63 votes

When Pro-Life Is Pro-Choice

I am strongly pro-choice. On this conviction, I differ from the candidate whom I am supporting for president in 2012, and whom I am suggesting liberals everywhere support.

Many of those liberals who most strongly disagree with the Blue Republicans -- former Obama supporters, Democrats and Independents, who support Ron Paul for president in 2012, revert to a single argument against him: that he is pro-life and this will have terrible consequences for the reproductive rights of women in the USA.

I've really not wanted to engage this as, on the one hand, it seems to be such an extraordinary (sometimes I think deliberate) misunderstanding of Paul's politics as to be not serious, and, on the other, abortion is such an emotive subject, I can't imagine any writer's gaining more readers than he loses by writing about it.

But since this matters so much -- as this misunderstanding is now standing in the way of remaking our country -- I'm going to engage it this once, and damn the torpedoes.

On the abortion issue, Ron Paul is pro-life. He believes human life begins at conception. But his entire political, indeed philosophical, worldview, is pro-choice. He believes that he does not get to impose his views using the force of federal law on a nation that might disagree with him -- especially in areas in which the Constitution does not give him that authority.

In other words, were someone of Ron Paul's views to win the presidency, there would be no federal action to prevent you from having a safe abortion. He is on the record. For most pro-choicers, that should put the issue to rest -- but it doesn't, because as other progressives rightly point out, under a Paul presidency, some states could make abortions illegal.

That is indeed the "worst case." But any liberal should be able to see that this worst case, taken in its entirety is better than the present situation, for multiple reasons.

1) If you allow this issue to be legislated at the national level, then a Republican majority or president with a large neocon or religious-right base will be able to reverse that legislation to ban abortion nationwide. The only way to guarantee that safe abortions will always be available in the USA for more than one Congress or presidency is to push this issue to the states in the spirit of the Constitution. Then, even the possibility of a nationwide ban on abortion disappears.

2) It is easier to reverse bad policy at the state level than the federal level through public pressure.

3) There is nothing liberal or humane about requiring those who sincerely disagree with us on abortion to subsidize our practices -- just as there is nothing liberal or humane about those who like unnecessary wars to force us to pay for them. In particular, if we are concerned about the rights of women, we shouldn't be asking women who disagree with us to subsidize our views.

4) The very worst (and frankly, extremely unlikely) case under a Paul presidency is that a poor woman would have to cross a state line to get an abortion. However, this worst-case scenario comes with the benefit of the reinstitution of the Bill of Rights, the end of killing innocent people in foreign countries, the end of indefinite incarceration without trial of Americans, the end of bank bailouts, the end of spending money abroad that should be spent at home, the end of government agents listening into your private conversations, the end of government by corporate lobbyists, and so on and so on.

In other words, if you don't vote for Ron Paul because of the abortion issue, then you cannot claim to be a progressive or liberal in any sense. You are a single-issue voter, which means, I am afraid, that you don't care about everything else that is going on in your country that is destroying the lives of the very same women whose right to an abortion you wish to protect. That does not make you a progressive; it does not make you a feminist and it certainly does not make you a liberal.

But since I agree with you that America should be a country in which all women have access to safe abortions, I would also pledge to support a charity that would pay for poor women in Mississippi -- to use an example that was suggested to me in a radio interview -- to travel across state lines to get the safe abortion they require.

The point of course, is there is no charity that could stop the government from killing people in undeclared wars, or bailing out crony corporatists, or making laws that favor well-funded lobbies or cause federal agencies to follow again the Bill of Rights.

Vote Obama in 2012 and you'll get your federally mandated right to an abortion -- and you'll lose (or more accurately, fail to get back) every other Constitutional right you are supposed to have.

If I have to spell it out, under a Paul presidency, no woman would have to forego an abortion. Under the presidency of any other candidate, every woman has to forego the right to privacy, to due process before detention, to not participate financially in the killing of innocent people abroad, to not have her wealth transferred to rich guys who run banks and know other rich guys, to not have her conversations listened to by government authorities, and so on.

Do you see the asymmetry? Do you see how this is a matter of priorities?

I would like the USA to be the live-and-let-live country it was supposed to be.

