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."
If Ron Paul is REALLY one of them, then why are they fighting him so hard? I think Ron knows what he can say and what he can't say to have any chance of changing this nation diplomatically. He is much smarter than most give him credit for.
Ron Paul agrees that life begins at conception, so he would not be in favor of ending a life at that stage. He says chemically birth control pills and the day after pills are the same so they can't be banned unless you would favor banning birth control pills.
Ron Paul does have some people in his campaign that are either directly trying to sabotage him or are doing so with their incompetence. In Benton's case I think it is pure incompetence, the guy doesn't have a clue what he is doing.
so he would not be in favor of ending a life at that stage
he would too, he just explained it in great detail to both Leno and Morgan. He has no problem with abortion after a rape. That is by definition, after conception. if there was no conception, the woman wouldnt go to the doctor for a "plan b".
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you".Sirach 4:28
he would too, he just explained it in great detail to both Leno and Morgan. He has no problem with abortion after a rape. That is by definition, after conception. if there was no conception, the woman wouldnt go to the doctor for a "plan b".
Maybe there is conception and maybe there isn't, you have no way of knowing, that is what he is saying. By giving the shot of estrogen he can potentially stop conception from occurring which would not be ending any life.
He can't get birth control pills outlawed and he knows it, so a woman could just take extra birth control pills the day after and that would do the same thing a morning after pill would do. Even if he could outlaw the morning after pill there would be no way to enforce women from doing this with birth control pills so it is does no good whatsoever to ban it.
It takes sperms minutes to get into the fallopian tubes but they need to be there for at least 8-10 hours before they are ready to fertilize the egg. Taking your temperature after you got up and with less than 3-4 houirs of sleep will give you a false temperature. Amos Grunebaum, MD New York, NY
If this is correct then as long as the shot of estrogen was delivered before 8 hours had elapsed from the time of intercourse then there would be no chance of taking a life.
This is BS. It seems the interviewer and maybe Martin Hill maybe need some sex ed. They think life begins at rape instead of conception?
I think Ron Paul's point here is that when a woman is raped, she should get immediate medical attention which can prevent conception from happening. Does Martin Hill believe such a woman should NOT get medical attention because of the possibility that by the time she does, conception *might* have already occurred?
I'm tired of this litmus test stuff. Is Hill so principled that he will not shop at a grocery store owned by someone who's pro-choice, or has an employee with such sentiments? Will he not buy food from a farmer who's pro-choice? Will he take his own trash to the dump instead of paying a pro-choice garbage man? Why then would he reject a man for president who has repeatedly stated that abortion should be a state and not a federal matter?
interesting, but Paul's example in response to the scenario posed by CNN didnt limit it to a window of 10 hours. He did adsmit he wouldnt support aborting an 8 month fetus, but is clearly ok with legalized early term abortion
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you".Sirach 4:28
Ron Paul's position is the "only" legitimate one that government should take. Leave it up to the individual(s), even though I believe he is pro-life on a personal basis.
A president doesn't have the right to decide what's right for everyone else even though he can use the bully pulpit to express his view.
"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."
Martin Hill is Artisan and he does make some valid points. I am also against abortion at any stage of life. But what Dr. Paul is not explaining better here is that immediately after intercourse it is impossible for conception to take place because it takes at least 8 hours for that to occur even if the sperm is sitting in the fallopian tubes waiting for the egg to be released. Dr. Paul knows what he is talking about but he is not a very good communicator like Reagan was. That is what is killing him in the debates.
another poster here was bickering with me once about whether BC pills serve as abortifacients. They do, but the person refused to believe it. Ive taken courses on fertility and natural family planning. Most of the time they prevent implantation,not concep
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you".Sirach 4:28
He did adsmit he wouldnt support aborting an 8 month fetus, but is clearly ok with legalized early term abortion
I cannot support that either, but Paul wouldn't be making a decision on that anyway, states would. Paul is right that abortion is more about morality than about laws. Even before abortion was legal there were still many abortions. No law can stop a woman determined to end her pregnancy.
Martin Hill is Artisan and he does make some valid points.
Then I'll respectfully field the question directly to him:
Are you, Artisan, so principled that you will not shop at a grocery store owned by someone who's pro-choice, or has an employee with such sentiments? Will you not buy food from a farmer who's pro-choice? Will you take your own trash to the dump instead of paying a pro-choice garbage man?
If you would, fine. But if not, why would you reject a man for president who has repeatedly stated that abortion should be a state and not a federal matter?
I hope you'll respect my questions in the principled spirit they are asked. Best to you....
I cannot support that either, but Paul wouldn't be making a decision on that anyway, states would. Paul is right that abortion is more about morality than about laws. Even before abortion was legal there were still many abortions. No law can stop a woman determined to end her pregnancy.
I absolutely agree.
He stated on Leno that (paraphrasing) it's a moral issue, and changing the morality of the people is the key to making the country pro-life. Our laws are determined by the people's morality, not the other way around. I think it's a very legitimate point.
I grew up enjoying sees candy. my dad bought cases of it for all his clients, they looked fwd to it.But when i found out warren buffet owns it, never got it again.I probably cant avoid trading with evildoers, but to the extent that i'm aware, i will
"Even to the death fight for truth, and the LORD your God will battle for you".Sirach 4:28
"...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.