Ron Paul and abortion

[Wicce]

Now please note that this is NOT to say abortion should be a litmus test...but neither should we entirely ignore someone's viewpoints on it, either.

This is just an opinion piece I found interesting - it is biased, as pretty much everything on abortion is going to be, but still raises some points.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...rtion_rhetoric

In 1981 a Republican congressman declared:

Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

The name of the congressman? Ron Paul.

Other such quotes aren't hard to find. On March 29, 2005: " I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society."

Apparently it was dramatic enough to cause Paul to author H.R. 1094, a bill that declares that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception,"

"Many talk about being pro-life," Paul continued. "I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn."

If he is simply a federalist trying to advocate states' rights, why did he try to pass a law pronouncing all fetuses full human beings?

[AmericanMe]

I can't speak for Paul, but I may see where he's coming from.

It's not an issue of state's rights, it's an issue of personal property rights and the time we take ownership of our own bodies. I was on the fence on this issue for quite a while until a few weeks ago, but I examined the logic of both positions.

The basic premise of the "pro-choice" crowd is that a woman's right to ownership and sovreignty over her body means that she alone has the right to choose what happens in it, right? Problem is, if the people who put forth this argument were really concerned with the rights of a person over their own body, they'd also be fighting related issues such as:

1) The abolishment of the FDA, which exists to tell us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. Also, they'd want the 'A' and the 'T' dropped from the BATFE.

2) Legalization of drugs.

3) The right of a person to legally sell their organs on the open market.

All of which I can sympathize with, problem is, most people who support legal abortion would not support the above causes; therefore, how seriously can one take the "right to choose" argument?

I believe totally in one's right over their own body, and the exclusion of the majority of outside interference with that right. But the abortion issue hits a logical snag; that is, when does a person assume such ownership of their own body?

Certainly children do not exercise complete sovreignty until the age of 18, but we legally give them the basic right to their own life upon birth, Evidenced by a big contradiction: the fact that we still treat a gestating child legal right to own their life, because people who kill pregnant women are charged with two murders, and someone who physically forces a miscarriage (say, by slugging a pregnant woman in the stomach) can also be charged with murder. Apparently there is still some acceptance of an embryo's right to life, yet most people have not addressed for themselves, or refuse to do so, a formal declaration as to when a person gains ownership over their right to their own life.

Rationally, even though I am not a religious person, I have to at least give the Pro-Life crowd props for at least getting close to the substance of the issue. The real question is one where either the mom's visceral right preceeds or defaults to the child's, and when. If we are to play it morally safe, then the child attains the basic right to live that the rest of us have, and any attempt to end it is murder. However, sometimes hard choices in an extreme situation where the life of the mother is in jeopardy must be made, and I think it's acceptable in those cases.

So again I do not speak for Ron Paul, but I can understand the idea that abortion is wrong from the viewpoint of someone with a libertarian point of view.

[Beowulf]

All of which I can sympathize with, problem is, most people who support legal abortion would not support the above causes; therefore, how seriously can one take the "right to choose" argument?

Good point. Always wondered about 'those' kinds of people...

[Wicce]

Roe Vs. Wade was not decided in abortion's favor because of a person's sovereignty over their body, per se - the deciding factor was a more general right to privacy.

Your argument is flawed - that's like saying pro-life people should not be taken seriously because they also are often the ones advocating the death penalty, or anti-gun control people who nevertheless think it should be illegal to have dirty bombs.

Evidenced by a big contradiction: the fact that we still treat a gestating child legal right to own their life, because people who kill pregnant women are charged with two murders, and someone who physically forces a miscarriage (say, by slugging a pregnant woman in the stomach) can also be charged with murder. Apparently there is still some acceptance of an embryo's right to life

For the most part these are laws written and supported by the pro-life, not pro-choice. There are exceptions, as there are for anything, but that's like saying because a certain state may have more pro-life laws, that the pro-choice movement is hypocritical. Why would you use a stance taken by the pro-life to demonstrate pro-choice hypocrisy?

I REALLY don't want to get into a greater abortion debate, since this has been SO MANY times here (and I'm sure will be done many more times), the topic was Ron Paul...so many people view him as 100% federalist and are quite comfortable saying "oh, he would just decentrify the government and turn this over to the states", when his record in this area is patchy.

