Ron Paul on Abortion

[TaftFan]

http://libertycircle.blogspot.com/2013/07/ron-paul-on-abortion.html

My blog post on Ron Paul's abortion position and his solution.

It is worth bringing up again for the pro-choice libertarians.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I'm a libertarian, and Dr. Paul helped me to see the light on this issue.

 

[Generalissimo]

You should add this that Ron Paul said about baby-killing:

Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge


Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USA’s goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President.


I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation.


As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Court’s misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected.


It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision.


What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins.


Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not.


This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path.


Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty.

 

[TaftFan]

You should add this that Ron Paul said about baby-killing:

Thanks.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge


Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USA’s goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President.


I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation.


As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Court’s misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected.


It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision.


What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins.


Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not.


This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path.


Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty.

When did he say this? I was almost certain Ron Paul was in favor of leaving this issue to the states.

I'm not pro-choice, at all. Not even close. But the 10th amendment is still pretty clear here. The states have jurisdiction over murderers, of which abortion is a subset.

You could MAYBE twist the commerce clause to allow the Feds to control abortions that cross state lines, but that manipulation of the commerce clause when applied to other things has already ruined the country.

If this HAS to be done Federally, we should just amend the constitution now. Start from square one. Trying to make it say what it doesn't say is a waste.

As for an amendment, I'd support it as long as it was safeguarded to prevent it being used to justify police state tactics to enforce, and as long as it didn't include anything that limited in any way a state's right to secede from the Union...

 

[Christian Liberty]

Actually, I reread his comment. Theoretically, a state could define murder of unborn chiildren under such and such an age as carrying no penalty. So ultimately, the logical conclusion of his position is still to leave this issue to the states in practice, if not in theory. Which ultimately, barring a constitutional amendment that says otherwise, I agree with.

Then again, I barely believe the Federal Government should even exist, which does color my thinking.

 

[Generalissimo]

When did he say this? I was almost certain Ron Paul was in favor of leaving this issue to the states.

I'm not pro-choice, at all. Not even close. But the 10th amendment is still pretty clear here. The states have jurisdiction over murderers, of which abortion is a subset.

You could MAYBE twist the commerce clause to allow the Feds to control abortions that cross state lines, but that manipulation of the commerce clause when applied to other things has already ruined the country.

If this HAS to be done Federally, we should just amend the constitution now. Start from square one. Trying to make it say what it doesn't say is a waste.

As for an amendment, I'd support it as long as it was safeguarded to prevent it being used to justify police state tactics to enforce, and as long as it didn't include anything that limited in any way a state's right to secede from the Union...

Did you not read what you just quoted?

Yes, the states have jurisdiction over murder laws, but no state has the right to legalize murder. Abortion is murder, and defining life as beginning at conception would preclude states from allowing legal abortions.

Amending the constitution isn't going to happen. You will not get 2/3rds of both Houses as well as 3/5th of state legislatures signing on. You only need a majority in Congress to define life as beginning at conception.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Did you not read what you just quoted?

Yes, the states have jurisdiction over murder laws, but no state has the right to legalize murder. Abortion is murder, and defining life as beginning at conception would preclude states from allowing legal abortions.

Constitutionally they do.

How low does the sentence have to be before its all but legalizing murder in practice?

The Feds have no jurisdiction here. Period. Only the states have a right to ban abortion, and they should use that power to ban abortion...

Amending the constitution isn't going to happen. You will not get 2/3rds of both Houses as well as 3/5th of state legislatures signing on. You only need a majority in Congress to define life as beginning at conception.

Yeah, and screw the constitution, OK that's a good idea. Congress DOES NOT HAVE THIS POWER.

And yes, I know a constitutional amendment won't happen. I'm strongly pro-life but I support all of this being done at the state level.

It may be that I disagree with Ron Paul, which is odd considering Ron Paul was a big influence in me having the view I currently hold.

 

[Generalissimo]

Constitutionally they do.

How low does the sentence have to be before its all but legalizing murder in practice?

The Feds have no jurisdiction here. Period. Only the states have a right to ban abortion, and they should use that power to ban abortion...

Yeah, and screw the constitution, OK that's a good idea. Congress DOES NOT HAVE THIS POWER.

And yes, I know a constitutional amendment won't happen. I'm strongly pro-life but I support all of this being done at the state level.

It may be that I disagree with Ron Paul, which is odd considering Ron Paul was a big influence in me having the view I currently hold.

1) No, states do not have the authority to legalize murder. Read the 5th Amendment.

2) Congress DOES have the power to define life. Read Roe v Wade.

 

[Christian Liberty]

1) No, states do not have the authority to legalize murder. Read the 5th Amendment.

2) Congress DOES have the power to define life. Read Roe v Wade.

I just read the fifth amendment, and don't see the relevance.

Roe v Wade is TRULY irrelevant. The liberal lie that SCOTUS has any authority to define the constitution is just that, a liberal lie. Ron Paul also definitely agrees with me on this.

The Roe v Wade decision is unconstitutional and should be ignored entirely. STATES should ban abortion in their area of control, and STATES should punish anyone who has an abortion in their territory exactly the same as they would any murderer in their territory (Personally, I support exile to a penal colony, or death if the evidence is really rock solid, but that's a much more mundane debate.)

 

[Generalissimo]

I just read the fifth amendment, and don't see the relevance.

Here is the relevant section:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

An innocent person cannot be deprived of life. An unborn child is always innocent and therefore cannot be deprived of life.

