting, even with the stuff you disagree with -- how many other candidates can you say that about?

Personally, if I only agreed with 5% of Ron Paul's positions, I'd still choose him because he's honest and principled and follows his oath to uphold the Constitution.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Perhaps under Paul you could just vote on this issues at the State level.

 

[bbachtung]

Another thing that I forgot to mention is that the way things are now one or two Supreme Court justices away from effectively outlawing abortion at the federal level. If you are pro-choice you should realize that a federal government powerful enough to legalize abortion nationally is powerful enough to outlaw it nationally.

 

[Cigaboo]

Good points. That does console me a bit - particularly that he would not ban abortion on the federal level.

 

[bbachtung]

Good points. That does console me a bit - particularly that he would not ban abortion on the federal level.

Exactly. Despite his STRONG pro-life beliefs, he voted AGAINST criminalizing the transport of minors across state lines for abortions because the federal government has no Constitutional authority for such a law.

 

[Man from La Mancha]

Exactly. Despite his STRONG pro-life beliefs, he voted AGAINST criminalizing the transport of minors across state lines for abortions because the federal government has no Constitutional authority for such a law.

Wow good point, I'll remember that one.


.

 

[Cigaboo]

Maybe a positive spin is that this is an example of where Ron Paul demonstrates federal restraint, despite his strong views on the subject.

 

[travismofo]

Maybe a positive spin is that this is an example of where Ron Paul demonstrates federal restraint, despite his strong views on the subject.

That's exactly how it is. There is no spin involved whatsoever.

 

[Bradley in DC]

That's exactly how it is. There is no spin involved whatsoever.

You're not saying we're in the no spin zone are you?

 

[Bradley in DC]

Good points. That does console me a bit - particularly that he would not ban abortion on the federal level.

Also, he's delivered 4,000 babies so he's got some personal knowledge of the issues involved. And even with that, he recognizes that there are different prevailing views in different parts of the country and our federal system should respect that.

 

[expatinireland]

Converting pro-life people to Ron Paul is worrisome

I believe one our campaign's biggest problems is converting pro-life people to come over to the Good Doctor's way of thinking. It seems like there are a considerable number of Republicans who are perfectly happy to have a big government solution to the abortion issue. Many, if not most of these people are those who defected from the Democratic party and came over to the Republican party looking for a different social agenda but brought their big government Democrat ideas with them.

 

[truthbetold]

It Doesn't MAtter

Since, Ron PAul has shown that he will follow the rule of law and constitution. And, the constitution says the federal government has no say either way on abortion.

WHY DO WE CARE WHAT HIS PERSONAL OPINION IS???

It is like the Democratic Debates on Education. They kept asking should a good teacher be rewarded more money.. ect, ect. We are electing a president not the head of a school district. The Govt has no business in my kids classroom screwing up their education.

IF THE PRESIDENT JUST FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION THEN THEY COULD BE A HOMOSEXUAL DRUG ADDICT AND EVERYTHING WOULD BE O.K.

JUST FOLLOW THE CONSTITUION!! THE JOB OF PRESIDENT IS REALLY PRETTY SIMPLE...

 

[AlexK]

I believe abortion is a constitutional issue and has nothing to do with states' rights. It's called a "right to privacy." Of course the problem is it's not so black and white. There are legitimate arguments for making late term abortion illegal. But to say that an hour old microscopic lump of cells is a "human being" and thus doesn't belong to the woman is ridiculous. That's part of her body and she can do whatever the hell she wants with it. What's next? Are we going to make masturbation illegal, because every sperm is potential life? (But I guess if we truly were a Christian nation, masturbation WOULD be illegal. ...Good thing we're not.)

 

[SeanEdwards]

That's part of her body and she can do whatever the hell she wants with it.

But it's not part of her body, and that is an inarguable scientific fact. Run a DNA test on that first embryo cell and it's going to be different from the DNA of the mother, no ifs ands or buts about it. It's simple biology.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinon, but not their own facts.