[Philosophia]

Let me state this first: I am pro-choice (shock, horror! ). I believe that it is your body first and foremost and you can do whatever you want to it. If you want to take drugs, sell your organs, or do anything else legislated against by FEMA, then do it. As long as it doesn't affect my rights then I honestly don't care what you do. Its your body, your choice.

On Ron Paul:
It does sound rather odd. I know people who are pro-choice but hate abortion and wouldn't do it themselves. They support a person's right to have control over their own body. If he really stated these, then he is basically contradicting himself over a person's right.

[Laisrean]

Originally Posted by AmericanMe

I can't speak for Paul, but I may see where he's coming from.

It's not an issue of state's rights, it's an issue of personal property rights and the time we take ownership of our own bodies. I was on the fence on this issue for quite a while until a few weeks ago, but I examined the logic of both positions.

The basic premise of the "pro-choice" crowd is that a woman's right to ownership and sovreignty over her body means that she alone has the right to choose what happens in it, right? Problem is, if the people who put forth this argument were really concerned with the rights of a person over their own body, they'd also be fighting related issues such as:

1) The abolishment of the FDA, which exists to tell us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. Also, they'd want the 'A' and the 'T' dropped from the BATFE.

2) Legalization of drugs.

3) The right of a person to legally sell their organs on the open market.

All of which I can sympathize with, problem is, most people who support legal abortion would not support the above causes; therefore, how seriously can one take the "right to choose" argument?

I believe totally in one's right over their own body, and the exclusion of the majority of outside interference with that right. But the abortion issue hits a logical snag; that is, when does a person assume such ownership of their own body?

Certainly children do not exercise complete sovreignty until the age of 18, but we legally give them the basic right to their own life upon birth, Evidenced by a big contradiction: the fact that we still treat a gestating child legal right to own their life, because people who kill pregnant women are charged with two murders, and someone who physically forces a miscarriage (say, by slugging a pregnant woman in the stomach) can also be charged with murder. Apparently there is still some acceptance of an embryo's right to life, yet most people have not addressed for themselves, or refuse to do so, a formal declaration as to when a person gains ownership over their right to their own life.

Rationally, even though I am not a religious person, I have to at least give the Pro-Life crowd props for at least getting close to the substance of the issue. The real question is one where either the mom's visceral right preceeds or defaults to the child's, and when. If we are to play it morally safe, then the child attains the basic right to live that the rest of us have, and any attempt to end it is murder. However, sometimes hard choices in an extreme situation where the life of the mother is in jeopardy must be made, and I think it's acceptable in those cases.

So again I do not speak for Ron Paul, but I can understand the idea that abortion is wrong from the viewpoint of someone with a libertarian point of view.

Good point, however similar criticism is also warranted for the "pro-life" crowd when their pro-life stance is not consistently applied. Do we take the right to life argument seriously when exceptions are made for abortions of pregnancies brought about by rape or incest?

Consequently, I have more respect for the pro-lifers who oppose abortion under any and all conditions. After all, the fetus can't help whoever their father was. When exceptions are made to allow abortion under certain situations then they seem to be more about controlling women than about saving the fetus. If that's the case my respect for them decreases.

On the other hand, I also respect the pro-choice people who consistently defend that principle to those issues you've mentioned . If they only use the "my body, my choice" argument to defend abortion and no other body related issues, then my respect for them diminishes.

In the end though, I don't know if either side is really right or wrong... I think it is better to err on the side of caution and oppose abortion, though. But my opposition is personal and not political. I would keep it legal because it would happen regardless.

I believe Ron Paul feels the same, even though he did attempt to make a declaration. Remember, a declaration is symbolic only.

[Wicce]

Consequently, I have more respect for the pro-lifers who oppose abortion under any and all conditions. After all, the fetus can't help whoever their father was. When exceptions are made to allow abortion under certain situations then they seem to be more about controlling women than about saving the fetus. If that's the case my respect for them decreases.

I completely agree, and I have to say that the pro-choice movement does not escape from this either. If a fetus is a precious, individual human being, then you can't kill it for how it was conceived any more than you can take a gun to the head of any walking, talking person who was conceived by rape. Conversely, for the pro-choice folks, if it's NOT a precious, individual human being, then whether or not someone uses abortion as birth control is no consequence to you.

