Ron Paul recently on abortion/pregnancy-prevention in case of rape: would like clarification on his position
Submitted by nascent on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 11:10[POST EDIT]
So, after -30 down votes and many people doubting I am a Ron Paul supporter, let me just say: yes, I support Ron Paul, I don't consider him pro-abortion, I still consider him pro-life, I voted for him in 2008, I plan to vote for him again even if I have to write him in, and I'm not here to start another debate on abortion. I just want clarity on this specific aspect of Ron Paul's position, as I am currently a little confused about it.
I have read DP for years and only just joined so I could post this question for discussion, I wasn't prepared to defend my support of Ron Paul first since this is a pro Ron Paul forum by definition, but I realize this is a community so an unknown name will be looked at with skepticism.
I didn't say these things about myself to begin with because I wanted to avoid debating my views or someone else's views, or even Ron Paul's views -- I just want clarity on Ron Paul's position here, as I'm genuinely confused/unclear about it. Thanks for the replies to that end, and sorry to the rest of you for starting another noisy abortion thread!
Original title was "Ron Paul recently on Abortion: OK for "very early pregnancy" in case of rape?" -- changed because it seemed to come across as an attack not a request for clarity.
The rest of this post is unedited.
[/POST EDIT]
Hi All,
First of all, this is my first post here (though I've followed the DP feed since around the time I discovered RP in 2008!), so apologies if this has been posted already or I missed something.
I've supported Ron Paul as an anti-abortion candidate; I've read his books and heard his speeches and seen his legislation (ex. Sanctity of Life Act) enough to have long considered Paul a true "pro-life" candidate with an honest and principled approach to solving the problem.
However, he recently said some things that concerned me, and I'm not sure I fully understand his position or his explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uM55I...
Am I mistaken that he is taking the view that abortion is OK in the case of rape and/or during very early pregnancies?
What is particularly confusing is that I know he has said many times that life begins at conception, and an abortion in the case of rape is unjust to the unborn months later, but is he making an exception at "very early" stage?
Yes, I realize that this is an isolated clip and was part of a typical politically charged hypothetical meant to snipe and ensnare, and it's quite possible his answer was simply not well worded as a result or even misspoken. Regardless, after listening to this interview clip and re-reading the portion in Liberty Defined on the same subject, I am left unsure what Ron Paul's exact view is here. I wish Paul could clear this up: does he believe life begins at conception? Does he believe all abortion after conception is wrong? If so, how is his answer to Morgan consistent with this view? Does he believe that all abortion is wrong and he would not advocate any abortion after conception?
Thanks!
WARNING SCIENCE
A dose of estrogen after sex means one of 3 possible things.
1 The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation
2 Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released from the ovary
3 It can irritate the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so as to inhibit implantation.
The only one of those that could be considered an abortion is the third option. Saying RP supports "(any kind of) abortion" because he supports emergency contraception AFTER A RAPE is ridiculous.
Reducing the world's
Reducing the world's population to 500,000,000 is a worldwide goal to be accomplished by the worldwide NWO neocons. So speaking on worldwide terms, a major contributor to this goal is the 42 Million babies murdered by abortion every year worldwide. And don't forget this was legalized in America over 30 years ago. (1.37 million per year in America alone).
"A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue
Appears to me that you have a legitimate concern
I was out and about today - doct appt, bank, post ofc, Pet
Smart - and took the opportunity to wear my "Reclaiming America" shirt. And feel my connection with people was positive and very fun... (And there surely were a number of RP supporters who didn't hestiate to tell me why!) BUT if someone had asked me exactly what Dr. Paul's position is, I'd have responded, "He is personally opposed to it. And he believes the issue should be left to the individual states."
Now, I assume he is opposed to all FEDERAL FUNDING - and most certainly Roe vs Wade did not rule that the GOVT should PAY for abortions.? So, the Constitutional issue for the FEDS - for him - must boil down to FEDERAL FUNDING of the procedure...?????
As for me, personally, I see Abortion as a continuum of the Eugencis Agenda... And with the Govt's considering a fetus less than a human life...and therefore, without value, why wouldn't we believe the very same argument can be made at the other end of the spectrum....with those who've grown older and no longer productive, to be "disposable". And don't believe for a moment that the Eugencis movement isn't live and well...
