Ron Paul’s personal belief as a conservative Christian is that abortion is wrong, but unlike the tyrant Rick Santorum he doesn’t wish to enforce his beliefs onto the American people. Dr. Ron Paul will let the states decide for themselves how to handle the matter.

Rick Santorum’s view:


6 Responses to Abortion

  1. repview says:

    You can’t call Rick Santorum a tyrant just because he feels that the taking of an innocent life is wrong and should be made illegal. Why is one form of murder sanctioned by many states and legal whilst all other are illegal and even punished with the death penalty in some states? It’s not about Santorum wanting to force a set of morals onto other people, it’s about safeguarding the right to life and prohibiting the act of murder of innocent lives.


  2. Well the murder-part can be discussed because a murder is done on a person. When an abortion is made the human inside the woman is only, can a fetus really be declared as a person?

    The simplest definition of a person may be “a member of the species homo sapiens, the human species.” The fetus obviously has the same DNA as everyone else and can’t possibly be classified as any species other than homo sapiens, so isn’t it obviously a person? Assigning rights on the basis of species, however, merely begs the question of the nature of rights and what rights mean to us. The equation of rights with the human species is simple, but perhaps too simple.

    One premise in the argument that homo sapiens are the same as persons with rights is the idea who we are today was all present in a fertilized ovum because all our DNA was there. This is wrong. Much of what we are, even physical traits like fingerprints, is not determined by DNA. An embryo may or may not split into twins or more. Twins, identical or fraternal, may join during development, leading to a single person with more than one set of DNA. Environment counts for much of what we are.

    Maybe we should focus on the ability to have interests: if someone is going to have a claim to a right to life, shouldn’t we first require that they have an interest in living and continuing to live? An ant has no conception of self and no interest in living, so has no right to life, but an adult human does. Where on this continuum does a fetus fall? Not until the necessary brain connections and activity exist, and that’s not until several months into a pregnancy.

    If someone has a claim to a right to live, shouldn’t they have some sort of independent life of their own? A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother; therefore, any claim to a “right” to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman. The same isn’t true of anyone else — at most, a person’s claim might entail support and help from the community at large. It would not, however, entail being hooked up to the circulatory system of another human.

    For many religious believers, a person has rights because they are endowed by God with a soul. It is thus the soul that makes them a person and requires that they be protected. There are different opinions, though, on when a soul appears. Some say conception, some say at “quickening,” when the fetus begins to move. The state has no authority to even declare that a soul exists, however, much less pick one religious conception of the soul and decide when it enters a human body.

    Even if the fetus isn’t a person from a scientific or religious perspective, it could still be declared a person in a legal sense. If corporations can be treated as persons under the law, why not a fetus? Even if we decided that a fetus isn’t a person, that doesn’t necessarily answer the question of whether abortion should be illegal. Many non-persons, like animals, are protected. The state could theoretically assert an interest in protecting potential human life, even if it isn’t a person.

    Whether the fetus is declared a person from a scientific, religious, or legal perspective, this would not necessarily mean that abortion is wrong. A woman could assert a right to control her body such that even if the fetus is a person, it has no legal claim to use it. Could an adult claim a right to being hooked up to someone’s body? No — it might not be ethical to refuse the use of one’s body to save the life of another, but it couldn’t be forced by the law.

    It is assumed that if the fetus is a person, then abortion is murder. This position is incompatible with what most people believe, even most anti-choice activists. If the fetus is a person and abortion is murder, then those involved should be treated like murderers. Almost no one says that either abortion providers or the women should go to jail for murder. Making exceptions for rape, incest, and even the mother’s life are also incompatible with the idea that abortion is murder.

    Many may assume that a proper definition of “person” would end debates over abortion, but reality is more complex than this simplistic assumption allows. Abortion debates involve debates about the status and rights of the fetus, but they are also about far more. It is arguable that the right to an abortion is primarily a right of a woman to control what happens to her body and that the death of the fetus, person or not, is an unavoidable consequence of choosing not to remain pregnant.
    It is little wonder that many people are anti-abortion in the sense of not approving of the death of a fetus, but pro-choice because they regard the right of a woman to choose what happens to her body as fundamental and necessary. For this reason, then, anti-abortion activists in America are best described as anti-choice because the ability of women to choose is the political issue.

    This doesn’t mean that the status of the fetus is completely irrelevant or that debates about whether the fetus is a “person” are uninteresting. Whether we think of the fetus as a person or not will have a significant influence on whether we think of abortion is ethical (even if we think it should remain legal) and what sorts of restrictions we think should be placed on those choosing to have an abortion. If the fetus is a person, then abortion may still be justified and outlawing abortion may be unjustified, but the fetus could still deserve protections and respect of some sort.

    Respect, perhaps, is the issue which deserves much more attention than it currently receives. Many of those opposed to choice have been drawn in that direction because they believe that legalized abortion cheapens human life. Much of the rhetoric of the “culture of life” has force because there is something disturbing about the idea of treating the fetus as unworthy of respect and consideration. If the two sides could come closer together on this matter, perhaps the disagreements remaining would be less rancorous.

    /Alex @ Ron Paul Times

  3. repview says:

    I believe, like the majority of the American people, that abortion shouldn’t be legal on request to the mother because life starts at conception – when God Almighty grants the unborn its soul, thus making it an individual in the eyes of God.

    There are those who say “Why do you care? It’s not your baby, let them have abortions if they wish” and to these extremely irresponsible persons I have the following to say: Let’s say Person A goes out to murder Person B. You’ve never met either one or have even heard of them, yet you probably think that Person A is guilty of a horrendous crime that should not be legal, right? Why should different rules apply to the situation if Person B happens to be unborn? Life begins at conception and is God’s most wonderful gift and the taking of an innocent life should be outlawed and swiftly punished. How can one justify the convencience of the mother outweighing the right to life of the infant? One cannot, because it is utterly insane!

    Overturn Roe v Wade now! http://republicanviewpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/02/overturn-roe-v-wade-now.html

  4. “..when God Almighty grants the unborn its soul, thus making it an individual in the eyes of God.”

    Who are you to state that a god exists? Who are you to state that a soul exists? Who are you to tell me that god believes it is that way.

    Do you believe that a government should be based on religion? Be based on the laws of a god that not all believe in?

    Do you believe that the government should enforce its religion on the people?

    What happened to freedom of religion if “the eyes of god” effect decisions made in the country?

  5. Fantastic posting, I am browsing back usually to hunt for fresh news. feuerzeug werbung alles werbemittel feuerzeuge

  6. Joeann Yontz says:

    I don’t unremarkably comment but I gotta tell regards for the post on this great one : D.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s