Who disagrees with Paul that life beings at conception?

[andrewgreve]

I do. How do you think the abortion issue will affect support for Paul's campaign? My dad, for example, likes all of Paul's financial policies, but will not vote for him because of his views on abortion.

Ron Paul's thoughts on the matter:
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

How do you feel that Paul introduced this legislation?:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776

"SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'."

 

[fj45lvr]

When does life begin Andrew?? I'm curious.

 

[cujothekitten]

I disagree with him but it's not a big issue for me. I feel that he'll make the morning after pill and plan B more available so abortion isn't really necessary in my view... unless the mother’s life is at risk of course.

 

[Dominic]

I happen to agree with him, but I think if people agree with his overall philosophy of a federal government restricted by Constitutional limits, then it ought to be a non-issue.

Ron Paul doesn't want to have a federal abortion ban, he wants to leave it up to the states where the issue belongs.

 

[Mr. White]

I'd agree life begins at conception, but I'm very much pro-choice. I feel that decision is between the woman and God.

Anywho, this is THE only issue I've found dividies anyone I talk to. I've talked to pro-lifers that hate him for it and pro-choicers that hate him for it.

Whatever the case, I stress to people that this polarizing issue is nothing compared to the economic and soverign future of our country.

 

[slantedview]

I'm still torn. But one interesting argument I heard from either Paul or a supporter:

The California court indirectly deemed an unborn fetus as a person being that it charged Scott Peterson with 2 deaths when he killed his wife and unborn child, not just 1 death.

 

[amberj]

I disagree with his pro-life position, but in my opinion, what is really important here? Whether or not we can choose to have an abortion, or whether or not we can chooose anything at all? I'll sacrifice that one to have freedoms everywhere else.

 

[andrewgreve]

Whatever the case, I stress to people that this polarizing issue is nothing compared to the economic and soverign future of our country.

I agree, Mr. White.

 

[Santana28]

i think the point is moot, and is obviously his own personal opinion as a Doctor.

but from a legal standpoint it is absolutely hypocritical to prosecute people for harming an unborn fetus while at the same time allowing (and funding) abortions.

LIFE does begin at conception. that's not the argument. the argument is whether consciousness begins, or pain, or emotions, etc etc. cells multiplying = life, so you can't argue that conception isn't an act of life. To get theological, its the question whether the fetus has a "soul" yet or not.

I don't know all these things! I can't answer them, and i'm not about to force my opinion on other people. But i think whenever there is doubt - we should err on the side of life.

 

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

I agree with him.

I also agree it's a state issue.

I also have no problem with the morning after pill.

 

[risiusj]

Who here hates how social issues are always the first things that sway how people vote?

I hate it. What does it matter what the president thinks about gay marriage, abortion, etc.
If the system is run properly, the president will never have to make a decision on those sorts of things.

 

[mconder]

I'd agree life begins at conception, but I'm very much pro-choice

Would you be pro-choice after the birth of the child or even a week before birth?

 

[walt]

this is a side issue. the issue of freedom and our looming bankruptcy are far far more important. Take time to consider this.

 

[njandrewg]

not really a big issue, considering it would be a state issue. Making it 1 way or another on the federal level just pisses off 50% of the country no matter what you choose.

+ on the state level some states may come up with a better policy than making it 1 way or another.

 

[nullvalu]

Andrew, I'm curious too.. when does life begin if not at conception? during birth?

I'd like to point out to people who think that, that a baby can be born 3-4 months before term and go on to live a healthy life.. Should it not be considered a real life for those 3-4 months before it has reached term?

 

[hells_unicorn]

I agree with Paul's position, as well as the fact that this issue is not a tool for a tyrannical federal abortion ban or continued allowance. When the issue is taken up in Pennsylvania I will likely side with the "only to save the life of the mother" version of the law, which is pretty much the traditional Catholic position. That call can only be made by a physician like Dr. Paul and argued to a judge, not by an elected politician or a priest.

 

[Craig_R]

I think abortion should be okay till formation of a brain, after that its a person and murder.

I also think the president has no say on the matter whatsoever so it doesnt matter if I agree with pauls position here or not, tho I can live with his position

 

[david.griffus]

It is a touchy issue. I like for people to have the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy at an early stage. Late-term abortions are barbaric. If the baby could survive outside the mother, then I guess I am against aborting it. I don't know. I don't think that much about it.

 

[jj111]

If you look at the definition of "life" you will find that life is a continuum. The millions of sperm in an ejaculation are living things. They move, they have DNA, - what makes them move if they are not alive? If they sit around for a while they will eventually die, and stop moving.

The same is with an unfertilized egg. It is alive. It conducts processes that a living thing does.

Now an egg has only 23 chromosomes, and a sperm only 23 chromosomes. I think the term is haploid. When they combine, the DNA combines and they have 46 chromosomes, becoming diploid.

These are all variations of the continuum of life. Life is a continuum. There are some living things in biology that live independently for half their life cycle in a haploid state, the other half in a diploid state.

Now there is a different question when you ask, when does the life become a "human being." You might argue that a sperm or egg are not a "human being."

Legal questions are based on legal theory. It is all theory.

There is no science that can answer the ethical question as to whether or not abortion is "ethical."

It is a legal and political question as to how a government and how a government-controlled legal system addresss abortion issues.

Personally, I believe life begins BEFORE conception, that life is a continuum, that sperm is alive, and that the unfertilized egg is alive. Conception is simply changing from one form of life to another - a union of two haploids to produce a diploid.

Personally, I would prefer all levels of government stay out of this issue completely. I would also prefer to live in a society where our court systems are completely disassociated from a monolithic "sovereign" government and politics. This is a tall order to achieve politically, but it theoretically could be done in a society, and in fact has been done in other societies in the past. For details, read "For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard.

 

[slantedview]

Who here hates how social issues are always the first things that sway how people vote?

I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE IT!!!

Who cares if gays can marry, a few people you don't know and will never meet can have abortions, children recite or don't recite a pledge in a classroom, etc.

None of this shit matters when we don't have jobs, or country is going further into debt, our monetary system is edging towards collapse, our troops are overseas and being killed, etc.