Abortion

Ron Paul Explains His Anti-Abortion Position

|

Presidential hopeful and Reason mag pinup Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is a medical doctor who is staunchly anti-abortion. He explains his reasoning over at the blog of the CNN show In The Arena:

In the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, while visiting a surgical suite as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately two pounds.

It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice.

Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue….

The fetus has legal rights—inheritance, a right not to be injured or aborted by unwise medical treatment, violence, or accidents. Ignoring these rights is arbitrary and places relative rights on a small, living human being.

The only issue that should be debated is the moral one: whether or not a fetus has any right to life. Scientifically, there's no debate over whether the fetus is alive and human—if not killed, it matures into an adult human being.

It is that simple. So the time line of when we consider a fetus "human" is arbitrary after conception, in my mind….

If an abortion doctor performs a third-trimester abortion for whatever reason, a handsome fee is paid and it's perfectly legal in some states.

If a frightened teenager, possibly not even knowing she was pregnant, delivers a baby and she kills it, the police are out en masse to charge her with a homicide. What really is so different between the fetus one minute before birth and a newborn one minute after birth? Biologically and morally, nothing….

Paul states that cases of unprotected sex and rape can be dealt with morning-after pills such as Plan B, which he correctly notes are not "abortion pills" but rather prevent conception from happening in the first place. 

He also argues that he is against Roe v. Wade not because it legalized abortion per se but because it nationalized an issue that should be decided at the state level: " I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being."

It's a nuanced argument for his point of view and deserves to be read in full, especially if you disagree with him on the matter (as I do). (The post at In The Arena is an excerpt from his book Liberty Defined.)

Further reading: In 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act which asserts that life begins at conception and that federal courts have no jurisdiction over the regulation of abortion. Isn't the first part of that inconsistent with the second? If the federal government has the power to define when life begins (and the "moment of conception" is less clear than it might seem at first blush), then it seems odd that the feds would have no role in its protection. Or slightly differently: If federalism is the issue, shouldn't the bill simply state that the feds have no say in abortion and leave it and the definition of when life begins up to individual states?

Regardless of whether you agree with Paul, I think virtually no other politician lays open his thought process so candidly on the matter.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

323 responses to “Ron Paul Explains His Anti-Abortion Position

  1. Here we go.

    1. Pointless Argumentation Wherein Nothing Is Settled and No Minds Are Changed, Part MCMLXVII.

  2. I wish he would explain his homophobic and racist positions–the ones that once so disappointed Nick Gillespie.

    1. His campaign promises to round up fags and darkies into camps are pretty hard to swallow.

      1. He never explained those racist newsletters to Gillepsie’s satisfaction, but for some reason, Gillespie has just dropped the matter and now supports Ron Paul as a great libertarian hope. What the fuck?

        1. Really, why fuck with Ron Paul?

          Gary Johnson doesn’t have the “kook” rap, no racist past, no Bircher past, no ‘end the Fed’ idiocy, and has crossover appeal to millions of independents.

          1. Gary Johnson doesn’t have the “kook” rap

            Having met the guy, I disagree.

            1. I met briefly with Chuck Schumer at my college graduation and think he’s a kook.

              That doesn’t mean he’s got a kook rap.

              1. I have never met Biden and yet i know he is a kook.
                Still he inexplicably has no kook rap.

              2. Chuck Schumer is incredibly sarcastic towards people who object to melted Branch Davidians. He also thinks weed smokers shouldn’t be able to own guns.

                A mainstream kook.

                1. Chuck Schumer thinks no one should be able to own guns. A total kook.

        2. The newsletters are the Paul equivalent of Obama’s birth certificate: an obsession for people who want to discredit the guy on personal grounds instead of criticizing his actual policies.

          If Ron Paul doesn’t care for the company of blacks or gays, it doesn’t bother me any more than Clinton, Kennedy, and Johnson’s philandering, Reagan’s kooky psychic consultations, or any other failure of national politicians to live up to some mythical moral standard. That is, until it affects their political views and decisions.

          Nothing I have read about Ron Paul suggests that he wants the government to treat blacks and gays any differently than anyone else. Unless you can find some evidence to the contrary, kindly STFU about it.

          1. Paul doesn’t think the government should treat blacks or gays (or black gays!) any differently than anyone else, but his extreme states’ rights standard would allow states to do what they want. If Texas wanted to imprison gays in camps, or shoot them, Paul would be fine with that. And that’s fucked.

            1. He doesn’t believe that the 14th amendment is part of the constitution?

              1. Although I sort of see your point — if he thinks abortion is murder, but should be a state-by-state issue, then he thinks it’s acceptable for states to legalize murder when it happens to certain disfavored groups of people.

                I think you could argue that, per amendment 14, states cannot discriminate against anyone considered a person by the federal government — if Washington decides a fetus is a person, every state must prosecute abortionists as murderers, or else deprive fetuses of equal protection of the laws. However, if Washington did not consider the fetus to be a person, a state could still offer them legal protections.

                1. I might have been too hasty. Paul’s views on the 14th amendment need to be hashed out a bit more, I think.

                  http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

                  Here he seems to suggest the 14th amendment is part of the “imaginary Constitution” not the “real Constitution” of the Ninth and Tenth amendments. “Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.” But Paul also sees sodomy laws as absurd.

            2. And that’s fucked.

              ’cause what we have now isn’t?

            3. Re: Woah,

              If Texas wanted to imprison gays in camps, or shoot them, Paul would be fine with that.

              He would? How would you know that?

            4. I only support shooting gays after due process.

            5. If Texas wanted to imprison gays in camps, or shoot them, Paul would be fine with that.

              What the fuck?!?!

              Who brings in these morons.

              1. I heard that Ron Paul thinks that if Kansas wants to legalize shooting gay abortion doctors who teach evolution in public schools, that’s totally fine.

            6. Did you just pull this out of your ass or what? It’s not just flat out not true. It’s idiotically flat out not true. It’s as though you haven’t even bothered or simply do not care to learn the truth about Ron Paul’s views. There is no more staunch defender of individual liberty and you have gall to caricature him in precisely the opposite way. If you don’t care about the truth of things, fine, but please don’t pretend that you do.

            7. You may be surprised to learn this, but believing that the 14th Amendment doesn’t forbid Texas from imprisoning gays in camps, or shooting them, is not tantamount to believing that it would be OK for Texas to do either of those things. Neither the 14th Amendment nor the Constitution as a whole contains a general “states may not do bad things” provision.

          2. When you’re giving someone the reigns of the executive branch for 4 years, you do need to be sure you can trust them to actually follow the policies they promise to. That’s where character comes in.

            If Ron Paul called MLK a “gay pedophile”, that speaks to his character, especially since he has since denied doing so. I’m not sure that his claim that he just sold off his name to someone who writes such things and then didn’t bother to check up on what they were writing under his name, makes it any better. And there’s far more reason to believe Ron Paul authored the newsletter with his name plastered all over it, and for which he was being paid, than there is to believe Obama was born in another country.

            1. When you’re giving someone the reigns of the executive branch for 4 years, you do need to be sure you can trust them to actually follow the policies they promise to.

              That’s why people voted for Obama. Because they knew he would keep his promises to end the Iraq War, close Guantanamo, ignore medical marijuana…

            2. Well, there really is no historical dispute that MLK was kind of a sex maniac.

              It’s not really relevant to the question of whether or not all Americans should be equal under the law, though.

              If I stand up today and say, “MLK was a sex maniac!” what that says about my character is that I tell the truth. If you get pissed about it, what it says about your character is that you’re a piece of shit who gets angry at people for telling the truth.

              1. @Fluffy

                just because something is true doesn’t mean your not an asshole for saying it. Not that being an asshole is a crime, just sayin.

            3. “When you’re giving someone the reigns of the executive branch for 4 years, you do need to be sure you can trust them to actually follow the policies they promise to.” Are you fucking kidding me? Here we have Presidents dragging us into pointless wars costing hundreds of billions of dollars and many thousands of American lives, destroying nations and killing hundreds of thousands of non-americans. We have Presidents who flat out flout the law of the land and openly trample the rights of citizens and you fret about Ron Paul’s character. You look are crawling slime like Romney and Gouliani and the rest and you fret about Ron Paul’s character??? Good God.

              1. Yeah… I don’t ‘fret about Ron Paul’s character’ (nice minimizing of the issue there, dude), I am DISGUSTED that he openly thinks that women are nothing more than walking incubators and should have no say in what happens to their OWN BODIES. FUCK this guy. I don’t care how ‘progressive’ he tries to come off as- he wants to throw womens’ reproductive rights under the bus. He sees us as less than human. NO. FUCKING. WAY. I am spreading the word far and wide.

        3. The U.S. got racism offset credits by electing Obama that can be cashed in if we elect Paul. But we didn’t have the credits back in 2008. Do you understand now?

    2. Re: Max,

      I wish he would explain his homophobic and racist positions

      I wish he would, too, since they seem to only exist in your Thorazinized mind, pet yorkie.

    3. Nick picked Gary Johnson over Ron Paul on Red Eye.

      1. I saw that…

        …and then i screamed “COSMO!!!!!!!!”

        good times.

  3. Very wise to wait until the end of the day to post this one. I do, though, absolutely love the fact that this is nearly the only website where one will find passionate, lenghty arguments against abortion without using religion at all. It’s fascinating stuff, IMO.

    1. facsinating for dimwit libertoid zombies maybe.

    2. There is no secular argument to use state force against a woman to require her to bear a child against her wishes.

      There is a moral argument – different approach though.

