Ron Paul: only ‘honest rape’ merits abortion

[bobalot]

Ron Paul tells Piers Morgan only ‘honest rape’ merits abortion

In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul was asked whether or not victims of rape should have access to abortion services. He said that while he believes that life begins at the moment of conception, the issue is too complex for him to give an answer that will “satisfy everyone.”

In an interview from Las Vegas on Piers Morgan Tonight, Morgan asked whether as a man with daughters and granddaughters, Rep. Paul (R-TX) thinks that abortion is warranted if a woman has been impregnated by a rapist.

“If it’s an honest rape,” Paul replied, “that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.” He claimed, however, that if a woman is “seven months pregnant” and says that she was raped, “It’s a little bit of a different story.”

The candidate was not forthcoming as to precisely how the “story” is different or what constitutes an “honest rape” versus a dishonest one.

Source

What the fuck is an "honest rape"? Who would get to decide who was honestly raped or not?

[K. A. Pital]

So if a woman was too scared, but later came out, that's not a "honest rape"? What a fucktard. Like every other person on the American right he needs to be fed with shit every time he opens his mouth.

[Purple]

To play devils advocate for a single post. I think what he meant was that it should only count if its actual rape as opposed to a girl just deciding that she no longer wants a child after bearing it for several months and calling rape as an excuse. The phrase seven months in being used as a more or less generic equivalent of "after she had plenty of times to think about it and than some". My guess is that he just failed to articulate the point properly and with sufficient clarity.

[Stark]

Isn't that the same 'evil women lying and cheating to get rid of babies just for convenience' shit that scaremongers have been complainig about for decades? Clearly a woman who wants an abortion should be treated as a lazy, selfish slut until she proves herself honest.

[Metatwaddle]

A shot of estrogen? Does that seriously induce abortion? I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure that's not right. I guess he's continuing in the Bill Frist tradition of Congressional doctors talking out of their asses.

I don't believe for a moment that anyone who is actually concerned about the baby fetuses would advocates "rape and incest" exceptions. It's ludicrous that American political culture seems to have decided it's a "reasonable" "moderate" position, as it's actually less principled than either the liberal position or the ultra-conservative one. Catholic conservatives are crazy but at least they're consistent. Ron Paul just wants to punish women for having sex.

Libertarian, my ass.

[Raw Shark]

A shot of estrogen? Does that seriously induce abortion? I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure that's not right. I guess he's continuing in the Bill Frist tradition of Congressional doctors talking out of their asses.

Not that I don't think he's being a fucktard in other ways here, but the guy is a medical doctor. I'm guessing that he's suggesting a high dose of estrogen administered immediately, like some forms of morning after pill, when he talks about going to the emergency room after a rape.

Emergency contraceptive pills (sometimes referred to as emergency hormonal contraception (EHC) in Great Britain) may contain higher doses of the same hormones (estrogens, progestins, or both) found in regular combined oral contraceptive pills. Taken after unprotected sexual intercourse or contraceptive failure, such higher doses may prevent pregnancy from occurring.

Bolding mine.

[Grumman]

To play devils advocate for a single post. I think what he meant was that it should only count if its actual rape as opposed to a girl just deciding that she no longer wants a child after bearing it for several months and calling rape as an excuse. The phrase seven months in being used as a more or less generic equivalent of "after she had plenty of times to think about it and than some". My guess is that he just failed to articulate the point properly and with sufficient clarity.

Seemed pretty clear to me. A fetus at six months already has a 90% chance of survival if born immediately, so aborting a healthy fetus at seven months doesn't seem to achieve anything that adoption wouldn't. Bobalot must be slipping if the worst thing he can find is that Ron Paul opposes third trimester abortions.

A shot of estrogen? Does that seriously induce abortion? I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure that's not right. I guess he's continuing in the Bill Frist tradition of Congressional doctors talking out of their asses.

It's one of the active ingredients used in morning-after pills. IOW, it's used to prevent implantation, not to cause abortions.

