Ron Paul - clear on abortion

[lehighguy]

I really don't think it is more complicated then that. Except for cases where a health problem threatens the mothers life, the pain of child birth can in no way justify murder.

Don't try to feed me the it's my body arguement. It was your body when you decided to have sex too. And now you've got a responsibility to deal with, because you created a life. If we charge people with murder for throwing a newborn in a dumpster, we should charge them with murder for doing it 10 minutes before birth too.

------------------------------------------------------------

I think his personal experience is very relevant. Pro-life people are only able to support thier posistion if they believe the fetus isn't alive. The arguement that it is alive but it is ok to committ murder because the women finds pregnancy inconvienient is sickening.

[MrBlah]

[ 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. You can give the child up for adoption but you have a positive moral obligation to make sure that it is well cared for. This is a chosen positive obligation when you initiated the action of having sex.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about rape victims? Does the foetus lose its right to live because the mother didn't implicitly sign a contract?
What if the mother used adequate protection but it didn't work?
I'm not saying that a mother has a right to have the foetus killed (drowning a born baby should be regarded as manslaughter in my book). But I do think that a mother has the right to have a foetus removed from her body (edit: whatever the consequences might be).

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. You can give the child up for adoption but you have a positive moral obligation to make sure that it is well cared for. This is a chosen positive obligation when you initiated the action of having sex.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about rape victims? Does the foetus lose its right to live because the mother didn't implicitly sign a contract?
What if the mother used adequate protection but it didn't work?
I'm not saying that a mother has a right to have the foetus killed (drowning a born baby should be regarded as manslaughter in my book). But I do think that a mother has the right to have a foetus removed from her body (edit: whatever the consequences might be).

[/ QUOTE ]

Rape is a fringe case with no really satisfactory answer but that doesn't invalidate the proposition. The best I've got is that the rapist is fully responsible financially for the child and for the mother's emotional pain and physical suffering and if he can't afford it then it's morally justified for him to be forced to work for zero compensation until his debt is paid or for his entire life whichever is sooner.

As for your second point no. Having voluntary sex is always a choice, (by definition) so a condom splitting etc is a risk you know about before you make the choice and perform a positive actoin so there's no out there.

[UtzChips]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think it is more complicated then that. Except for cases where a health problem threatens the mothers life, the pain of child birth can in no way justify murder.

Don't try to feed me the it's my body arguement. It was your body when you decided to have sex too. And now you've got a responsibility to deal with, because you created a life. If we charge people with murder for throwing a newborn in a dumpster, we should charge them with murder for doing it 10 minutes before birth too.

------------------------------------------------------------

I think his personal experience is very relevant. Pro-life people are only able to support thier posistion if they believe the fetus isn't alive. The arguement that it is alive but it is ok to committ murder because the women finds pregnancy inconvienient is sickening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it a fact, that unless the Prez manipulated the Supreme Court by stacking it with ultra conservatives, that we will never see Roe v. Wade overturned?

Wouldn't that be a misdemeanor act by a prez opening himself up to impeachment? Isn't Prez elected to protect our Constitution and doesn't the Constitution call for the Supreme Court to a representative body of all the people?
Wouldn't that require 3 conservatives, 3 moderates and 3 liberals?

And since the Court has ruled on Roe v. Wade, how can the Congress say, no, the Supreme Court is wrong, we are going to give the states the right to decide? The Supreme Court has spoken. They can't be overruled by a law passed by Congress can they?

[Dima2000123]

There is nothing libertarian about being pro-choice. Libertarians face the same fundamental question that everyone else faces regarding whether the fetus has a right to life. Even a libertarian can't be pro-choice if he thinks that the fetus has a right to life, since libertarians don't support freedom to kill others.

[Subfallen]

Again, how is this even on the radar compared to the religious rhetoric? Abortion is an extremely nasty thing on all fronts, even if you rescued your personal freedom with a clutch coat-hanger or flight of stairs you should still feel sad about it.

[lehighguy]

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.

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.

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.

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
The arguement that it is alive but it is ok to committ murder because the women finds pregnancy inconvienient is sickening.

[/ QUOTE ]
The argument that a woman should be forced to keep the foetus inside her body although she does not want to is sickening.

[ QUOTE ]
... even if you rescued your personal freedom with a clutch coat-hanger or flight of stairs you should still feel sad about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, unlike those women who have abortions and love it so much, they are about to explode in joy and delight!
Seriously, WTF?

[Roland32]

[ 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.

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.

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 ]

As someone who has read Roe v Wade, are you sure you are not just reading in this venom of legislating from the bench?

This argument that Roe v Wade is some absolutely astonishing clearly anti-constitution decision is just propaganda.

I clearly follow the logic of the decision, from liberty we get the right to privacy, and from the right to privacy the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating? It is preventing legislation.

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution was designed to restrict the federal government, not the state governments.

[ QUOTE ]

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete BS. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, but there is definitely a right to privacy. The reason RvW is unconstitutioanl is because it restricts the states and the Constitution simply doesn't restrict the states in this way. If there had been a federal law banning abortion and the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, they would have been correct.