Ron Paul Tells CNN’s Piers Morgan Only “Honest Rape” Warrants An Abortion. (Honest Rape?)

Hinterland Gazette ^

[mnehring]

During an appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan, GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul was 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.” Source

[muawiyah]

Again, one more time ~ if we are going to execute a rapist we want to make doggone sure the kid is his, right? Else, he's not the rapist and it would be wrong to execute him.

You must follow from that into the realm of law where you have NO ABORTION but with a RAPE EXCEPTION.

With no rape, there's no abortion. if there's a claim of rape, but the accusation is false, there's still no abortion. If the rape can be proved, then you execute the rapist and the kid, right?

Now, what happens if this takes so long the baby is born, but you do find out the guy was a rapist. Do you then execute the baby as well as the rapist?

What if it languishes for years ~ due to faulty evidence, can we track down the offspring once they reach adulthood and skrag them?

What are your cutoff points. What are your details. How do you deal with reality?

You can treat these as rhetorical questions, but I'd think you'd have to agree that the "rape exception" is a rather difficult exception to administer.

[svcw]

Ok, Lynn, what part of “I have and others” have posted dozens of links to alterPaul words which show his delusions do you not understand.
I am not doing it again.
I am mocking you, not alterPaul.
alterPaul is not the person whom you think he is. That is your issue not mine.
This post is about abortion and it is clear that alterPaul is not pro-life - it is that simple.
Try and keep up.
toot-a-loo

[svcw]

Got it, thanks.

[Theophilus]

Dr. Paul's response bears very close examination because if he is prescribing abortifacient (estrogen shot) treatment for a rape victim, I don't think I can support him anymore.

Mary MacGregor: Robert, there is more. I am carrying a child and I do not know who is the father."
Robert Roy MacGregor: Ach, Mary...
Mary MacGregor: I could not kill it, husband.
Robert Roy MacGregor: It's not the child that needs killing.

[muawiyah]

I would, at a minimum, demand evidence of a rape ~ since as soon as you outlaw abortion on demand you're going to have the Planned Parenthood harpies and ghoulies figuring out all sorts of ways to lie and cheat the system.

You have to deal with reality.

With the evidence in hand, and a foreshortened prosecution cycle (maybe as fast as the old abortion on demand cycle), we still need to execute the rapist first.

Cynic that I am I think the rape rate would decline.

We probably ought to legislate a death penalty for falsifying a rape too. That's to keep the number of false positives down.

Remember, all these thoughts are occurring to me within the context of a system that says in cases of rape somebody is going to die. I simply want the rapist to be the one who does the dying. We have a shortage of adoptable babies.

[Charlespg]

Fortunately, my family has never faced this particular dilemma. I’d also vote for any law that outlawed abortion except in cases of rape or incest. That would be a far, far cry better than what we have now, and I wouldn’t sit the vote out because the law wasn’t pure enough.

that's pretty much how I feel , I don't agree with abortion for convenience sake but I do see a exception in cases like rape or incest ,or to save the mothers life

[svcw]

So because there maybe a rape the baby should be dismembered or burned to death and that is ok?
Got it.

[surroundedbyblue]

Yes, we do have a shortage of adoptable babies. Thank you for bringing that up.

Our unplanned babies in the US end up in a dumpster or down a garbage disposal at the local abortion clinc. All tax-payer funded.

[The_Reader_David]

Okay folks, I’ve gone through this before.

I’m assuming all of us posting on this thread agree that at fertilization a new and unique human being is created. From this it follows that destroying an embryo or a foetus is homicide. Note I was very careful, homicide, not murder. Homicide committed on a whim, for convenience, simply because one wants it is murder. But we are left with the question of whether any abortions are justifiable homicide, rather than murder.

I think all who reason clearly about moral matters will agree that in a circumstance where the continued growth of the child will result in the death of both mother and child (e.g. an ectopic pregnancy) an abortion is justifiable homicide, rather than murder. In other cases some medical problem could render the mother incapable of carrying the child to term or until a caesarian delivery could allow the child to survive in the care of neonatologists even though the child is growing normally in her womb.

