Life: Where does Ron Paul stand on abortion, specifically when it comes to RAPE?

[tod evans]

***Off topic to R.P.'s position***

I never see anybody address a fathers right when abortion is raised.

If a child was concieved without force then I believe the father should have an equal say as to whether or not the fetus is aborted.

My position on this is not relevent to state/federal or ethical considerations of abortion, the "mother" is only half of the conception equation.

 

[Philhelm]

***Off topic to R.P.'s position***

I never see anybody address a fathers right when abortion is raised.

If a child was concieved without force then I believe the father should have an equal say as to whether or not the fetus is aborted.

My position on this is not relevent to state/federal or ethical considerations of abortion, the "mother" is only half of the conception equation.

I think that the argument about a woman's right over her body is incorrect. The real argument is at what point should the child be protected by law, if at all. That's what the real issue is. Some people believe at conception, others up until a certain point.

 

[nodeal]

I wish more people could grasp the concept that there's a difference between personal beliefs and political philosophy, particularly when it comes to someone like Ron Paul. Ron Paul's personal view is completely irrelevant, as his political philosophy dictates that he should not subjugate everyone to his will. Lawfully, for the position which he seeks, he has no power in the matter of abortion, and is one of the very few politicians to actually acknowledge that the Constitution specifically grants the federal government enumerated powers; any powers not granted (i.e. abortion) are reserved to the states and the people.

This is true. With Ron Paul, we can be confident that personal beliefs will not translate into political action. Thanks for bringing this to light.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Also, if rape would give people a waiver for an abortion, then I can see the amount of 'rapes' per year going up dramatically.

 

[tod evans]

I think that the argument about a woman's right over her body is incorrect. The real argument is at what point should the child be protected by law, if at all. That's what the real issue is. Some people believe at conception, others up until a certain point.

We are talking about two different issues here.
1) When does life begin?
2) Should a father have equal rights deciding to abort a fetus?

Ron Paul believes correctly that this should be a state issue....Following that train of thought; Should one parent have the legal right to "state-hop" seeking to infringe on the rights of the other parent or the fetus?

Kind of a legal quagmire eh?

As current law stands fathers have no rights concerning an unborn fetus and mothers rely on Roe-v-Wade....If/when these issues are handed back to the states would a federal law governing jurisdiction based on conception be in order?

 

[craezie]

I cannot believe that anyone who is pro-life would truly justify abortion based on rape. The whole point is that we should protect the rights of the most vulnerable of human beings. If a woman is raped, she can get morning after pill to prevent conception. If she fails to do so for whatever reason and becomes pregnant, then IMO she has an obligation to the human being temporarily living inside her to see that he or she is protected. There are many, many people waiting on adoption lists for a healthy infant who would be incredibly blessed by her sacrifice (and she may be blessed in turn as part of the healing process).

As others mentioned, though, the nitty gritty of abortion law should be left to the states. I actually have no problem with some federal laws, though, such as the ban on partial birth abortion. I would even love to see a ban on ALL late term abortions, as there is absolutely no reason ever to kill a viable human being with constitutional rights. If you don't want him, someone else will. I see the right to life as protecting the most fundamental of Constitutional rights, thus the feds do have some oversight.

 

[Philhelm]

We are talking about two different issues here.
1) When does life begin?
2) Should a father have equal rights deciding to abort a fetus?

Ron Paul believes correctly that this should be a state issue....Following that train of thought; Should one parent have the legal right to "state-hop" seeking to infringe on the rights of the other parent or the fetus?

Kind of a legal quagmire eh?

As current law stands fathers have no rights concerning an unborn fetus and mothers rely on Roe-v-Wade....If/when these issues are handed back to the states would a federal law governing jurisdiction based on conception be in order?

The problem with that is much like the argument that it's a woman's right to choose what to do with another living entity residing within her. Does the father have the right to decide for termination of another living being? Again, the central issue is what you had listed as issue number one: At what point does life begin, and at what point should the living entity be ensured its own right to life, liberty, and property? I personally don't have the answer for that, but lawfully, that should not be for the federal government to determine.

 

[LibForestPaul]

This is possibly the hardest voter to convert. I cant count how many times i have to explain to someone that how someone stands PERSONALLY and how they stand POLITICALLY are 2 different things. I had someone tell me he would not vote for Paul due to him believing in creation, against gay marriage, and against abortion. Trying to explain to him that Paul would leave it to the states to decide was like pulling teeth. On a side note, i asked this same guy that he would cast a vote on THESE issues instead of real (in my opinion) issues like runaway inflation, endless wars, loss of civil rights, etc. Still mindless, his response was "but i believe in marriage equality."

wow, slave mentality, tell me what i can not and can do, master.

