Doug Wilson Confronts Ron Paul on Abortion

Ron Paul showed the limits of his pro-life principles in a recent appearance on the Piers Morgan progam on CNN (see video below). Doug Wilson rightly takes Paul to task:

[Ron Paul] was asked about abortion in the case of rape. The answer to this, incidentally, is straightforward — when a woman conceives as the result of a rape, there is one guilty party, and two innocent parties. What the pro-aborts want to do is change the ratios — they want one victim instead of two, and they want two perpetrators instead of one. They want the man who took what didn’t belong to him to be joined by a woman who imitates him by taking what doesn’t belong to her.

In response to this question, Ron Paul said that a woman who is raped should go to an emergency room immediately, and get a shot of estrogen, which would prevent the implantation of a conceived child in the uterine wall. Further, he said that he would administer that shot of estrogen. Piers Morgan, astonished, said that he thought Ron Paul believed life begins at conception. Ron Paul said that he did, but that we don’t know at that point whether the woman is pregnant.

This, in effect, was saying that if we don’t know if someone is living in a room then it must be okay to fill it up with poison gas. This example might seem beside the point because, if we did that, we would eventually have to carry a dead body out. But, in the case of this small victim, nobody ever needs to know. But, speaking frankly, and just between us, “nobody need ever know” is not exactly a pro-life rallying cry.

The most charitable takeaway is that Ron Paul does not understand the issue, or the meaning of the words he is using. At all. He does not understand the ramifications of what it means to confess that “life begins at conception.” Further, this ignorance on a point of high magnitude was coming from a medical doctor who confessed that life begins at conception, and that, provided he didn’t know of that person’s presence, that he personally would have no problem taking that person’s life. If that’s not a muddle, I don’t know what would count at one.

43 Responses to Doug Wilson Confronts Ron Paul on Abortion

  1. yankeegospelgirl February 6, 2012 at 1:29 pm #

    Keep in mind too that Mitt Romney has embraced the “exceptions” as a matter of principle, even insisting that they be added to a pro-life bill that hadn’t contained them.

  2. Paul February 6, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

    So, you’re whining and whimpering over a POSSIBLE abortifacient in the face of rape?

    Denny, the question of the day is, are you planning on wearing the motorcycle jacket while jumping the shark?

    • yankeegospelgirl February 6, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

      Look, this little clip says far more about Ron Paul’s attitude toward pro-lifers than it does about the actual ethics of the issue in question. Frankly, it was a shallow and surprisingly unprofessional answer to the question from a medical doctor. It wasn’t remotely helpful, scientific or informative. It was sheer nose-thumbing at pro-lifers. Granted, people on both sides of the issue may not have all their facts straight when they discuss it, but that’s not the point here. The point is that Ron Paul no longer cares about responding or appealing to conservatives on the life issue. He’s content to smirk at them and go on his snarky way. That should reveal something about where he really stands.

    • Denny Burk February 6, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

      Paul,

      Your moral judgment is just off. If the unborn are human beings, then you have to treat them like human beings. It is a grave evil to kill innocent human beings, even when those human beings are conceived as a result of sexual assault.

      This isn’t “whining and wimpering.” It’s a serious moral judgment rooted in the scripture and in 2,000 years of Christian tradition. If you want to debate the substance, I’m happy to do that. But no one is going to mistake your inflammatory rhetoric for an argument.

      Denny

      • yankeegospelgirl February 6, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

        Since Ron Paul has refused to engage substantially with the medical side of all this, let me make a stab at clarifying the ethics of his proposed course of action.

        Put briefly, everything hinges on where a woman is in her cycle. That should be the first question a doctor asks any rape victim looking for an immediate contraceptive.