Let us as liberals be true and consistent in our principles. The only way in which our pro-choice views directly impinge on others is by forcibly taking money from them to pay for things we want. We should no more need to use the monopoly of force of government in that way than should any religionist use it to prevent a gay couple from making a life-long commitment and calling it whatever they want, including "marriage." And if the religionists don't believe it's "a real marriage," let them call it whatever they want, too. And we can ignore them. And so on.

Paul's pro-life views are personal. The country needs to understand that a leader can hold a view fervently without having to impose it on the country as national policy.

Indeed, that is precisely what the Constitution requires him -- or her -- to do.

Comment viewing options

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

Aside from the Supreme Court

Aside from the Supreme Court reversing Roe v. Wade or the constitution being amended (both unlikely given the makeup of the courts and states), the abortion issue is totally irrelevant. It has been decided, and the president and Congress can do nothing whatsoever about it.

I'm glad you're pro-choice but please, let's discuss issues that actually matter?

It's garbage like this that costs Ron Paul votes.

This guy founded the Blue Republicans for Ron Paul but doesn't even know Ron Paul's position on abortion. The number of votes up on this article are also very revealing of so many of Paul's supporters who are totally ignorant of Paul's view on abortion. I believe this is the real reason Ron Paul has not won a single primary - misinformation!

i agree with you. this IS GARBAGE and harmful to our cause

i'm glad you stated so here. anyone who does not get the life issue will also never completely understand the meaning of liberty.


I had to give my pastor

Abortion and Liberty to prove that Ron Paul was not a total abortion supporter. This muddies the waters a big way. Abortion is a giant tar baby anyways. -sigh- Anyone viewing this who might be inclined to support Paul in the GOP is going to have a fit.

May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius

RON PAUL is NOT AT ALL an abortion supporter.

thanks for your reply. if abortion is a primary issue for your pastor, he needs to know that RON PAUL is the ONLY true pro-life candidate in the race.

santorum is a complete fraud on this issue, having voted for funding for planned parenhood and having campaigned for the outspoken pro-abort arlen spector.

your pastor should know that DR. PAUL introduced his "sanctity of life" act numerous times in congress, but the establishment hypocrite republicans have always refused to support it.

as more and more knowledge is becoming available, it is becoming more and more difficult for the pro-aborts to deceive about the characteristics of the pre-birth "fetus" and pro-life is becoming the majority position in america, so being pro-life is NOT a political liability these days.


Ron Paul believes Row Vs Wade federal ruling is...

...unconstitutional because violent acts are handled by the states. He has said that on The View, Piers Morgan, and in the debates. Regardless of what he personally believes on the subject, he has an oath to Constistution and utilizes it as a means solve gov't related issues including abortion.

Ron Paul's response to abortion, like almost every answer he gives, is indepth. Just calling him prolife is a half-ass answer and will shut him down. Liberal one-issue voters would give you the middle finger and vote for Obama twice on that sentiment alone.

The term the OP used holds validity. Ron Paul believes each state should be given the choice to regulate abortion how they see fit without the Fed gov't intervening. This is, in essence, pro-choice even if is just persuasive semantics.

Most of us here have an understanding of what Ron Paul believes personally. I haven't heard one person say he's a defender of abortion. The ignorance is yours my friend.

Is this about

Is this about how you get from the beach out into the water? Row vs Wade?

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

I find it distressing that

I find it distressing that he's forced to waste his time addressing such irrelevant issues as abortion. What's next on the GOP's list of batshit nonsense, the constitutionality of chartreuse wallpaper?


those liberal voters aren't doing Ron Paul any good right now anyway.


he has in the past supported amendments to the Constitution regarding abortion and has said he wouldn't mind pursuing that in the future. Repealing Roe v. Wade is only the first step. The only thing he would allow the states to do is decide how to prosecute the abortion doctors. You might want to read Liberty Defined and watch the Personhood Forum for clarification.

can of worm but you asked for it

The real solution is to ban men from having sex without condems. ;-) Just think how much money we would save in STD costs as well.

how can you be pro life and pro war at the same time?

