How does a Libertarian who espouses a government that leaves its citizens alone simultaneously believe that a government should decide whether a woman can abort a pregnancy? Easy: God.
[Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images]
In Ron Paul’s brand of Libertarian philosophy, there is one convenient deus ex machina. Indeed, it is quite literally the “hand of god,” in this instance, for religious belief allows Ron Paul to carry a cognitively dissonant political philosophy. While he aims to hold everyone else to constitutional principles, there is one area where it can be usurped: the matter of abortion.
It is proof that religion will make otherwise reasonable people double-cross themselves. It allows people to believe in two things simultaneously, which we call cognitive dissonance.
For those entertaining the idea of voting for Ron Paul, does his cognitive dissonance, his willingness to suspend his political philosophy to accommodate his religious philosophy, render him too problematic?
Well, Paul certainly believes in the pro-life narrative, so it would be disingenuous to suggest it’s merely a ploy to attract social conservatives and the religious fringe. Except, Paul’s latest campaign ad emphasizes his pro-life stance. Clearly he’s not beyond using it to out-flank Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and the other Republican candidates.
The ad is a 60-second spot called “Life,” in which a female narrator speaks over images of a young Dr. Paul, stating, “Dr. Ron Paul, more than 4,000 babies delivered. A man of faith committed to protecting life.”
Ron Paul himself states, “This whole notion of life not being valuable just is something I was never able to accept.” He then relates a medical experience in which he saw one late-pregnancy abortion being performed, then notes that just down the hall a baby was born early, “slightly bigger than the baby they just put in a bucket.” Rich pathos there, of course, which certainly wreaks of pandering.
That said, one cannot fault a man for belief, but one should realize that Paul’s Libertarian streak ends precisely where the economy and politics ends and the eternal begins. His pro-life stance is not born of the same reasoning he applies to every other issue, or, indeed to the constitution, which doesn’t consider the matter of abortion. Thus, Paul can’t attack the issue on constitutional grounds, only as a state’s rights imperative. And while this is a wonderful idea theoretically, we all know states have been known to be quite effective agents against civil liberties (see: Civil Rights movement).
Paul’s abortion stance is born of un-reason, of fantasy, of an unquantifiable belief in an entity that may or may not be there.
Is this reason enough not to cast a vote for Ron Paul in the primaries or a general election?
It’s probably safe to say that even if Paul would prefer to outlaw abortion, such legislation could never pass the House and the Senate, which would cause Paul to direct his talents to places where it is really needed: the economy, finance reform (Wall Street and the Federal Reserve), the American plague of imperialism (militarily but also economically), and unsustainable foreign aid levels while America is hurting domestically.
So, one-issue voters might find they simply cannot vote for Paul because of his pro-life position; but, this is no reason to completely disregard him as a candidate.
The Democrats might be totally impotent when it comes to regulating financial institutions and ending war abroad, but they’re always good for a fight when it comes to the issue of pro-choice, and have largely been successful with the issue.
October 17, 2011 at 3:10 pm, Aaron said:
You can’t defend liberty if you don’t defend life. It makes sense to me. A baby is blowback, so to speak, for sex. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
October 17, 2011 at 3:20 pm, Pcarr1989 said:
Aaron dr.paul doesent think it is the federel goverments job to police the states on abortion it will be done at a state level if ur state chose to keep it legal them you would be able to protest on a more managable state level
October 17, 2011 at 3:11 pm, B_3 said:
He would NOT pass legislation at the Federal level on this issue. He WILL let the states decide what is best or each state. He doesn’t beleive the Federal Gov. should get invoilved in these decisions. None of their business.
October 17, 2011 at 3:15 pm, Brian said:
If you believe that a human life begins at conception, then – according to Ron Paul’s Libertarian ideals – that human life is entitled to *all* the rights of life and liberty as you and I, even before it is born. Viewing things from that perspective makes the accusation in this article groundless.
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about
abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at
conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the
protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 8:50 pm, Shelton Jacqui said:
What about the rights of the individual life of the woman?
October 17, 2011 at 11:30 pm, Steven G. Poyzer said:
They exercised their right of choice when they participated in an activity which biological purpose is reproduction.
October 19, 2011 at 12:54 pm, Anonymous said:
No one is trying to kill the woman.
October 19, 2011 at 3:10 pm, Anonymous said:
Good question. Doesn’t the woman get to chose? Imagine an airplane pilot with 500 people on board, or maybe just 1. Imagine he decides he doesn’t want to fly anymore, and he can jump out of the plane and open a parachute, landing safely. But the passenger will crash and burn. What about the pilot’s rights? He doesn’t feel like flying anymore. I say to you Mr. Pilot “Don’t take off if you aren’t prepared to land”
Also keep in mind this is not a Libertarian point of view. All sane people value Life. The dispute can NOT be about the mother’s rights. It’s about if the child is a human or just a ball of cells. To answer this there are two paths. You can ask a scientist, or you can ask a woman who has carried one of these cell sacks.
October 17, 2011 at 8:50 pm, Shelton Jacqui said:
What about the rights of the individual life of the woman?
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about
abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at
conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the
protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about
abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at
conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the
protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about
abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at
conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the
protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about
abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at
conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the
protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about
abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at
conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the
protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about
abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at
conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the
protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about
abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at
conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the
protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about
abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at
conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the
protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about
abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at
conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the
protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about
abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at
conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the
protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about
abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at
conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the
protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about
abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at
conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the
protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about
abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at
conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the
protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 7:31 pm, Greek Chorus said:
This is true; however there is a vast difference between the “right to life” and the “privilege of being supported”. Therein lies the fundamental flaw in Dr. Paul’s philosophy. He fails to see that the argument that a child’s right to life creates an obligation on the mother to provide support for nine months parallels the claims that many make to the “right” to being supported by others.
It is a blind spot, but not a fatal one; his position is moderate enough that he would not impose such an obligation himself on others at the Federal level, the only level he has ever been in a position to modify, or aspires to be in the future.
October 17, 2011 at 8:16 pm, Ronnie said:
“He fails to see that the argument that a child’s right to life creates an obligation on the mother to provide support for nine months parallels the claims that many make to the “right” to being supported by others.”
Really? This makes sense to you? Really?
October 18, 2011 at 12:19 am, Greek Chorus said:
Yes. If it does not to you, an argument as to why it does not would be useful.
Note that this cleanly offers a solution to edge cases such as rape, failed birth control, or risk to the mother’s health.
Adding a codicil to the original point; aborting a pregnancy does not necessarily mean ending a life. While that is the common approach today, it is not at all out of the question that the child could not continue his or her life via some alternate form of support; the requirement would be that one or more people volunteer to provide that support, as well as funding research into techniques to make this feasible. If these criteria were met, and it could be done with no additional cost to the mother, a strong case for requiring this alternative could be made.
It would also provide a solid common ground between those who advocate a “Pro Life” position and those who advocate a “Pro Choice” position.
October 18, 2011 at 11:59 am, A_york said:
Your idea is completely retarded, yes I said retarded. The woman already made her choice – (you know “what I want to do with my own body”…etc) when she happily laid with the sperm donor. People always want to act like that part of the action involved in creating a child just doesn’t exist – you know the fun drunken (many many episodes of this) sex part. “It won’t happen to me”.
It’s as if this race is simply unable to control themselves when it comes to sex and you know what – THAT IS RETARDED. We all have a will and choices we personally make and there is a consequence to every action we chose to take or not to take. Knowing that and adhering to that makes us grown-ups, not little children. Also there are many methods of birth control – these days and most any woman can find extremely cheap or free birth control if it is really needed.
I say since the medical knowledge is there to terminate a life at will, it should only be used in medically necessary incident. I just can’t for the life of me decided who would be the entity to govern necessary murder.
Pro Murder position is more like it. Pro choice – what a joke….
October 19, 2011 at 1:19 am, Greek Chorus said:
Did a woman who was forcibly raped make such a choice? Did a woman who took reasonable precautions to prevent pregnancy make such a choice? Did a woman who perhaps decided to get pregnant but now find her health and perhaps even life at risk make such a choice? Yes, these are edge cases, but I ask to see a rational proposal that does not carve out exceptions for such cases.
As for the use of “retarded”, I note that this an “ad hominem” attack; it appeals to emotion rather than reason, and is a cheap rhetorical “tool” that can just as easily be used from any position one wishes to take.
October 24, 2011 at 11:23 pm, Concerned About Life said:
Then you would be willing to outlaw all abortions except those “extreme” cases? The Pro-Death crowd would never allow this.
October 31, 2011 at 12:45 pm, Greek Chorus said:
Not at all; I suggest that you failed to read the my comments earlier in the thread.
Many “pro-life” advocates carve out at least some of the “extreme cases” as exceptions, rather than fit them into a consistent philosophy. My proposal does not; it treats them as part of the general case, albeit in the extreme. My proposal also directly addresses the legitimate arguments of “pro-choice” advocates regarding self-ownership of one’s body (which should properly have been used as the ninth-amendment underpinnings of Roe v. Wade; the members of the supreme court, however, were afraid of citing this as it had ramifications that they rightly feared would weaken government).
Abortion itself is the end of the (original) pregnancy, which means a termination of the mother’s support for the child. Given that there was neither contract nor tort to create an obligation to the child by the mother, it is a legitimate act.
However, the mother does not have the right to kill the child as a part of this if there is a way to terminate this support without killing the child without additional cost to the mother (that cost may be in health, it may be financial, it may be something else). In most cases this is not currently feasible; however the number of cases could be reduced with funding for research and support by those who do wish to support the child.
It is interesting to note that in the case of the abortion Dr. Paul observed, at the end of the abortion the child was, in fact, alive; however no one volunteered to provide support for the child. Certainly they were not obligated to do so, but the credibility of a “pro-life” position any of them may have held was called into question by their unwillingness to back up their position with their own individual resources.
October 24, 2011 at 11:23 pm, Concerned About Life said:
Then you would be willing to outlaw all abortions except those “extreme” cases? The Pro-Death crowd would never allow this.
October 19, 2011 at 1:19 am, Greek Chorus said:
Did a woman who was forcibly raped make such a choice? Did a woman who took reasonable precautions to prevent pregnancy make such a choice? Did a woman who perhaps decided to get pregnant but now find her health and perhaps even life at risk make such a choice? Yes, these are edge cases, but I ask to see a rational proposal that does not carve out exceptions for such cases.
As for the use of “retarded”, I note that this an “ad hominem” attack; it appeals to emotion rather than reason, and is a cheap rhetorical “tool” that can just as easily be used from any position one wishes to take.
October 17, 2011 at 7:31 pm, Greek Chorus said:
This is true; however there is a vast difference between the “right to life” and the “privilege of being supported”. Therein lies the fundamental flaw in Dr. Paul’s philosophy. He fails to see that the argument that a child’s right to life creates an obligation on the mother to provide support for nine months parallels the claims that many make to the “right” to being supported by others.
It is a blind spot, but not a fatal one; his position is moderate enough that he would not impose such an obligation himself on others at the Federal level, the only level he has ever been in a position to modify, or aspires to be in the future.
