Abortion
The conflict between pro-choice and pro-life proponents begins with a definition. When exactly does human life begin? At conception, at birth or somewhere in between? Until what point can a woman’s right to control her body override her unborn baby’s right to live?
Ron Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He believes that human life starts at conception, and that casual elimination of the unborn leads to a careless attitude towards all life.
Recalling his personal observation of a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his residency, Ron Paul stated, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”
In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:
“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”
During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?” Additionally, Ron Paul said that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is “an act of aggression” against a fetus.
At the GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate on Sep 17, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what he will do to restore legal protection to the unborn:
“As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.”
At the GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida, on Nov 28, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what a women would be charged with if abortion becomes illegal and she obtains an abortion anyway:
“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”
For many years, Ron Paul has been speaking up for babies’ rights. He passionately defends those who cannot speak for themselves because they haven’t been born yet.
In order to “offset the effects of Roe v. Wade”, Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a “barbaric procedure”.
At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion.
Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.
Many people do not know, and do not want to know, how abortion works. But those who kill their unborn babies should at least realize what they are doing and how the procedure is performed. For more information, including images and a description of medical procedures, check out this page and this site.
Print This Page
Sadly, now Ron Paul may have lost me. I like his ideas for fiscal responsibility and small government, but small government means it should stay the hell out of people’s lives. Make sure they’re not putting toxic waste in my toothpaste and shut the lights before you leave.
If Ron Paul doesn’t like abortion, Ron Paul doesn’t have to have an abortion.
On the other hand, this could be taken entirely out of context and Ron Paul supports the right to choose but simply doesn’t agree with it for himself. Fingers crossed for out of context.
[Reply]
andrew replies:
November 13th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
How did he lose you? He gave his personal opinion on the matter, then, ended it by saying it is a state issue and should be decided by the state.
Smaller Federal Government leaves more up to the State. Which is the way it should be.
[Reply]
X Ron replies:
November 13th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Andrew, that unfortunately is known as a “Cop-out” on his part. If we left it up to state’s rights there’s a great chance that there would be slavery in the south and as we’ve seen in California, no rights for homosexuals either. Tell Ron to strap on a set of balls and say that no gov’t has the right to ever vote on civil rights.
Then we can talk.
[Reply]
andrew replies:
November 13th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Wrong.
What got us into this mess we call our Government is a President and many politicians pushing their personal beliefs on the rest of us.
You said: “…but small government means it should stay the hell out of people’s lives”
My point exactly. All he is supporting is Americans are more than capable of making their own decisions. We have the power to decide what is best for us.
You also said “…If Ron Paul doesn’t like abortion, Ron Paul doesn’t have to have an abortion. ”
No kidding he doesn’t need to have an abortion. He won’t because its against his beliefs. So why would he not allow us to make OUR own decisions based on our own beliefs? Leave it up to the State, which should represent whatever the majority of that State feels on whatever matter comes up. If you don’t like what your state decides, then move to another.
I’m Pro-choice. Am I going to become an “x Ron” such as yourself? No. Because I respect him for having his own beliefs and not having to feel like he needs to push his beliefs on the rest of us.
[Reply]
X Ron replies:
November 14th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Andrew, I respectfully disagree with you. The Liberatarian ideals which got Ron Paul noticed center around the idea of legislating civil liberties which by their nature are personal. In essence it represents to me the most highly evolved form of government. The rights of the individual stop at the end of one’s fist and begin at the start of another’s nose. It would do us an enormous service as a nation to have someone who is an “unconventional candidate” such as RP to stress this form of personal responsibility. This is what I mean by taking a stand and it does not increase the size of government. On the other side of the slippery slope, I cannot agree with Texas voting in creationism and voting out evolution and I see this as an an even greater crime against the unborn than abortion; being deprived of exposure to science and modern wisdom, (okay, dramatic license taken here). It’s not all cut and dried and the states, ie. Alabama, Texas, Kansas, have shown they lack the ability to make these decisions maturely. I think Ron Paul comes very close but while he’s got the time to continue gathering the base, standing on the platform of passing on every major decision to the states is not the only answer.
John P. Petroski replies:
November 14th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Slavery in the South?
Please go and read the Constitution front to back before you come back here. It will make having a civil discussion much easier.
If Ron Paul “had the balls” to say that “No government has the right to interfere with civil rights,” then Ron Paul would be a very brave man who completely turned his back on his principle of reading and abiding by the Constitution.
If you want him to say that, you go get an amendment passed. Then he’ll say that.
[Reply]
Sean O'Donnell replies:
November 14th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Suggesting Ron Paul strap on a set of balls is quite an uninformed statement.
Just because Ron Paul strongly denounces abortion does not mean he should immediately jump on the federal prohibition bandwagon. If the Constitution doesn’t allow it, then the states take it and rule on it.
I think it takes balls to refrain from the popular leaning towards inappropriate federal government.
[Reply]
X Ron replies:
November 14th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I still respectfully disagree. I am Jewish and by shear numbers we will always be a minority. Right now for the homosexuals in CA, their minority status is being borne out in the worst way. As we’ve seen, the larger voting block, especially at the state level, does not necessarily side with upholding the civil liberties I still think Ron Paul wants upheld. I’ve known that might has not made right for a long time. While enlightenment comes slowly, some states must be brought in the modern age even if they come kicking and screaming.
My point is that in addition to his fiscal responsibility which I applaud, there must be a commitment to social change as well and I think sometimes this need to come from the top down.
