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.

  • noobsybot

    I challenge any of you to give me a good reason as to why the people who killed our Lord and Saviour, Jesus of Nazareth, explain to me how “they” have ANY connection to him other than to take your money so they can live comfortably till they die? The Vatican is a fortress no one is allowed to look at the old text other than them, if you have enough money and can pay enough you can go the heaven and live comfortably in the kingdom of God, all reason Martin Luther wrote his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517! And what happened after that? Anyone venture to guess? No? This “His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.” Excommunication=Eternal Damnation in Hell or Limbo. “Luther taught that salvation is not earned by good deeds but received only as a free gift of God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ as redeemer from sin.” This was a slap in the face to the Roman Catholic Church as well as a threat to their pocket book!

    THIS IS FACT and PART OF HISTORY…I see no difference today! I see people blindly following the murders of the Son of God and I am offended by it greatly!!! Jesus loves you…did not mean you have to be stupid.

    I know already this is a pointless post however I feel God commands me to stand up and to tell all of you to wake up from your slumber read his word, use the brain he gave you, and maybe just maybe pray about it then dust off the Bible while keeping in mind there are some things missing. Don’t fall for the deceivers who just want to take your money, think about who stands to make the most profit on the Prophet!!! That’s all I’m saying…besides when the U.F.O.’s start to show up more often how will the Church spin that? There are references to it in the Old Testament you know!


  • noobsybot

    So I’m in this history class and we’re talking about how during the 1400’s Roman Catholics had such power in Rome when it hits me like a ton of bricks…how is it that the people who put Jesus to death (Roman Empire) are now all of the sudden allowed to be the ones who tell us how Jesus wants us to live our lives, how to behave, how to act towards one another. It blows my mind to know how much money they made (and still do) off of the people who believe in God in order to gain a better after life. Have any of you ever thought that maybe it’s a scam in the first place? No! Why? Because to question the Church is a sin and will lead to eternal damnation! Come on…I mean back then only the Royals and the Church could do WHAT EVER they wanted. They told the masses what was right and what was wrong as commanded by God who could question them no one other than the Church could read, write, or Translate Latin to Italian or what ever language needed.

    I will say right here “I am a Christian, I do believe in a higher power, BUT I think the Church specifically Roman Catholic’s among others are nothing but thieves stealing from followers to stupid to truly form their own opinion on this confirmed fact, ROMAN GUARDS KILLED JESUS!!! How the hell do they get to run the show in his name?”

    Example of their rules then as it is now “God said the world revolves around the Earth!” Anyone who says otherwise is against God and MUST be put to DEATH!

  • JohnLutherBarnhart

    Not all natural rights are equal, so there is no “equal protection of natural rights” Your right to liberty is limited by other peoples’ rights to life and property. You have the liberty to do anything you want, as long as it doesn’t infringe on other persons’ unalienable rights.That would include the life of the in utero human.

    A prenatal fetus has all natural rights: life, liberty, and property. The fetus can do whatever the fetus wants, but it doesn’t want to do much, nor is it capable of doing much. But man, will it kick the mother when it wants to! The fetus also has rights to property. This has been supported by inheritance case law (see Ron Paul’s comments above). The fetus has right to life, and it supersedes your right to liberty.

  • JohnLutherBarnhart

    Well, then we’d have to outlaw sex. Even if the woman gets pregnant after sex, millions of sperm will “die”, except for the one that fertilizes the egg. However, if men don’t have sex, and don’t masturbate, the body will still eject excess sperm periodically.

    Sperm are not individual organisms, they are simply cells of the male body. Our cells die all the time.

  • Bkwmm

    At least you make yourself look stupid without all of the big words. It’s more sad that all of the others are so educated, yet still can’t grasp the big picture.

  • Smarti

    I do not believe in Abortion as a form of birth control. I do however feel there are cases where a woman should be able to choose to abort, If a woman is impregnanted due to rape, incest,or if the baby is deformed or the mother is put at risk by the pregnancy she should have the choice.

    • Devin

      See I disagree and here is why:

      No person in this world has a right to make a decision to take ones life away. Regardless of rape, incest, or being unwilling to take responsibility of the child there are other methods. Resorting to aborting it is cruel and in my eyes makes you no better then any murderer out there! This isn’t about “freedom” when it comes to dealing with another persons life. It isn’t your decision, be the responsible one and accept the fact you have to take responsibility for another human beings life, carelessly aborting only shows me the selfishness of the person who aborted.

  • Ron Paul Supporter

    “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?” ~ Ron Paul

    You can’t, but how can you prevent slavery if you sacrifice liberty?