October 18, 2011 at 2:38 am, Ed Golden said:
The problem is the word “believe.” Beliefs are uncertain, and thus a poor basis for law. The question should be reframed: not when does “life” begin, which could be interpreted as just gross physical existence, etc – but when does experiential consciousness begin? Put another way: at what point in gestation is there “somebody home?” The yogis say they know from experience it’s around 40 days – but external science can’t tell us, so for those of us on a lower experiential plane, all we have is belief – and that makes everything messy. This article seeks to address that, in pointing out that it is unfair to use the law to push one’s belief on another (though it fails to realize it too is based on a certain belief which it seeks to enforce.) If that were what Ron Paul were doing, they’d be right. I don’t pretend to know the solution. But I do know there is nothing hypocritical in Dr. Paul’s perspective, because he simply keeps himself aside and stands by the Constitution as ever. Ron Paul 2012!
October 17, 2011 at 3:15 pm, Anonymous said:
He is logical and he is right when it comes to the issue of Abortion. Follow my blog: http://www.facebook.com/LibertarianConservative
October 17, 2011 at 3:17 pm, Naur432 said:
If a person is a person, than no matter where you murder them or how old they are when you do it, it’s wrong. He does not contradict himself at all. The role of government is too protect the life and liberty of it’s citizens. How can you think you are protecting the life of one, by taking away the life of the other?
October 17, 2011 at 3:17 pm, SCLibertarian said:
Paul’s pro-life stance is not as authoritarian as say Santorum or Bachmann, who favor imprisoning women who receive abortions and doctors who perform them. Many libertarians feel that if life begins at conception, the unborn child has rights itself. I find it odd that in many states, even liberal states, one can be convicted for killing an unborn child, a woman can collect emotional distress damages for the death of her unborn child, but yet those same states cannot choose to prohibit a doctor from terminating a woman’s pregnancy.
I’m a huge Paul supporter, and I’m pro-choice, but I think Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, completely devoid of precedent, and states should be given the latitude to resolve this issue, as they were prior to the ruling.
October 17, 2011 at 3:18 pm, NadePaulKuciGravMcKi said:
Even if you leave God out of it,
Dr Ron has the same argument
October 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm, D. J. said:
Yeah, well… watch the campaign ad in which he invokes his faith.
His faith is the deux ex machine that allows him to conveniently forget his Libertarian principles.
October 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm, D. J. said:
Yeah, well… watch the campaign ad in which he invokes his faith.
His faith is the deux ex machine that allows him to conveniently forget his Libertarian principles.
October 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm, D. J. said:
Yeah, well… watch the campaign ad in which he invokes his faith.
His faith is the deux ex machine that allows him to conveniently forget his Libertarian principles.
October 19, 2011 at 3:45 pm, Josh Basquez said:
cut the guy a break. you know, he does have to win the primary in the republican party. that party that supported those guy…umm… george bush, and john mccain…. [bluuhhh shudder]…
October 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm, D. J. said:
Yeah, well… watch the campaign ad in which he invokes his faith.
His faith is the deux ex machine that allows him to conveniently forget his Libertarian principles.
October 17, 2011 at 3:22 pm, TXSMOTOGAL said:
I agree with B_3, this is one issue I disagree with Dr Paul on but, it certainly doesn’t stop me from voting for him.
October 17, 2011 at 3:25 pm, whatever5678 said:
You spent a lot of time writing this and for that I am sorry. He has said on multiple occasions that he doesn’t think Abortion is a good or moral thing BUT thinks the federal govt. should be out of it entirely (having a stance one way or the other). Same with same sex marriage. He finds it inconsistent that the federal govt. is being asked to step in and define marriage. Likewise with the abortion, he thinks IF there is to be regulation at all, have it at the state level.
October 17, 2011 at 3:26 pm, Flo Hoffman said:
If you people are looking to elect GOD why don’t you try it in your own home. Try putting a little morality in your own life and neighborhood. Try getting a little morality back into the Church. GOD is not supposed to be USED as a CLUB. Ron Paul is head and shoulders above and the others running. He is honest and the most moral. He doesn’t take money from lobbyest. Jesus would forgive his shortcomings. Ron Paul can’t and won’t do anything without the consent of the people. Unlike all our previous representative who care less about the average American and will run the economy deep into hell for their special interest friends.
October 17, 2011 at 3:27 pm, Dan said:
This author has obviously done a lot of research to discover that ███ ████ has stated numerous times that he would not make abortion a federal issue, but rather a state issue. He is a champion for life, but he also follows the constitution, which would mean this is a state issue. Good fact checking.
“████’s abortion stance is born of un-reason, of fantasy, of an unquantifiable belief in an entity that may or may not be there.”
I believe his stance on abortion is not because of his faith, but rather his view that life starts at conception. I do not understand why this has become a faith argument.
October 17, 2011 at 5:07 pm, Anonymous said:
Actually, it’s science. Not that science and faith are necessarily dichotomous.
But literally, a human life begins at conception. Sperm and egg are both living, but neither are fully human. Once fertilized, the zygote is fully human, and it is alive.
*SCIENCE*
October 18, 2011 at 2:48 am, Ed Golden said:
I believe the ambiguity arrises in the sense that, as one cell, or a cluster of cells, yes, they are human cells, but so are the epithelial cells you kill thousands of if you bite your cheek or the Epidermal cells you kill thousands of when you scratch your arm. The cells themselves are not what suffer these deaths – it is you as a meta-consciousness – so then the question would be, when does this consciousness arrise? When is there someone home to feel any of this? To bad as of now society cannot know for sure, so it’s still a matter of one person’s beliefs and priorities vs another’s.
October 18, 2011 at 3:21 am, Anonymous said:
I don’t think it’s necessary to wait for the consciousness to develop before we can call it human life.
But to answer your question, it would be directly related to the development of the nervous system.
October 24, 2011 at 11:27 pm, Concerned for life said:
So if you let your cells on your arm continue to grow, do they become a human being with a completely different personality than yours?
October 17, 2011 at 3:28 pm, Zachary Lippard said:
This article is extremely misleading of the view of Ron Paul on abortion. It seems the writer didn’t even bother to do research on Paul’s position on the subject.
Dr. Paul is NOT advocating federal involvement at all in the case of abortion. he believes in leaving that decision up to the states. He personally believes abortion is wrong but just because he believes that doesn’t mean he’s going to implement a government policy to ban abortion in the US.
Refer here for the full detail of Ron Paul’s stance on abortion: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/
“Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v.
Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on
life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation
modeled after his “We the People Act.”
You seem to get this point when you state “Thus, Paul can’t attack the issue on constitutional grounds,
only as a state’s rights imperative. And while this is a wonderful idea
theoretically, we all know states have been known to be quite effective agents
against civil liberties (see: Civil Rights movement).”
But then the subtitle of your article states this: “How does a Libertarian who espouses a government that leaves
its citizens alone simultaneously believe that a government should decide
whether a woman can abort a pregnancy? Easy: God.”
Wrong, Ron Paul advocates for no government intervention in this matter. The states are left up to decide this matter. So he’s views are in line with his Libertarian policies after all.
October 17, 2011 at 6:10 pm, Kelly Brueggen said:
the problem with the civil rights analogy is that the state jim crow laws violated the federal constitution. The jim crow laws were mostly overturned on this basis before the federal civil rights act was dreamed up. the civils rights act merely codified into law that states could not write unconstitutional laws. Since the constitution does not specify a position on abortion that could easily be left up to individual states
October 17, 2011 at 3:30 pm, Sock said:
So what you’re saying is that you think Ron Paul can have a Supreme Court ruling overturned without a huge court battle.
Guess what ? This is called a ” wedge issue ” that actually has no bearing anymore. It’s been decided.
But hey ! Since your mocking someone for having respect for life why don’t you write a column about how all of the troops should be brought home, how we should respect life abroad, how our government ” aborts” the rights of women and children overseas by dropping hellfire and tomahawk missiles on them or about how the military’s rate of suicide is now the highest it’s been in 25 years and growing, passing the civilian rate for the same ?
OR…are those deaths acceptable to you because our government either sanctions or ignores it ??
October 17, 2011 at 3:31 pm, Jilly4liberty said:
At minimum- one third of the libertarian party considers the fetus to be life- therefore entitled to the same god given, natural, individual rights as any other individual. There is not ideological inconsistency in that.
October 17, 2011 at 5:11 pm, Anonymous said:
There’s no debate. Science and faith (christianity anyways) agree that life begins at conception. It’s a living human zygote. It’s alive. It’s human.
Where’s the debate?
October 17, 2011 at 3:35 pm, Bigbadandrewt said:
I agree with your analysis, it is well stated. Although I disagree with Dr. Paul on abortion, I still think he deserves my vote. Abortion is a social issue designed to distract us from more politically pertinent ones.
October 17, 2011 at 3:35 pm, Bigbadandrewt said:
I agree with your analysis, it is well stated. Although I disagree with Dr. Paul on abortion, I still think he deserves my vote. Abortion is a social issue designed to distract us from more politically pertinent ones.
October 17, 2011 at 3:36 pm, Jaye said:
Excuse me sir, but you have not done your research. Dr. Paul’s stance is strictly libertarian, which is to say he will de-regulate it at the federal level and allow states to pass their own legislation on abortion. His personal opinions on abortion and gay marriage are not relevant as he believes it is not the federal government’s power to legislate morality. Do your research before libeling a candidate. Thanks.
October 17, 2011 at 3:36 pm, Jaye said:
Excuse me sir, but you have not done your research. Dr. Paul’s stance is strictly libertarian, which is to say he will de-regulate it at the federal level and allow states to pass their own legislation on abortion. His personal opinions on abortion and gay marriage are not relevant as he believes it is not the federal government’s power to legislate morality. Do your research before libeling a candidate. Thanks.
October 17, 2011 at 3:39 pm, Ryan Bertram said:
A totally unsolvable debate. Why is this brought up in politics, I’ll never know. Ron Paul has said on many occasions that he not for banning the practice outright, because there are occasions where it’s necessary, and also how can you enforce such a law. I think every sane person on Earth is pro-life to a point, and so to that end he is only suggesting that we make a stance for the life of everyone. However, one can disagree with Dr Paul on this all they want, and still vote for him, because there is so much at stake. The end to the war on drugs that has killed thousands. Bringing our troops home, and rescue this country from over consuming is resources in paying off it’s national debt.
October 17, 2011 at 3:39 pm, Ryan Bertram said:
A totally unsolvable debate. Why is this brought up in politics, I’ll never know. Ron Paul has said on many occasions that he not for banning the practice outright, because there are occasions where it’s necessary, and also how can you enforce such a law. I think every sane person on Earth is pro-life to a point, and so to that end he is only suggesting that we make a stance for the life of everyone. However, one can disagree with Dr Paul on this all they want, and still vote for him, because there is so much at stake. The end to the war on drugs that has killed thousands. Bringing our troops home, and rescue this country from over consuming is resources in paying off it’s national debt.
