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.

  • Pingback: Digestive Health Products()

  • Pingback: Trusses()

  • Pingback: diet pills()

  • Pingback: Digitale Optionen()

  • Pingback: School()

  • one4him

    Since this is, after all, a Ron Paul site, let me remind everybody that “President” Paul is for giving the choices back to the states — back to the people. Under his leadership, concerned people (both pro-abortion and pro-life) could get out there in their individual states and let their voices be heard. Originally, it was intended by the writers of our great Constitution that the states should in a sense compete with one another and provide a natural testing ground for new political policies. So WHY NOT let the individual states make up their minds on this issue — why not put it to the test and let pro-abortion societies / protection-of-life societies prove themselves? (Currently, pro-life people don’t seem to be making that much of an impact on our laws anyway — and pro-CHOICE people surely don’t want to force their views on the entire nation!) I don’t see the abortion issue as a reason not to vote for Ron Paul, no matter what stance you take in the discussion.

    I, for one, am “one-for-Ron Paul”!

    • johnmarkharris

      @one4him well, with regard to your “why not” question, because it’s not the state’s right to allow people to take away rights guaranteed in the constitution. In other words, if New Mexico decides they want to allow slavery, we should not let them. What we need is a clear legal definition of the beginning and ending of “life” so that we can, in turn, protect it. Personally, though it might start sooner, I say if someone has a heartbeat and brainwaves, life has begun. That’s how we determine death, so that’s how we should determine life. that means, every abortion after 6-weeks or so should have a criminal prosecution for a federal crime whereby the doctor would have to prove that at the moment of abortion heartbeat and brainwaves were not present OR that abortion was the ONLY procedure that would save the mother’s life (hint, caesarean is always a viable option, abortion is always elective).

    • charlesyarbrough

      @one4him Where does he state this? That is a huge difference then if he will enforce his view to law.

    • charlesyarbrough

      @one4him Where does he state this? That is a huge difference then if he will enforce his view to law. I do agree, this needs to battled on a state level.

  • Pingback: Ron Paul | Primary Briefing Book()

  • Pingback: more about seo()

  • Pingback: Bill Ferrows()

  • Pingback: Beta HCG Levels()

  • Pingback: Scarlett Johansson Nude()

  • Pingback: Naples Web Design()

  • Pingback: Dr. Ron Paul: Protect Life, Protect Liberty | Top Finance Guide()

  • Pingback: infra red()

  • Pingback: bluepoppyherbs()

  • Pingback: luxury sunglasses()

  • Pingback: Final Countdown()

  • Kaylaboo

    I am more for Ron Paul then before, but even though I don’t agree with his Abortion view here, he has a good point. It should be up to the individual states, no the government. I think there is an exception when someone is raped or forced into incest. There are options, but what about when the mother’s very life is in danger. She could have even planned to have the baby, but in some cases, having that baby could end her life. If she has had other children at home, and she was young herself, she would leave all her children, including her baby, motherless. Even though I am pro choice, you HAVE to take time to think about all your options, the aftermath, and health issues and emotional issues.


    • Kaylaboo

      Control women’s bodies and you control women. Control women and you control the world.

      • brenmcrae

        @Kaylaboo Yes. we are controlling women from murder. Or should we allow women to legally kill any of their children regardless of age because of the mental and physical stress they can cause?

    • choiceislife

      @Kaylaboo And when the state refuses women to get an abortion and she isn’t living in the lap of luxury to hope a bus to the next state that will provide abortions that what is she to do? Back-alley? Rhetorical question: What is to prohibit states from eventually not allowing women to cross borders?

  • Pingback: watch for women()

  • Pingback: Motorcycle Vests()