    A moral majority is no less dangerous to individual liberty than any other democratic majority. Once the majority view moves from advisory to mandate, the defense of liberty is undermined. I picture the snake depicted on the flag, “Don’t Tread On Me”, swallowing its tail when the right to life is defended by sacrificing the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    “Is life so dear… as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” ~ Patrick Henry

    A life in utero doesn’t benefit by being delivered it into bondage.

    • slmccoy

      @Ron Paul Supporter,

      If you believe this, why are you not telling Ron Paul to stop supporting the violation and overturning of the rights of American women directly? Make him stop!!!!

      • Ron Paul Supporter


        I believe that Ron Paul’s position as a presidential candidate is reasonably clear: “The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police.”

        I don’t share his convictions on this issue. In particular, I believe he and others are wrong to dismiss the prenatal parent’s actual natural liberty in order to defend a third party’s potential right to life. However, the fact that he believes this is an issue for the States (and ultimately the individuals of the States) to decide, is a step in the right direction.

        That is why I support him as a presidential candidate.

  • lucky85

    Let the woman control her own body, not a nanny government, or the church down the street.

  • Pat

    This is one area where I disagree with Ron Paul. A woman should have the right to determine what to do with her body. I would hope that she would not be so selfish as to abort a child. I would also hope that any responsible doctor would inform her of her options and give her a night to think about this colossal decision; but who is the government to force her to carry the child to term?

    • Ron Paul Supporter

      The government is employed by those who would force the coercion of others that cannot otherwise be persuaded to sacrifice themselves to the “moral” majority.

      “Resistance is futile” ~ Seven of Nine

  • Wendy AP


    “The persuasion of morality will always be more successful than the legislation of it.”

    That would be nice if that was fact. Unfortunately, majority of humanity do not make decisions or morality. They (we) base our choices on what we feel is best for us at the moment. The human race as a whole are very self centered, over indulgent, selfish animals who honestly don’t care about what’s moral … until we’re question about an action or our “beliefs”.

    So granted while abortion is a moral issue the act of making it illegal is pointless because it will still be done.

    I do appreciate your statement “creating a legal prohibition against (or promotion of) abortion cannot be supported by a Constitution founded on the equal protection of natural rights. Natural rights are unalienable and cannot be abridged even for the sake of a majority who finds the exercise of them distasteful in some cases.” While it is distasteful not 1 person has the right to tell the majority as a whole what they are and are not allowed to do with their bodies; unfortunately until complete gestation.

    • Ron Paul Supporter


      It was quoted earlier (from another doctor) that, “people are people, no matter how small”, to which I replied, “yes, but people IN people are subject to the freewill of their host”.

      Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a package deal, and all elements must be present before a person (“self”) can be said to have a politically defensible right to self-determination.

      An abortion represents a moral tragedy. The loss of a prenatal parent’s liberty to choose is a political tragedy.

      • Wendy AP

        Agreed it is

      • Wendy AP

        I’m sorry I’m in smart ass mode at the moment but I am having the worst “Horton Hears a Who” moment. “a persons a person no matter how small” “an elephants faithful 100%” I tried to ignore it but I couldn’t.

        • Ron Paul Supporter

          “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.” ~ Dr. Seuss

    • Ron Paul Supporter

      The real genius of the Founding Fathers was that they derived “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”, from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. Let that sink in, and reflect on the described relationship of God to Nature.

      Whether one believes they are a product of natural science or Divinity (or both), we can all agree that our right to self determination (freewill) is unalienable, and cannot be abridged politically for any reason without endangering the very lives and freedoms our Constitution is designed to protect.

      The best deterrence to abortion is education and moral persuasion. But in the end, it must remain an individual’s right (as a freedom of action) to choose. Not the State… never the State.

      • Wendy AP

        At no point will I presume to understand some1 else’s understanding of the Divine One. It is true that free will was given to humanity as a gift (or a tool if you will) that we misuse. Much like the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” misused a pruning tool.

        Agreed that education on the subject of abortion is something that needs to make sure the women doing this know what the are doing.

        i.e. there is an organization in the city I live in called Gainesville Care that gives women free pregnancy test provided you watch a video of an abortion being performed. They have several videos so that if you’ve already seen 1 they have another to choose from.
        Now wouldn’t it be something if the women (or girls in some cases) had to go through a “make sure you know what your about to do to you and the baby segment”?
        Visit 1 .. evaluation & questionnaire
        Visit 2 .. Ultrasound to see the life & hear the hear beat (ultra sound had changed my niece’s mind)
        Visit 3 .. video 1 showing the procedure. (how the baby is sucked out of your body through a tube, how the woman’s legs are shaking, hear the thumping and small body parts are hitting the inside of a bucket)
        Visit 4 .. things that could happen after. (inverted ovaries, the inability to ever have a child again, etc.)
        Graphic yes, but very effective as far as letting the info be there.

        You gotta love the Logical side of it. I’m pro-choice & anti stupidity. Know what your getting into, always. 😀 Or at least try to.

  • Ron Paul Supporter

    On the issue of abortion, the primary factor isn’t one of timing, but of choice; not one of life, but of liberty. A prenatal fetus has life, but not liberty. It’s entirely dependent on, and subject to, the freewill of its natural host. A prenatal parent has both life and liberty, and as the natural custodian of the fetus, retains the unalienable natural liberty to accept or reject a pregnancy. Any other consideration to politically endorse the primacy of a right to life over a right to liberty, ultimately leads to a mandate of slavery.

    This is why creating a legal prohibition against (or promotion of) abortion cannot be supported by a Constitution founded on the equal protection of natural rights. Natural rights are unalienable and cannot be abridged even for the sake of a majority who finds the exercise of them distasteful in some cases.

    The persuasion of morality will always be more successful than the legislation of it.

    • Ion

      And we are entirely dependent on this planet and the environment we live in, so does that mean that we do not have a voice about what happens? Actually, we do. We could very well demolish this planet if we so chose, and leave it for dead. Something smaller than ourselves should as well. Maybe some creatures are defenseless, but often times they will seek shelter from other creatures with the ability to fight back.

      Even then we are still dependent on the air we breath and the food and water we ingest (and of course the removal of wastes).

      Dependency is a completely invalid argument. Come up with something better, plox.

      • Ron Paul Supporter

        If the planet were capable of self determination, it should have aborted us long ago in favor of the dinosaurs, who were at least intelligent enough not to contemplate whether or not their eggs ought to be legally protected. But it isn’t and we are, so we get to blow it up if we choose, and there’s really not much it can do about it, because it’s an it, not a autonomous person.

        Dependency IS a valid argument in terms of life being dependent on liberty in order to declare a legally protected right to self determination. The social protection of a natural right is dependent on that right existing. That is why granting social rights of protection at birth makes more sense than going back to conception, where natural rights exist only as potentials.

        And if it were the case that social protection of potentials ought to be mandated at conception, why stop there? Why not protect eggs and sperm? Kinda irresponsible to let all those potential live go to waste, don’t you think… or do you?

        • Wendy AP

          Can’t really say that 1 statement with out going in to a religious debate supporter. Some believe that the Earth (Gia) is our mother (in essence a sentient being). We mustn’t start debasing other religions in such a way.

          • Ron Paul Supporter

            I certainly meant no disrespect to a person of faith. I myself have faith in God, and believe in natural rights of self determination… I call that “freewill” and consider it to be unalienable.

            There is no philosophical contradiction between having political convictions and having faith, so long as the former doesn’t attempt to regulate the latter.

  • Wendy AP

    I am for once relieved that the pro-life person isn’t saying “don’t do it because God will punish you! Repent or go to hell!”
    I am pro-choice because honestly it’s a choice to be made. I don’t agree with it being done after 1st trimester because from 3 1/2 – 4 month period is when you can feel the life inside you. That’s when the baby is moving and “playing around” with mommy.
    Regardless of what your religious belief is, this country was founded so that people wouldn’t be punished for the choices we make.
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
    Illegalization of abortion would most definitely effect the safety and happiness of the unborn child, the mother, and the father if he is in the picture at all.

  • michele gaughan

    this issue will always be difficult. which is why it shouldn’t be an issue in politics. in a spiritual sense, the soul never dies. we enter the body temple on the earth plane and when the body dies the soul is free. while not everyone believes the same things, we must allow people with different opinions to choose what works for them. people should be focusing their energy on making themselves better people, not on what faults they find in others. be the change you wish to see in the world.

    • Ron Paul Supporter

      Social morality is only improved when individuals lead by example, rather than coercion; by persuasion not legislation.

  • Mike

    Sara, please repent and ask God for forgivness. What a horrible thing to say. He is the only one who can forgive you. He really can.

  • Jazmyn

    Because I am a pregnant mother, my opinion may as well be biased. But I also think it is detrimental as well, given my situation.
    I was told I was going to be unable to have children. I have only had about 7 menstrual periods in my life. The fact that many women take their fertility for granted disgusted me.
    However, my miracle happened, and I have come to grow a baby boy inside me.
    If a woman does not want a child, she should not have sex. Sex is the act of conceiving a child, not something to be thrown about as a game. If she is so inclined to have sex, she should at least take birth control, or have the man she is performing the act with wrap it up.
    The idea of “choice” towards abortion is preposterous. The choice was made when the woman decided to have sex. There are no choices afterwards.
    There are plenty of women who would love to have a child. The fact we are simply destroying that life and throwing it away instead of at least allowing another woman to take care of it is simply sad.