October 17, 2011 at 3:40 pm, Bleh said:
Dr Paul is Pro Choice in the sense that he is allowing these children a chance at life. He is giving the power of ‘Choice’ to these beautiful and innocent unborn children and not their whoring mothers who would gladly send them to the slaughterhouse.
October 17, 2011 at 3:40 pm, Bleh said:
Dr Paul is Pro Choice in the sense that he is allowing these children a chance at life. He is giving the power of ‘Choice’ to these beautiful and innocent unborn children and not their whoring mothers who would gladly send them to the slaughterhouse.
October 17, 2011 at 3:40 pm, Pepper said:
The other commenters have said it well, I’ll just add my opinion that this article is complete nonsense. It’s obvious the author did not actually research Dr. Paul’s position on the matter.
Ron Paul wants to return government to its rightful role as defined by the Founders. The same Founders who wrote that our inalienable rights include “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” If “Life” is an inalienable right then that kind of trumps the right of a mother to kill her child doesn’t it? If Dr. Paul wanted to take what you would consider an authoritarian position, what I would consider a “protecting Life” position, it would still be consistent.
October 17, 2011 at 3:40 pm, Pepper said:
The other commenters have said it well, I’ll just add my opinion that this article is complete nonsense. It’s obvious the author did not actually research Dr. Paul’s position on the matter.
Ron Paul wants to return government to its rightful role as defined by the Founders. The same Founders who wrote that our inalienable rights include “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” If “Life” is an inalienable right then that kind of trumps the right of a mother to kill her child doesn’t it? If Dr. Paul wanted to take what you would consider an authoritarian position, what I would consider a “protecting Life” position, it would still be consistent.
October 17, 2011 at 3:42 pm, Anonymous said:
The author’s premise is false.
Paul believes that all individuals are afforded protection of life, liberty, and property under the Constitution. Paul’s position is completely logical and consistent within this constitutional interpretation. The question simply is: when are these protections afforded: At conception? At viability? At birth? At 3 years old? At college graduation? Or to put it differently: when is an organism a “person”?
That is the question.
Even if one is of the opinion that life begins at conception, there are also the competing rights of the mother to be considered, but these are not issues with simple answers, as Paul openly acknowledges. Paul’s proposed solution is to allow states to decide and to remove the jurisdiction from the federal government and it’s “one size fits all” proclamations.
While you may disagree with Paul, this is clearly not a religiously based position.
October 17, 2011 at 3:42 pm, Anonymous said:
The author’s premise is false.
Paul believes that all individuals are afforded protection of life, liberty, and property under the Constitution. Paul’s position is completely logical and consistent within this constitutional interpretation. The question simply is: when are these protections afforded: At conception? At viability? At birth? At 3 years old? At college graduation? Or to put it differently: when is an organism a “person”?
That is the question.
Even if one is of the opinion that life begins at conception, there are also the competing rights of the mother to be considered, but these are not issues with simple answers, as Paul openly acknowledges. Paul’s proposed solution is to allow states to decide and to remove the jurisdiction from the federal government and it’s “one size fits all” proclamations.
While you may disagree with Paul, this is clearly not a religiously based position.
October 17, 2011 at 3:46 pm, Kenneth Wilson said:
Lol, lol, lol….
Paul believes that the same natural rights we are all endowed with also apply to a person in utero. That is consistency, not hypocrisy. And who’s to say he’s wrong? Rick Perry crows about “erring on the side of life… ” except when it comes to the death penalty of course. Paul exhibits no such contradictions. The fact is, a woman’s “right to choose” is simply another way that government shields the individual from responsible action. There are many, many reliable methods of contraception out there, and yes, even abortion for extraordinary circumstances. But not for mere convenience sake, it’s simply wrong. Here’s a perplexing question that no “progressive” has yet been able to answer; if the unborn have no rights, then why worry about global warming?
October 17, 2011 at 3:47 pm, Nock said:
Ron Paul’s said he doesn’t believe in a federal law against abortion because it’s a state issue and it’s not practical to enforce. The writer never connects how RP is a hypocrite. RP supports the right of life of that unborn child inside the supposed helpless mother. The stance is that the mother doesn’t have the right to kill that unborn baby any more than she has the right to kill a breathing baby born 5 minutes prior.
October 17, 2011 at 3:47 pm, Nock said:
Ron Paul’s said he doesn’t believe in a federal law against abortion because it’s a state issue and it’s not practical to enforce. The writer never connects how RP is a hypocrite. RP supports the right of life of that unborn child inside the supposed helpless mother. The stance is that the mother doesn’t have the right to kill that unborn baby any more than she has the right to kill a breathing baby born 5 minutes prior.
October 17, 2011 at 3:51 pm, ebirbalcom said:
to argue it better….if I crash into a pregnant lady – and if she is doing fine but the baby inside gets hurt….should the lady not take me to court or should she. Should I be charged of murder or not is the question.
October 17, 2011 at 3:52 pm, Jamesdbaer said:
RP has an obligation to put his values up front so people know exactly who he is. If I vote for somebody I want to know. wouldn’t you? That being said he could get more traction with voters by stressing that he would leave such matters to states to decide.
October 17, 2011 at 3:53 pm, Fgg said:
Clearly the author took zero time to figure out how Ron Paul would deal with abortion. He wouldn’t write federal laws concerning abortion.
October 17, 2011 at 3:57 pm, Anonymous said:
I like the end of this article
October 17, 2011 at 3:58 pm, Sock said:
“It’s probably safe to say that even if Paul would prefer to outlaw
abortion, such legislation could never pass the House and the Senate. So, one-issue voters might find they simply cannot vote for Paul because
of his pro-life position; but, this is no reason to completely
disregard him as a candidate.”
So what the author is really saying is that this article is a sanctimonious piece of bullshit that really amounts to nothing other than a corporate sponsored hit piece on the Dr.
Gee….I’ve never seen one of these before. How original.
October 17, 2011 at 4:01 pm, Jason said:
What an ignorant assessment of this position. DJ, if you lack the ability to engage Paul’s stance, then just be quiet. This straw-man argument is laughable.
Should a woman have a right to kill her baby after it is born? Absolutely not.
Pro-life advocates don’t see a difference between abortion and murder. Killing a baby before it is born is every bit as egregious as killing an infant, according to that belief system. If you disagree with that notion, than attack it on those grounds. Stop making it something that it is not. You’re an idiot…obviously too weak (intellectually) to offer a sound counter-argument.
October 17, 2011 at 4:01 pm, Michael Khalilian said:
God. What a pathetic article. Being pro-life is protecting life, which is essential to LIBERTY. Ron Paul protects the babies RIGHT TO LIFE. Ron Paul is the perfect mix. He GETS it. I’m a libertarian all the way, but could never vote for someone who doesn’t RESPECT life.
October 17, 2011 at 4:06 pm, Anonymous said:
That is a straw man argument. Ron Paul is not an anarchist; therefore your whole argument that he’s a hypocrite falls apart. If he were to say that the government should rotect us against murder, theft, and fraud, would you say he’s also being a hypocrite? Why is it that nobody goes after Ron Paul in an intellectually honest way, rather than relying on strawmanism?
October 17, 2011 at 4:07 pm, CommonSense said:
Abortionists never seem to understand that Libertarians are not infringing upon the rights of a woman, they are PROTECTING the rights of a child. Hello! Don’t you get it? There is more than one party involved in an abortion, and being a mother does not give you a right to infringe upon anothers rights. This is not complicated.
October 17, 2011 at 4:08 pm, Anonymous said:
There is nothing hypocritical or illogical about Paul’s views. He simply starts with the premise than an unborn human has a right to life. It’s a premise. I personally don’t accept that premise, but I see no reason why he can’t. In fact, he has plenty of reason to accept that premise that doesn’t even have anything to do with believing in God.
Once you accept that an unborn human is a human life with rights, laws against abortion make as much sense as laws against infanticide.
Even most pro-choicers agree elective abortion in the 3rd trimester should be illegal, but the choice to draw the line at… where is that line drawn anyway? At exactly 60 days? … is no less arbitrary than the choice to draw it at conception.
October 17, 2011 at 4:59 pm, Josh McNary said:
Do you mind explaining why you don’t believe that premise? This isn’t an attack, I’m genuinely curious. I myself am a pro-lifer, but I think the whole discussion hangs on a question, when does life start? It is hard for me to find any reasoning that life starts at any point except conception, which is why I was hoping you could give me a good argument for understanding.
October 17, 2011 at 5:12 pm, Anonymous said:
I don’t deny that human life starts at conception. I just don’t agree that the state must necessarily recognize and protect the right to life at conception. There are societies that don’t even grant the right to life at birth, in which infanticide is not illegal. That’s not a society in which I would want to live, but I recognize their right to make those decisions.
I think the point at which the state recognizes the right to life must be chosen somewhat arbitrarily, just like we arbitrarily choose when the rights to drive motor vehicles, drink, vote, have consensual sex, join the army, become president, etc. are arbitrarily chosen. The decisions regarding where these lines are drawn are somewhat arbitrary, they are not totally arbitrary.
I think the the line drawn by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade makes pretty good sense, but agree that since we don’t have consensus on this, each state should make this decision independently.
October 17, 2011 at 11:45 pm, Josh McNary said:
I agree with the decisions being arbitrary especially since I believe really the only 2 choices should be life starts at conception or at birth. Starting it at any point in between seems ludicrous to me.
That being said, why do you think that an unborn life deserves less protection than a life outside of the womb?
October 18, 2011 at 12:21 am, Anonymous said:
Again, the question is not about when life begins (which is a scientific question), but about when the state begins to recognize the right to life (which is a political/legal question).
I wouldn’t say the unborn life deserves less protection. I would say the question of right to life is complicated for the unborn life since it’s inside of a living body of a human whose rights are legally recognized.
We already recognize that the state’s powers are limited on private property versus public property, and draw all kinds of distinctions between who has what rights and powers in those two types of areas. Well, the human body is much more private than private property – I presume we can all agree.
In a way, it’s a jurisdiction question… does the state have jurisdiction inside of your body, or do you? The state has no jurisdiction over crimes committed on foreign embassy soil. Why? Because we have agreed to arrange rights that way (that too is a political/legal issue, of course). The state has no say even if someone is murdered there. Similarly, we can say that since the state has no jurisdiction inside a human’s body, the state has no more say about a murder occurring there than it has regarding murder on embassy soil.
In short, the pro-choice position is about recognizing the individual as being an autocrat within the domain of her body, and that the state has no jurisdiction there. It’s recognizing that one’s body is the ultimate private property.
This kind of reasoning, by the way, can lead to a distinction between abortion in the case of rape vs consensual sex. One can argue that the woman surrenders her jurisdiction over her body, at least with respect to the right-to-life of a human life that grows there, by engaging in consensual sex, even if she uses birth control, because she’s in full knowledge that birth control can fail. But if she’s raped then she retains that right.
This too is a gray area about which reasonable people can disagree, but I believe society is better off continuing to respect the rights and jurisdiction a woman has over her body even if she engages in consensual sex. The alternative -giving the state jurisdiction over the body of any woman engaged in consensual sex (but not any man) – is giving the state too much power, in my view.
