In Romans 7 is Paul talking about before or after he was saved? In Romans 7:15 Paul said "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." and in Romans 7:11 Paul said "For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me." So it may seem that Paul was talking about having a sin problem BEFORE he was saved. Is Romans 7:17-34 talking about before Paul was saved or after Paul was saved? This is important because some believe we sin after we are saved and some believe we don't sin after we are saved and this is a key passage in discussions on this topic.
The passage was written after his conversion, and there is no indication whatsoever that Paul was speaking in the past tense.  Therefore, following the basic rules of interpretation, (particularly #3, 5, and 8) he is speaking about after he was saved.  



Those eight rules are copied from the Apologetics Research page below:


  1 The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of
  Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then
  keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously
  abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require
  using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure
  that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of
  good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros". Both
  are usually translated as "another" in English - yet "allos" literally
  means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a
  different type."
  
  2 The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was
  written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have
  been intelligible to them - just as the words of Christ when talking
  to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was
  written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish)
  culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our
  interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases
  and histories if one's interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived
  notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and
  ineffectual lesson.
  
  3 The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context.
  Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that
  come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all,
  or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A
  good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b:
  "...for there be gods many and lords many..." as a "proof text" of
  their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole
  verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these
  gods "so-called"), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching
  polytheism.
  
  4 The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some
  awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture
  was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can't
  be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If
  the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind
  when he wrote - without adding any excess baggage from the
  interpreter's own culture or society - then the true thought of the
  Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation.
  Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Our only interest in the past is for the
  light it throws upon the present."
  
  5 The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When
  interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed.
  Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the
  form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason - it
  invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other
  volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As
  Bernard Ramm said:
  
  "What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence...
  interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic...may
  have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such
  a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the
  laws of logic and evidence." (Protestant Biblical Interpretation,
  Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956)
  
  6 The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a
  word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a
  judge's chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the
  interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really
  support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who
  were called "noble" because they searched the Scriptures to determine
  if what Paul taught them was true.
  
  7 The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be
  construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An
  interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An
  excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single
  passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the
  whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are
  referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach
  there is only one God).
  
  8 The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied
  from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a
  conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one
  proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or
  propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established
  by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such
  evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory
  evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an
  unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when
  he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in
  Matt. 22:23-33.
  
  Learning these eight rules and properly applying them will help keep
  any interpreter from making errors and will hopefully alleviate many
  of the disagreements unfortunately present in Christianity today.
  However, these eight principles are no substitute for the Holy Spirit
  which will, if you let Him, guide you in the truth [John 14:26]. If
  you receive Christ into your heart, God will give you the Holy Spirit
  freely as a gift [Acts 2:38]. I urge you, if you have not already done
  so, to examine the claims and the work of Jesus Christ and to receive
  Him as your Savior.




To come to the conclusion that he is speaking of only before he was saved, you'd have to ignore verb tense and other basic rules of interpretation.