Will Rand vote for an abortion bill with exemptions?

[Brett85]

If you support any exception then you are not pro-life. There is no scenario where killing an innocent human being is justifiable.

I think you can be pro life and support an exception for the life of the mother. Most pro lifers support this exception. It's a policy of also trying to protect the mother's life. In certain situations I believe it's justifiable homocide for a woman to get an abortion in order to save her own life.

 

[Generalissimo]

I think you can be pro life and support an exception for the life of the mother. Most pro lifers support this exception. It's a policy of also trying to protect the mother's life. In certain situations I believe it's justifiable homocide for a woman to get an abortion in order to save her own life.

I don't think it is ever justifiable to kill an innocent human being. I cannot morally support any circumstances in which abortion is justifiable. I am 100% pro-life.

The act is murder, and it is always murder, and there are no circumstances, whatever, in which murder is a legitimate moral option. The deliberate, directly intended killing of an innocent life is a sin that screams to heaven for vengeance. Always, in all circumstances, and with no exceptions.

 

[lakerssuck92]

I don't think it is ever justifiable to kill an innocent human being. I cannot morally support any circumstances in which abortion is justifiable. I am 100% pro-life.

The act is murder, and it is always murder, and there are no circumstances, whatever, in which murder is a legitimate moral option. The deliberate, directly intended killing of an innocent life is a sin that screams to heaven for vengeance. Always, in all circumstances, and with no exceptions.

There are legitimate medical situations under which the baby has to be aborted in order to save the life of the mother. Would you just let the mother die in such a situation?

 

[RonPaulMall]

By what right can the US Senate regulate a medical procedure where the entire operation occurs within a single state? Same twisted logic the New Dealer's used to Federalize everything under the sun. You can be pro-life without being anti-Constitution. This bill spits on the Constitution, and anybody that supports it has no right to complain about the Dems using the Commerce Clause to justify anything they want. If you want to ban abortion, the proper venue is your state legislature, the same place you would turn if you wanted to change the law on any kind of murder, manslaughter, or medical regulation statute. I hope Rand votes against this abortion of a bill. No surprise the mental midget Rubio is behind hit.

 

[Brett85]

By what right can the US Senate regulate a medical procedure where the entire operation occurs within a single state? Same twisted logic the New Dealer's used to Federalize everything under the sun. You can be pro-life without being anti-Constitution. This bill spits on the Constitution, and anybody that supports it has no right to complain about the Dems using the Commerce Clause to justify anything they want. If you want to ban abortion, the proper venue is your state legislature, the same place you would turn if you wanted to change the law on any kind of murder, manslaughter, or medical regulation statute. I hope Rand votes against this abortion of a bill. No surprise the mental midget Rubio is behind hit.

Then what do you think of Ron's vote for the ban on partial birth abortion?

 

[Brett85]

I don't think it is ever justifiable to kill an innocent human being. I cannot morally support any circumstances in which abortion is justifiable. I am 100% pro-life.

The act is murder, and it is always murder, and there are no circumstances, whatever, in which murder is a legitimate moral option. The deliberate, directly intended killing of an innocent life is a sin that screams to heaven for vengeance. Always, in all circumstances, and with no exceptions.

There are some pregnancies such as ectopic pregnancies where the baby has no chance to survive, since the baby stays in the fallopian tube rather than attaching to the uterus. In a situation like that it's necessary to remove the baby from the woman, particularly since there's no chance that the baby can actually be born and survive.

But, it's nice to know that there's someone who's even more strictly anti abortion than I am.

 

[Carlybee]

I don't think it is ever justifiable to kill an innocent human being. I cannot morally support any circumstances in which abortion is justifiable. I am 100% pro-life.

The act is murder, and it is always murder, and there are no circumstances, whatever, in which murder is a legitimate moral option. The deliberate, directly intended killing of an innocent life is a sin that screams to heaven for vengeance. Always, in all circumstances, and with no exceptions.

So if the mother was allowed to die, would the fetus then be guilty of murder?

 

[RonPaulMall]

Then what do you think of Ron's vote for the ban on partial birth abortion?

The same thing Ron thinks about it- that it was one of the few votes in his career where he violated his own principles.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Then what do you think of Ron's vote for the ban on partial birth abortion?

I respectfully disagree with him. Honestly, that stuff just defeats the real pro-life agenda anyway. It spreads the message that some types of abortion are so heinous that they need to be banned, and that some abortions, such as early ones, are somehow "Less bad" than those heinous types that happen far less often.

At the state level, I'd vote for anything (With the caveat that it doesn't violate any other liberties) that saves even one unborn child, but that doesn't mean the bills are intellectually coherent or that the GOP is really more pro-life just because they support silly little things like this.