[bobalot]

To play devils advocate for a single post. I think what he meant was that it should only count if its actual rape as opposed to a girl just deciding that she no longer wants a child after bearing it for several months and calling rape as an excuse. The phrase seven months in being used as a more or less generic equivalent of "after she had plenty of times to think about it and than some". My guess is that he just failed to articulate the point properly and with sufficient clarity.

Seemed pretty clear to me. A fetus at six months already has a 90% chance of survival if born immediately, so aborting a healthy fetus at seven months doesn't seem to achieve anything that adoption wouldn't. Bobalot must be slipping if the worst thing he can find is that Ron Paul opposes third trimester abortions.

There are plenty of bad things about Ron Paul. There's the new links to white supremacists that were discovered. Hell, it's even been posted on this forum.

However, when it comes to this, it's obvious he's doing the same old "LOLZ, lots of abortions are third trimester abortions and people shouldn't be allowed to do them!" bullshit talking point we have seen from rightwing tards for the last 25 years.

[Grumman]

However, when it comes to this, it's obvious he's doing the same old "LOLz, lots of abortions are third trimester abortions and people who do them are bad!" bullshit we have seen from rightwing tards for the last 25 years.

He was asked whether an abortion was warranted in the case of rape, and he gave an example where the answer was yes, and an example where the answer was no.

Your argument seems to be that giving a more complex answer instead of a soundbyte that could be abused by his Republican opponents makes him a bad person.

[bobalot]

However, when it comes to this, it's obvious he's doing the same old "LOLz, lots of abortions are third trimester abortions and people who do them are bad!" bullshit we have seen from rightwing tards for the last 25 years.

He was asked whether an abortion was warranted in the case of rape, and he gave an example where the answer was yes, and an example where the answer was no.

Your argument seems to be that giving a more complex answer instead of a soundbyte that could be abused by his Republican opponents makes him a bad person.

Like most pro-life dishonest douchebags, he lies by omission. He gave an answer using two examples of women who get abortions after rape as if those were the only two rape/abortion situations ever.

1) Immediately after, like on the day.
2) Seven months later.

What about women in between who want to get abortions (after rape) between those massively different periods? Perhaps he could let us know the criteria for "honest rapes" in those cases? Of course, he doesn't elaborate on that.

[Lord of the Abyss]

A fetus at six months already has a 90% chance of survival if born immediately, so aborting a healthy fetus at seven months doesn't seem to achieve anything that adoption wouldn't.

It avoids the physical stress of carrying the fetus for two more months and the pain and physical damage of birth. Not that a fetus that is to be aborted at 6 or 7 months is likely to be healthy.

[SirNitram]

Ah, another qualifying of rape. Like the redefining of it to only count forcible rape. Whenever I hear this, I can't help but think back to this, Bill Napoli, saying what rape is, and this was in 06. Not in the 50s, just six years back:

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

This was the only exception he'd make for it. A right-wing cariacture brutally assaulted.

[SCRawl]

Not a fan of most of Rep. Paul's usual schtick, but this seems much ado about not very much. He appears to be giving two different scenarios for a woman seeking an exemption for what would be, in his estimation, a good and just ban on abortion. I don't get the impression that he considers these to be the only two possible scenarios, but rather two extreme ends of situations on both ends of the spectrum. I will break it down a bit more:

Situation 1: a woman approaches Dr. Paul (who is, for some reason, putting in a shift at an emergency room), says that she was forced to have intercourse earlier that day, and wants to prevent pregnancy. She has a police report in hand, and her story checks out. Boom, estrogen, away you go.

Situation 2: a woman approaches Dr. Paul (who is, inexplicably, working in a women's health clinic) and wants to abort her pregnancy, saying that she was forced to have intercourse seven months earlier and is just now getting around to seeking a remedy. Not so fast...

The first scenario is, in his opinion, pretty cut-and-dried, and really I doubt that very many outside the militant anti-choice crazy people would deny her a permanent resolution to this one aspect of her new problem. I would find it difficult to find a clearer example of a person more deserving of an exemption to an abortion ban (which, fortunately, does not yet exist).

