Has to be the weirdest audience reaction ever one minute they are booing him for saying don’t go to war, then in the space of a few minutes they are cheering when he talks about bringing the troops home.
No morning after pill for Ron Paul.
For this brand of libertarianism, you should only have (potentially procreative) sex if you’re prepared to carry the child to term.
The contraceptive failed? Tough luck, you have a duty of care to the zygote.
Have you ever had a one-night stand with a member of the opposite sex?
If so, did you draw up a contract with this person to delineate each party’s rights and responsibilities in the event of a contraceptive mishap?
Oh please, his medical background, gimme a break. Like all of these conservative/GOP US politicians Paul realizes that tea partiers and other extreme right white people will not tolerate anything other than a fundamentalist view of abortion. You will find it very difficult now to find a pro choice republican in office in this country. The liberal wing of the republican party is extinct. Thats why Paul is a fundamentalist, even if he might not believe it.
The remains of the East Coast wasp republican party is the only place where you will find any kind of nuanced treatment of the abortion question, and it too is dying. Snow and Collins are the last hold outs.
Isn’t the term pro life a bit ridiculous (as is pro choice)? Doesn’t it imlpy if you support abortion (even for limitied reasons like rape, incest, health risks) you are somehow pro death, also when you consider the people who were shouting “let him die” at Ron Paul when he was answering the hypothetical question about a person with no insurance consider themselves pro life, probbaly the same people who cheered Rick Perry when he boasted about his death penalty record and are probably creaming themselves to bomb another middle eastern country.
Didn’t Santorum come out with some bizarre reasoning thata rape through pregnancy was some gift from god?
Then again some of the"pro choice" people are equally as insane as in extreme cases it’s almost a method of birth control.
You need to read back a bit. Paul is saying life begins at conception, about as fundamentalist a position on abortion as it is possible to have. So all this rubbish about ‘partial-birth’ abortions etc is just more of the same, disinformation and propaganda. Edward Tiller was murdered by wackos who buy into this same shit as Paul.
I think its important to remember what this is all about. Back in the early 70s before Roe v Wade the first modern fundamentalist christian campaign was against a federal head-start or day care program. “The government will come in a raise your children”. Through incessant church meetings, disinformation and letter writing this movement managed to push Nixon to veto the bill, which had easily passed both houses. For Nixon, who had just gone to China, it was a perfect opportunity to reinforce his ‘pro-family’ credentials at the cost of preventing child care services for poor and/or single mothers.
Once the bill had been vetoed though the fundi’s realized that this was not a policy on which they could build a movement because beyond the church going stay at homers millions of women were entering the workplace and loved the idea of subsidised child care. Roe V Wade became the lightening rod once it was introduced in 1973. Initially of course the bile was directed at women themselves, whore etc. But quickly, once it was realized that 1 in 3 women were actually having abortions, this strategy was abandoned in favor of targeting providers who were ‘hurting women’. Tiller and the half dozen others who have been murdered by these people are direct casualties of that tactical shift.
The link between child care and abortion here is revealing. Both are seen as an attack on patriarchy. Its got nothing to do with wanting to save little fetuses or preventing the government from raising children, or indeed with the content of sex education programs (another tick of this crowd), it has everything to do with the simple equation that white christian America is based on the family and the authority of the male head of the family is sacrosanct.
Life does begin at conception. That is a matter of a complete no brainer uncontroversial scientific fact. (If in doubt, read the first sentence here) The ethical question at issue is whether, or when, the genetically distinct human is accorded the rights of a person. Paul and his ilk say that it is when that genetically distinct human comes into existence. Others pick an arbitrary date after conception. (The law in the US does not take any position on the question). Yet others pick the point of birth. And others still (like me) see no reason to treat the moment of birth (or any other arbitrary moment) as the defining moment. Like I said, age 16 sounds about right for when the person can legally and practically support themselves and is therefore not a drain on resources which, lets face it, the parents shouldn’t be obligated to provide.
About half of women who seek abortion in the US were using contraception at the time of conception. You can hardly call 50% the “extreme case”.
That is a bizarre assertion, requiring evidence. According to Gallup polls, the level of support in the US for unrestricted abortion does not vary by gender, and it has been falling for twenty years across both genders and all levels of education.
I think you understand my point here ps, Paul et al regard a zygote as a human being. Why not nail clippings, or spit. The democratic party has basically abandoned the battle field to nutters like Paul and those whose support he wishes to earn. The whole debate around abortion has been dominated for several years by the (non) question of late term abortions, dubbed partial birth by the anti choicers. Public space has been flooded with the idea of monsters like Tiller chopping up viable infants in ‘abortion mills’. Absolutely baseless propaganda but with no push back from anyone in mainstream liberal politics to the point where most democrats supported the bill to outlaw these procedures.
And I am arguing that these questions are interchangeable and strategic for the christian right and their cultural allies. In the 50s it was sex education in schools, in the 60s it was equal rights for women and blacks, in the 70s child care and abortion. These issues revolve mainly around the changing role and authority of (white christian) men in society. I am not talking about your folks who answer the phone to gallup, I’m talking about those who organise, fund and dominate the agenda of the Christian and cultural right in this country. because of the activities of the right abortion is unavailable in many parts of this country and for poor women it is increasingly unlikely that they will be able to access any service. But if Roe were overturned and abortion made illegal the christian right would soon find another issue, around the declining power of men, with which to organise against women.
As you can see support for ‘partial birth abortion’ is tiny, extraordinary that they use the term in a poll, and indicative. These procedures are exceedingly uncommon (1%) and relate to catastrophic maladies for the child, only part of a brain stem etc. Some of these disorders are only discovered late in pregnancy. Excluding that issue the rate of support for abortion access is fairly consistent for at least the last 20 years.
But I still think you are misunderstanding my point. A zygote is a human being, uncontroversially and scientifically. And you must’ve stopped reading that first sentence before you got to the last word… nail clippings and spit are indisputably not an organism. A zygote indisputably is.
In short I don’t think the pro-choice stance is enhanced by arguing against the humanity of the zygote because by every scientific definition of the word, it is human and a “human being”. It is the follow-on argument of the pro-lifers that is controversial: that a “human being” must be accorded “human rights”. The fallacy here is to use a scientific premise to reach an ethical conclusion. Pro-choicers, on the other hand, will generally contend that human rights are only conferred at a certain stage of development.
Unfortunately my fellow pro-choicers are often inconsistent in applying this principle. For instance a criterion of “viability” is sometimes invoked. But it seems to me that a one year old child left without shelter or food is a lot less viable than a 26 week old foetus. The latter, left to its own devices, will easily thrive for another three months, while the former wouldn’t last three days. Which is why I think the consistent pro-choice stance is to advocate for the legalisation of infanticide. I’m not hung up on 16 as the limiting age, it could be younger. But I can’t see anything special about passing through the birth canal that magically transforms the immature human into a “person” with rights… rather it transforms them into a dependent resource overhead.
Also, if we got over this hangup about the birth canal, the partial birth abortion controversy would simply go away – frankly, it’s pretty barbaric to stab a baby in the brain while in the birth canal compared to achieving the same goal a lot more cleanly after it’s born.