Who disagrees with Paul that life beings at conception?

[Kuldebar]

I'd rather error on the side of life myself. Also, I find the idea of ending a pregnancy as a form of birth control rather irresponsible and abhorrent.

Outside of rape, pregnancy is entirely preventable and a matter of being responsible. In cases of rape, the question is whether the fetus should get the death penalty for the crime of the biological father.

But Incest and Rape aren't the norm here, most abortions are performed simply as a means of birth control. To me that's the underlying moral question.

But, we don't have perfect knowledge, so we need to get the matter handled on state and/or local levels. We don't want a one size solution fits-all for this moral question.

Whether abortion is murder or a medical procedure, the federal government should have no say, either yes or no.

 

[quickmike]

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.'."

Tell your dad good luck on finding a candidate that is 100% in step with his beliefs. If hes gonna nitpick on an issue that has no bearing on his life whatsoever since hes a guy, and will most likely never ever ever have an abortion himself(you never know with science these days).

I would bet your father was never gonna vote for ron paul anyway. He just used that as the excuse. Like hes saying "man, that ron paul guy sure has some good ideas, but wait............ what was that he just said?............ life begins at conception???????????? THE TYRANNY!!!!!!!!!! THAT ASSHOLE!!!!! ILL NEVER VOTE FOR HIM!!!!!"

No offense dude, but your dad sounds ridiculous.

 

[ghemminger]

You can't? How would you classify it then? If left to complete its term of gestation, will such a fetus be born as a sea urchin? As a matter of fact, scientifically the situation is crystal-clear: a fetus with a human genome is human. If it has a different set of genes, it is a member of the species defined by that set of genes.

What you really mean is you don't think a 3 month old fetus is human because it doesn't look like you, and is incapable of playing poker (or whatever other capability or behavior you define as "human"). Interestingly, just such criteria were used not so long ago to define black people as not-quite-human. Or, ironically enough, to so define women.

Great Argument...never heard it that way

 

[BarryDonegan]

people also forget, and i know this may sound harsh, but birth control IS an effective prevention of pregnancy via rape.

it has a 7% failure rate, so for a woman on birth control to get pregnant via rape would require her being raped a great many times and at a variety of points in her menstrual cycle.

there are some people who may not like to take birth control, but its usage in society is now very normal and pervasive, it wouldn't be unreasonable for a girl to take it preventatively even when not promiscuous for that reason. of course some would not be able to do that for hormonal or other health reasons, but the number of legitimate pregnancies sired by actual gun-to-the-head rape (not the changed-my-mind afterwards because i was drunk kind) is relatively small in the first place, especially in the face of the number of people who get abortions en masse.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Can someone explain something to me here? Dr. Paul's position is that the federal government should have no role in abortion, one way or the other. The decision should be made by each state and acted upon accordingly. Does anyone here have a problem with that?

 

[LibertyEagle]

people also forget, and i know this may sound harsh, but birth control IS an effective prevention of pregnancy via rape.

Well, the pill has been associated with cancer, so I'm not sure this is a great idea.

 

[stevedasbach]

I don't agree with him -- don't agree with the abortion anytime folks either.

Agree that it's a state issue, as are all other issues of criminal law.

 

[JC StyLEE]

Conception

I DO believe that life begins at conception...and so does Ron Paul. That is MY stance, but I do not enforce it on others.

The fact that he wants the states to take care of this, to me, is very logical. I believe in capitalism and democracy, and if the people of my state vote pro-choice or pro-life, then I will accept that decision. I know what I believe, and that is what is important to me. I HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DECIDE! and THAT is what Ron Paul is all about.

 

[Kuldebar]

Well, the pill has been associated with cancer, so I'm not sure this is a great idea.

Everything has been associated with cancer, hell humanity is cancer causing.