And in the words of a College Senior to me, "Ron Paul is, in my opinion, a Humanitarian, the likes of which we simply don't see in most people."
Good night, Patriots
Susie 4 Liberty
He's talking about the " morning after pill"
He does not consider it killing a baby because you don't know if you are pregnant. A pregnancy test would show negative at 24 hours. What it is is a high dose of estrogen that makes you start your period.
He is not.
Troll alert.
.
"Religious people fear hell...
...Spiritual people (including our Savior) have lived it." -my friend
Leave Us Alone and Bring the Troops Home
Life does not start at intercourse
.
Ron Paul is talking about preventing pregnancy
He is not condoning abortion.
This is also a personal question not a legislative one.
As for me, I do not believe the life begins at conception. I do not believe the Bible teaches that. I do not believe Biology expresses that either..
I'm not going to be techie..
..on this matter. After the unfortunate event and while a battery of investigative tests are being conducted, a "morning after" medication (Plan B or Preven) is administered. This means it is a preventive measure. At a cellular level, it complicates things because we have our individual view, religious or otherwise, on this matter. Cells are part of a living organism but to call it human is a misconception IMHO. It is a key to start human embryo, hence, human life. To prevent it from beginning to form, again, IMHO, is not actually ending its life.
Life begins with the first spark of life
I am an electro-therapist involved with restoring an almost extinct breed of horse, the Orlov Rostopchin.
We just successfully put a fertilized egg into a surrogate mare it took 7 days for the first heartbeat. Before the first electrical spark it's just a foreign mass in a living organism.
Just because you put sperm into a vagina doesn't mean it's a life. There is no life without electricity, and it's all measurable electrically. (BTW, this is not generally taught in medical school; But thats a whole different topic of our lost liberties).
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
A vote for liberty is always a vote for liberty.
I will vote for Ron Paul as either the nominee or as a write in.
Did you get a satisfactory answer?
I watched the whole interview, and this is what he said:
Life begins at conception. Conception does not immediately occur upon completion of intercourse. Any procedure done for a rape victim within this window of time (between intercourse/conception) is not an abortion, since no conception has occurred, and therefore no life was ended.
Henry
Isn't this why RP has said the morning after pill should be available to rape victims.
I did do some research on the morning after pill and it prevents pregnancy in a few different ways. I know Ron Paul has said he has never performed an abortion and never will. He also said when he ran his private practice any MD that worked for him had to agree to two things. Accept no medicare, and never perform an abortion.
I am personally against abortion but I also don't believe I have the right to tell another what they should and shouldn't do.
Ron Paul also said something else that is telling. He said abortion is a morality issue. That statement is huge if you contemplate it.
That decision to make all abortion legal does not belong in the Federal Government but should be a states rights issue. Before Roe Vs Wade I think I remember abortion being illegal in most states.
From the way I understood it,
In the case of rape, he says it is ok to administer some form of medication to prevent the pregnancy if it is Immediately after the incident. In this scenario, it is not an abortion and is not a contradiction of his pro-life policy, since conception is yet to occur. I think the morning after pill or similar actions should be used with the greatest seriousness and prudence in all cases.
I've been thinking a lot about this issue today as well, so your post gave me something extra to consider. The main argument of libertarianism boils down to "do whatever you want, so long as you don't hurt other people." Also, pro-choice people always tell me that I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body, in terms of abortion. However, if the fetus/embryo/baby within the women is simply part of the woman's body, then why does the murderer of a pregnant woman get charged with two murders? No other part of a woman's body will become a living breathing talking human being if left alone/cared for properly. Also, a minute before birth it's called abortion and is legal(in some cases), and a minute after it is called infanticide, and is illegal(in all cases).
I don't pretend to have all the answers. It's obviously an extremely difficult issue, as this thread shows, but that's just my two cents.
I too had the same concern.
I too had the same concern. It's a hard question but I would've like it if he was more definitive. I don't like him any less though :)
"War is a Racket" - Maj. General Smedley Butler
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
I saw the interview and I was
I saw the interview and I was hoping he would have been more clear as well.
This is my take on it...RP truly is pro-life and against abortion. He is NOT ok with abortion in cases of rape or in its earliest stages. I think that is why he kept stressing that if a woman had just been raped and she *immediately* went and received an estrogen shot/etc then in that case he could probably see that as being acceptable.