Beyond that, as in all case of potentially justifiable homicide, there are likelihoods to consider. Most everyone on FR supports a strong castle doctrine in which an intruder in a home who does not flee when ordered off may be presumed to be a threat to life and limb and shot out of hand. There are circumstances in which continuing a pregnancy is probabilistically more of a threat to the mother’s life than an intruder is to a householder’s life. Should abortion in those circumstances be viewed by the law as justifiable homicide? (Certainly as Christians, we should hope and pray that a Christian woman might be given grace to risk what is arguably a martyric death seeking to carry the child to term, but should the law oblige her to undertake that podvig, as we Orthodox call a spiritual burden?)

Which brings me to the point at hand. Those who argue for an exception to a general prohibition against abortion in case where the pregnancy was engendered by rape or incest do so on the basis that such an abortion is in the nature of self-defense: the carrying of the child is a continuation of the violation of the woman. Again, we might find a difference between what we might hope and pray as Christians — that the woman be given the grace to bear the burden as a witness to the sanctity of life as a gift of God — and what the state ought to impose upon the woman. In a well-ordered Christian society, society would support, indeed hold up as exemplary, a woman who bears the burden of carrying a rapist’s child to term. Alas, we do not live in such a society. In the existing world, I would be content with a rape-and-incest exception to go along with a life-of-the-mother exception to a general prohibition on abortion.

And finally to Congressman Paul’s point: a rape exception should not be so elastic as to permit abortions on the basis of women having regrets for consensual sex and deciding “it was rape” after the fact, esp. long after the fact (that glass of wine I had with dinner impaired my ability to consent. . . ). As I pointed out in my other post to this thread, it is not his fault that the meaning of “rape” has been so expanded that infelicitous (”honest rape”, “rape rape”) are now needed to recapture its original sense.

[svcw]

alterPaul supports abortion - nuff said.

[lynn4303]

And “mocking” is what part of intelligent debate. Again go back and read my posts. I was attempting to get you to demonstrate your knowledge. I assumed you had some. Despite my best intentions you keep proving me wrong

[svcw]

Yes, no carried to term, adoption
Your premise is idiotic.
Birth control - great , not likely a rapist would use it.

[PGR88]

Otherwise known as good, old-fashioned rape!

/s

[CitizenUSA]

muawiyah: “You can treat these as rhetorical questions, but I’d think you’d have to agree that the “rape exception” is a rather difficult exception to administer.”

Yes. I agree a “rape exception” is a difficult exception to administer. However, if that’s what it took to actually eliminate the other 99.9% of abortions, then that’s an exception I’d embrace. We could easily get a political majority to support restrictions on abortion in all but extreme cases, like rape and incest. I would not delay saving the 99.9% in order to save the 0.1%.

[muawiyah]

You should have read down a little further. I pointed to your argument at post #10.

A number of folks have taken my suggestion and flipped this over to the question of EXECUTING THE RAPIST, which includes establishing the evidence necessary to prove that a rape occurred.

If we ban abortion but leave an exception there, we need to establish what the details in that sticky wicket are. Simply stipulating that if this is a crime worthy of the death of someone we should certainly consider the rapist a candidate for that first, we can see where the exception really takes us.

Through experience arguing this case for over 3 decades I've noticed that MOST PEOPLE find it easy enough to say "give an exception" but they have difficulty dealing with the EVIDENTIARY TRAIL necessary to justify executing the rapist.

It's just a corollary.

Let me say this about your post. If you can dump that much stuff into the hopper, I'd think you could argue the EXECUTE THE RAPIST side equally well.

Try it, let's see what you've really got to say!

[Charlespg]

Your premise is idiotic.

so you'd force a rape victim to carry to term ?

[John Valentine]

I think its pretty obvious what he meant.

It's not the least bit obvious to me, so here I am. Enlighten me, please.

[svcw]

So cute.
I told you that myself and others have posted dozens of links showing alterPauls delusions and I am not doing it again.
Take it or leave it I do not care.
The bottem line is that alterPaul supports abortion, as evident by what he just said.
He is not the pro-life guy he (supporters) claims to(him) be.

[svcw]

So cute.
I told you that myself and others have posted dozens of links showing alterPauls delusions and I am not doing it again.
Take it or leave it I do not care.
The bottom line is that alterPaul supports abortion, as evident by what he just said.
He is not the pro-life guy he (supporters) claims to(him) be.

[svcw]

So you are willing to kill an innocent baby - got it.