    I hope the people who are for abortion realize that their mother “chose” to not have an abortion in order for them to even make choices today.

    • Mark

      I hope you understand that many of us, looking at a world where reason is circumvented by knee-jerk emotional conjecture, wish that our mother’s had done the sane thing and left us in oblivion. Once you create life, not only are you responsible for every ounce of suffering that your child will ever endure. For your childs eventual inavoidable death. You are also responsible for every life that your child will ever create. Every unimaginable horror that every one of those lives will wheather. I go to bed each night that no child will ever look to me and ask why? Why did you think it was up to you to give me life? What gave you the right. I remember asking my own mother many years ago. She had no answer.
      As a side note, fanaticism like this is precisely why Paul does not stand a chance. I’ll gladly take four more years of Obama as long as he promises not to block my wife’s uterus with gnarled little hands should her birth control fail. If it was so hard to get pregnant why didn’t you adopt? Much like buying a dog, it seems selfish and narcissistic to breed when so many of the unwanted need loving homes.

    • Jenna Landry

      I couldn’t agree more

  • GW

    I don’t agree with Congressman Paul’s stance on abortion. He is however, in my opinion, the only pro-life politician who’s reasons for it actually are rational and understandable.

    • Ron Paul Supporter

      His reasons are understandable, given his age and experience as a doctor sworn to do no harm. As a politician, his reasons are derived from the faulty premise that a right to life is a mandate to live. A right is a freedom of choice, and one cannot defend any right by removing an individual’s ability to choose.

      He is, at least, pointing this issue away from a Federal mandate towards the States, and ultimately back to the individuals of the State. That IS a step in the right direction, and that is why I support his candidacy.

  • Ron Paul Supporter

    Might as well repeal the 19th Amendment then. Suffragettes… a bunch of irresponsible murders the lot of them. After all, why give women the right to vote if they can’t be trusted to make responsible decisions about their fetuses without deciding to abort them.

    And since we’re rolling back the clock on defending the right to life at conception, what about all those irresponsible international women who are pregnant while visiting America. Better detain them until after they deliver to make sure they don’t try aborting our future citizens overseas.

    If fact, why stop at conception? If every pregnancy resulting from having sex is entitled to life, shouldn’t we be protecting those unfertilized eggs as potential future citizens too?

    Screw liberty, this is no time for half measures. We’re on a mission to protect every potential life! And suicides? I say we kill them twice for daring to waste the life we fought so hard to secure for them.

  • AsL

    It is not true to say the Ron Paul just wants it left up to the states.

    • djt

      @AsL If anyone watched the debate last night, Ron Paul explained exactly why he wanted the abortion issue to go to the states (greater power to make it illegal), and he also explained his plan to go through Congress to bi-pass the Supreme Court thus overturning Roe vs Wade in a SINGLE day.

      Keep re-posting this AsL – thanks.

  • DarrellRoss


    What is your point? So a life is a life. Is this supposed to automatically prove that killing that life via abortion is immoral? Because it doesn’t. Please elaborate.

  • Demsprtr

    Imagine being in a line of your ancestrey. Look ahead and see all ahead of you. You had no controll over the exhistence of any of those people hence your own life as a result. Now you have conceved a child it matters not how. Hopefully not through rape or incest as the odds of that are quite low. Now you have to decide if someone will be able to look ahead of you to see the people that have gotten you that far in life and as you in turn look back to see no furture generation after you until your child is borne. Many have disguarded the posterity of those preceding you. The same that gave you the right to be in that line. Sucks to be a woman sometimes but thay are the only ones to be mothers. There should be no law to support the act of abortion if the unboarn are not a threat to the host. Your sperit will be the one to anguish until it departs your physical being. Only the sperit of she who decides to abort will suffer, or not, until death. She made the choice. If she was raised with love and compassion her sperit will suffer for sure.

    • AsL

      @Demsprtr you are going to have to define threat because that is different for everyone. A threat to an 18 year old who has no formal education, zero job skills, no partner stepping up to the plate, may be different than a 30 year old with everything going for her and planned pregnancy who has to decided to abort to save her physical life. The threats are very different but the threat to liberty is very real for both. Who are you to say one is more valid than the other? And for God sakes do not tell me the bible or god told you. Man had used the so called word of god for his own bidding for far too long. As for the bible, have you ever played the game telephone? So, unless god came to see you personally do not dare say because god said so!!

    • Sara

      I don’t regret my abortion at all. It’s the best decision that I ever made.

    • Wendy AP

      Lol in my family tree?
      That’s 1 vote for abortion. Good thing I didn’t do all that considering. My son even @ 14 is a joy.