0 votes

Can someone help me with Dr. Paul's views on abortion.

So I am getting annoyed by women simply stating they will not vote for Ron Paul BECAUSE "he wants to control my uterus" and he's pro life and blah blah blah. Now, I think it's utterly ridiculous to choose Obomba over a man who can save our country over a topic such as abortion, which I believe should just be a decision between a doctor and patient if necessary. I am a woman. I have two children, had my first child at 21, and turned my life around in order to be able to raise a child at that age, because it was of my OWN actions, and I would never abort a child...But anyways, I think that if you want to mess around and be irresponsible and use abortion as your form of birth control, that is disgusting. This should not be allowed. I believe children are innocents. If it is threatening the mother's life, or a naive young child 13 or 14 etc, or in the case of rape, and an "honest rape", just saw a big ole article about Ron Paul saying women who are raped are liars because of that statement. But trust me, there are PLENTY of girls/women who make bad decisions sexually and instead of facing the facts of their mistakes, refuse to admit it when finding out they are pregnant and claim rape. That is what he is talking about, dumb-asses. I am just kind of disturbed at how much emphasis is put on abortion, and I just see these women carry on about "my uterus". Ok. I just feel like that is really minor decision-maker. Honestly, I just may be naive on the subject, I don't know. But what EXACTLY is Ron Paul's views on ABORTION? Does he believe it is a STATE right, like as in the PEOPLE of that STATE can VOTE to IMPLEMENT or BAN abortion in that state? Or what? I mean what's the deal? So I can explain it to these women, correctly. Ron Paul makes perfect sense when he speaks about gray area of 1 minute before birth/and one minute after birth scenario. And can you tell me how it differences between life & liberty...and the freedom to do to your body as you wish? Also, I believe George Carlin said that Republicans want LIVE babies so they can have DEAD soldiers...This may ring true, but not in Ron Paul, who is truly PRO LIFE in those aspects, but is he REALLY pro-choice via Liberty on the subject of abortion? I'm confused, I guess. Regardless, the man has my vote, an whoever else I can convert! Much appreciated. Thank you.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He's not pro-choice he's an intelligent anti-abortion advocate.

If you talk to a feminist basically point out that:
1. Ron Paul is not running for King, he's running for president. It would take congressional, or judicial action to push the regulation of abortion back under the jurisdiction of the states; that's not going to happen any time soon. Simply put: if they're afraid of Ron Paul directly altering Row v. Wade, then they need to go back and retake a high-school level civics course. (Obviously omit or rephrase that last bit-- you wouldn't want to come off condescending ;) )

2. Even if Ron Paul accomplishes his goal: pushing the issue onto the states. That would effectively accomplish de-facto legalization of abortion-- probably not all forms of it. I really doubt that any states would legalize the most barbaric methods of getting the job done. But none the less, anyone capable of operating a motor vehicle could drive over to a state that was pro-choice and handle their business.

3. Ron Paul, while he is against abortion morally is A-OK with popping pills. As medical science advances, things like the morning after pill and improved contraceptives will pretty much render the argument moot ( or at the very least make it nigh impossible to regulate abortion in any substantive manner.)

4. The 'worst' thing that HE could do would be eliminate federal funding for organizations which advocate abortion-- and even then THAT CAN ONLY HAPPEN IF CONGRESS ABROGATES THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THEIR JOBS AND EAR-MARK FUNDS TO GO TO THOSE ORGANIZATIONS. Really from a fairness perspective-- its pretty uncool that people who believe that life begins at conception have their tax dollars spent on that shit... just as its reasonably uncool for my tax dollars to be spent bombing people (or building orphanages for unwanted children), rather than awesome stuff like NASA or research into Fusion power-- really the point is none of the shit I just mentioned should be dealt with at a federal level because no-one will agree on what should be done... Which is how you end up with politicians arguing over relatively silly crap instead of oh I dunno: Spending more than 2 minutes debating whether or not its a good idea to bomb a bunch of poor defenceless people who suffered the misfortune of being born on a different continent, before giving whatever moron happens to be in power the green light to carry out said bombing?

SUMMARY:
In the end a 4-8 year RP presidency will NOT impact abortion rights.
It will IMMEDIATELY impact troop deployments, and foreign policy.
It will IMMEDIATELY curb the growth of the federal government.
It will IMMEDIATELY end the abuses of the Patriot act.
It will IMMEDIATELY end the war in Afghanistan.
It will IMMEDIATELY diminish (and likely end) the federal war on drugs.
It will PREVENT us from entering into wars which are undeclared.
And, it will IMMEDIATELY begin addressing the deficiencies in our monetary policy (you know that little thing which resulted in the financial collapse we saw a few years back).

