10 votes


I had a healthy debate with a young woman last night and I want to get my thoughts out while they are fresh on my mind.

Ron Paul took a controversial stand when it comes to abortion and the 'day after' pill. I listened to him and it makes sense.

If the goal is to stop the carving up of babies in the womb then the day after pill is a logical step forward.

A quick google query found over 1M hits on 'ron paul debate morning after pill'. Both the right and left lit up like July 4th on his take on the issue. The top result coming from our own forum: 'Can no longer support Ron Paul: morning-after pill | Peace ...'.

The young lady I spoke with last night is absolutely pro-life and lost her leg to cancer. She collects a monthly check from the govt and has three of her own children.

The 'morning after pill' empowers women to make better decisions for themselves. Condoms break. A woman is always at risk of a man in the heat of the moment. As I understand it, sperm takes an average of three days to reach the point of fertilization.

Once again, Ron Paul has it right. (Im paraphrasing) 'If you cannot prove life, you cannot prove abortion.'

If the science is correct, then the morning after pill does not cause an abortion. I am absolutely in the corner of doing anything that stops the inhumane and wicked practice of abortion.

The morning after pill does that. What I have found is the religious right fumes at any attempt for a woman to take control of her own body and the left despises any attempt at saving life.

What we have here is a solution that should satisfy both sides. It certainly is a preferable choice over carving up fetuses.

That is an issue both sides should come together on.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

For P. Nicholson

I saw this link and wanted to share it with you because you came to mind when I read it.

How to Man Up After Abortion

One of the biggest lies of Big Abortion is that men should have no say in an abortion decision.

The reality is the majority of those “choosing” abortion today are men. According to research from afterabortion.org, in 95% of cases the male partner played a central role in the decision.

At the other extreme are those men who are edged out of the decision altogether.

Somewhere between these two groups lie a great number of men who suffer because they abdicated, having believed the culture’s lie that abortion is strictly a woman’s choice.

Abortion either hardens a man’s heart or leaves him heartbroken over his losses. But there is hope for every man who needs to know God’s love after abortion.

Go here to read more and download a free ebook for men

"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." Matthew 12:25

The abortion debate is weird

One side almost seems to enjoy the thought of killing babies and the other seems to enjoy the thought of incarcerating millions of young girls. I am personally against abortion and believe thoroughly that it is murder. However, I'm not the judge of morality and I can't bring myself to beg tyrants to create a new class of criminals just to make me feel better.

So now life begins at implantation?

While I agree with your sentiments, I don't see how hard-core pro-lifers could support the morning-after pill and remain consistent in their beliefs.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Collision of Societal Changes

The last century saw major changes and new respect for women and children and racial minorities (give credit to freedom, and the resulting economics, for this).

Prior to that, women, children, and sometimes minorities, were the property of men to a large degree. Abortion was a crime against the father.

That abortion is such an unresolved issue is directly related to the clash caused by the forces trying to advance the rights of mothers and the unborn at the same time. It's natural that many women who remember being second-class citizens would not readily give up the control they now have of their own lives--even though they, as a group, are the biggest advocates for the protection of the unborn.

There isn't much support for "pro-death" -- this is about who has the primary responsibility for the unborn, and most women don't want that control--when it involves their own bodies and decisions--to be given to others. To invite politicians to weigh in on such matters is a violation.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

The Real Controversy: The Contraceptive Mechanism

The "Morning After Pill" is a heavier dose of the hormones (estrogen and progestin) that are found in oral, hormonal contraceptives. The controversy is largely over how the contraceptive works at these doses. According to sources available on both major varieties of these pills, the function is three-fold, delaying ovulation, inhibiting fertilization, and also irritating the endometrium (uterine lining) in order to inhibit the implantation of the zygote after fertilization.


How do the PREVEN® emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy?
PREVEN® can stop or delay ovulation (the release of an egg), it can stop sperm from fertilizing an egg if it was already released, and it can stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus."


How Does Plan B® Work?
Plan B® (levonorgestrel) may prevent pregnancy by temporarily stopping the release of an egg from a woman's ovary, or it may prevent fertilization. It may also prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus."

In this third mechanism, those who regard life as beginning at conception have a legitimate point: by inhibiting implantation of the zygote, there is an "abortifacient" effect. By the same logic, some other forms of contraception, like IUDs, would also be considered abortifacient. But if you do not yet acknowledge that a zygote (the union of sperm and egg, a "fertilized egg") is life, or that fertilization in itself constitutes pregnancy, then the effect cannot be considered abortifacient.

I would also note that research indicates a full 30 to 50% of all fertilized human zygotes, when contraception is not used, are lost before or during the process of implantation. So, if we adopt this framework, we have to acknowledge that there are many more failed pregnancies, spontaneously terminated human lives, than we would have thought before.

Personally, I prefer to err on the side of life beginning at conception, so I have serious misgivings about the use of contraceptions that either directly or indirectly end the life even immediately after the moment of conception.

sensitive issue

Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate for President for 1996 and 2000, rejected the terms pro-life and pro-choice and stated about abortion: "Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs."[14]

The Libertarian Party's 2004 presidential candidate Michael Badnarik had a similar position, writing: "I oppose government control over the abortion issue. I believe that giving the government control of this issue could lead to more abortions rather than less, because the left-right pendulum of power swings back and forth. This shift could place the power to set policy in the hands of those who demand strict population control. The government that can ban abortion can just as easily mandate abortion, as is currently the case in China."[15] The party's 2012 presidential candidate Gary Johnson wants to keep abortion legal.[16]

Libertarian Party perspective

The U.S. Libertarian Party political platform (2012) states: "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."[17

Prohibition Doesn't WORK!

Let's say we did outlaw abortion, much like the drug war how far are you willing to go to actually enforce such a ban? SHould the government agents do ultra sounds at every high school to ensure all teenage pregnancies reach birth? What you are suggesting concerning an abortion ban is exactly the same as a ban on weed or any other activity that is based on people's personal decisions and actions.
A simple ban on something doesn't mean anything and doesn't result in a reduction of any activity, unless there is heavy enforcement. And just how does one enforce a ban on abortion without giving the government more power to invade the private lives of it's citizens? Furthermore, if people have a strong motivation to perform certain actions government bans rarely interfere with what they are seeking out. The only result that usually comes from government bans is a dangerous unregulated black market.

Did you really just compare getting an abortion to smoking weed?

Murder of unborn babies is still murder and it must be outlawed. The formation of a black market should be the least of your worries.

In fact, did you know there is ALREADY a dangerous, unregulated black market for murder? It's called contract killing. Too bad it can't be taxed, thanks to those pesky anti-murder laws.

disingenuous comparison

It is much easier to regulate and enforce the killing of adults and children that already have established identity. This is not the case for a fetus. Are you really willing to give the government the power necessary to regulate and enforce a ban on abortions? Think about everything this implies.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus


Whether identity has been "established" in the eyes of the government is completely immaterial. This only has to do with ending an innocent human life. There should be no legal paths to abortion, period. What that implies is of little consequence when you're talking about saving a multitude of lives.

If ending an innocent life is all that matters,

then I suppose you support welfare as well, to prevent starving children from dying of hunger.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

An excellent strawman.

Welfare is not the only way to feed starving children.

Please do not misrepresent my position with a non sequitur.

and banning abortions is not the only way to prevent abortions

Also, it's not a strawman. I used your words: "This only has to do with ending an innocent human life." The key word here being "only."

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

I don't follow.

You brought up starving children in a discussion about abortion. Not sure why. Starvation, while tragic, is not the same as being murdered by another individual.

Banning rape is not the only way to prevent rape, yet we still ban it because it is an act of physical violence/aggression against another individual, just like abortion is. This is common-sense NAP. Either you protect human life, or you don't. But I can see we will not convince each other here. Will have to agree to disagree,

the irony to me?

Is that there is a solution to stop the killing of babies if two sides could come off their high horse about the issue and make a compromise based on facts.

Fact. Nobody knows the exact moment of fertilization.

Fact. Things happen in life.

Fact. Allow women to make choices for themselves that eliminate the choice for abortion.

I do not want to live in a society that has 'doctors' willing to cut up and carve out babies. Kermit Gosnell always comes to mind when I am reminded of abortion.

It does not violate the NAP if there is no proof of life. Abortion is an absolute proof of life because they have the evidence to show for it.

This is an issue we can unite our sides on if we took a tolerant, scientific and non-partisan approach to it.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

I used to subscribe to the argument you are making.

But then I read a pro-life libertarian (I think it was Laurance Vance). I really think the argument isn't sound. All your other rights are still intact. "Regular" murder is illegal. But we still are innocent until proven guilty, warrants are still needed for searches (in theory), etc. Abortion is not like drug prohibition because there is a rights violation in one case and none in the other.

So if a teenager gets an

So if a teenager gets an illegal abortion you want a search warrant issued and for her to go to prison, or punished somehow?
Pro life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus but don't want to do anything to support the child once it's born.


No birth control method is

No birth control method is completely effective and folks are going to have sex. And some of that sex is going to be reckless. The idea that the religious right advocates against sex education but also doesn't see that sexual ignorance leads to abortion and teenage pregnancy is continually frustrating. If you are a true libertarian, it'd make more sense to side with the adults right to have dominion over their reproductive organs than a potential baby or fertilized egg. While I am for small government, I think allowing schools to properly educate students about sex and making birth control pills and condoms free would be the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions and shrink the size of the welfare state.
Abortions should be legal safe and extremely rare. I grew up in a high school where abstinence only was taught, which led to many high school boys not wearing condoms when they engaged in sex. These students were let down by the education system and wound up in family situations they weren't financially or emotionally prepared for. Consider focusing on the causes of abortion rather than arrogantly think you can outlaw a medical practice that has been around for thousands of years. This procedure was being performed by doctors before it was legal and will continue even if it becomes illegal. Focus on the cause.