Those types of bills being the best "Pro-life" can offer, that and the fact that they don't give a crap about the constitution, is why I choose to look at other issues besides this when deciding who to vote for.

In Ron Paul's case, he's rock solid on basically everything and this is one issue where I feel his constitutionalism was inconsistent. I don't hold one vote like this against him, heck, Rand voted for something FAR worse recently, seeing as Ron's vote was wrong because it was unconsitutional, while Rand's vote would have been wrong anywhere. I still support Rand, at least as far as it goes.

If I were in congress I'd probably just vote "Present" on pretty much any Federal abortion bill, than use that as a platform from which to explain why and teach people something about the constitution. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act is an exception since the whole point of that is to restore power to the states.

Ron is also a doctor, and so knows the horiffic reality of abortion even more than I do, so I can forgive the inconsistency. But I still believe he's inconsistent on supporting some Federal intervention on this while being a strict constructionist.

There are some pregnancies such as ectopic pregnancies where the baby has no chance to survive, since the baby stays in the fallopian tube rather than attaching to the uterus. In a situation like that it's necessary to remove the baby from the woman, particularly since there's no chance that the baby can actually be born and survive.

But, it's nice to know that there's someone who's even more strictly anti abortion than I am.

Morally (With the exception of the ecoptic situation) I agree with generalissmo, however, when it comes to legality, I think the mother should have the right to use self-defense if her life is in danger, whether the person threatening her is actually guilty or not.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The same thing Ron thinks about it- that it was one of the few votes in his career where he violated his own principles.

Did Ron Paul ever actually say that?

 

[Brett85]

The same thing Ron thinks about it- that it was one of the few votes in his career where he violated his own principles.

Has Ron ever said that he regrets his vote for the partial birth abortion ban?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Has Ron ever said that he regrets his vote for the partial birth abortion ban?

Yeah, that's what I wanted to know...

Ron has been a little unclear about this, on the one hand he says "The Federal Government's job is to protect unborn life" and then he says that murder laws should be decided by the states.

Which is it?

Its actually aggravating because its the last thing I'd expect to be asking about Ron Paul of all people. He's so consistent on everything else, why can't he be clear here?

I suspect its because, morally, he believes that stopping abortion through any means necessary is justified, but constitutionally he knows that its a state issue. I honestly think that's his dilemma.

 

[Generalissimo]

Ron has been a little unclear about this, on the one hand he says "The Federal Government's job is to protect unborn life" and then he says that murder laws should be decided by the states.

Which is it?

Both.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Both.

OK, so let's say the Sanctity of Life Act is passed, as it should be. California decides not to punish any abortionists in its territory. What would Ron Paul do about it?

I'm guessing "Nothing" which is the correct response.

 

[Generalissimo]

OK, so let's say the Sanctity of Life Act is passed, as it should be. California decides not to punish any abortionists in its territory. What would Ron Paul do about it?

I'm guessing "Nothing" which is the correct response.

Read the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the prohibition on bills of attainder in Article I Secion 10. Should life be defined federally as beginning at conception then abortion would be murder nationwide. The 14th Amendment would give the unborn all the legal protections enjoyed by people already born. The prohibition on bills of attainder would prohibit states from treating the murder of one class of people (the unborn) as any different from the murder of the rest of the population.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Did Ron Paul ever actually say that?

He cited the partial birth abortion ban in response to a question about if he ever made an unprincipled vote. He never said he "regretted" the vote. He simply noted, with that refreshing honestly that Ron Paul alone among major politicians seems to possess, that it was an unprincipled vote. I applaud Ron for his honesty, but he was still wrong to vote the way he did. Either the Constitution matters or it does not. Either you stick to your principles or you have no principles. If a pro-life person can ignore the Constitution whenever they want because they feel the issue of "life" is important, how can they complain when another politician craps all over the Constitution in the name of "poverty" or "sexual abuse" or "food safety" or "public health"? Everybody has their own pet issue they think is "important". Most have more than one. We are in the mess we are in because Congress over the years has come to the agreement that whenever anybody's "important" issue clashes with the express limits of the US Constitution, the important policy issue takes precedence.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Read the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the prohibition on bills of attainder in Article I Secion 10. Should life be defined federally as beginning at conception then abortion would be murder nationwide. The 14th Amendment would give the unborn all the legal protections enjoyed by people already born. The prohibition on bills of attainder would prohibit states from treating the murder of one class of people (the unborn) as any different from the murder of the rest of the population.

A bill of attainder is when a legislature punishes someone with the benefit of a trial. It has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever unless Congress are the ones ordering the abortions. The 14th Amendment is the same thing. The 14th protects you from government taking your life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Murderers have 14th Amendment protections, not victims (unless the murderer was the state or an agent of the state).

 

[Generalissimo]

A bill of attainder is when a legislature punishes someone with the benefit of a trial. It has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever unless Congress are the ones ordering the abortions. The 14th Amendment is the same thing. The 14th protects you from government taking your life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Murderers have 14th Amendment protections, not victims (unless the murderer was the state or an agent of the state).

The prohibition on bills of attainder means that the unborn cannot be deprived of their right to life simply because they are unborn.

The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause means that murder laws must apply equally to all citizens. You cannot legalize the murder of one group of people. All persons are to be treated equally under the law, including the unborn who are people.

 

[RonPaulMall]

The prohibition on bills of attainder means that the unborn cannot be deprived of their right to life simply because they are unborn.

Yes, if unborn were people Congress could not pass a law mandating a particular person be aborted. This is in fact already the case, since a legislatively mandated abortion without due process of law would constitute a bill of attainder against the mother. But it has nothing to do with a mother contracting with a doctor to perform an abortion. The doctor is not issuing a bill of attainder.

The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause means that murder laws must apply equally to all citizens. You cannot legalize the murder of one group of people. All persons are to be treated equally under the law, including the unborn who are people.

All "persons" are treated equally under the law. "Unborn" is not a group of people. It is a period of the life cycle all groups of people go through. And the law treats people differently based on their age all the time. You can't legally contract with a person until they reach a certain age. Statutory rape laws make sex criminal if performed on people of a certain age class yet legal if performed on a person 1 day older.

 

[dinosaur]

hxxp://prolifeprofiles.com/ron-paul-abortion

These idiots think that just because Ron Paul believes in states rights that he's not pro-life. They don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade. They want to go beyond it. They are too stupid to realize that a complete federal abortion ban will never happen in our lifetime and they'd rather see millions of babies be aborted than see a compromise that might save most of them. Oh, and they think that we should invade Canada and Israel because those countries allow abortion.

States Prosecute But Cannot Decriminalize Murder: States prosecute murder. They do not have the right to decriminalize murder. Because states justly prosecute kidnapping and theft, it does not then follow that they have the authority to legalize kidnapping and stealing. Ron Paul promotes a confused view of states' rights that suggests that the federal government can apathetically look the other way if the states authorize the killing of innocent human beings. As the largest Ron Paul fansite describes his view, "the ninth and tenth amendments... do not grant the federal government any authority to... ban abortion."4 Neither God nor the U.S. Constitution, however, gives to any state, county, city, nor any subdivision of government permission to authorize or even to tolerate the intentional killing of the innocent. The federal and state relationship is irrelevant to the "legalization" of abortion. If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify even invasion. Further, the Bible itself explicitly opposes the idea that subdivisions of a nation can refuse to prosecute murder (see AmericanRTL.org/states-rights-and-abortion).

Pay attention to the part in bold. They compare abortion to murder. They think if a country legalizes murder inside it's own borders, that's somehow an act of war justifying invasion. So....these people want to invade Canada. Israel also allows and even pays for abortion. It's not a "neighboring country", but justification for invasion is justification.

One other thing wrong with their "logic". States have different standards on what is "murder". Just like at the Travon Martin trial and "stand your ground" laws. (Yes I know. It's possible that SYG doesn't even apply in that case. But it is the law. What may be 2nd or 3rd degree murder in one state may be justifiable self defence in another.)

Edit: And the correction I sent to "prolifeprofiles"

I want to correct the profile of Ron Paul because of the poor logic that you use to make the case that he is not pro life.

Ron Paul, like the original pro-life movement, wants to overturn Roe v Wade. That would send abortion back to the states. You complain about that, claiming that states can't decriminalize murder, only prosecute it. That shows ignorance of the law. States define murder for themselves. Take the Trayvon Martin / Mark Zimmerman case. A state could say that any killing is unlawful. Or it could say that killing in self defense is lawful. A state can determine what is or is not self defense. Similarly, states could chose what exceptions, if any, would be allowed for abortion. Also I find it odd that you assert that if some other country, say Canada, were to legalize the killing of a group of people, that would be justification of the U.S. invading. Well...abortion is legal in Canada. Do you think we should invade Canada? If yes....well then you guys are just nuts. If no...then you owe Ron Paul an apology. By your own analogy his position on the issue is correct.

That said, I don't expect to collect my $100.00. I don't think you will be that honest.

People don't think that deeply about it. They think they do, but are vulnerable to groupthink...kind of like when someone thinks they are educated about politics because they take the time to listen to Rush Limbaugh. They throw out someone like Ron Paul, who is actually proposing something that would saves the lives of babies, because their leaders are against his position. Hence my point about them not being ready to accept the idea that their organizational leaders are compromised.