Steve replies:
November 14th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
If you believe that life begins at conception, then you cannot support abortion because you cannot support policies that allow for one human being to kill another living human being, even if that is their own child and even if that child is not yet a functioning member of society. Abortion is a human rights issue, not a woman’s rights issue.
Ron Paul has seen abortion happen. He’s seen a baby cut out of its mother and placed in a bucket in the corner of a room and left to die as it struggled to breath.
[Reply]
concerned.citizen replies:
November 17th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I completely agree with you that abortion, as it is implemented today, is a human rights issue, more specifically a right to life issue, as opposed to a woman’s rights issue.
When a woman is pregnant (I’ve carried 3 sons to term, and had 1 miscarriage), traditionally 3 lives are involved–hers, his and the baby’s. The argument about a woman’s right to choose during a pregnancy fails to recognize the rights of the others involved. A woman has a right to choose abstinence or contraception. Should she become pregnant, she and the involved father should decide whether to keep the baby or to give the baby up for adoption (I say involved, because men that choose not to concern themselves with the well-being of the woman they impregnated, or the baby on the way do not care one way or the other, and therefore, leave it up to the woman’s sole discretion to make the decision to raise the baby or give the baby up for adoption). Terminating a life that is not your own, although that life is growing inside of you, is a choice which, ethically, should only be made if the pregnancy would result in the death of the mother or both the mom and baby (i.e.-ectopic pregnancy: pregnancy where the egg lodges itself in the fallopian tube, rather than the uterus, and other similar life-threatening circumstances.)
We have grown so calloused as a society. Abortion is no longer used as a life-saving mechanism for women undergoing life-threatening pregnancies, but as a procedure of convenience. We need to take responsibility for our actions. We all understand how it works–if a man and woman have sex, the woman could get pregnant. Some may take precautions. If precautions fail, we make reasonable choices–love the baby or provide a loving home for the baby through adoption. Terminating the baby’s life when, again, the life of the mother or both mom and baby would not end in death, is rarely a choice that should be made without resulting criminal consequences.
[Reply]
mhopp replies:
December 5th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Concerned citizen, you hit it right on the head…this is NOT a women’s rights issue but a HUMAN rights issue and a right of a person who can not defend themselves. There is no issue with when life begins…it’s at conception, by the time a woman finds out she is pregnant (at four weeks post-conception) the baby has a two chamber heart…there is no other issue.
With our aging population and not enough people paying into the medicare and social security system (hence the 50 mil+ babies who were killed) we are heading toward another convenience in the near future…let the old folks die (aka euthanasia).
If you (all of you) don’t think that the abortion issue is key…think again. It is at the core of every economic, educational and social issue we have in this country and has allowed a callus society to develop. We have to import people to make up for the killed babies that would have taken the jobs…thereby creating another issue of Immigration, yes we are creating more problems…and looking to the government to solve them. I could go on and on.
We live in a society of cliches such as: “Guilt Free Living”, “Worry Free Living”, “What’s most convenient” and most of all it’s all about “ME” mentality. Need I say more?
[Reply]
Cynthia replies:
December 21st, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I like what you say.
[Reply]
Jonathan replies:
November 17th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
The abortion issue can be boiled down to this:
The pro-choice movement only serves to free people from the consequences of their own actions. A woman has a choice. She can choose to have sex or not to have sex. She has the choice to use birth control. But she also knows that if she chooses to have sex, on possible consequence of that action is that she may conceive a child. The abortion merely provides the woman the means to avoid being inconvenienced. Let me explain, if a woman who did not intend to become pregnant, finds herself to be pregnant, she has two choices that do not involve abortion. First, she can keep the baby, as inconvenient as it may be. Or second, she can carry the baby to term and give the baby up for adoption. There are plenty of people in this country on waiting lists to adopt newborn babies, so this is definitely a viable choice. The abortion choice only serves to keep the mother from having to carry a baby for nine months, which I am sure is very inconvenient. But, I am not aware of a constitutional right to not be inconvenienced. This issue is a symtom of a greater problem in our society. We seem to want to absolve people of the consequences of their own choices. We have a lot of freedom in this country, of which everyone is aware, but the less popular subject of conversation is the responsibilities that are unalterably tied to those freedoms. You cannot have the freedoms without the responsibilities. When you try, you invariably infringe on the rights of others.
Another thing that I can’t understand from the pro-choicers is the claim that a woman is free to do what she wants with her body. The suggestion is that the fetus is part of her body. I find a slight problem with this idea. Scientifically, are we not taught in high school biology that every cell in a person’s body has the same DNA? The fetus does not have the same DNA as the mother, so how could the fetus be a part of the mother’s body?
[Reply]
concerned.citizen replies:
November 20th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
DNA? Hmmmm. Excellent point! And, as well, could be argued scientifically, since, sadly, morals seem to take a back seat to “almighty” science. Scientific research, or any such endeavor, should be ethically governed, not be the governing authority.
[Reply]
Sean replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
A human beings health and ability to adapt depends on the mother’s level of stress when the child is pregnate. Thats why most kids who are adopted have serious problems. Unwanted child birth can lead to mental illnesses. That is determined by quantum physics, the grandaddy of science.
[Reply]
Sean replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:31 am
Only 5% of our population should have to face diseases. Stress prevents the growth of cells in our body. We start to deteriate at a mircoscopic level from stress. The more we stress, the more acceptable we become to disease. So when a mother stresses about an unwanted child and prevents that baby to become mentaly stable, it is an act of abomination.
[Reply]
Jonathan replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:45 am
I will let Sean’s ridiculous comments speak for themselves.
