Friday, September 23, 2011

Ron Paul: "Too many laws already" to protect babies in early pregnancy

Last night's Google/Youtube/Fox News debate in Orlando, Florida, focused on jobs and the economy, but there was one question on abortion. It went to Ron Paul: "Congressman Paul, you have said that you believe that life begins at conception, and that abortion ends an innocent life. If you believe that, how can you support a rape exception to abortion bans, and how can you support the morning after pill? Aren't those lives just as innocent?"


Where the issue of abortion should be legislated--state level or national level--is one thing. It's quite another to say that unborn lives don't deserve protection because "we have too many laws already." He says laws against the morning-after pill (not clear if he includes older unborn babies conceived through rape in this) are too hard to enforce. A pragmatic answer to a question of principle. Hmmm. These drugs are only on the market because the FDA has approved them. If you ban the drug, the supply goes away. Sounds pretty easy to enforce to me.

Let's also be clear. The morning-after pill doesn't treat a disease that a rape victim might have. It kills a baby that may have been conceived. Rep. Paul confuses the issue by suggesting the pill might be used to treat a sexually-transmitted disease.

He closed with this statement: "Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not a law." In a representative government like ours, laws are a reflection of the moral values of the people. Morals are where we need to start, but morals lead to laws against evil. Murder should not be legal in any form.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this video is the amount of applause Paul received. He should have been booed off the stage for his impassioned defense of murder under pretense of futility or federalism.

We in the pro-life community have much work to do so that Americans can no longer claim to be "pro-life" while accepting the slaughter of the unborn for any reason.

#


Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Me Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Me Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Disclaimer: Let Me Live does not endorse or oppose any candidates. The opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not represent an official position of Let Me Live or its board of directors.

Labels: , , ,

4 Comments:

Anonymous Alexia said...

Hi!

I completely agree with you that ALL lives are precious, in the eyes of God. and in my eyes.

I would have to disagree that this is a reason not to vote for the only candidate that has PROMISED to repeal Roe vs Wade.

Also the only candidate who's voting record PROVES that HIS promises actually mean something. :-)

I'm positive that you mean well! and I KNOW that your blog is doing good. so I'm sure that you will take the time to really investigate what Dr. Paul stands for and not go by what the main stream media wants us to go by. because I will agree that he isn't polished and rehearsed, and because of that he says things like this without clarifying his stance. :-)

anyway, I'm sure you now realize the impact that repealing Roe vs Wade will have on our cause of protecting life.

how is the morning after pill even going to compare? millions of lives are at stake. you and I both know that less than 2% of abortions are had because of rape.

this is a distraction that our cause of saving unborn babies doesn't need.
thank you for all your hard work!

In Christ,
Alexia

September 23, 2011 at 5:46 PM  
Blogger Wesley Wilson said...

Alexia, thank you for your gracious response. Rep. Paul is not the only candidate who has pledged to work against Roe v. Wade in order to bring abortion back to the state laws. Rep. Bachmann and former Sen. Santorum are also committed to fighting abortion, but they are more willing to use federal power against it than Rep. Paul is.

Overturning Roe, of course, is not something a president can do by himself. And it will not restrict abortion in the big abortion states, but at least it will lead to the more conservative states banning abortion, which will save many lives.

"Emergency contraception," or the morning-after pill, is responsible for an unknown number of early abortions, most of which have nothing to do with rape. The question had two parts, and Rep. Paul responded to only the morning-after pill part, and he did so in the context of rape, which is a small percentage of babies killed by the morning-after pill.

As a practical matter of who to vote for, any of the Republican candidates will be a huge improvement over the Obama administration. It is unlikely that within the next eight years we will be at a level where we can debate banning the earliest abortions or rape cases, so differences on those cases may not be politically significant yet.

Whenever someone with pro-life credentials takes a public position that denies the need to protect any innocent life, I believe those of us in the pro-life community need to point out the inconsistency of the position. We cannot afford to let Americans think that any innocent life is undeserving of the full protection of the law.

Thank you again for your response.

Wesley

September 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM  
Anonymous Larry Kilgore said...

I like Ron Paul would not prosecute the use of the morning after pill either.

"once abortion is criminalized, how should a district attorney go about gaining the evidence necessary to prosecute the use of the morning-after-pill?"

Patrick Johnston - "The evidence that the morning-after-pill causes abortions is very weak indeed. It's theoretical. The three modes of action listed in the medical literature are theoretical. It's possible that if ovulation occurs, that the MAP would have no deleterious affect on the endometrium because of the hormone-secreting corpeus luetum, and that the MAP works primarily only through the two contraceptive modes of action. (This is the position of the American Assn. of Pro-Life Ob/Gyns) http://www.aaplog.org/. I'm not fully convinced, but I agree that in order to be prosecutable, it would have to be proven that the morning-after pill killed a baby."

October 30, 2011 at 6:08 AM  
Blogger maidmarian said...

This is exactly why I support Rick Santorum for President! He is NOT wishy-washy about the abortion issue. Abortion needs to be stopped! Thanks for posting this, it is my prayer more Christians realize the truth of where these candidates stand.

March 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home