      1. Let’s kill babies when mothers get sick of them.

      2. So the rights of a couple of thousand women to kill their babies are more important than the rights of literally hundreds of millions to have more control over their persons and property? To put it in socialist terms you can understand, it seems like if we’re prioritizing issues, then needs of the hundreds of millions outweigh the needs of the few.

        I have no problem with abortion, but I doubt the rights to have an abortion will be taken away during a Paul administration, since he will have his hands full dismantling the TSA, DHS, and IRS.

      3. There is no secular argument to use state force against a woman to require her to bear a child against her wishes.

        Really? Because I see dozens of them in every big abortion thread. It has to do with rights, when they begin, how the conflict between rights are resolved, etc.

        1. When you eat it leads to your belly getting full. When you have sex, it leads to pregnancy. Why is this still a shock to people when they are crying to their friends about being pregnant.

      4. Any assertion of a “right” is a moral argument, as the very notion of rights is a moral concept. “Moral” and “religious” are overlapping but not equivalent sets.

        1. I think we’re both talking past eachother here. Shriek said there is no secular argument, but there is a moral one. If I agree with you that religion and morality can be independent, then one could make a secular, moral argument. So yes, it is secular (not religious), but also moral (based on at least the foundational principal that one has “rights”).

          1. I suppose it behooves to acknowledge this if only for the sake of good faith. People do have strong moral convictions on this issue.

            Just not a credible secular one.

            1. Just not a credible secular one.

              Should be noted that the left have no credible reason to allow legal abortions.

              They wish to protect a woman’s right to choose yet ignore rights on everything else when it comes to people choosing what they do with their bodies.

              The left’s latching on to pro-choice is simply a cynical decision to grab a voting block.

              When reproductive rights come up against China’s one child policy the left simply give a collective shrug.

            2. So a woman should have the right to choose. But I don’t have the right to chose whether or not I get insurance?

              I love that right of choice is selective to you.

        2. You can derive “rights” outside of a moral context, even if they overlap.

      5. “There is no secular argument to use state force against a woman to require her to bear a child against her wishes.”

        What if the government wants more babies?

      6. There is no secular argument to use state force against a woman to require her to bear a child against her wishes.

        The unborn can own property…the state has an interest in determining when that baby is alive.

        Also there is no reason why a state might find it in its interest to increase the birth rate.

        China has no problem forcing abortions on its women for the secular reason of population control. If a state can determine that to many people are a problem there is no reason that it could not determine if it did not have enough people.

        Furthermore there is no reason for the a state to recognize free will so there is no reason for it to recognize individual rights.

        In essence the idea that an individual has rights (reproductive or otherwise) at all comes down to a moral argument.

        lastly if a secular state can determine that it owns the fruits of an individuals labor then there is no reason why it could not determine if it owns an individual.

        These are just a few secular arguments one could make…i imagine the actual number is uncountable.

        1. Here is an oldie but goodie secular reason for the state to use force against a women to bear a child:

          The King needs an heir or the kingdom will fall into chaos.

          I think Anne got her head cut off for that one….or at least got it chopped off to make way for a women who would bear an heir. Ironically it ended up being Anne’s child who ruled England and pulled it out of its 1000 years of dark ages.

      7. “There is no secular argument to use state force against a woman to require her to bear a child against her wishes.”

        Are you insisting that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ultimately and necessarily come from God?!

        Why can’t you Christian fundamentalists ever get it through your heads that we libertarians just aren’t that into you?!

        1. Shrike already has a very hard time understanding what the word “Secular” means.

          Pointing out that it has two sides will only confuse him all the more.

        2. I see what you did there 🙂

      8. “There is no secular argument to use state force against a woman to require her to bear a child against her wishes.”

        I think this is generally the most purely libertarian line of thought (and was discussed at length by the likes of Rothbard). However the parallel conclusions you might draw from it seem unacceptable to many people who agree with it nonetheless.

        So the secular argument goes that you can’t use state force to make a mother keep a child in her womb – that’s a fair argument as far as it goes. So, wouldn’t that apply just as much (if not more-so) outside the womb? Yes and no. Going through the “proper” channels you can excuse any perceived obligations through adoption – but most would be appalled if a parent simply abandoned a child (of almost any age) on the side of the road one day.

        None of this is to say that abortion is right or wrong (or more generally abandoning your child). But it’s interesting that we’re not typically consistent on the issue.

        1. Don’t forget Rothbard also argued that the law can’t force you to feed a child that merely happens to have emerged from your loins, nor require you to allow it to stay in your home during the winter. He considered the very idea that conceiving and bearing a child put you under any obligation to it statist tyranny which no lover of liberty could possibly defend.

      9. Declaring an argument to not exist is not the same as the argument not existing.

  4. the choice was made when you got laid.

    1. Ass, grass, or gas. Nobody ride free.

      This is fun.

      1. Does anybody out there remember the hairlip “boat ride” joke?

        1. No, but if there were ever a time for abortion themed limericks, this would be it.

          1. scroll down a bit.

    2. That condom breaking makes no difference at all, right?

      This is fun.

      1. Morning after pills prevent conception.

        1. Abortion prevents having babies you don’t want.

          This is fun.

          1. Yes, and kills a developing human that has unique DNA.

            1. I mean do you believe abortions should be allowed up until a baby is born?

              1. Absolutely. It’s the mother’s body; it’s hers to do with as she wishes.

                This is fun.

                1. But as soon as it’s born, it has rights?

                  1. You don’t get the “woman’s right to control her own body trumps an unformed human’s rights” concept, do you. Try harder.

                    This is fun.

                    1. What if the woman at first wanted a baby, but then after she delivered a healthy baby, she decided she didn’t want it. Should she be allowed to kill it then?

                    2. When does the unformed human, become a human?

                  2. A person only has rights if they can use a gun to defend them.

                    1. It ain’t my son if he can’t handle a gun.

                2. The unborn baby is not part of the woman’s body. It is a separate entity developing within the body, but it’s just a tumor or another organ. An unborn baby is biologically different, with unique DNA.

                  1. I just shoved a turtle egg up your ass (I do this all the time to Warty); but I made it so it will die if you take it out. But it’s a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle egg, so it’s kind of like a human. Do you have the right to pull it out of your ass and kill it?

                    1. I want to spend time in your Sci-Fi library!

                      Can I crap it out early?

                  2. Let it have its way, it ain’t no egg, its got dna!

                    1. Don’t kill Raphael, bro! He’s the bad boy!

                  3. Nope the unborn ”baby” is actually a non beneficial symbiote. Ie… meaning the baby brings non biological benefit to the mother for its own gain and growth. Much like a tape worm. Tapes worms have unique DNA is well and it is an unwanted symbiote..

                3. The “it is her body” argument has got to be one of the worst put forward. The child is its own body wherever it is located.

                  1. We should just go the Ferengi route and treat pregnancy like a rental agreement.

                    That way the woman has rights to evict unwelcome squatters.

                    1. Hey….We’ll keep the light on for ya!

                      I’m Tom Bodett.

                  2. “The ‘it is her body’ argument has got to be one of the worst put forward. The child is its own body wherever it is located.”

                    Agreed. Anyone who sees this solely as an issue of a woman’s rights and who unthinkingly dismisses the fetus’ claim to rights out of hand hasn’t thought about the issue enough from a libertarian perspective.

                    1. Similar to using property rights to justify slavery.

          2. Re: Episiarch,

            Abortion prevents having babies you don’t want.

            Just as whacking prevents having competitors you don’t want.

            This is fun.

            1. Whacking off also prevents those pesky child support payments.

        2. Morning after pills are an abortifacient.

          1. Not they’re not, shriek, you fucking dumbass. You can’t get a a single fucking thing right, can you? Why are you so fucking stupid? Why?

            1. chicken and egg.

              fertilization vs implantation.

              (the line is blurred and you know it)

              1. You’re so mindbogglingly dumb, shriek, and you just keep digging. Hey, tell us who makes centrifuges again, shriek?

                HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

              2. I’m sure there are all sorts of moral shades of grey, particularly to people like you who have sex with chickens.

                But Plan-B is no more an abortion device than a condom is.

          2. Shrike is a lame cunt, cause he doesn’t know the meaning of abortifacient.

            That on was hard.

      2. That condom breaking makes no difference at all, right?

        So we need to kill 10 fetuses produced by consensual, unprotected sex so that the 1 whose conception resulted from a contraceptive accident doesn’t burden the couple who made a poor condom-buying decision.

        To paraphrase Bilbo Baggins, it’s a dangerous thing, sticking your penis in a vagina. If you don’t mind your thrusts, you never know where they’ll take you.

        1. I thought that was Dildo Baggins.

        2. Who gives a shit about 10 groups of cells? I certainly care more about the rights of the people whose bodies those cells will be in.

          Oh wait…you don’t actually care about the babies; you’re pissed off about the sex. Because you’re a religious idiot. Got it.

          1. I don’t particularly like the sex, but I also don’t thin the law should get involved with that. I’m only concerned for the human life being quashed.

            1. I don’t particularly like the sex

              stop fucking epi

          2. Who gives a shit about 10 groups of cells?

            Well, if one of those “groups of cells” calls itself “Episiarch” and posts imbecilities on the H&R forum, then you are correct, I don’t give a shit.

          3. I generally like you Epi, but here you are being a total douchebag. Just cause he doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean he is approaching this from a religious viewpoint.

            1. I like him better when he only speaks in pop culture quotes. :-O

    3. sex makes babies. little known fact.

      1. Amazingly salient point. Oh wait, no it’s not. Try again. This time, with a point.

        This is fun.

        1. You guys suck at rhyming.

          Where’s sloop?

