Ron Paul on Abortion and Stem Cell Research

Also an excellent article / interview at the Nashua Telegraph

Thanks to freedom1776, and Richard for the two links.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Ron often uses the statement

Ron often uses the statement that we know a (assuming non-viable) fetus is a legal entity because if he, as a doctor, were to cause it harm he could be sued. But I think he should drop that from his talking points because the logic is faulty. There is a difference between an ob/gyn causing harm to a fetus when that is not the desire of the mother and an abortion doctor terminating a pregnancy. The reason an ob/gyn doctor would get in trouble is because the injury is against the mother, not the fetus. A lawsuit would be filed on behalf of the mother. It would not be filed on behalf of the "murdered" fetus.

Did you see how much RP

Did you see how much RP angered the woman journalist? I get that reaction from any woman I speak to about Ron Paul. It's hard to promote him as a protector of individual liberties when he thinks men should decide what women do in a doctor's office. I had a hard time watching that interview. I will continue to support Ron Paul because I know abortion is nowhere near the most important issue in this election. But it does damper my enthusiasm.

Plastic purple cups?

How hard is it to use real glass cups? Other than that, I loved the discussion. We need more dialogue like that, instead of people shouting at one another or echoing to the choir. Just another example that Dr. Paul would make an excellent leader. He is such a skilled listener.

Difficult problem with few villains on either side

Very interesting and well reasoned. Even those who, like myself, would disagree, will give dr. Paul credit for his principled belief. Of course, "life" proper doesn't begin at conception, unless you believe in dead gametes and magic wands of a different kind inside the woman. Life probably began a few billion years ago and it's a non-stop continuous trip right up to any conception moment. Obviously what dr. Paul means is "the individual life of human beings," a notion I personally would choose to not extend to early phoetuses still with no brain, no sensitivity to pain, and no expectation of a future. On the other hand, I will fully agree with dr. Paul when it comes to anything but early stage abortions. A very difficult problem with few villains on either side of the discussion.

Awesome!!

This is the exact expanded talk from Dr. Paul on abortion and stem cell that I need to provide to some friends that I’ve been sending RP info to. The link to this video gets emailed this weekend for sure!!!

i agree. I support Ron Paul

i agree. I support Ron Paul completely, but i'm pro-choice and I kinda choked when i heared him talk about this.
I wish he would clarify it too... expound less on his own beliefs that it is "an act of violence" that could have criminal consequences and focus more on the idea that while he may personally be pro-life (i mean, who can blame the man... he delivers babies) that it is up to the states to decide.
I think when people hear him talk about abortion they might get afraid that he is planning to repeal Roe v. Wade and ban abortions nation wide. In reality, it would be voted on a state by state basis and I think that is a good thing... It would really make people stand up for what they believe and duke it out on a state level.

But What About

But What about the women who live in the middle of a state where abortion is illegal and can't afford to fly to another state? They're going to end up doing the abortion themselves if they have to, which is very dangerous, or they could just abandon the baby. Over-all I think it should be legal for any first trimester abortion, but illegal after that.

adoption

What about adoption? In the abortion debate, you either abort it, or keep it. What about a third choice? I have friends who are adopted who thank their birth mothers for not abort them. In fact, my daughter's mother was adopted.

Well, abortion becomes a bit

Well, abortion becomes a bit more inconvenient if you have to take a drive or a plane to another state in order to have one, but then that's the price you would have to pay, I guess. It sure beats having some piece of Federal legislation cover the entire country on an issue that is so complex and controversial that there is great disagreement on it even at the local level. What sense does it make to have EITHER side legislate this behavior at the Federal level?

www.paulforronpaul.com

WOW

Thanks Mike for posting this interview. I could listen to Ron Paul talk forever. We have waited our entire lives for a candidate like Dr Paul and we can't miss the opportunity of getting him elected. Great job!

Wow, I was against stem cell

Wow, I was against stem cell research on the grounds that destroying a human embryo was killing a person, but Dr. Paul made a very convincing moral argument in favor of it. I didn't expect to be able to be convinced on that one. I'm more amazed by this man every day.

Embryo Destruction...

I’m always curious why stem cell research takes the brunt of the protest from those opposed to the destruction of human embryos.

Why do fertilization clinics not get the same opposition? A common fertilization method is to fertilize several eggs and allow the human embryos to develop until their respective “grades” are determined (that’s not my term but the term used in the industry). High grade embryo(s) are then implanted into the mother, while the low grade embryos are rejected.

I suppose one could defend embryo destruction regarding fertilization practices because it’s done in the pursuit of life…but so is embryonic stem cell research!

The merits of destruction of life to create life could be argued for eternity, and I don’t pretend to have the answers. But I think most can agree that the most sensible federal policy regarding stem cell research (or fertilization) is Dr. Paul’s: do not subsidize it nor criminalize it, and allow states to handle it as they see fit.

School Prayer

How can school prayer be decided by the states? That seems like it's clearly in violation of the Establishment Clause. Mandatory school prayer is an establishment of religion. Voluntary school prayer (which is allowed) is an expression of an individual's freedom of religion. Seems pretty basic to me. This is one issue where I disagree violently with Ron Paul.

Scool Prayer

Those who don't want to begin their classes with Prayer they are free to do so in their own private schools. Those who do want school prayer can have theirs schools also. There's no need to be fighting over this issue when as Americans we can just go back to the pre-public/government run school system where everyone was free to choose. Today we are Forced to enroll our children in these brainwashing factories, either through not being able to afford a private school or through truancy laws that make it illegal not to send your child to school. The only solution is to abolish the Government school system and return to free choice. This is the way it was before the totalitarian Dewey-ites got ahold of "teaching" [read indoctrination] of our children. They were clever devils these "free education" pushers. They pushed "State Schools" by saying that our nation's children needed to be taught the Bible. It was a nice hook but now God is kicked out of the curriculum and we see what these "collectivists" really wanted- CONTROL OF YOUR CHILD!

archtoplee

School Prayer edited version

Please read the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Reading the First Amendment with regards to religion it prohibits CONGRESS from making laws establishing religion. Where does it say separation of church and state? What laws has Congress passed that establishes a religion? The answer is zero. All 50 states have God mentioned in their state Constitutions. We have the 10 commandments posted in the Supreme Court. We have a creator acknowledged in our Declaration of Indpendence? Is all this unconstitutional since it violates the so called "establishment clause"? It is only Congress that is restricted in anything to do with laws pertaining to religion no where else. Come on my fellow Paulites, read this document and don't let the media tell you something that does not exist. Schools have every right to have a moment of silence at sporting events, in classrooms, and the ability to pray because it is their God given right protected by the Constitution to do so. If someone in that school does not want to take part, it is also their right to do so.

School Prayer edited version

Please read the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Reading the First Amendment with regards to religion it prohibits CONGRESS from making laws establishing religion. Where does it say separation of church and state? What laws has Congress passed that establishes a religion? The answer is zero. All 50 states have God mentioned in their state Constitutions. We have the 10 commandments posted in the Supreme Court. We have a creator acknowledged in our Declaration of Indolence? Is all this unconstitutional since it violates the so called "establishment clause"? It is only Congress that is restricted in anything to do with laws pertaining to religion no where else. Come on my fellow Paulites, read this document and don't let the media tell you something that does not exist. Schools have every right to have a moment of silence at sporting events, in classrooms, and the ability to pray because it is their God given right protected by the Constitution to do so. If someone in that school does not want to take part, it is also their right to do so.

The 10 commandments are not

The 10 commandments are not posted in the Supreme Court Building. Also, even if they were the first few are Unconstitutional. Thou shalt have no other gods before me,etc. They are clearly unconstitutional. Christians are free to follow the 10 commandments in this country but they are by no means the law of the land for everyone to be forced to follow.

Also the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the laws of this country. The Constitution does. How is prayer in a public school not an establishment of religion by the government? It is government coercion. If people want to pray they should be free too. If people don't want to pray they should be free not to. But if it is government sponsored prayer than it is the establishment of a religion.

Except the first ammendment

Except the first ammendment CLEARLY states that only Congress can't make these laws. BTW, I want to know where you guys live. At my old school, if you prayed even on your own time, you would get in trouble. They would say that's only for home. That is bullshit.

I agree. People should be

I agree. People should be able to pray if they want to. But I disagree strongly with public school led prayer. It should be purely voluntary and not an official school activity. To me it's the difference between government coercion and individual freedom.

What about the 14th Amendment?

While I agree that the 1st amendment only discusses the FEDERAL government's restrictions, I think that if you look a little further down the amendments to number 14 you will find this:

“ Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The second sentence is the important one "No STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges..." Although it should have used the words "rights" instead of "privileges" It clearly was designed to prevent the STATES from making laws that usurped the rights granted in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (specifically with relation to former slaves). I am certainly not a Constitutional scholar but using the argument that the 1st amendment only protects the people's rights from the federal govt. seems to be saying that in addition to the states being able to authorize a "state religion" they could also make laws restricting free speech and a free press because the 1st amendment only deals with Congress.

I agree that many things are best left to local control, my free speech rights are not one of those things!

If you want more here is the Wikipedia info with relevent Supreme Court rulings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni...

Did he say anything about

Did he say anything about the states mandating religious prayer?

If it were a federal

If it were a federal government school you'd have a point, but each state has their own constitution. I expect mandatory school prayer is against many state constitutions as well and should be addressed that state's highest court. RP being libertarian I'm quite sure is personally opposed to "mandatory" anything, let alone anything religious. The point is that it's not under the jurisdiction of the federal courts. If you allow it, then you also have to allow federal rulings on abortion for example.

Inconsistency?

From Dr. Paul's Statement of Faith (http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm):

"In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman."

And in this interview he talked about tubal pregnancies and having to "take them out" to save the life of the mother. I completely agree that aborting the pregnancy to save the mother is the correct thing to do. It just seems that there is a touch of inconsistency there.... not that such a small detail makes me like Dr. Paul any less :)

Incosistency?

A tubal pregnancy is not viable. The baby will eventually be aborted naturally or by the doctor to save the life. I don't see any inconsistency here by Dr. Paul.

It is the principle of "double effect".

Tubal pregnancies are one of those hard cases. But the key here is the death of the baby is not intended AND is unavoidable. Saving the life of the Mother cannot be done in any way that would not result in the death of the baby, and in most cases like this the baby could not survive anyway. There are a few, rare, either-or situations, one of which led to the canonization of the mother as a saint for her sacrifice.

The Supreme court expanded the "health" exception so that if the mother might feel bothered by continuing the pregnancy, for her mental health, abortion must be allowed. That is part of the context.

It is possible that he meant

It is possible that he meant a late term abortion and not an embryo in a fallopian tube.

nice work Ron Paul

RP's humility always comes through when he's allowed to speak. What a great man.

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt

Other issues that night

Other topics covered: economy,immigration, Iraq war, Iran, Afghanistan, foreign policy, nation building, the monetary system and destruction of the dollar, 911-what he would have done different, civil liberties, open government and privacy, ethics in government, marijuana and the war on drugs-legalization, Alternative energies (ethanol, hemp, solar, nuclear)-free market solutions, health care, homeschooling and private education, corrupt government, the primary system

Click through on the video above to see entire 60 minute from start to finish from fagan411.

Political side issue

People have to look at it this way. Abortion has became a major political issue when it comes to election time. My question is Why is it such a big political issue?
This is an issue that rarly effects us day in and day out. It has never came into effect with anyone I know, but Taxes effect everyone daily! The War effects 100's of 1000's of people on a daily basis (and not just the individual, but the family and friends also)! The FIAT system (US Federal Reserve) that effects the world daily. So you can see this becomes and issue the Republicans and Dems. can use against eachother, but really isn't a big issue to the masses (no offense to whom ever has been effected by abortion).

Abortion is a Political "Side issue?"

The issue of abortion isn't a "side issue" with all due respect to "chappy."
Abortion is the result of the war on America's culture - a war that rages all around us. The government sanctioning of the Murder of innocent human beings isn't an issue that we can cavalierly brush aside since we have bigger fish to fry like abolishing the marxist income tax and centralized banking. These are attacks upon our sovereignty and national independence by the banking cartel are popular and easily recognized as such by many of us who champion Dr. Paul's message. We have argued correctly that without the Fed war would be greatly diminished, maybe diminished close to zero. But there is a war going on in America and there are casualties every single day. Those casualties have fallen victim to those same forces that have been instrumental in arranging unconstitutional wars. Wars that attack our sovereignty in the same way that the State sanctions the attack upon the sovereignty of those poor little Americans who can't even depend upon those of us who demand "sovereignty" the loudest!

archtoplee

Talk about overreacting.

Talk about overreacting. Your equation of pro-life people as "the same forces that have been instrumental in arranging unconstitutional wars" is totally and completed unfounded. It's not like The Netherlands has been involved in perpetual war since the 80s when abortion was basically legalized. Perhaps we have been blessed with different forces.

This argument will probably never be settled, not even during a Paul presidency. To me an unborn between conception and viability should be regarded as the property of the mother and therefor nothing is inherently wrong with abortion during that period.

Overreacting? To Abortion

The basic argument I made was regarding sovereignty.I'm sorry you don't believe a child has any. I said nothing about The Netherlands. Are you in favor of sovereignty or aren't you? I'm simply pointing that that if you are (and you seem to support a candidate like Ron Paul who's wisdom flies over the head of a couple of his supporters when it comes to the issue of abortion), then you need to review the good doctor's argument in support of the unborn. That human life that lies in its mother's womb is not property but is a human life, regardless of what the collectivists in The Neatherlands say. That child has property too. Its undeveloped talents,and everything else associated with its humanity waiting to be offered to the world. Ron Paul says that aborting a fetus or an embryo is akin to a violent act, no different than murder against another human being. Is Dr. Paul "overracting"? I don't expect that you will ever understand this issue because you seem to be arguing from the point of view of the collectivist who says that the group is more important than the individual. That the State can decide whether a child is to live or die. You forget that this country was founded that "all Men are Created Equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unailenable rights..." We have alowed the State to redefine this very clear philosophical and moral argument for us to mean that the State can simply call a human being "property" and leave it up to the woman bearing that child to kill it because after all (according to your point of view), it's her "property." And so long as you call a child "property" it makes it allright to end its life. Remember that slaves were considered "property" too at one time in America.

archtoplee

Let's accept for a moment

Let's accept for a moment that abortion is murder (and though I am pro-choice, I actually DO concede that point). The fact is that murder of all different kinds are state, not federal, issues. In Florida, for example, if you catch a burglar in your house you can blow his head off and it is considered justifiable homicide. Try that in California and is considered murder unless the burglar is armed and actually attempting to harm you and you must react in self defense. Though I live in California I wish that our laws were more along the lines of Florida's, but would not want Florida to force their view on my state by force. AND I don't want the Federal government to force ALL the states to one view, either. Remember, the more locally you have legal control, the more influence YOU have over the law.

www.paulforronpaul.com

Amen

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
- Plato

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
- Plato

Wedge issue are the

Wedge issue are the establishments way of keeping the masses focused on issues of lesser importance. And it works.

Well...

I actually think in general he could do a lot better clarifying his position on abortion. A lot of the campaign literature says "Pro-Life" and while that is true in a way, it turns off people who are pro-choice and think that it means Dr. Paul favors a federal ban.

I'm pro-choice and I agree that it's a state issue. A lot of other pro-choicers who like a lot of Dr. Paul's other positions could be put off unless the subtleties of the position are made clear.

Just my observation, but I've had people tell me they can't vote for him because he isn't pro-choice.

Abortion / stem cell research

Wonderfully articulate! He even brought out the difference between stem-cell research and embryonic stem-cell research. The point about banning vs. federal funding vs the Constitutional position of letting the states decide was well stated, too.

"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

Dr. Paul

rulz. Really, what a great explanation of all of these really difficult positions.