 

[h.k.]

I cannot believe that anyone who is pro-life would truly justify abortion based on rape. The whole point is that we should protect the rights of the most vulnerable of human beings. If a woman is raped, she can get morning after pill to prevent conception. If she fails to do so for whatever reason and becomes pregnant, then IMO she has an obligation to the human being temporarily living inside her to see that he or she is protected. There are many, many people waiting on adoption lists for a healthy infant who would be incredibly blessed by her sacrifice (and she may be blessed in turn as part of the healing process).

As others mentioned, though, the nitty gritty of abortion law should be left to the states. I actually have no problem with some federal laws, though, such as the ban on partial birth abortion. I would even love to see a ban on ALL late term abortions, as there is absolutely no reason ever to kill a viable human being with constitutional rights. If you don't want him, someone else will. I see the right to life as protecting the most fundamental of Constitutional rights, thus the feds do have some oversight.

Walter Block had an interesting answer. The "eviction" thing appeals to me. A zygote can also turn into a tumor so life does not quite begin at conception.

I can understand limiting abortions at a certain point, but the issue is far more complicated than some here suggest. Giving birth is a very painful and potentially dangerous ordeal.

 

[tod evans]

The problem with that is much like the argument that it's a woman's right to choose what to do with another living entity residing within her. Does the father have the right to decide for termination of another living being? Again, the central issue is what you had listed as issue number one: At what point does life begin, and at what point should the living entity be ensured its own right to life, liberty, and property? I personally don't have the answer for that, but lawfully, that should not be for the federal government to determine.

Actually I was viewing things from a different perspective...A father wanting the child and the mother wanting the abortion.

Either way though you are right the determination of when life actually "begins" is the first question that needs answered, and I agree that should be a state issue.

Now to rephrase part of my last question; Should either parent have the right to "state-hop" with the intention of depriving either the other parent or the fetus of life or liberty? If not then some type of inter-state/federal agreement would have to be reached in order to protect everyones rights.

Every state won't enact the same laws relevent to parent(s) and a fetus/child so how would you propose jurisdiction should be established?

 

[mosquitobite]

Actually I was viewing things from a different perspective...A father wanting the child and the mother wanting the abortion.

Either way though you are right the determination of when life actually "begins" is the first question that needs answered, and I agree that should be a state issue.

Now to rephrase part of my last question; Should either parent have the right to "state-hop" with the intention of depriving either the other parent or the fetus of life or liberty? If not then some type of inter-state/federal agreement would have to be reached in order to protect everyones rights.

Every state won't enact the same laws relevent to parent(s) and a fetus/child so how would you propose jurisdiction should be established?

[some] women already state hop to deny the rights of the fathers of their born children. We don't have anything federal to stop it now and that's with actual living children. So to me, this is a moot point.

 

[HRD53]

Being pro life is one thing but I find it tough to swallow all the folks on here stating that a woman has a moral obligation to have her rape baby. Wow... I just don't think this issue is so black and white.

 

[DamianTV]

The Government Solution to any problem is usually worse than the problem itself. Government + Pregnancy dont mix.

 

[tod evans]

[some] women already state hop to deny the rights of the fathers of their born children. We don't have anything federal to stop it now and that's with actual living children. So to me, this is a moot point.

You're right, there is nothing in place now and this does happen frequently.

I was looking for opinions and discussion on fathers as well as a fetuses rights, if the feds get out of the bedroom/family and leave these matters to the state then there will be states who grant unequal rights to mothers/fathers/fetuses...How would you propose jurisdiction be established?

Philhelm rightly suggests that a determination of when life begins needs to be made, so if conception occurs in state "x" where it has been determined that "life begins at conception" (casual consentual sex unmarried couple) should the fetuses and fathers rights be able to be violated by a mother who chooses to move to state "y" and seek an abortion?

Most state courts now don't grant fathers rights until after birth due to standing federal legislation and a fetus has no rights until birth, so when the decision to give an unborn fetus rights is passed to the state wouldn't it stand to reason that a fathers right to love and care for his offspring would go hand in hand with the declaration of the fetuses life?

 

[WilliamC]

If anyone really wants 'fetal rights' then they need to come up with an artificial uterus, because as long as a fetus is in the body of an adult individual it's 'rights' will always be subordinate to the rights of the individual in whom it is gestating. That's just the way biology works until our technology advances a bit more, which it will if we don't all war each other back to the stone age.

