Ron Paul is okay with early term abortions and the abortion pill. Will principled pro-lifers' still support him? By Martin Hill LibertyFight.com March 23, 2012
Dr. Ron Paul's presidential campaign webpage, captioning him as "A Pro-Life Champion", states in part:
"As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is.
Dr. Paul's experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn't also advocate respecting the God-given right to life-for those born and unborn.
.... The strength of love for liberty in our society can be judged by how we treat the most innocent among us. It's time to elect a President with the courage and conviction to stand up for every American's right to life."
But in a recent CNN interview, Piers Morgan asked some legitimate questions seeking clarification about Paul's views. In the interview, Paul concedes that if a woman was raped, an early form of abortion would be okay (i.e., preventing implantation of the conceived fetus to the uterine wall via hormone shot). Paul says that he'd give her a "shot of estrogen". He adds at the conclusion of the discussion that "I won't satisfy everybody there", knowing that many of his supporters are ardent pro-lifers who want to outlaw abortion and the morning after pill alltogether.
Granted, fertilization does not necessarily occur immediately after intercourse (though it could). So immediately following a rape, a woman could or could not be have conceived a human child. So if life begins at conception, according to the pro life view, is it not wrong to kill, or even potentially kill, an innocent child? Principled pro-lifers insist that abortion is wrong even in that instance, and they are correct. Paul's answer, while politically correct, is disappointing. He is rationalizing abortion depending on the circumstance. Abortion advocates have always used "the case of rape or incest" as an avenue for convincing the American public, even those who tend to disfavor abortion, to support continued legal abortion. Paul is using this same logic in his replies to CNN.
When speaking to pro-life groups and seeking their donations and votes, why doesn't Paul say that he opposes abortion "except in the case of rape or incest"? Because he knows that they wouldn't accept that position. If abortion is truly murder, (which it is), Christians can not compromise on this fact. Thus, Paul is being disingenuous when claiming that he is against abortion. The fact is that, Ron Paul is only against abortion most of the time, but not all of the time. Which brings me to the main point. Do you want to support a man who thinks that abortion is okay sometimes? I certainly do not. This speaks to a man's character. A truly good and decent man would never advocate killing an unborn innocent, regardless of the stage. Thus, I am hereby effectively revoking my endorsement of Ron Paul for President of the United States.
You see, PRINCIPLES MATTER. There are absolutes. Not everything is 'relative'. There are black and whites. There is such a thing as right and wrong. There is such a thing as good and evil. And advocating killing an unborn baby, even in the early stages, is just evil. I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for a man who promotes something evil.
The charade known as the national elections are for the most part, theatre to keep the masses distracted. Most of the Republican candidates who've been babbling about abortion for fourty years never had any genuine intent or desire to outlaw it. Furthermore, even those who claim to be against abortion, such as Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, all endorse many other wicked policies and are nothing but warmongering police-state promoting creeps. Paul on the other hand, has a stellar record of promoting good policies of anti-war and limited government. He has stated many times that he wants to spread the message of liberty, and that his campaign works to that effect. Paul's supporters often agree that "even if Paul doesn't win, he still wins!"(?) by getting the message out there. But if his goal is not really to win and to merely spread messages, then what sort of message is Ron Paul sending by compromising on the issue of abortion? A very bad message indeed. Below is a clip from the CNN interview and a portion of the transcript.
I know some will say that I am 'extreme' and that we have to 'compromise' and take what we can get. That is garbage. I don't want any of them. Good luck America, you will need it.
Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured on LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened, Infowars, PrisonPlanet, National Motorists Association, WorldNetDaily, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 Los Angeles, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI 640, The Press Enterprise, Antiwar.com, IamtheWitness.com, FreedomsPhoenix, Rense, BlackBoxVoting, and many others. His website is LibertyFight.com.
MORGAN: Here's the dilemma, and it's one I put to Rick Santorum very recently. I was surprised by his answer, although I sort of understood from his belief point of view that he would come up with this.
But it's a dilemma that I am going to put to you. You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped -- and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen. But if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated?
PAUL: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen or give them --
MORGAN: You would allow them to abort the baby?
PAUL: It is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it, it's a little bit different story.
But somebody arriving in an emergency room saying, I have just been raped and there is no chemical -- there's no medical and there's no legal evidence of a pregnancy --
MORGAN: Life doesn't begin at conception?
PAUL: Life does begin at conception.
MORGAN: Then you would be taking a life.
PAUL: Well, you don't know if you're taking a life either, because this is an area that is -- but to decide everything about abortion and respect for life on this one very, very theoretical condition, where there may have been a life or not a life.