The second scenario, in contrast, has a pretty serious whiff of implausibility. I wouldn't say that it's impossible, but my first thought upon hearing such a story would be to listen with a skeptical (though open) mind. Some rape victims will have situations which make seeking help difficult or impossible, but there would also be those who would try to be dishonest about the root cause of their pregnancy in order to circumvent the (theoretical) abortion ban. This might also be where the expression "honest rape" that Paul used came from.

And so, between these two scenarios lies a continuum of scenarios. Some on the end closest to #1 would be acceptable to Paul, and closer to #2 would not be acceptable. I am oversimplifying this, because of course it's not a one-dimensional problem, but one of several dimensions. Not worth hyperventilating over.

[SCRawl]

I should have watched the video before I responded based on the article. What's missing from it -- at no fault to the OP, by the way, as it isn't in the accompanying article -- is that the only reason that making the exception for the rape victim is that there's no evidence yet that conception has taken place. In other words, if there was some sort of test for determining pregnancy a short time after intercourse, and that test revealed that there was a fertilized egg in there, then Paul would refuse emergency contraception. That seems to be what he said in one part of the video, though he was waffling a bit.

[Keevan_Colton]

I look forward to hearing his proposals regarding how to expand the social safety net to provide for these children and how he intends to raise the required funds...

[Broken]

I look forward to hearing his proposals regarding how to expand the social safety net to provide for these children and how he intends to raise the required funds...

I also look forward to Ron Paul's specific and detailed definition of "honest" rape to see how many rapes and assaults that would likely exclude. Especially since, iirc, rape is one of the most under-reported crimes out there.

[Dalton]

That's a very nice extrapolation out of thin air, Adam. I really enjoy watching you construct these strawmen, as if your lofty debate skills can pierce his very mind.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I look forward to hearing his proposals regarding how to expand the social safety net to provide for these children and how he intends to raise the required funds...

Oh, didn't you know? Life begins at conception, but conservatives only care about them as long as they're in the womb. Once they're born you only care about them when it's time to put them in jail.

[Dalton]

Perhaps you or Keevan_Colton could explain what he actually meant, rather than just saying "j'accuse!!!"

Perhaps you can stop spouting lines of strawman bullshit.

[Zaune]

I look forward to hearing his proposals regarding how to expand the social safety net to provide for these children and how he intends to raise the required funds...

I also look forward to Ron Paul's specific and detailed definition of "honest" rape to see how many rapes and assaults that would likely exclude. Especially since, iirc, rape is one of the most under-reported crimes out there.

So would district attorneys all over the continental United States, I imagine. There's a certain amount of middle-ground between consensual sex and grabbing someone off the street and forcing yourself on them, at least enough to massively complicate the securing of an actual conviction.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's a terrible response; a very bad abortion argument that isn't likely to convince anyone anyway. The most you might get is "lol lower tax politician is a hypocrite", though Ron Paul's position here is simple enough: he sincerely believes that private charity or state level government programs are enough, so it is a non-issue. Whether he's right or wrong about the facts is another argument, separate from both abortion and hypocracy.

No hypocrisy is even required when someone does not live in a little place called "reality" and has outmoded 19th century attitudes toward women.

1) If women were not sluts, there would be no single parent homes or women who get pregnant by accident. Therefore, private charity should be sufficient when someone who is not a slut and has children falls down on their luck.
2) Sluts deserve what they get. They must "take responsibility" for their wantoness by having the child, giving up all their hopes and dreams, and raise the child in poverty.
3) What about the kids? Why should I have to pay for them? I am not a slutty slutty woman!

But, coming back to the argument there... you're basically saying abortion should be allowed because the babies might be poor, and that would bring budgetary pressures.

And crime, and suffering.

Do you actually expect people to agree that the solution to poverty is to murder the poor and potentially poor? Hell, let's cut the loaded word 'murder' out: do you even expect people to agree that it is better to not live at all than to live in poverty?