        If she hasn’t ovulated yet, then it could be ethical and practical to administer the contraceptive so as to push down the date and allow the sperm to die out. But if she can’t remember (which is entirely plausible if she’s in distress), or if she’s irregular, then nothing can be done because there’s insufficient data. And certainly nothing should be done if she knows she’s already ovulated. At that point one has to ask what the motivation would be for wanting the shot. If you’re within the window, then either you’re going to get pregnant anyway even with the shot, or you’ll prevent implantation and kill a baby. If you’re late enough in your cycle, nothing’s going to happen either way. So unless a woman KNOWS she hasn’t ovulated yet, it becomes a matter of doing whatever it takes not to get pregnant even if it’s possibly unethical or even impractical. The shot itself has unpleasant side effects, so that’s another reason to know exactly what the data is before administering it.

        But of course Paul didn’t get into any of this, because it seems to me that he doesn’t care.

      • Justin F February 6, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

        Denny,

        I’ve tried to be civil, friendly, and polite in my comments even while seriously disagreeing with the issues. But I cannot believe what I just read.

        That is one of the most insensitive, flippant, and despicable things that you have written. Did you really just accuse the victims of rape who take the pill of murder? I hope that no victim of rape reads those words. As if being assaulted by their rapist isn’t bad enough now they suffer the judgement of a prominent religious leader? I think that you have buried yourself so deeply into your ideology that you don’t even notice what you are writing. Even allowing that you believe that fertilized eggs are humans, your comments show no sympathy to women who are assaulted and viciously raped.

        How would you like to be the woman who is daily reminded of her assault? How is she ever to get past this? How would you like to be that child knowing your whole life that you only exist because someone attacked your mother sexually?

        And where is this scriptural support against the killing of the unborn? Was it before or after the plague of death that killed the first born? Perhaps it followed God’s command to kill entire villages and civilizations man, woman, and child? Blind application of the bible is being used to further injustice against the victims of violence, this needs to stop.

        Denny, even with your beliefs on conception, have some compassion towards women who have faced a horrible evil.

        • Jason February 14, 2012 at 3:54 am #

          Your “solution” is murder. Is this supposed to be an improvement?

        • yankeegospelgirl February 14, 2012 at 1:24 pm #

          Hang on. God causing the firstborn to die is not equivalent to men killing a baby. God is the giver of life. If he takes His hand away from any of us, at any time, we die. When a loved one passes on, we speak all the time of God “calling that person home.” When God ended the babies’ lives, he was taking them into (we presume) the eternal rest of heaven. We can’t “send babies to heaven,” but God, as the giver of life, can.

          Now, the question of God’s commandment to slay all men, women and children is much more problematic, and frankly I have never been sure what to make of those passages. I am holding out on the possibility that they are inauthentic, yet we don’t have evidence that they are. But regardless, the fact that murder is wrong is indisputable.

      • John February 6, 2012 at 11:53 pm #

        Denny, the evangelical community should realize that Ron Paul is the only viable candidate. Not even Rick Santorum. I challenge (in a friendly, Christlike way) any modern Christian leader to tell us laypeople that any other candidates views on monetary policy, foreign policy, etc are anywhere as good as Paul’s.

        I would further challenge the Reformed community, including yourself, to admit that Ron Paul is the only non-dispensationalist leaning evangelical worth looking at.

        It is the “ugly elephant in the room” that no Reformed people are talking about–overall, many evangelicals will simply vote for whoever blindly supports Israel. thanks, God bless, and will we please be honest for once in evangelicalism?

        thanks.
        John

        • yankeegospelgirl February 7, 2012 at 9:07 am #

          I don’t have to be a hawk to think Ron Paul’s foreign policy is a mess. Yes, I believe our military policy has been disastrous, and we’re ridiculously far-flung and entangled in various god-forsaken corners of the world. We know how to start a bajillion campaigns, but we’re clueless about how to finish them. BUT the alternative is not to pretend there is no Muslim threat, and certainly not to cut off support from Israel. We’re not being much of a help to Israel as it is. The truth is though that the country who can best help Israel right now is Israel. They’re in an impossible situation over there, and it’s a miracle they’ve survived this long. I hear they’re planning to attack Iran in the spring. Good for them. I’m sure it’ll be a model of military action—get in, get out. Our military leaders should study it (ahem).

