Protect All Human Life




The heated debate about abortion is filled with emotional arguments that usually center on considerations such as sexual morality, religious beliefs, women’s rights, or purely on pragmatic reasons: if abortion were made illegal it would still take place – under unsanitary conditions that would endanger additional lives.

However, a rational evaluation of abortion must be built upon one single question: When exactly does human life begin? At conception, at birth or somewhere in between?

Not even the most radical feminist would find it okay to tear apart a recently-born baby just because it is not wanted by its mother. All other considerations aside, the only reason many individuals can support abortion with a good conscience is because they believe it’s not murder… and that unborn babies do not count as human beings.

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 medical 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 woman 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 feel very strongly about the issue of abortion, and once they make up their minds they rarely change their opinion. If you are undecided and/or open-minded, check out this page and this site for more information about abortion, including images and a description of medical procedures.



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

Likes(5)Dislikes(1)

8,340 Comments:

  1. Pingback: exchange student

  2. Pingback: dragonherbs

  3. Pingback: book of sex online

  4. Pingback: remote starter installation

  5. Pingback: scope night

  6. Pingback: rosemountainherbs

  7. Pingback: Stanek weekend question: Does Ron Paul’s position that abortion is a state (not federal) issue matter? - Jill Stanek

  8. Pingback: Liebeskummer

  9. Pingback: leisureinafghanistan

  10. I love the new ad and it should appeal to the Republican base... This might make some conservatives think about Paul who otherwise wouldn't have considered him.

    http://www.whatthehellbook.com/the-book/

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Pingback: my site

  12. if its ok for a poor person to get rid of their child just because they cant afford it then it should be ok for us to get rid of the poor people on welfare because we cant afford them and why stop there, lets get rid of the old people on medicare. lets get rid of all the mentally challenged and the sick and the week. anyone could make an argument to get rid of any of these groups of people. this is the slippery slope dr. ron paul talks about.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @livefreeordie I thought poor people needed to have as many children as possible...I mean thats the argument against poor people is that there just out humpin so they can get another dependant. Make up yer mind on which and stick with it or you just end up sounding ignorant

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @livefreeordie fantastic point! Someone who gets an abortion because they are too poor will almost certainly get another abortion and are a bigger drain on society than their baby ever would be. It would be much cheaper to, humanely, end their life. [these people are ridiculous]

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Pingback: psoriase tratamento

  14. Pingback: grelhadores

  15. Pingback: Serwery dedykowane

  16. Yeah, this is the one issue that I do not agree with him on. But I'm willing to overlook this issue, because it seems to me it's not his main priority. His priorities include auditing the Fed, securing our borders, and ending our role as global police. And tho he is pro-life, he is a moderate, and supports the states ability to decide for themselves what they want to do regarding such a procedure. That leaves the doors open for a bit of personal choice here. :)

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Kurisuti And more and more states are making it difficult for women to get abortions. Just as states that will not recognize same-sex marriage "We don't want your kind here."

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @choiceislife To an extent, that is true, but there will always be some place in the USA where you can legally get one. The fact that this issue is so controversial, proves that. I believe there are just as many supporters for pro-choice as there are for pro-life.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Kurisuti Which makes it even more difficult for women to get abortions. Not all can hop the bus and take a trip across "county" to get a medical procedure done. And the longer she has to wait the greater the possibilities from complications may arise. Abortion after the first trimester is available at fewer than half the locations that offer first trimester services.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • No one has a right to kill their child. The fact that the child can't protest or defend themselves doesn't justify it. Get over it. In life there are certain scenarios which are incredibly harsh. These scenarios don't create loop holes where we can infringe the rights of others. Our focus should be to reduce the scenarios from happening in the first place and helping the people in these situations as much as possible. Its as simple as the old platitude: Two wrongs don't make a right.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @choiceislife@Kurisuti It would be safer to simply allow the mother to have the fetus full term and then just leave them exposed. Cheaper and safer for the poor mother who had no choice in the matter...

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Pingback: motion sensor camera

  18. freedom of decision

    I am going to bet that many of the same people who say abortion is wrong will also complain about welfare. It is more likely that a poor woman will have an abortion for the very reason of not being able to afford another child. If they keep their children and then need state assistence everyone would complain they are on it. It is so easy for one to say.. adoption. Adoption is great but many women after carrying the baby will not be able to give up that child and will end up keeping it.Not everyone can carry a baby and still conduct their lives normally. Many young people are irresponsible and careless with birth control and sex. Then lets not forget the many drug addicts we have roaming the streets in this country. They are not going to stop doing drugs b/c they are pregnant. They are not going to stop any of their negative lifestyle for a pregnancy. We already have many children born to drug addicts who have multiple problems physicall and emotionally as a result living in foster homes. Get real. Pro lifers should spend more of their time helping all of the unwanted needy children that are alive and alone then on this subject. Untill all of them are foster parents and helping children born to drug addicts, I don't want to hear their lectures/opinions about life.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @freedom of decision They have been complaining about welfare recipients. They must be fans of talk radio and Faux-news. Some of those folks here even call themselves lovers of bible- Jesus. I guess bible-Jesus was some kind of bigot, too.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @freedom of decision There are pregnant crack users out there so the solution is: kill their child. How is this justifiable? Even if the child has defects it isn't right to kill him or her. There's plenty of people to adopt children from mothers unable to support them.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • freedom of decision

