Ron Paul Sides with Xstian Social Conservatives

[liveonearth]

He recently said that an anti-abortion position is a libertarian position based on faith. Faith in what? The bogusness of global warming? HIS god? I am offended. Faith has no legitimacy as a basis for social law, because we don't all have faith in the same things. I had thought that Ron Paul was for the true and full separation of church and state, and that he could be counted on to keep them separate in his own dealings. He has just proven me wrong. The man I had thought was the last moral politician has fallen by the wayside. It all comes down to that same old debate about when life begins.

SOURCE
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/ron-paul-anti-abortion.html

Comments

[liveonearth.livejournal.com]

My take is that life is continuous. Life is contained in sperm and eggs, and is perpetuated if conditions are met for fertilization, implantation, cell division, nourishment and growth. If we are to value everything with a speck of life in it, we have major problems. If we under-value lives that are already in full expression and over-value potential lives, we are doing life a disservice. But this shades of gray thinking is no basis for political positions, it is more grounds for compromise. Nobody knows when life actually begins, chicken or egg, there is no answer. So let us compromise on a law and have it done.

What is RTL? I still like Ron Paul, I just take issue with him choice to let his faith intrude on his legislative responsibility.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

RTL=Right To Life. Anti-abortion.


Just to point out, the position you stated here is an "appeal to consequence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
What you are saying is that "if this is true, then we have problems". *If* life begins at conception, *then* we have to make absurd legal structures. The problem is that the legal hoops have no bearing on when life begins.

Logically, that argument is similar to "if 2+2=4, then these people will die, ergo 2+2 does not = 4." The problem is obvious, 2+2=4 regardless of who dies as a result of that fact. This is precisely what I mean by "there are no logical points".

Now, I personally would consider compromise a reasonable solution, again, I prefer the "keave it to the states" option, because it's really the only "american" option, but I can see other options. The problem is that to the RTL crowd, it's not a "grey area", not a "medical proceedure, it is the wanton remorseless murder of an innocent human being. To most of the fervent PC (pro Choice) crowd, *any* restriction of "abortion on demand" is tantamount to slavery. There may be others that are amenable to compromise, but I have spoken to upsettingly few of them.


I am not aware of Congressman Paul legislating on his RTL position. His general voting record has been to remove federal jurisdiction on the issue. The only meaningful exception has been the "partial birth abortion ban". He's an MD, and... well, even I, one who is called a sociopath in conversations with almost everyone, have issues with that proceedure. Ther *are* those that tend to legislate differently than their personal beliefs. Ron Paul votes almost invariably to reduce the federal government. Dr No is a nickname he has earned with honors.