Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

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.



( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
Apr. 12th, 2011 07:28 pm (UTC)
I hate that the right wing somehow hijacked the term Christian. Christian does not mean being an asshole to your fellow man. That's capitalist or fascist behavior.
Apr. 12th, 2011 08:01 pm (UTC)
I think that Christ would not approve of the thing that bears his name today. And it is a shame that we cannot come to agreement within our society about exactly what life is, if we actually mean to protect it. But these are the thorny issues of our times...so we sit with them and hope that acceptance comes.
Apr. 13th, 2011 01:33 am (UTC)
I think, from what I have generally seen, that christ would be okay with most christians. Therea re a few loons, but the vast majority of the christians I have encountered are good sorts.

It is a shame that we can't come to an agreement, but then, it isn't like there is any actual room for compromise, both sides are quite intransigently entrenched.

Honestly, I would support "giving it to the states". I understand that some states would outlaw it, I'm okay with that. That is one of the primary founding concepts of the US, that the several states may do things differently and that's okay. If you want to have abortions, North Dakota is probably not the state you want to live in. Uncomplicated, reasonable, and allows everyone to have a community of similar-thinking individuals without binding anyone to their own way of thinking. But that doesn't seem to fly with much of anyone.
Apr. 13th, 2011 04:18 am (UTC)
I don't know. States rights, and letting states be various in their legal interpretation of federal mandates makes sense to me too. Then people could simply go where the enforced values suit them, and there would be less bitterness at all of us having to put up with some supposed federal consensus. The smaller a group, the easier it is to find a consensus....
Apr. 13th, 2011 01:28 am (UTC)
Well, the thing is, abortion is a totally religious issue *from both sides*. I am pro choice. Radically so. I have come to realize though that ones beliefs regarding abortion have no bearing on anything other than their beliefs on abortion. Yes, the debate comes back to when life begins, if you take that life begins at birth, then abortion is the mere excision of a mass of tissue. If you take that life begins at birth, then abortion is murder most foul. There are *no* logical points that have any significant merit to back up *either* claim.

I'm going to have to repeat that. There are *no* logical points that have any significant merit to back up *either* claim. Every point raised by either side is either a logical fallacy, or a point of faith. Every single one. It's an issue where logic in any form is not technically possible.

Furthermore, there are some *extremely* hazardous moral waters on both sides of this issue. The "Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act", for example, which pased in 2002, prohibited the practice of simply ignoring healthy and intact babies until they got around to dying. This sounds like hyperbole, but it isn't, it was *literally* the practice in botched late-term abortions to toss the baby in a supply room until they quit kicking. This was common practice previously in cases where "partial birth" abortions failed to kill the infant in a timely manner, when the head popped out before they could crush it with pliers. *After* the law, there is now a situation that is, to my mind, even *less* tenable, exposing infants being an ancient and time honored tradition. You now have a deal where a woman can literally go in for an abortion, and due to a split second error on the part of the doctor, leave as the mother of a profoundly unwanted premature baby.

For my part, I have fewer problems with murder than I do with enslavement. That's why I can respect both sides of the debate, because I realize that there are simply no truly morally acceptable positions. All of them have warts large enough to obscure the features of the face.

So, yeah, Ron Paul is RTL. He always was. It doesn't change the fact that he is the *most* small government person by a very very wide margin in the house or senate. If you're looking for a moral politician, he may not be your best friend, but he absolutely is your *only* friend.
Apr. 13th, 2011 04:25 am (UTC)
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.
Apr. 13th, 2011 04:47 am (UTC)
RTL=Right To Life. Anti-abortion.

Just to point out, the position you stated here is an "appeal to consequence".
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.
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )



Latest Month

June 2019


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars