Thursday, February 9, 2012

Thank you, Ron Paul

Today on "Thankful Thursdays", I want to thank Ron Paul.

I recently read an article that talks about his stance on abortions after rape.  His stance, as he apparently clarified to that pinnacle of interviewers Piers Morgan, is that, if a woman comes to an ER claiming an immediately preceding rape, then she should be given the drugs or hormones necessary to cause an abortion, but that, get this, it wouldn't actually be an abortion.  Let that sink in for a moment.
Now, I'll say what we're all thinking: an extremely incredulous "what?!"  Basically, Paul's reasoning that this is permissible is that we don't really know if fertilization has taken place so it's okay to possibly murder a theoretic human being so long as we aren't sure if they're there or not.  Apparently Paul must have been in opposite land on the day he swore that part in the Hippocratic Oath where doctors promise to err on the side of life, just in case, because here he is clearly acting in that way.

Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. 
If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. 
But it may also be within my power to take a life; 
this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and 
awareness of my own frailty. 
Above all, I must not play at God.
(sadly, from Wilipedia)

To him, those last words (emphasis my own) must mean that we should "play at God", but only in cases of rape, and especially when we just aren't sure. So thank you, Ron Paul, for clearing that up for me. The only thing you had going for you (not that I would ever have voted for you with all of your whack-a-doodle ideas on foreign policy) was your totally pro-life stance and your understanding that, as Horton says, "A person's a person, no matter how small." I thought that you were a libertarian who understood that one person's right to the life they want does not outweigh another's right to life. I'm glad you could clear that up for me.


  1. From Ron Paul: “Forcing private religious institutions to pay for contraception and sterilization as part of their health care plans is a direct assault on the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. On my first day as President, I will reverse this policy. Repealing the unconstitutional monstrosity known as ObamaCare is a major part of my Plan to Restore America.

    “I am the only GOP presidential candidate who has consistently opposed the federal promotion, funding, and mandating of contraception and abortion. Unlike Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, I never voted to provide taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood. And unlike Mitt Romney, whose Massachusetts health care plan contained a contraceptive mandate similar to the one contained in ObamaCare, I have never supported any government health care mandates.

    “When one compares my record with that of my opponents, it is clear that I am the only choice for Americans seeking a candidate they can trust to reverse the Obama administration’s assault on their religious and other liberties.”

  2. There is no perfect candidate... they have ALL said/done things that appear to be anti-life... and I am not proud of this stance and we are working to show him the inconsistency of this statement. BUT, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who has initiated legislation to declare that life begins at conception. If the Sacredness of Human Life Act passes the House, Roe vs Wade will essentially be overturned.... the morning after pill will be illegal (which nullifies his thinking on the rape issue) and states can once again start making laws against abortion. So, yes, I say THANK YOU, Ron Paul! He may not be perfect but he is the most consistent pro life candidate out there! I will NOT vote for Santorum or Gingrich, who by their voting for the funding of PP have caused thousands of unborn babies to be murdered. They are BIG government guys... just like Obama. None of them can beat him except Paul. So, if you want Obama for another four years, go for the other candidates. They don't have a chance against him.... I am sorry to say.

    1. My main question for is you to ask if you agree with the topic I was actually talking about: do you believe it's morally justifiable to inject a post-rape woman with hormones or drugs that are meant to cause an abortion, as long as we aren't sure if there's a baby there?
      As for Ron Paul, his foreign policy, i. e. abandoning Israel, etc, means he loses my vote. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who would tolerate the obliteration of God's chosen people from their God-given home.
      If the "other candidates" don't have a chance against Barry O. then Ron Paul has less than a snowball's chance in hell. That's not how I vote, by determining who has the best chance. I vote based on my beliefs, as I am sure you and most other people of good conscience do.
      Thanks for the comments though! I appreciate the reading.