          Cause if it don’t rhyme, it ain’t worth a dime.

          1. There once was a child, no a fetus,
            Who never got a chance to meet us.
            Cause his mom pulled him out
            just like hooking a trout.
            But no biggie, he had diabeetus.

            1. ^^with apologies to SugarFree^^

              1. I didn’t know Nutra was a trout.

                No wonder he always fucks up his hyperlinks, typing with fins and all.

                1. There would have been a child named Joe
                  that nobody ever will know.
                  Cause they filled up his brain
                  with ten cc’s of pain.
                  And said, “Into the trash can you go!”

                  1. You guys are on your own with the limericks for a while tonight. I’m going in 5 minutes to pick up my new motorcycle. (New to me any way)

                    1. Sounds fun. Have a good time.

                  2. So, we don’t know him. So, we can’t miss him..

        2. the whole windup say stupid things act is not very humorous and getting old.

          1. The whole “if you have sex you deserve what you get” thing is even older, you fucking prude.

            This is fun.

            1. What’s your justification for laws against leaving your baby in a garbage can then?

              1. Frank: What the hell is that?

                Mac: It’s a baby we found in the trash.

                Frank: Well, put it back. It doesn’t belong to you

                1. I knew it was too much to expect you to be serious.

                  1. I honestly don’t understand how you could ask “What’s your justification for laws against leaving your baby in a garbage can then?” and then post “I knew it was too much to expect you to be serious.”

                    Have you ever experienced cognitive dissonance?

            2. The whole “if you have sex you deserve what you get” thing is even older, you fucking prude.

              Seriously. It isn’t like a person should be responsible for their actions! I didn’t want her to get pregnant, so I have no responsibility if she does. If I shoot a gun at someone, but don’t want to actually hit them, it is simply “prudish” to think that I should be held responsible if they die.

              I am at the maturity level of a second grader. When Mommy says, “don’t eat five pounds of cookies or you will get a tummy ache” I say “but I want to eat cookies and NOT get a tummy ache!” Then I demand that I have rights because I am a responsible individual.

              What kind of pathetic upbringing does a person get who grows to be an adult and then says “but I don’t want to take responsibility for my actions!”?

              1. What kind of pathetic upbringing does a person get who grows to be an adult and then says “but I don’t want to take responsibility for my actions!”?

                It isn’t the upbringing but the reality of real life over just words. Can you imagine epi as a father? Even if he wanted to be one, the kid would be fucked

          2. mb feels mired in prose that is tired?

        3. What would you say to a person who signs a contract and then decides they don’t want to honor it the next day?

          I have a strong suspicion it would be analogous to what mb is saying about the sex contract.

          1. How is sex a contract? Keep reaching, Chris. One day, you’ll get there.

            (no you won’t)

            1. How is sitting in the chair in a barber shop a contract? How is asking for food at a restaurant a contract?

            2. How is sex a contract?

              For it to be consensual one would assume there was an agreement be it explicit or implicit otherwise it would be rape.

  5. Generic pro position – “thinking is too hard”.

  6. It was pretty fun to watch Paul on that clip from the view yesterday when they asked home about Planned Parenthood. Paul very plainly made his case that these are not services that the government should be paying for since it’s not listed in the constitution as one of the governments jobs.

    The shrieking harpies were absolutely dumbfounded with the logic of his argument and really had no argument at all. They even refrained from any flippant remarks after he explained himself.

    If only more politicians could argue this stuff as empirically as Paul imagine what kind of country we’d live in.

    Besides the concentration camps for black and fags, of course.

    1. Ron Paul thinks that the founding fathers envisioned a “robust Christian nation.” He’s also tight with the John Birch Society. He’s a real right-wing asshole. But Gillespie likes him.

      1. Some of the Founding Father did indeed imagine a “robust Christian nation”. Some of them did not.

        It would be inaccurate to say the founding fathers agreed on most things, when in fact the entire loose coalition of colonies was in constant danger of breaking apart because of these religious and philosophical differences. What kept them together was their intense hatred for all things related to Mother England and the other monarchies/tyrannies from which they fled.

        But you’d have to like read ‘n stuff to figure that out so whatevs, brah.

        1. It doesn’t matter what they “imagined” – the Locke liberals Jefferson and Madison made sure the Constitution was completely secular.

          1. Shriek strikes again!

            Answering questions no one is asking.

            And, like your asinine comment in the below thread (Siemens makes centrifuges now! Awesome!), you like to make shit up so you can stick your dick out.

            Here’s your new mantra, try and understand it-

            “It is best to mince one’s words very finely, it makes them much easier to eat afterwards.”

            1. Above should read (Siemens makes centrifuges for Iran now! Awesome!)

            2. Shrike does not understand what Secular means.

              But he can be forgiven because he does not know how The Law of Comparative advantage works nor does he understand that money, like every other commodity, is beholden to the laws of supply and demand.

              In other words he is simply an idiot and should be treated like raging child.

      2. ‘Ron Paul thinks that the founding fathers envisioned a “robust Christian nation.”‘

        Wait, the U.S. was predominantly Christian in the Founders’ time? Why didn’t they teach me this in skool?

        1. Why are people so hung up on our founding fathers anyways.. Most of them were deists at best, humanist and atheists. Hence, why they left England in the first place!

    2. “It was pretty fun to watch Paul on that clip from the view yesterday when they asked home about Planned Parenthood. Paul very plainly made his case that these are not services that the government should be paying for since it’s not listed in the constitution as one of the governments jobs.

      The shrieking harpies were absolutely dumbfounded with the logic of his argument and really had no argument at all. They even refrained from any flippant remarks after he explained himself.”

      Well, yes, but most Republicans’ answers are somewhere along the lines of “I believe all God’s little children.” Which invites the flippant remarks and angry vitriol. Paul’s position, however, is logically in line with his limited government view. He also didn’t condemn or endorse what PP actually does with that answer, regardless of how he feels about abortion (FTR they provide other services beside abortion, all of which shouldn’t be government-provided).

      1. most Republicans’ answers are somewhere along the lines of “I believe all God’s little children.” Which invites the flippant remarks and angry vitriol.

        Agreed. It would be nice if said harpies wouldn’t constantly resort to flippant remarks and angry vitriol, but it’s the View for chrissakes. Smart Repubs should know better. All three of them.

        Paul’s position, however, is logically in line with his limited government view.

        Thus the dumbfounded looks. A thing of beauty, really.

        He also didn’t condemn or endorse what PP actually does with that answer, regardless of how he feels about abortion (FTR they provide other services beside abortion, all of which shouldn’t be government-provided).

        Agreed, again. I just hope some of the other smart repubs were paying attention.

  7. I just so happen to agree with Ron Paul on that–at least as an ethical issue.

    As a legal issue? I’m not so convinced.

    I have very little doubt about abortion being unethical. I think cheating on your spouse and lying to your mother are unethical too.

    Having an abortion isn’t like cheating on your spouse in every way, but I think they’re alike in that just because they’re unethical doesn’t necessarily mean the government needs to get involved.

  8. Any “libertarian” who will not support Paul because he is pro-life fucking deserves Obama or Trump or some other moron as president.

    1. So you aggree that the boring old fuck is a moron then? Is he a homophobic racist?

      1. Edward’s just angry because he farted and a little slipped out, but he can’t go clean himself up because this is a Ron Paul thread and he can’t leave the computer. You should really consider buying some Depends, Edward.

        1. he farted and a little slipped out,

          I believe the technical term is ‘sharted’.

      2. I never thought I’d say this, but I agree with Max, Trump is a boring old fuck.

        Do I think RP is a homophobe or racist? nope. Just because he doesn’t support gay marriage doesn’t make him a homophobe.

      3. Let’s see. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate on either side who has come out for the right of gays to marry and to serve in the military. Not even the beloved Hopey has down that. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who has come out for an end the drug war and drug prohibition frequently citing how it is destroying the lives of young black people and black communities. And these things make him homophobic and racist? You know, you people are just liars.

        1. I think Gary Johnson may have done those too, not 100% sure though.

        2. So I guess Gary Johnson’s not a candidate, then?

    2. I agree it shouldn’t be a deal-breaker.

      I don’t think anybody’s gonna look at a failed Ron Paul campaign and say, “See! He never should have been pro-life!”

      If the Ron Paul campaign falls on its face, they’re gonna say, “See–everybody wants more guvernmints!”

      1. If the Ron Paul campaign falls on its face, they’re gonna say, “See–everybody wants more guvernmints!”

        I am more worried if he wins.

        Reason staff are all then going to become conceited assholes who refuse to mix with us rabble in the comment section.

        1. I don’t think there’s anything unlibertarian about criticizing the emperor.

          …even if it’s a libertarian emperor.

          I also think Ron Paul has little chance of winning.

          1. Oh i am not worried about then criticizing Ron Paul…they will do that all day long.

            I am worried how big their heads get once Reason is air force one’s in flight magazine.

  9. Is that really how abortions work? “Struggling to breathe”?

    1. That’s some fucked up shit if it is. But, really, besides looking human and stimulating feelings of sympathy, was it conscious? Was it really ‘human’ vs. just being alive?

      1. “But, really, besides looking human and stimulating feelings of sympathy, was it conscious? Was it really ‘human’ vs. just being alive?”

        I wonder if that translates into “we can do anything with you if you drop into a coma.”

    2. Yes, if they fuck up a partial birth abortion that’s exactly what happens. IIRC there were some local clinics that got in trouble recently for doing exactly what Paul describes, which is legally infanticide.

      1. Infanticide: buy it now from Ortho…because crying babies can fuck up any lawn.

        1. oh my god i just spit out some of my v8. that is both hilarious and fucked up at the same time.