      • Martin Fisher February 7, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

        Conception is complete when there is a biologically replete and developing human being – it takes implatation and the beginning of a nourishment process by which human growth is really happening. When you are dealing with cell division of the human genome from fertilization, you are just not ready to bring absolutes of personhood values to the table yet, especially when dealing with what government should do, or what your neighbor should do.

        It is a matter of ethics, but not yet morality with regards to the potential for life. Ron Paul is right, and from a doctor’s perspective. He is especially right about limits to the power of government, which is the source for why partial birth abortions on demand are the law of the land despite clear 80+ percent majorities of people incensed that such obvious savagery should take place openly and for a price.

        FOCUS ON THE REAL PROBLEM!!! That is Ron Paul’s message: the problem if big government that both political parties are in evil partnership with. You will simply NEVER achieve even the slightest change toward good if you don’t focus on the real problem.

      • Martin Fisher February 11, 2012 at 3:44 am #

        The priority of limited government weighs in at some point, even though the conscience of the human spirit might protest: at a point where it is simply impossible to impose the belief you espouse regarding the product of human fertilization. It is the product of human conception – biologically replete and developing, implanted and growing, that can be observed and defended as an in-eutero person. That which is potential, chemically questionable and not definable might be a powerful ethical question, but beyond that, simply not a tenable burden for a properly limited government to bear.

  3. Paul February 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm #

    Uhhh, if we’re going to classically define “conservatives” then Ron Paul is the second or third most conservative guy to get face time in the last century (Barry Goldwater and Ayn Rand would beat him out). There is massive stupidity in claiming that Ron Paul isn’t conservative about anything. You’re the one taking the statist position that the government should have more say than the individual on when life begins (the estrogen overload makes it unlikely that conception would take place).

    • Matt Svoboda February 6, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

      I dont usually agree with Paul, but he is right on the conservatism of Ron Paul.

  4. Paul February 6, 2012 at 2:55 pm #

    Denny, I gave you a fully fleshed out argument in one of your other threads, and you deleted it as opposed to try to argue on the merits. So, don’t even go there.

    And the moral judgement isn’t off. An estrogen overload stops an egg from dropping. In the case that it has started dropping, it slows it down. In the case that it has dropped, it hardens the walls of the ovum AND slows down the sperm. Only in the case that an egg was already fertilized (which we don’t really know and the chances, as we know from reading the travails of Abram, are actually quite slim) would we have an abortifacient, and then, that still goes to your view of when life begins. Considering everything else than an egg and sperm would already have to go through to get to that point, I’ll say they can fight a little harder and make it to the uteran wall before I start playing God with rape victims lives.

    • Denny Burk February 6, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

      So Paul, do support the use of abortifacients in cases not involving rape?

      • Paul February 6, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

        depends on what you’re defining an abortifacient as.

        • Jason February 14, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

          More postmodernism. This is not hard, Paul. Why is Plan B prescribed?

    • yankeegospelgirl February 6, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

      The window in which an estrogen shot would be both ethical AND effective is itself fairly small. As I outlined earlier, it can push down the date of ovulation if you catch it in time. Otherwise it’s either pointless or worse than pointless.

      • Paul February 6, 2012 at 10:24 pm #

        well, the ethical side of that is possibly somewhat fluid in this conversation, as far as I’m concerned.

  5. Joshua February 6, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    Ron Paul’s views on abortion are well-documented. This interview is hardly a surprise.

    Just because his position has nuances doesn’t mean he’s not truly pro-life. There are scores of people who accept rape and incest as grounds for abortion, among other things. So what.

    This is a guy who has over 4,000 births to his credit. He’s more pro-life than just about everybody I know.