One final issue is the 3rd trimester distinction. Up to that point we’re talking about an unborn that cannot survive on its own. So the woman is exercising her right on her jurisdiction to remove the unwanted unborn life from her body, and this kills it. But once the life is viable on its own, and removal does not kill it, then it crosses over into the area where the state has an interest in that life. Again, this is not a clear line like many of our other legal lines, but following Roe v. Wade guidelines I do believe we get pretty reasonable and moral results.
October 19, 2011 at 2:14 am, Noah Johnson said:
The state already does recognize the legal rights of unborn humans. What do you call it when a murderer kills a pregnant woman? Double homicide! This is not a religious but a legal argument. The commercial is obviously aimed at religious conservatives for political gain– and there is nothing wrong with that.
October 17, 2011 at 4:13 pm, Mrsideshow said:
Whoever wrote this article need to do their research. Ron Paul believes the Federal Government has no right to make any laws explicitly allowing or denying the right of abortion. In other words, there should be NO federal laws either way and the matter should be left up to the states. Man, I bet you feel stupid…
October 17, 2011 at 4:16 pm, Anonymous said:
Idiotic nonsense.
October 17, 2011 at 4:18 pm, Victor said:
Plain and simple, the guy who wrote this article is an Idiot! Unfortunately for terrible news writers like the one above Ron Paul has no contradictions, so a simpleton like him has to fabricate falsified information and attribute it to Dr. Paul and then battle him on something he didn’t say, or yet completely doesn’t believe. Libertarianism is flawless. Communists, Socialists, Technocrats or whatever you want to call them are endeared in an romantic utopia of an equal society that they can’t even see the lack of logic embedded in it. Learn a little from Spooner, Mises and Rothbard so that you can understand what Ron Paul believes in the you go and try to battle him.
October 17, 2011 at 4:18 pm, Victor said:
Plain and simple, the guy who wrote this article is an Idiot! Unfortunately for terrible news writers like the one above Ron Paul has no contradictions, so a simpleton like him has to fabricate falsified information and attribute it to Dr. Paul and then battle him on something he didn’t say, or yet completely doesn’t believe. Libertarianism is flawless. Communists, Socialists, Technocrats or whatever you want to call them are endeared in an romantic utopia of an equal society that they can’t even see the lack of logic embedded in it. Learn a little from Spooner, Mises and Rothbard so that you can understand what Ron Paul believes in the you go and try to battle him.
October 17, 2011 at 4:21 pm, Anonymous said:
Your article and the title of your article is a blatant lie.
Ron Paul does not believe in murder. Killing a baby is murder.
Do you believe in murder being legal?
October 17, 2011 at 4:22 pm, christianv1 said:
How god makes ron paul a hypocrite! REALLY??? thats a headline?
how bout god makes priests hypocrites when they abuse children?
this whole, god declares you a hypocrite, IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.
NOT FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES
October 17, 2011 at 4:22 pm, tomdawg said:
Even if you discount a belief in the Divine, what do you do with “one viable baby being left in a bucket and one viable baby being given medical attention to keep it alive”? Even an agnostic must explain why it is morally acceptable to leave that viable baby in a bucket.
October 17, 2011 at 4:23 pm, Darren Rufer said:
It’s pretty simple, the Federal government should have nothing to do with this issue, but the States can vote individually for it, if they wish. It doesn’t really conflict with anything and this article seems to be a bit of a hit piece.
This DJ Pangburn should really not be so disingenuous.
October 17, 2011 at 4:27 pm, Anonymous said:
Just another frighten child journalist who has the vision of Ron Paul taking the oath of office on inauguration day and it keeps him awake at night. He things “anyone will do except Ron Paul”. Ron Paul is showing real courage, as usual, by stating his view of the importance of life and how it should be protected for EVERYONE. Who is the say that that little aborted child would not have been the one to invent a great new invention to help us all.
Life does began at conception and Ms. DJ Pangburn nor anyone else can not say or prove that is doesn’t. Little helpless babies need our protection from armchair abortionist like Ms. Pangburn.
October 17, 2011 at 4:28 pm, Guest said:
“Rich pathos there, of course, which certainly wreaks of pandering.”
Stunning analysis, Mr. Pangburn. This article “reeks” of poor writing.
October 17, 2011 at 4:28 pm, Anonymous said:
I am an atheist, and somehow I find it acceptable that murder is illegal and wrong! This moral viewpoint doesn’t require a belief in God.
What’s hypocritical is to think that murdering unborn people is okay because, after all, you’ve been born already so you don’t care.
October 17, 2011 at 4:30 pm, Kevron Rees said:
It’s pretty clear to me that you can’t initiate force on another human life. People argue that life begins anywhere from conception to birth but we know that even after birth, that human life depends greatly on sustenance provided by other humans. Babies don’t live very long without constant care. If you have the right to choose, that choice naturally extends throughout the parenting process until the developing human life is able to sustain itself. Lots of parents abort that life long after birth and even into childhood. Yet we call that murder and we punish those people. The whole notion that you have the right to choose up to a certain point -where such a point is nothing other than an arbitrary decision made up by lawmakers, is upstream. Either you have the right to choose to be a parent or not at all times or you don’t ever have the right to abort another human life.
October 17, 2011 at 4:30 pm, Ryan Hill said:
I don’t even need to read this article to debunk the argument. The very first assumption is false: How does a Libertarian who espouses a government that leaves its citizens alone simultaneously believe that a government should decide whether a woman can abort a pregnancy?
Ron Paul believes that government needs to stay out of it! This is not a federal issue.
Done.
October 17, 2011 at 9:09 pm, D. J. said:
Please show me where I state that he would initiate federal legislation on abortion?
The whole point of my piece was that he made an ad that appealed to religious, pro-life conservatives who DO want legislation banning abortion at the federal level.
Whether you guys want to believe or not, it was pandering to voters who want nothing more to invade other people’s privacy by way of the government.It’s a contradiction. It’s a cognitively dissonant appeal, or pander, to pro-life crowd who wants action on a federal, Supreme Court level.
October 17, 2011 at 4:30 pm, Joe said:
You are misinformed. Ron Paul would not support federal anti-abortion legislation. He wants states to control such issues, so his respect for life doesn’t contradict his respect for personal freedom.
Thus, Paul can’t attack the issue on constitutional grounds, only as a state’s rights imperative. And while this is a wonderful idea theoretically, we all know states have been known to be quite effective agents against civil liberties (see: Civil Rights movement).
Oh wait, you admit that he thinks abortion is a states rights issue, immediately after you accuse his economic and political views of conflicting with his views on the “eternal”. Well, somebody here is certainly contradicting himself.
Then there’s the utterly off-base Civil Rights movement comment. You act like it was the fault of the state government system and not the people in charge. How is it any different than…”the Federal government has been known to be an effective agent against civil liberties (see: Patriot Act, execution of American citizens without proper trial, big company bail-outs, unjust wars).” The civil rights movement wasn’t proof that small government doesn’t work; it was a reflection of a generally ignorant societal attitude that had been fostered by thousands of years of racism and sexism. What if I were to say we are in our situation today because big government just doesn’t work? I’m sure you’d be quick to point out that the problem isn’t our system, it’s the utter incompetence of the people in charge and their lack of personal accountability.
And I was just going to point out all of your other logical inconsistencies without pointing out your lack of personal character, but then you went here…
Paul’s abortion stance is born of un-reason, of fantasy, of an unquantifiable belief in an entity that may or may not be there.
So his unwillingness to kill an unborn child is just him being a crackpot? I’m pro-choice, but I think it’s disgusting that people scoff at pro-life people, like many of the abortions performed day-in and day-out aren’t completely unjustified. Your stance on abortion is born of love, I suppose? I didn’t realize your BELIEF in atheism meant that you understand the “real” truth and are generally more logical than religious people. Ironic, that you call the man unreasonable because of his religion, then you implement all of this half-baked logic to try to convince your readers of something that is absolutely incorrect. Please stop writing about politics. You clearly don’t understand the issues. And every writer like you that continues to arrogantly parade their false perception of “truth” is doing serious harm to the country I love.
October 17, 2011 at 4:31 pm, Anonymous said:
Just another frighten child journalist who has the vision of Ron Paul taking the oath of office on inauguration day and it keeps her awake at night. She things “anyone will do except Ron Paul”. Ron Paul is showing real courage, as usual, by stating his view of the importance of life and how it should be protected for EVERYONE. Who is the say that that little aborted child would not have been the one to invent a great new invention to help us all.
Life does began at conception and Ms. DJ Pangburn nor anyone else can not say or prove that is doesn’t. Little helpless babies need our protection from armchair abortionist like Ms. Pangburn.
October 17, 2011 at 9:05 pm, D. J. said:
Marvincooley,
I don’t fear a Ron Paul inauguration. On the contrary, I’m rather supportive of his positions; although I think he could say more (in fact, he says nothing at all) about the self-destruct mechanism in capitalism, by which businesses grow exponentially, or, rather, countries exponentially grow GDP, when we all now that this planet has finite resources and that even the best efficiency is not efficient enough. Why? The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or the Entropy principle: the idea that in a system has a limited supply of energy, and that there are no such things as perpetual motion machines. Which, of course, is what many individuals on Earth think we have here as our planet—a machine of perpetual, inexhaustible resources. Paul should address this and not expect the free market to sort this out for us.
But, I digress…His views on abortion don’t worry me so much—which I clearly state in the article. In fact, if you’d really read the piece (instead of the headline, the first few sentences or paragraphs, you’d notice that I state that it’s no reason not to consider voting for the man). I’m personally against late-term abortions and I think the decision to abort should not be taken lightly. However, I’m not about to walk over to my neighbor’s house, sit her down and say, “You’re keeping your baby whether you like it or not.”I would expect to be thrown out on my ass and be told to mind my own business.
D. J.
October 17, 2011 at 9:05 pm, D. J. said:
Marvincooley,
I don’t fear a Ron Paul inauguration. On the contrary, I’m rather supportive of his positions; although I think he could say more (in fact, he says nothing at all) about the self-destruct mechanism in capitalism, by which businesses grow exponentially, or, rather, countries exponentially grow GDP, when we all now that this planet has finite resources and that even the best efficiency is not efficient enough. Why? The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or the Entropy principle: the idea that in a system has a limited supply of energy, and that there are no such things as perpetual motion machines. Which, of course, is what many individuals on Earth think we have here as our planet—a machine of perpetual, inexhaustible resources. Paul should address this and not expect the free market to sort this out for us.
But, I digress…His views on abortion don’t worry me so much—which I clearly state in the article. In fact, if you’d really read the piece (instead of the headline, the first few sentences or paragraphs, you’d notice that I state that it’s no reason not to consider voting for the man). I’m personally against late-term abortions and I think the decision to abort should not be taken lightly. However, I’m not about to walk over to my neighbor’s house, sit her down and say, “You’re keeping your baby whether you like it or not.”I would expect to be thrown out on my ass and be told to mind my own business.