    3. In the case of many second and third trimester abortions, yes: the fetus’ systems are usually developed by this point. It’s some pretty horrifying shit, to be sure.

      1. Most abortions are within 9 weeks. So, no ”baby” no development.

  10. Regardless of your views on abortion, technically (and constitutionally) speaking, Ron Paul is right in saying that the federal courts have no authority over the issues of abortion. Of course this is one of many things the federal government does without authority.

    1. You’re right, I bet he feels the same way too about States’ rights and anti-segregation laws in the South.

      But at least he’s consistent!

      1. ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF!

  11. This won’t be settled until we understand consciousness, IMHO. Until we do, decisions regarding when life, or human-ness, begin(or end) are pretty arbitrary.

    Personally, I think I’d roughly divide it into three phases:
    1 – Mass of cells. 1st trimester. Abort at will.

    2 – Human in appearance. Abort only if medically necessary. 2nd trimester to 4 months old(yeah, post-birth).

    3 – Human. Too late, you’re stuck with it.

    In any case, government shouldn’t be paying for any of it.

    Arbitrary? Hell yeah. But so is your position, so fuck off.

    1. “This won’t be settled until we understand consciousness, IMHO.”

      I lose consciousness every night when I go to sleep–does that give my mom the right to snuff me?

      I had a friend once who slipped into a coma after a motorcycle accident–his prognosis was excellent though.

      Did being in a coma give his mom the right to snuff him?

      I don’t think consciousness is the key here.

      1. I had a friend once who slipped into a coma after a motorcycle accident–his prognosis was excellent though.

        Did being in a coma give his mom the right to snuff him?

        In most states, yeah, she does have that right, limited by certain conditionals, of course. Otherwise ole’ Terri Schiavo (I’m not going to bother looking up to see if that’s spelled right) would still be alive and…well, not exactly kickin, but alive.

        Vegetables can get unplugged.

        1. We’re not talking about whether something is legal–we’re talking about whether it should be.

          And, no, the guy slipped into a coma for a short time–he wasn’t a vegetable.

          He was gonna get up and get into his wheel chair and roll right out of that hospital–and that’s what he did.

          Lost a lot of his memory for a long time, but the last time I saw him he recognized me by name.

          Why would being unconscious for a while make it okay to kill somebody?

        2. Schiavo had expressed a desire to be spared extraordinary measures. So there was some degree of self-determination there.

          Abortion represents a complete lack of concern for the choice of the fetus. Yes, it’s hard to imagine the fetus actually choosing, but oh well. It’s not an unreasonable assumption to assume that everyone wants to live until they state otherwise.

          1. “”Abortion represents a complete lack of concern for the choice of the fetus””

            As if the fetus has any ability to choose.

            “”It’s not an unreasonable assumption to assume that everyone wants to live until they state otherwise.””

            Which has more to do with your assumptions than the fetus’s ability to make a decision.

    2. Conception is the only non-arbitrary under our current understanding of consciousness. It is the point when a biologically distinct entity is formed. In my mind attempting to define humanness as anything other than being a living creature of the human species is arbitrary.

      1. Especially since ‘species’ is such a concrete concept.

        1. Believe me I know, did research into the genomes of two macaque species in South East Asia. They had lots of overlap in the region where there ranges bordered. But there is no other species where this problem exists with humans.

          1. I was referring more to the problem of species definition than inter-species differentiation.

            Saying that you can’t define humanness in any other terms than “a living member of the human species” doesn’t help when what constitutes a member of a species is vague and contentious.

    3. “Life begins at conception” is not arbitrary at all.

      I suppose some other logical dividing lines could be drawn at the “age of reason” or whatever, but that’s too squicky for most people.

      1. Algebra.

        Does no one read Phillip K Dick any more?

        1. Pre-persons
          I know some with graduate liberal arts degrees

  12. Being as staunchly pro-choice as I am, I can still support Ron Paul for the Presidency simply because he won’t just unilaterally ban abortion on a whim. Unlike most candidates in either party Mr. Paul genuinely belives in separation of powers as laid down by the Founding Fathers.

    1. I think you’re right.

      I’ve already decided not to vote for him or anyone else to be my emperor, but the abortion issue isn’t the reason why.

    2. Which makes me wonder why Nick thinks he needs to run interference on this. Who’s going to make an issue of it?

      1. ’cause pandering to anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists by way of his newsletters has already been vetted?

        1. I mean Ron Paul, of course…

          https://reason.com/archives/200…..newsletter

        2. That’s a far better stick to beat Ron Paul with, but I imagine even that’s lost some of it’s effectiveness. Didn’t the current resident of the White House launch his political career in Bill Ayers’ living room? Didn’t he go to the church of Rev. “God Damn America”. Talk about unsavory connections.

          Nick seems to think he needs to get out in front of the news cycle on Paul’s little anti-abortion blog post, but I’d be surprised if it got traction — it’s old news.

          Gillespie: “Please don’t beat Ron Paul with that old stick. That one, right over there. No, behind the newsletters. Yeah, that one. But really, don’t, he’s such a nice man.”

          Paul’s abortion stance might actually be a stealth asset, because it’s obviously heartfelt, and his principles would prevent him from using the office to impose it on the nation. Wait, I think I just answered my own question.

          1. “Paul’s abortion stance might actually be a stealth asset, because it’s obviously heartfelt, and his principles would prevent him from using the office to impose it on the nation.”

            I think it makes him more legit with the establishment Republicans running the caucus and the convention.

            Last time, he was running, basically, against a sitting Republican president.

            That president wasn’t running against him, but if you’re for the Republican nomination and you’re running against the policies of a sitting Republican president?

            You’re gonna have a hard time winning the nomination.

            And he was against much of what George W. Bush was all about. Especially in terms of foreign policy.

            So, anyway, I think you’re right.

            Making his anti-abortion position clear probably endears him to the social conservatives in the Republican base.

  13. I disagree with his position for many reasons, all of which are neither here nor there. That said: (a) It’s very refreshing to see this level of introspection from a politician in general and on this issue in particular. (b) This wouldn’t be a deal breaker for me because I believe Ron Paul is a serious libertarian. He, and most of the rest of the world, know he’d have bigger fish to fry as president.

    1. Re: Kat,

      I disagree with his position for many reasons,

      Eleutherophobia being one, I gather…

      1. I lurk here a lot and I’ve seen many of your comments. That has got to be one of the stupidest things you’ve said on reason.com.

        1. I’ve noticed he’s a little too quick on the draw sometimes, but he means well.

  14. As a registered and card-carrying Libertarian, I’m glad he’s not running for the LP nomination. I want the government to get the he** out of my life – not just substitute state control for federal control.

    1. A real libertarian wouldn’t censor himself, especially when we all know you want to say head.

      1. I hate to be a quibbler, but you are the only person legitimately entitled to censor yourself, per libertarian thought.

    2. “card-carrying Libertarian”

      ***cringe***

  15. The thing that’s always bugged me about Ron Paul is that he’s not a fan of individual liberty, but rather a huge fan of state power as opposed to federal power. Consider his statement on the case of Lawrence v. Texas:

    Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights ? rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

    With a lot of hot button libertarian issues (abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization, degree of religion in government, etc.) it’s interesting to see where people fall on the issue of state power as opposed to individual liberty.

    1. I’ve often wondered about this, and found myself on both sides of the fence sometimes. Why is it OK for a state to oppress someone? Because the con-shit-ution says so? Do the Bill of Rights apply to the states, or not (supremacy clause v. “congress shall make no law…”)?

      The argument, I believe, is that it’s easier to “vote with your feet” when it’s a state issue, but I’m not comfortable with using that as an excuse to justify tyranny on any level, no matter how local.

      Of course, that’s presupposing we all live in the same country. I’d rather have anarcho-capitalism, and the place next door can sacrifice virgins to their pagan gods for all I care, as long as they don’t force anyone in my community to contribute against our will.

      1. Of course the ‘vote with your feet’ argument is mute if the US is comprised of 50 mini-tyrannies.

        1. Oh for sure. Which is why I’m skeptical of the constitutionalists “states rights” mantra. States rights are a hell of a lot better than imperial rule from D.C., but still sorely lacking in abuse is still possible. Hence no gov’t = only assurance of no tyranny.

        2. Yes, if those are the initial conditions. But really, how could you get there from here? At some point people would self-segregate. It’s a law of human behavior.

      2. Some of the bigger issues I’ve had with the states’ rights folks are things like:

        – alcohol sales, despite the Constitutional Amendment, states, counties, and cities can still prohibit or limit all alcohol sales within their borders

        – interracial marriage, which makes the “move to another state” argument difficult, since prior to Supreme Court decisions that trampled on states’ rights, such couples would have been subject to arrest in various jurisdictions while fleeing their state that so gloriously wanted to celebrate it’s power to limit such unions

        – the whole Church and State thing. Some, including former Senator Santorum, have argued that the 1st Amendment doesn’t prevent individual states from establishing State Churches, and that in fact, such things are part of the American tradition.

        Frankly, I’m happy when Mississippi doesn’t turn into a Baptist version of Saudi Arabia. I like the concept of states’ rights, but it seems like the serious legal, political, and even military challenges based on the argument have been against individual freedom rather than for it.

      3. Are not most forms of anarchy townships that act in miniarchial fashion? In which case, are not many of the arguments for state powers similar in nature?

    2. “Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be”

      I’d consider that evidence that Paul is a fan of individual liberty.

      I imagine he believes that if power devolves to the states, the states which use it the least will win when people can vote with their feet — unlike the current situation, where there is no check on the expansion of the federal government.