<- read somehwere on dp.

spread the message and inform the people:

http://www.dailypaul.com/218640/ron-paul-promotional-flyer-f... -> for free!
http://www.mediafire.com/?1wxwtdnlzulo5oy <- .pdf link

article is wrong

I hate to bust this guys bubble but he is absolutely wrong about Paul's stance on abortion. Paul believes abortion is murder. How could he support a woman's pursuit to murder? That's absurd. I don't understand why so many of us want to make Paul look like an abortion sympathizer when all it does is hurt his chances among conservative voters. Paul wants a federal definition of the unborn as persons. That means that abortion would be legally categorized as murder. That's what Paul wants to do, this is what his Sanctity of Life Act would do. As far as states go, he wants them to be responsible for determining punishments and policing it, not the federal govt. It would be the same for abortion as any other type of murder. Why libs and neocons don't understand this is mind-boggling. In Liberty Defined, Paul blatantly says that if a state legalized abortion, they could be prosecuted for not upholding a Republican form of govt. Does that sound like "pro-choice" for states? Please...I mean, why did he introduced personhood amendments in the 70s? Why'd he vote for federal bans on partial birth abortion? Instead of seeing what you wanna see with Paul, you need to start listening to him and adopt his anti-abortion stance.

Thanks Robin

This is the explanation I have been given to all those that are worried about Ron policy on this. You just said a lot better and more clear. Bravo..

"I have found that being rich is not about having the most but about needing the least"

The Declaration of Independence is clear...

The right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...and
that baby in the womb has that same right...LIFE...Because it can't scream, "please don't tear my limbs apart and suck me out with a vaccuum or burn me with saline solution", responsible adults have the obligation to PROTECT that child being formed in the womb. If they don't want it...they should at least carry it through to birth and let someone else care for it. Even Dr. Paul says that as a physician, if he injures the child in the womb, he's liable...so obviously there's a baby growing in there! Whether the mother wants the child or not, it is no longer her call- The time to be responsible was before having sex...the child shouldn't suffer because of the parent's decision.

Then what happens...

What happens to the woman's unalienable rights to life, liberty and property?

Well, it does say, "All men are created equal..." so maybe when a girl gets knocked up, she's not a citizen or even a human any more, but a beast of burden like in ancient Greece.

If a woman's body and its contents aren't her own property, then exactly whose property is she?

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Good Question

When she carries that life inside of her, she doesn't lose life, liberty, or property...she can give the child up...but since there are two lives involved now, she has a shared responsibility to give life and freedom to the child she carries. The child has been planted and is growing within her...it's not just about her anymore. If it didn't have a soul, it would be flesh only without movement, without breath, without a heartbeat. Just look at a corpse and you'll see what a glob of cells is without life...the soul is no longer there at death - the soul gives life. So, there's NO doubt that there's a life in her, and that is entitled to live....and SHE is responsible to give it that freedom since she took responsibility in having sex.

Why not have responsible sex?

My fiance and I make love plenty but I don't plant my seed if you know what I mean, it has worked every time for the past 5+ years I'd say that is a pretty good track record of proven performance as a natural safe method of birth control. As far as I'm concerned hormonal birth control is unnecessary and dangerous, it made my fiance have weird problems when she tried it, I don't trust it. Condoms are just weird introducing a latex barrier between myself and the woman I love is not very appealing to me I'd rather not. I think monogamy is the best solution to the STD problems young people should ideally find each other when they are virgins and pair off instead of being encouraged by society to be promiscuous and sleep around with a lot of people to get "experience". Of course I know I am taking a risk having sex and if my fiance gets pregnant she will give birth to the child and we will love and raise him/her that is part of taking the adult responsibility when you engage in adult activities like sex. But we would never pay a doctor to violently murder our own offspring in her womb, that is pure evil incarnate.

That may sound harsh but it's true it is infanticide it is sick how many people accept this. My own Mother was told by my uncle when I was growing in the woman "Haven't you ever heard of abortion?", thank god even though she believes she had the "right" to murder me she chose not to despite my Father and Uncle both pressuring her to kill me before I was born.

"safe abortions" safe for who???

certainly NOT safe for the individual most involved, the one being butchered. saying "safe abortion" is the same as idiotically saying "safe violence", "safe murder", or "safe slaughter".
what a thoroughly twisted and ridiculous concept.