However,notice that because he does believe life begins AT conception - he kept stressing that if she got the shot *immediately* after being raped (and before conception had occurred being that conception may not occur for 3-48 hours after intercourse)then he thought that maybe that would be ok.
It is a bit of a tough subject for pro-lifers. But it is what it is and looking at his record I think it he is very dedicated to defending the unborn (and just as dedicated if not moreso than the other GOP candidated we have to choose from).
As for all of the naysayers on here- don't worry about them. There are many RP supporters who are very much for abortion and do not seem to be willing to engage in educated debate or discussion about the topic. It seems like a bit of an oxymoron, however, to be a RP supporter all about life and liberty and personal responsibility but also be for abortion at the same time. Go figure?! It's a strange world we are living in.
Yes, you are mistaken. He didn't say, and has never said, that
abortion Is OK in the case of rape or early pregnancy. I saw the same interview and I did not come away with the impression he is for abortion at any time. Listen to video again. He said there is no proof that there is indeed a pregnancy if a woman goes to the E.R. immediately, or the next day There is no chemical, medical, or legal proof of a pregnancy at those 2 times he is referring to.
He has said many times previously, life begins at conception and abortion after conception is wrong. I don't know how you can be confused when he clearly said there is no proof the rape victim is pregnant. Even if you don't agree with him for personally willing to give his granddaughter a shot of estrogen it is hardly enough reason to consider voting for someone else, as he is for freedom for all individuals born and unborn as he has said many times and none of the other candidates believe in personal freedom, not even Santorum. He wants to regulate our lives in every respect and as Dr. Paul has said, "you can't regulate personal behavior." That is why we have the 10 commandments.
This where I'm confused: "He
This where I'm confused:
"He has said many times previously, life begins at conception and abortion after conception is wrong."
Got it, that's a pretty straight forward statement, I agree that appears to be Ron Paul's position and has been for a long, long time.
"I don't know how you can be confused when he clearly said there is no proof the rape victim is pregnant."
This however seems inconsistent -- there's no proof of pregnancy, but that doesn't mean there isn't pregnancy, and from what I understand (which may be inaccurate?) there is a possibility - even if minor - that there is pregnancy. So isn't Paul saying that he is OK with possibly terminating a pregnancy after conception?
It doesn't line up, it seems like I must misunderstand. Hence my quest for clarity.
nas·cent
adjective
1. beginning to exist or develop: the nascent republic.
There cannot be a pregnancy immediately after rape or
one day later, the time frame he was talking about, as it takes 2 to 3 days for the egg to be fertilized. Dr. Paul knows this that is why he is OK with the estrogen injection. Yes, the injection might prevent a pregnancy from occuring later, but so do some forms of contraception.
I knew as soon as Dr. Paul was asked this question, he would give his honest and "too much information" answer. I realized right away it would cause confusion or cause many people to not want to vote for him. He just should have responded that he is against abortion even in the case of rape, and that life begins at conception. End of story and no turn offs from this answer.
His personal stance for everything is as long as something does not harm any other person you are own your own and you should have the freedom to do what you want with no government interfernce. If a rape victim chooses to get this injection, that is her business and it is between God and herself what she does just as all our personal actions and desires are.
Dr. Paul believes
that life begins at conception. If a woman came to him just after being raped (the case in question) and she said she did not want to be pregnant he would give her a "shot of estrogen" which would prevent conception. He said at the point in time there would be no way of knowing whether conception had occurred.
The case of what he would do if a pregnancy had already occurred did not arise but I am sure in that case his view would be against aborting the embryo/foetus since this is his absolute stand on abortion. It has been stated elsewhere that the incidence of pregnancy after rape is very low.
He is the only politician who has introduced legislation that would have ended the Federal involvement in abortion cases and overturned Roe v. Wade. In time it would also have reduced abortion at the State level to very low numbers. He was however stymied by the Right to Life lobby and his fellow Republicans many of whom have been elected as pro-life advocates. Santorum belongs to this do nothing brigade I am afraid. We live in such a make believe world.
I can only think that the Right to Life organisations prefer to be in a job and not see their raison d'etre disappear. They would also have to ALL leave Washington where I am sure many have put down roots. Such is political life I am afraid. These are the self professed champions of the unborn...my eye.