    3. hot button libertarian issues (abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization, degree of religion in government, etc.)

      The first two are issues on which libertarians disagree; the third is one on which Paul doesn’t believe in state power either; the last is pretty vague and basically a dead issue at this point if you’re talking about full-frontal religion in government. If you’re claiming that people shouldn’t be allowed to let their religious beliefs influence their legislative/executive activity, fuck off.

      1. “The first two are issues on which libertarians disagree…”

        Actually, all the real libertarians agree with me.

        Everybody who doesn’t agree with me isn’t a real libertarian!

        ; )

    4. My thought is twofold:

      1) It’s good to have the police power and the military power in different hands. I like that they are not one and the same, and that authority for both is different under a federalist system. Separation of coercive force is a good thing, IMO.

      2)The costs of moving within the US are drastically lower than the costs of moving to another country. This should be self-evident, so I won’t elaborate.

      3)The more local a decision, the more control I have over it. I can’t go to DC to protest anything. I can sometimes (not often) go to my state capital to talk to officials or stir something up. I can almost always find the time to mail a nasty letter to the Tucson city council. A decision that I have more control over is preferable to one that I have limited control over.

      4) Locals have to live with their mistakes. They don’t get to lord over citizens with the military, lock them up if they leave for other states, or impinge on their 1-10th Am rights. They have to live with seeing their fellow citizens get raped in the ass by Big Government. Even if this has no practical effect (and I think that MLK and Gandhi would beg to differ on that count), it makes me feel better that locals will be made uncomfortable by having to watch people that they know be affected by bad policy.

      1. 2)The costs of moving within the US are drastically lower than the costs of moving to another country. This should be self-evident, so I won’t elaborate.

        The problem, of course, being that during the glorious era of post-war states rights’ celebration, many Southern states enacted laws that prevented blacks from moving north. Such laws were eventually struck down by a tyrannical federal government that stomped on states’ rights and the dreams of many supporters at the time. Activist courts even allowed Native Americans to become citizens and vote against the desires of local majorities.

        4) Locals have to live with their mistakes. They don’t get to lord over citizens with the military, lock them up if they leave for other states, or impinge on their 1-10th Am rights. They have to live with seeing their fellow citizens get raped in the ass by Big Government.

        I’m not attacking you or your argument personally, but these days, if I’m going to get killed or harassed by a government officials, it’s going to be a local one. I have no fear of the US Military barging into my house and killing me or my dogs. I clench a bit every time that a local city cop drives by. Likewise, if an individual state decides that the only religion is Lutheran, or that the wearing of orange on Tuesdays is punishable by execution, I prefer a system that quickly prevents that rather than one that requires me to pack up and move 500 miles in terror.

        Stronger local power to limit freedom does not equal liberty.

        1. De-centralization doesn’t necessarily equal liberty, nor was our federalist system followed to the letter even prior to the Civil War (see the Fugitive Slave Act of ~1850), but it makes it much harder to violate liberty in the aggregate. In virtually all of the most tragic cases of centralization, federalism or confederacy was virtually nil. Stalinist Russia, for example, was enabled by Lenin’s prior consolidation of Tzarist holdings and ever greater centralization of power (the Tzarist system being already very centralized relative to Euro states). Weimar Germany was highly centralized after the attempted Communist revolutions in southern Germany. For less extreme examples, the centralized, unitary systems in place in Tokugawa Japan, Joseon Korea, and China after the Three Kingdoms period ossified and expanded state power in their respective polities.

          In contrast, the dysfunctional and fragmented rule of states in western Europe, with the tradeoffs required to keep nobles, the church, and other interests happy, let people and cities break off to be a little more free, and allowed the development of systems that fostered freedom. Consider that the states which allowed for the most liberty were typically weak commonweaths, confederacies, weakened monarchies or federations (Poland-Lithuania, the Netherlands, Holy Roman Empire, Switzerland, England, northern Italy), and that the ones that allowed for the least liberty were states where the monarch or central authority had relatively few impediments or power-sharing agreements (Spain, Portugal, France after the late Middle Ages, Kingdom of Sicily/Two Sicilies).

          There are a few examples of centralized authority meting our freedom to their lessers (Meiji Japan, for instance), but generally speaking, it’s pretty damned hard to find examples of centralization that are, on net, freedom-expanding.

          1. Specifically, within the United States, I think there’s a long tradition of the Federal Government upholding individual liberty versus the states’ desires to limit that. Practically all First Amendment cases fall under that category despite majority opposition in the populations involved.

            Again, if my local Sheriff deems that posting on Reason is illegal out of a proud implementation of states’ rights, I have a recourse in the Federal Government, all the way up to the Supreme Court. And it would be a slam dunk in my favor. If the Federal Government just said, “It’s your business, lock the bastard up and waterboard him”, I would find it difficult to choke through the vomit and say, “MY GOD, THIS IS THE MOST WONDERFUL EXPRESSION OF STATES’ RIGHTS EVER. I’M NOT HAPPY AT THE MOMENT, BUT IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT TENNESSEE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUNISH ME SO! ALL HAIL RON PAUL!”

            1. Yes, state governments are mostly the abusers in the US, but this is only because (until recently) the federal government was severely restricted in what it could do. IMO the state constitutions and factors already mentioned by myself mostly kept the states honest in ways that a federal government under King George Washington most likely would not have been: most of the state churches and statutes compelling piety were gone within 20 years of the Constitution having been signed, and the vast majority of “moral” statutes were ignored.

              Am I OK with those abuses that occurred? Of course not, but I don’t see how they would have been prevented by having a larger federal government, even one that was initially pro-freedom. As bad as state prohibition was, the federal government’s Prohibition was much worse in its scope and execution. The same goes for the WoD and almost every other area where state power has been transferred to the Feds.

              I have no problem with the post 14th Am arrangement wherein states are required to meet the threshold established in the Bill of Rights, but as a matter of practicality, I am not in favor of the federal government unilaterally and un-Constitutionally arrogating unto itself powers that legally belong to the state gummints. Arbitrarily ignoring the rule of law might save someone today, but its arbitrary nature simply means that tomorrow some dictator will use that precedent to quash rights arbitrarily using the federal government, further blurring the distinction between the military and the po-po and wresting from me what little control I have over my state or local government.

    5. Re: Paul Skeptic,

      The thing that’s always bugged me about Ron Paul is that he’s not a fan of individual liberty, but rather a huge fan of state power as opposed to federal power.

      He’s making an opinion related to 10 Amendment issues. His stance on those very issues you mention he has made many times, and has made clear his trust in individual liberty.

      1. In his argument against a Flag Burning Amendment, Ron Paul believes that states should have the power to ban flag burning.

        I think his positions are pretty consistent on State vs. Individual liberty.

        1. Re: Paul Skeptic,

          In his argument against a Flag Burning Amendment, Ron Paul believes that states should have the power to ban flag burning.

          And?

          I think his positions are pretty consistent on State vs. Individual liberty.

          They’re consistent according to his views on Constitutional law, which is on what he based that opinion.

          “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, although unenthusiastically. I am not too excited about this process, and certainly I am not very excited about this proposal to amend the Constitution.

          Oh, you thought I would not read the link? Tsk, tsk.

          1. There’s no argument here, I’m not trying to hide anything, which is why I posted the link. His closing argument:

            We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.

            …is practically a textbook definition of states’ rights versus individual liberty, and fits in with his views on the Civil War, Civil Rights Era, abortion, etc. Love him if you want, praise him if you wish, but the guy has a serious love for state-level restrictions on personal freedom.

            He is, at the very least, consistent in his admiration and promotion for states’ rights at the expense of individual liberty. Some love that, I bristle at anyone that would seek to use the force of government (big G or little g) in such a way.

          2. OM, you stated at 9:05 pm that Paul has “made clear his trust in individual liberty”, then at 9:27 pm, dismissed his support of state laws to ban flag burning with an, “And?”.

            Either he supports individual liberty, which would mean that no gov’t entity would have the power to ban flag burning, or he supports state power over individual liberty (in this particular case). I’m not sure how you can state both that 1) he trusts to individual liberty, and 2) it is perfectly consistent with that position to support state restrictions on liberty. If the state can restrict liberty, then one does not have individual liberty.

            If I have misunderstood your or Dr. Pauls position on the issue, please, let me know. I am deeply interested in this subject and always enjoy exploring it.

    6. One can be a libertarian *and* a legal conservative. For example, just because I personally think alcohol should be legal everywhere doesn’t mean states, cities, and counties don’t have the power to ban it. They do. I don’t like it, but don’t confuse “I don’t like it” with “It’s unconstitutional.”

  16. LAWRENCE IN FACT DID NOT STRIKE DOWN THE TEXAS LAW BASED ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. JUSTICE KENNEDY SPOKE OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, NOT RIGHT OF PRIVACY. READ RANDY BARNETT ON THIS DECISION.

    1. Were you sodomizing your keyboard while you wrote that?

  17. “every argument that is made for abortion in the first month is applicable to late pregnancy as well.”
    Well, that’s just inaccurate. How about “Embryos don’t have much in the way of nervous systems, and therefore we’re not hurting them when we abort them.” That doesn’t apply to fetuses just before birth.
    This piece isn’t well-developed at all.
    For instance, he complains about how liberals who support choice in terms of abortion but not other issues. That isn’t an argument against abortion.

  18. Paul states that cases of unprotected sex and rape can be dealt with morning-after pills such as Plan B, which he correctly notes are not “abortion pills” but rather prevent conception from happening in the first place.

    Has this actually been settled outside the circles of pro-choicers desperate to legitimize abortifacients?