Dr. Paul said abortion is

the most important issue of our age. I also believe it is the most important issue, more than the economy, foreign policy, monetary policy, or any other issue. If we, as a country allow the murder of unborn babies, then how can we expect our leaders to be moral enough to bring our country back on the right path of liberty and a constitutional republic? God will not allow this to happen as long as we continue to have legalized abortion. We need a good, moral leaders, such as Dr. Paul, to understand this and turn our country around. A bill he introduced last spring, HR 958, aka "We The People Act", will repeal Roe v. Wade overnight with a simple majority vote and signature of the President. Once this bill passes the pro life community can appeal to state legislatures to pass pro life laws.
Even Norma McCorvy, (Roe - who was coerced into the lawsuit, and subsequently became pro life and converted to Christianity) supported Dr. Paul for president in 2008, knowing his staunch pro life position.
Once we overturn Roe v. Wade the economy and all other problems will be fixed with God's help. Our problem is that we have rejected God and His teachings and until we change and turn to Him for guidance we will have more of the same.

you are correct

liberty has no meaning without right to life. that RON PAUL is the only true pro-life candidate should be the #1 most important reason to support him. everything else is secondary.


I'm also pro-choice

But I understand the pro-life arguments and even share most of them.

For me, the pro-choice or pro-life position is completly irrelevant. Unless we are talking about someone crazy, like Santorum.

jaseed's picture


I approve this message!
To take control of my money away from federal government, gives me individual liberty to give to and support whatever charity I choose!!!

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

– Thomas Jefferson

As a pro-life Republican (who leans Libertarian)

I do as well.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Robin Koerner's picture

My reasons for being pro-choice are...


The question is indeed when does an embryo become human.

75% of all fertilized embryos are flushed out in a natural process by the woman's body, and usually the woman never even knows she was pregnant. It seems to me then, that the mother's body (nature), itself, does not treat an embryo as a human to be protected in the first few weeks. (Such flushing out happens within four weeks.)

Believing that an embryo is a full human being means punishing a woman who has an abortion as if she were a murderer even though she honestly does not perceive herself to be one. In my heart, would I really be able to impose on her a life sentence (or in some states, a death sentence), and tell her child (say, if she had one) why. I would not, and most of the pro-life people I have met could not either. That tells me that in our deepest being, we know that a one week old embryo, for example, is not the same thing as a one week old child. Put another way, there is a burden of principle on a pro-lifer who would not punish a woman who has an abortion in the same way as a murderer.

If I was in a laboratory with a baby and a test tube with an embryo in it, and a fire broke out, I'd save the baby before the test tube. Again, most people would. This points to a deep (and scientifically correct, as per the first point above) intuition that a very young fetus is not a full person.

I would however, gladly admit that the argument becomes harder to make as the pregnancy proceeds, but the fact that a typical woman's body flushes out (and thereby "kills) most embryos means that the critical line is not at conception - but after it.

One last thing. In church liturgy, the Creed always used to say (before it was changed in modern times) "He will come to judge the quick and the dead". "Quickening" is what is said to have happened when the woman first feels the movement of her baby inside of her... So even the high church has recognized the important line of "human-ness" (and the association of a soul) as being drawn after conception but before birth.


I think many pro-life people

I think many pro-life people recognize that a woman who aborts is not simply a murderer for some of the very reasons you mention. Many, many pro-life ministries are actively committed to providing post-abortion counseling to such women because they recognize that women oftentimes end up victims of this system which allows for the quick disposal of life without adequately engaging the conscience, without providing adequate information, and oftentimes under the outside pressures of family and friends (not to mention the father) looking for an easy way out.

I think most pro-life groups would argue for the punishment of the doctor, not the mother in most cases. The doctor is the one who actively murders the child, and does so with a much clearer, objective understanding of the life of that child. My brother-in-law is a pro-life ObGyn and has commented on how medical students almost always begin doing abortions with deep regret and moral conflict, but eventually just get hardened to the moral implications of their actions. Not to mention that many doctors who primarily perform abortions as their job also have a significant financial interest in the abortion industry.

I understand your desire to find a "critical line" when life really begins, but there really is only a continuum. The only clear line (before and after) is conception itself. And even if there were some doubts about the first month or so, as you have mentioned, wouldn't it be best to give the fetus/child the benefit of the doubt? We are not talking about a minor question; we are talking about life and death, millions of them.

jeffjeffjeff's picture

It's a question of when life begins

I'm a pro-life atheist and I believe, as others have mentioned, that the issue is primarily on when life begins. Since this question is very difficult to answer I think it's best to err on the side of caution and consider conception the single most defining moment in which the genetic makeup that makes a new human being unique is created. I'm not a biologist but it's my understanding that this event occurs almost instantly and as such makes an excellent legal, philosophical, and perhaps even a spiritual marker for when life could be considered as beginning.

