Ron Paul has enough flaws in his views on abortion that you could drive a truck though them. Life begins at conception but….so if someone is raped a shot of estrogen is ok.  Then why isn’t the morning after pill a good thing?  This guy is a medical doctor.  If I listened to him, I would be so confused.  

I have never met a single person who believes abortion is exceptable  acceptable [sorry about that, gang] at 9 months.  I doubt I ever will.  No one does.  Surely they mean a life or death of the mother situation.  I am tired of that even being part of the discussion.  Roe v. Wade does not find that acceptable either.  But the lies and confusion continue.

Mr. Libertarian sure wants to put some restrictions on women. His logic is non-existent.   Perhaps he isn’t really a libertarian.  It seems like behind the scenes this entire election is about abortion, contraception and planned parenthood rather than about recovery and jobs.

33 Thoughts to “Ron Paul’s view on abortion”

  1. charles

    check this link: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993—-.htm

    This is part of a book written by Peter Singer, who is called a notable Ethicist.

    Excerpts:

    “In Chapter 4 we saw that the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. ”

    “No infant – disabled or not – has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”

    “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”

    BTW, I agree that Ron Paul’s position is illogical; most people’s position on abortion is illogical. If abortion terminates a human life, it is wrong, unless another human life is threatened — it makes no difference how hold that human is, or how that human came into being. We don’t kill humans because other humans are inconvenienced by them, or because of the evil acts of their relatives.

    And if you don’t believe it is a human, there’re no reason to restrict abortion for any reason, at any time, until you believe it becomes human.

    Interesting then, that many of those who support abortion balk if they find that a woman is having an abortion for sex selection, or for vanity reasons. Even politicians who defend abortion say they want it to be “rare” — why? If it isn’t the killing of a human being, but is like removing a mole, why does it have to be rare? And why spend billions preventing pregnancy (to limit abortions), if early-pregnancy abortions are safe, can be done with a cheap pill, and is the same as cutting your fingernails or hair, or having a wart removed? That is also “illogical”.

    Last note: There are a series of reports of abortion hospitals where babies survive the procedure, and are then left to die. Yes, many people recoil at that, but apparently the doctors, nurses, and staff at these hospitals all had no problem with “killing” already born babies. Except occasionally one of those staff get fed up and report it.

    1. @Charles

      Thanks for leaving the post. You are obviously not pro-choice and I don’t argue abortion. Neither of us would convince each other.

      As for leaving babies to survive, I doubt that is a standard practice anywhere in this country and I would have to know a great deal more information before comment. I have found that there is a great deal os disinformation out there that takes on a life of its own.

      I think the best article I have read is by Carl Sagan as in billions and billions….

      http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

      Sagan asks the question is it possible to be both Pro-choice and Pro-life. He concludes yes.

      Most of our choices in life are not binary. Most of our choices of significance are deeply complex and force us to weigh issues not only in terms of convenience vs inconvenience but also ethically, morally, economically, and hold them up for inspection under the microscope of our belief system.

      Abortion isn’t one of those toe nail clipping choices. Not even close. I don’t know of anyone who would argue that. While we can say what we think we would do in someone else’s situation, do we ever really know. I always believe in the “walk a mile in my moccasins” before I start finger pointing about situations like that. If other options were open, most people would chose a different alternative.

  2. marinm

    “Life begins at conception but….so if someone is raped a shot of estrogen is ok.”

    The estrogen shot would occur before conception therefore no abortion takes place because life has not been made.

    As he said, “It is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem.”

    1. What point are you making, marin? How does anyone know exactly when conception takes place? What if a person doesn’t get to the hospital an hour after the rape takes place?

      I posted that video not because I think it is important to know Ron Paul’s opinion but because the gray areas, even in the mind of someone opposed to abortion, are apparent. It is a complex issue. Then there are those who look at life as something beyond a fertilized ovum.

