I think its pretty obvious what he meant. I think its pretty obvious he’s right.
Ping,
Paul even describes how he would perform the abortion in the case of ‘honest rape’.
Ron alter Paul is a freaking moron.
Ron alterPaul is delusional, I am beginning to think he needs to be put away.
How things evolved:
First there was “rape”.
Then there was “rape rape”.
Now we have “honest rape”.
What terminology will they think of next?
Not surprising. His pro-life credentials were shaky, at best.
I am beginning to not like Ron Paul. He has no chance to win.
I am beginning to not like Ron Paul. He has no chance to win.
It’s obvious what he mean’t. I can understand taking offense because well, it’s Wrong Paul....but I believe that the majority of American voters would agree with his sentiment.
Don’t know what “honest rape” is and I’d bet the human being Ron Paul says it’s all right to abort doesn’t either.
Pathetic!
Right and who is going to determine what is an ‘honest’ rape. A shot of estrogen? This guy’s off his nut.
Honestly ....He’s kuh rayyyyy zeeeee.
Honestly ....He’s kuh rayyyyy zeeeee.
Honest rape? So that leads to an honest abortion? We can all feel better that everything is honest now.
Sorry, but rape is not the baby’s fault. It is wrong to kill a baby in any circumstances. Rape is a terrible thing, but it won’t make the mother feel any better to get raped and then to kill her own baby. Most mothers who abort their children, even if they have been brainwashed by libs and think it’s OK, feel terribly depressed about it afterwards.
The best solution is to have the child and if the mother decides that she cannot bring the child up, then to adopt it out.
Ron Paul is a moral idiot.
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.
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.
Wow...well, at least you have started a controversy here...
Yes, many of RAPE charges are false! It seems that the continue effects of feminism continue to be false!
Yes, the are many who claim false charges because they are drunk. Is that really fair? Most of the men were drunk also, should they be charged also? Mercy, when are we all going to be responsible for our own actions - drunk or not!
Ah, I give up, with today’s feminists and the blame men theology, we do not have a chance!
So, of course you would take the statements of the women and disregard the man’s statements, that seems to be the way things are going these days....
How about we give both the benefit of the doubt?
Bump to read the rest the comments later.