On the topic of abortion at different stages of development my view is that it could be considered similar to end of life issues for a terminal patient. Lets say a person is on breathing tubes and is declared brain dead. Legally people in these vegetative states have been able to have their life ended by doctors and usually decided on by other family members. So some may argue that in early stages of development the tissue that makes up an embryo or an early stage fetus cannot support it's own life and may have no signs of brain function and thus similarly it's life should be able to be legally placed in the hands of the doctors and family members responsible for caring for this baby. The main argument I have against this is a matter of potential livelihood. In other words, in the case of the terminal patient, it is generally accepted that although it's a sensitive issue that if a person is not able life unsupported by extensive medical intervention and more importantly that they have no foreseeable potential to regain any measurable mental or physical capabilities then that person should be able to be legally allowed to die. In the case of the unborn however, no matter how small or incapable the baby is, it still has the potential to gain physical and/or mental capacities and thus achieve person-hood by anybody's standards.

So personally I feel that since it's the governments first and foremost responsibility to defend individual liberty that erring on the side of caution and considering conception as the beginning of personhood seems to the most logical and responsible position. The defense of a mother or father to be able make choices about their body or their offspring is also the responsibility of government but defending life should always trump questions about defending ones right to make a choice. I may wish to run through crowded streets with a running chain saw but my right to make such a choice would rightfully be trumped by the fact that doing so would put other people's lives in jeopardy.

Those from the left may also like the analogy to a irresponsible chemical manufacturing company that pollutes the local environment so badly that it directly causes several people to die from the contaminated ground water. In this case the chemical manufacturer may have an interest in maintaining their current practices because it is making them highly profitable in the short term. Even local workers side with the company since they see a direct benefit from what the company is doing and perhaps without being able to make the choice to work for the manufacture and in turn the choice to pollute the local ground water is the difference between being happily employed or otherwise in a desperate financial situation. From the victims' perspectives however it is unjust that they and their loved ones have lost their lives due to other peoples choices and regardless of how these the decision to pollute has benefited the company and its works it still is not worth the loss of lives. Regardless of your political leanings it's easy in a situation like this to realize that the works and the company are at fault and are guilty of causing the death of these works for their own selfish gain. Now translate this same analogy to a mother and an unborn child. We we can establish the point at which life begins then after that point the mother should not be lawfully able to end the life of the unborn baby regardless of whether giving birth to the child would bring her loss of opportunities in life, financial burden, shame in the case of a rape, or any other reason. Just like the chemical company and it's workers the benefits of making their choice is no justification for the consequence of another individual loosing their life.

So once again, it all comes down to determining when life begins.

Defining life and causality.

As a pro-life biologist, I understand your arguments but believe that there is a fatal flaw in the logic of this line or reasoning.

You say that the whole question comes down to when the fetus begins to be "life". I'm assuming that you mean abortions are not really ending a life if done before this point, and all we need to do is determine when that is. I partially disagree.

Think about it in terms of causality.

A fertilized and implanted egg will develop over time and eventually become an individual with rights.
Regardless of when the fetus becomes defined as "life", that chain of events leads from sperm and egg to individual.

For the sake of argument, let's say that someone decides to abort a fetus 3 seconds after the fertilization event because life has been defined as starting 10 minutes after fertilization.

What effect does this have?

The life of the would-be individual never happens.
They have no choice in this.
They -would- have lived.
Simple. Cause and effect.
It does not matter when you define the fetus as life since at conception, the chain of events has already begun. No matter when you stop it, it will break the chain.

Imagine a car suspended by a chain. We are essentially arguing about at which link the chain starts supporting the car. If we cut the first link, the car ends. If we abort the fetus AT fertilization, the life will never be. Simple as that.

Other quick thoughts:
It does not matter that many fetuses are naturally aborted since choosing to abort ends one that could live -BY OUR CHOICE-.

Other arguments for exceptional cases (like rape) fall apart because they assume that one violent act (rape) justifies another (abortion). These are HARD questions, not to be taken lightly.

Thanks for reading!

Robin Koerner's picture

No. It's absolutely not about

No. It's absolutely not about when "life" begins for me.

Life is itself a continuum (of complexity, among other things).