  3. The contraception issue is roaring on this morning on TV. The Catholic Church makes no distinction between abortion and the use of birth control. Both are mortal sins There is no shades of gray. Something is either a mortal sin or it isn’t.

    The two are getting convoluted the more the discussion takes place.

    Again, no one is forcing anyone to use birth control–Just provide coverage for those who do want to use it.

    I go back to this question–why on earth is birth control a discussion now, over 40 years after Griswold? This idea of institutions controlling reproduction must stop. Only an individual should be controlling their own reproduction. They should have the tools to do this.

  4. marinm

    1. “does anyone know exactly when conception takes place?” Isn’t that what Paul is saying?

    2. “What if a person doesn’t get to the hospital an hour after the rape takes place?” I think Paul is clear here – that once conception happens its a life and then laws covering abortion would be invoked.

    3. “The Catholic Church makes no distinction between abortion and the use of birth control.” Paul is not the Catholic Church.

    4. So, not ok to force use of birth control (except if you’re the govt) but ok to force coverage of it and provide material support to something you are morally against. What if the government mandated donations to pro-life orgs? …that would somehow be ok?

    5. No one’s access to BC is ‘stopped’. A nurse working at a catholic hospital can still get access to BC at a non-catholic pharmacy – she’d only have to pay for it herself. Rite-aid also sells condoms….

    1. Force the use of birth control? Who on earth suggested that? I see no difference is covering birth control and covering eczama treatment.

      I don’t want to force catholic pharmacies for carry birth control either. I just want health care coverage for those who want it. The very idea of not being able to get a tubal ligation or a vasectomy just because of some 5th century decree.

      No one is saying that Ron Paul is the Catholic Church. We can certainly discuss peripheral topics, can we not?

      Ron Paul painted himself into a corner. Is he also anti birth control?

  5. marinm

    You are. “Again, no one is forcing anyone to use birth control–Just provide coverage for those who do want to use it.”

    You would force coverage.

  6. Steve Thomas

    He’s an OB-GYN.

  7. SlowpokeRodriguez

    Anyone focused on Ron Paul’s abortion views has missed the point so badly, that no amount of remedial instruction could help. Yes, Ron Paul’s first order of business would be all about abortion. We deserve the crap we get in office, I’m completely convinced.

  8. SlowpokeRodriguez

    Oh, I see, it’s Piers Morgan interviewing Paul. That’s why the moron questions. I see.

  9. daddy

    RE: “I have never met a single person who believes abortion is exceptable at 9 months.”

    exceptable??? well me either, much less acceptable…

    It is a simple solution
    Egg before fertilization = no life
    Egg after fertilization = life

    1. @Daddy, I am so sorry. You are totally correct. Every so often I make horrible spelling errors, especially if I am distracted.

      I also do not think abortion at 9 months is acceptable. However, 9 months is also an extreme and happens so rarely it isn’t even worthy of discussion. Your simple solution really is just the tip of the iceberg. That is when things get complicated. There are no simple answers to very complex questions.

  10. Elena

    look people, can’t have it both ways. If you are against abortion that the only logical CHOICE is to promote birth control.

    Charles,
    Having known someone close to me who was raped and subsequently had to have an abortion, I would recommend you not be so quick to judge. You sound like you would be all for the narrative in the “Handmaids Tale”.

    FYI, women are not simply birthing vessels.

  11. marinm

    “look people, can’t have it both ways. If you are against abortion that the only logical CHOICE is to promote birth control.”

    Maybe I’m confused. But, isn’t that EXACTLY what Paul promoted by saying he’d prescribe and administer an estrogen shot?

    1. @marin

      only if the woman is raped and within a small window of ‘opportunity.’

      I haven’t heard Paul on the subject of birth control.

  12. Elena

    You brought up “forcing” organization to offer the choice of birth control coverage. Well, we all know you are referring to Catholic organizations who are also opposed to abortion. Can’t have it both ways in my opinion.

  13. marinm

    By penalty of law and the threat of force used against the church – which you advocate – you would force them to do something that violates their convictions.

    I don’t hold to that.

    I personally think it’s ok – yes I’m Catholic – for you or whomever to use birth control. That’s your business between you and your maker or convictions. But, I do not think it’s proper to have you put a gun to my head to extract from me a forced payment so that you can achieve your goal. Pay the $45 for a 3 months supply at the PP or CVS and leave me be.

    1. Not everyone who is employed by catholic organizations is catholic. Contraception is more expensive that what you have described. Vasectomies and tubals are much more expensive. Is contraception just for rich people?

      @marin

  14. marinm

    @Moon-howler

    An employee working under the Catholic banner knows that the Catholic Church can and cannot accept certain things. If they willing go into employment with that understanding and then somehow have a change of heart about something they are more than welcome to terminate their employment and seek employment with someone that offers benefits more consistent with what they want from an employer.

  15. Elena

    their religions that are against any type of medication, should we allow THOSE organizations the choice not to cover full medical care?

    What about religions that oppose vaccination?

    http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccines-A-Religious-Contention-

    NAH, religions are not in the business of people deciding what health care coverage they should have access to!

  16. marinm

    Yes.

    When any business (including the federales) buys health insurance for their employees they enter into a contract with that insurance company and they order off a ‘menu’ of what they want covered and how payments to the insurance company break out (premiums). Company will pay x percentage and then the employee pays x percentage. The insurance company will only cover the items on the menu and at those contracted levels.

    If I then want to order ‘off the menu’ — guess what — I pay out of pocket for that.

    In simple terms. It makes no sense to me that you want to walk into McDonalds and order a Filet and Lobster and then yell at the store manager for not giving you what you want. Go somewhere else.

    If someone needs/wants BC that badly they can pay out of pocket at CVS or go to work for PP.

  17. @marin, once again you assume everyone has options. They do not.

    Lucky you that you do. Did your parents? Probably not.

    The health care menu options don’t always work like that. Some companies offer the red plan or the blue plan or the orange plan with certain things already on them.

    Now, if the church got the kind of policy that allowed for a person to pick up that coverage out of pocket, then that eases the situation someone.

    Let’s take an expensive drug like Celebrex. Maybe the regular plan doesn’t consider celebrex but the employee is allowed to pay for a rider so all his celebrex is covered, I have less problem with that.

    Then there is that rule of law. If the law says insurance companies will provide contraception and sterilization, then just provide it. If the church has done a good enough job brainwashing its parishoners, then they should have nothing to worry about. Offering an ice cream sundae on the menu doesn’t mean I have to order and eat it during lent. That makes about as much sense.

  18. Once again, we are expected to accommodate churches. People howl like stuck pigs over having to accommodate Muslim religious practices. Elena and I are howling over being asked to accommodate the Catholic Church over its archaic practices that have no place in the modern world.

    I am not Catholic because I didn’t want to have to observe archaic practices I believe are wrong. Trust me, I have had plenty of opportunity to be welcomed into the fold, as it were. I chose not to be. I do not see it as the one true faith. Live and let live.

    Those birth control rules are just as offensive to me as wearing a burka.

  19. marinm

    @marin, once again you assume everyone has options. They do not.

    Everyone has options. In terms of birth control they can abstain, they can use barrier devices, they can buy pills, the can use the interupt method, etc.

    Ok, even assuming that some companies offer a blue/red/orange plan the Church is not obligated to do so. They might offer one plan and that’s it. If it doesn’t cover flu shots then if you WANT or NEED one you pay out of pocket.

    Or, you can get secondary insurance on the free market.

    “Brainwashing”? I understand you may not care for matters of faith. That’s your business. But, your intolerance is showing here.

    “Offering an ice cream sundae on the menu doesn’t mean I have to order and eat it during lent.”

    You’re right. Women have options outside of insurance for birth control. They should excercise those choices, if they wish to do so.

    1. @marin, you are insulting. I am probably one of the most live and let live people you would ever want to meet. However, I do not allow other religions to be shoved down my throat. What am I intolerant of? If you are referring to the notion that in 2012 people should reproduce uncontrollably you are darn right I am intolerant. There is no reason for it. In fact, I think any institution telling human beings in 2012 to not use contraception if they are sexually active is flat out immoral. I care plenty for matters of faith–but not a faith that turns a blind eye to the human condition. There are many faiths. To say that I do not care for matters of faith is simply not true and insulting. You assume a lot.

      Your faith is your own and you may practice it at will. You practice yours and I will practice mine. That seems fair. What isn’t fair is this unspoken word that somehow yours is more important than mine. I don’t care for Mitt Romney’s faith either but I will defend his right to not only practice it but to be president and be of the Mormon faith. He hasn’t tried to shove his down my throat either.

      You are clueless about people without means. You suggest abstainence for those who cannot afford birth control. Right. Do you really think that will happen? So really and truly, only those of means are allowed to have protected sex. gottcha. You probably bitch more about paying taxes than almost anyone on this blog. Much of that tax you hate paying goes to feed and house the under privileged. Think if poverty were eradicated how much less you would have to pay in taxes. Look at it from a selfish point of view if nothing else. Birth control isn’t one size fits all. Different people have different needs.

      Much has been said lately about class warfare. Limited access to reliable birth control is the ultimate in class warfare.

      We are back to Americans having access to health care, once again.

  20. Elena

    marinm,
    So, you do agree that if your job should have the freedom to offer policies that only cover what they believe should be covered and the goverment should have no control over requiring certain medications be covered. I imgaine this philosophy will come back to bite you in the butt.

    Do you believe the govt should have a say in who you can and cannot hire as a private entity,i.e discrimination?

    So you don’t want BC covered, what happens if the same group chooses not to cover vaccinations?

  21. marinm

    @Elena

    An employer and employee enter into a private contract. That contract should be between them only and outside of any govt interference.

    “So you don’t want BC covered” is a mis-statement.

    I actually support birth control. I do NOT support the govt telling companies, businesses or the church that they MUST provide coverage even if it violates their freedom of religion and religious practices.

    I have ZERO issue if a consenting woman (or man) wants to get birth control. If they have an employer that covers it and they get it under insurance. Outstanding. If they don’t have insurance and they pay out of pocket – good on them. But I do NOT support a govt mandate telling the market they MUST provide coverage under pain of law.

    Again where govt gets involved in healthcare we get really really really really bad decisions (Virginia abortion/sonograms).

  22. marinm

    Obvious typo above. Strike “even”. 🙂

  23. Elena

    so then if a company also were to deny coverage for vaccinations you would have no issue with that?

  24. marinm

    @Elena

    Correct. If that’s something important to the employee – find a new employer.

    FWIW, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/cdc-vac-price-list.htm

  25. Elena

    If you believe that employees should be held hostage due to someone elses morality, we completely disagree.

    That in the 21st century people would be denied access to birth control is simply unfathomable.

    the idea that the pull out method is something you advocate scares me. Did you know that for many men using a condom is not possible if they have any ED?

    Who are YOU or anyone else to suggest you know what type of BC is best suited for any one person. BC can be very expensive and each person is an individual and should not be denied the most basic human emotional connection because they don’t have enough money to have proper safe sex. We aren’t talking about teengers here, we are talking about grown adults, many of whom could be married and simply want to PLAN their PARENTHOOD.

  26. @marin,

    The Church already has exceptions in situations where just church people are employeed.

    I wish it was that easy to change jobs. Many people stay on jobs because of the benefits. That is what some of the health care reforms are all about.

    Too many people have been left uninsured. this might not be the best implementation but I suspect it beats the alternative which is 50 million uninsured people.

Comments are closed.