[Reply]
Sean replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 am
What do you know about quantum mechanics jonathan??
Jonathan replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 am
I know what quantum mechanics is, and I know what it is not. I know it has nothing to do with the psychological health of a child. If you want to talk about wave particle duality or Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, I imagine there are forums that would be more appropriate. You can’t just throw out references to complex concepts in theoretical physics to explain a psychological condition and not explain the connection thoroughly. When you do, it gives the appearance that you are merely making these references to add weight to your poorly thought out conclusions. You can’t use quantum physics to prove that all adopted babies will have psychological issues.
Sean replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:43 am
Whenever you stress or fear, the pituitary gland makes hormones squeeze the blood from your head and viscera sending it to the bones and muscles of your arms and legs stunting growth. This is why people can’t think when they fear and why the millitary uses fear tactics in training. So soldiers can think clearer..
Sean replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Quantum mechanics proves that cells react to perception and not DNA. All diseases start out as bacteria that is already in our body. When we stress it stunts our growth giving the bacteria more control to take over.. Is that thorough enough?
Sean replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
This is why energy healing is more effective than conventional medicine and has become the backbone to all religions.(praying, meditating, etc.) This is now being used in the medical field, using frequency waves that match the host to destroy it like a tong destroying a wine glass. It is a potential cure for cancer.
Jonathan replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
While these bodily reactions are true, stress does weaken the immune system, there are some problems with your analysis. First, quantum physics is not related to any of this. Second,you are basically saying that death is superior to being in any stressful situation. So adopted children will have psychological problems that are unavoidable due to the stress of being adopted, so really it is merciful to abort them? Is that what you are really saying? And all this is based on your knowledge of quantum physics and how you claim it somehow relates to biology? Wow. That is such a convoluted and poorly constructed argument that I am actually amazed.
Sean replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
First, quantum physics proves that cells are controlled by perception and not genes, so DNA doesn’t predetermine our life. That shows us that our thoughts control our health. I can break down the gene structure and functions if you would like. That was the whole point of this discussion so I think it does relate. Second, your body reproduces trillions of cells a day. The more you stress the less it reproduces the more your body deteriates. This is why people age when they stress. They stress so much that they lose cells making bacteria easier to form into disease. Third, I never said that I was for or against abortion.. I do think letting a child become a high risk to disease and slow painful death is not moral.
Sean replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
“Some scientists now believe that the effect of the life in the womb on emotional and physical health may be greater than that of the genes we inherit. The conditions in the uterus, ranging from mother’s hormones to the nutrients supplied through the placenta, may significantly determine how a baby’s liver, heart, kidneys, brain and mind will function during the adulthood.” - Vijai P. Sharma, Ph.D
“The babies of these mothers are exposed to a variety of stress hormones, toxins and malnutrition inside the womb. Some of these babies will continue to live in the same or often worse noxious environment.” - Vijai P. Sharma, Ph.D
Sean replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“How women deal with stress during pregnancy and after giving birth is strongly associated with fetal and infant development, according to data presented at APA’s 1999 Annual Convention, Aug. 19 - 24 in Boston.” -Beth Azar
“In particular, stress and anxiety during pregnancy is associated with low birth weight and early delivery, said Christine Dunkel-Schetter, PhD, of the University of California-Los Angeles.” -Beth Azar
“One main finding has been that women under high stress during pregnancy are as much as four times more likely to deliver their babies prematurely than women who experience little stress.” -Beth Azar
“Premature infants are at greater risk for short and long term complications, including disabilities and impediments in growth and mental development.” - Wiki
Jonathan replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
You are presenting new age religous beliefs as science. This has nothing to do with quantum physics. The point is you can’t see the future of these babies, so you don’t know how their lives will go. You can’t assume they will have a bad life. Should we stop educating people because studying and taking tests is stressful? Stress is a part of life that can never be removed, and if it were, we would have to give up the things that make life worth living.
Sean replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Who do you think came up with the idea of meditation and prayer? Early scientists known as philosophers. Here are some quotes that explain how religious beliefs have to do with quantum physics… It takes years of stress to harm someone, so don’t let all this stress you out too much. Although you can be scared to death from this very reason… Anyways, the point is, we have a higher rate of mental illnesses bc of unwanted stressful births and if we abolish abortion, than we would have a much higher percentage of diseased and mentally challanged people.
“Quantum Physics and Energy Healing-
A simplified and functional description of quantum physics reveals that everything is made of energy and all apparent and observable realities are simply created by thoughts that are “molding and holding” that energy in place. In quantum physics, all of the infinite possibilities and probabilities exist within our reach and it is the observer that creates the reality they see. Like an artist painting on canvas, we choose our colors and images and “paint” the life in front of us with our thoughts and beliefs.” - Lisa Lewis
“We all have storage centers in our bodies that store Energy and Energy patterns. They are called Chakras. We can have Energy Patterns stored from events that happened yesterday as well as from many years ago. Some of these patterns will be happy memories and some of them will be unpleasant and painful memories of something that happened to us. Sometimes we stash them away deep into some recess in our Chakras and in our Auras (the Energy field around us), and try to forget about them, but they don’t really go away. Dis-ease is a manifestation of unbalanced Energy. Healing, then is a way of balancing Energy.- Phylameana lila Desy
“Chakras are an ancient Hindu concept, from a Sanskrit word used to describe seven centers of energy — or more accurately, focus — in the human body” - J.M. Berger
Jonathan replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
That is an unproven religous belief, not science. And again it merely uses quantum physics as a buzz word to lend credibility to it. There is no science involved. Also, you are saying that if we outlawed abortion we would have more people with psychological problems; therefore we should continue abortion, but there are two problems with this strategy. First, you can’t prove that because you can’t see the future. Second, you wouldn’t advocate executing everyone living today who has mental problems would you? So your logic is, as long as you kill them before they are born, it’s in society’s interest, but after they are born it is wrong. You don’t kill someone because you think they could grow up and have a mental illness. Especially on sucha flimsy premise.