Also read Article One Sections 9 & 10 which prohibit Bill of Attainder, which means that neither Congress nor the states can pass laws which target one specific individual or group, the unborn for example, meaning if the unborn are defined as persons federally no law can be passed taking away their right to life or due process nor can laws be passed treating their murder differently from any other person.

Roe v Wade is TRULY irrelevant. The liberal lie that SCOTUS has any authority to define the constitution is just that, a liberal lie. Ron Paul also definitely agrees with me on this.

The Roe v Wade decision is unconstitutional and should be ignored entirely. STATES should ban abortion in their area of control, and STATES should punish anyone who has an abortion in their territory exactly the same as they would any murderer in their territory (Personally, I support exile to a penal colony, or death if the evidence is really rock solid, but that's a much more mundane debate.)

No, Roe v Wade is not irrelevant. Although misguided, it is the law of the land. SCOTUS does not have the authority to define the Constitution but it certainly does have the authority to interpret it.

Ron Paul does not agree with you that Roe v Wade was an unconstitutional ruling, but he does believe the legal basis for it was misguided.

 

[TaftFan]

No, Roe v Wade is not irrelevant. Although misguided, it is the law of the land. SCOTUS does not have the authority to define the Constitution but it certainly does have the authority to interpret it.

Ron Paul does not agree with you that Roe v Wade was an unconstitutional ruling, but he does believe the legal basis for it was misguided.

I'd have to disagree with that. I don't believe it was given original jurisdiction, and I don't think it had the right to seize appellate jurisdiction.

 

[Generalissimo]

I'd have to disagree with that. I don't believe it was given original jurisdiction, and I don't think it had the right to seize appellate jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court rarely hears cases directly, it was not the original jurisdiction for the hearing of Roe v Wade. That case went through the federal court system and was finally appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been the top appeals court in the country since the Constitution was adopted. It's first case came in 1791 (West v Barnes). Had the Founders not intended it to be the ultimate appellate jurisdiction they certainly wouldn't have allowed it to become that in the first years of the Constitution! But they did, they even wrote it into the Constitution!

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the federal circuit courts as well as decisions by state courts holding invalid any statute or treaty of the United States; or holding valid any state law or practice that was challenged as being inconsistent with the federal constitution, treaties, or laws; or rejecting any claim made by a party under a provision of the federal constitution, treaties, or laws.

 

[I<3Liberty]

What I strongly dislike about his argument is 1) it only focuses on the legal aspects of abortion rather than solutions. 2) It's like 95% about the unborn and doesn't really focus on solutions that allow both parties liberty. No woman just gets pregnant to have an abortion. Personally, I care about the unborn as much as I do a women's right to decide when she wishes to become pregnant.

This is what needs to be done...

Step número uno: Get 100% effective contraceptives on the market so women have a choice that does not interfere with that of the unborn. www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/ is one of the most recent examples.

Step número dos is somewhat fantasy at this point in time, but I'll mention it since there has been some progress with it in non-human animal research. We can all agree that women deserve a choice, but not at the cost of the unborn. Ectogenesis would bridge this gap. It would also give premature infants a chance at life with less complications.

 

[Generalissimo]

Widespread availability of contraceptives is one of the reasons for an increase in and acceptance of abortion.

Contraceptives are not a solution to abortion, but rather educating people on the sacredness of all human life and a return to objective moral values. Moral relativism needs to be stamped out and so does the acceptance of promiscuity and of sexual relations outside of marriage.

 

[TaftFan]

I've updated the article accordingly. I'll find some free time to read the whole judiciary act.

 

[Generalissimo]

I've updated the article accordingly. I'll find some free time to read the whole judiciary act.

One small error in your update, the case was first files in a US district court in Texas, which is a federal court, not a state court.

 

[I<3Liberty]

Widespread availability of contraceptives is one of the reasons for an increase in and acceptance of abortion.

Contraceptives are not a solution to abortion, but rather educating people on the sacredness of all human life and a return to objective moral values. Moral relativism needs to be stamped out and so does the acceptance of promiscuity and of sexual relations outside of marriage.

No, I said 100% effective contraceptives meaning they would have a 0% failure rate. Married people with morals do use contraceptives -- don't assume that they are promiscuous just because they use it. 100% effective contraceptives would allow women to have a choice that does not involve abortion. You cannot just care about the unborn and forget about women's rights.

 

[Generalissimo]

No, I said 100% effective contraceptives meaning they would have a 0% failure rate. Married people with morals do use contraceptives -- don't assume that they are promiscuous just because they use it. 100% effective contraceptives would allow women to have a choice that does not involve abortion. You cannot just care about the unborn and forget about women's rights.

1) Contraceptives are never moral.
2) There is no such thing as "women's rights," there are only individual rights. You do not get special rights for being a woman, black, gay, disabled, etc. There are only individual right which every single person has by virtue of their humanity. A woman does not get a special right to murder an unborn child.

 

[I<3Liberty]

1) Contraceptives are never moral.
2) There is no such thing as "women's rights," there are only individual rights. You do not get special rights for being a woman, black, gay, disabled, etc. There are only individual right which every single person has by virtue of their humanity. A woman does not get a special right to murder an unborn child.

Uhmm, that's totally not true. I would actually argue the contrary, as would many other Christians.
Yes there are individual rights, but I meant more so within those rights, women should have a choice through contraceptives rather than abortion. In this situation we have two persons 1) the unborn and 2) the women. You can't just be for liberation of the unborn. Would you tell that baby you just saved that her right to her body is now revoked?