Ron Paul is pro-choice on abortion, state by state

[Christian Liberty]

What case could someone make for a self-defense claim for an elective abortion? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Please note that the following is a Devil's Advocate argument. I do not agree with it.

It could be argued that an unborn child is tresspassing in the womb, and that therefore, use of force to remove that person from the womb, even though he/she is a person, is justified. That could be declared an act of self-defense and therefore be declared to be legal.

Of course, I don't agree with that view.

 

[WizardofOz]

Please note that the following is a Devil's Advocate argument. I do not agree with it.

It could be argued that an unborn child is tresspassing in the womb, and that therefore, use of force to remove that person from the womb, even though he/she is a person, is justified. That could be declared an act of self-defense and therefore be declared to be legal.

Of course, I don't agree with that view.

Nope. Won't work because it could not be proven that the mother had a reasonable fear of serious injury or death due to the pregnancy sans very serious complications.

This actually does sound more like a trespassing case than that of self-defense. There are clear guidelines that must be met for a self-defense claim and in the case of abortion, an expert witness would have to concur with the defense claim.

In the United States, the defense of self-defense allows a person to use reasonable force in his or her own defense or the defense of others (see the theoretical background for why this is allowed). While the definitions vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of non-deadly and deadly force. A person may use non-deadly force to prevent imminent injury; however, a person may not use deadly force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious injury or death.

Simply being pregnant alone could not be used to prove reasonable fear of serious injury or death.

 

[Christian Liberty]

OK, fair enough.

 

[Yorzhik]

If the Sanctity of Life Act were to pass, life would be defended at the highest (federal) level of government but would be enforced by the states :idea: just like murder is now. Should states stop enforcing laws against murder?

The problem is he says things like: "The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it."

When he should be clear and say, "The federal governments involvement should be to declare that all humans are persons from the moment of conception."

Paul's version of the SoLA was a two-pronged approach. You're only focusing on one aspect. If federal legislation passes stating that the unborn are "persons", what higher level of government would you like to see involved beyond that?

Paul knows that as long as abortion is in federal control no state can ban it outright.

What's your strategy?

My strategy would be for the federal government to declare that all humans are persons from the moment of fertilization.

Is that so hard to say? Is that so hard to explain that's what legislation does that declares such?

 

[WizardofOz]

The problem is he says things like: "The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it."

Probably because the federal government forces states to allow abortion. :think:

When he should be clear and say, "The federal governments involvement should be to declare that all humans are persons from the moment of conception."

Tell me you're joking. That is exactly what his Sanctity of Life Act said!

He doesn't just make empty declarations, he actually wrote legislation declaring it!

My strategy would be for the federal government to declare that all humans are persons from the moment of fertilization.

Then support legislation that declares it.

Is that so hard to say? Is that so hard to explain that's what legislation does that declares such?

Perhaps you're not listening.

 

[Lighthouse]

Probably because the federal government forces states to allow abortion. :think:

Tell me you're joking. That is exactly what his Sanctity of Life Act said!

He doesn't just make empty declarations, he actually wrote legislation declaring it!

Then support legislation that declares it.

Perhaps you're not listening.

Then perhaps his legislation should not have allowed for the states to ignore the personhood of the unborn by allowing them to make their own laws on whether or not they would allow abortion.

 

[Yorzhik]

Probably because the federal government forces states to allow abortion. :think:

I don't think that's true. If a state put it in their constitution that all humans were persons from fertilization I'm pretty sure the state would be allowed to stop children from being murdered at any stage of development.

Tell me you're joking. That is exactly what his Sanctity of Life Act said!

He doesn't just make empty declarations, he actually wrote legislation declaring it!

Then support legislation that declares it.

Perhaps you're not listening.

I am listening. I listened to him on "The View" and he doesn't propose the federal government make a law that says that all humans are persons. He says that the states should handle it.

So, fine, he thinks that all humans are persons and there should be a federal law saying as much. I'm cheering him on for that. But don't blame people in general for thinking he wants the federal government out of it, meaning no declaration of all humans being persons by the government, and wanting states to decide... because that is exactly what he clearly says when asked.