    1. exactly. “correctly notes” is a nice way of brushing over the evidence to the contrary.

    2. Chris, you just proved that you’re as dumb as shriek. Amazing. Morning after pills prevent implantation, you fucking clod. Do you even know the difference?

      It’s good to know that the rabid anti-abortionists out there are so up on the facts. Can’t have you acting solely out of emotion or religion.

      1. Implantation != conception.

        But what you lack in reading comprehension you make up for in bluster.

        1. Morning after pills are specifically not abortifacients. What part of that don’t you understand, Mr. Reading Comprehension?

          1. How are they not abortifacients? They set into motion a chain of events that results in the destruction of an already-existing embryo.

            If you’re claiming that an embryo doesn’t exist until implantation you have more serious problems than I previously thought.

            1. Re: crimethink,

              How are they not abortifacients?

              In order for an abortion to be an abortion, the embryo would have to already be attached to the womb. Morning after pills simply stop the embryo from attaching itself to the womb, so it works the same way as a IUD.

              1. You’re defining abortion in a very slippery and counterintuitive way. The meat of the issue is whether the substances in question lead to the destruction of embryos/blastocysts/whatever, and that has not been disproved, however you guys want to play with definitions.

              2. And regardless of definitions, you’ll note that the excerpt I quoted:

                are not “abortion pills” but rather prevent conception

                is claiming that they prevent conception, not implantation of preexisting embryos.

              3. In order for an abortion to be an abortion, the embryo would have to already be attached to the womb.

                Attached or not the sperm has merged with the egg…ie Plan B kills after conception.

                You do realize that birds and reptiles and other animals conceive without the need of a womb right?

            2. Me deciding not to have sex tonight is setting into motion a chain of events that will kill 6 million Jews.

              1. It’s true! Or so I thought….

              2. By this logic, I just massacred millions in the shower. I will report to the Hague for my trial next week.

                In all seriousness crimethink, I respect the consistency of your position, but please tell me the lengths you would go to, the police state you would create, to investigate every miscarriage, or everytime an embryo doesn’t attach to a womb after sex. Because if it’s murder, then you have to investigate it as a crime, every time.

                Granted, that’s a utilitarian argument, and I hate those, but it is something I’d like to discuss.

                1. Reason#1 to buy bottled water

            3. an already-existing embryo

              Not technically an pregnancy before implantation. While the term embryo may be broadly correct, we are talking about a zygote, a morula, a blastocyst, yadda yadda. Morning after pills stop a pregnancy from occurring. They do not end an established pregnancy.

    3. Abortifacients are morally neutral…just like guns and Heroin. Thanks for playing!

  19. Whether or not you agree with him, the way he treats this issue with such careful consideration is very respectable.

  20. Nick Gillespie was disappointed in Ron Paul the racist. What happened?

    1. Just so everyone is clear, Max posted this very thought an hour and a half ago. I responded to him in a thoughtful and reasonable manner.

      His response is to ignore it and post the exact same thing again, hoping no one will notice.

      But we should all continue to take him seriously.

      1. No one takes Edward seriously, dude. What are you worried about?

        1. If I have a weakness, it is my willingness to engage trolls on fair terms. I once tried to have an honest-to-Zod debate with LoneWhacko.

      2. Please don’t mind the pet yorkie – he barks at everything. But somehow, he ignores the truly racist comments made by prominent liberals THEMSELVES, during the CAMPAIGN, not 20 years ago by someone else on a newsletter not edited by the person he barks about.

  21. He’s told this story before, and it’s always had a whiff of bullshit to me. Are there any sources besides “how I became pro-life” stories that can confirm this sort of stuff actually went down in OB-GYN suites? I find it rather incredible that a practicing doctor would perform such an extremely late-term, illegal procedure, in such a disturbing manner, in front of some random residents.

    Separately, it’s disingenuous for pro-life advocates to reach for stories of third-trimester abortion when the median position of Americans on the issue is roughly equivalent to the Roe framework. “Third-trimester abortion is bad” does not get you to “abortion is bad.”

    I’ve always found it convincing that we measure legal death by brain activity, so the same standard should be applied to life. I don’t see any rational argument for banning first-trimester abortion, and the quickening standard has way more legal tradition behind it than the absolute pro-life position.

    1. required reading: BAIPA testimony. same stuff as Paul describes. obama continuously voted against the illinois version even when amended to be the exact same as the federal bill (to understand why this statement is important, you will have to research BAIPA).

      “Third-trimester abortion is bad” does not get you to “abortion is bad.” I disagree. All you have to ask is “what was different between the last second of 2nd trimester and the first of the 3rd trimester?” oh wait, an arbitrary date that really means nothing.

      paragraph 3. i have no argument to rebut at this time.

      1. But there are actual physical changes which you could theoretically measure, such as when the genes responsible for brain tissue become active, or when the first nerve impulses begin to fire.

    2. Separately, it’s disingenuous for pro-life advocates to reach for stories of third-trimester abortion

      Oh, come the fuck on. The pro-choice response to the slightest hint that abortion should be restricted is a story about a 12-year-old girl raped by her Neanderthal half-brother with amniocentisis indicating a 23rd chromosome profile of XXXXXXXXXYYYYYYYYY. Disingenuous I think not.

      1. Dude, you forgot to mention that she was black/Hispanic/[insert oppressed ethnic here] and her brother was white… somehow. Or the other way around, whatever works.

        1. I don’t think there are any Hispanic Neanderthals.

          1. There were Neanderthals all over what eventually became Spain.

            1. Spaniards don’t count as Hispanics.

              Their skin isn’t brown enough.

          2. Clearly, you haven’t heard of Carlos Mencia.

    3. Why stop at the second trimester? A person isn’t fully until well after puberty. Why shouldn’t a mom be able to snuff out her 8 year kid, if he becomes too much of a pain in the ass?

      1. Wasn’t that a South Park plot?

        1. No… a short story by Philip K. Dick.

          1. Mrs. Cartman slept with Bill Clinton so he would authorized 40th trimester abortions.

    4. It’s more common than you’d think, especially in hospitals in inner city communities. My mother is an RN who worked in a clinic in Buffalo, and she was witness to some second- and third- trimester abortions in the 5 years that she worked there similar to the one described by Paul.

      I’m not sold that abortion is a problem that can be dealt with through more government, but I am one Dr Paul’s side of the argument and can confirm that his type of story is rather common, anecdotally speaking.

  22. So Nick is OK with inducing labor and tossing live babies in buckets until they expire? Kinder Raus!

  23. Is “the jacket” actually made of unborn baby-hide? How about the Gillespie household lampshades?

  24. Max|4.27.11 @ 7:31PM|#

    He never explained those racist newsletters…

    In the context of the times, it is not that hard to explain the RP newsletters reference’s to super-urban-resident-criminals.

    At the time there were many references to this kind of super-criminal, most of it was in sociological papers about males who had been raised in single family households without positive role models. The usual white Democrat suspects were terrified.

    Bill Clinton even encouraged financing “midnight basketball”. Presumably on the grounds that if the brothers were out shooting hoops, they wouldn’t be out shooting each other.

    Sorry, people, don’t blame RP’s ghost writer for expressing the same anxieties as all the liberals in America were feeling at the time.

    1. American liberals thought that MLK was a gay pedophile?

      1. Re: crimethink,

        American liberals thought that MLK was a gay pedophile?

        Does Paul? Prove it – I dare you.

        1. He was getting paid for a newsletter with his name on it that included those words, not under anyone else’s byline.

          Like Bilbo Baggins said, it’s a dangerous thing putting your name on a newsletter; if you don’t mind their articles, there’s no telling what you’ll be accused of saying.

          1. Re: crimethink,

            He was getting paid for a newsletter with his name on it that included those words, not under anyone else’s byline.

            Sure, and Sesame Street toys have been sold that hurt children, ergo, Sesame Street is anti-children.

            Next fallacy, please?

            1. If Sesame Street toys, for which no other manufacturer was identified, were intended to hurt children, then it would not be unreasonable to think SS was anti-children.

              RP has steadfastly refused to name Lew Rockwell the person who wrote the newsletters, so it’s just like a person whose car was seen picking up bank robers and speeding away, who claims innocence but refuses to identify who was driving the car.

    2. Re: Isaac Baltram,

      In the context of the times, it is not that hard to explain the RP newsletters reference’s to super-urban-resident-criminals.

      Don’t bother with the pet yorkie, Isaac. He barks at everything; very conveniently, though, he seems fine with the truly racist comments made by very prominent liberals themselves and in public about our current president during the very campaign, and not 20 years ago in a newsletter written and edited by someone else quite forgotten.

  25. Further reading: In 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act which asserts that life begins at conception and that federal courts have no jurisdiction over the regulation of abortion. Isn’t the first part of that inconsistent with the second?

    Did you read what you wrote, Nick? You indicate that: “[…]federal courts have no jurisdiction over the regulation of abortion.” That means the intention of his bill is to limit Federal power.

    Please, stop thinking the man is a nitwit.

  26. Pro-abortion here, but Paul’s federalist stance on the matter is fine by me. Abortions for some, miniature American flags, etc…

  27. An excellent piece by Dr. Paul.

    Interestingly, at the end he touched on a subject I never heard him touch before: the death penalty.

  28. It was Dr. Ron Paul and the late, great Harry Browne who convinced me to consider a more libertarian view of abortion. I agree that it is not an issue which the federal or state governments should be involved with. I would however, prefer to see the end to the euphemism. The vast majority of those who classify themselves as Pro-Life could care less about an infant once the umbilical chord is severed. It is time to start using the words which describe their cause accurately, Pro-Birth.

