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

[nodeal]

I'm for the pro-life argument. I think pro-choice is morally bankrupt, ignores principles of self-reliance, personal responsibility, etc. I also hate when pro-choicers act as if they are on some moral high ground because they recognize the woman's "right" to abort a baby.

That being said, in cases of rape or incest where an act of aggression resulted in a pregnancy, what would Ron Paul say about this? Would he be in favor of abortion in this case, or against it?

 

[noxagol]

He would leave it to the states to decide.

 

[FrankRep]

Abortion: State Issue, not Federal.

 

[nodeal]

but has he gone on record with a personal opinion on what should happen should a circumstance like this arise?

 

[FrankRep]

but has he gone on record with a personal opinion on what should happen should a circumstance like this arise?

Ron Paul is personally Pro-Life.

Ron Paul 2012 on Abortion
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

Ron Paul.com on Abortion
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

Issues 2000: Ron Paul on Abortion
http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

Ron Paul Explains His Anti-Abortion Position
http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/27/ron-paul-explains-his-anti-abo

 

[specsaregood]

but has he gone on record with a personal opinion on what should happen should a circumstance like this arise?

He has said that scientifically its impossible to prove whether conception has occurred immediatelly; so legally and scientfically it would be tough to justify banning the morning after pill or birth control. Since if there was no conception, then no crime would have been committed. not to mention that everyday, millions of fertilized eggs fail to implant, naturally. Are we going to open an investigation for every menstruel cycle or miscarriage? These are tough questions, which is why he readily admits he doesn't have all the answers and they should be handled at the localist level possible.

 

[pcosmar]

but has he gone on record with a personal opinion on what should happen should a circumstance like this arise?

A lady from my church has a son who was the result of a rape when she was younger.

Perhaps you should ask her. Or someone like her.

I find this a puzzlement,,

why should an innocent child be killed for the crime of it's father?

 

[FrankRep]

but has he gone on record with a personal opinion on what should happen should a circumstance like this arise?

These decisions are State Issues, the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to rule on such matters.

 

[specsaregood]

These decisions are State Issues, the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to rule on such matters.

barring a constitutional amendment; which the president isn't part of the process of approving anyways.

 

[Philhelm]

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.

 

[ghengis86]

If I recall, Ron has said that in all his years practicing medicine, he's never had a case where an abortion was necessary to save a mother's life or in a case of rape.

 

[ctnjason]

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 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."

 

[Philhelm]

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."

My response to that would be that Ron Paul's view is that the government should have no role in marriage to begin with; therefore, homosexual marriage would not be illegal.

Also, I usually try to use the argument that both the "left" and the "right" allow their personal beliefs to dictate their political agenda. Both sides of the aisle attempt to limit the rights of other citizens. However, Ron Paul philosophically realizes that he has no right to do such. While he may have personal views that do not align with all Americans, he would allow more Americans to be free to make their own decisions in such matters.

 

[acptulsa]

He has said that scientifically its impossible to prove whether conception has occurred immediatelly; so legally and scientfically it would be tough to justify banning the morning after pill or birth control. Since if there was no conception, then no crime would have been committed. not to mention that everyday, millions of fertilized eggs fail to implant, naturally. Are we going to open an investigation for every menstruel cycle or miscarriage? These are tough questions, which is why he readily admits he doesn't have all the answers and they should be handled at the localist level possible.

Thank you and +rep for answering the question directly and completely.

One thing is certain--under a President Paul, it would be exceedingly difficult for Congress to force those many people in this nation who truly believe in their hearts that abortion is murder plain and simple to subsidize the practice through their tax dollars. Even if that did continue in some states, it would not happen in every state, so these people of conscience can find a haven where their money is not used for the purpose. And I don't see how anyone who believes in liberty can find fault with that.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

He would leave it to the states to decide.

How about the victim decides?

 

[mosquitobite]

This is such a red herring argument anymore.

If a woman reports a rape she goes to the hospital for a rape work up. I would assume that they would offer her "Plan B" at that time. Plan B is not an abortion pill (unless you consider not allowing a fertilized egg to implant = abortion). Plan B just makes it so that the uterine lining is inhospitable for implantation.

Now, if it is supposedly "date rape" that she didn't want to press charges for...well personally I don't think it has the same stigma for that child as someone who violently sexually assaults. Still, Plan B is more than available and it doesn't need to even get so far as a full blown fetus with a heartbeat and brain. It's also astronomically CHEAPER.

 

[mosquitobite]

How about the victim decides?

How about the child didn't have a choice at all how it was conceived? If you had been the product of a rape, would you be any less of a person than you are?

Back in the day I would have argued for an exception for rape/incest. Now that I am a mother and realize what a blessing children are, I can honestly say that if something horrific like that happened to me - the child that came from that act would not be seen as a "reminder" it would be seen as a the silver lining to an awful incident. But then again, I usually have a positive outlook on life and strive to see the best in any circumstance. I realize that not everyone is like me - and therefore I would never want something banned at the federal level.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Why should a child die because she wasn't wanted?

 

[Mahkato]

"If the unborn is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate."

That's really all there is to it.

 

[Pericles]

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 statement should be read repeatedly, until it is understood.