Personally I don't believe a freshly fertilized human embryo is the equivalent of an adult human or even a newborn, there's no supernatural event associated with conception, there is the entire process of implantation to get through, and even then there is a month before organogenesis starts around week 5 so there isn't even a 'beating heart' or any semblance of neural tissue. Of course the early embryo is biologically alive, and assuming it has a normal chromosomal complement it is genetically Homo sapiens, but I don't see where that qualifies it as 'human' in the same way as a newborn or (given our technological advancement in neonatal medicine) a late term fetus is. All this emotional appeal about abortion sort of fails for me since nature could care less for humans of any age (mortality sucks) and the frequency of natural miscarriage is by no means negligible (somewhere around 20% to 33% of pregnancies end in miscarriage (god hates the unborn obviously /sarc), often due to early embryonic lethal genetic combinations), so the case for early abortion, especially pre-implantation is quite simple for me to understand as there is nothing about the fetus that is capable of sensation.

It is also true that our medical technology is allowing for the survival of fetuses and newborns who, just a few decades ago, would have died. There is of course absolutely nothing wrong with this, I am all for advances in neonatal medicine so long as the goal is the survival and health of the neonate. However, I personally do not think heroic efforts should be made to allow for genetically abnormal individuals (google teratology for examples) who have no chance of developing into healthy, independent adults to live if they would otherwise naturally die, but I am not interested in imposing my preferences on anyone else.

Eventually medical technology will advance to the point where genetic testing of early embryos is possible, indeed it's already possible to do in vitro fertilization and select for chromosomal abnormalities. This raises large numbers of questions as to the rights of parents to select the genetics of their offspring. So the whole issue of human pregnancy and abortion and whatnot will only get more complicated.

But until there is an artificial womb it will always be up to the woman whether or not to continue a pregnancy, to think otherwise is simply to ignore biological reality.

Oh, and to those who think my lack of concern for early human embryos is evil, please read this.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/multiples/vanishingtwin.html

Vanishing twin syndrome was first recognized in 1945. Vanishing twin syndrome is when one of a set of twin/multiple fetuses disappears in the uterus during pregnancy. This is the result of a miscarriage of one twin/multiple. The fetal tissue is absorbed by the other twin/multiple, placenta or the mother. This gives the appearance of a “vanishing twin”.

Human pregnancy and embryonic development is a product of human evolution, there is nothing sacred about it. Strange and creepy things happen, and after watching all three of my children being born personally I would be much happier if we could somehow bring back the egg, but I'm just weird and I recognize this. How am I to understand why my wife was so happy being pregnant and giving birth? I'm just a guy.

 

[tod evans]

But until there is an artificial womb it will always be up to the woman whether or not to continue a pregnancy, to think otherwise is simply to ignore biological reality.
.

So you believe that a father should not have a say in whether or not a child is carried to term?
I only ask in terms of consentual sex not rape.

If the federal court decisions are set aside in order to give states the ability to determine when life begins it is very likely that some states will determine that life begins at conception, like it or not.

So what is to keep a parent (either one) from state hopping into a jurisdiction favorable to their legal position?

In essence what would be abortion in one state would be murder in its neighbor, where does one persons rights overshadow anothers?

Once this issue is addressed we move into the contractual area of law: both parents are currently expected to provide for "their child"...If the father wanted the child but the mother didn't, should the mother who was forced by the state to carry the fetus to term be obligated to pay the father child support?

 

[craezie]

I can understand limiting abortions at a certain point, but the issue is far more complicated than some here suggest. Giving birth is a very painful and potentially dangerous ordeal.

Having an abortion is a very painful and dangerous ordeal, and can also cause severe infection or even death. That being said, my point about late term abortions was that there is never, ever, any reason to kill a viable human being. In the second half of the pregnancy, and kind of abortion procedure requires induction of labor and delivery of the baby anyway, so the mother has already had to both carry and deliver the child. Why not deliver the child alive and allow one of the many, many families waiting for a healthy infant to adopt instead?

 

[Tinnuhana]

I am not Roman Catholic, but here is what I understand to be their stance on rape: Rape is an act of violence and the semen/sperm released during that act is a weapon, just as much as a knife or bullet. In that case, immediate steps to prevent fertilization can be taken. Remember, it takes several hours for the sperm to travel up to wherever in the Fallopian tube the egg is.

 

[iGGz]

The morning after pill?

 

[WilliamC]

So you believe that a father should not have a say in whether or not a child is carried to term?

It's not a matter of what I think 'should' be, it's a matter of biological reality.

Women carry fetuses in their body, not men. Women have the final say, not men.

Of course in any healthy relationship both a man and a woman (or even an extended family) should be involved in the decision, but fact remains that so long as pregnancy happens in utero then the individual with the uterus is in control. The only way to change that is to either enslave the pregnant women so she can't harm the fetus or develop an artificial womb.

Please understand I'm not even trying to be deliberately argumentative, just pointing out biological reality.