Abortion, the sin of nations

I remembering seeing just 6 months ago the total abortions in the USA topped 54M, thats an astounding number!

I see abotion as another right of a immoral society that cares not for it's children.

Don't kid yourself the abortion pill (RU4D) is just another tool to end a life.

When God says he knew me when I was in my Fathers loins, then this pill is surely murder in his eyes. I think life begins at conception, when egg and sperm unite. No one should have the right to end it!

BTW the morning after pill is not so morning after, it can be used up to 63 days after conception. By then you have a baby with a beating heart!

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

If you believe life begins at

If you believe life begins at conception then don't get an abortion and concern yourself with your own household.
If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get married to someone of the same sex.
If you're hindu and think eating cows is ungodly then don't eat cows.
If you're a phony conservative you support small government until something you disagree with is occurring and wish the government to impose your beliefs on others.

I do believe life begins at conception

and raised many children. I am proud of the fact I never wanted my wife to get an abortion to end any of their lives. I noticed each of them has a very unique personality, of which, I would have never known if My wife aborted a pregnancy.

As being a phoney conservative, I think we have way too much Government in all our lives. The Government has no business encouraging abortion, nor do I have any business forcing my views on another. I would like my tax dollars to stop paying for abortions, plain and simple.

Abortion has been in our culture for a long time, it's been accepted as a way out of an inconvienent time. Now with the morning after pill how many times should one woman be able to use it, 10, 20, 100 times?

I wonder how many young men will never have the choice in their childrens lives with this pill.

There is also an unintended consequence, in that when a woman terminates a pregnancy 2 or 3 times. Her body will automatically terminate at the same time on her wanted pegnancies.

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

There is a substantial problem with your argument

And that is that of your first statement.

The issue of defining where an individual's life begins is the main problem. Most of us who opose abortion don't give a fetid rat's ass about what you wish to do with your body; it is your body after all. However, we are worried about the innocent being that is facing execution for the evil crime of existing due to some circumstance beyond his/her control.

Defining where life begins, at what moment, gives us the understanding about where protection of that individual's right to life begins. If it can be proven that life begins at the moment of fertilization then that is where the protection needs to begin. If it happens after implantation into the uterus then that is where the protection needs to start. Everybody has a right to life without fear of being murdered no matter what side of the mother's body they are on.

Simply stating "if you don't like abortion don't get one" just doesn't cut it. Further throwing in the false argument of "you're for small government until you aren't" is equally as ignorant in this situation. None of use wish to have some all encompasing "big brother" controlling our every move. However, many of us will agree that we're hypocrites if we claim that everybody has certain rights guaranteed to them but won't stand up for those who cannot defend themselves.


"What I have found is the religious right fumes at any attempt for a woman to take control of her own body and the left despises any attempt at saving life."

I am considered a Religious Right. Life is just way to precious in our eyes. It has nothing to do with women not having control. That sounds ridiculous.

It sure seems like they had control. They had sex and didn't protect them selves. I call that not being responsible.

I understand your position..

I would just like to see some compromise on this issue.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

I don't think

God wants to compromise his creation but I am willing to talk it out with out name calling like most.


That if you cannot prove life, you cannot prove abortion. What you think doesn't matter to me.

What you believe does. This is an issue that can reduce the amount of babies that are torn out of their mothers. If a pill can stop the dismemberment of fetuses then I am all for it!!!

This is an issue where the extreme factions of the right hold hostage to good compromise. I do not want babies being ripped apart in the womb. EVER. I personally despise abortion and BELIEVE it is absolutely evil.

Our side will not win until we compromise and lead the way.. and unite our sides. WE NEED GOOD LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE.

Would you rather a morning after pill or carving up of babies?

I am with Ron Paul on this issue. I prefer women have the chance to be responsible before they are forced to decide whether to carve life out of them.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

What about

DNA?.... that is proof of life for you.


The chicken or the egg?

Neither. Just a red herring.

I applaud anyones efforts to stop the practice of abortion. Truly.

What I do not support is a narrow-minded approach to dealing with this issue. I can repeat what I have previously mentioned until I am blue in the face.

The only thing that will unite our sides is finding a way to compromise and moving forward on this issue. Both sides can win.. the problem is neither side actually wants to. As long as they can make up names for each other, the charade will go in into oblivion with no great stride ever taken.

Both sides will solidify their extreme base and continue this unhealthy progress to no where.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

Wait, I don't think that's right.

Excuse me, but I thought the point was to say that legislating against the pill was pointless. It's not the device we are concerned about, it's the action. The morning after pill is a birth control pill. Do we legislate against birth control pills because they could theoretically be used to cause abortion? Do we legislate against guns because they could be used to murder?

Ron Paul said that he viewed abortion as a violent crime and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government. Murder is clearly a state matter. If a state considers some sort of birth control/abortion to be or not be murder, the federal government should have nothing to say about it.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.