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.

Likes(6)Dislikes(1)

8,341 Comments:

  1. Pingback: Hair Salon Marketing

  2. Pingback: pain management

  3. Pingback: Overdoze

  4. Pingback: DVR Security Systems

  5. Pingback: spy camera

  6. Pingback: golf swing tips

  7. Pingback: Potato And Leek Soup

  8. Pingback: Congressman Ron Paul: Most Consistent 2012 Presidential Candidate. « Political Vel Craft

  9. Pingback: thefamilyinternational

  10. Pingback: glens travel site

  11. Pingback: community fundraising

  12. Pingback: Chlorine Injection System

  13. The danger in refusing to acknowledge the value inherent in a human life is that it also destroys the value inherent in our own lives. If we can choose which babies to keep and which babies to throw away, the next natural step is euthanasia - which we know has indeed been a topic of discussion in American society. This leads so naturally to questions of whether or not to allow severely mentally handicapped people to live, especially if their families don't want to care for them. And let's see, who should be next on the list... ?

    Don't you know, this has been tried before - rather more aggressively, but it was the same concept. Someone has already propagated the idea of a "master human race" in which the handicapped and the unwanted would be eliminated and the earth would become a better place. The place was Germany and the leader was Hitler. The result was the Holocaust.

    Abortion proponents assure us that abortion produces a happier society - but I personally don't want to live in the Holocaust. That's not my idea of "happier" - especially if I had the misfortune to end up on the wrong side of the fence. True, the "American Holocaust" has been in the hands of the people rather than the government, so up to this point only millions of babies have been eliminated. But as I mentioned, the topic of euthanasia has already surfaced. We're slowly rejecting the American way of valuing human life and liberty to return to the practices of ancient barbaric societies, where they merely left the baby on a lonely mountaintop or chucked her into the river.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @one4him You think allowing abortions will lead to killing off mentally disabled people and a Holocaust? I suppose you think smoking weed turns people into crack heads? Or playing soccer as a kid into meathead steroid freaks? Video gamers into mass murderers? Abortion is a contained situation that should only have one factor, the mother. It's her decision. like it says in the constitution (right to privacy). We really can't even limit the time, but I think we can bend the rules a little to set a reasonable example. Trying to force no abortion at all will only separate the country, ruin lives, and most evident defy the constitution with unrealistic religions agenda.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Pingback: independent financial advisor

  15. "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.”"

    '

    EXCEPT that’s not how most abortions happen. If an aborted fetus is capable of crying, it’s a late term abortion, and those literally only happen when the mother’s life is directly threatened by the pregnancy itself.

    In any case, I don’t like late-term abortion either, but sometimes it has to happen, and you need to accept that. Besides, only 1.5% of abortions happen after 21 weeks (see my previous citations on the topic). It’s rather fallacious to generalize all types of abortion based on the one that happens least often, don’t you think?"

    http://propaganda-for-life.tumblr.com/post/5799391173/ron-paul-on-abortion

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @choiceislife "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.”"

      Sometimes Ron Paul continues this story by noting that he exited the room where the abortion was being performed and witnessed another baby only slightly bigger than the one who had just been discarded. "This one they wanted to save," he said, and doctors were working to care for this baby.

      Being a doctor himself, Ron Paul has labored to save the life of the mother many times. But does an effort to protect the life of the mother necessitate dropping the baby in a bucket without even a symbolic attempt to save its life? What was stopping the doctors in this case from at least making an attempt to rescue both lives? It shows an integral lack of respect for human life.

      In a partial-birth abortion, the baby is almost completely birthed IN THE BREACH POSITION before its brains are removed. A breach birth is much more dangerous to the mother than having the baby naturally would be. (In fact, a friend of mine who is completely healthy and capable of childbirth had to have one of her kids C-section just because he was breach. Giving birth to a baby in the breach position is more dangerous than not - and they tell us that partial-birth abortion is done mainly to save the life of the mother???

      If a birth has to be induced early because of the health of the mother, fine. Maybe even a C-section could be done if the woman's condition was stable enough to support surgery. But why on earth in these "late-term abortion" scenarios isn't there even a feeble attempt made to save the life of the child? It's because no value is attached to the life of the child. As Ron Paul noted in his story, we pick some to save and some to throw away.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @one4him Pick some to save and throw some away. sounds like the fetus-worshipers. "The term “partial-birth abortion” is a striking example of how language can be manipulated to suit a particular need. As health professionals know, there is no such thing as “partial-birth abortion” and the term will not be found in any medical text. The term was introduced by anti-choice groups to push their agenda. The groups worked with anti-choice legislators to write legislation using this term—a political term created to incite and confuse. The Christian Coalition has acknowledged that use of the term “partial-birth abortion” was an explicit strategy to undercut the primacy of the woman and make her secondary to the fetus. The media—who assume legislative language is neutral—picked it up immediately as a good sound byte and headline word. Through cagey political maneuvers and the seemingly automatic response of the press, half-truths, distortions, and deceptions are perceived as truth and shape what millions of Americans think.' rcrc.org

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Partial-birth abortion is a well defined concept and has been done in practice many times. PBA is the abortion of the fetus while in the birth canal. Once a fetus is fully delivered it was considered to have rights and thus the life could not be terminated. However, while any part of the fetus was still in the birth canal, the fetus was not considered alive (because it had not been technically delivered) and thus not given the rights so it could be terminated. If you are not a physician yourself, then do not make an argument based on what you think "health professionals know". @choiceislife @one4him

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @skinnsm@one4him The term "partial-birth abortion" is primarily used in political discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States.[6] The term is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association[7] nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.[8] This term was first suggested in 1995 by Congressman Charles T. Canady, while developing the original proposed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.[9][10] According to Keri Folmar, the lawyer responsible for the bill's language, the term was developed in early 1995 in a meeting among herself, Charles T. Canady, and National Right to Life Committee lobbyist Douglas Johnson.[11] Canady could not find this particular abortion practice named in any medical textbook, and therefore he and his aides named it.[12]......" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • It sounds to me like you missed the point of that comment by Dr. Paul. The late term abortion is what drew his attention to the subject, but everything else that he said made it clear that he values life from conception. Aside from statistics about when abortions occur, do you have any reason to support the idea that any other types of abortions are wrong?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • and a normal fetus (8-weeks) has their own DNA, their own heartbeat, and their own brainwaves, and almost 1/2 of the 1.3 million abortions performed each year are after 8-weeks. there is no medical reason to choose a late term abortion over a cesarian section for the life of the mother, it is an elective procedure.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @choiceislife truth.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Pingback: Top Soccer news

  17. Pingback: free apple products

  18. Pingback: razer

  19. Pingback: Hair extension courses

  20. Pingback: americus diamond

Leave a Reply

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


nine × = 54

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=""> <s> <strike> <strong>