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: Easiest language to learn()

  • Pingback: window cleaners se10()

  • Pingback: Memory Foam Mattress Reviews()

  • Pingback: window cleaners se13()

  • Pingback: Basketball tips()

  • Pingback: High Quality Articles()

  • Pingback: window cleaners Peckham()

  • Pingback: Smokeless cigarettes()

  • Pingback: window cleaners Streatham()

  • Pingback: window cleaners Camberwell()

  • Pingback: Wine Book Gift()

  • Pingback: Plus Size Disney Costumes()

  • barryk

    Ron Paul speaks eloquently on the concept of the value of life, but his ‘hands-off’ position is equivalent to the federal hand-wringing that went on with the Terry Schiavo starvation when George Bush was president and his brother was governor of Florida. Both Bushes and Ron Paul might say that they deplore the death of the innocent ( but neither are willing to lift a federal (or state) finger to save a human life. This wrong-headed perspective disqualifies Paul from my serious consideration. It is convoluted thinking indeed that passes the buck for ethical behavior depending on factors such as the constituency that elects you to office!

    • one4him

      @barryk I sympathize with your concerns, but let me defend the basic integrity of Dr. Paul’s position. As far as I understand his philosophies, Ron Paul simply doesn’t trust the federal government to tell us what is “right” and “wrong.” Hear me out… It might seem like a good thing to have federal laws supporting morality as long as the elected leaders agree with you and me – but when leaders with an “alternate morality” get into office and begin putting laws into place which support THEIR ideas of right and wrong, we won’t see it as such a good thing anymore. And don’t tell me that something like that couldn’t happen! It already is happening.

      That DOESN’T mean that our country can’t have any laws to stop evildoers from abusing the rest of us or laws to stop the murder of the unborn. It simply means that those laws should be put in place at the community and the state level where people can have more real voice in their government. I don’t want to make any inappropriate comparisons, but I’m thinking of another issue which I’ll leave unnamed. Right now, that issue is left up to the decision of the states – and although a few states have legalized an immoral practice, most states have not. If that particular issue were taken to the federal level, I’m afraid that the entire nation would be forced to accept something which many of us are not ready to accept. We’ve already taken the issue of abortion to the federal level, and that’s exactly what has happened. The whole nation has had legal abortion foisted onto us.

      Of course you’ve a complete right to disagree with Paul’s political philosophies, but I hope that I’ve made a case at least for his basic integrity and consistency.

    • johnmarkharris

      @barryk by Paul’s reasoning, the doctor charged with caring for the person who’s having their rights abridged would be criminally prosecuted. In other words, if a doctor performs an abortion, we should have a clear definition when life/person begins so if a life is ended they are prosecuted, every time. Conversely, the doctors who allowed Terry Schiavo to be starved should be prosecuted. We need a definition of “life” not a new law about every possible situation we might get into… If we define the person, then protecting them will fall into place. “Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness” is enough to get the job done, we just need to amend the constitution (in my opinion) to define when the person with rights begins and ends. It is NOT the government’s job to provide life (as in the case of Terry Schiavo), but it would be our job to protect it and to prosecute those with guardianship who do not provide.


  • Pingback: Weddings Photographer Buxted Park Sussex()

  • Pingback: chip tickets()

  • Pingback: window cleaners sw2()

  • Pingback: window cleaners sw13()

  • Pingback: Free Mp3 Downloads()

  • Pingback: Furniture stores in Michigan()

  • Pingback: cage fighting uk()