Sean replies:
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Quantum Physics is the science of atoms and energy. Its what holds shape to matter, our planet has an electro magnetic field. A field of energy that makes everything what it is. I really could sit here and explain the science of energy , how it gives and recieves information, but you really have to study it to understand. Ex. Radiology and Telivison.. There is a science to how this contributes to energy healing and can even trace back the electromagnetic field to the big bang. So yes, scientists can prove energy healing through scientific knowldege. You’ve just been stuck on materialism and reductionism, the common knowledge, just like everyone else. You just don’t understand… And your trying to get into an unsolved debate about whats right and wrong when I was just presenting the facts. This lil “debate” is just going to keep going in circles between what you actually know and what you actually believe is right. Maybe if you got outside your lil bubble, you would you understand what I am saying and what I have been taught. Till then, have a good day and a wonderfull Christmas.
Meetra replies:
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Jonathan,you are right. If stress caused such catastrophic consequences life would be impossible past the age 7. My uncle is a rape baby, my Grandmother was stressed beyond belief…he is a perfectly normal individual; free of mental illness and any other debilitating conditions…….. did quantum physics miss him or something?
Sean, what are you smoking? Because you clearly don’t live in the world everyone else does.
Sean replies:
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6568107389365915765
This is a link to a cloning scientist who deconstructs cells. Check it out…
I actually got this at the Rally for the Republic in Minneapolis and then read his book. I guess I do live in a world beyond common knowledge.
[Reply]
Jonathan Bullard replies:
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
This guy is a complete quack who knows nothing about physics. Might as well be selling snake oil.
[Reply]
Sean replies:
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Your stupid. This man clones cells for a living. Your the one selling snake oil just to make ends meet.
Sean replies:
December 23rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
“Dr. Bruce Lipton is an internationally recognized authority in bridging science and spirit. He has been a guest speaker on dozens of TV and radio shows, as well as keynote presenter for national conferences.
Dr. Lipton began his scientific career as a cell biologist. He received his Ph.D. Degree from the University of Virginia at Charlottesville before joining the Department of Anatomy at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Medicine in 1973. Dr. Lipton’s research on muscular dystrophy, studies employing cloned human stem cells, focused upon the molecular mechanisms controlling cell behavior. An experimental tissue transplantation technique developed by Dr. Lipton and colleague Dr. Ed Schultz and published in the journal Science was subsequently employed as a novel form of human genetic engineering.
In 1982, Dr. Lipton began examining the principles of quantum physics and how they might be integrated into his understanding of the cell’s information processing systems. He produced breakthrough studies on the cell membrane, which revealed that this outer layer of the cell was an organic homologue of a computer chip, the cell’s equivalent of a brain. His research at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, between 1987 and 1992, revealed that the environment, operating though the membrane, controlled the behavior and physiology of the cell, turning genes on and off. His discoveries, which ran counter to the established scientific view that life is controlled by the genes, presaged one of today’s most important fields of study, the science of epigenetics. Two major scientific publications derived from these studies defined the molecular pathways connecting the mind and body. Many subsequent papers by other researchers have since validated his concepts and ideas.”
ACADEMIC POSITIONS AND FELLOWSHIPS:
1966 National Science Foundation Traineeship, Mt. Lake Biological Station, Univ. of VA.
1968-1971 National Institutes of Health Pre-doctoral Traineeship, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA.
1968 Biological Stain Commission Fellow, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
1972-1973 Department of Health, Education and Welfare Post-doctoral Trainee, Department of
Zoology, University of Texas, Austin, TX. Mentor: Dr. Antone G. Jacobson.
1973-1979 Assistant Professor of Anatomy, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine,
Madison, WI.
1979-1982 Associate Professor of Anatomy, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine,
Madison, WI.
1983-1986 Professor of Anatomy, St. George’s University School of Medicine, University Centre, Grenada (West Indies).
1987-1988 Senior Research Associate, American Health Assistance Foundation Grant (awarded to Dr. Theodore Hollis), Department of Biology, Penn State University, University Park, PA.
1988-1992 Stanford Scholar, Cutaneous Biology Program, Departments of Dermatology and Pathology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA.
1991-1992 Visiting Professor of Anatomy, St. George’s University School of Medicine, University Centre, Grenada. Histology, Cell Biology, and Embryology
1991-1993 Director, Inst. for Cellular Communication, Univ. of the Trees, Boulder Creek, CA.
1993 Visiting Professor of Anatomy, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR. Histology, Cell Biology and Embryology
1994-1997 Adjunct Professor, J. F. Kennedy University, Orinda, CA
1995-1998 Adjunct Professor, Life Chiropractic College West, San Lorenzo, CA
1999-2005 Visiting Faculty, Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, IA
2006-Present Visiting Fellow, New Zealand College of Chiropractic, Auckland, NZ
NON-ACADEMIC POSITIONS:
1979-1984 Founder and President of LASER GROUP, INC., research, development and application of laser projection technology.
TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
1973-1993 Histology-Cell Biology (Univ. of Wisconsin, St. Georges University, UPR, San Juan), for first year medical students and graduate students.