D. J.
October 18, 2011 at 7:54 am, Marvin Cooley said:
I understand your concerns about the scarcity of resources because that is normal. It is not logical when you understand that Newtonian laws have been set aside by the proofs of quantum mechanics and the unified field theory and we have much more energy and resources than politician would have us believe. It is to their advantage to keep us dependent on them.
Ron Paul’s whole economy prowess is putting capitalism in its place. What you described as “businesses growing exponentially” is caused by creating money out thin air which is what the Federal Reserve has done for many years. Business and government has taken advantage of that unnatural situation. Why should a few have an advantage not afforded to the rest of us. No one should create a crime by creating something from nothing.
On abortion I am happy to hear your stand on late term abortions. I believe there are enough prevention measures to help women make their choice before an abortion is needed. For me life begins at conception. If no conception occurs then no life needs protection.
October 17, 2011 at 4:33 pm, bowler said:
this article is pretty pointless!
October 17, 2011 at 4:35 pm, Anonymous said:
This article never explains just how Paul’s supposedly pro-life views conflict with his libertarianism. I don’t think the “freedom of religion” angle works here; there have been a few pro-life atheists and agnostics over the years. There is also nothing about either the constitution or Libertarianism that is inherently pro-choice or pro-life; neither define when person-hood (thus citizenship) begins so the determination of when or whether the rights of the fetus take precedent over the rights of the mother is up for endless debate among devotees of either. Nor is there a conflict between support for the death penalty (whatever Paul’s views on that may be) and opposition to abortion; pro-lifers don’t all argue that all human life is sacred; many only claim that innocent life is. The most awkward dilema for Paul and other libertarians is on the subject of children in general; if children have the right to life, presumably they have the right to food, shelter and all the rest of the trappings of a proper upbringing. How can libertarians reconcile that with the unfettered right to reproduce (which many of them also claim to support)? How can a scociety in which no one is aborted, but children often grow up abused and neglected in meth labs and crack houses, then dumped into institutions, prisons, or worse when their parents are finally out of the picture, claim to respect the individual rights of all its citizens? Personally, I’d rather be aborted than suffer the treatment many children receive in a “free” society like ours.
October 17, 2011 at 4:51 pm, Josh McNary said:
Some children end up being treated like garbage, others find loving adoptive families. I think it would behoove you to back up such an argument with evidential backing for it to really have strength.
October 17, 2011 at 4:41 pm, Pantagruella said:
America seems to specialise in national issues that divide the Nation which could reasonably be left to the individual states. Abortion is one of those issues. I don’t care about this issue one way or another. It has nothing to do with me. Let those who see the problem deal with it. I forgive Ron Paul if he is not completely consistent. He seems intelligent and I understand what he is saying. He will never be President because the people who really run the country would have to kill him.
October 17, 2011 at 4:41 pm, Jose Mora said:
Libertarian principles hold that you may do as you please, so long as you do not deprive someone else of the same right. The murder of another human being deprives someone else of the right to live.
Ron Paul is 100% consistent with libertarian principles.
MURDER IS NOT A RIGHT.
PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION.
October 17, 2011 at 4:42 pm, Anonymous said:
Herman Cain forced his teenage girlfriend to get an abortion in 1968.
October 17, 2011 at 4:42 pm, Whatevs said:
@4ddd24b9cada37c5f94d86789803bd8a:disqus He HAS tried to pass legislation on the federal level to outlaw abortion, several times even. It was only after that failed he switched to arguing that abortion is a state’s issue (knowing full well that many states, among them certainly his home state of Texas, would instantly outlaw abortion). As outlawing abortion would be unconstitutional, he also constantly tries to pass his ‘we the people’ bill to make it impossible for citizens to appeal unconstitutional state laws.
October 17, 2011 at 5:58 pm, Anonymous said:
Oh really now? try doing your research before posting disinformation.
His entire voting record on the abortion issue. If you have any common sense, you will see precisely what his stance is.
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296&category=2
October 17, 2011 at 4:43 pm, Anonymous said:
Confussed-A-Crite…Ron Paul’s personal beliefs connot be confussed with his constitutional opinion that the abortion rulings should be left up to the individual states to decide. Rule of law and the freedom to live in whatever state a citizen would be comfortable living in is more in line what Rom Paul is all about…FREEDOM…Ron Paul 2012
October 17, 2011 at 4:47 pm, Robert T. Bockel said:
If you were a drunk driver and killed a pregnant woman in the car crash you would be charged with two counts of murder or manslaughter. If the unborn kid is not a person why would there be two counts of death? You can have it both ways. The guy delivered 4000 babies he has seen breathing babies aborted……Life is protected by our constitution. The question is when does life begin…..I trust the OB/GYN. I don’t like abortion but I don’t believe it is the federal governments business. If the argument is it is the womans’ body therefore her decision…..then why isn’t prostitution legal?????????????
October 17, 2011 at 4:51 pm, Its Alan said:
Ron Paul has said TIME AND AGAIN that he will not sign any legislation banning abortion. That’s the beauty of being a Libertarian. We have our beliefs, but don’t force them on others. The author of this article either did not research or lied. Either way, should be fired.
October 17, 2011 at 4:53 pm, Schumjb said:
ron paul believes in states rights. he would leave the issue of abortion up to the states. like all other social issues, they have not place in the federal government. get your facts straight
October 17, 2011 at 4:53 pm, Anonymous said:
This has been and continues to be something that libertarians passionately argue. The libertarian position is that people can do what they want as long as they don’t infringe upon another persons life or liberty. The unanswered question is when does your life begin and end and with that the governments role to protect your life. The questions surrounding abortion and euthanasia both hinge on this question.
October 17, 2011 at 4:55 pm, Josh McNary said:
Ron Paul doesn’t believe government should be involved in abortions, and he thinks abortions should be a decision for the individual based on their moral beliefs. That being said, he obviously is pro-life and still wants to lead a discussion that says abortion is an infringement upon the unborn’s right to live.
October 17, 2011 at 4:56 pm, Anonymous said:
God says: This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death,blessings and curses.Now choose life,so that you and your children may live.
Ron Paul says: Unless we resolve this and understand that life is precious, and that we must protect life, we can’t protect liberty.
Ron Paul is on the same page with God. just saying
October 17, 2011 at 4:57 pm, Joe Jared said:
Given the choice between having a government that represents the world’s largest terrorist organization and having to revisit abortion, I chose the latter. Look at what our nation’s armies are doing to the world, in the name of democracy. Look at how little the mainstream publishes in terms of the victims of that army. That life is sacred also. For information the mainstream refuses to show, go to youtube and look up, “US crimes against humanity”. If that doesn’t evoke an emotion other than hate, you need help.
In my life, 2 women have aborted on me, and thankfully, We are now about 2/3rds of the way into a pregnancy. I am extremely grateful for that opportunity and can hardly wait to meet Francella. She’s alive and has been pointing that out to us daily. While a mother has a right to do with her body as she wishes, terminating a life for a father who truly wants the child can be devastating.
Ron Paul 2012
October 17, 2011 at 4:58 pm, Chad said:
This piece was really a desperate hack. Dr. Paul’s position (killing unborn babies is wrong but the Federal government has no business being involved) is both consistent with respect for life as well as the constitutional requirement of limited Federal govt. It’s hard to imagine a more reasonable balance between respect for life and respect for freedom.
Are you sick and tired of these lying headlines and willful ignorance of Dr. Paul?
DON’T FORGET THE “BLACK OUT THIS” CAMPAIGN IN A COUPLE DAYS! It’s going to take every one of us to turn this around.
October 17, 2011 at 5:01 pm, Jason said:
The author is either intellectually dishonest or wilfully ignorant. Ron Paul’s position is pretty simple. He believes in the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property. Abortion is a conflict between the rights of life and liberty. The right to life trumps the right to liberty in such conflicts. The same is true of my liberty to recklessly shoot into a crowd. That liberty conflicts with the rights of others. It’s a simple rights conflict. How one resolves it can be debated, but it does not make one a hypocrite to argue that life trumps liberty in such situations.
Secondly, Ron Paul has what is property called a moral philosophy. You can call it a religious philosophy in an attempt to disregard it, but it is an unfair characterization. There is no dissonance in his political philosophy and this moral philosophy. His political philosophy is that the state is instituted to protect life and liberty. The life of a child is to be protected before the child is born (maybe at conception, or maybe when it can feel pain, or some other point, arguments can be made), just as anyone’s right to life is protected. The constitution grants/recognizes police power of the states. Therefore, states have the right, if not the duty, to protect all life. I fail to see the cognitive dissonance. There would only be dissonance if Ron Paul thought that no laws were acceptable, or if you assume that abortion is automatically a personal decision that is left up to the individual. You have to argue for that, and it is not prima facie obvious. If you are going to write something like this, at least try to back it up with reasons instead of bald assertions.
October 17, 2011 at 5:02 pm, Shanefriedland said:
He doesnt want to outlaw abortion, this article is moot.
October 17, 2011 at 5:05 pm, Stephen said:
Ron Paul’s pro life stance isn’t a religious one, its one of morality. All Ron Paul wants to do is get the Federal government out of abortion and allow the states to do as their voter choose, which is exactly how it should be done Constitutionally. So no I don’t have a problem with Ron Paul’s pro life stance it is the only Constitutional one. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government authority to legalize and much-less fund abortion.
October 17, 2011 at 5:09 pm, Heatwave said:
he’s saying that abortion is not a federal issue, it’s personal… he’s against it, so am i, and so are you… you wouldn’t allow an abortion at nine months or in the last 5 minutes of a pregnancy…
besides, neither he nor i will ever have an abortion, but legally, this needs to be an issue at the local level, NOT the federal…
this article misses the point…
October 17, 2011 at 5:10 pm, T A said:
How is it hypocritical for the man to say that murder, which is how he defines abortion, should be illegal? If it is murder, than no matter where the fetus/child resides, it has a right to protection under the law. If it isn’t murder then it does not. Contrary to popular assumptions, it’s not something that science can decide since it’s a naming convention that is being argued, is it a life with the right to be protected or is it not. Being on one side or the other is not an issue for libertarianism since the deciding factor is the definition and that must be made by the individual.
Moreover, he simply says it’s not a decieion for he feds to make. Too bad if you worry about your state not being ordered by the feds to support your ideas but that isn’t why the feds exist.
Why worry more about abortion which won’t change one way or the other rather than the unending wars and fiscal destruction of the US? Honestly, let’s concern ourselves with the things we all need to address for everyones sakes. You won’t be having abortions regardless if there’s no money to pay for them, out of pocket or gov’t subsidized.
What a silly article. What a waste of time.
October 17, 2011 at 5:15 pm, Puahala said:
You better check your references again, ‘deus ex machina’ does NOT mean the hand of God. If you get one thing wrong, probably many other things are wrong, as they are in this article.
October 17, 2011 at 5:59 pm, Anonymous said:
“Hand of God” is the transliteration. Not literal, but still correct.
October 17, 2011 at 5:15 pm, patrick madden said:
Fair ending….Although Paul has said on a number of occasions that abortion is a state issue, so the fight over abortion would never get to the white house if Paul were in charge. It would be resolved at the state level or locally, the way most of our issues should be handled.
