Paul focusing more on Abortion this time?

[Agorism]

Ron Paul says being anti-abortion is a Libertarian stance based in faith

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/ron-paul-anti-abortion.html

Ron Paul, the conservative congressman from Texas known for his small-government beliefs rooted in Libertarianism, told an audience Monday in Iowa that government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women.

Speaking at the Iowa Family Leader's presidential lecture series in Sioux City, Paul, an obstetrician and a Christian, explained that he disagreed with the popular belief that to be a Libertarian means having a laissez faire attitude of "it's the woman's body; she can do whatever she wants."

"Life comes from our creator, not our government," Politico reported Paul as saying. "Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty."

Paul's stance on abortion won him the endorsement in 2008 of none other than "Jane Roe" from the landmark Roe v. Wade legal case of the '70s.

"Roe," whose real name is Norma McCorvey, became a pro-life advocate a decade ago and supported Paul in the last presidential election specifically because of his views on abortion. "I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade," McCorvey said. "He has never wavered ... on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn."

When Paul accepted the endorsement he said, "As much as I talk about economic liberties, and civil liberties and trying to avoid the killing overseas, I think the issue of life is paramount."

 

[sailingaway]

That was a 'family focus' event. In southern Bible belt states, I would say he likely will; shouldn't he?

 

[Agorism]

Ya I'm not sure what changes he should make.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Wow. I had no idea that Norma McCorvey endorsed Ron Paul.

 

[Matt Collins]

I am willing to bet that all the $$ we sent LibertyPAC allowed them to put some polling in the field. If I had to guess the polls found that abortion was one thing that Ron needed to focus on.

 

[Agorism]

Rand won Kentucky without focusing too much on the issue, but maybe Ron needs to focus on it more ..idk.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Rand won Kentucky without focusing too much on the issue, but maybe Ron needs to focus on it more ..idk.

I disagree man! Rand had to constantly announce and reconfirm his pro-life views. James Dobson initially endorsed Trey Greyson because he thought Rand was not pro-life enough. Thankfully, Dobson withdrew his endorsement for Greyson and endorsed Rand after Rand cleared up his stance. He also had mommyblogger up his rear end for the entire campaign. Pro-life was a major issue.

 

[sailingaway]

Rand won Kentucky without focusing too much on the issue, but maybe Ron needs to focus on it more ..idk.

In the primary, Rand focused on this a ton.

He had to. They were attacking him on it.

 

[S.Shorland]

Was it Ron or Rand who endorsed the morning after pill? I remember him on 'The View' talking to Joy Behar about it being legal o perform abortion in the third trimester.I can't see the difference between a foetus 1 week before birth and a baby 1 week after.When does life begin?It's a question that only the individual can answer.I like the Evictionism doctrine by Walter Block,personally.

 

[eduardo89]

It makes sense to flex the social conservative values muscle if you want to win the GOP primary

 

[Sola_Fide]

Was it Ron or Rand who endorsed the morning after pill? I remember him on 'The View' talking to Joy Behar about it being legal o perform abortion in the third trimester.I can't see the difference between a foetus 1 week before birth and a baby 1 week after.When does life begin?It's a question that only the individual can answer.I like the Evictionism doctrine by Walter Block,personally.

How can a person decide when another person's life begins?

 

[R3volutionJedi]

Good. I'm glad he is focusing on it.

 

[Matt Collins]

Was it Ron or Rand who endorsed the morning after pill? I remember him on 'The View' talking to Joy Behar about it being legal o perform abortion in the third trimester.I can't see the difference between a foetus 1 week before birth and a baby 1 week after.When does life begin?It's a question that only the individual can answer.I like the Evictionism doctrine by Walter Block,personally.

Can you please link to a video of this?

 

[specsaregood]

Was it Ron or Rand who endorsed the morning after pill? I remember him on 'The View' talking to Joy Behar about it being legal o perform abortion in the third trimester.I can't see the difference between a foetus 1 week before birth and a baby 1 week after.When does life begin?It's a question that only the individual can answer.I like the Evictionism doctrine by Walter Block,personally.

He didn't "endorse" its use.

How can a person decide when another person's life begins?

That was Dr. Paul's point. From a legislative perspective he argued that it would be tough to argue against the morning after pill because you can't prove that conception has occurred or that a life has begun. So from a scientific/legal standpoint he thought it would remain legal, but he didn't endorse its use as I'm pretty sure he would be morally against using it since it might end a life.

 

[eduardo89]

I'm glad Ron is talking up the abortion issue, it should help him in the primaries, where he needs social conservatives to vote for him. He needs to show he is a conservative on social issues.

His stance on abortion is probably the only thing I disagree with him though. I'm 100% pro-life, and I don't agree that it would be ok to let some states have abortion. I believe that from conception it is another life and we can't have the situation where in some states in the country life is not valued and completely protected. The US Constitution should be amended to state that life beings at conception and that from that moment we all have the same right to life.