 

[quickmike]

adoption is always a good idea. All politics aside, personally, even if theres a good argument to say that a 1 week old fetus is not a human, why not just have the little bastard and give it up for adoption? Thats fair isnt it? Just incase life really does begin at conception? Or are these women so damn selfish they just say "screw that!!! im not walking around with that thing in my belly for 9 whole months!!!!" Sounds kinda petty to me. If you dont want the kid, just give it away when its born. Lots of people would like to have it. I just think abortion is pretty selfish from a personal standpoint. Deny the kid the chance to grow just because of the minor inconvenience of you carrying it around for less than a year........... man, thats a pretty cold person if you ask me.

 

[ghemminger]

adoption is always a good idea. All politics aside, personally, even if theres a good argument to say that a 1 week old fetus is not a human, why not just have the little bastard and give it up for adoption? Thats fair isnt it? Just incase life really does begin at conception? Or are these women so damn selfish they just say "screw that!!! im not walking around with that thing in my belly for 9 whole months!!!!" Sounds kinda petty to me. If you dont want the kid, just give it away when its born. Lots of people would like to have it. I just think abortion is pretty selfish from a personal standpoint. Deny the kid the chance to grow just because of the minor inconvenience of you carrying it around for less than a year........... man, thats a pretty cold person if you ask me.

Yeah there be a lot less abortion if guys had babies...I totally agree!

 

[Kuldebar]

Think of a dynamic society made up of communities that were built around shared values, the experiment of democracy would be back on track. Some things might not work out, but the harm would be limited and could be reversed.

People would have real and vested interests in the communities and states they chose to live in.

Each state and community would reflect the people that lived there. Think of how the Amish live, think how even now in these crazy times the Amish have managed to retain a lot of their identity. You don't have to be Amish to have that, as a free citizen you should be able to associate with others as you choose. Civil society arises from this simple well spring.

 

[inibo]

I have not read this entire thread because, frankly, I find this discussion tiresome. However, I did see a lot of "I think" this, "I believe" that. Please go read this:

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

I. Introduction

The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be answered by human embryologists — not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question. Current discussions on abortion, human embryo research (including cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of mixed-species chimeras), and the use of abortifacients involve specific claims as to when the life of every human being begins. If the "science" used to ground these various discussions is incorrect, then any conclusions will be rendered groundless and invalid. The purpose of this article is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific" myths, and on the objective scientific facts that ought to ground these discussions. At least it will clarify what the actual international consensus of human embryologists is with regard to this relatively simple scientific question. In the final section, I will also address some "scientific" myths that have caused much confusion within the philosophical discussions on "personhood."

That's just the introduction. Read the whole thing, please.

If you disagree with the conclusions then I suggest you argue your point with science and reason, not your emotions or by grasping at straws to support your preconceived notions.

 

[quickmike]

Yeah there be a lot less abortion if guys had babies...I totally agree!

Also, by just the mechanics of it.................... a lot more painful too

 

[ikester8]

My $0.02:

There is no question that life begins at conception. As soon as the sperm and egg combine and the cells begin to multiply, it's alive, and human.

However, it is entirely dependent on its mother, who has the perfect right to evict the perceived trespasser at any time. Just because she had sex does not mean that she has made a contract with her baby to carry it to term. To get all Rothbardian on you, how on earth can a very young fetus enter into a legally-enforceable contract?

As Walter Block points out (and I hope I'm not repeating an argument stated above), abortion is both a killing and an eviction. His libertarian synthesis is that where it is possible to evict without killing, one must do so. (You don't have to try to save it necessarily, but you can't kill it.) But where one cannot evict without killing, well, that's too bad. But that's today. Who knows what tomorrow may hold?

I'm not saying Dr. Paul would support this synthesis. I'm quite sure he would not. But it seems to be to be as close a compromise between the rights of both mother and baby as can be imagined.

Meanwhile, moving this issue to the several States, or to the People, as the Constitution demands, is the best thing for all concerned at this point. Roe v Wade was an absolute horror of a decision, perhaps one of the worst cases of judicial legislation ever. It should have been nullified by the States immediately, regardless of how it ended up in each State.