October 17, 2011 at 5:16 pm, TDICLUB said:
From one member of the media to another…this is bad writing. You demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of Ron Paul’s position on abortion and then try to convince readers that its a contradiction to be a libertarian and a Christian at the same time! You should retitle this article: “How Bad Writing Makes DJ Pangburn a Big Idiot”
October 17, 2011 at 5:16 pm, Joe said:
I struggle with this one too. I’m a libertarian and there are two policy points I disagree with Ron Paul about. The first is abortion. The second is immigration (we should have no barriers to legal immigration and free markets can best regulate the flow of labor across borders).
Ron Paul interprets the Constitution as protecting life, liberty and property. That makes him ideologically opposed to the death penalty, the current administration’s assisination campaigns, millitarism broadly speaking and abortion. Agree with him or not, he is, as always, ideologically consistent (all life should be protected). If you read his books, notably “Liberty Defined” he discusses his views on abortion. I got the impression reading it that he would not use federal law to prohibit abortion and he suggests that to bring about real change on the topic of abortion, the morality of the people would have to change first and that can not be done through legislation.
Ron Paul’s first order of business would be to end foreign intervention and violence and to work to restore sound fiscal and monetary policies at home. Accomplishing those objectives would create a peaceful and sustainable America, and that would be worthy of a Nobel prize. Our current president was awareded that prize in advance, he brought us no change, ballooned the deficit, expanded the wars and has now adopted a policy violating any nation’s sovereign rights in the interest of prosecuting the war on terror, assasinating american citizens based on the approval of secret death panels. That’s change alright. We are changing into an Orwellian nightmare.
October 17, 2011 at 5:51 pm, Anonymous said:
While I agree with everything you said..I do have to ask if you are aware of what the road is to becoming a legal immigrant. The process is not short or easy. And were it not for legal immigration many principled citizens would not be in this country. My grandparents on both my mother’s and father’s side legally immigrated here through Ellis Island @ the turn of the last century. They all became successful, law abiding citizens that never depended on anyone to help them, and passed that down to my entire family. None of us has ever been rich, but we have made it and then some-of our own accord. Dr. Paul wants the free rides given to illegal immigrants stopped…stop making it easy for them and supporting them and I guarantee you they won’t be so enthused about crossing the borders. Also, he wants our soldiers home to deal with our borders.
October 17, 2011 at 6:16 pm, Joe said:
Essentially, I would support no barrier to legal immigration. I’m also a first generation American (my family came here in the 50′s and 60′s). There should be no barrier to the movement of goods and labor across borders. From a public choice point of view, those types of policies don’t affect that actual flow of goods and labor. It shifts the flow of goods and labor to black markets and illegal immigration. Once illegal immigrants come here, they essentially have to stay and we won’t reward illegal activity so they end up getting direct or indirect benefits without paying taxes. If we removed those barriers and either had no restrictions on immigration or guest worker programs we probably would have a large seasonal TAXPAYING worker population.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm, Anonymous said:
To get the right wing vote you have to be against abortion. But it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul says on this issue or what any candidate says. Only the vote in the Supreme Court matters.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Josh Sawyers said:
This article is extreme straw man. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about abortion, but his views are consistent. To him, life begins at conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the protection of the rights of an individual life.
So his views are entirely consistent. I’m also libertarian, I just don’t think the point of conception constitutes human life.
DJ Pangburn should realize this fact and issue an apology for being ignorant.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Rdbeavers34 said:
If you are a libertarian you believe in defending liberty for all. Every child deserves the right to life. Abortion is a violation of that right.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Rdbeavers34 said:
If you are a libertarian you believe in defending liberty for all. Every child deserves the right to life. Abortion is a violation of that right.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Rdbeavers34 said:
If you are a libertarian you believe in defending liberty for all. Every child deserves the right to life. Abortion is a violation of that right.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Rdbeavers34 said:
If you are a libertarian you believe in defending liberty for all. Every child deserves the right to life. Abortion is a violation of that right.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Rdbeavers34 said:
If you are a libertarian you believe in defending liberty for all. Every child deserves the right to life. Abortion is a violation of that right.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Rdbeavers34 said:
If you are a libertarian you believe in defending liberty for all. Every child deserves the right to life. Abortion is a violation of that right.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Rdbeavers34 said:
If you are a libertarian you believe in defending liberty for all. Every child deserves the right to life. Abortion is a violation of that right.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Rdbeavers34 said:
If you are a libertarian you believe in defending liberty for all. Every child deserves the right to life. Abortion is a violation of that right.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Rdbeavers34 said:
If you are a libertarian you believe in defending liberty for all. Every child deserves the right to life. Abortion is a violation of that right.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Rdbeavers34 said:
If you are a libertarian you believe in defending liberty for all. Every child deserves the right to life. Abortion is a violation of that right.
October 17, 2011 at 5:18 pm, Rdbeavers34 said:
If you are a libertarian you believe in defending liberty for all. Every child deserves the right to life. Abortion is a violation of that right.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, slugnuts said:
Your title for this article is very misleading.
The constitution calls for promoting the general welfare. A country that kills its own babies out of convenience is not promoting the general welfare, its pandering to specific small amounts of people who have found themselves in a predicament.
Also, the declaration of independence states that there are certain rights given to people by their Creator “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
We must protect life and not end it. This includes the death penalty and most of the wars we wage.
Ron Paul is consistent. He also would leave abortion up to the states as well.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, slugnuts said:
Your title for this article is very misleading.
The constitution calls for promoting the general welfare. A country that kills its own babies out of convenience is not promoting the general welfare, its pandering to specific small amounts of people who have found themselves in a predicament.
Also, the declaration of independence states that there are certain rights given to people by their Creator “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
We must protect life and not end it. This includes the death penalty and most of the wars we wage.
Ron Paul is consistent. He also would leave abortion up to the states as well.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, slugnuts said:
Your title for this article is very misleading.
The constitution calls for promoting the general welfare. A country that kills its own babies out of convenience is not promoting the general welfare, its pandering to specific small amounts of people who have found themselves in a predicament.
Also, the declaration of independence states that there are certain rights given to people by their Creator “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
We must protect life and not end it. This includes the death penalty and most of the wars we wage.
Ron Paul is consistent. He also would leave abortion up to the states as well.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, slugnuts said:
Your title for this article is very misleading.
The constitution calls for promoting the general welfare. A country that kills its own babies out of convenience is not promoting the general welfare, its pandering to specific small amounts of people who have found themselves in a predicament.
Also, the declaration of independence states that there are certain rights given to people by their Creator “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
We must protect life and not end it. This includes the death penalty and most of the wars we wage.
Ron Paul is consistent. He also would leave abortion up to the states as well.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, slugnuts said:
Your title for this article is very misleading.
The constitution calls for promoting the general welfare. A country that kills its own babies out of convenience is not promoting the general welfare, its pandering to specific small amounts of people who have found themselves in a predicament.
Also, the declaration of independence states that there are certain rights given to people by their Creator “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
We must protect life and not end it. This includes the death penalty and most of the wars we wage.
Ron Paul is consistent. He also would leave abortion up to the states as well.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, slugnuts said:
Your title for this article is very misleading.
The constitution calls for promoting the general welfare. A country that kills its own babies out of convenience is not promoting the general welfare, its pandering to specific small amounts of people who have found themselves in a predicament.
Also, the declaration of independence states that there are certain rights given to people by their Creator “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
We must protect life and not end it. This includes the death penalty and most of the wars we wage.
Ron Paul is consistent. He also would leave abortion up to the states as well.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, slugnuts said:
Your title for this article is very misleading.
The constitution calls for promoting the general welfare. A country that kills its own babies out of convenience is not promoting the general welfare, its pandering to specific small amounts of people who have found themselves in a predicament.
Also, the declaration of independence states that there are certain rights given to people by their Creator “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
We must protect life and not end it. This includes the death penalty and most of the wars we wage.
Ron Paul is consistent. He also would leave abortion up to the states as well.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, slugnuts said:
Your title for this article is very misleading.
The constitution calls for promoting the general welfare. A country that kills its own babies out of convenience is not promoting the general welfare, its pandering to specific small amounts of people who have found themselves in a predicament.
Also, the declaration of independence states that there are certain rights given to people by their Creator “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
We must protect life and not end it. This includes the death penalty and most of the wars we wage.
Ron Paul is consistent. He also would leave abortion up to the states as well.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:19 pm, Matt said:
Without a right to life, no one can have liberty. Ron Paul IS a libertarian, and pro-life, they are not opposing principles. Also, he’s not going to go in guns blazing to pass a Life Amendment making abortion illegal at the federal level like most Religious Right-wingers, but merely letting the states decide abortion, which is Constitutional and is the only way to follow the 10th amendment. I don’t even know what to say to your comparing this to the Civil Rights Era… Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist Libertarian, and he will be our next President.
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm, Jake Hemingway said:
in this authors world, unborn babies have no right to life or liberty
October 17, 2011 at 5:25 pm, Phil said:
Is this reason enough not to cast a vote for Ron Paul in the primaries or a general election?
NO, it isn’t. A mother’s body IS a unique situation. A mother’s body carries another’s body! Can’t just throw someone elses living body in the trash; it’s been accepted because we live in an irresponsible society. Killing is ok in undeclared wars, killing is ok when it is largely out of sight in the womb. What’s next?
October 17, 2011 at 5:25 pm, Anonymous said:
That our court system and our government cannot decide
just when life begins or just what it is, really is amazes me. On one hand, a
woman’s “right” to abort is protected because it is inconvenient to bring
that life to term, so a life is snuffed out. On the other hand, if I cause the
death of that unborn person in an accident or willful act of violence to the
mother, I am guilty of murder and rightfully subject to criminal prosecution.
If it is life, protect it in all phases, if it is not, then any criminal prosecution
when it is lost has no basis in law.
October 17, 2011 at 5:27 pm, Aaron Holmgren said:
I find it as hard to blame a guy for believing a human fetus is precious as I do to blame a woman for wanting to have full control over the processes of her body. They are all completely justified beliefs. Anyway, Ron Paul does not believe in legislating his beliefs on others, instead he believes in using the democratic process to allow people to pick the legislators who will represent them best on these issues.
October 17, 2011 at 5:30 pm, Anonymous said:
First, he’s a Constitutionalist, not a Libertarian.
Second, personally, he’s against abortion but politically, he wants to end taxpayer funding for abortion at the Federal level, overturn Roe v Wade and eliminate the Supreme Court’s ability to rule on such moral issues, and then let the states and voters decide.
I do think it is a strange stance for someone who believes in freedom and liberty, but it is consistent for him to believe in something, but put his political philosophy first.
I think the ad was to target the conservative voters in Iowa more than an outline of his political policy.
October 17, 2011 at 5:33 pm, Lostininnerspace said:
Im sorry sir, are you speaking for god? Are your saying that Ron Paul is a bad choice because he doesn’t believe in killing babies and god does? Did god tell you this face to face. I think he would be considered a hypocrite, but not because he believes in limited govt…..but because he killed a baby. Hack
October 17, 2011 at 5:35 pm, Trudy Trejo said:
Am I missing something or does this article not even present a counter argument to Ron Paul’s? To me it just reads as a screed against Ron Paul with no content. It’s fine to disagree with him but you could at least present some reasoning to support that argument.