 

[WizardofOz]

Then perhaps his legislation should not have allowed for the states to ignore the personhood of the unborn by allowing them to make their own laws on whether or not they would allow abortion.

It doesn't. Repeating a falsehood won't make it true.

What do you think "legal personhood" means?

 

[WizardofOz]

Probably because the federal government forces states to allow abortion.

I don't think that's true.

Then why do several states have anti-abortion trigger laws, laws that were otherwise nullified by Roe v Wade?

Because the federal government forced all states to allow abortion.

If a state put it in their constitution that all humans were persons from fertilization I'm pretty sure the state would be allowed to stop children from being murdered at any stage of development.

Also a good plan

I am listening. I listened to him on "The View" and he doesn't propose the federal government make a law that says that all humans are persons. He says that the states should handle it.

His legislation said both.

So, fine, he thinks that all humans are persons and there should be a federal law saying as much. I'm cheering him on for that. But don't blame people in general for thinking he wants the federal government out of it, meaning no declaration of all humans being persons by the government, and wanting states to decide... because that is exactly what he clearly says when asked.

You don't understand his Sanctity of Life Act

 

[Christian Liberty]

Then perhaps his legislation should not have allowed for the states to ignore the personhood of the unborn by allowing them to make their own laws on whether or not they would allow abortion.

Ron Paul isn't allowing for this. That's already allowed. The entire point of the Sanctity of Life Act, contrary to what you, WizardofOz, and very possibly Ron Paul (I honestly think this is the one issue where his position is confusing, if not downright contradictory.... I've always taken away from him that he wanted to leave it to the states but I can understand WizardofOz's point as well) is saying is to crush Roe v Wade. Its not really to "Allow" states to legalize abortion. The Constitution already lets them do that. And if the 14th amendment really did protect the unborn, the Sanctity of Life Act wouldn't change that either. The whole point of this law is a legal workaround for Roe v Wade. That's it.

If you have a problem with states being allowed to decide, your issue is with the Constitution, not with Ron Paul.

 

[Yorzhik]

His legislation said both.

But he didn't. Don't be so angry at people that don't know the legislation because when asked, he never brings it up.

You don't understand his Sanctity of Life Act

I'm taking your word for what it says. That doesn't change the fact that when asked about abortion, he implies that the government will not say that all humans are persons.

 

[Lighthouse]

It doesn't. Repeating a falsehood won't make it true.

What do you think "legal personhood" means?

Maybe you need to read Section 3 again, until you understand it.

Ron Paul isn't allowing for this. That's already allowed. The entire point of the Sanctity of Life Act, contrary to what you, WizardofOz, and very possibly Ron Paul (I honestly think this is the one issue where his position is confusing, if not downright contradictory.... I've always taken away from him that he wanted to leave it to the states but I can understand WizardofOz's point as well) is saying is to crush Roe v Wade. Its not really to "Allow" states to legalize abortion. The Constitution already lets them do that. And if the 14th amendment really did protect the unborn, the Sanctity of Life Act wouldn't change that either. The whole point of this law is a legal workaround for Roe v Wade. That's it.

And even if RvW were repealed abortion on demand would still be legal, because of all the laws the GOP got passed in "regulating" it.

If you have a problem with states being allowed to decide, your issue is with the Constitution, not with Ron Paul.

My issue is also with him, over the wording of the SoLA.

 

[Christian Liberty]

And even if RvW were repealed abortion on demand would still be legal, because of all the laws the GOP got passed in "regulating" it.

Don't some states have trigger laws regarding Roe v Wade?

That said, I'm with you on the GOP being mostly a political waste of time. The only GOP senators I like are Rand Paul and Mike Lee, and even they often disappoint me (Despite my username.) And there are a handful of decent ones in the House.

That said, even most of the guys I like on other issues don't really get abortion right. Other than Ron Paul, most of the other liberty people have consistently supported anti-abortion laws [mostly regulations of the type you condemn], and even Ron Paul has voted for some of them.

My issue is also with him, over the wording of the SoLA.

Because you want Ron Paul to put human life over the US Constitution. Which sounds good at first glance, but it actually isn't, and it could be argued that to do so would actually be treasonous.

 

[Lighthouse]

Don't some states have trigger laws regarding Roe v Wade?

:idunno:

That said, I'm with you on the GOP being mostly a political waste of time. The only GOP senators I like are Rand Paul and Mike Lee, and even they often disappoint me (Despite my username.) And there are a handful of decent ones in the House.

I like the ones who leave because they recognize how corrupt the party is.

That said, even most of the guys I like on other issues don't really get abortion right. Other than Ron Paul, most of the other liberty people have consistently supported anti-abortion laws [mostly regulations of the type you condemn], and even Ron Paul has voted for some of them.

The ones that don't save a single life.

If it essentially ends with, "...and then you can kill the baby," it's a bad law.

Because you want Ron Paul to put human life over the US Constitution. Which sounds good at first glance, but it actually isn't, and it could be argued that to do so would actually be treasonous.

How is life being protected not in the vein of the Constitution? "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," isn't it? How is recognizing that putting it over [or above] the Constitution? How is holding the government to that part of the Constitution treason?

 

[Christian Liberty]

:idunno:


I like the ones who leave because they recognize how corrupt the party is.

I care much more about what platform someone stands for than what party. Ron Paul ran as a Republican, but he's no Republican.

The ones that don't save a single life.

If it essentially ends with, "...and then you can kill the baby," it's a bad law.

I'd have to read the particular wording of any state level law before making a decision.

But: You'd probably say a law that says "Abortions are hereby banned after the first trimester" is a bad law. I'd say that its an imperfect law, but since it prohibits the killing of some unborn, its still a law that should be supported (I wouldn't call it "good" since the only good anti-abortion law is one that bans it entirely.

How is life being protected not in the vein of the Constitution? "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," isn't it? How is recognizing that putting it over [or above] the Constitution? How is holding the government to that part of the Constitution treason?

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government the power to override any state laws.

 

[Lighthouse]

I care much more about what platform someone stands for than what party. Ron Paul ran as a Republican, but he's no Republican.

Alan Keyes did the same to a point. Then he left the GOP because he realized the platform meant nothing to the actual politicians under the banner.

I'd have to read the particular wording of any state level law before making a decision.

But: You'd probably say a law that says "Abortions are hereby banned after the first trimester" is a bad law. I'd say that its an imperfect law, but since it prohibits the killing of some unborn, its still a law that should be supported (I wouldn't call it "good" since the only good anti-abortion law is one that bans it entirely.

How many do you think that would save?

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government the power to override any state laws.

It's still stated as a right, and the two documents go hand in hand, do they not?

And the fifth amendment is certainly part of the Constitution.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Alan Keyes did the same to a point. Then he left the GOP because he realized the platform meant nothing to the actual politicians under the banner.

Alan Keyes supports the murderous war in Iraq.

Of course, he flip flopped his position multiple times, but he couldn't even settle on opposition to that.

The Iraq War was a violation of any semblance of fiscal responsibility, fidelity to the Constitution, OR Fidelity to the Bible.

With all due respect, I see no reason why I should care what Alan Keyes' strategy is.

I'm probably going to register Republican, so I can give Rand Paul my primary vote. He's not a perfect candidate, but he's far, far better than anyone else around. And: Seeing as he agrees with you (And not with me) regarding Federal anti-abortion legislation, you don't have any excuse not to vote for him like you did with Ron.

If Rand Paul or someone comparable isn't the GOP candidate, I'll be a Republican that doesn't vote Republican.

I have about as much actual loyalty to the party as Ron Paul does. None.

How many do you think that would save?

Not enough, but some. It would prevent anyone from being legally murdered in the second trimester.

Would you argue that laws against infanticide aren't a good thing, since they don't also ban abortion and therefore they legalize such?

