This is a response to a post in another blog. Whilemypostshouldstandaloneasworthreading,foroptimaleffectplease read that post in addition to this one.
Ron Paul thinks that abortion is a state issue to be decided by states.
It is supremely unlikely that even the most deep-south state would ban all abortions. There would remain a ‘self-defense clause’ as is standard to abortion bans worldwide, which allows for abortions in circumstances of rape or physical threat to the mother.
It’s one thing to rub a candidate with his own opinions. It’s another thing to rub a candidate with dung opinions that aren’t his.
Ergo, criticizing Ron Paul for being pro-life is correct in form. (Whether it is correct in material is primarily a matter of whether abortion is ethical or not.) However, criticizing him for opposing a woman’s right to abortion under circumstances of rape is incorrect.
Please smear accurately. Accurate smearscontribute to debate and are to be lauded. Inaccurate ones contribute only insofar as they may be corrected.
You are wrong about Ron Paul believing that abortion is a state issue. He claims to be an unshakable foe of abortion. He believes the only way to get his opinion enforced is to remove it from that national front and move it to the state level. In this way he and others like him believe that abortions can be banned, one state at a time.
Ron Paul also doesn’t believe that an abortion even when the health of the mother is at stake. He claims that abortion is never necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
Read HR 1094. If that bill ever became law, abortion would NEVER be legal anywhere in the United States. It doesn’t matter if the pregnancy was the byproduct of a rape or of incest.
Report This Comment
You’re wrong. It doesn’t matter when life starts, anybody who is in danger of their life or health can kill the one threatening them to save themselves. It’s called self-defense.
Changing the definition of when life starts is an idiotic thing for a politician to try to do – it’s just like if a socialist government tried to ban economics, you can’t change an empirical fact by fiat – but it makes no legal or philosophic difference.
Abortion’s morality doesn’t depend on the issue of when life starts. If you think it does, you’re fooling yourself, and may not be pro-choice to begin with. Abortion’s morality depends on whether the liberty of the mother or the liberty of the child is to be protected. Given the requirement of self-defense there is no moral stance onthepro-life side which can support a total ban, and to accuse someone of supporting a total ban with anything other than their own words is a false smear of the worst order.
Reconsider your ethics!
Report This Comment