It's about when the life is human in any meaningful sense.

devil's advocate

Just to have some fun with a couple of your points...A mentally retarded person may possess few of the traits that separate us from the animals....Should we kill them if they aren't human enough? For that matter, a human newborn is less "human," less able to reason, etc., than an adult chimpanzee....Is the newborn's life worth less? No? Because it will eventually become a full-fledged human? Can't the same be said of most fetuses, at any stage of development, before they're aborted? So, using your principle, you either must think it's okay to kill any inconvenient humans who aren't quite human enough, or you have to respect all human life, period.

Your other point, that "nature" regularly ends pregnancies, implies that that makes the practice morally acceptable. Nature also wipes out populations with famines and plagues, and ends species altogether. So, again, using your principle, is human-generated mass death okay, since nature mass-kills on a regular basis?

I'm not really "pro-life," but I've come to the conclusion that there's some serious intellectual dishonesty in "pro choice" reasoning.

What If?

One issue that no one ever talks about is that one of the reasons why some men advocate abortions is because child support is freaking expensive for men. 18 years of large amounts of payments.

Also- government should subsidize adoption agencies more than Planned Parenthood. My grandfather had a rotten life at the beginning of his life and he was given up for adoption. However, he worked hard and became very successful by starting a great company. If it wasn't for him, many people would not have had lived great lives.

What if we had it so that if the woman doesn't want the baby and the man doesn't, then the baby goes to adoption. If the woman wants the baby, she can keep it. If the man wants it, he can have it. That way it gives everyone the freedom to choose what they want to do without the government getting involved.

I'd like to point out that after a woman is raped, she can immediately go to the emergency room and get a shot of estrogen. She shouldn't wait months later and claim she was raped, as she could also be lying.

While individuals want to get as much sex as they can without any cost, it is not good for society (as we can see from Rome). If women make sex harder to get (due to the rick of having pregnancy and having a baby), guys will have to work harder to be more productive (everyone having sex all the time is generally not productive).

Just my 2 cents.

Nobody "advocates" abortion...

Nobody "advocates" abortion. That's just one of the scare tactics that the anti-choice zealots use.

I, for one, support the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE - abortion itself is actually kind of a distressing emotional trauma for the pregnant woman (or girl.) But I'm guessing that being sentenced to 20 years at hard labor raising the resulting unwanted child, at her own expense, is probably more traumatic. Not that the anti-choice zealots could give a shit less about the well-being of the one who is hosting Little Lord Fetus.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

is RON PAUL an "anti-choice" zealot ??

something is seriously wrong with a person who regards any child as "unwanted". what a dreadful condition someone's soul would be in to take that attitude !!


I'm not talking about a child

I'm not talking about a child, but a potential child, otherwise known as an embryo or fetus.

The Bible itself, in Genesis 2:7 and other chapters and verses, defines the beginning of life as the moment of taking breath:

Once it breathes, then yes, it's a person. But a fetus is no more a person than a wart or tumor, which are also living human tissue.

And amendments 4 and 14 refer to born people.

It seems like the people who believe in "rights of the unborn" really couldn't care less about the rights of the born.

Freedom is my Worship Word!

That "biblical argument" page is deeply flawed.

I'm not going to address much of this since I don't have time, but I wanted to share a few thoughts.

1) That link you gave is merely someone's interpretation of the scripture. Also, I think that quote from Genesis is saying what the laws were -they are not necessarily from God. There are tons of horrible things in the Old Testament that were not of God or endorsed by God, but were just told as they were.
Moreover, the whole argument hinges on what the author arbitrarily defines "breath of life" as meaning literally air. This would require a serious study of scripture, language, and theology, not simply quoting scriptures that seem to support your positions (which is very easy to do). You can use cherry picked or out-of-context scripture to seemingly support almost anything.

2) The argument about sperm is completely wrong. Sperm do NOT have the ability to become life since they contain only HALF of the genetic information they need (they are haploid, we are diploid). Sperm and eggs are just tissue until they combine. So no, there are not millions of "potential lives" wasted at each ejaculation event.

3) Once egg and sperm combine, they are still tissue just as you say, but they are now on course to become a person unless stopped by say... an abortion.

4) I'm now going to paste something I wrote before about cause-and-effect in abortion:
As a pro-life biologist, I understand your arguments but believe that there is a fatal flaw in the logic of this line or reasoning.

