Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Derid


1. Do you agree that Ron Paul is clearly anti-abortion?

Yes.

2. Do you agree that Ron Paul is clearly of Christian faith?

Yes.

3. Do you agree that Ron Paul is anti-abortion stance is based on Christian faith?

No.

4. Do you agree that Ron Paul acted via legislature and voting on his anti-abortion stance?

No.

5. Do you agree that control over your own body is a fundamental right?

Yes.

6. Do you agree that women should have control over their bodies?

Yes.

7. Do you agree that denying any right to any specific group of people would be considered anti-this-group stance?

Yes.

Generally speaking, I am for first trimester abortions, against third trimester abortions - because a fetus can live outside of a womb at that point... and think second trimester abortions are a grey area.. I am not for banning them, but I would generally encourage anyone I knew who was contemplating an abortion to get it done as soon as possible.


In that case, surprisingly, we only disagree on 3. and 4.

While I was aware of Ron Paul abortion story, I see it more as a justification and make-believe story to protect his present faith-based believes from ridicule. While it is not impossible it would be unlikely to happen. First, there is no public record whatsoever of him participating in something like that. Second, late-term abortion would have been illegal at a time. Third, this story did not surface until fairly well into his political career.

Another issue, even if one to accept this story, it is inconsistent with his complete anti-abortion stance. Ron Paul is 100% anti-abortion, at any stage of this process, save early abortion in cases of rape and incest (and I think that it, but feel free to correct me Derid). His personal experiences are with late-stage abortions, and he doesn't mention reasoning for abortion in his story (maybe it was to save mother's life?).

So I am highly skeptical of his unverified, inconsistent and convoluted justification story, it is much likely that simplest explanation is true - that Ron Paul's faith is responsible for his stance.

4. I don't see how you can see spending as sufficient justification. It still unfairly targets a group - women, and it still in many cases tries to bypass existing laws and functionally (not legislatively) outlaw abortion. Correct procedure would be constitutional amendment, but this is not how Ron Paul is approaching this issue.


It would not have been on record, because he was an intern. He did not perform the procedure, he was simply in the presence. It was something he saw, not something he was part of.

Doubt it if you will, but since Paul is not and has never been in the habit of lying to get votes... I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe him. If he was the type to lie or bend the truth, it would be very easy for him to say consider doing something against Iran for example, and only cut say half the overseas bases... etc.. and would probably at least be the GOP nominee. A little bending, stretching, and/or compromise combined with a couple lies could do his political chances a world of good.. yet he doesnt.

I like Paul because his stances arent come to by political calculation. I do not 100% agree with his stances by any means. But one thing he is not known for, is lying about them to get elected. If someone like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich had come up with the story, I would be inclined to agree with you.

Also, I just do not consider it unfair targeting of any group. I would and do support, as I have made clear many times in the past, limiting all sorts of federal spending.

Now, if a Constitutionally sound State level program for health spending was in place that was meant to take the place of private insurance - and someone wanted to ban any abortion spending from such a plan, I would object to such a move.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)