Edit: A sperm is not a potential life, because it does not carry a complete human genome.

 

[Man from La Mancha]

I believe abortion is a constitutional issue and has nothing to do with states' rights. It's called a "right to privacy." Of course the problem is it's not so black and white. There are legitimate arguments for making late term abortion illegal. But to say that an hour old microscopic lump of cells is a "human being" and thus doesn't belong to the woman is ridiculous. That's part of her body and she can do whatever the hell she wants with it. What's next? Are we going to make masturbation illegal, because every sperm is potential life? (But I guess if we truly were a Christian nation, masturbation WOULD be illegal. ...Good thing we're not.)

Colorado High Court - Fertilized Eggs Are People

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...-egg-as-person

RealTime: Colorado SC Affirms "Egg-as-Person"
Wendy Norris, New Journalist Fellow on November 13, 2007 - 7:59pm
Published under: Access to Abortion | anti-choice activists
In a terse 7-0 decision today, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the state Title Board's approval of a 2008 proposed ballot measure to bestow constitutional rights on fertilized human eggs.

Seven reproductive health advocates filed a legal challenge in August 2007 arguing that the ballot measure authored by Colorado for Equal Rights and approved by the all-male state Title Board did not meet the state's single-subject issue rule and was deceptive in its purpose.

The Court disagreed with the plaintiffs and affirmed the Title Board's action for proposed Initiative 36 which reads:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?

However, in press accounts, Colorado for Equal Rights spokesman Mark Meuser has repeatedly stated that the measure is intended to ban abortion and limit access to contraceptives in direct contradiction to the strict rules governing ballot language.

Proponents of the initiative are expected to easily collect the required 76,000 valid signatures by February 2008 to get the measure on the ballot.



......copy,paste,linked to teaparty07.com , either one, only 1 million people at $100

 

[AlexK]

But it's not part of her body, and that is an inarguable scientific FACT. Run a DNA test on that first embryo cell and it's going to be different from the DNA of the mother, no ifs ands or buts about it. It's simple biology.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinon, but not their own FACTS.

Interesting.

Colorado High Court - Fertilized Eggs Are People

Doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

 

[thisisgiparti]

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Vote to pass a bill that would forbid human cloning and punish violators with up to 10 years in prison and fines of at least $1 million. The bill would ban human cloning, and any attempts at human cloning, for both reproductive purposes and medical research. Also forbidden is the importing of cloned embryos or products made from them.

Reference: Human Cloning Prohibition Act; Bill HR 534 ; vote number 2003-39 on Feb 27, 2003

This confuses me. I can respect Dr. Paul's pro-life sensibilities. Some people are freaked by the bill that defines life as beginning at conception. Then why condone cloning, if life is so sacred to you? I think this issue warrants clarification.

You could argue that if life to you begins at conception, then you can definitely prohibit human cloning with tough legislation.

 

[angelatc]

But it's not part of her body, and that is an inarguable scientific fact. Run a DNA test on that first embryo cell and it's going to be different from the DNA of the mother, no ifs ands or buts about it. It's simple biology.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinon, but not their own facts.

.

It's actually sort of a parasite. It can't live without the host.

The whole thing is that there's no way to stop women from having abortions. Studies show that there's no significant difference in the percentages of women who have abortions in countries where it's legal and countries where it isn't.

Women aren't incubators. We can pass infinite laws and bark sanctimonious opinions about it, but as long as women have minds, they do have a choice.

All anti-abortion laws are doing is taking away the right to have a safe,legal procedure.

Leave people alone, even if they do disagree with you when life begins. They're going to do what they want, and trying to use force to keep them from doing that only serves to fuel hate and intolerence.

 

[angelatc]

I believe abortion is a constitutional issue and has nothing to do with states' rights. It's called a "right to privacy."

Unfortunately, there is not a specific Constitutional right to privacy. If I understand it correctly, it is implied in the 9th. But that right, as it pertains to abortion, will disappear when and if we get a national medical database and/or socialized medicine.