Another bit of strange opinion twist I can't wrap my head around - parental consent laws. So the parent of a pregnant minor should consent to an abortion - does that mean the opposite should be true, they should be allowed to force an unwilling girl to have one based on the fact she is a minor?

Another thing...if the fetus is a human being and that girl is the parent, the parental consent laws therefore apply to HER, too, in theory making HER the decision-maker about what happens to the fetus, under those same consent laws!

[Laisrean]

Originally Posted by Wicce

Roe Vs. Wade was not decided in abortion's favor because of a person's sovereignty over their body, per se - the deciding factor was a more general right to privacy.

We obviously don't have a right to privacy, though, because how else could there be a domestic spying program (which btw, Ron does oppose)? And then almost all candidates (not Ron, of course) want to impose a national I.D. card. That too would infringe on the right to privacy.

Also, if we assume that a fetus has the right to life, and that a mother has a right to privacy, which of those rights trumps the other?

Originally Posted by Wicce

I REALLY don't want to get into a greater abortion debate, since this has been SO MANY times here (and I'm sure will be done many more times), the topic was Ron Paul...so many people view him as 100% federalist and are quite comfortable saying "oh, he would just decentrify the government and turn this over to the states", when his record in this area is patchy.

He only tried to make a declaration, which has no meaning beyond symbolism. It was like when congress declared English to be the official language, or when they issue a declaration condemning the president or something going on somewhere. It doesn't accomplish anything.

And he alone couldn't ban it anyway. The president can't do something like that unilaterally. Especially with a Democratic legislature. In short, I don't think he would touch it, just as no other president has really touched it. Has he ever said he would move to ban it? At least he is honest and open about his positions, unlike most candidates.

[Laisrean]

Originally Posted by Wicce

I completely agree, and I have to say that the pro-choice movement does not escape from this either. If a fetus is a precious, individual human being, then you can't kill it for how it was conceived any more than you can take a gun to the head of any walking, talking person who was conceived by rape. Conversely, for the pro-choice folks, if it's NOT a precious, individual human being, then whether or not someone uses abortion as birth control is no consequence to you.

Another bit of strange opinion twist I can't wrap my head around - parental consent laws. So the parent of a pregnant minor should consent to an abortion - does that mean the opposite should be true, they should be allowed to force an unwilling girl to have one based on the fact she is a minor?

Another thing...if the fetus is a human being and that girl is the parent, the parental consent laws therefore apply to HER, too, in theory making HER the decision-maker about what happens to the fetus, under those same consent laws!

Yeah, exactly. Its a very paradoxical issue... no one is right or wrong on this (as long as they adhere to principles, of course).

That's why I just let it go and I'm not out there picketing in favor nor in opposition to it. I'm not really sure which way to go on that...

So in the end I just try to focus on the other issues.

[banondraig]

Originally Posted by AmericanMe

I can't speak for Paul, but I may see where he's coming from.

It's not an issue of state's rights, it's an issue of personal property rights and the time we take ownership of our own bodies. I was on the fence on this issue for quite a while until a few weeks ago, but I examined the logic of both positions.

The basic premise of the "pro-choice" crowd is that a woman's right to ownership and sovreignty over her body means that she alone has the right to choose what happens in it, right? Problem is, if the people who put forth this argument were really concerned with the rights of a person over their own body, they'd also be fighting related issues such as:

1) The abolishment of the FDA, which exists to tell us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. Also, they'd want the 'A' and the 'T' dropped from the BATFE.

2) Legalization of drugs.

3) The right of a person to legally sell their organs on the open market.

All of which I can sympathize with, problem is, most people who support legal abortion would not support the above causes; therefore, how seriously can one take the "right to choose" argument?

I believe totally in one's right over their own body, and the exclusion of the majority of outside interference with that right. But the abortion issue hits a logical snag; that is, when does a person assume such ownership of their own body?

I am against criminalization of abortion, and also against the three things you listed.

As far as a person assuming ownership of their own body, I would say that begins when that person is able to support his/her own bodily functions, such as breathing, independently of any other specific person. Currently this can occur up to three months before the full term of a pregnancy, but always after birth.