You say that the whole question comes down to when the fetus begins to be "life". I'm assuming that you mean abortions are not really ending a life if done before this point, and all we need to do is determine when that is. I partially disagree.

Think about it in terms of causality.

A fertilized and implanted egg will develop over time and eventually become an individual with rights.
Regardless of when the fetus becomes defined as "life", that chain of events leads from sperm and egg to individual.

For the sake of argument, let's say that someone decides to abort a fetus 3 seconds after the fertilization event because life has been defined as starting 10 minutes after fertilization.

What effect does this have?

The life of the would-be individual never happens.
They have no choice in this.
They -would- have lived.
Simple. Cause and effect.
It does not matter when you define the fetus as life since at conception, the chain of events has already begun. No matter when you stop it, it will break the chain.

Imagine a car suspended by a chain. We are essentially arguing about at which link the chain starts supporting the car. If we cut the first link, the car ends. If we abort the fetus AT fertilization, the life will never be. Simple as that.

Other quick thoughts:
It does not matter that many fetuses are naturally aborted since choosing to abort ends one that could live -BY OUR CHOICE-.

Other arguments for exceptional cases (like rape) fall apart because they assume that one violent act (rape) justifies another (abortion). These are HARD questions, not to be taken lightly.

Thanks for reading!

I don't agree with Child Support based on one main reason!

If I get the child opposed to my wife, then that is more value to me than everything the wife owns. And I'm responsible for that child if I take that child. I have it's love and comfort and company with me the majority of the time as opposed to the other spouse. And I will be willing to take on the expenses of the child without help from my spouse if I'm divorced. And I think the wife should do the same if they decide to keep the child as well. Money will not be wasted IMHO which I believe it usually is cause it's given to the spouse.

Paul argued this by saying there should be no "group rights". From what I've seen in the judicial system regarding divorce especially from my divorced parents, who divorced when I was 8 years old, is that the judicial system majority of the time rules disproportionately for the one gender over the other...

Majority of the time in a divorce:
Males don't get custody of the children
Males have to pay alimony
Males have to pay child support
Males have to give money to someone they don't love or even hate
Males that make more money after the divorce end up paying more for alimony and child support

It's very hard in the end for the money to end up actually supporting the child as opposed to supporting the spouse because that's who ends up holding on to it til the child is of age usually.(By then the child is grown up and the father doesn't have to pay anymore because the child is old enough to take care of itself)

It favors one group but not the other... All I'm saying is there should be fairness. If you want a divorce and you want fairness just get the government to stay out of your own business and take the matter into your own hands.

That's the way it should be.

The psychology studies behind

The psychology studies behind rape show that it is perfectly understandable why a women who is raped won't go to a hospital right away...do you know how many rapes go unreported?

For many women, they try to pretend it never happened; they never want to think about it so it never has to hurt them.

It is in fact ridiculously easy to have sex and not get pregnant. Unfortunately, sex-based education in this country does an awful job educating students. It is just like drugs; you can't keep them away from it by telling them it is wrong. Instead, tell them the dangers, give them the warnings and tools, etc.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

What if there were no abortions?

There have been over 50 million abortions in America since Roe v. Wade.

The current US population is just over 300 million.

If we had waited until today to commit this genocide, we would reduce the population by about 14% from 350 million. I guess that would be one way to reduce unemployment...

What's worse - Ron Paul is very popular among young people... think of all the Paul supporters we've lost to legal abortion!!



"For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."
(1 Peter 2:15-16)

Lost supporters...

Well, since your article is primarily speculation, have you ever considered the possibility that if a particular embryo gets aborted, wouldn't that potential person's Immortal Soul simply continue to wait in line for the next available fetus to possess?

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Maybe if you are a Mormon.

Maybe if you are a Mormon. However, historic christian theology does not recognize the existence of the soul prior to conception.

existence of the soul

Of COURSE the soul exists - otherwise, what does "immortal" mean? Ever heard of "the Breath of Life?" Please see Genesis 2:7:
"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

"Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath."
-- http://joeschwartz.net/life.htm

Freedom is my Worship Word!

I don't understand your

I don't understand your point. I never denied that the soul exists. Furthermore, immortal does not mean having no beginning, it means "not liable or subject to death." I believe in the immortality of the soul. But historic Christianity has never held to the existence or personality of the soul before conception.

Or perhaps you are assuming immortality of the soul works with reincarnation? From a Christian perspective, that is just not how things work. The soul of a person is directly related to personal identity, which is typically lost in reincarnation. The Bible argues for physical resurrection, not reincarnation. This is a key element of the Christian faith.

I am not sure what your biblical examples are trying to prove. Your last statement seems to be arguing that life begins at first breath, but that is not what the biblical text is saying. The text is likely not using entirely literal language (since God does not "breathe" like a human), but the key point is that God does the breathing "into" the man; it does not, in and of itself, directly talk about the man's first breath. The text argues that man's status as a living being comes directly from God. But more importantly to my original point, talking about when life begins for Adam (created a fully formed, mature human being) and exactly when life begins for an infant, are really two different subjects. No one but Adam was created and given life in this specific way.

Or do we really want to argue that life does not begin until a man or woman is capable of sexual reproduction (like Adam and Eve were at Creation),or perhaps until they can talk (as Adam and Eve did)?

Or maybe I am just missing your point entirely?


I think this is a great response, although I'm not sure the one you're responding to cares about the actual meaning of the passage. Maybe he could affirm that he actually believes in the Bible and isn't just trying to use it to make what he would consider an erroneous point anyway. Not making any assumptions, just saying. If he's a Bible believer we can probably have a good discussion, otherwise he should probably quit trying to push an interpretation onto something he can't understand. The word is foolishness to those who don't believe (1 Corinthians 1:18).

"For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."
(1 Peter 2:15-16)

Stuck in the wrong 70's

I went to college in 1979 at the height of the feminist brainwashing era. At the time, I thought that wearing women's rights on my sleeve gave me an edge. All it did was conquer and divide me against both men and women. I was fighting a contrived argument with the guys, and with the gals, I was just one-upping them.

I now realize that being pro-choice should be a subtle choice. Why are we still stuck in the 1970's when the 1770's spirit is more intuitive to these times ? It’s so embarrassing to hear the “uninformed majority” rehash abortion rights and civil rights because all they can do is repeat whatever the corporate media puts out there.


Summary of terms


All known life forms share fundamental molecular mechanisms.

Uterogestation is the process of gestation taking place in the womb from conception to birth.

Birth is the emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother. [mammal]

Fetus is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate after the embryonic stage and before birth.

Fetal viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus.

Human, First trimester, 1-3 months, 1-11 weeks, Embryogenesis.
Human, Second trimester, 3-6 months, 12-26 weeks, Fetal development.
Human, Third trimester, 7-10 months, 27-42 weeks, Fetal development.

The fetus is considered full-term between weeks 37 and 40, which means that the fetus is considered sufficiently developed for life outside the uterus. [without artificial aid]

Life is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms.

Biology is a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Animal is a multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants.

Mammal is any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals of the class Mammalia, including humans, characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young. The mammary glands are modified sweat glands that produce milk, which is used to feed the young for some time after birth. Only mammals produce milk. Mammary glands are present in all mammals, although they are vestigial in the male of the species.

Human is a member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Person is a human being regarded as an individual.

An Individual is a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family.

Individuality (or selfhood) is the state or quality of being an individual.

Selfhood is the quality that constitutes one’s individuality; the state of having an individual identity.

Natural Rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.

Legal Rights are those bestowed on to a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments.

Freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

Liberty is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life.

50.8% of the United States population is Individual Female Persons with Natural Rights.


Yes, this.

Another helpful premise: An existent is delineated from other existents by its physical boundaries.

So an arm is not a entity separate from the person to whom it is attached. If it is amputated, its living tissue dies, because it is not a viable organism.

I'm staunchly pro-choice, because I'm pro-Liberty

"Genesis 2:7

New International Version (©1984)

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

There it is: "God breathed the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Ergo, even though embryonic tissue is "living," it's not a being until it receives the Breath of Life from God.

And amendments 4 and 14 refer to persons - there is no "except pregnant women" clause.

By the logic of the so-called "pro-life" crowd, it should also be illegal to burn off a wart, or excise a cancerous tumor, because they are clearly living human tissue.

And if a woman's body AND ITS CONTENTS aren't her own property, then please, somebody tell me, exactly whose property is she?

Freedom is my Worship Word!

no human is the property of another

what is "so-called" about people who are pro-life?? what do you not get about the libertarian concept that freedom's one limit is that you don't have the "right" to do harm to others??


Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed

Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart...