Other: Did Ron Paul Convince you on Abortion?

[Bman]

If the question is if I have become pro-life because of Ron I would have to say no.

It's not that abortion is right. It's not that we shouldn't try to prevent unwanted pregnancies that lead to these decisions. It's what I see as a humane action towards people who decide to have or give abortions. I think society should strive for the day that we commit no acts of murder, but there's no punishment I can give to a person that would be worse than their own guilt. Look at Norma McCorvey. That poor woman knows she made a mistake. Wishes that someone could have stopped her. Hopefully she can help someone make a better decision. I still don't think she should be jailed. Nor do I think anyone else should. I think Ron is wrong to want government to have a say in this. It means he is for the use of force. This is an area where I think force is not an answer.

 

[Roxi]

Sort of. I was always pro life for myself, kind of judged people who did it (okay I totally judged them), but still thought it was the choice of the parents involved.

I can't say when, or if it was anything specific, but even being a Voluntarist, I view it as murder, and should be dealt with as murder is in the state that it happens.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Defending the idea of life logically involves the smallest and most delicate humans. Government funding and legislation of this moral issue should be stopped. I can't think of something more immoral than to force people (taxation) to fund a relentless attempt to convert a mothers womb into a lethal injection death chamber.

Dr. Paul sealed the deal on my views.

Dear Awake,

Please post more often.


SF

 

[Tankbot85]

Nope. Still Pro Choice. It is none of my business what personal decisions people make between them and their doctor.

 

[Eagles' Wings]

Nah, I was already against killing babies. I don't care if it makes certain women mad, sucking up to immoral women is for chumps. When I was younger though I might have said I was for it.



Under this logic women should be allowed to strangle people because after all her hands, her body.

If abortion is legal then men should be under no obligation to pay child's support to a woman. He should have the same ability to thwart his responsibilities that she does. We live in a misandrist culture when a woman has every right to kill the baby growing inside her if she doesn't want to assume responsibility for parenting it but if a man doesn't want to assume this same responsibility watch out. He's a deadbeat dad, a no good chump. He needs to 'man up' and 'take care of his'. But when the same standard is applied to a woman it's all 'back off!' 'Her body, her choice!' Well that's a bullshit anti-male double standard and no one who's truly for liberty should support it. & by the way I think that the idea of 'getting the government out of it' is utopian and silly. That to me just seems like a way to dodge the issue and not take a stand on it. Government certainly will stay in it, probably for our whole lives. So we should try to affect the laws that we live under under our government, because realistically it isn't going anywhere. And if that means alienating some people I say fuck it, even if it's people you want to have sex with.

+rep

Interesting ideas.

 

[KingRobbStark]

I keep hearing the typical "Her body, her choice" mantra, but I have a mantra of my own, "My semen, my say."

If you don't accept that, then don't expect any child support.

 

[economics102]

I'm in favor of abortion being legal at every stage. This is possibly the one issue Ron Paul has not convinced me on.

However, Ron Paul has helped me understand the argument in favor of the fetus' right to life, and while I don't agree with the ultimate conclusion, I have a lot more respect for the argument and understand how he comes to his conclusion.

Certainly I can understand why someone who has spent his life delivering babies would feel strongly on this issue.

On the other hand, as someone else in this thread pointed out, there are no shortage of tragic stories involving pregnant women who suffer due to pregnancies.

Further, tragic stories don't trump principle. For example, if certain economic regulations actually improve the economy, that does not morally justify interfering with free trade.

So, not convinced, but Ron Paul has had a substantial impact on how I view the issue.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Just curious, because he convinced me about the immorality of the wars and the real danger to our civil liberties. He seems to be the only pro-life candidate/politician who could actually convince people about the immorality of abortion because of his stance on other issues. Just curious though, not trying to start a debate about abortion.

Yes, he did. I was leaning that way after doing some research on eugenics, but Ron Paul knocked it out of the park.

 

[nasaal]

No. This is the issue I am most at odds with when it comes to Ron Paul. I don't care about the issue so it doesn't effect my desire to see a Ron Paul presidency, but if I did care about it it might be a deal breaker.

 

[Adrock]

Ron Paul didn't change my mind on abortion. He did help me better understand why I am Pro-Life. That better understanding did convince me on war though. I feel like I have a much more consistent viewpoint on life now.

 

[presence]

Well, if the baby in the story was 8 months along, what about 7 1/2 months? Still a baby or just a fetus? If it's a baby, what about 7 months? What about 6 1/2? Where does one draw the line between baby and fetus? I eventually concluded that a baby is a baby no matter how small.

I disagree.

I believe that we should shift the cutoff line from "viability" to "embryo/fetus transition" which occurs at week 10/12. I'm a believer in intravaginal ultrasound if you want such a procedure to prove the child is not over a certain legal weight indicative of organ development; a brain. I think there should be a legislated weight of maximum embryo size to be aborted, for all social reasons to abort, simple as that. As it stands 80% of all abortions currently occur before week 12 anyway. I also agree with an abortion to prevent eminent mortality of the mother, at her request, up until the time of birth. I'd go so far as to say that there needs to be a representative of the people to record aborted embryo weight factored into the cost of the procedure, and the doctor (or anyone else performing the procedure) would be liable for manslaughter charges over a certain weight. Perhaps a three strikes rule. Generally, I believe aborting fetuses is wrong and criminal, but I have no problem with pre-organ-development embryos in light of the various social reasons to abort.

presence

 

[EBounding]

Ron Paul didn't change my mind on abortion. He did help me better understand why I am Pro-Life. That better understanding did convince me on war though. I feel like I have a much more consistent viewpoint on life now.

