Ron Paul - clear on abortion

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
The only quandry is if the foetus is a human or not which really is a matter for doctors. After that it becomes very clear cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it does not become very clear cut. Even if it is a human, it is still the woman's quandary whether it allows the human to stay in her body or whether she wants to get it out of there, even if it may lead the to human dying.
Just like it is your moral quandary whether you want to give food to someone who will die if he does not eat.

[ QUOTE ]
...but my point is it's a moral (not as the term has been hijacked by the religious crazies) issue not a governmental issue

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly!

[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't doctors/scientists agreed that the fetus isn't a human?

In any case, the point is that it's a state issue, not a federal issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's true then fair enough. As a man in a pretty stable loving relationship it's not a major issue for me, but my point is it's a moral (not as the term has been hijacked by the religious crazies) issue not a governmental issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with you, I was just stating what I believe doctors/scientists have agreed on (I'm not even sure on that). My own belief is that its a life at conception, and that abortion is wrong. I still do not want the federal government to legislate it though. I want it to be a state decision, that way if I actually cared enough (I don't) I could move to one of the bible belt states and wouldn't be forced to fund abortions.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
...but my point is it's a moral (not as the term has been hijacked by the religious crazies) issue not a governmental issue

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly!

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's why the federal government needs to keep its nose out of it.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only quandry is if the foetus is a human or not which really is a matter for doctors. After that it becomes very clear cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it does not become very clear cut. Even if it is a human, it is still the woman's quandary whether it allows the human to stay in her body or whether she wants to get it out of there, even if it may lead the to human dying.
Just like it is your moral quandary whether you want to give food to someone who will die if he does not eat.


[/ QUOTE ]

No the woman has a chosen positive obligation to the child. Noone has a positive obligation to help someone who is starving. It's a good and nice thing to do but it's not immoral not to.

[Dane S]

The problem I guess is that he's honest and has opinions of his own. [censored], imagine if Hillary or whoever told a few of her real personal opinions in a speech. Now that would be frightening.

If you're worried about this or his religion or whatever, I don't think you understand Paul's agenda very well. I can see disliking his stance on abortion if you're worried that your state might be allowed to ban abortion because of it if he was elected, but the significance of this seems pretty paltry when placed beside foreign policy or economic issues. A.) It's not like he can just get into office and overturn Roe vs. Wade cause he feels like it. It's highly unlikely he'd be able to. B.) Even if it does get overturned, so what? Drive a few hours to a different state. Or learn to control your wang... it isn't that tough with a bit of practice.

The only areas Paul could affect significantly are foreign policy and government spending through vetoes. These are the reasons to support him. The rest is fluff, and I think it would be much smarter politically if he just stayed away from all these extraneous "hot button" issues.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
If a foetus is a human being (I don't know) then it absolutely has the right live at the expense of it's mothers interests. Having sex without protection or with inadequate protection is signing a contract saying I will support any child that occurs as a result.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a pretty dangerous argument for a libertarian to make, since it sounds suspiciously similar to the bs 'tacit consent' arguments for the legitimacy of statism.

In any case, one problem I have with these tacit consent arguments--in pro-life and pro-state forms--is that they seem to ignore the inalienability of a person's rights, meaning that contracts can be terminated in much the same way that they are begun. (For example, you agree to work for me for one year, and sign a contract stating such, I have no right to *force* you to continue to work for me if you change your mind after three months. You may owe me some type of compensation, contract depending, but you have every right to leave since signing a contract doesn't enslave you).
So even if I agreed that having sex was 'tacit consent' to bearing a child (which I don't), I still don't see that admission as a sufficient argument against abortion.

[Jeremy517]

This really should be a non-issue for anyone considering voting for Paul. While Paul is against abortion, he is FOR leaving it up to the states. While a couple states might ban it, most won't, even among the red states.

Abortion is never going to be banned on the federal level, no matter who is president. Even if RvW is overturned, that simply makes it a state issue.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
This is laughable. The supreme court is not a political body that passes legislation. There aren't supposed to be liberal or conservative judges. There are suppose to be impartial judges that protect the consitution. They don't change it, they enforce it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they don't. You say so yourself later on in your own reply. They are human beings and their personal beliefs, i.e., "their" interpretation of the Constitution weigh in heavily on close votes.
That's why I think you need 3/3/3.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the supreme court is specifically there NOT to be a representative body of the people. That is what the president and congress are suppose to be. The supreme court is suppose to enforce the constitution. The purpose of the constitution is to say NO to the legislative body when it violates what the constitution says. We live in a constitutional democracy, which means it is not mob rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. What I meant was that the Court represents the people's voice in the interpretation of the Constitution, which is what many of us (those of who are Constitutionalists anyways) what our government to strictly adhere to.

[ QUOTE ]
Read Roe v Wade. Read the whole thing. The opinions, the justification, the dissents. You'll quickly realize one thing: these guys want abortion to be legal, even if it isn't in the constitution. If the constitution says that "the sky is blue", and a judge comes along and says from now on he interprets "the sky is blue" to mean "the sky is brown" it still says "the sky is blue" in reality. Judges have the power to make it say what they want and have that enforced, but that doesn't actually change the truth. Think for yourself. Read the actual bloody cases. Study the theory of constitutional law.

[/ QUOTE ]

"These guys want abortion." You're saying the Court wanted abortion, right? That's why I'm saying 3/3/3 and you don't get that manipulation. Or at least, it's harder to achieve it.

[owsley]

How can anyone possibly argue that there is a "correct" balance of ideologies on the supreme court bench? So when there is a spot open the right choice for nominee depends on who is currently serving? That is a completely absurd way of thinking about the supreme court and the constitution.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
How can anyone possibly argue that there is a "correct" balance of ideologies on the supreme court bench? So when there is a spot open the right choice for nominee depends on who is currently serving? That is a completely absurd way of thinking about the supreme court and the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? Then why is that when it's time to nominate a replacement, all the talk is about how many conservatives, moderates and liberals are on the bench and the history of their past decisions and how the history of the decisions of the President's selection will mesh with the other 8?