sorry, didnt mean i was agreeing with his stance on abortion. just that there was SOME worthwile stuff once you get beyond "abortion is murder"

Abortion; lets see then.

What is his actual stance? That it's a state issue. Does he believe the federal government should ban abortion? Well, no, it's a state issue. Does he believe the federal government should ban banning abortion? Well, no, it's a state issue. So what would Ron Paul actually do; would he overturn Roe v Wade? Well, no, that's beyond the power of the president, the supreme court would have to overturn it. Could he veto legislation that promotes abortion, as in, federal welfare programs that pay for the procedure? Of course, and he certainly would. Could he also veto legislation that prohibits a state from creating a welfare program to pay for abortions? Quite likely. Could he appoint pro-life judges to the supreme court? Yes, he could. So here's what he could do : He could stop the creation of additional federal programs that promote the killing of fetuses, and he could sway the opinion of the supreme court by one or two votes (assuming the court even heard a case that would counter Roe v Wade). Here's what he could not do : Ban abortions.

I think the problem is that you assume that everything he would like to do, and everything he thinks needs to be done, would be enacted the moment he took office. The truth is the president has very little power. So lets look at what the president can do without permission from congress -

Withdraw from Afghanistan. The president retains absolute power in this matter simply because congress gave it to him. Since congress never even declared war, the president doesn't even have to let them know what he's up to. What is Ron Paul's foreign policy? Non-interventionism.

Pardon drug offenders. The president can pardon (almost) anyone. Ron Paul could not legalize marijuana (that would require congress), but he can pardon everyone currently held on non-violent drug charges. This alone might be enough to end the 'war on drugs'; but as president Ron Paul would also dismantle the DEA.

Ron Paul thinks that abortion is murder (albeit only 2nd or 3rd degree). He also says that it's "violent", that the law is inconsistent when it doesn't charge abortionists for murder (he isn't clear on what the mother should be charged with) & he would like to pass a law in Congress that denies jurisdiction to the federal courts, enabling the backward areas of the country (e.g: Arizona, Texas, etc.) to ban the practice. The fact that he believes such nonsense (it gets far worse than this) calls his ability to reason in to question.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#On_abortion

...& this is just abortion. His views are equally or more ridiculous on other subjects (e.g: separation of church & state).

Your argument seems to be that I shouldn't be worried about how unreasonable he is because his power is limited. I tend to think that we should scrutinize the beliefs of politicians in order to determine their rationale.

Why is it ridiculous to believe that abortion is murder?

Your argument seems to be that he disagrees with you and therefore he is crazy; my argument is that he's the only candidate who will get us out of Afghanistan and end the war on drugs (to be fair there's also Gary Johnson, but he's Paul's defacto heir and not really in the race this time), and he's also in favor of gay marriage and stopping deficit spending. The areas where he's weak (abortion, public education, others) are also the areas where the president has the least power, so we should take the chance on them.

You claim that we should scrutinize his beliefs, but you didn't. Apparently instead of scrutinizing them, you only got as far as 'abortion is murder' and then pissed yourself.

Abortion doesn't meet the definition or legal requirements to be considered as murder.

I don't disagree with Ron Paul on a number of issues (e.g: several of his foreign policy positions). That doesn't mean that I should ignore his lack of reason when considering him as a candidate. I don't share your view that his power is limited, on a multitude of issues, to the point where I should feel safe about it. Reagan & the Bush's (amongst many others) have proven that the president can get away with quite a bit (e.g: Iran-Contra Affair), with or without the American people, or Congress.

What you meant to say is that you don't believe a fetus is a human being. Murder: Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Abortion is definitely premeditated. The only way it is not murder is if the fetus is not a human being. You believe the fetus is not; Ron Paul believes the fetus is. Ron Paul's position is not irrational or crazy or unreasonable, it is the logical conclusion from his belief that the fetus is a human being. It is actually the only reasonable conclusion from that belief.

Yes, they got away with a lot; but they got away with foreign aggression - and that's exactly what Ron Paul is staunchly against. For the things Ron Paul can get away with, and actually wants to do, the risk is well worth the reward of electing him.

There are at least 2 things (emphasis added above) in your sentence that prevent abortion from being classified as "murder". People that define abortion as murder are merely redefining the word for shock value.


His "belief", from reading his stance(s) on the issue, is based on the the idea that life begins at conception. It's impossible, from the technical point of view of a doctor, to believe such nonsense. It's unreasonable to call a zygote, an embryo & so forth, a living human being. Essentially, he's arguing for "potentiality" (the possibility of this fertilization becoming a human being). There are too many problems with this argument to list but I'm hoping to avoid another abortion debate (we've been there & done that) so I'm not going to bother. I'm merely going to say that "being potentially something isn't the same as being something already" & until he can prove that it is, he shouldn't hold such a strong point of view on the subject (her certainly shouldn't be calling it murder). I find it interesting how these people are always willing to err on the side of caution when it's something that they believe without reason (e.g: life beginning at conception) but are so unwilling to do so when there is reason (e.g: global warming).


I agree that he probably wouldn't appoint the next Henry Kissinger but I'm rather afraid of what he'd attempt to do domestically. Also, he wouldn't be the first politician to change his position or even lie.

hey you know how I sometimes post 'this thread sucks'?

At the risk of derailing the thread...
I think he is arguing more inevitibility, rather than potentiality. Assuming a successful pregnancy(and I fully admit that yes this is an assumption!) nine-ish months later you have a human baby. It's not like you could "potentially" have a baby... But you might wind up with a seagul... Or maybe a blueberry pie.

With global warming, I'm not even going to say it's not true, let's assume it is. Your still asking a populace to trust "authorities" about a subject they probably don't, and likely won't every fully understand. This in an environment where people are used to being fed spin, if not outright lies on a daily basis. And beyond that the results of erring on the side of caution will likely and already have caused devastation to local economies and businesses.

I think that's why they are willing to err on the side of caution with abortion and not global warming.

Therein lies why it's potentiality. If it was inevitable one wouldn't need to make an assumption.


The average person isn't going to have an in-depth knowledge about a great many things. An astrophysicist may not know a great deal about Evolution by Natural Selection but he believes that the theory is true because he understands that the scientific "system" works.

Wrong. Ron Paul is a crazy anti-business liberal who wants to pillage the practices of talented and hard-working medical doctors.

Is not a man entitled to the sweat of his brow???

Ok... Then here's the short, short answer to your question.
Babies are cute higher electricity rates are not.

Is it just me or are we arguing a point that's relatively a non-issue? Paul isn't running on an anti-abortion campaign. And hey, Bush Jr was anti-abortion too, but did he make abortion illegal? Of course not. And he over Ron Paul would be MUCH MORE INCLINED to make laws that affect the general populous, since Ron Paul is a minimalist. On the other hand, Paul is against pointless wars, has an incredibly consistent voting record (as in, at least you know what you're getting, instead of a president who spouts a bunch of nonsense about "hope" and "change" with no depth), he actually understands HOW the economy works (this is evidenced by his predictions as much as 10 years ago that we would be exactly where we are now; as to whether or not his plans would be effective remains to be seen, but at least it wouldn't be more of the same), and hell, he's pro marijuana (which for a portion of you on this forum should be enough to vote for him, regardless of anything else).

Why do you guys want to latch on to one position of his (on abortion) which should be one of the LEAST important issues for the upcoming campaign in a world where we continue to wage war against vague ideas, fall further and further into debt while the value of our dollar continues to sink, and pump billions of tax payer dollars into programs that AREN'T working?

psst.

It means Ron Paul isn't a libertarian.

psst. that depends on the point of view you look at it from.

You think he's not a libertarian because he wants to take away a woman's "right" to kill her unborn child.
I say he's a libertarian because he wants to protect that unborn child's right to live.

besides which, correct me if I'm wrong, but he's never actually claimed to be a libertarian. He calls himself a constitutionalist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul (see the first paragraph)

I only recently became a fan of Ron Paul, and don't claim to be an expert on him by any means, but I think the distinction that he makes is that he is all about protecting people's CONSTITUTIONAL liberties, not their present-day perceived liberties. If he cannot justify a position constitutionally than he does not back it. And there's really nothing in the constitution protecting a woman's right to an abortion, or even making the claim that abortion is a right.

It depends on whether or not you understand what libertarianism means.

Libertarianism does not mean Constitutionalism. You need to understand what ideas you support before you claim to support them.

I say he's not a libertarian because he wants to take away a doctor's "right" to perform an abortion.


"The answer is no, I'm not a racist. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero, because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience and nonviolence. Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea: you see people in groups. A civil libertarian as myself sees everyone as an important individual." - Ron Paul, 2008

I'm really not surprised that you would be a fan of Ron Paul.

Ok, regardless of whether you think it's the woman's right to have her child killed, or the doctor's right to do the killing, the fact remains that abortion is not constitutionally relevant. Which means that him taking a stance based on his personal opinion (that the unborn have rights) is not inconsistent with his persona.

Also, I know Libertarianism is not the same as Constitutionalism. Maybe you misunderstood me.

That "fact" is an extremely complex issue that you don't even remotely understand.

e.g. the thirteenth amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. Laws against abortion mean the government is compelling women to unwillingly perform a service.


"I say he's a libertarian because he wants to protect that unborn child's right to live." (n.b. you also claim that laws against abortion are constitutional.)

So, no, you very clearly do not make a significant distinction between Libertarianism and Constitutionalism.

Wrong. I said that pro-abortion laws are not constitutionally relevant.

So, you very clearly do not make a significant distinction between what I said and what you wish I said.

I provided a link with an entire list of his positions, referenced 3 sections on said list (abortion, budget/economy & foreign policy) & even mentioned his views on separation of church & state. I don't think that anyone intended to latch on to a particular issue. The only reason we're discussing abortion is because of my joke about how the first 2 sections would make a reasonable person vomit. No one seemed to care or notice me vomiting over the budget & economy section.

Abortion (see 14th amendment) & separation of church & state (see 1st amendment) are both constitutional issues, by the way.

Maybe I'm not reading between the lines, but I'm failing to see how the 14th amendment has anything to do with abortion.

And by "you guys" I didn't mean anyone in particular, but the discussion as a whole. Just seems like we're worrying about something that's really not relevant. Irrelevant to our policies on abortion, our nation is going to hell. Ron Paul predicted it, and Ron Paul has some radical solutions that are 180 degrees from the same tired nonsense the other politicians are spouting that got us into this mess and have failed and are continuing to fail at getting us out of it.

I've heard a lot of people argue to the benefit of Paul's ideas for our economy, but I haven't heard anyone argue rationally against them. It saddens me that instead of focusing on important issues, we're sitting here whining about abortion once again. At this point, who cares?

(And if you mean the 13th Amendment, as Jon`C has previously suggested... Come on. You may be able to argue that carrying a child in your womb is "involuntary servitude" but that is so obviously a bastardization of the intention of that Amendment, that I can't believe anyone would use that to support abortion.)

I simply use women's rights as my platform to support abortion. It's pretty simple.

The pregnancy as involuntary servitude argument only works when considering pregnancies that are the result of rape. In all other cases, the pregnancy is a consequence of a decision the woman made. Legal abortion absolves a woman of responsibility for her own actions. Compare two scenarios. In both cases, a woman gets drunk. In both cases, she makes a poor decision. In one case, she has sex. In the other, she drives a car. In one case, she becomes pregnant. In the other, she kills a man. In both cases, the woman knew in advance the possible consequences of her actions. Why is it alright to force the woman to serve ten years in prison for manslaughter in one case, but not okay to force the woman to carry the child to term in the other? The fourteenth amendment does not support a woman's right to abortion any more than it supports her right to drive drunk.

One of the beliefs of libertarianism is that the individual is responsible for his actions. The individual is responsible for their own well being, and they are liable for their own mistakes. While a libertarian would prefer not to ban a doctor from performing a procedure his client wished for, a libertarian must also protect the rights of others. Either decision, to ban abortion or not, is valid in libertarianism.

[edit]I didn't mean to imply that personal liability and protecting the rights of others are connected. They are just two points that illustrate why libertarianism is conflicted on the issue.[/edit]

I argued on abortion because it was what the audience seemed most interested in discussing.

Here, I'll let Ron Paul himself say it. The whole video's good, but if you want to just focus on his views on abortion, skip towards the end, about 9:40

What's really astonishing to me is that people think Ron Paul actually has a chance of being elected.

Yes, you did. What did you think I was talking about?

The main problem here, which you don't seem to understand at all, is that the constitutionality of abortion laws is very hotly debated by everyone from the base uneducated like you, to constitutional scholars and all the way up to supreme court justices. I fail to see why you think your unsubstantiated opinion should resolve the debate when many credible experts on both sides of the debate would vehemently disagree.

"Conventional medicine has no treatment for your condition. Luckily for you, I'm a quack."

Allow me to quote myself from earlier in this thread:

"Ron Paul's ideas are almost all bad, because he's a libertarian. ... ...because libertarianism has no way of correcting for externalities or any other market failures, it is simultaneously based on an incorrect assumption of rationality in some areas and an incorrect anticipation of altruism in others, it is based on the assumption of long-term stability of the supply of commodities, it is based on the assumption of unbounded economic growth, and every attempt at implementing libertarian policies in the real world has resulted in complete (and ongoing) disaster. [ed: Rogernomics in New Zealand, privatization of crown corporations in Canada, sale of council estates in the UK, the privatization of the water supply in the UK, the privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the US, private healthcare in the US, the waste and excesses of the unregulated early industrial age, and broadly speaking Social Darwinism and eugenics everywhere.]"

