"Is Ron Paul Wrong on Abortion?" by Laurence M. Vance

[Theocrat]

To find his answer, read it here. Take the poll, and post whether or not you believe Dr. Paul is wrong on abortion and why. Does Vance get it right himself?

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

It is yes and no at the same time.
Yes from the point that it is the freedom of women to decide.
No because Ron Paul wants to save lives and I cannot blame anybody who wants to save lives.

But I blame those ignorants and hypocrites who claim to be pro lives and at the same time they vote for McCain or Guliani etc.... which means they vote for war, which means they do not care about lives.

Any pro life should be anti-war and anyone claims to be a pro life and vote for war is a hypocrite.

And that is why Ron Paul is the true pro life in my opinion!

 

[RustyBrewster]

What I've always found funny is the pro-abortion people are for the most part, anti-death penalty.

And the anti-abortion people tend to be pro-death penalty.

 

[therealjjj77]

I believe Dr. Paul is right about Life. I believe in preserving life too. I believe that the right to live is from conception and trumps the preferences of the mother.

 

[Sergeant Brother]

I'm pro-life and think that abortion should be illegal, but I agree with Ron Paul that the Constitution doesn't make a mention of it and unless there is some form of Amendment then it should be left up to the states.

That being said though, its not one of my top priorities and I would support Ron Paul regardless of his position of the question of abortion.

 

[therealjjj77]

I'm pro-life and think that abortion should be illegal, but I agree with Ron Paul that the Constitution doesn't make a mention of it and unless there is some form of Amendment then it should be left up to the states.

That being said though, its not one of my top priorities and I would support Ron Paul regardless of his position of the question of abortion.

He's major pro-life.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

HR 1094 which was authored by Ron Paul, would have defined "life" as beginning at conception making it a criminal offense to commit an abortion. It could have been passed when we had a Republican congress majority and a Republican president. But the other Republicans only liked talking pro-life and not walking pro-life.

 

[Mahkato]

What I've always found funny is the pro-abortion people are for the most part, anti-death penalty.

And the anti-abortion people tend to be pro-death penalty.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe, just maybe, it's because one life is being extinguished without trial and having done nothing wrong, and the other life is being extinguished because it has demonstrated a complete lack of willingness to function as a member of civilized society.

Whether or not the death penalty is the most effective or appropriate punishment is another matter, but you can't fault someone for being pro-little-tiny-baby-life and anti-rapist-serial-killer-life.

 

[jakeb4liberty]

Dr. Paul wants to eliminate Roe v Wade and is personally pro-life; but also states that it is a fnction of state legislature and would not mandate each state to follow his view. Agree with his "personal" view or not, no big deal. He has the subject constitutionally correct and thats all that really matters. He doesnt wish to madate either way and we should respect him for respecting us and each states liberty.

 

[Loke]

I've always struggled over the fact that a person who kills a pregnant woman gets charged with double homicide(as he should) yet if a woman decides to abort it is her 'pro-choice 'right. It has to be one way or another.

Another thing that bothers me about pro choice( beside abortion sickens me) is it took two people to create the pregnancy yet only one has a say so in termination of that pregnancy. How is that right?
Shouldn't the potential father have the same right as the mother?

There has to be consistency with law or it is not law.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't really care about his position on abortion. I didn't switch to the biGOt Party (GOP) just to turn back now.

 

[AzNsOuLjAh27]

I hate his stance on abortion, wrost thing about him.

 

[Mahkato]

I personally am strongly pro-life and in the past that has been a deciding issue for me on who got my vote. This time, however, I would still vote for Paul even if he personally was strong pro-choice, so long as he still wanted to get the decision back to the states where it belongs. Ron Paul is an amazing candidate because he can allow his personal beliefs to coexist with his Constitutional convictions without compromising either. Everyone else in political office seems to base their votes on what they personally feel is "right"; Ron Paul votes instead for the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution because they are what has made this country so great. He does not legislate morality yet he holds firm to his morals. Many conservatives are afraid of this. They don't understand that when you use the power of government to strongarm other people into behaving like you, you set yourself up for persecution in the future when people who do not hold your beliefs are in the majority. Instead of forcing you to to do what he believes is right, Ron Paul will just TELL you why he believes it is right and let you do what you like so long as you don't violate someone else's freedoms.

 

[coyote_sprit]

I'm neutral on the pro-life/pro-choice issue but abortion is not the biggest issue we should be worrying about, it's a state issue not a federal issue.

 

[Sunshinysmile]

Do no harm.

 

[jmag]

For me from a distance it was easy to be put off by a pro-life stance because I was surrounded by the the righteous attitude of the right to kill one's own fetus. But when you get close up to it, or read someone's story who has been close to it, you see it in a different light. In my case I read Ron Paul's writing on his experience of abortion practices - as an OBGYN he saw alot of what goes on. He also emphasizes how the acceptance of abortion leaves no solid place where the principles of life and liberty apply to us. I don't remember exactly which document it was but here is alot on the issue from his view.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Abortion

 

[zadrock]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe, just maybe, it's because one life is being extinguished without trial and having done nothing wrong, and the other life is being extinguished because it has demonstrated a complete lack of willingness to function as a member of civilized society.

Whether or not the death penalty is the most effective or appropriate punishment is another matter, but you can't fault someone for being pro-little-tiny-baby-life and anti-rapist-serial-killer-life.

No, you can't, unless they are calling themselve "pro-life." Then you can fault them for not being consistent in their views.

Z

 

[mokkan88]

I say "no" because the Constitution provides the government with an obligation to protect lives. And also because I don't buy the argument that it violates a woman's right to choose. A woman can choose whether or not she has sex, so therein lies the choice.

 

[ErikBlack]

I say "no" because the Constitution provides the government with an obligation to protect lives. And also because I don't buy the argument that it violates a woman's right to choose. A woman can choose whether or not she has sex, so therein lies the choice.

The real truth comes out. The reason why religious people in general are so radically "anti-abortion" which has been wrongly labeled as "pro-life" is not because they are pro-life at all. They are anti-sex. The idea that people would be having sex willy-nilly, for pleasure and not for procreation, completely free from the bonds of marriage and artificial social and religious control gets their panties in a little tight wad.

All of this babbling about life beginning at conception and preventing murder is just a big show to cover up the real truth; that they find sex for pleasure between two consenting adults with no moral or social strings attached to be abhorrent and threatening to their fragile traditional social structures. Pro-life people don't want to protect life. They want to exert social control. They want to use the threat of pregnancy as a form of "punishment" to women who have sex out of wedlock. They want to use pregnancy as a way of coercing people into the "nuclear family unit", one of the most oppressive of all modern social institutions.

 

[TurtleBurger]

Is Ron Paul wrong on <insert any issue here>?

I'd say no every time. If you disagree with him, you have to do more research.

 

[jereome]

I'm pro-life and think that abortion should be illegal, but I agree with Ron Paul that the Constitution doesn't make a mention of it and unless there is some form of Amendment then it should be left up to the states.

That being said though, its not one of my top priorities and I would support Ron Paul regardless of his position of the question of abortion.

Actually the Constitution does make mention of it, its called life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness.

Making abortion illegal in all 50 states would definately fit Ron Pauls definition of the Constitution, which seems to support his effort to make the definition of life begin at conception.