 

[atilla]

i believe we should amend the constitution to read, "life begins at two years". that way we could completely test for all sorts of diseases and save billions in medical costs for supporting people who can't provide benefit to society.

the only exception would be for children of mary-kate and ashley, they would be honored as "children of the republic" from conception. also i wish to encourage everyone to support ron paul introducing a law mandating that mary-kate and ashley have their noses restored to the former natural form.

thank you.

 

[fj45lvr]

Just consider now if you will that the feds under the guise of the Endangered Species Act will go to almost any length to protect insects or flower (or their seeds) and there is a wide array of people that are motivated to file lawsuits and such over these things.....

what this at a minimum has to show people is that the reason that this is an "issue" to those that question the sanctity of life is that they do not value human life....most assuredly in contrast to an endangered seed, insect or mouse...that is just sickening.

There can be no liberty without life...there is no question that all kinds of decisions are made in life (many of which are poor and irresponsible) but inalienable rights are not something that are discretionary but rather given by God as our founders understood even if people and governments now and in the past don't.

 

[BarryDonegan]

Well, the pill has been associated with cancer, so I'm not sure this is a great idea.

abortion has been associated more clearly and directly with far greater health risk than an abstract association to cancer via birth control. most significant of which is a 5x likelyhood of suicide for women who have had one the year following an abortion.

lesser of two evils, so maybe it would be overdoing it or whatever, but my point is there are plenty of generally-safe pre-conception methods to avoid pregnancy, if its THAT important to you.


i guess my main point here is theres a lot of argument of definition on both sides, haha, so its clear there is no consensus here. i agree w/ dr paul that w should err on the side of life, and let the state and local govts make their own rulings.

 

[Politeia]

Ron Paul is a single-issue candidate

Exactly. I honestly don't understand what some here are upset about.

Americans have been trained to think of politics in terms of "issues", and to choose candidates by adding up lists of issues: "I agree with him on this, I don't agree with him on that." And candidates take "stands" on "issues" based on how many votes they think they can get by being pro or con on one issue or another, and put together a crazy-quilt out of the results.

Ron Paul is unique in that all his "positions" on "issues" are based on principle: the basic libertarian principle of non-aggression, which is essentially a restatement of the Golden Rule: Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself. Dr. Paul's campaign puts out a list of "issues" because that's what people expect, but the "issues" aren't the point; the principle is.

Furthermore, as it happens that the Constitution is a very good practical application of the non-aggression principle, Dr. Paul's "positions" are all based on the Constitution, and whether or not the Constitution grants power to the federal government over a particular matter.

This is why arguing with Dr. Paul's stance on one "issue" or another is fruitless: Unlike other candidates, he won't be convinced to change his stance on an "issue" just because it looks like he might get more votes by doing so. Unlike all other candidates, Republocrat or Demogogue, he won't violate his single, principled issue, the Constitution. That's a lot of his appeal, even though people don't understand it because they've just never seen anyone like him: There's actually someone there, not just a naked ambition that lives only to get votes.

And Dr. Paul is unique because he is the only candidate who is opposed to both abortion and arbitrary wars, because both violate the principle of non-aggression. All the other candidates either ("conservatives") think it's wrong to kill not-yet-born babies but perfectly okay to kill people who look different but have done us no harm; or ("liberals") think it's wrong to kill people who look different but have done us no harm but perfectly okay to kill not-yet-born babies; or (Hillary) think it's perfectly okay to kill anyone who gets in the way of having what you want. Only Hillary is "consistent" here, though her principle is quite different from Dr. Paul's: As a (woman) picketer put it on a sign, "She doesn't care; she just wants the power."

People are attracted to Dr. Paul because his message of Peace and Freedom is, in these times, like a sudden light in a dark room. But, from reading this and other forums, it's clear to me that many, perhaps most, of those who've been attracted to Dr. Paul in the last few months don't really understand what he's about. That's okay, you can learn (as I did 25 years ago, when I was converted from a left-liberal to a libertarian). Liberty is indeed attractive, but it does have a price, and one we're not used to paying: Responsibility. Once you get the hang of it, it's actually easier to start from principle, rather than having to keep track of where you stand on every issue. As Mark Twain said, "When you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything."

 

[fj45lvr]

duplicate