Of course, it's your decision whether you want to believe my argument is rational.

What's really astonishing to me is that so many people have read so little about economic history that he is so popular. Ron Paul's ideas aren't new. They're very old, and they're very bad.

Originally posted by Sarn_Cadrill:

Maybe I'm not reading between the lines, but I'm failing to see how the 14th amendment has anything to do with abortion.

See Roe v. Wade.

I agree with Ron Paul on a number of issues & if I were a politician, naturally I'd team up with him on said issues (e.g: Bernie Sanders). However, those same issues are also agreed upon by far more reasonable people on the "left" (they're of course not running). People that wouldn't accuse a woman who had an abortion after being raped of being a 2nd or 3rd degree murderer. People that grasp the concept & have studied the history of the separation of church & state. People that know enough about science to "believe" in Evolution & Global Warming. People that laugh at the idea of returning to the gold standard (e.g: virtually every main-stream economist that isn't an Objectivist). In the end we'll be stuck with a choice between another Anarcho-Capitalist, Obama & a bunch of quirky people that never had a chance (e.g: Green Party, Socialist Party, etc.).

If you guys are such Libertarians, why not put your support behind Lee Wrights, an actual member of said party? Notice how he's pro-choice, like any true Libertarian would be? [/COLOR]

But he doesn't wear the proper tartan pattern. He's clearly no true scotsman!

Perhaps you should expand on the difference between Kenysian and Austrian economics and why you think Austrian economics is so very bad?

ahahaha, you think there are only two schools of economic thought. How adorable!

So... I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the matter because men more educated than I can't come to an agreement? That makes sense.

No, you dismissed an argument based upon your constitution with

"Come on. ... that is so obviously a bastardization of the intention of that Amendment, that I can't believe anyone would use that to support abortion."

There's no rational argument here. An opinion isn't even worth airing if you can't back it up with anything. Lots of legal scholars on both sides can argue the points on this but according to you, you can just "obviously" dismiss it.

A fetus isn't a human. No dex score, no int... really more of a plant than anything else.

-Since constitutional arguments aren't really finding the truth of the matter, let's resort to rules lawyering ^_^

Technically speaking it's just a parasite.

so would that also apply to mothers who dont want to feed their newborns?

(the below part is more towards Sarn)
regardless of what or how anyone thinks of abortion someone, at some point had to decide where life begins LEGALLY. and thats what matters. otherwise you could have people arguing its ok to kill toddlers or on the other end that masturbation and periods should both be oulawed because they kill potential babys.
if you want to be a society of laws then those laws have to be defined, and everyone is not always going to agree with them. (<<i have a feeling that statement is going to come back and bite me in the butt sometime soon)

You could always put the baby up for adoption.

The central idea behind the thirteenth amendment argument is that the government has no right to dictate in what manner you are responsible for your behavior. From a libertarian perspective, you should see that the opportunity cost of obtaining an abortion is just one possible consequence for your decision to have unprotected sex, so even JM's argument about libertarians making people responsible for their actions is complete nonsense.

I can't say I understand the law well enough to have a good opinion about whether or not this particular argument has merit, but it is clear that abortion law constitutionality is an open question and claiming otherwise shows a disturbing lack of comprehension that's obvious even to foreigners.

I had an amusing thought the other day about the whole notion of the fetus having human rights. So taking the life of the fetus would be illegal.

The amusing part comes in when you really try to push that to its conclusion. Even if the fetus has rights, the fetus is endangering the mother (ANY birth is never safe). For this reason, it is perfectly within the mother's right to do whatever she can to protect herself: self-defense. Hell, even the Catholic Church allows the use of abortions to save a mother's life (with of course, a silly restriction that the mother be in grave danger). Broaden the clause to allow abortions in general for self-defense, make abortions only paid by insurance/hospitals in the case of life-or-death situations or rape, and move on with our lives.

In regards to the comments above by Alran/Jon`C, giving birth to the child, and failing to immediately put the child up for adoption should be assumed as acceptance of responsibility for the child. Thus, if the mother doesn't want to feed the child, they should do something about it beforehand. Mothers get their choice, and kids don't suffer as much.

And as an aside, I think abortions should only be allowed if the child is too young to survive on its own. Since the line could be hotly debated, I'd propose simply stating a 50% survival rate as determined by a doctor or by studies. Presumably if a mother didn't want the child, they would have had up to 6 months to figure that out (depending on when they discovered it). After that point, abortions should be limited only to life-saving procedures.

Ironically the heartless capitalist side of me is fully in favor of government funded abortions for ANYONE who wants one.