That is kind of the point of being pro-choice. Mom gets to make the decision for herself what is in the best interests of herself and the non-person growing inside her.

Also, if I take your argument to its logical conclusion, namely that life is better than non-life and that this brings about moral obligations, we are all obligated to take every chance we get, however odious, to reproduce.

We owe NOTHING to a fetus, because they are not beings posessing any of the characteristics of a morally relevant entity (no conscious perception, no pain, no thoughts or experiences etc. It really does not matter what ethical system you use. Deontology, Consequentialism, Pragmatism, Virtue Ethics...). However, we do have obligations to them after they are born (or at least viable) because they do have these qualities. Thus, any talk about the state of existence of a child is contingent on them being born.

[Dalton]

Perhaps you can stop spouting lines of strawman bullshit.

You can stop spouting lines of contentless spam, or actually make an argument. Either way works for me. Or, I guess you could put your mod hat on, but until you do, I'll treat you the same way I'd treat anyone else.

My mod hat's been on, motherfucker. I'm modding your ass right the fuck now and telling you to cut it the fuck out with strawman bullshit, and don't you dare try to call me out with hall monitor bullshit like that. I don't give a fuck about your argument: you are pulling strawmen out of your ass and then trying to act like some kind of sanctimonious martyr prick. Either knock it the fuck off or get the god damn hell out of this thread, asswipe, or I'll put on my admin hat.

[Serafina]

In case you are interested what sort of strawmen you are perpetuating:

This is an arbitrary restriction (of course, all of morality is), and a dangerous one too. I prefer to be as all-inclusive as possible in morality; I think it is wrong to needlessly destroy an inanimate object as well as plants, animals, people and many other things.

An abortion isn't "needless destruction". At the very least it prevents the women in question from having to bear a child she doesn't want, and there are plenty of arguments about the benefit for society, as well as possible health benefits.

But, the problem with having morally relevant entities is it means you also have morally irrelevant entities. What if you misclassify something and then mistreat it?

Oh hey, a pointless "what if"-question. We are talking about a specific issue (abortion), numbnuts - so why are you talking about a generalistic "our morals should be all-inclusive and perfect, and what if we make some unspecified error?". Alyrium made clear, scientific statements about a fetus, "what if we're wrong in some hypothetical case" isn't an answer to that.


Oh, sod that, your entire argument is just a huge strawman of pointless absolutism. You can not possibly have any sort of ethics where some things are irrelevant. At the very least, some things have so little relevance that they are utterly irrelevant in comparison to something else (say, an individual bacterium in comparison to the life of a human being - or a lump of fetal cells in comparison to a womans life).
Arguing otherwise is as futile as dividing a finite distance into infinitely small points.

[Simon_Jester]

Here's how I saw it: talking about money in response to someone saying abortion should be banned can be taken in two ways:

1) He wants to laugh at the person, which I talked about in my first paragraph of the post.

or

2) He's saying the cost of supporting these children is a counterargument in the abortion debate. This is what I went into in the later paragraphs.

Or:

3) Consider this:

When Paul favors an abortion ban, he's saying that we must go to great lengths to ensure that children are born, whether the mother wants to bear them or not. But on other issues, he doesn't much care for government structures like the Department of Education and the FDA, which among other things serve to protect children by making sure they get safe food, decent education, and the like.

So while he says that women must bear children to term whether they want to or not, he also says that no one should be required to do much of anything to make sure that those children are fed adequately, raised properly, or educated thoroughly.

Viewed unsympathetically, this becomes: "Bearing children is mandatory, making sure they have a good life is not."

I don't think Keevan's out of line in seeing a contradiction in there. Or in thinking that if you really care about forcing women to bear children, for the sake of the children and not for the sake of limiting the women, you should also care about forcing those women (and everyone else) to raise the children after they're born.

[RedImperator]

Imma put on my mod hat right now and say "no dogpiling". If you're not already in the debate with D13, unless you have something really original to add, you missed the boat. Sorry.