    “The most charitable takeaway is that Ron Paul does not understand the issue, or the meaning of the words he is using.”

    This isn’t charitable at all – it’s just patronizing. I have trouble believing that he doesn’t understand the issue. You disagree with him. Fine – then disagree. But don’t patronize someone who is, on the whole, pro-life, because they make certain exceptions, that most pro-lifers make exception for. Ron Paul isn’t in a fringe – he’s in the mainstream.

  6. Travis February 6, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

    Denny, define “conception”. I’m interested in your definition.

    • Denny Burk February 6, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

      Conception occurs when a sperm fertilizes an egg, and a human embryo is formed.

  7. John Gardner February 6, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    Here’s what doesn’t jive for me. Check out this quote from Ron Paul’s book “Abortion and Liberty”, written in 1983 when being pro-Life was less cool:

    “To permit abortion at one day of gestation justifies it at two days; if it’s permitted one day before three months, it’s justified one day after three months; if it is permitted at one day before “viability,” a nebulous term that has no meaning,it is justified at any time. Allowing abortion at six months gestation minus one day precludes an argument against abortion two days later. Attempting such an argument is a legal joke, a medical impossibility, and a moral hoax. Just as a pregnancy of one week cannot be put aside as “insignificant,” claiming it is only a “touch” of pregnancy, abortion, regardless of the reason, cannot be downplayed as only a limited and qualified disregard for human life. Disrespect for life and liberty, once planted, grows rapidly.”

    How is this consistent with what he said in the video? Very disappointing.

  8. donsands February 6, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    If I was sitting there, and someone asked me: “What would you do if your daughter was raped? Would you make her have the baby? Or, would you tell her: “If you become pregnant from this guy who raped you, then you better have the baby! And if you don’t, then you are a murderer!”

    I throw that out there, because there are some crazy pro-lifers in this world, who seem to have tons of compassion for the womb, not matter what, but are hard as nails against any discussion.

    I saw a big time struggle for Ron Paul with rape, as we all should have. And of course, we can stand Big Time pro-life on this issue when it’s not right in our faces. But if my daughter was raped by some filthy brute, then I’d have a lot of emotions going on in me as her Dad, let me tell you.

    Life begins at conception, for sure. And Ron Paul said that. I’d like to see another interview with him about this interview.

  9. Peter February 7, 2012 at 12:03 am #

    Denny, it’s critical to understand Ron Paul’s point here and Travis posed and excellent question: When does conception take place? Doing a simple search reveals a lot of information including the following from http://www.babyhopes.com, which states:

    Conception, at least in the context of this question, is the process by which an egg is fertilized by the sperm. Sexual intercourse may occur several days before this occurs, or it can happen just hours before conception occurs.

    Implantation is when that egg, which has been fertilized, attaches to the wall of the uterus. It’s called a blastocyst at this point. After it attaches, it starts to produce the hormone hCG. This is the hormone that a pregnancy test is going to check for. Until implantation occurs, pregnancy won’t be recognized by a pregnancy test.

    With that said then, let’s talk about rape crimes and what is a woman to do post-crime? To draw a simple analogy- rape is a violent crime and is considered a felony by law, correct? Stay with me now- let’s suppose a woman is shot, what should she immediately do? Yes, go to the hospital and receive treatment for the wound, right? Since both crimes involve a violation to the personhood, it stands to reason then that a woman should get herself to a hospital immediately and receive treatment for her “wound”, albeit she may not be in danger of losing her life as it would be with a shooting. You can see where I’m going with this, I hope. Ron Paul, being a surgeon by profession, knows what he is talking about here. The woman can go to the hospital and, after DNA samples have been collected by the ER staff (to prove culpability of the perpetrator of the rape), she then should undergo a complete vaginal cleaning as part of the treatment. Why wait? So you can find out in 7-14 days that you may actually be pregnant? No, you go immediately to the ER and get this heinous act cleansed thoroughly.