October 17, 2011 at 5:36 pm, Ed Clemow said:
This whole article is a lie. I have been following Dr. Paul for many years, and have heard him say many times that he is pro-life, but that the federal govt. has no jurisdiction in the matter. The article has no quote saying that abortion should be illegal under federal law.
He is being attacked for saying something that he has never said to my knowledge. His views are totally consistent as always.
October 17, 2011 at 5:38 pm, Vale said:
Last I checked he simply wanted abortion to be a state issue and decided on a state-by-state basis as the Constitution chose.
October 17, 2011 at 5:40 pm, Matt said:
This article is inaccurate. Ron Paul does not support a federal mandate on pro-life legislation. He wants to remove Roe V. Wade and let the states decide for themselves what they consider proper moral law. DJ Pangburn, this is disingenuous journalism.
October 17, 2011 at 5:40 pm, fran said:
human life begins at conception; that’s the whole point. if it was merely arbitrary then the supreme court could declare anyone a non-person at any time. ron paul has got the right idea.
October 17, 2011 at 5:42 pm, Anonymous said:
The author it seems knows nothing of Ron Paul. He does not agree with abortion, nor would he allow government funded abortions to be allowed. Why should my money fund murder? because let’s face it folks, it’s rarely used in emergency situations, where the life of the mother is @ stake. It is used for birth control more often than not. We are not teaching our children to keep their pants on and legs closed, but that if you get pregnant there is an easy fix-abortion. He believes in the 10th Amendment, which gives those decisions to the states. This also includes same-sex marriage. To him, it’s not about his religion, or whether he personally agrees with an issue. It’s about the Constitution. I suggest the author educate his/herself before posting more rhetoric and disinformation.
October 17, 2011 at 5:42 pm, Anonymous said:
“How God makes Ron Paul a big hypocrite” – is this the same way he made you an idiot? I assume that you are because you show your lack of understanding so completely and either don’t get it at all or get all your info from 30 sec soundbites, both; either of which proves the assertion.███ ████ for President 2012
October 17, 2011 at 5:45 pm, MacJames Flynn said:
The author of this article is misinformed, to say the least.
I’m not going to opine here about whether this journalist is a good journalist or not. Instead, I’ll just correct Mr. Pangburn by kindly directing him to the most thorough and accurate source of Dr. Paul’s stance on abortion, which happens to be the good doctor’s latest book, Liberty Defined. Please refer to chapter one entitled “Abortion.” Skip to page three and see second paragraph beginning as follows: “The fact is that the fetus has legal rights…” This chapter will spell it out for you clearly, but that paragraph in particular provides a pretty succinct explanation of his reasoning behind his position on the issue.
DJ, I know it’s tempting to form a point of view on a candidate you don’t particularly agree with on every issue based on one 60 second television spot. But it sort of makes you look bad when you do, particularly because the reality of the situation can be so easily found and verified. All you had to do was walk in to your local Barnes and Noble or similar retail bookstore and open up the book. Shit you don’t even need to buy it, just put it back on the shelf when you’re done!
Hope this helps to clear up your willfully ignorant misunderstanding of Dr. Paul’s scientifically logically sound pro-life stance.
–Mac
October 17, 2011 at 5:53 pm, Mark_henry15 said:
What a BS, “HIT PIECE!” Ron Paul has, “NEVER” suggested that Federal Government be involved. Your ignorance appalling.
November 18, 2011 at 1:06 am, Niles Aronson said:
DJ never said that Paul was for the Government interfering.
October 17, 2011 at 5:54 pm, Dssdf said:
Abortion is a NON ISSUE when our entire fucking republic is at stake.
We NEED a libertarian society.
October 17, 2011 at 5:55 pm, Anonymous said:
Government cannot dictate what is moral and what is not. The people must be the ones who decide what is moral or not moral. Therefore the government has no role in abortion issue. let the people at the local level decide for themselves whether and when abortion is permissible and when it is not. so on this issue I think Ron Paul is right.
October 17, 2011 at 5:58 pm, Anonymous said:
Dj…Fail
He is protecting the liberty/life of all citizens. Since he, and most of America, believes life begins at conception, that protection reaches to those Americans as well.
How did you not think of this, really, the time you spent writing this article, and this never occurred to you? Let the states decide, he has said this time and again.
10th grade level writing at best…
October 17, 2011 at 6:13 pm, Yoshinator said:
Well Dr. Paul has stated that his biggest issue is aborting at the point that a fetus can feel pain. Anyhow he doesn’t believe that the federal government should be involved in that decision and if anything where to change which is pretty unlikely anyway it would only change at the state level. This is a smear piece but what do you expect.
October 17, 2011 at 6:16 pm, Anonymous said:
Horrible trash article misrepresenting the good doctor. Every article I’ve read from deathandtaxesmag has been pure trash lies.
October 17, 2011 at 6:27 pm, Anonymous said:
I’m pro-choice as hell, but really I don’t think “the right to choose” is worth hundreds of thousands of American and foreign lives overseas, or, for that matter, I don’t think it is worth the entire US economy either.
If you reelect Obama only because he’s pro-choice, I suggest you try to convince a middle-eastern orphan who lost her parents in one of the probably ten or more wars the prez will have started by then that her house being bombed to kingdom come was justified by your right to choose whether or not to have a baby if and when you get pregnant.
October 17, 2011 at 6:29 pm, Anonymous said:
And I fully agree with the dude down there. Abortion is a non-issue, secondary at the most with all the crises going on right now.
October 17, 2011 at 6:45 pm, Rocky said:
Paul believes this is a state’s rights issue and has been stating this for over 25 years.
Too bad the writer didn’t do any homework. DJ Pangburn and Deathandtaxes gets an “F”. Dozens of different methods of birth control, requiring different amounts of self control, make birth control easy. Using abortion as birth control is reckless and irresponsible, and I’m speaking as an Atheist.
For you to accuse someone of immorality because of religion is just as hippocrytical as if they accuse you of the lack of religion.
Paul is completely consistent, also wanting the end of unnecessary wars and the closing of many of the 900 military bases overseas. He consistently defends human life, whether young or old, American or not.
I’d be curious to know if DJ Pangburn has been involved with any abortions as I’m always curious about the driving force behind ad hominem attacks on particularly good people like Ron Paul.
October 17, 2011 at 6:57 pm, Jonny said:
The entire premise of you argument confuses me. As I understand it, Libertarians to not support zero government intervention (those would be Anarchists). According to Dr. Paul’s understanding of the definition of life, the government imposing laws and consequences that prohibit abortion is no different than imposing laws against homicide, which no Libertarian would argue against. Obviously, Dr. Paul’s beliefs about life do not align with every citizen’s beliefs (and I am going to assume yours), but you certainly cannot call him a hypocrite. Also, while informed by his religious beliefs, I would challenge the assertion that they are the only source of his stance on abortion. As you yourself stated, Dr. Paul had a visceral reaction to a real experience of witnessing a late term abortion and drew his own conclusions about what is really hypocritical when he then saw a flurry of activity in trying to save a premie in the next room. His medical experience, in my mind, gives him a greater credibility to speak to the justification, or lack thereof, for abortion than most even well-informed citizens. If you would like to propose justifications for why you think he is wrong to be against abortion, go for it. But to suggest that he is being hypocritical without using any informed justification is…lame.
October 17, 2011 at 7:50 pm, Robby Richards said:
Abortion is a state issue and Ron Paul believes it should stay there.
October 17, 2011 at 8:11 pm, Ronnie said:
“How does a Libertarian who espouses a government that leaves its citizens alone simultaneously believe that a government should decide whether a woman can abort a pregnancy?”Where/when does Ron Paul say he would outlaw abortion? He is opposed to abortion, but does not call for the Federal government to outlaw abortion. He has said it’s a complicated issue that is best left to local communities and individuals to figure out. You cite nothing in your article where Paul says the government should decide whether a woman can abort a pregnancy. As far as I can tell, Ron Paul is entirely consistent on this issue.
October 17, 2011 at 8:24 pm, Libertyminded said:
I agree…this article was poorly researched. Clearly the author has only a vague understanding of the issue, the Constitution and Paul’s stance.
You can’t have Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness without first the right to Life. As a doctor who has brought over 4,000 babies, the way Paul sees it, life begins at conception–a scientific fact. And there are only four differences between an unborn and born baby (size, level of development, environment, and dependency) and none of them should exclude anyone from these “unalienable rights.” The Declaration of Independence was the birth certificate of the United States of America, but the truths the founding fathers “held to be self evident” are universal human rights. If you disagree, try living without them for a day.
October 17, 2011 at 8:54 pm, Shelton Jacqui said:
I love how all of the people commenting are men. No opinion ever of any man should ever influence policy on abortion. Who gives a fuck whether it is the federal or state government forcing womens’ uteri to be the pack mule of society? Not okay, ever.
October 18, 2011 at 1:03 pm, Clint Ramsey said:
She did that when she had sex. Actions have consequences. If you don’t want to get pregnant then be on birth control or use a condom. Even on them you still take a risk every time you drop your pants. Women need to take responsibility just as Men should. There are exactly 2 cases I can morally agree with Abortion, Rape (or incest) and when the Mother’s life is in danger. Thats it otherwise you made your bed lie in it.
November 18, 2011 at 1:04 am, Niles Aronson said:
Yeah, Jaycee Dugard totally made the choice to have two kids over a 18year period with her kidnapper.
November 18, 2011 at 1:04 am, Niles Aronson said:
Yeah, Jaycee Dugard totally made the choice to have two kids over a 18year period with her kidnapper.
October 17, 2011 at 9:37 pm, Don Wood said:
@D:twitter .J. Pangburn, did you never know or learn what a victimless crime is? Your article reminds me of the chicken and the pig haggling over which one of them made the best contribution to a breakfast. The pig pointed out that the chickens contribution is just that, a contribution, while the pig’s contribution is a total commitment. Does the pig’s objection make him a hypocrite? Ron Paul is simply following the New Testament biblical pattern of libertarianism.
The libertarian maxim that we are free to do anything as long as we do not violate the life, liberty or property of another in so doing extends logically to babies, doesn’t it? Or does it? The fifty million baby’s contributions to “mother’s rights” since 1973 reminds me that the chicken is the only animal we eat before it’s born and after it’s dead. So, if we’re going to abort our babies without violating nature’s law, we could just as well add them to our menu. Let’s stop the hideous, barbaric practice of abortion.
October 18, 2011 at 12:38 am, Em_pty Skin said:
wow. a hit piece on something that the author takes out of context. The author also tries comparing the wars to abortion. hahahahahah
fail article.
October 18, 2011 at 1:23 am, Anonymous said:
Just because you can’t understand, does not make it beyond understanding.
October 18, 2011 at 1:41 am, Nickolaus said:
Being pro-life is not necessarily at odds with libertarians. I’m personally a pro-choice libertarianism, but I understand the issue is complex enough that libertarianism doesn’t require being pro-choice as a litmus test.
October 18, 2011 at 2:25 am, Ed Golden said:
There’s nothing dissonant about Dr. Paul’s stance. He advocates adherence to the constitution, under which this is clearly a state issue. If it were to be legitimately federal, it would require an amendment. The country is sharply divided and few people, if any, be they religious, agnostic, or atheist (which I would also call a form of religion), can separate their personal worldview from the policies they advocate. The Constitution, as the supreme law of the land and the one thing that binds us a nation, must be followed rigidly and sincerely (without a lot of self-serving “interoperation” by whomever’s in power) or we as a body politic lose our skeletal structure. And contrary to popular misconception, there’s nothing amorphous or highly interpretive about the constitution – everything it is meant to do and not do is made clear in the writings and vernacular of those who conceived it. Dr. Paul is not advocating federal outlaw of abortion. He is not seeking to foist his personal opinion on the whole country. He is advocating, as ever, adherence to our founding document. That may be for good, or for ill, in the short term, but either way, it is lawfully right and proper. I for one would not advocate an amendment, because in a 50/50 country it could go either way and then half the country feels oppressed. Let red and blue sympathizers sort themselves by state over a generation or two and maybe we can start playing nice together again. One-size-fits-all, top down solution are not the way to go.
October 18, 2011 at 3:45 am, Anonymous said:
Does no one in media ever believe in RESEARCH???
Repeat after me: Ron. Paul. Does. Not. Want. Federal. Involvement. In. Abortion. Period.
Yes, he is pro-life and will vote that way as a citizen of Texas.
At the federal level he will support the right of California or Massachusetts or Arizona — or even Texas — to decide for themselves what they will do.
This commercial is intended to highlight his respect for life in all forms: anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and anti-war. From a certain perspective it is highly self-consistent.
In any case, abortion is a damn sideshow in 2011. So is religiosity of whatever flavor. The real issues are DEBT and WAR. Federal debt, local debt, corporate debt (and subsequent bailouts), and most of all individual debt are driving this country into the deep dark depths while pundits squabble over non-issues. Such as abortion. Are the Occupy groups furious about how their lives have been screwed up by someone else’s abortion?
Let’s stay focused on what is important here. So far Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about any kind of real solution to war and debt. Unless you have any other candidate at present who is also seriously addressing this point, I don’t care if he’s the High Prophet of the Spaghetti Monster. He’s still got my vote, my contribution dollars, and my support.
October 18, 2011 at 4:31 am, Hubert Papes said:
“While he aims to hold everyone else to constitutional principles, there is one area where it can be usurped: the matter of abortion.”
Where in the Constitution does it legalize abortion? He believes conception creates life, and life deserves liberty, and ending life is against the law and against the Constitution as a originalist would determine it
October 18, 2011 at 4:35 am, Aaron4liberty said:
I was pro-life long before I became a Christian. This article’s argument presupposes Dr. Paul’s ideology on abortion is correlated to his Judeo-Christian ethic alone. While this “may” be the case, it most likely isn’t. http://www.l4l.org
October 18, 2011 at 10:02 am, lrb said:
The discussion of abortion in this day and age is a dismal one. We are the entitlement generation! We want all the benefits without the consequences. We want to have sex! We want to party and have fun! But if in those moments we mess up, we want none of the consequences. A very sad day is upon us when the life of an unborn child is defined by a generation as apathetic and as apt at avoiding repsonsibility as this one.
Ron Paul 2012.
October 18, 2011 at 3:19 pm, Michelle Minto said:
Yeah, everyone has covered it. God has nothing to do with it. Ron Paul believes in human life. He does not believe in killing babies. It is strange that liberals chose to make baby killing their cause celeb… I mean? Baby Killing? This is the right you hold so dear?… You go baby killers!
October 18, 2011 at 6:50 pm, Anonymous said:
DJ is usually quick to defend himself, which is something I admire. This time round, he is noticeably absent. Maybe he’s too prideful to admit he’s wrong. I demand a retraction!
October 18, 2011 at 7:54 pm, Stephen Taylor said:
“It’s probably safe to say that even if Paul would prefer to outlaw abortion”
No, that is not safe to say. But what is safe to say, is that you are not qualified to report the news. There is no part of the Constitution referring to abortion, so Ron Paul would never pass a law outlawing it. his belief that abortion is wrong is personal, not political. He has said he leaves that right totally up to the states, which is stated in the 10th amendment.
October 19, 2011 at 2:57 am, EgadsNo said:
I am not religious, considered myself very pro choice for a long time. Up until rather recently was very skeptical of Ron Paul, but now I am completely on board with his message. I never really considered him as viable to get elected, how quickly that has changed in my mind.
For this subject my biggest concern was for those that have been raped, to have had control over their reproduction taken away. So I searched about his views on this subject. First I checked his campaign site, and saw a very pro life orientated silhouette of his view. I wanted something more concrete so I checked youtube, I saw him talking about how abortion is not the same as shooting a adult in the head and no court in the country should see it so. Well that did not sound so bad. Then I came across the subject of aborting the product of rape. He mentioned that anyone can go to a rape crisis center, get plan-b (which is the morning after and anti viral drugs) and that no court in the country could EVER consider that a abortion. Because they could never prove that the conception even took place. Fertilizing an egg is not exactly shooting fish in a barrel, reasonable doubt protects the women from even being accused of an abortion in this case.
As for the rest- be accountable for contraception or face the consequences. Maybe if there was some people would not be as care free, maybe we would stress more education on the subject to prevent it.
Like so many things Ron Paul is also looking to treat the cause of a problem, not just the symptoms.
October 19, 2011 at 2:08 am, Noah Johnson said:
When a woman decides to conceive a human life in her womb she has no right to terminate that life. This is simple and does not require belief in God. You can’t honor liberty without honoring life and an embryo is life, human life- scientific fact (not religious dogma).
October 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm, Jbadge24 said:
This article is so ridiculously framed. Paul believes that life begins at conception. You are begging the question against him. Journalists need to learn how make a well-formed argument.
October 19, 2011 at 3:42 pm, Josh Basquez said:
you called Paul a hypocrite for defending life. Paul only stated that life should be defended, including the unborn in his personal opinion, but he admits that his personal opinion would be left out of the matter. Instead, Paul argues that the decision to define when life begins (whether conception, birth, or somewhere in between) should be left up to the states. A reasonable policy from our next president, wouldn’t you agree? He feels the same way about numerous other policies, such as marijuana legalization or gay marriage. so lets get the federal government out of it, and start moving powers back to the states.
October 20, 2011 at 7:51 pm, Orville Shredenbacher said:
Paul actually does apply his same approach to abortion and it in no way makes him a hypocrite.
He opposes Roe V. Wade solely on the grounds that it is a federal law concerning what he considers a violent crime.
He would never put in place a federal ban on abortion, and has said so multiple times.
If it is considered illegal, it means it would be a violent crime against the fetus. There are no federal regulations on violent crime, and the constitution grants no authority to the federal government to be involved with crimes in civilian court.
So, I hate to correct you again Mr. Pangburn, but Paul is consistent here. He would revert the right to ban abortions to the states, as the 10th amendment would demand.
October 20, 2011 at 7:51 pm, Orville Shredenbacher said:
Paul actually does apply his same approach to abortion and it in no way makes him a hypocrite.
He opposes Roe V. Wade solely on the grounds that it is a federal law concerning what he considers a violent crime.
He would never put in place a federal ban on abortion, and has said so multiple times.
If it is considered illegal, it means it would be a violent crime against the fetus. There are no federal regulations on violent crime, and the constitution grants no authority to the federal government to be involved with crimes in civilian court.
So, I hate to correct you again Mr. Pangburn, but Paul is consistent here. He would revert the right to ban abortions to the states, as the 10th amendment would demand.
October 20, 2011 at 7:51 pm, Orville Shredenbacher said:
Paul actually does apply his same approach to abortion and it in no way makes him a hypocrite.
He opposes Roe V. Wade solely on the grounds that it is a federal law concerning what he considers a violent crime.
He would never put in place a federal ban on abortion, and has said so multiple times.
If it is considered illegal, it means it would be a violent crime against the fetus. There are no federal regulations on violent crime, and the constitution grants no authority to the federal government to be involved with crimes in civilian court.
So, I hate to correct you again Mr. Pangburn, but Paul is consistent here. He would revert the right to ban abortions to the states, as the 10th amendment would demand.
October 31, 2011 at 11:59 am, Radmatty said:
If there is any such thing as a social contract, it’s first requirement would be respect for human life.
November 10, 2011 at 10:12 pm, Treg said:
DJ, not so fast with the hypocrite charge. Perhaps the standard
pro-choice libertarian position that is actually hypocritical and/or
contradicts the basic Life premise of libertarianism. Indeed, Dr.
Paul wrote directly to libertarians to explain why he felt and why he
reasoned that a CONSISTENT libertarian position on the abortion issue is
the ProLife position. Now you can disagree, but he did write
libertarians directly and they can read his reason in a FREE book call
“abortion and liberty”
http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf
Now that was very honest and respectful of Dr Paul don’t you think? He
addresses the issue directly to libertarianism and he shows how he
reasons the Pro Life position is actually the consistent libertarian
position. What I find sad, is that no Pro Choice libertarian has taken
the time to write an honest rebuttal. So charges of hypocrisy, don’t
be so cock sure, it may be the Pro-Choice libertarians who haven’t thought the issues through far enough or taken the time to read Dr. Paul’s free book addressed to them personally.
November 18, 2011 at 1:09 am, Niles Aronson said:
I dont think anyone actually read this article, I dont see you putting anywhere that Paul would use the government to interfere, but thats what the Paulians get out of it. No where did you mention that Paul is a bad choice for his stance, you simply pointed out a fact, that Paul’s Libertarian-ism ENDS where his Religious Beliefs begin (my honest opinion is that we need a damned good Atheist or Agnostic in the WH, and then we will have no worries that the POTUS is going to push their religious beliefs or not on the rest of the country)
November 18, 2011 at 1:10 am, Niles Aronson said:
not saying that Paul will do that either, so please Paulians, calm down.
January 20, 2012 at 3:00 pm, Joel G said:
Easy, it’s called seperation of church and state. We are called the United STATES of America. Not the United Federal Government of America.
January 20, 2012 at 3:00 pm, Joel G said:
Easy, it’s called seperation of church and state. We are called the United STATES of America. Not the United Federal Government of America.
February 09, 2012 at 3:48 pm, Soila Pinney said:
The truth is… I have already been won-over to the fiscal tin-foil-hat-wearers with regards to the market. Has anybody identified a glimmer of optimism throughout this “recession”?
February 12, 2012 at 1:55 am, Sherman Brownson said:
I understand what you imply concerning the economic climate. This rising cost of living is detrimental and we also can easily see it is going to exacerbate. oof.
February 12, 2012 at 5:44 am, Michale Durie said:
Any time you tune in to half the call-in shows, all of them are continually pushing precious metals as being a fail-safe solution for the turmoil. Although, my experience has been the sales people hardly ever stop phoning and bugging you,plus the mark up is pretty lousy unless you try out a neighborhood coin store.