1976-1979 Gross Anatomy for Nurses (University of Wisconsin), participant in team
1991-1992 Medical Embryology (St. George’s University School of Medicine)
1987 Human Physiology-Biology 41 (Penn State University).
1991 Physiology 472 Graduate Level Course (Penn State University)
1994-1997 The Biology of Consciousness (an elective course, JFK Univ.)
1995-2000 Fractal Biology (CEU program for Life Chiropractic College West)
2001-Present Biology of Complementary Medicine (US and Canadian workshops for health professionals, sponsored by Spirit 2000)
Jonathan Bullard replies:
December 23rd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Nice. I’m stupid? So, Dr. Lipton has it all figured out. Genetics is worthless? Holistic medicine an meditation is the answer? That’s science? What does he make of unified string theory? M-theory? Sean, keep your inane rambling to yourself. You probably fall for pyramid schemes, too.
Sean replies:
December 24th, 2008 at 10:39 am
haha, he prob knows more about it than you do. I give him more credit than you. Believe what you want, I’m not trying to internet argue and you havn’t been flexible enough to care to understand this conversation, so it’s worthless. Take care, have a good Christmas.
You are indeed taking this out of context. Unfortunately for Ron Paul’s cause, your mistake is one that is made by many people. It is an honest one, and seeing as how you’ve expressed a hope that you are misinformed, I would like to take the time to educate you.
Ron Paul is strongly pro-life. There is no denying that. As someone who is also strongly pro-life, I cannot believe that his opinion on this will ever change. However, it is vitally important to look at his viewpoint from a larger perspective than simply his personal convictions.
The simplest way to sum it up is that Ron Paul supports a State’s right to choose. He does not believe the Constitution gives the federal government any authority to decree one way or another on the issue. He believes that the Tenth Amendment clearly states this. In other words, he believes that voters in Connecticut have no right to tell voters in Texas whether or not they can outlaw abortion, and vice versa.
Even so, there is the strong possibility that you personally believe that a women’s right to choose is a fundamental human right that should be retained by all women regardless of where they live. You are absolutely free to believe that and to try and convince others to believe that. Indeed, there is a constitutional process for acquiring your interpretation of justice. I am talking, of course, about the amendment process. The Constitution can, and should, at times, be altered. The point, however, is that this should be done via the proper, prescribed, amendment process and not by some judge in an imperial city ruling on a whim and interpreting the Constitution as loosely he/she sees fit.
When you look at Roe v. Wade from that point of view, you find that it is very flimsy indeed. The Fourth Amendment was stretched quite a bit to justify that ruling. Appointing judges who use current public opinion to interpret the Constitution is just as dangerous as appointing judges who use the Bible to interpret it.
As an aside, and speaking entirely for myself, you could indeed convince me to support a constitutional amendment that forbade federal, state, and local governments from outlawing what I do to my own body so long as it does not harm another person. But of course it is that last part of the sentence that I, being pro-life, would take issue with.
Fair enough?
My Regards,
John P. Petroski
[Reply]
X Ron replies:
November 13th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
John I respect your right to never have an abortion. I’ll take it as a given that with regards to incest, spina bifita, mother’s health and other extenuating circumstances your feelings may not be written in stone. Please see my comments above. I still do not like the idea of passing the ability to arbitrate civil rights to any voting body, federal or state. Taking a stand has become anathema to politicians and I’m afraid this is another example of passing the buck.
I have no desire to substitute putting up with idiots on a Federal lever for a local one.
[Reply]
John P. Petroski replies:
November 14th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Honestly, X Ron, the best way to put it might be that I’m “Pro-Mind-My-Own-Business.” I don’t care what you do with your own body so long as I don’t have a personal reason to care. Once MY child is in your body, though, I very much feel like it IS my business. When it comes down to that, I am strongly pro-life.
I’m not sure if you have ever had a child aborted. I have. Although I cannot know what pregnancy is like, women certainly have no way to know what a pro-life father goes through when his child is aborted, either.
If that makes me an idiot, so be it.
[Reply]
concerned.citizen replies:
November 17th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
John,
Firstly, let me applaud you for stating your opposing opinions without insulting X-Ron. Too many online forums result in demeaning those with differing viewpoints, and I appreciate your not subscribing to that practice.
Secondly, I’m sorry for your loss. I’ve carried 3 sons to term and had 1 miscarriage, and can only imagine the desperation and helplessness you and your family experienced in having your rights stripped from you in the name of a woman’s right to choose, and more tragically, the life of your son or daughter that was growing inside of its mother. I’m not saying this to make you feel bitter or hateful, so please don’t go that route, but to emphasize the importance of the role of a dad in the life of a child and the decision to keep and raise that child.
I replied to Steve’s comment (11/14 @ 11:10 pm) about abortion being a human rights issue, as opposed to a woman’s rights issue since 3-lives are traditionally involved–the mom, dad and baby, and it would apply here as well. All 3 need to be considered.
Of course, in cases of rape or incest, the man has committed a criminal act, and by doing so, surrendered his rights as to whether the woman raises the baby or gives the baby up for adoption. His only say is, well, he would have no say, only jail time. But, in your case, you should absolutely have a say. With regard to the baby, no one should have the right to end the life of a baby unless the pregnancy threatens the life of the mom or both the baby and mom. I made mention of that, as well, in my response to Steve’s comment. There could be rare exceptions, but that does not seem to be the circumstance in which you and I’m sure many other men have found yourselves.