    Conception does not happen instantly after sex (consensual or forced), obviously. Physically, it takes time for the fertilization to take place, but since we are dealing with a rape here, are we really interfering with the procreation of an actual life or are we, by necessity, taking care of what essentially is a medical emergency?

    I am pro-life, 100%, but the answers are not always open/shut. It takes a bit of research to find out the actual timeline of when exactly conception takes place and in the instance of rape, the ONLY responsible thing to do is to get medical treatment, agreed?

    • yankeegospelgirl February 7, 2012 at 7:46 pm #

      “…since we are dealing with a rape here, are we really interfering with the procreation of an actual life or are we, by necessity, taking care of what essentially is a medical emergency?”

      I’m sorry, but I’m a philosopher, and this makes no logical sense to me at all. Would you mind explaining what, physically, is the difference between life procreated through natural sex and life procreated through rape?

  10. John February 7, 2012 at 12:41 pm #

    Denny burk you are totally reaching in your closing argument here. Did you just say that a lifelong OB/GYN doesn’t have the faintest idea about whats going on in the uterus? Seriously? You’re just anti Logic and you’ll say anything to influence the
    Opinions of ll your little minions. Zite will now be blocking you from my feed for sure.

    • Denny Burk February 7, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

      I have minions? Awesome! I’ve always wanted a minion. Now if I can just get them to do my bidding!

  11. ProPaul February 7, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    I’m really disturbed by some of the comments on this page about Paul. Sure, Paul isn’t the best at explaining himself under pressure, but even so, you cannot separate this incident with his impeccable anti-abortion record and other statements in speeches, books, house floor speeches and legislation. Please google the Bible and Ron Paul and watch segment #4 on abortion. No one else can match Paul’s record. Secondly, you must realize that Paul will follow the Constitution, meaning that he will leave the details of such a complicated scenario to the local churches, hospitals and families rather than a blanket rule from the federal govt. Any other scenario, Paul is %100 against abortion under any circumstance. Notice he clarifies “honest rape” and “immediately” – not just any sexual experience and not a day or two later. He is making a personal statement on what he would do personally, not what he would force upon states. Is he wrong on this? He could be. But it is irrelevent because Paul will not force that personal opinion on the states. So, I just see all of this as smoke and mirrors. It is clear that anyone who forms such derogatory opinione of Paul for this has never read his books and knows zilch about his record and plan for outlawing abortion. Please, google the Bible and Ron Paul. Critique that series, the author would love a friendly debate.

  12. Ted February 7, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    Denny (& Doug Wilson, too), Does your health insurance pay for abortions, morning after pills, and/or abortifacient birth control?

  13. Travis February 8, 2012 at 10:39 am #

    Who do you endorse Denny? I’ve read Mohler’s article justifying the “christians” vote for Romney. Would you endorse/reward a candidate the presidency knowing that they have flip-flopped their support on this very issue that you are holding Ron Paul too (abortion)? As I see it you have the following options.

    Romney- Cult member and political schemer (proven by his do whatever gets the vote history).

    Gingrich- Adulterer who dodged questions about infidelity numerous times & a run of the mill Republican cut front the same do nothing different fabric.

    Santorum- Seemingly good guy just not a lot of experience.

    Paul- Faithful husband for 55yrs, an authoritative voice concerning medical issues and consistent congressional voter, weird policy on drugs.

    Please don’t assume a sarcastic tone, this is part of my thinking on the candidates right now.

  14. Lucas Knisely February 8, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    I’m a Ron Paul supporter, and I think he has a good plan to put the power to reverse abortion laws into the hands of the people.

    However, his answer that was given is not a good one. I believe he is historically pro-life, and I believe him when he says he wants to insure the rights and liberty of all individuals (including the unborn). But again, his answer missed the mark.

    The book Embryo, written to defend the pro-life position from scientific facts, is helpful in seeing why his answer is insufficient.