It's still stated as a right, and the two documents go hand in hand, do they not?

The DOI isn't legally binding, and thank goodness... nobody could be punished for any crime (I know the Founders did not believe "inalienable" literally meant "inalienable, even if you commit murder/theft/exc." but if it were legally binding, the intent wouldn't matter.)

And the fifth amendment is certainly part of the Constitution.

The fifth amendment is talking about government, particularly the Federal government, depriving people of their life. Its not talking about abortion or even murder (And yes, I know its the same thing, I'm just clarifying that I'm not suggesting that somehow its only the unborn that aren't protected by this.)

 

[Lighthouse]

Alan Keyes supports the murderous war in Iraq.

Can you explain, with evidence, how that war was/is murderous?

The Iraq War was a violation of any semblance of fiscal responsibility, fidelity to the Constitution, OR Fidelity to the Bible.

Can you support your argument?

I'm probably going to register Republican, so I can give Rand Paul my primary vote.

I'm so glad I don't have to register in IN. Having to register is among the stupidest laws out there, and a violation of freedom.

He's not a perfect candidate, but he's far, far better than anyone else around. And: Seeing as he agrees with you (And not with me) regarding Federal anti-abortion legislation, you don't have any excuse not to vote for him like you did with Ron.

I know he's pro personhood. But I think at this point you and I agree regarding how far the fed should go in regard to such legislation: declare the preborn as persons thus making abortion murder, legally speaking, allow the states to enforce their own laws regarding murder, and force secession of those states that don't criminalize it.

But then again I'm in favor of the death penalty being mandatory for murder.

If Rand Paul or someone comparable isn't the GOP candidate, I'll be a Republican that doesn't vote Republican.

As I said, I'm glad I don't have to register.

I have about as much actual loyalty to the party as Ron Paul does. None.

Same here.

Not enough, but some. It would prevent anyone from being legally murdered in the second trimester.

So everybody gets an abortion in the first trimester. And those who miss their window go to legal institutions for an illegal procedure because those doctors would be willing to do it, and then lie about it.

Would you argue that laws against infanticide aren't a good thing, since they don't also ban abortion and therefore they legalize such?

It's a good thing you can't kill any born children, it's a bad thing that you can kill the preborn. Any law that states you can kill a child as long as certain requirements are met [especially if it is deceitful in its wording, such as "you can't kill a baby in this manner, or you must do this before you kill a baby," is a bad law even if there are good things about it. However, those laws don't have good things about them, because they don't actually provide for saving any actual children; any children saved are saved only because some people don't want to do certain things before getting an abortion, so they aren't allowed to get one.

The DOI isn't legally binding, and thank goodness... nobody could be punished for any crime (I know the Founders did not believe "inalienable" literally meant "inalienable, even if you commit murder/theft/exc." but if it were legally binding, the intent wouldn't matter.)

1. OK
2. It's "e-t-c."

The fifth amendment is talking about government, particularly the Federal government, depriving people of their life. Its not talking about abortion or even murder (And yes, I know its the same thing, I'm just clarifying that I'm not suggesting that somehow its only the unborn that aren't protected by this.)

I'm pretty sure it disallows the federal government from allowing murder to be legal.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'll address everything else later, but regarding Iraq...

I can't condone much of what is on this site, but this is a great article:

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/atrocities.htm

Also, the official statistics say that 109K were killed. Do you really believe for a second all of those people were a threat to the US? Yeah right.

Also: We spent a trillion dollars of tax money on it. There's nothing conservative about that.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'll address everything else later, but regarding Iraq...

I can't condone much of what is on this site, but this is a great article:

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/atrocities.htm

Also, the official statistics say that 109K were killed. Do you really believe for a second all of those people were a threat to the US? Yeah right.

Also: We spent a trillion dollars of tax money on it. There's nothing conservative about that.

1. No, I do not think that amount of people were a threat to us.
2. That said, I do not see this as evidence of the claims. It is simply more claims, with no support.
3. Just to clarify I do not actually support said war, as I think it was unnecessary.