I know women who, as teens or young 20-somethings, went ahead with an elective abortion(s) and have found themselves wrestling with a lifelong struggle in overcoming the guilt and pain of their decision(s). Abortion hurts everyone.
[Reply]
After watching the financial future of this country look more gloomy with each passing day I am more convinced than ever that you should have been elected as our next President. Although I disagree with your foreign policy your economic views may be the only hope we have. Obviously throwing more money at the problem is not helping (big surprise). I pray that President-elect Obama reaches out to you before it is too late. Could you please reach out to him and offer your services? Our children and grandchildren will owe their futures to you.
[Reply]
Ron Paul talks about the draft being unconstitutional because it imposes on a person’s civil rights by forcing them to fight even if they don’t want to. The same thing would be done if either federal OR state law made abortion illegal. THe government has no right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do to her body. I personally am again abortion, but I would never legally try to impose my views upon someone else. I think Dr. Paul is being very hypocritical on this issue, since he talks so much about being truly free and that goverment should not interfer in our lives.
[Reply]
John P. Petroski replies:
November 14th, 2008 at 8:27 am
If you were a Texas voter, I suppose you could call him hypocritical. As one from Connecticut, I really can’t do that.
When you have principles, you have to stand up for things, ideas, and people who are not popular, and often many you don’t personally agree with. It is not an easy position to take.
Ron Paul’s policy on abortion is based on the principle of actually reading the Constitution. Incidentally, it is also one that has the ability to upset just about everyone. Yet he doesn’t back down.
I can’t help but love him for that
[Reply]
X Ron replies:
December 5th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
John, while I respect what you are saying, I must take issue with it.
Firstly your presumption that your experiences entitle you to some extra depth regarding human life are self agrandizing and offensive. I have lived a life, probably much like yours and my opinions have been formed by the same rational thought I trust yours have.
Secondly, just like the framers of the Constitution, I admit I am falable, and like most people there are mistakes I’ve made and regrets I have, again probably much like yourself. Who is to decide how and how long we pay for our transgressions? Is it based on how many we hurt? I am sure there are many women who are greatful for the day they were able to choose to end a pregnancy rather than destroy their own life in addition to that of the fetus.
While we can devolve into splitting hairs, suffice it to say that Ron Paul using a late term abortion for the crux of his sentiment does little to address the “morality” of the larger issue; the far more common, rational decision by a women to terminate an unwanted pregnancy through early term abortion. I would wager in this instance, even someone as astute as yourself would have a hard time differentiating between a fertilized egg and carrot cell. I take no issue with the destruction of an amorphous carrot cell.
Lastly your banging of the Constititution drum is getting a little old in that you keep pointing to it’s wisdom regarding human rights when they have consistently been established only after the fact. It is a great document because it admits there is room and necessity for evolution and improvement. Slavery and women’s rights were original failures of the constitution and needed to be fixed by the more enlightened who came later. If left to the states, as you insist, others might have needed to wait until the 1960’s to marry interracially and who know’s what might be going on in Texas? Is this issue much different than the right to marry the person of one’s choosing? The fact that things can be revised, through sometimes innordinately huge efforts by those being wronged, does not speak to the perfection in their original design. Nor will it make those who oppose it now any more right because it isn’t in the Constitution.
And if you do choose to stick to the letter of the law, then by all means, let’s allow the children to have all the rights of citizenship, all they need do according to the constitution is to be born.
I want Ron Paul to take a stand for rational acceptance of human rights based on enlightened thought, not the passing off of the tough decisions to the states because he doesn’t want to offend religious sensibilities. That is what got him to the libertarian party to begin with. All I want is follow through. With all the pain and suffering that exists, isn’t it ironic that some people’s conservative core comes out in defending the unborn as opposed to the living?
[Reply]
If the voters in a certain state believe that a fetus is living person, and therefore is entitled to certain rights (like not being cut into pieces) then IT IS up to the government (according to RP on the state’s level) to defend that person’s rights… Im pro-life, b/c I believe that its better to be inconvenienced (however difficult it may be) for nine months than to kill a human being (there are orphanages and plenty of families who would love to have a healthy child). If a woman gave birth to a baby and a man walked into the room and shot the baby before the umbilical chord was cut, that man would be a murderer. Therefore life must be determined by location right? In, its expendable… out, its a human. The only time i think a woman should “choose” whether or not to let her child live or die, is when there are considerable chances that the woman could die in pregnancy… In essence, i believe that ron paul takes a stance that we should embrace… hes seen first hand… and he completely disagrees… but hes still willing to let voters choose what they believe while keeping the FEDERAL government out of it… Hes one of the LEAST hypocritical politicians you’ll ever encounter…
[Reply]
Can’t we all just…get along?
[Reply]
X-Ron - “I cannot agree with Texas voting in creationism and voting out evolution and I see this as an an even greater crime against the unborn than abortion; being deprived of exposure to science and modern wisdom”
Wow… Being deprived of life is better than being deprived of a theory on origins?
I honestly dont care to much if someone believes Evolution or creation but your statement just blew my mind and not in a good way. Dramatic license and all…
[Reply]
In 200 years there has been much Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution. Roe vs Wade was based upon Griswold vs Connecticut. Griswold vs Connecticut established a definition of the right to privacy. It was an attempt to fill in an apparent hole in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has amended the Constitution from the bench quite a bit.
Whenever the Supreme Court is making up amendments we should be following with a proper means to amend the Constitution. We are in great need to have a Constitution Convention. This should be done on a regular basis as the Supreme Court decides upon issues not defined in the Constitution which seem to be federal issues based upon the penumbra of federal law.