        @mikebgood

        I think that a crack head should be able to make the decision for herself. Most likely the crackhead woon't end up going through with the adoption. If she deceides to end an unwanted pregnancy and abort a "fetus", then that is her choice, Ya, I would rather her have an abortion that give birth to a crack baby who will further strain the system and have a host of disabilities. Where are these so called people willing to adopt?? We already have thousands of crack babies in the US right now with no families, and no one to adopt them. You can pretend that this world is more than it is, but I live in reality. I don't JUDGE other people for their decisions, nor do I force my beleifs on them. That would be arrogant and ignorant. There are tons of unwanted kids, go take care of them, since they are already here. Also remember not everyone has the same religious beliefs and convictions as yourself, and many people do not care to have your dogma shoved down our throats.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @freedom of decision It's ironic that you tell me what you would rather have happen, tell me not to judge, tell me not to force my beliefs on others and not to shove my dogma down others' throats, yet it is your belief system which would impose the greatest infraction of rights because without life what other rights can be expressed? I am of the belief that there are certain inalienable rights.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • freedom of decision

          @mikebgood

          my belief system... what is not ironic is that your reply makes absolutly no sense, but why should that surprise me considering..... (stop replying to me. i have no more words for you and I will delete and send your replies in my email to spam.)

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • freedom of decision

          @mikebgood

          my belief system... what is not ironic is that your reply makes absolutly no sense, but why should that surprise me considering..... (stop replying to me. i have no more words for you and I will delete and send your replies in my email to spam.)

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @freedom of decision The irony is that you accused me of imposing my will on others when this is in fact your position. I am for the defense of rights while you feel rights of others can be infringed when it is causes the least ostensible pain or controversy. Does this explanation make sense to you?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • 6f182bbe4ae497054b7aa7df4ea749

          Yeah.... because she made so many other smart, reasoned decisions? lol.

          I'm not pro-life, I just think you pro-abortion people need to get a coherent argument, or just admit that you're ok with killing one person in order to cause less inconvenience to another. That, in 99% of cases, is what abortion is about.

          @freedom of decision@mikebgood

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @6f182bbe4ae497054b7aa7df4ea749@freedom of decision So you hold the position of being okay with death for the child in exchange for greater convenience for the mother?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • nah your just stupid. if you cant sit across the table and hear all sides of a story, then don't tell you side. your's is the ignorance.

          " I don't JUDGE other people for their decisions, nor do I force my beleifs on them."

          yes you do.

          you judge people who's beliefs are different. you've painted them as harassers who shout words of hate at you. you mustve had a bad experience with someone. the point is made " without life what other rights can be expressed"

          if you hinder someones life, if you dont allow them to be born and to make what they want outta that life, you are the fascist, the dictator the tyrant. if that child is so destroyed about the chance he got that millions of aborted didnt, then he makes the personal decision of suicide. not my business if someone kills himself. how can i stop that? but i WILL NOT pay ppl to kill their children for convenience sake.

          your rebuttal? or do you not know you case well enough to defend it?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @mikebgood@freedom of decision Get serious. Just HOW many crack babies are getting adopted?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @freedom of decision So women can stop themselves from having sex, then they can stop themselves from giving up their child when they can't support them, so that's why we should allow people to be killed? I don't understand how that's ethical? I'd prefer a system that provides for adoption if she doesn't wish to keep the child, and criminal prosecution for people who don't provide for the children they choose to make & keep. Cheaper to throw them in prison than to provide for their serial children.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Paul, in the homestretch, is now going to cater to the social conservatives who share little if any of his constitutionalist / libertarian veiws. His new ad is all about abortion. An issue that should be between a woman and her doctor, period.

    Please don't make me regret sending you my $25. There are much more important issues to concentrate on without catering to the neanderthals in the GOP.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @masopotamia There is nothing more central to Libertarianism than human rights. Protection of life is the first, and therefore most important, human right.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • 6f182bbe4ae497054b7aa7df4ea749

        @mikebgood@masopotamia "Human" is a value judgement; whether a fetus is "human" depends on how you value it.

        The problem with the argument on both sides of this debate is that it is dishonest, because it pretends that the debate is about what you can do with a human, instead of whether a fetus IS a human.

        Is a sperm a human? Is a fertilized egg, not yet attached to the wall of the uterus and likely to be flushed out of the body by natural processes, a human? Is an ectopic pregnancy a human?

        The reason this should be left to the states - or ideally, even smaller governmental units - is because no one has a satisfactory answer to these questions; and I should not have to live the consequences and ramifications of YOUR unsatisfactory answer, nor you with mine.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @6f182bbe4ae497054b7aa7df4ea749@masopotamia A human is one with the genetic material of a human. In light of that, where I diverge with you is your underlying premise that we can choose the fate of another human as if it is up to us. The one and only exception I have for this is an ectopic pregnancy in which non-intervention would cause death to both mother and child.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • @6f182bbe4ae497054b7aa7df4ea749@mikebgood@masopotamia I prefer to make a legal definition of "life" and to push it down as far as can be sure. For example, someone with no heartbeat and no brainwaves is considered dead and medically (thus legally) dead. In the same way, at about 6-weeks a medical professional should, upon the detection of heartbeat (and in cases of question, brainwaves), declare "life." I don't understand how this is so difficult. Someone must be pronounced dead, and we no longer use the antiquated standard set with perceived breath on mirrors or sticking them with pins, let's stop using the antiquated standard of "birth." I think this would resolve about 90% of the controversy (until our standards get more precise once again).

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • 6f182bbe4ae497054b7aa7df4ea749

      @masopotamia Chill. This is like Lincoln stumping for slavery in the South. While Ron Paul is "for life", he is not "pro-life", and there is a big difference.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @masopotamia If a woman builds a successful company as the CEO, should the CFO be able to sell the company and keep all the money without letting anyone else know? Women don't make babies alone... and the child should have a say.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. Pingback: collection articles for debt recovery

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


7 + nine =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>