MORGAN: But here's the thing: although it is a hypothetical, it does happen. People do get raped and they do get impregnated. And sometimes they are so ashamed by what's happened that weeks go by before they may even discover they are pregnant.
They have to face this dilemma. And they are going to have a president who has a very, very strong view about this.
PAUL: [continues...]"....They are talking about a human life. So a person immediately after rape, yes. It's a tough one. I won't satisfy everybody there.... "
"But in signing the pledge, Paul may have ended up doing himself nearly as much harm as good. Alone among the signatories, Paul appended a "clarifying statementt" in which he reiterates his opposition to banning abortion on the federal level. On Monday, Personhood USA, the group that drafted the pledge, sent Paul an open letter that expresses "serious concerns both about the internal inconsistencies within Rep. Paul's statement, and the inconsistency between the clarifying statement and the language of Personhood USA's pledge." Such are the perils of going off-message.
August 24th, 2010: Ron Paul endorses government line on 9/11, and also throws in an endorsement of the government's absurd Oklahoma City Bombing story (along with some sympathy for Jews)
Ron Paul addresses root cause of 9/11 on CNN's Anderson Cooper program http://america-hijacked.com/2010/08/24/ron-paul-addresses-root-cause-of-911-with-cnns-anderson-cooper/
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1008/23/acd.01.html Ron Paul: "Al Qaeda was responsible. Several hundred al Qaeda existed at that time and maybe there are still several hundred more. But that doesn't mean the whole Muslim religion should be indicted that was my complaint. I mean, McVeigh probably was a Christian, and he bombed the Oklahoma Federal Building. But does mean that a Christian church can't be built near there, and Christianity is to blame? I don't like that broad brush. So yes, the violence was committed by al Qaeda and they're bad people and we should do what we can to destroy them, but that doesn't mean that we should destroy the whole concept of the Muslim religion." ....It's real easy for people to get to hating Islam, but they- to me, that's equivalent to hating Christians because Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, that I don't like, nobody should like this being painted with a broad brush. It was done to the Jews before, and I don't like it. I like to stick to the facts, I like to talk about the foreign policy, and how it's related."
Ron Paul: "I believe that Israel is one of our most important friends in the world. And the views that I hold have many adherents in Israel today. Two of the tenets of a true Zionist are "self-determination" and "self-reliance." http://ronpauldebunked.wordpress.com/ron-paul-is-pro-zionist/
A month after Ron Paul directly debunked rumors and said there is Absolutely �No Deal� with Romney, his own campaign chairman says the opposite, claiming Ron would be open to a compromise or VP slot. (Why would someone running for president in a primary concede defaeat and accept a VP slot?!:)
"Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign chairman, said he does see evidence that Paul's ideas are making a difference." ...."It's something we'd like but it's not terribly important to us," he said. "We're looking potentially for Ron to be the vice presidential nominee...we're not looking for easy concessions like a speaking slot." He says the campaign would also push for a cabinet position for Paul or major changes to the party platform."
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speechhttp://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
Paul isnt the 1st politician Ive rejected for this reason.Since ron paul's campaign is essentially an ideological discussion, even according to his own PR, I see no reason to not address it. I really think one's stance on abortion speaks to their nature.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you".Sirach 4:28
NO one agrees with me, but I see Ron as running this year as a precursor for Rand in 2016.
I agree with you.
Obama was already slated to win by the puppet masters.
I don't believe the party owns either one really though yes I think they are team players to certain extent. As I said they are gaming the system.
As for the third party situation, there is no viable third party. Not only have they been destroyed from with in by party operatives but the black box programming won't allow a third party to win regardless of the votes.
This is what he said four years ago last month when he pulled the plug on us......
"Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican."
I do to but I have worked very hard with the third largest party in the nation and I have seen what paid infiltrators do to a party from within. And I know it has happened with the Reform party and the Green party. So even if he wanted to move to a third party it wouldn't work. Just sayin'.
I have felt for some time that Ron is NOT being totally honest with his supporters.
If one faces reality and forgets their bias, either way, there is no way Ron Paul will ever be President, of all people, Ron knows that. Accepting that, what then is his long term goal?
Looks like we will have to endure Obama another four years.
GW Herbert Bush's seventh term.
"I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
"I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it." - William S Burroughs
I think it was Webster Tarpley who started banging that drum and I think Webster Tarpley turned Jeff Rense against Ron Paul by claiming something he said over a decade ago made him a Globalist.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I think it was Webster Tarpley who started banging that drum
I dont read Tarpley...