The right to privacy now is partially defined by Roe vs Wade. I desire we establish a new Bill of Rights which includes the right to privacy in regards to ones health and to ones reproduction. We should not continue to leave the amending of our Constitution greatly in the hands of the Supreme Court. This is improper and unconstitutional.
Opponents of abortion may not wish for individuals to have complete control over their own reproduction and make it a matter of the state. Amendment proposals can be made to suppose this idea. Either way, it is not good to have the Supreme Court making up the Constitution from the bench. I agree with Ron Paul that the present situation needs to be corrected one way or the other.
I hope we as liberty lovers recognize the value in having local control over controversial subjects. State control is better than federal control. Individual control is better than state control. The more controversial a subject the better it is to have individuals to have control. We need to strength our Constitution limitation upon government to interfere with decisions which should belong to individuals.
[Reply]
It is not RPs opinion that it be decided by the states. It is the constitution that says it should be decided by the states. It is not the presidents job to voice in on the matter, it is his job to abide by the Constitution.
[Reply]
Holy moley where do I start? First of all this debate over the constitution is pointless. It has been a long time sense ANYONE has followed it. There has to be alot of changes before we can get to that point. And I believe that Ron Paul is a STEP towards that. But arguing over your own perception is a step backwards. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. Abortion is the death of an unborn child. That is a scientific fact. Ron Paul knows that. I know that. And in our society murder is usually frowned upon. But manslaughter varies from state to state. So why in God’s name would abortion be any different? And for people to think that our federal government should to decide such things is silly. That is the whole reason why we have state and federal. Our federal government is barely in control of what they need to be like our foreign policy and money crisis. Why don’t the regulate the federal reserve and leave abortion to choice to the american citizens. And it is a really hard choice to make. Maybe that’s why people want to rely on the federal government. But as a country we need to make our own sound decisions and that starts with the states within our country. And to think that to give our states that right will lead to slavery. Serioulsy? I’m offended by that. I’m pretty sure that our country is not so stupid. And there are people who are struggling with their freedom. But so did slaves and look where they are today. We are a young country and things take time. But anyways the federal government should not get themselves worked up over and spend money and time in things they shouldn’t be involved in. And even thought I do not personally believe in abortion it’s not my right to tell someone who is scared and pregnant what desicions they have to make. And if there should be any prosecution let your state decide. In MN we are not allowed to smoke ANYWHERE and I am a smoker. I am honestly considering moving because my state has laws that I don’t believe in but I still love this country (with some exceptions lol). We are always faced with desicions and controversy so stop complaining and deal with it.
oh and by the way did Texas really rule in creationism over evolution??? WHAT THE F*CK?? that is the biggest joke i’ve heard. I am sorry for the citizens of Texas. really sorry. hopefully you feel bad for me bcuz I can’t smoke where I want to. haha. but seriously. that is messed up. I am honestly blown away. almost speechless. wow. but that is a desicion that Texas made and should be regulated by the state of Texas. atleast the federal gorvernment doesn’t gorven that and the entire country has to live by “creationism”. hahahahahaha
[Reply]
I wonder if it’s not so much an issue of taking civil right from the mother or father but rather taking the life away from an ‘unborn individual’? This article or web page is the 1st I have read of Mr. Paul’s stance for or against abortion. But what I gathered from my 1st read through was that Mr. Paul isn’t so much looking at the issue as an issue of taking away civil liberties from anyone but the topic of abortion poses the question of whether or not abortion is ‘penal code 187′ of an unborn person. I’m sure we can all agree that murder should be punishable by one level or another. Or is punishing a person for murder “taking away civil liberties”?
I’m strongly for Freedom of Civil Liberties…but I don’t think that’s really the issue here. I believe the real issue comes down to whether or not you feel that an unborn person or fetus has the right to life (the same as you or I do) or can someone take away that fetuses heatbeat because they don’t believe they are human and becuase having a baby would be inconvenient to them -personally??
I’m a God fearing man - and I wish God would have been more to the point on this matter! Then maybe I’d be able to see this topic as black and white and not in it’s current shade of Grey. I’m pro-choice but I’d never be able to abort my own unborn child! However, I am very touched by Ron’s point, “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?”.
I believe God Gives and Takes all life -he only allows us to THINK we’re in charge! I beleive that the all-knowing, all-mighty God knows that when he joins a particular egg and sperm that what happens thereafter will NOT turn into an air breathing individual -if abortion is the future plans of the parents. - if our JUST God wants to give that unborn “kid” a special place in heaven becuase he/she didn’t have a fair chance at life, then I consider that kid very blessed!
I’ll end on this note: This world is a very confusing place, us humans make it a very unfair and unjust world for any and every individual. - I pesonally feel that the government, either state or federal, should focus more on other issues (maybe issues more relevant to our founding fathers perceived purposes of government), and try to stay out of Grey area “personal choice” issues like this one. i feel to a certain extent that “emotional” or personal choice or religious issues like abortion or gay rights take focus off other more important issues at hand that our politicians should be focusing on i.e.: taxes, national security, the ecomony, etc.
[Reply]
I believe a lot of people fail to see the point in this article. I’ve noticed that whenever people speak of abortion they fall into two camps: people who see the life that is at stake, and the people who see themselves at stake. Those people who say they have a right to choose should realize that their rights to choose infringe upon another living being’s liberty. Ron Paul’s point was upholding liberty for all. Pro-choice and Pro-abortion only seek the convenience of one, neglecting the liberty of the child in the womb.
People who feel that a human life only begins outside the womb are gravely mistaken. People don’t just pop out of air, they grow, form, and develop, from very basic beginnings. These beginnings are not suddenly detached from the individual that lives post-birth. That being said, if the being that exists outside the womb is the same being that existed inside the womb, then that being has the same rights, namely a right to live, and a right to liberty due their status in life.
This generation feels that they are entitled to many things, worst of all, they feel that they are entitled to convenience. People are losing the value of life, hard work, principles, and liberty. It doesn’t matter if you are religious or not, but these things should matter to everyone. Human life needs a concrete definition in the constitution. That way people would better see how they are legally subjected to preserving the liberty of themselves and others, and no longer feel that in the name of convenience that the liberty of those least able to protect themselves are not infringed upon.
[Reply]
concerned.citizen replies:
November 17th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Matthew Blackmon - 11/14 @ 7:59 pm
Matthew,
That was beautifully written.
CC-
[Reply]
Matthew Blackmon replies:
November 17th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Thank you, and I want to say that there are options for women who find that they are at the end of the line. Several states have laws that state that a newborn can be left at the hospital for couples who can’t provide a good home for it. Also there are more formal adoption procedures that a couple can go through. The main thing is that the life and liberty of the least of the least of us isn’t compromised just because we can’t handle something or want to handle something ourselves.
[Reply]
concerned.citizen replies:
November 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Matthew, that’s right. I forgot about the option to leave the newborn at the hospital, or even the local fire station. I’m sure there are even more options to consider, as well. And, you are correct in promoting the assurance of life and liberty for all, especially for those precious little ones who cannot speak for themselves.
[Reply]
I voted for Ron Paul because he is for life. I agree that conception begins at birth and if we disregard human life in it’s begins, we as a society will disregard the dignity of human life throughtout the natural life span.
[Reply]
Here is a VITAL ISSUE and a Personnal one period.
Let’s never forget and never loose the perspective of why woman
do abort.
I personnaly never encountered a woman jumping for joy about having an abortion, and I dont think we ever will see that occur.
IF WOMAN USE THIS AVENUE ITS BECAUSE THERE IS SIMPLY NO OTHER OPTIONS FOR HER.
The hole system is about making us feel like criminals when the REAL CRIMINALS here is the System it self, for not giving us any other options,resources and proper sexual education.
The MAJOR here, is security of having somthing to give a child a minimum in life; roof, food, and proper care if medical needs are required.
Most woman are poor, and have a Fkn hard time just surving this limited and barbaric system.
Only when the Govt. will secure that MAJOR, only then we will stop fighting this issue all together, PERIOD
It’s alway’s easy to point out the ones that has to make that horrible dicision, just because the ONE on top of us is limiting our choices INTENTIONNALY.
IT IS TIME FOR THE GOVERMENT TO CHANGE! HE, IS THE ONE THAT MAKE US LOOK LIKE THE MONSTER HERE, WHEN THE REAL MONSTER AND CRIMINAL IS THE GOVERMENT ITSELF PERIOD
STOP BLAMING THE VICTIMS OF THIS SYSTEM BLAME IT ON THE REAL OFFENDER, The Box.
Good luck to all in this REVOLLUTION!
From Québec; The Oppressed NATION in Canada.
[Reply]
Matthew Blackmon replies:
November 17th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I’m no so sure about Canada, but in the US there are laws that help people who can’t provide a good home for a child. These laws are a better alternative than eliminating a life that is precious in itself. Women who choose abortion are criminals, just misguided in what they have to do. It is a sacrifice either way a woman chooses since the child is unwanted and/or inconvenient at that point in time. However, choosing to keep the child alive and leaving it for adoption is a better choice because that sacrifice you make is for a truly good cause (the life of one who cannot defend themselves), and not a sacrifice for self-centered reasons (a reason that considers the welfare only inclusive of self, though not necessarily selfishly choosing self).
A lot of people choose to blame the woman for her choice because they look only at the one who lost something, but its clearly not that clear cut. However, its always best to take actions that protect the liberties of others other than one’s self. Women should look past the inconveniences of pregnancy and see that liberty shouldn’t be sacrificed for those reasons.
[Reply]
[...] Abortion [...]
I truly understand your point Mattthew, but… One’s reality may differ from your neibourghs and services is not LOVE.
Iv’e been adopted, and I did work in specialized education for 17 years. I was lucky I have had great parent’s to take good care of my needs and to LOVE me.
Unfortunatly, disfunctionnal people do exist and for that matter the consequences are terrible(I’ve seen it). When a child is placed in these institutions and spend there hole life, in foster homes, and back to the institutions, they become lost, and unwanted, in society; there a mess.
The arsh reality, is you cant replace LOVE in theses institutions. LOVE is one thing that these BOXES cant give you! LOVE has to be there in the first place!
Then, try to console an infant that knows that he is not LOVED, WANTED OR DESIRED IN THE FIRST PLACE, Try it! It will brake your heart!
Many of these kids I’m talking to you about, are dead today,
and that happens more than you can even IMAGINE, just because of an ABSENCE of LOVE. So, that is enought for me to stand for freedom of choice.
…my reflexion is: Maybe they just were’nt meant to be!
Reality is cruel, but most of us just dont want to deal with it, and abortion is one of it!
Look at nature! My cat was to weak to have kitten’s. She did’nt look at me and ask me what to do, what she did is, ate them! That solved it. Yes life is cruel, nature is wild, that is something you and I cant do much…but we can educate, that we can!
Have a great day Matthew!