It's really weird that Ron Paul is Pro-Life

[WhipperSnapper]

If you are not pro-life, then you support legalized murder.

How is killing a 2-day old cell mass murder?

Are you certain that there's even a human-level consciousness--a personality--in a newborn? How did it get there? Is there any evidence that newborn infants are even conscious in the human sense?

What about primates and animals that exhibit signs of intelligence? Is killing a smart chimpanzee murder too? What if the chimpanzee has far more intelligence than a newborn?

Is your opposition to the killing of a 2 day old cell mass based on reason or do you have faith that a magic God-being "breathes" a "soul" into the embryo at fertilization?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Ask any adopted or person whose parents had considered abortion whether they would rather have been dead. If you can find a single person who says they would rather be dead, then I would consider changing my opinion on abortion.

Using that logic, would you argue that birth control is immoral because it prevents potential people from coming into existence? What's the difference between a sperm and egg that haven't fused yet and a 2-day old embryo? Both are potential people and neither could possibly possess a human consciousness or personality.

 

[slayernine]

Murder is one of those things that even a libertarian agrees is a time and place for government intervention.

 

[QuantumPion]

Using that logic, would you argue that birth control is immoral because it prevents potential people from coming into existence? What's the difference between a sperm and egg that haven't fused yet and a 2-day old embryo? Both are potential people and neither could possibly possess a human consciousness or personality.

Possibly. I am personally at odds as to whether BC is immoral or not.

 

[Atreus21]

Are you certain that there's even a human-level consciousness--a personality--in a newborn? How did it get there? Is there any evidence that newborn infants are even conscious in the human sense?

So you're cool with infanticide?

What about primates and animals that exhibit signs of intelligence? Is killing a smart chimpanzee murder too? What if the chimpanzee has far more intelligence than a newborn?

Animals aren't human beings no matter what they do. The entire argument is predicated on the belief that human lives are precious; infinitely so. That statement is really the only part of the argument that invokes God or religion, because secularism and science don't indicate this at all.

Is your opposition to the killing of a 2 day old cell mass based on reason or do you have faith that a magic God-being "breathes" a "soul" into the embryo at fertilization?

It's based on the assumption that if a human being is human at birth, then it's a human being at some point before birth.

 

[momeNt]

Possibly. I am personally at odds as to whether BC is immoral or not.

Hmm, well you perfectly entitled to that opinion. With that opinion though, would you be willing to enact a law outlawing the sale and use of BC? Or do you simply make a moral judgement without seeking to impose on society?

 

[First]

Humans (sans those with genetic abnormalities) have 46 chromosomes. Your sperm only have half that number and are not humans.

A zygote created immediately after conception isn't human either but your (poor) point is noted for further ignoring, lol.

 

[Kadarin]

A zygote created immediately after conception isn't human either but your (poor) point is noted for further ignoring, lol.

Technically... Such a zygote would be human, but it wouldn't be a human being.

 

[micrometers]

Okay, look at it this way.

Libertarians in my experience focus exclusively on tying the hands of government. They tend to almost have a "know-nothing" approach to the issues, instead single-mindedly focusing with a laser-like obsession at preventing the government from doing anything. They are very much black and white in their view of the world.

The best example is the recent anti-SOPA protests, which is largely libertarian.

Libertarians didn't really pay any attention at all to the issue of property rights for content creators, instead dismissing them as "big business" and focusing on the worst possible over-reach by these new government powers.

Or say, fuel-mileage standards. Libertarians are against regulations, but they also tend to be against gas taxes also. THey are against any government action typically, viewing it as a slippery slope towards a totalitarian (the black and white thing again) state.

So Libertarians seem to always err on the side of government restraint. On the issue of abortion, pro-choice is the side of government restraint, and pro-life is the side of government intervention. Yet, Ron Paul favors government intervention.

Then again

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/u...view-of-long-standing.html?src=me&ref=general

pretty much paints a picture of a traditional conservative guy. He's not like a Reason magazine- level libertarian. So I think it's fair to say that Ron Paul isn't really much of a libertarian. He's more of an old-style conservative.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Animals aren't human beings no matter what they do. The entire argument is predicated on the belief that human lives are precious; infinitely so. That statement is really the only part of the argument that invokes God or religion, because secularism and science don't indicate this at all.

Yet Pro-lifers tend to also be the most ardent supporters of the death penalty, and rather hawkish as well. So the statement that "human life is infinitely precious" doesn't actually apply to their beliefs -- they do have values that they hold well over that of human life.


Pro lifers are just idiots. Killing the unborn does not equate to killing the born, just as killing your nation's enemies or hardened criminals does not equate to you killing your neighbor or he you. The only ones making the decisions are humans and we don't have a problem differentiating whether a thing is in a woman's tummy or not. Nobody's going to go to a playground with a machete, whack a few kids, and say, "Whoops, I thought I went through 8 years of college to get a medical degree, opened this place up as a women's reproductive heath clinic, and was performing abortions!."

 

[QuantumPion]

Yet Pro-lifers tend to also be the most ardent supporters of the death penalty, and rather hawkish as well. So the statement that "human life is infinitely precious" doesn't actually apply to their beliefs -- they do have values that they hold well over that of human life.

Sure they do. You are just trying your hardest to ignore their position so you can make up and put down your own straw man instead. There is no moral equivalency between aborting an innocent unborn baby and lawfully executing a vicious sociopathic murderer. Furthermore, the death penalty affirms the value of life. It says that life is so precious, that if you take someone else's life the only way to pay for it is with your own. If the penalty for murder was 1 year in prison with time served and parole, that would demean the value of life.

 

[micrometers]

Sure they do. You are just trying your hardest to ignore their position so you can make up and put down your own straw man instead. There is no moral equivalency between aborting an innocent unborn baby and lawfully executing a vicious sociopathic murderer. Furthermore, the death penalty affirms the value of life. It says that life is so precious, that if you take someone else's life the only way to pay for it is with your own. If the penalty for murder was 1 year in prison with time served and parole, that would demean the value of life.

The thing is, you are injecting nuance into the death penalty.

Pro-lifers are all about absolute positions without regard to nuance. They've been moving recently to banning abortion in all circumstances, even rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother. That is an absolute position that is uncolored by nuance (rape, incest, saving the life of the mother).

So why nuance in one avenue (death penalty) and not the other (abortion)?

Answer is that there is no consistency. They are hypocrites and they mask their theocratic intent. They are religious extremists, put simply, and they seek to impose their religion on everyone.

 

[QuantumPion]

The thing is, you are injecting nuance into the death penalty.

Pro-lifers are all about absolute positions without regard to nuance. They've been moving recently to banning abortion in all circumstances, even rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother. That is an absolute position that is uncolored by nuance (rape, incest, saving the life of the mother).

So why nuance in one avenue (death penalty) and not the other (abortion)?

Answer is that there is no consistency. They are hypocrites and they mask their theocratic intent. They are religious extremists, put simply, and they seek to impose their religion on everyone.

Again, there is no nuance or inconsistency except for the straw man which you attempt to erect. A death row inmate is guilty of heinous crimes. An unborn baby is not. It's as simple as that. Even if that unborn baby was conceived by rape. The baby is not guilty of rape. There is simply no justification for abortion.

Indeed, it is pro-abortion advocates whom use nuances used to try to trick themselves into believing it is not really murder. Such as "well the fetus isn't really alive yet". "Life doesn't really begin at conception". Or "it would be cruel to force the rape victim to bring to term the baby". THOSE are the nuances used to try to justify the immoral action. Not the other way around.

 

[micrometers]

Again, there is no nuance or inconsistency except for the straw man which you attempt to erect. A death row inmate is guilty of heinous crimes. An unborn baby is not. It's as simple as that. Even if that unborn baby was conceived by rape. The baby is not guilty of rape. There is simply no justification for abortion.

Indeed, it is pro-abortion advocates whom use nuances used to try to trick themselves into believing it is not really murder. Such as "well the fetus isn't really alive yet". "Life doesn't really begin at conception". Or "it would be cruel to force the rape victim to bring to term the baby". THOSE are the nuances used to try to justify the immoral action. Not the other way around.

There is enough doubt in death penalty cases that it is likely that a number of innocent men have been executed over the past 30 years or so. It is possible that none have been innocent also. But even so, in an area of ambiguity, why is it that one conclusion is reached?

The rape exception is a glaring loophole that does sort of pierce through even pro-life logic, and I suppose if you want to be consistent you should be against the rape loophole.

And yet people overall support the rape and incest and life of the mother loopholes. That is implicit evidence that people do not consider the fetus to be an important life. I personally believe that a fetus is a part of a woman's body until childbirth, and that abortion regulations make about as much sense as regulations that prohibit amputations of body parts.

 

[Jaskalas]

It is murder.

OTOH it's difficult to legislate morality. Yet we also have laws against most murder. So it's quite stupid for anyone to pin someone down as being pro/anti big government unless you're against all murder charges.

The question is not about government, it's about when we protect life.

 

[micrometers]

Typically a murder involves you invading the space of another person and depriving them of life.

Yet, a fetus/baby is within the mother's own space. Unless you're saying that a woman doesn't have control over her body, which logically is where a restriction on abortion goes.

and on a practical level, a potential life isn't really important. Plus, there is compelling evidence that legalized abortion has reduced the crime rate which is of upmost importance to me.

 

[Atreus21]

Yet Pro-lifers tend to also be the most ardent supporters of the death penalty, and rather hawkish as well. So the statement that "human life is infinitely precious" doesn't actually apply to their beliefs -- they do have values that they hold well over that of human life.