    “…the most definitive moment marking the existence of a new human organism is fertilization, defined as the union of sperm with oocyte.” (pg 39 The Facts of Embryology)

    The rape argument is an argument from emotion. I find it ironic that those who typically hail science and reason as the pillars for establishing law and morality end up ignoring both and using emotional arguments to plead their case. And honestly, those who have been raped should be offended that their tragedy is extorted and used in a fallacious argument. Nowhere else will you find an argument that ultimately says, “Some persons experience or are in a tragic situation, therefore a right to violence should be given to all citizens.” This is a non sequitur (it does not follow). Apply it to poverty and children who are starving. Shouldn’t all citizens then be allowed to kill for food? Doesn’t this make it legitimate to grant violent action to end said tragedies? It sounds ridiculous when used in another argument because it is a ridiculous way to establish law and morality.

    Ron Paul dignified the stupidity of the question by pandering to those who wish to keep killing unborn children legal simply because we live in a world where tragedies like rape exist.

  15. donsands February 8, 2012 at 12:57 pm #

    “…those who have been raped should be offended that their tragedy is extorted and used in a fallacious argument.”

    I like this point. If my duaghter was raped, I would want to kill the man, no doubt about it. And I know how it would be devastating for her. And so rape is such a wicked evil, isn’t it.

    The fact is that Ron said Life begins at conception, and so abortion is killing a human after conception. This is his firm view, as it should all peoples view, because we all were conceived.
    But I know church-goers who will say abortion is okay up to 7 weeks.

    We need to keep praying and bringing this abortion issue out, as Denny has done here. How I appreciate Pastor Burk and his encouraging stance for life, for humans, and for the image of our God and Lord. Keep on my brother.

  16. Matt J. February 8, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

    When he was asked whether “conception” means fertilization or implantation a couple weeks ago by Personhood USA, Ron Paul said that he believes that conception means fertilization. The interviewer even referenced abortifacient drugs in his question. Here is the video of Ron Paul at the Personhood USA forum http://youtu.be/Hv7wNgZWU9c

    Until we get better clarification, this is very confusing.

  17. ProPaul February 8, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

    Paul has been severely misunderstood in regards to his Piers Morgan interview. It shouldn’t be hard to follow if you listen to Paul in the context of his worldview. Here are the facts: Paul believes life begins at conception, he is against all abortion, he would use estrogen to treat a rape victim. How can this be reconciled? The only option is that Paul meant he would use estrogen if a pregnancy test was negative. Then you would still have a chance to prevent conception, NOT to terminate a pregnancy. Notice he clarifies “honest rape” – not just any sexual act, and “immediately” – not 1 or 2 days later after conception. He obviously means you can use estrogen as a birth control BEFORE conception. The hospital would take a DNA test and this could be determined quite easily and promptly. This is very simple and I’m astonished that Wilson, an author I highly admire and read regularly, would make such uninformed comments about Paul. I’m all for criticizing a candidate where he needs to be criticized. So, yes, let’s criticize Paul on his lack of clarity when asked sensitive issues, his stuttering during debates, etc. But as far as his personal views and political policies? There’s not much to work with. Again, I make a plea to ALL CHRISTIANS: Watch the Bible & Ron Paul video series! http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0E27AFB852E14B16, particularly the abortion segment.

    • Peter February 11, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

      As I said earlier and I think it backs up what you are saying about Ron Paul’s intentions, which I think are just. I said the following in a previous post:

      To draw a simple analogy- rape is a violent crime and is considered a felony by law, correct? Stay with me now- let’s suppose a woman is shot, what should she immediately do? Yes, go to the hospital and receive treatment for the wound, right? Since both crimes involve a violation to the personhood, it stands to reason then that a woman should get herself to a hospital immediately and receive treatment for her “wound”, albeit she may not be in danger of losing her life as it would be with a shooting. You can see where I’m going with this, I hope. Ron Paul, being a surgeon by profession, knows what he is talking about here. The woman can go to the hospital and, after DNA samples have been collected by the ER staff (to prove culpability of the perpetrator of the rape), she then should undergo a complete vaginal cleaning as part of the treatment. Why wait? So you can find out in 7-14 days that you may actually be pregnant? No, you go immediately to the ER and get this heinous act cleansed thoroughly.