 

[prmd142]

if you want to ban abortion then go ahead and ban it. But don't complain later if an underground black market for it develops though. Yay! War on abortion FTW!! Lets put those women and doctors involved it in jail. why stop at that. let's go one step further. let's also install a cam in every home to see that parents are not beating their kids, that they are fed properly since government has taken it upon itself to protect the life of the child. OMG what would we be without the government. just a bunch of murders of children I suppose. YAY for the benevolent government!!

 

[eduardo89]

if you want to ban abortion then go ahead and ban it. But don't complain later if an underground black market for it develops though. Yay! War on abortion FTW!! Lets put those women and doctors involved it in jail. why stop at that. let's go one step further. let's also install a cam in every home to see that parents are not beating their kids, that they are fed properly since government has taken it upon itself to protect the life of the child. OMG what would we be without the government. just a bunch of murders of children I suppose. YAY for the benevolent government!!

So why not end murder laws too? It'd the same thing...abortion = murder

 

[prmd142]

So why not end murder laws too? It'd the same thing...abortion = murder

here we go... another abortion thread.

life begins with conception. absolutely no doubt about that. but right to life is conferred on you only when you are able to recognize other's right to life. so fetus/children do not get it until they are mature enough to understand the concept of right to life and recognizing other's right to life. Till then they are to be treated as property of the parents. and parents have all the freedom to decide what is good for their kids and how to bring them up. if you think that without government looking over our shoulders we would be detrimental to our kids then you have too low of a confidence in humanity and too high of a trust in government.

Murder is committed on an individual who has right to life and who is not the initiator of force. hence it is immoral hence the reason murder should be illegal (purpose of law is to prevent immorality. read 'The law' by Bastiat ). abortion is committed on fetus without right to life and an initiator of use of force on the woman. hence it is not immoral hence shouldn't be illegal. Moreover I don't believe that I get my life from my 'creator', whoever or whatever that imaginary thing is. as far as I know I was given life by my father and mother. If this 'creator' is powerful enough to 'give life' then he should be responsible enough to preserve it. where is your Creator when abortions are taking place. and whatever happened to separation of church and state?

 

[jmdrake]

Was it Ron or Rand who endorsed the morning after pill? I remember him on 'The View' talking to Joy Behar about it being legal o perform abortion in the third trimester.I can't see the difference between a foetus 1 week before birth and a baby 1 week after.When does life begin?It's a question that only the individual can answer.I like the Evictionism doctrine by Walter Block,personally.

It was Rand.

Can you please link to a video of this?

Here's transcript.

http://www.middlesborodailynews.com...S-Senate-hopeful-Rand-Paul-visits-Middlesboro

Medically speaking "conception" is when the embryo is implanted. But the average lay person (including myself until I learned about this during Rand's primary), conception = fertilization. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy#cite_note-4

Anyhow, Rand's positions allows for a compromise (I now people around here hate that word) between the extreme pro life and pro choice libertarian positions. Pro choice libertarians complain about a woman being forced into "slavery" by having to carry a "stowaway". Rand's position would be like saying "If you want to kick a stowaway off, you have to do so before you get far out to sea." I'm certain that at the time most abortions happen, the fetus is a person with a beating heart that can feel pain. I'm much less sure about a zygote.

Also note that Rand said this in response to a question about rape and incest. The vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest, but that's an emotional argument that throws people off. Anyway, a rule is couched in terms of time into the pregnancy, as opposed to circumstances surrounding the pregnancy, is better. After all, do we want to incentive a woman to lie just to get an abortion? Whatever the reason for the pregnancy, an abortion is less objectionable (IMO) the earlier it occurs in the pregnancy because it's less likely this new life to actually be a "person", whatever "personhood" is defined to be.

 

[jmdrake]

here we go... another abortion thread.

life begins with conception. absolutely no doubt about that. but right to life is conferred on you only when you are able to recognize other's right to life. so fetus/children do not get it until they are mature enough to understand the concept of right to life and recognizing other's right to life. Till then they are to be treated as property of the parents. and parents have all the freedom to decide what is good for their kids and how to bring them up. if you think that without government looking over our shoulders we would be detrimental to our kids then you have too low of a confidence in humanity and too high of a trust in government.

Murder is committed on an individual who has right to life and who is not the initiator of force. hence it is immoral hence the reason murder should be illegal (purpose of law is to prevent immorality. read 'The law' by Bastiat ). abortion is committed on fetus without right to life and an initiator of use of force on the woman. hence it is not immoral hence shouldn't be illegal. Moreover I don't believe that I get my life from my 'creator', whoever or whatever that imaginary thing is. as far as I know I was given life by my father and mother. If this 'creator' is powerful enough to 'give life' then he should be responsible enough to preserve it. where is your Creator when abortions are taking place. and whatever happened to separation of church and state?

Taking that argument to its absurd extreme, killing a 1 year old should be legal because a 1 year old isn't "mature enough" to understand the "concept of life". That's crap. Children are not property. And this is the problem with making property the sole basis of "rights".