Same here. Even when I supported the wars, I was still uncomfortable with "collateral damage" and the fact that the wars were never declared. It feels great not to have that conflict anymore.

When it comes to abortion, viability is irrelevant; it's the respect for human life that matters. We need to respect life whether the child is in the womb or thousands of miles away in a warzone that we don't see.

 

[CaptUSA]

Reasonable people can disagree where to draw this line.

(Personally, I think once the zygote is properly impregnated, all bets are off. In my view, this allows for a morning after pill that prevents impregnation. Similar to Dr. Paul's view, but not entirely.)

However, one thing we can all agree on is that this decision is not best placed in the hands of a federal government.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Before Ron Paul I was pro life but deeply ashamed of it. After Ron Paul I was pro life and no longer ashamed.

 

[philipped]

Nope. Still Pro Choice. It is none of my business what personal decisions people make between them and their doctor.

This.

 

[eduardo89]

I respect Ron's position, but I don't necessarily agree with him that it should be handled at the state level, nor do I consider him 100% pro-life as he is not against contraception and morning after pills, which are completely anti-life.

That said, I think Ron is miles ahead of 99% of the rest of Congress when it comes to this issue.

 

[MaxPower]

I was pro-life before I had ever heard of Ron Paul, though I was greatly pleased, in the course of learning about him, to see how closely his understanding of the abortion issue matched mine.

 

[amartin315]

He made me appreciate the pro-life point of view more, but I am still pretty much pro-choice.

I think it should be left to individual states, or better yet, individual courts to decide who is on the wrong side of the 'non-agression principle' in every individual case.

For example, if a woman was raped she never agreed to have the fetus inside her and thus she is off the hook.

If a woman was not raped, she has to face up to her decision to have sex and carry the baby to term.

I do not believe in an incest exception. That is still consensual and studies show not all babies born of incest inevitably have deformities.

I agree with the view that the woman ought to be able to evict the baby from her property. However I also understand that a court order to evict might involve waiting just a little bit longer until the baby is ready to come out naturally or the court order might involve 'eviction on the spot.'

For all of this you would probably need special "abortion courts" that are able to make decisions much more speedily than regular courts so as not to render decisions moot.

 

[jmdrake]

He made me appreciate the pro-life point of view more, but I am still pretty much pro-choice.

I think it should be left to individual states, or better yet, individual courts to decide who is on the wrong side of the 'non-agression principle' in every individual case.

For example, if a woman was raped she never agreed to have the fetus inside her and thus she is off the hook.

If a woman was not raped, she has to face up to her decision to have sex and carry the baby to term.

I do not believe in an incest exception. That is still consensual and studies show not all babies born of incest inevitably have deformities.

I agree with the view that the woman ought to be able to evict the baby from her property. However I also understand that a court order to evict might involve waiting just a little bit longer until the baby is ready to come out naturally or the court order might involve 'eviction on the spot.'

For all of this you would probably need special "abortion courts" that are able to make decisions much more speedily than regular courts so as not to render decisions moot.

Ron's position on the morning after pill best deals with the rape exception question. Nobody would say that a child born of rape should have any less rights than a child born of consensual sex so why the exception? Because any woman could claim she was raped for abortion purposes. The morning after pill should be available to anybody, rape victim or not. Then theirs no motive to lie if it's not a rape. A rape victim should be able to make up her mind quickly that she doesn't want to carry the baby to term. If she waits past the window where the morning after pill works then she's made a choice for life.

 

[amartin315]

Ron's position on the morning after pill best deals with the rape exception question. Nobody would say that a child born of rape should have any less rights than a child born of consensual sex so why the exception? Because any woman could claim she was raped for abortion purposes. The morning after pill should be available to anybody, rape victim or not. Then theirs no motive to lie if it's not a rape. A rape victim should be able to make up her mind quickly that she doesn't want to carry the baby to term. If she waits past the window where the morning after pill works then she's made a choice for life.

In the rape exception, the woman still has a right to choose... or not to choose. You cannot force her to make a decision, life or death, of another human being (even if that human being is technically by your definition of the morning after pill, still unborn.) Not only can you not do so, but it is morally wrong to force someone who has just been raped to make a decision of such gravity...within any allotted time frame, let alone by the morning after. As long as that baby is inside her she can choose 'evict' or 'not evict.'

When a woman has consensual sex, she has made a choice that she has to live by. No one forced her to make a choice on the spot.

I would not make an exception for incest, unless it was underage incest of course, in which case the rules of rape apply.

There also needs to be an exception for threats to the life of the mother, however rare those cases may be.

EDIT: As to the case of people who lie about whether or not they've been raped, that is just something you have to live with. If it is later found that she lied, she is liable for punishment.