    1. Pro-abortion and anti-abortion work nicely.

  29. DO or DO NOT the unwanted fetuses use ROADS!?

  30. Here’s what Radley Balko had to say about Ron Paul’s racist newsletters in 2008:

    Like Nick Gillespie, I think the most disappointing thing about all of this is what Dave Weigel posted this afternoon from New Hampshire: Paul doesn’t consider this worthy of a serious reaction. I was hoping for much, much more. If Paul didn’t write these screeds, he should tell us who did, or assign someone from the campaign to do some research, and reveal the authors’ identity. He should explain his relationship with the authors, and how it is they came to write for a newsletter that went out under his name. He should acknowledge which of these positions he at one time supported but now repudiates, which he has never supported, and which he still supports. If he’s going to claim he merely lent his name to some people and causes he shouldn’t have, and with whom he didn’t at the time or doesn’t now agree, he should say so, and explain how he could let a newsletter continue to be published under his name after first, fifth, tenth, or twentieth time it ran something he found offensive. Like Kirchick, I find the prospect that Paul never read the newsletter implausible.

    The 1990s is not “ancient history.” We were by then well past the point in American history where the kind of racism and bigotry present in those articles had any place in civil discourse. I simply can’t imagine seeing any piece of paper go out under my name that included sympathetic words for David Duke. That a newsletter with Paul’s name did just that demands an explanation from Paul. The “I’ve answered that in the past” reply isn’t sufficient. You’re running for president, now. You have a national platform. You’ve been an ambassador for libertarian ideas on Colbert, the Daily Show, Meet the Press, and Jay Leno. That you’ve provided a brief explanation for some of these passages a decade ago during a little-noticed congressional campaign doesn’t cut it. No one was paying attention then. Just about everyone is now.

    That Paul and his campaign don’t consider this worthy of a serious reaction I’m afraid makes it all the more difficult to buy into the least damning spin on the story (and even that is still pretty damning). It suggests at the very least a certain obliviousness to the resonance and impact of racism and bigotry.

    1. Max, see my comment above. In the early 1990s the country was abuzz with talk of super criminal young men. Thes super criminals were the sons (no race mentioned but the reader knew) of unmarried women who had raised these boys with no positive male role models. They were characterized by the liberal sociologists observing them as having absolutely no empathy or ability to distinguish right from wrong.

      It was a serious enough national issue, apparently, that Bill Clinton pushed for legislation (midnight basketball) to keep these super criminals off the the street. Presumably on the grounds that if the brothers were out shooting hoops, they wouldn’t be out shooting each other.

      Apparently Ron Paul’s ghost writer is not permitted the same social anxieties that almost every Democrat liberal was feeling at the same time.

      1. Social anxiieties? You give apologetics a bad name. Go fuck yourself, you slimy right-wing weasel.

        1. Max, at the time it was left wingers who were getting the most exercized about the “super criminals” coming of age in the inner cities. Mind you they were exceedingly careful not to mention race but it was pretty obvious.

  31. And other post-natal health related news, the city of San Francisco may have the public vote on a ballot measure that would outlaw circumsicions.

    And these are the same people that don’t want government telling women what to do with their bodies, but apparently think that Jews and Christians have spent the last few milleniums abusing their “vulnerable” male children and that now the time has come for the government to put an end to it. Can you worm your way through any set of contradictory beliefs?
    http://health.newsvine.com/_ne…..considered

    1. Are infant boys less deserving of protection from genital mutilation than infant girls?

  32. Plan B, which he correctly notes are not “abortion pills” but rather prevent conception from happening in the first place.

    What the fuck?!?!

    No that is not correct.

    Plan B kills fertilized eggs just as much as it kills unfertilized eggs.

    Not that I give a shit if a woman uses it in either case.

  33. ” I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being.”

    That quote sums up everything I don’t like about Ron Paul.

  34. “I’m glad that Paul has repudiated the racist and anti-gay comments that appeared in the Report. But the issue he still has to address, and which his official response only dances around, is what exactly his relationship to that publication was. If Paul didn’t write those articles, who did? If he didn’t know what had appeared in his newsletter, when did he find out and how did he deal with it? If the candidate is vague on these points, it will only fuel suspicions that he held those beliefs after all (or that he was willing to stay silent despite his disagreements because the newsletters brought in some cash).”–Jesse Walker

    We still don’t have the answers to Jesse Walker’s questions, but I guess Reason has moved on anyway.

    1. Who did 9/11 Max? The truth is still out there.

      1. Move along, nothing to see here. Paul had nothing to do with his own newsletter.

        Now where’s the longer form birth certificate!1!

        1. Two swings and two misses Max. Obsession is a stinky cologne.

  35. I guess we need to legalize drugs…then criminalize doing drugs if the mother is pregnant.
    Or driving without a seatbelt, or riding on a motorcycle.
    Drinking.
    Walking on stairs.
    Flying on a plane after your water breaks (and you know who you are).

    Liberty = owning your body
    Right?

    Or is it only if you’re male?

    1. Yeah, cause walking on stairs is just like exercising “your right” to have a viable human being dismembered and beheaded before being pulled out of your cunt and thrown in a bucket.

      1. C’mon, take another drink and tell us how you REALLY feel! =)

    2. Wow, you didn’t read any of the thread did you?

  36. Here’s what Reason Magazine’s Matt Welch — formerly one of Paul’s biggest supporters — found out about Paul and those newsletters when doing a Lexis-Nexis search:
    Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and “taken moral responsibility” for, these “Ron Paul” newsletters “for over a decade”? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon. The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article — less than eight years ago.

    So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken “out of context” and proof of his opponent’s “race-baiting,” Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.

  37. Sorry Ron, while I may be one of your biggest fans, I only agree with your abortion views insofar as I agree it shouldn’t be a federal issue, but I believe it also is not a state or local issue, it should be up to the individual. He says it would become a human if it was not “killed” however, that would only be so if there is no complications during the rest of the pregnancy. A potential human is not an actual human, and therefore does not have the same rights as an actual human. Abortion should be an individual decision.

    1. I still think abortion shouldn’t be a litmus test either, I think principled libertarians can disagree. And I’d still vote for Ron Paul.

    2. To clarify: it doesn’t “become human.” It already is human, just as your skin cells and hair follicles are human. ‘Human’ is a species. Fetuses are always human. Unlike your skin cells and hair follicles, the fetus is a distinct human (possessing its own DNA, amongst other distinctions).

      The important question for the abortion debate is whether this distinct human is a person or a non-person, and at what point it becomes a person.

      It’s not a question of being human or not, but whether this is a human person or a human non-person.

      1. Yeah I used a poor wording choice.

        1. *poor choice of words…

        2. *poor choice of words…

  38. Face it, Ron Paul is a John Bircher conspiracy theory wingnut racist scum and homophobe.

    1. Good, good, let the hate flow through you! Make sure you post the exact same thing on other H&R threads and make sure you steel yourself against any of the rational responses that follow by repeating the same attacks over and over again!

  39. What is the name of your Hate Group?

    1. I loathe right-wing racist scum. I think the group is called Decent People.

      1. Right, because the only answer to hate is even more hate! It’s even better when said hate exists only in your mind rather than in actual fact because you have nothing legitimate to attack your opponent on!

        1. The fucking newsletters, you dimwit fuck! Even the receivers of donations here at Reason were once upset by them. Remember?

      2. Thank you Max. Only brave souls like you can point out the important issue here: Ron Paul said or endorsed or unknowingly endorsed racist things twenty years ago. All the idiots out there trying to talk about Ron Paul’s politics and opinions today are merely trying to distract us from the really important stuff. You are truly a hero.

  40. NONE OF THIS MATTERS! In due time when the dollar collapses, you are going to be to survive. It won’t matter who you fuck, who you marry, whether you want the child or not, you will be more concerned with the horde of government and non-government scumbags who are going to try and take your last crumbs of food, your last drops of drink and your last few valuables for barter. Keep discussing this useless non-sense, the world as we know it is on a death decline. You can keep talking about this corpse, I am working for the re-birth.

    1. I am working for the re-birth.

      Won’t that really hurt your mother’s vagina?

      1. After my Daddy was done with me the raw sides of my vag healed shut. Now my customers can only do me in the ass, and I can’t even charge extra.

          1. helle is gone baby. He’s never coming back. It’s just you and me. FOREVER ALONE.

  41. What a bunch of tools.
    RP’s beliefs on govt. intervention into our daily lives and abortion are strikingly similar to Sarah Palin.

    Oh, but I forgot Palin loves war or burns books or [whatever needs to be said to please the cocktail party circuit].

    Anyway, I know why True Libertarians love Paul and hate Palin. No one who ever looked like R.P. ignored them and would never date them.

    Because really, when RP is against abortion it’s principle, unreligious, cool and well-thought out. But when so cons are against abortion, well, that’s just icky.

    1. Well yeah, you pretty much explained it, albeit sarcastically. So-cons are pro-abortion for religious or stupid reasons. Ron Paul is pro-abortion for a good reason.

    2. In fairness, there are a decent number of libertarians who are pro life. I have never felt Reason to consider being pro life to be beyond the pale.

      The Reason staff and most of the comenters are batshit insane when it comes to Sarah Palin. But it is not because she is pro life. It is because she is just not the right sort of person for them. It is entirely cultural. They project views on her that she doesn’t hold. But they assume she does because in their minds “that is how those sorts of people think”.

      1. There is video of Palin praying for the strength to destroy witches while holding the hand of a man who kills “witches” in Africa.

        That entitles me to “project” on to her the view that her religious beliefs make her a dangerous psychopath.

        1. No. There is a video of her praying with someone allegedly takes on witches in Africa. The rest is your projection.

          There are PHDs to be won in the coming decades explaining the neurosis associated with that woman. Seriously Fluffy? You really think that she is a ‘psychopath’? Actually you don’t. You just say crazy hyperbole because you can’t help yourself. It is amazing that someone hasn’t tried to kill the woman. Because there has never been a political figure in my lifetime subject to so much hysteria. Seriously, if you think she is a dangerous psychopath Fluffy, I guess you would support locking her up? Isn’t that what we do with dangerous psychopaths? Shouldn’t we get her the help she needs? We probably need to lock up her family friends and supporters to? It is kind of like the Manson family when you think about it. Right?

    3. We’re not tools, you’re just a fucking moron

      RP’s beliefs on govt. intervention into our daily lives

      Like what?

      Palin loves war or burns books

      Right, we’re supposed to give her a pass on her foreign policy views because she believes in wasting thousands of human lives and hundreds of billions of dollars on invading countries that never attacked us and didn’t have nuclear capability?? Didn’t she make some idiotic comment that the Iraq war was God’s will?

      You can paint Palin as a small government type all you want, but she’s a lot more like McCain than Ron Paul.

      1. Jacob,

        Didn’t anyone tell you, the anti-war movement died when the Cosmos elected Obama. We are all neocons now. Take that anti-war stuff and save it for when a Republican is in office.

  42. Sorry if this was already said, but I couldn’t read all the comments that have been posted:

    So the unborn child has a right to life except if it came into existence by way of unprotected sex or rape, in which case we can just kill it?

  43. Doesn’t a fetus have unique DNA? How, then, can it be considered part of the mother’s body?

  44. People are missing the point. No one is going to care about abortion or any other hot button issue when hyper inflation kicks in and even upper middle class people will be starving. The corporations would let food in supermarkets rot while the populace starves, unable to afford food or gas. Ron Paul is right, who is going to care about medicare cuts when Americans are going to have to spend $10,000 on a slice of bread. Don’t think it could happen? Think again….once countries start selling off treasury bonds like there is no tomorrow and the Fed accelerates quantitative easing, ya’ll are in for a wake up call….and if you think having gold is gonna keep you safe, think again..can you eat gold? no…can you barter with gold? not really, there is no way to determine gold purity easily without assaying, highly doubtful your local neighborhood market will be accepting gold when the dollar is worth less than the paper it’s printed on….

  45. A serious question for the pro-lifers: if the fetus could be extracted from the mother without killing it or hurting it, how long could it survive without artificial respiration/feeding tubes/incubators, developed organs and brain function, etc? I suppose this depends on the stage of pregnancy. But if the mother were to have the doctor non-violently extract the fetus or embryo and let it die naturally on the table, is that really any different than shutting off the feeding/breathing tubes for a vegetable? And would a slow death be really less cruel than abortion?

    I’m an agnostic on abortion, because the determination of where life “truly” begins and deserves full rights protection is subjective. A cluster of cells doesn’t deserve full human rights. A fully functional baby about to be born does. The line in the middle is what can’t really be set easily, and should be left to states.

    1. Serious question for you. If you couldn’t survive without a respirator and feeding tubes but we knew that there was a 90% chance that you would make a full recovery in just a couple of months, would it be okay for your doctors to just let you die? Afterall, you can’t survive without a feeding tube or a respirator, so how are you a human being anymore? So what if you will get better in a few months? So will an unborn baby, but you have no problem killing them.

      1. That would be up to my power of attorney or guardian if I have zero capacity to communicate my wishes for myself. I don’t think a two month old embryo has ever survived surgical extraction and grown into a healthy adult to my knowledge, but I could be wrong.

        And by the way, I don’t “have no problem killing them” – I personally feel after a certain point is morally wrong and would not encourage it if it can possibly be avoided. Most pro-choice people aren’t “pro-abortion”.

    2. A cluster of cells doesn’t deserve full human rights

      Why not? Because it doesn’t think? If so, then why would a child born with a defective brain have any rights? Where do you draw the line?

      1. It has no pain receptors, brain, functioning organs, awareness of what is happening to it AND it is completely dependent upon somebody else’s body to survive. It is in no way a complete human being any more than a clump of human hair. Being human is about more than being a collection of human cells. Otherwise, exfoliation or chemotherapy should be a crime as well, since those also kill human cells.

        The braindead might not have emotion and might be entirely reliant on artificial technology to survive, but there is no question that they are fully developed human beings with significant birth defects (or injuries). They are still dependent upon the power of attorney or guardian to artificially sustain their life or not.

        1. Ridiculously circular argument. Braindead adults are different because they are different. Why did we even invent logical syllogisms when all we had to do was repeat the premise as part of the conclusion? You’ve revolutionized rhetoric.

          Braindead adults have no idea what is happening to them either, but you just declare the debate over by saying “there is no question.” Thanks Obama. Maybe you should have thrown in a few “let me be clear”s and “make no mistake”s to really persuade us.

          1. Um, braindead people are still biologically classified as PEOPLE. A cluster of human cells is biologically a cluster of human cells. A fertilized human egg alone is not classified as a person, nor should it be. If a fertilized human egg is sitting on a counter and you smash it with a hammer, it could not possibly be classified as murder because it has no body or remote resemblance to the human form, much less sentience or pain. It’s closer to a pile of skin cells than a person.

            A braindead adult still has a human body, and depending upon the degree of their retardation, some form of sentience or pain. However, their “right” to be kept alive artificially is solely based upon the discretion of their guardian/power of attorney. I don’t see why the unborn in the most primitive stages should be granted superior legal protections over the braindead.

            Now, at some point that needs to be defined more clearly, I believe mothers should take responsibility for not undergoing abortion in the early stages prior to sentience and the development of pain receptors and functional human organs. This would be a logical place to declare it human and grant it rights to life, although the parental discretion should still hold if there is a conflict between the mother’s right to life and the baby’s, or if there is a debilitating illness with little chance of survival on the part of the infant. There’s no easy, objective answer, but it seems like “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are convenient cop outs for those unwilling to strike a rational balance between the conflicted rights.

  46. Congressman Paul is right on every level. It’s frightening to even comprehend the number of lives that have been destroyed. To think even a single dollar of Planned Parenthood funding comes from federal funds is a disgrace. http://thechristianrepublic.com/?p=65 When will the women of our country realize they are falling prey to a very sophisticated system of genocide?

  47. Paul’s beliefs on abortion are a serious reason I might not vote for him should he reach the primary in my state.

    Talk to any good, rational doctor. They will tell you what they personally believe and then what they would do if faced with the decision – which is always, ALWAYS to act in the best interest of the patient. And that means abortions in the case of rape, incest, forced sex and anytime their lives are in danger. Anyone who says otherwise is a charlatan, no better than those peddling the lies of anti-vaxxers.

    Doctors are not one monolithic group immune from question. Doctors every year hand out millions of narcotics in “clinics” armed by men with machine guns in South Florida. Insurance is not accepted. I don’t question their patients; they have a right to what their money can buy, I just question the ethic of a doctor to “do no harm”.

    And let’s not forget that “Dr” Paul hasn’t practiced in 35+ years. He’s less a doctor than the corpse of my grandfather.

    1. What do rape and incest have to do with the health of a pregnant patient? Most charitably, that’s including mental health considerations, which should probably be expanded to basically any time there’s a risk the mother seeking an abortion might be psychologically damaged by pregnancy or childbirth. Which just amounts to pure individual choice, so no point to differentiate rape and incest. Less charitably, that’s just including several causes of pregnancy that produce the most societal ‘ick’ factor even though they don’t by themselves present any greater danger to the mother.

      1. I believe in pure individual choice myself but I’m saying from the perspective of a doctor if at anytime a patient’s health is at stake they must act in their best interest. Anyone who doesn’t (see: anti-abortion doctors, anti-gay doctors) is charlatan, plain and simple. Like I said, I know some pro-life doctors, they’re family members. But they recognize that only extends to their personal positions, not those of their patients. Ron Paul is a politician. He hasn’t been a doctor in 35 years.

  48. I’m very pro-choice. But I wouldn’t call this a deal breaker. It wouldn’t be up to RP to give it up to the states, that would take an act of Congress.

    Well, the health care law might have moved that to an executive department. It’s hard to say anymore.

  49. When it comes to a choice or not, the last entity that should have a say is government.

  50. I never voted for Paul because of immigration and some other issues, but I think he’s basically right. There’s no biological difference in the child one minute before birth and one minute after, so there’s no reason other than pure cultural bias why we should make a moral difference.

    But he doesn’t follow the argument to its logical end. Can we really say that the states have the option to allow murder? Or to discriminate in the right to life on the basis of age? Humans with the right to life in Wyoming should have the right to life in Illinois. The logical extension is not merely overturning Roe and going to a “popular sovereignty” model of abortion (apologies to Stephen Douglas) but using the 14th Amendment to require protection of the right to life, just as the states must respect the right to free speech and the right to bear arms.

    Eventually technology will advance to the point that pregnancies can be ended without ending the life of the child, who can be incubated in another mother or in an artificial womb. At that point there’s no longer any conflict between the mother’s right to her body and the fetus’ right to life. And assuming that birth control continues to improve, the need for this new removal procedure will probably diminish over time.

  51. Isn’t Nick’s differentiation about Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act being contradictory unequal? I see no contradiction because the act restrains the federal courts from deciding matters left legislatively to the states. The distinction in the act is between legislative and judicial not, as Nick errantly points out, between the federal government and itself.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.