Ron Paul is morally against abortion.
So what? Everyone is morally against abortion at some level. He doesn't want to use the power of the federal government to fuck around with you-- not in your bedroom, not to keep you from doing drugs, not to stop you from having an abortion-- its not on his agenda he's got other shit to deal with and UNLIKE EVERY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WE'VE HAD FOR THE PAST MY ENTIRE LIFETIME HE HAS A GRASP OF CIVICS WHICH MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE GARBAGE WE WERE ALL TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL; THAT IS TO SAY HE UNDERSTANDS THE JOB. AND THE JOB REALLY HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH ABORTION.

And so on that note I leave you all with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

My opinion is simple.

My opinion is simple. Abortion should NOT be used as a contraception. I am with Dr. paul, on the rare occasional rape, she should go to emergency room and taken it care of IMMEDIATELY.

If people don't know by now how to avoid pregnancy, they can't use abortion for their own stupidity.

It is really just out of control how people are careless because they have the safety net of abortions. It's like welfare. It's a deterrent for responsibility.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

His position is a bit confusing

There's no question that he's personally opposed to abortion. He likes to use the fact that he is pro-life in his campaigning and is proud of his pro-life record.

He says that it is a matter that should be left up to the states. However he has also supported federal laws defining life as beginning at conception. On the third hand, he has said that new laws aren't going to help, and that really it is society that needs to change.

So if you have trouble articulating Dr. Paul's political stance on abortion, it's not all that surprising. I have trouble getting a grasp on it as well.

He is against the Federal

He is against the Federal Government making any decision regarding abortion period.

He wants the states to do it. He is personally against abortion but admits there are times where it is a really tough decision such as in rape. he believes the woman should go to the emergency room and get whatever done immediately after a rape., but not after weeks or months of rape.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Here's my take

My personal opinion on abortion is about the only area where I might disagree with Ron fundamentally, however, politically, I can accept his position that the matter should be left to the states.

I am very reluctant to infringe upon the rights of an actual human being. I'll concede that life begins at conception, however, a fetus is, in my mind, only a potential human being; only actual human beings can be endowed with objectively defined individual human rights. This to me suggests that the decision to abort is one that ultimately rests with the woman who is carrying the child, since to suggest otherwise would be an infringement upon her domain over here own body.

I say that, believing that abortion is the most distasteful form of birth control imagineable, and should be avoided especially late term. In that sense I think Ron and I are in the same place.

In any case, it certainly is not a legitimate function of government to either financially support, or conversely deny, access to a safe abortion, should it be made available. I could never see a situation where money is taken from one person under duress and given to another for the sake of an abortion.

Ron actually 'punts' on this point, but he is consistent in doing so, since he sees many current federal functions being returned to the states. It would be much easier to challenge such funding, if a state chose to provide it, at the state level. If it turns out that a state does choose to make abortion legal (by not outlawing it), so be it.

Look at your reasoning in a mirror:

"I am very reluctant to infringe upon the rights of a full human being. I'll concede that black men are living, however, a black man is, in my mind, only partially a human being; only full human beings can be endowed with objectively defined individual human rights. This to me suggests that the decision to kill a black man is one that ultimately rests with the white man who owns the black man, since to suggest otherwise would be an infringement upon the slave owner's domain over his own property."

Why is it that you think you get to define a fetus as not an "actual" human being? Why can't someone else then define a child, or a retarded person, or someone with alzheimer's or on life support also as "not an actual human being"?

Note that I am neither making a case for nor even revealing my position here. I'm just pointing out a lack of sound logic, and pointing out that there is danger in allowing the government to dictate which humans are "actual" humans.

Check this out

I asked my girlfriend to tell me how she supports Ron Paul and identifies herself as a ProChoice Feminist at the same time. She wrote a thorough answer. I am posting her essay as a response to several requests I have seen for help talking to abortion rights advocates about Ron Paul. I hope this helps.

http://www.dailypaul.com/209501/a-credible-response-to-abort...

I deal with this a lot. It's

I deal with this a lot. It's a pain to deal with.

Ron paul is pro-life. But his job is federal, and he believes the federal govt has no business in that matter.

His personal religious beliefs will not effect anyone, because he votes for the constitution, not whim here and there.

My GF and I fight over this nightly, (argue) - but its cool.

Joη's picture

"if only he'd write a book on the subject!"

http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20L...

"Oh, but that's too many words. Can you shorten it to one page?"

No. But his chapter in Liberty Defined would be worth reading then.

Or this summary of that chapter:
http://libertydefined.org/issue/1

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?