Roe v. Wade & Personal Liberty

because it doesn't give women the freedom to terminate their pregnancy. It only gives them the freedom to allow someone else (i.e., a doctor) to terminate their pregnancy. Women have always had the freedom to terminate their pregnancy, and they always will have this freedom because there's no government in the world (federal, state, or local) that can stop them from doing so.

If a woman really wants to terminate her pregnancy, all she has to do is take any one of a number of natural herbs that will cause a miscarriage. Every experienced herbalist knows that there are certain herbs that cannot be given to a pregnant woman because they will cause a miscarriage if they are. This is how women terminated their pregnancies before the 20th century when drugs and sophisticated medical procedures were developed. Roe v. Wade has done nothing but establish a means for government and the medical industry to regulate and profit off of unwanted pregnancies. If women knew about the natural (and much safer) abortion option that is available in certain herbs, the multi-billion dollar medical abortion industry would go out of business overnight. It would also go a long way towards ending the debate over whether life begins at conception or at birth. Ultimately, it ends up being a matter of conscience between the woman who terminates her pregnancy and God.

Having the decision made on a federal level forces people to choose one extreme or the other, because the only options on the federal level are subsidize or ban completely.

No one would want to see a 6 month old baby aborted, and no one would want to see a girl thrown in prison because she aborted a week after she found out she was pregnant.

If it were decided on the state level, people could have more realistic opinions, and they wouldn't be forced to be so extreme. As such, I fully endorse Dr. Paul's position on abortion.

But I must say, with Dr. Paul — you can't have liberty without life.

I think many posters are missing the point here. If you believe, like Dr. Paul, that life begins at conception, then you believe that people have human rights, including the right to life, beginning at conception. If you believe, like I do, that life begins some time *after* conception, then you believe that the rights of the mother take priority. The Roe v. Wade ruling is based on constitutional privacy rights and on the fact that in the US, citizens are people "who are born," not "who are conceived." Neither view on this issue is inconsistent with the ideas of personal liberty that we stand for.

Dr. paul's stance in perfect. His stance is to leave the decision to the states. That gives everyone reason to vote for him. His personal stance is pro life but as far as the government goes, it should be left to the states. Besides with the way this country is headed, abortion is the least of our worries. BOO to one issue voters!!!

What people do not understand is that if RP could have articulated his pro-life position a little better at the values voter debates, he'd be where Huckabee is right now. MSM will not acknkowledge this (because they like to make abortion a non-issue) but that is THE reason that Huckabee is soaring.

Consider that I, like many of you are a devoted Ron Paul supporter. The devotion is higher than for any other candidate I have supported.

However, it pales in comparison to my pro-life stance. If I did not think that Ron Paul was pro-life, I could not vote for him.

There are millions like me. There are millions more like me than that are adamantly pro-choice. The result is that a pro-life position can get you the nomination, and it won't have that much of a negative in the general election.

Being 37, I am neither old nor young and I know well how I was manipulated to accept abortion, the same way our schools and our media manipulate so many about the war, about big government, about the clintons, etc. With abortion, they play into our selfish desires to have inconsequential fun (sex).

When one turns away from the faulty logic, there is nothing left but selfish justification for murder.

Murder is a state issue in terms of how it is punished.
Murder is also a federal issue in that the "right to life" is a constitutional guarantee.

Ron Paul understands this. If the pro-life community understood it as well as he does - he would be leading the polls as we speak.

JHS

There was a great article on Lewrockwell.com recently about this very issue. I think it was titled "an open letter to pro-choicers about Ron Paul."

I personally have been Pro Life all my adult life and have no issue whatsoever with 'Life Begins At Conception.' But most people haven't thought through the issue very well at all. The Open Letter is a great analogy.

I won't spoil it here, but suffice it to say that I've never heard it used before and I think it would go a long way to convince people who have an open heart concerning the matter.

in your comment and the answer will become apparent.

JHS