Yes, they believe that criminals who meet sufficient criteria of being monsters lose their right to life.

To that extent they shouldn't call themselves pro-lifers, just anti-abortion. But to be fair, pro-choicers don't like to be called pro-abortioners.

Pro lifers are just idiots. Killing the unborn does not equate to killing the born, just as killing your nation's enemies or hardened criminals does not equate to you killing your neighbor or he you.

Killing in war or killing a criminal don't even scratch the surface of the gravity of the crime committed when one kills his or her own offspring. We're not just killing innocents. We're not just killing innocent children. We're killing our own innocent children. How anybody with a shred of conscience doesn't recoil at that simple notion is staggering and horrifying.

The only ones making the decisions are humans and we don't have a problem differentiating whether a thing is in a woman's tummy or not. Nobody's going to go to a playground with a machete, whack a few kids, and say, "Whoops, I thought I went through 8 years of college to get a medical degree, opened this place up as a women's reproductive heath clinic, and was performing abortions!."

I don't understand your point.

 

[Genx87]

Because being Pro-Life is very much intrusive government.

Paul's libertarianism takes him to places that challenge the drug war and interventionist foreign policy. Good for him.

But given general libertarian opposition to regulations and rules, you would think that pro-choice would be natural for him.

I think it's either

1. really evidence that Paul is equally an old-fashioned traditional conservative

2. the power of the pro-life lobby in the Republican party that being remotely pro-choice is an automatic disqualifier.

If he decides that a fetus becomes a human at conception why is that against his views? Dont humans have legal rights in this country to not be killed by another human?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

So you're cool with infanticide?



Animals aren't human beings no matter what they do. The entire argument is predicated on the belief that human lives are precious; infinitely so. That statement is really the only part of the argument that invokes God or religion, because secularism and science don't indicate this at all.



It's based on the assumption that if a human being is human at birth, then it's a human being at some point before birth.

IF you are going to make a root cause argument then by your definition sperm is human too.


See I think pro-lifers get all twisted up in their logic because what they are really trying to argue is potential and the various measurements of it. Sperm has a very low potential of becoming a fully formed human, yet given the right circumstances it can.

Same for a zygote, which has a higher potential.

THe problem is if you start making the "potential" argument then you have to define a level where it makes no sense to say your are terminating a human "life". And that destroys the whole no abortions at any cost argument.

Note: God performs abortions every day.

 

[SilthDraeth]

That's the problem with being a Christian Libertarian. You have end up believing in many crazy religious beliefs that require the government's intrusion into people's private lives but at the same time claim to profess a belief in liberty.

Libertarians aren't against government intervention in private lives. Since libertarians believe government should defend liberties. So if a libertarian believes killing your children is wrong, then government should intervene. Same would apply to abortion, if they believe it to be wrong, and believe life starts at conception, it would hold logically that they would be for protecting the rights of the unborn child.

 

[Atreus21]

IF you are going to make a root cause argument then by your definition sperm is human too.

No it isn't. A sperm cell is potentially a human being. A fertilized egg is a human being at the earliest stage of development.

See I think pro-lifers get all twisted up in their logic because what they are really trying to argue is potential and the various measurements of it. Sperm has a very low potential of becoming a fully formed human, yet given the right circumstances it can.

Same for a zygote, which has a higher potential.

That's where we disagree. Sperm is truly a potential human being.

A zygote, barring any external hindrance to its development, will eventually mature into a fetus, and then an infant, and then an adult. A zygote is to an infant as a toddler is to an adult. Differences in development, not species.

Note: God performs abortions every day.

If that is true, then only God should have that right.

 

[micrometers]

Even if a fetus is a human life it is also an infringement on a woman's right to her own body, which really is the most basic of rights, in prohibiting her from obtaining an abortion. In any case, I don't see why Pro-lifers are so obsessed with using the hand of government. Can't they be satisfied with simple advertising campaigns? Why do they have to mess with electoral politics?

 

[Mursilis]

Even if a fetus is a human life it is also an infringement on a woman's right to her own body, which really is the most basic of rights, in prohibiting her from obtaining an abortion. In any case, I don't see why Pro-lifers are so obsessed with using the hand of government. Can't they be satisfied with simple advertising campaigns? Why do they have to mess with electoral politics?

You can't really be this stupid, can you?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

if he had it his way he would personally kill all black babies in the 3rd trimester.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

No it isn't. A sperm cell is potentially a human being. A fertilized egg is a human being at the earliest stage of development.



That's where we disagree. Sperm is truly a potential human being.

A zygote, barring any external hindrance to its development, will eventually mature into a fetus, and then an infant, and then an adult. A zygote is to an infant as a toddler is to an adult. Differences in development, not species.

Actually a surprisingly high number of pregnancies end in miscarriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage

A fertilized egg is still only a potential human being.

If that is true, then only God should have that right.

Is that in the Constitution?