conflicted on abortion issue

[jgmaynard]

Well, this one got off track (surprise surprise!)...

My comment to the original poster:

I am also pro-choice and I even voted for Bill Clinton in 92 based largely (but not entirely) on the abortion issue. I've set that aside for Dr. Paul. My sister, who is the most liberal person I know, lifelong union member and huge union supporter, told me the other day that she's put her vehement pro-choice advocacy in favor of supporting Ron as well.

Here's why:

1) The only two times in my LIFE that I have ever voted for someone with whom I agree 100% of the time are the two times I ran for office myself. Someone who agrees with you 90% of the time is not your enemy (to paraphrase Reagan).

2) There are tens of thousands of men, women and children dying in Iraq every year. Ron is the top candidate who will honestly get us out of there ASAP. The American involvement there has to stop. Ron is our best chance of making that happen.

Just my thoughts.

JM

 

[wildflower]

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

Why a Human Embryo or Fetus is Not a Parasite

by Thomas L. Johnson
Libertarians for Life


1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.


2. a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.


3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.

b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.


4. a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).

b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.


5. a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).

b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.


6. a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host.

b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" , indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.


7. a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.

b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.


8. a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).

b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.


A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).

A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive,healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

 

[Sandy]

All this nonsense about a concept, a term.

Ask yourselves this, if there were no soul, what is of inherent value to human existence? Are humans the only creatures you feel this way towards?

The irony is that so many pro-lifers see value only in human existence, where this model one day will be applied to the callous nature of dealings with life that may equal our intellectual and empathetic conditions... artificial life, life outside this world...

Do you really believe pro-choice people are misinformed, about as something as important as human existence, human value? Are we really that cold, that heartless, that was refuse to heed to the possibility of human value, human experience starting at conception?

Keep in mind that these people are usually the same people who think greater primates should have some expanded "human" rights.

These are the same people most of you would call "tree huggers"

Are these people what you think they are? Who is misinformed, and in what way?

The value of a woman's way of life, is greater than the value of an unborn fetus. Think about that.


"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). "

-Ayn Rand

Please explain what you mean by "the value of a woman's way of life". I'm a woman, so I'd like for you to explain what you are talking about. What way of life? Sexually irresponsible? The instant gratification way of life?

As for Ayn Rand's quote, I'm going to replace it with some other things.

"A woman has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual male. A woman cannot acquire any rights until it gets a sex change. Men take precedence over the not yet male (or the female)."

The biggest thing that stood out about Rand's statement is the word child, she was obviously struggling.

 

[Corydoras]

That's a great find. I can use that info with a friend of mine.
However, one point is wrong:

6. a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host.

b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" , indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.

A mother's body CAN form a disease reaction against the baby. It's called Rh disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rh_disease
Granted, it IS an abnormal condition, but it DOES happen.

 

[Corydoras]

I found the video I was looking for.
http://www.createhealth.org/dimensional.html
Click on the banner for the "photo gallery" and look at the motion picture of the 11-week-old fetus. It isn't a lump of cells.

Mind you, I hate being around live babies-- they are loud, messy, and uncivilized-- so I have no emotional bias toward things that look like fetuses. I've also handled dead fetuses ranging from 11 weeks to 38 weeks, both dissected and intact. And I've handled a lot of tumors and some healthy tissues. It's simply obvious from a structural perspective that fetuses are human organisms and not organs, much less lumps of disorganized cells like tumors.

A practical problem in terms of jurisprudence is that by 11 weeks, some women still do not recognize that they are pregnant. But clearly this genetically distinct, anatomically organized, and human tissue inside them has a working nervous system.

 

[Vjklander]

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.

True, but you also have to realize that a federal government powerful enough to legalize abortion nationally or powerful enough to outlaw it nationally is powerful enough to MANDATE it nationally. (see China)

 

[Corydoras]

a federal government powerful enough to legalize abortion nationally or powerful enough to outlaw it nationally is powerful enough to MANDATE it nationally. (see China)

I have been worried about this for some time. Insurance companies would just love it if they could pressure women into abortions if their fetuses are likely to be born with expensive medical needs, and the insurance lobby has the money to get the government to back it.

One thing that infuriates me about the pro-choice movement is that they showed absolutely NO concern (as far as my web searches have shown) for forced abortion. Choice means choice! Or as feminists say in another context, no means no!

 

[ClassicalLiberal]

One thing that infuriates me about the pro-choice movement is that they showed absolutely NO concern (as far as my web searches have shown) for forced abortion. Choice means choice! Or as feminists say in another context, no means no!

Maybe that's because there is no movement in America advocating forced abortion, but there is one advocating the revocation of what they believe to be a fundamental right to choose to have one. Obviously the pro-choice movement is not going to focus its time and attention on a non-existent problem.

 

[Corydoras]

One would think all these liberal do-gooders who protest violations of human rights all over the world would have given a **** about all those Chinese women forced into having abortions, but they didn't. They certainly get all excited over Republican administrations cutting aid to family planning groups in other countries that provide or refer to abortion services.

 

[Paulite5112007]

If a woman at X weeks along in pregnancy (where X= number of weeks you consider it a separate life -1? 11? 30?) and has an abortion this would be considered murder? I believe this is the position of Dr. Paul, that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is no different than murder.

What about a miscarriage? Involutary manslaughter? Would you prosecute a woman who was smoking while pregnant and had a miscarriage? What about one who did illegal drugs?- how about after Ron Paul eliminates federal drug laws? What about babies who were stillborn - doctor's or mother's fault?

I know under Dr. Paul these would be states issues. Trying to solve one problem in this manner, you create many many more and end up with more litigation and legal blame to spread around. Calling a fetus a human has many more implications than I can explore in this topic...

 

[TurtleBurger]

What about a miscarriage? Involutary manslaughter?

No that would be a natural death, like an aneurysm. No one sues over aneurysms.

Would you prosecute a woman who was smoking while pregnant and had a miscarriage? What about one who did illegal drugs?- how about after Ron Paul eliminates federal drug laws?

Same results as if a woman exposed a 3-year-old to crack until the child died. I don't see extreme difficulty here. If the woman used drugs with the intention of killing the child, it's 1st degree murder; otherwise some lesser charge would suffice.

What about babies who were stillborn - doctor's or mother's fault?

Again, this is an unavoidable natural death. No liability would be necessary.

Treat a preborn legally the same as a 3-year-old, a 10-year-old, or any other age. The details really aren't that complicated.

 

[bbachtung]

I know. Our Iowa Campaign office is sponsoring 100000 pro life slim jims for all churches in Iowa. This issue does not distinguish Ron Paul sufficiently from other candidates and is rather heavy topic. But I know it is very important here so I am on board with it as many need to know where he stands on this issue before they will even listen to him about anything else. And I really admire that he really sticks to his guns on this issue when it is easy to be wobbly like me on this. I am coming around to his view though, but to me this is a side issue - getting less govt is the big one. So we just go along with him - so we may lose a few votes, but at least we know our candidate stands by his convictions and that is a huge relief to me.

The following might be a good resource if someone questions RP versus Huckabee (or any other pro-life candidate):

Federalizing Social Policy

January 30, 2006

As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision- making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.

Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.

Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=446

AND

April 30, 2001

Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law

As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I am steadfastly opposed to abortion. I strongly believe that a fetus is a human life, and that a fetus deserves the same legal protections afforded to all Americans. I also believe that the Roe v. Wade decision will prove to be the most flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. There is no real or imagined "right to abortion" in the Constitution under any serious interpretation of that document. The Supreme Court simply created a nonexistent constitutional right out of thin air to serve the political agenda of the justices.

Thirty years later, the pro-life fight goes on. Well-intentioned pro-life advocates supported a bill in Congress last week called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, believing it represented a step toward restoring respect for unborn life. Unfortunately, the bill does not accord any human or legal status to fetuses, but rather creates a new federal penalty for harming the mother of a fetus. The reasoning is deeply flawed: if there is to be a greater penalty for harming a pregnant woman than an ordinary woman, it must be based on the harm to the unborn child. In other words, the enhanced penalty must be for the second offense to the second human life. Yet the legislation evades this fundamental truth by refusing to recognize the fetus as a human person. So the Act is seriously flawed and will not engender new respect for unborn life.

Worse yet, the Act serves to legitimize and further entrench the Roe v. Wade decision. Like Roe, the Act federalizes law which the Constitution properly leaves to the states. Constitutionally, virtually all crimes are state matters. The only true federal crimes are those listed in Article I (treason, piracy, and counterfeiting); all other crimes are left to the jurisdiction of the states under the 10th Amendment. Yet Congress finds it much easier to federalize every human evil rather than uphold the Constitution and respect states' rights. Impassioned pro-life Americans might want a federal criminal law protecting fetuses, but in truth the federal government is more likely to pass laws favoring abortion rather than outlawing it. Once we allow federal control over abortion, we lose the opportunity for states to enact pro-life legislation. Numerous states already have laws that punish the act of murder against a fetus. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. All abortion foes must understand that the real battle should be fought at the state level, where grassroots respect for life can influence state legislatures.

The tragic irony is that the proposed legislation specifically protects abortionists from prosecution for harming a pregnant mother and her unborn child. An attacker with no knowledge of a woman's pregnancy receives a greater penalty for his deed, while the abortionist with full knowledge of his actions is not charged. So much for increasing respect for life.

Political expediency is never an excuse for ignoring the Constitution. The Supreme Court did so in Roe v. Wade, with tragic consequences. The states are now unable to enact laws to protect the weakest, smallest, and most innocent human lives. A society that does not respect life cannot be expected to respect liberty. Our goal must be to restore respect for the Constitution and states' rights. Only then can states properly restore respect for unborn life by criminalizing the act of abortion.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=198

 

[Paulite5112007]

No that would be a natural death, like an aneurysm. No one sues over aneurysms.


Same results as if a woman exposed a 3-year-old to crack until the child died. I don't see extreme difficulty here. If the woman used drugs with the intention of killing the child, it's 1st degree murder; otherwise some lesser charge would suffice.

Again, this is an unavoidable natural death. No liability would be necessary.

Treat a preborn legally the same as a 3-year-old, a 10-year-old, or any other age. The details really aren't that complicated.

Who is to judge whether a miscarriage was from a natural cause or intentional cause? Lawyers I presume - as soon as you declare a fetus a human life, some father is going to accuse his girlfriend of causing a miscarriage. Unless you simply declare ALL miscarriages natural deaths. But the this would simply become the new method of abortion.

Hard to prove, without a trial, whether the child died from crack cocaine, smoking or simple 'natural causes' (any autopsy result would be challenged). Prosecute at what level of intoxication? What drugs? Over the counter drugs? When to test? Sounds like a job for judges, lawyers and juries...

As far as stillborns go...any mother who lost a child at birth is under such traumatic stress that any chance to blame others is welcome. Parents would sue under the guise of "finding the truth". There would need to be some law passed that protected doctors from being sued in a civil court for wrongful death. I would imagine an entire parade of expert witnesses arrive on the scene of the courthouse floor who can prove to a jury the doctor was responsible under civil law.

It is not as simple as you may think because there is a massive difference in the status of life, care and responsibility of a fetus and 3 year old.


EDIT: I support Ron Paul and his wishes to make this a states issue, I just dont see it as simple as declaring life begins at conception witout addressing the other, very serious consequences. I think, personally, the best solution is to educate people to just plain not get pregnant unless they want too.

 

[sharedvoice]

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?

Is pro-abortion ethical? That phrase just sounds a little strange.

Dr. Paul advocates the right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. Basically, in order to respect Liberty we must also respect life.

Dr. Paul is qualified in his position to defend the right of the unborn in this country, he can ALSO bringing consensus on this important issue, WITHOUT the need for a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Corydoras]

As far as stillborns go...any mother who lost a child at birth is under such traumatic stress that any chance to blame others is welcome. Parents would sue under the guise of "finding the truth". There would need to be some law passed that protected doctors from being sued in a civil court for wrongful death. I would imagine an entire parade of expert witnesses arrive on the scene of the courthouse floor who can prove to a jury the doctor was responsible under civil law.

Doctors get sued about stillbirth all the time. This is not a frontier in law.

 

[Swmorgan77]

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?

The guy has delivered 4,000 babies and still feels the way he does about abortion. Is it possible that his opinion on the issue is based on a better foundation than your own?

I know I'm not going to change your mind, and I think there is enough common ground for all of us to come together on that differences like this are not a problem, but I think its a question that is worth asking.

 

[Fyretrohl]

What is hard to defend about the fact that it is not a matter for the Federal Government based on the current constitution. Ron Paul HAS moved to try to make it part of that, but, still leaves it to the states. At the state level, each of us has a better chance to influence the decision individually. So, one state can out law it and another can make it legal. I can then choose to live in the state that follows my beliefs.

 

[vertesc]

I'm also pro-choice, but Paul's stance doesn't bother me, because I acknowledge that it's a thorny moral issue. It is absolutely inappropriate for moral issues to be decided at the Federal level. I'm with Paul when he says that the trickier the issue the more local should be the solution.

Also, I'm against late-term abortion. There is a hazy line between conception and life, but in the last weeks, when the baby could literally fall out and survive on its own... there's no question there in my mind.

 

[Paulite5112007]

I still think the declaring "life begins at conception" causes too many legal problems...and it is certainly not as simple as some groups make it sound.

 

[Kade]

Please explain what you mean by "the value of a woman's way of life". I'm a woman, so I'd like for you to explain what you are talking about. What way of life? Sexually irresponsible? The instant gratification way of life?

As for Ayn Rand's quote, I'm going to replace it with some other things.

"A woman has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual male. A woman cannot acquire any rights until it gets a sex change. Men take precedence over the not yet male (or the female)."

The biggest thing that stood out about Rand's statement is the word child, she was obviously struggling.

Your judgment on others sexual irresponsibility is daunting and callous. You also seemed to avoid my appeal to the intent of people who do value life still believers in a choice. Instant gratification way of life would seemingly define many ways of life, including the Christian principle of immortality. I don't see how you are allowed to make those judgments against other people.

You believe that the government has a right to force a woman to bear an unwanted child, I believe no one should have that right except the mother.

In fairness and neutrality of positions, the default is to each his own. You can ban yourself from having an abortion, and I won't advocate that you should. Sounds fair to me.

And just because you seem to be confused on Miss Rand's position:

I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object...Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves 'pro-life.'
— Ayn Rand