Have no fear Dr. Paul is the only truly pro-life candidate for President.
"Where the Welfare State is on the march the Police State is not far behind."
Melchior Palyi Hungarian Economist
The bill you are referring to HR 958, would indeed repeal
Roe v Wade immediately and allow the states to regulate abortion, just as they regulate laws regarding murder and other violent acts. But groups like American Life League which is headed by Judy Brown, like to ignore this bill because in their rightous minds they don't want the states to use their constitutional right to outlaw abortion. So, in the meantime while waiting for their perfect constitutional amendment outlawing abortion in the country, they don't support this bill and unborn babies are being killed in the womb. They should support this bill and when it passes, they can then persuade the pro abortion states to outlaw abortion. Many states already have strict anti abortion laws.
As I understood it, Paul was
As I understood it, Paul was 'supporting' the morning after pill, because medically there is no way to determine if the patient is in fact pregnant at the time such a pill would be a viable option. He made the correct point that, while incredibly rare, the cases of rape leading to an abortion are a special instance and (I inferred) would therefore warrant the states to closely look at and consider it - which is NOT the same as him saying he supported it, rather that it would be states rights issue. I agree with this POV. For example, I am pro life but believe in cases where rape is clear and the defendant is found guilty, if the rape victim has an abortion (after all other methods of persuasion to keep it are futile), the rapist should be given a life sentence. Again though - this is an incredibly rare instance.
question for nascent
who is your second choice for president?
“We have allowed our nation to be over taxed and over regulated and overrun by bureaucrats, the founders would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with.” Ron Paul
I have also questions for nascent:
I have also questions for nascent:
Are You a woman?
if yes
Have You ever been raped?
if yes
Did You get pregnant?
if yes
Did You have that child?
if yes
Did You raise that child?
No one else who's running is
No one else who's running is even qualified.
nas·cent
adjective
1. beginning to exist or develop: the nascent republic.
santorum seems like a good fit for you
why won't you vote for santorum?
“We have allowed our nation to be over taxed and over regulated and overrun by bureaucrats, the founders would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with.” Ron Paul
Santorum doesn't believe in
Santorum doesn't believe in liberty, as demonstrated by his pro big government, pro war, anti civil liberty record. He speaks pro-life (which is why I'm guessing you are suggesting him to me) but even that comes across as demagogy to me. Ron Paul is pro-life. I just want clarity on this specific abortion related issue.
nas·cent
adjective
1. beginning to exist or develop: the nascent republic.
Ron Paul believes life begins
Ron Paul believes life begins at conception. He prefers that states handle these difficult issues.
Stephanie,
not voting for any other GOP candidate.
And that seems 100% clear to
And that seems 100% clear to me. What isn't 100% clear to me is if in this interview he was saying:
A. Even though life begins at conception, and a morning after pill may take that life, I'm OK with it
-or-
B. Life begins at conception, I'm OK with preventing conception with a pill, but I'm not OK with taking a life after conception regardless of the circumstances surrounding it
-[or something else]-
It's a significant distinction to a pro-life supporter. It's just not clear in this interview and Liberty Defined.
nas·cent
adjective
1. beginning to exist or develop: the nascent republic.
santorum appeals to singal issue voters
is more where i was coming from.
"I just want clarity on this specific abortion related issue."
judging by your other replies i don't think you will ever be satisfied.
judging by all the down votes you have gotten my advice to you is to move on as there seems to be some kind of communication gap between you and everyone else.
“Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple.”
Theodor Seuss Geisel, better known by his pen name, Dr. Seuss
“We have allowed our nation to be over taxed and over regulated and overrun by bureaucrats, the founders would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with.” Ron Paul
Ron Paul has not "moved on"
Ron Paul has not "moved on" from the message of liberty he's preached the last 30 years in spite of the apparent and unfortunate communication gap between him and [nearly] everyone else, and for that I am extremely grateful. It's unlikely I will simply "move on" from trying to communicate and understand either. :)
Also if you read the whole thread you'll see that I'm not the only one left a bit confused by Ron Paul's recent statement on Piers Morgan and trying to sort this out.
nas·cent
adjective
1. beginning to exist or develop: the nascent republic.
Since the beginning of time
women have gone to herbalists for various reasons which should not concern men. This is private matter. Let this topic die.