      Conception does not happen instantly after sex (consensual or forced), obviously. Physically, it takes time for the fertilization to take place, but since we are dealing with a rape here, are we really interfering with the procreation of an actual life or are we, by necessity, taking care of what essentially is a medical emergency?

      Agree or am I off base here?

  18. Peter February 11, 2012 at 1:04 pm #

    I have tried to offer a reasonable explanation as to what I believe Ron Paul meant, since we are dealing with not only a socially sensitive issue here (abortion), but also a time sensitive issue. I am a 24 year long follower of Christ and believe that the following is correct:

    To draw a simple analogy- rape is a violent crime and is considered a felony by law, correct? Stay with me now- let’s suppose a woman is shot, what should she immediately do? Yes, go to the hospital and receive treatment for the wound, right? Since both crimes involve a violation to the personhood, it stands to reason then that a woman should get herself to a hospital immediately and receive treatment for her “wound”, albeit she may not be in danger of losing her life as it would be with a shooting. You can see where I’m going with this, I hope. Ron Paul, being a surgeon by profession, knows what he is talking about here. The woman can go to the hospital and, after DNA samples have been collected by the ER staff (to prove culpability of the perpetrator of the rape), she then should undergo a complete vaginal cleaning as part of the treatment. Why wait? So you can find out in 7-14 days that you may actually be pregnant? No, you go immediately to the ER and get this heinous act cleansed thoroughly.

    Conception does not happen instantly after sex (consensual or forced), obviously. Physically, it takes time for the fertilization to take place, but since we are dealing with a rape here, are we really interfering with the procreation of an actual life or are we, by necessity, taking care of what essentially is a medical emergency?

    Therefore, if the act of rape is treated in similar fashion as a violent shooting incident (the difference being the medium used, i.e bullet vs. sperm), then it makes perfect sense to see what Paul is trying to express, IMHO.

  19. Ted February 11, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

    Since you haven’t answered my question about your health insurance, I have to conclude that your insurance DOES indeed pay for abortions, morning after pills, and abortifacient contraceptives. So you are being critical of Dr. Paul about a hypothetical bad answer to a hypothetical, evil, liberal based entrapment question, while you are supporting abortion with your money – month after month! While you have blood on your hands, perhaps you should consider the log in your eye, so you can remove the speck in your brother’s eye. BTW – I DO think that he answered the question poorly (although there may be something to the thought of estrogen slowing down the ovulation, and therefore preventing conception), but if the estrogen prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall – that’s a problem. Perhaps we should seek to appeal to Dr. Paul (like Apollos) rather than throw him under the bus. PS. I understand that Rick Santorum voted to fund abortions for rape & incest, while Dr. Paul has a 100% voting record with the National Right to Life.

  20. MarieP February 13, 2012 at 9:04 pm #

    Trying to square Paul’s view cited here with this article: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000665340849

    And that explained in this video:

  21. Justin F February 14, 2012 at 8:37 am #

    Jason,

    Ah you’ve found another one of my posts on abortion, but you haven’t found them all. Keep searching!

    And you have emphasized the point that I couldn’t believe that Denny made. Seriously, stop judging women who have used the pill after having been raped, and calling them murders. If you think it, whatever, but don’t print it.

  22. Jason February 14, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    Murder is your solution, J. I’m judging your solution. Follow the words.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. When I Don’t Love Ron Paul « Honey and Locusts - February 6, 2012

    […] to task on this (and other problematic issues with strict Libertarianism) in this article (HT: Denny Burk), which I commend to you. The thing that is so frustrating is that this is so inconsistent with the […]

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes