Abortion
On one occasion in the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, while visiting a surgical suite as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately two pounds. It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice. Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue.
That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant born was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted. But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child's life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. These were human lives.
Ron Paul is pro-life. He rejects Roe v. Wade. Life begins at conception. The unborn have rights.
A society that readily condones abortions invites attacks on personal liberty.
That said, a federal ban on abortions is as unconstitutional as its federal legalization. Viewing abortions as an act of violence against a human being, and the enforcement of civil and criminal law constitutionally reserved to the states, this is the responsibility of the states to restrain, not the federal government.
My argument is that the abortion problem is more of a social and moral issue than it is a legal one.
Laws alone do not change society, they are a reflection of society at that time; he recalls abortions were done at his residency in the 1960s in opposition to the law.
So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn't be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice.
The more difficult the problem, the more local the solution. One-size-fits-all answers in cases as personal as these are impractical.
Additional points brought up, which you'll need a copy of the book to read:
- Inherent injustices and contradictions in the current system: a frightened teenager may be charged with homicide if she kills her child on delivery, yet a doctor is paid for a third-trimester abortion, or accused of murder if the newborn inadvertently survives.
- Deregulating adoption markets to maximize aid
- Ethics of tax funds supporting abortions
- Correlating and opposing stances on abortion amongst pro-choice, pro-life, pro-war, and pro-state
- Supreme Court and Constitutional Amendment approaches to life
- Abortion's prohibition in the hippocratic oath
- Advice to physicians, and his 7-point program for pro-life MD and medical personnel
- Many more finer points; this is one of the longer chapters.
- Log in to post comments
User login
The Apathy Cure Counter
Submitted by Joη on Fri, 04/15/2011 - 14:18
Ron Paul Cured My Apathy
100% (35 votes)
there's only one option
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 35
|
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
Who's new
- Kevz-Carter
- TNMOM24
- Free2Choose
- BringonDrLiberty
- mason


Comments
Ron Paul taught me to respect all human life.
College taught me that the lives of unborn humans were less valuable.
"Life begins at conception"
Under the first section you wrote "Ron Paul is pro-life. He rejects Roe v. Wade. Life begins at conception. The unborn have rights.".
While I know he is pro-life and rejects RvW but did he actually say life begins at conception? Can you show me a source for that comment.
sure
Pro Choice Isn't
I've struggled with abortion. All my life I've maintained that women do have a choice. And they do. But now I think I've finally reconciled it with my libertarian leanings. Face it, we all know how to get birth control, every health department in the US will give it to you for free or almost free. In addition, we have Plan B and other methods to prevent pregnancy. When we make the choice to not use those tools, we become liable because there are consequnces for every action. That's personal responsibility. Once a pregnancy is growing, it becomes an issue of rights. Not only is it her choice, to abort she'd need consent from both the father and fetus. If she aborted without that consent, it's against the ideals of liberty. Obvious exceptions would be health of the mother, rape or incest. In those situations where the pregnancy was forced upon a woman, she'd have the right to abort.
Pro Choice
"Obvious exceptions would be health of the mother, rape or incest" Why is this an obvious exception according to you.
To me, this exception under your definition of "rights" is a legal exception, not an exception under the philosophy of "rights". Does the fetus not have rights if the mother is raped. I strongly disagree with you if the ideal moral high standard is that life begins at conception. Ending a pregnancy would not be a justification for killing life under your pretense.
I agree with just about everything Dr. Paul stands for, except on the abortion issue.
The distinction between those in favor and those opposed is, on the believe that life begins at conception.
If life begins at conception, would you charged a mother with murder if and when a mother that has problems staying pregnant, has a change of a sustainable pregnancy where odds are 1 in 10 and where the odds are a known fact.
In other words, potentially she'll terminate the life of 9 fertilized eggs knowingly. So, if the odds are against a successful pregnancy, should she be charged for ending a life in case of an unsuccessful pregnancy, for she knows and understands ahead of the time that the possibility of a successful full term is not on her side, applying the understanding that all actions have consequences?
Abortion is and will be a very difficult moral and legal debate, but in my personal opinion unless our creator personally defines and tells us what the legal and moral standard is,(Not what is written in a questionable Book or the interpretation of us human beings) it is simply a matter of believe and personal opinion as to whom is morally correct. Until then, people should only be judged by the creator if you believe in such a being.
I hope you don't view my opinion as a attack on your definition of right and wrong, it is simply my conclusion and believe in such a sensitive matter.