From years of dirty politics, I came up with my own system of trying to determine what was the real game being played, not the one shown to the rube public.
Two ingredients are all that are needed, simple math and betting odds. Gut instinct with a dash of pure cynicism clears away the bullshit that politicians employ to fool the rubes.
To me voting made me a part of the "system of deceit" so I joined the other 80 million unpatriotic Americans.
We are the 80 million !
And, we're fucking tired of the games !
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
From years of dirty politics, I came up with my own system of trying to determine what was the real game being played, not the one shown to the rube public.
Two ingredients are all that are needed, simple math and betting odds. Gut instinct with a dash of pure cynicism clears away the bullshit that politicians employ to fool the rubes.
You don't have to read it from him to hear his drumbeat about it. It's been echoing all over the alt-net. If you thought of it too yourself, I can only say that I don't think Ron Paul is naive enough to think trust that the Republican Party wouldn't treat his son as shabbily in a 2016 run as they've treated him. All the more reason, imo, for Ron Paul to run as an Independent.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Stand way back, disregard any ideology, view only the framework of this election with Ron Paul.
NO one agrees with me, but I see Ron as running this year as a precursor for Rand in 2016.
If Ron stays with the party, I am right.
If Ron kicks over the traces, refuses to back Romney or goes third party, I am wrong.
To my thinking, if Ron refuses to support Romney, Obama wins and Rand will be a one time Senator.
Ron is a team player to the end, then the republican party...OWES RAND.
Well, that's a nice clear take on the situation. It usually takes a couple of posts for you to get it all unscrambled, Cyni, but once you do, you lay it plainer than sunshine.
Blood is thicker than water - even for "libertarians."
A people that would and could throw the bums out in the voting booth never has to. - Prefrontal Vortex
Blood is thicker than water - even for "libertarians."
Excellent...
That is the main spar of the framework. Every segment depends on that fact.
If one accepts that fact and that Ron honestly knows he will never be president, THEN ALL THAT REMAINS IS TOO ASCERTAIN WHAT IS HIS PERSONAL GOAL.
Most here agree his ultimate goal is to educate, I can buy that but I also believe Ron is willing to stay the course so Rand may have a chance at the Presidency from within the system.
All the more reason, imo, for Ron Paul to run as an Independent.
That statement is true.
However we would be naive to disregard what Ron wrote four years ago in his Trotski memo.
Many of us were praying for an independent run, a chance to vote against the system.
Ron insisted he is forever a republican. A PART OF THE SYSTEM.
I took him at his word and accepted I had thrown away a lot of money, hoping for a real choice. When a horse refuses to leave the gate, I do not bet on him in his next race.
If one faces reality and forgets their bias, either way, there is no way Ron Paul will ever be President, of all people, Ron knows that. Accepting that, what then is his long term goal?
He wants to do his part in waking the masses... and he has. Bravo.
NEXT.
~~~~~~~~ The OneDollarDVDProject needs patriot activists to help wake the town and tell the people. Do your friends and family know what you know?
Many of us were praying for an independent run, a chance to vote against the system.
Ron insisted he is forever a republican. A PART OF THE SYSTEM.
I took him at his word and accepted I had thrown away a lot of money, hoping for a real choice. When a horse refuses to leave the gate, I do not bet on him in his next race.
And I have not.
I don't know why you think you threw your money away. He never actually dropped out of the race and didn't even suspend his campaigning until the nomination went to McCain. I still voted for him in my State's Presidential Election. Didn't matter to me if called himself a Republican or not. I voted for Ron Paul, not a Party. If he insists on calling himself a Republican "forever", he could start his own Party and call it the Jeffersonian-Republican Wing.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#47. To: All, pinguinite, wakeup, wudidiz, original_intent, farmfriend, rickyj (#0)
Read the essay "BEING PRO-LIFE IS NECESSARY TO DEFEND LIBERTY" by Paul in 1981 at libertarians for life L4L.org. THAT is the Ron Paul who I grew up wholeheartedly supporting. Contrast THAT with his view that early abortion in case of rape is OK.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you".Sirach 4:28
if one really considers it, it is not fair to punish and exterminate a person who was conceived as a result of rape. Their life is as valuable as the millions of iraqis killed by U.S., or the innocents slaughtered by drug raid cops, etc etc.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you".Sirach 4:28
You are right Ron Paul is wrong here. He is also wrong about 9/11, but he knows there is a limit to what he can say and still have a shot to become president. I don't think Ron Paul has changed since 1981, he has just learned how to play the political game better.
He ain't perfect but I don't know of anybody who is. Even though I believe he's not infallible on all of his views about 9/11, still he supports further investigation of it. I can't disagree when he states (in the second video below) his concerns that, if people have lost confidence in the government (Ex: the Warren Commission on JFK), what would another investigation by the government (rather than the people themselves) accomplish if it just validated/covered up the first investigation?
WeAreChange.org reporters confronted Ron Paul in the spin room during the New Hampshire primaries. He discusses the draft, endless war, a new 9/11 investigation, the emerging North American Union and spreading the "Ron Paul Revolution"...
Ron Paul Wants A New 9/11 Investigation 03/25/08 Uploaded by WTC7WasPulled on Mar 25, 2008 www.youtube.com/watch? v=OumAnh8oWbU[Warning about abrasive graphic inserted by the uploader in the first minute]
Ron Paul was a guest on Coast To Coast AM with George Noory from 1 - 2 AM on March 25, 2008. During questions a disingenuous Neocon named Joe called in to ask Ron Paul about his supporters believing in "conspiracy theories". This was similar to what CNN did during the debates. Ron Paul answered and said while he did not believe the Government did 9/11 he was not satisfied with the investigation and would like a new investigation into 9/11.
The 9-11 Commission report, released late last month, has disrupted the normally quiet Washington August. Various congressional committees are holding hearings on the report this week, even though Congress is not in session, in an attempt to show the government is “doing something” about terrorism in an election year. The Commission recommendations themselves have been accepted reverently and without question, as if handed down from on high.
But what exactly is going on here? These hearings amount to nothing more than current government officials meeting with former government officials, many of whom now lobby government officials, and agreeing that we need more government! The current and past architects of the very bureaucracy that failed Americans so badly on September 11th three years ago are now meeting to recommend more bureaucracy. Why on earth do we assume that former government officials, some of whom are self-interested government lobbyists, suddenly become wise, benevolent, and politically neutral when they retire? Why do we look to former bureaucrats to address a bureaucratic failure?
The 9-11 Commission report is several hundred pages worth of recommendations to make government larger and more intrusive. Does this surprise anyone? It was written by people who cannot imagine any solution not coming from government. One thing you definitely will not see in the Commission report is a single critique of our interventionist foreign policy, which is the real source of most anti-American feelings around the globe.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
if one really considers it, it is not fair to punish and exterminate a person who was conceived as a result of rape. Their life is as valuable as the millions of iraqis killed by U.S., or the innocents slaughtered by drug raid cops, etc etc.
I agree but he's not running for Pope. In the first place, there's a huge problem with interviewers and others attempting to reduce the issue of Abortion to interventionism for rape victims; who are in a state of trauma and might be even further traumatized later by regret for having made such a decision under stress. Although it's being framed as a matter of conscience for them and their doctor, the job of the Federal government is the General Welfare and not so much individual cases of distress. I empathize with your dismay on this issue. I was also dismayed by his vote to disregard the General Welfare for the Special Interests of homosexuals in the Military. Jeopardizing the General Welfare and readiness of our Military for their Special Interests jeopardizes the General Welfare of this country. For the same reason, the obese are restricted from access there. Being an American doesn't mean our Military has to accomodate all sectors of the citizenry. My dismay with Ron Paul on that issue is compounded by the fact that, even with his faults on several issues and his goldbugness too, there are no other politicians even close to his caliber as a Defender of the Constitution. So who else is there to vote for as President? Nobody, imo, and surrendering the election without resistance to those who are arrayed against the Constitution is not what I consider a wise option.
Edited to reword next to last sentence.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I'm not suggesting others shouldnt vote for him.But for me, it was a dealbreaker & a great disappointment at the sunset of his career. Plus, i think elections are a charade anyway, so i didnt have anything invested in the race to begin with.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you".Sirach 4:28
Thanks for the reply, i am glad someone sees my point. The contrast between his 1981 essay and his espoused ideas to Piers Morgan & Leno were stark. I actually found the videos shocking & creepy. I think Paul is indeed a mason. Oh well.
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you".Sirach 4:28
Nevertheless- ron paul is a gutless wonder, 911 denying, holohoax promoting, abortion excusing, wanker.Let him ride into the sunset & have pancakes at his masonic lodge. enough of the Paul cultists already, Good grief ;).
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you".Sirach 4:28
I'm begining to think that Ron Paul is just another distraction. Still, he would be good for America. He said he would cut One Trillion Dollars from the deficit his first 100 days in office. I believe him. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke