reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Praetorius
reply to post by sheepslayer247
Regarding Ron Paul and his position on abortion, and the GOP position in general... This reply is directed to the members noted here, not necessarily
the specific posts linked.
A reality of the abortion debate that is rarely addressed is what happens to unwanted children in the US, and what happens to far too many pregnant
women when abortions are not legal (and safe).
I'm old enough to remember the pre-Roe-V-Wade days, when news stories about another (mostly young) woman dying from a self-administered abortion or
going to some back alley butcher were not uncommon. They were common enough to be merely heartbreakingly sad, instead of shocking.
I also have far too much experience seeing what happens to children born in the US that are not wanted. Their lives are generally pretty miserable.
They run a very high risk of being poorly cared for, poorly fed, poorly educated and regularly raped by the current Uncle Bob.
So I have to look at the total social cost of abortions safe and legal vs illegal (and therefore underground and not safe).
If a woman chooses to have an abortion, she for some reason feels she is not capable of raising a child properly. Else why would anyone want to go
through that? And who is more qualified to make that decision? Her doctor? Some politician?
So if she has an abortion, she has maybe
ended a human life. More accurately, she has ended the growth of a mass of cells that had the
potential of turning into a human life.
So on the one hand, we have the termination of a growth of cells. Is this growth of cells conscious and aware? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know, and
neither does anyone else, Ron Paul included. I'm inclined to think not, but must in honesty recognize the possibility.
I know for a FACT
however, that a 5 year old child, who hasn't had a decent meal in two days, or a bath in a week, but gets a visit
from the current Uncle Bob every day for a good grope IS conscious and aware.
So to me it also a moral matter. Where is the most harm done? By terminating the growth of cells for which we have zero evidence is aware of anything?
Or by forcing the birth of the child, and having her grow up not-wanted, when she damn well IS conscious, aware and able to suffer.
I come down firmly on the position of effective birth control should be made available as cheaply as possible to anyone who wants it. This will NOT
encourage promiscuity, this will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Fewer pregnancies, fewer abortions.
And for those cases where contraception failed or was not used, keep abortion legal and safe nationwide. The social costs are MUCH lower, and the
objections are religously based. Those are two good reasons to keep government the hell out of the question (beyond regulating medical facilities to
keep them operating safely), and keep abortion legal.
And bringing this all back around to Ron Paul, I am by no means convinced he will stick with his non-intrusive-government philosophy in this regard.
It seems clear to me he would support outlawing of abortions, based on his religous beliefs.