Over at NRO, Katrina Trinko has a nice piece detailing how Rep. Ron Paul has emphasized his Pro-Life philosophy in his 2012 campaign:
When Ron Paul spoke at the Ames Straw Poll earlier this month, he did not start by launching into a tirade about the Federal Reserve or lamenting the United States’s military policy in Afghanistan. Instead, Paul first spoke about abortion.
It was a surprising twist. Paul is pro-life, and has been for his entire career. But his serious pro-life perspective has often taken a back seat to his views on the economy and foreign policy.
“We must be pro-life or you cannot be pro-liberty the way I understand it,” Paul said at Ames. Speaking about his experience as a medical student in the Sixties, he talked about seeing one premature baby deliberately being allowed to die and another baby, also premature, being rescued by a diligent medical staff. “My conclusion that very day is you cannot have relative value for life and deal with that.” he observed. “We cannot play God and make those decisions. All life is precious.”
People (including some of supporters) are often surprised to learn that Ron Paul is, indeed, Pro-Life . However, he has never shied away from discussing the topic when asked. Here is a snippet from my exclusive interview with Rep. Paul from Race42008:
KWN: Has your pro-life position ever brought you into conflict with other libertarians?
Rep. Ron Paul: You know, it’s surprising, not a whole lot. I mean, they disagree but there is a Libertarian for Life organization. Ironically and interestingly enough it is run by someone who claims to be an atheist. Yet the woman is very friendly and we talk a lot and have worked together. She actually uses Ayn Rand as a defense for her position — individual responsibility argument. My defense of pro-life as a libertarian is that killing a live fetus that is viable and can breathe and has a heartbeat and brainwaves; to kill that fetus is an act of aggression, and that [is against] the whole principle of libertarianism.-(all emphasis mine)
Read the rest of Ms. Trinko’s piece here. You can read the rest of my exclusive with Rep. Ron Paul here.
August 30th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Libertarianism derives from the premise that the initiation of physical force is evil. Paul’s observation that abortion is a massive initiation of physical force would seem to be obvious, yet most Libertarians follow Murray Rothbard’s belief that a woman’s property right to her own body trumps any rights that the baby has to live. Paul’s belief makes more sense.
Christian opposition to abortion is based on the Commandment from God that Thou Shalt Not Kill. The word translated as “kill” in the Old Testament would have been better rendered hermeneutically as “murder.” Abortion is murder.
Before I became a Mormon as a result of a religious experience, I was a Libertarian agnostic, who took Paul’s position. Abortion is an abomination from the vantage point of any coherent philosophy.
August 30th, 2011 at 9:46 am
I never saw any contradiction between being a libertarian and being pro-life. Boiled down, the libertarian stance on laws are that they should only exist if they hurt someone else. Well, if you’re pro-life then the inescapable conclusion is there’s a dead innocent here. That easily qualifies.
The only reason it’s so surprising to anyone is because pro-abortionists did well to use the term “pro-choice” to describe themselves. Well, who can be against choice? Except the choice, once again, involves the death of an innocent. In the vast majority of cases for the mere convenience and/or financial gain of another person.
A thinking libertarian would recoil from bastardizing their philosophy by making that somebody’s “choice”.
August 30th, 2011 at 9:54 am
There is no right to life without liberty. If there were, you’d have no argument against a concentration camp that killed nobody.
There is no right to liberty without the right over your own body.
That being said, late term abortion is a terrible thing and should be difficult to obtain. But it should be possible in certain medical circumstance.
However, anyone who would seek to restrict the abortion of day-old zygotes is an absolute enemy of liberty.
August 30th, 2011 at 9:57 am
(And anyone who uses Ayn Rand to defend an anti-abortion position doesn’t know what they are talking about. Ayn Rand would not even support Reagan over Carter due to his anti-abortion stance, which she said disqualified anyone from understanding individual rights.)
August 30th, 2011 at 9:57 am
Jon Huntsman has the most solid pro-life bona fides in the field.
August 30th, 2011 at 9:59 am
The right to liberty over your own body happens before the new life is created. There are laws protecting that.
Once the new life is created though, both individuals’ rights must be taken into account. The right to live trumps all other rights. To state that simple truth is to be no enemy of liberty.
August 30th, 2011 at 10:12 am
There are very few things on which I agree with Ron Paul – but I do have enormous respect for him on the abortion issue.
Sadly, I could never support him, because his support for life does not translate into a solid appreciation for the overall, traditional social fabric.
====
“However, anyone who would seek to restrict the abortion of day-old zygotes is an absolute enemy of liberty.”
So you’re all in favor of handing every woman an unlimited supply of get-out-of-jail-free cards? I would agree that a woman has a right to protect herself from death or serious bodily harm through abortion. I would also accept, grudgingly, that we will never eliminate abortion for rape – even though that is a terrible punishment for the unborn life for a crime it had no control over.
But when most abortions are done for convenience, when women who have an abortion tend to have multiple abortions, and when the rate of abortion often surpasses the birth rate in many ares.
Then you have an unspeakable crime against humanity and society.
August 30th, 2011 at 10:12 am
“The right to live trumps all other rights.”
Bingo
August 30th, 2011 at 10:13 am
Metro,
Liberty is never absolute in a viable society. That’s where the concept of rights comes from. And that’s where the Libertarian premise that it’s evil to initiate physical force comes from. It would actually make more sense to assert that there’s no right to liberty without life than to posit that “there is no right to life without liberty.”
All liberty, and all rights, are predicated on the Right to Life.
BTW, Rand’s refusal to support Reagan over Carter came long after she’d lost it.
August 30th, 2011 at 10:20 am
The libertarian has to weigh-in as to when life is conceived. If an embryo is considered having rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then it is consistent with the libertarian philosophy to say that we must oppose abortion.
However, there are religious implications with this idea. When is a human being considered to be alive? Sperm cells are alive, but not human beings. So religions must step in and answer these questions. But libertarians do not feel religion should have any sway in public policy. So abortion must be tricky for a pure libertarian.
I think Ron Paul has made an exception to his libertarian stance in the case of abortion. I wish he would also make those exceptions in the case of drugs and prostitution. Like abortion, I do not believe these crimes to be victim-less.
I agree with so much of what Ron Paul espouses, but in the case of drugs and prostitution, he is putting ideology over decency. Asia has countries that allow prostitution and they end up exploiting the young. Again, Mr. Paul would surely want there to be regulations against trafficking young girls, but there is another gap in libertarian purity. If an embryo has rights, then so should a child. The child should be able to have the liberty to choose for herself whether she wants to get into prostitution. But this goes so far beyond the pale, that even a purist like Ron Paul would want a limitation of liberty in the case of children. Not sure how that squares.
Maybe there are priorities in this world. Liberty is good, but the purity of children is better.
I think the same logic can apply to drugs and prostitution. These things are so ugly that they must be opposed (even at the expense of liberty).
If Paul could figure this out, he’d have a lot more support.
August 30th, 2011 at 10:37 am
There’s no reason that religion need have any say in this. I’m not a religious person, and it’s a no-brainer. Unique, irreplaceable individual? Can’t kill that. Don’t need any preacher man to figure THAT out.
Tossing religion in is just something that confuses the issue and lets anti-religious bigotry rear its ugly head.
August 30th, 2011 at 10:40 am
Non-agression is the name of the game……
Once you agress, all bets are off………
August 30th, 2011 at 10:40 am
You could also think of it in terms of conflicting liberties. The liberty of the mother vs. the liberty of the fetus. Paul chooses the liberty of the fetus. But his libertarian ideology could justify either stance.
Is it possible that an ideology may not answer every question? Liberty sounds all encompassing. But in the case of drugs, are those that abuse drugs truly free? Or are they bound by the chains of addiction?
Perhaps a too simple ideology is not the best for securing a free and happy people? Libertarian-ism has a lot of merit, but there are exceptions to this philosophy.
August 30th, 2011 at 11:00 am
RON-PAUL IS THE MAN! I love his positions…and agree with almost everything he stands for. I am voting for Ron Paul. For the first time…he is actually viable. Most polls have him in the teens….and he polls better than ANYONE against Obama in head to head matchups.
August 30th, 2011 at 11:06 am
@ David Alvord
Its called ‘the pursuit of happiness’ for a reason…..
August 30th, 2011 at 11:37 am
wateredseeds is high again
August 30th, 2011 at 11:53 am
seeds,
He’s not viable for the nomination. And he doesn’t do better against Obama than anyone else. The closest he came to that distinction was in Gallup, and Romney still did better.
August 30th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
This is a very interesting discussion thread.
It is interesting to contrast Ron Paul’s brand of libertarianism, which leads him to a pro-life stance, with Gary Johnson’s brand of libertarianism, which leads him to a pro-choice stance. Gary Johnson chooses to side with the liberty of the mother, while Ron Paul chooses to side with the liberty of the fetus.
I can highly respect both positions, even if I happen to agree more with GJ than with RP. Both are principled, and do not have a history of flip-flopping on this issue like some of the other candidates in the race.
August 30th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
He’s not viable? Really? According to what rubric? Studies have repeatedly shown that viability is best judged by momentum; not by ideology. The candidates are presently fighting for momentum. The majority of the electorate are ‘sheep’; they’ll only follow the person who they percieve to be the leader. In 07′/08′, McCain was ‘unviable’ only until the momentum started swinging his way. Politics more to do with timing than anything else……..
August 30th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
15
I understand that some would like to pursue happiness by selling substances that are harmful and addictive. They would love to make millions and pursue happiness spending their profits at some island getaway. But what about those who suffer from the ill-effects of drug use? What kind of happiness can a child pursue who is born with birth defects? What kind of happiness can be pursued by a mother of a son who ODs? What kind of happiness can be pursued when people lie cheat and steal to get more of that substance.
The constitution has a provision for the establishment of laws. Laws can be made to regulate drug manufacture and distribution.
Liberty vs. Laws is a subject that you should ponder a little more.
August 30th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
17,
Check wrong. Romney was 2 points back from Obama in a poll…and Paul was only 1 point back. That’s better.
August 30th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
“Ayn Rand would not even support Reagan over Carter due to his anti-abortion stance, which she said disqualified anyone from understanding individual rights.)”
Her philosophy also would not allow her to support Jesus over Lucifer, which I’d say is a bigger problem for her.
August 30th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Doesn’t Paul believe that life begins at conception? I’ve never heard him talk about “viability” before.
August 30th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
David,
The pursuit of happiness cannot be legislated. It is an inate concept of liberty. If you think that libertarians are against all law; you are mistaken. Instead, libertarians are against all forms of authoritarian law. Authoritarianism doesn’t ensure safety. Maybe this is a subject that you should ponder a little more…….
August 30th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
15: David, so you would prefer a paternalistic Government to tell you what activities and substances are good and which are harmful and addictive, rather than choosing for yourself? Get ready for a world without alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, beef, bacon, carbonated soft drinks, NASCAR, roller coasters and other theme park attractions, violent video games, football, gambling, etc.
August 30th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Ryan (25)
I don’t accept the slippery-slope argument that if you take away one thing, you lose all others. Let each law be debated. Let each substance be examined as to it’s own merits. We pick our law-makers and we can send people in to make laws that we agree with.
A line can be drawn. I think the line has been pretty well drawn already. But if you think the laws are too strict, elect people who will loosen them.
Our government won’t allow us to make chemical weapons in our backyards, but we can still buy bacon.
Do you honestly think that we should be able to go to Walgreens and obtain an over-the-counter pack of LSD (it’d have some brightly colored packaging on it)???
Anyway, drugs that are produced, that are harmful when abused, ought to be regulated. You’d be okay with putting a fence near a cliff wouldn’t you?
Drugs have been regulated for years and we still have NASCAR and everything else you mentioned.
That’s the main problem with Ron Paul. His ideology interferes with common sense. This is why I don’t trust him with the Presidency. I like a lot of what he has to say about the economy though.
August 30th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
David: Why should alcohol and tobacco be legal, while marijuana illegal? Should casino gambling be made illegal, just as online gambling is now? Where do YOU draw the line between when an individual can choose their own pursuit of happiness and when the government should make that choice for them?
August 30th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
David,
You yourself said it. Drugs ought to be regulated. Libertarians are fine with this. What libertarianism disdains is prohibition. It’s prohibition that is an authoritarian policy…….
August 30th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
27. Well, let’s debate that issue. What is it about Marijuana that is worse than tobacco? If it turns out that tobacco is worse, we’ll have to decide what to do about it. Maybe we simply outlaw both. Or maybe we legalize both. I can tell you that I’d rather have a national conversation about this than to simply rely on ideology. Some kind of almost religious-zeal to libertarianism, that we don’t actually use our brains.
“They are only hurting themselves”. What about a drunk driver? Is he only hurting himself? When he does kill some family, we can charge him with man-slaughter, but until them, it is his pursuit of happiness that should dictate the he drive drunk. To that man, there’s nothing funner than driving drunk.
But no, we made a law that made it illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol. Why not just punish him when he actually harms another human being?
Same thing with drugs. We regulate drugs to protect society.
28- Is Cocaine prohibited or regulated? ENT docs can get Cocaine. It’s highly regulated, but they can get it. So can researchers. So is it regulated or prohibited? If libertarians are okay with this, then I’m okay with libertarians. But I don’t think that’s what Ron Paul is talking about.
But he’s so wrapped up in ideology that he can’t see the trees from the forest sometimes.
August 30th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Nice try Skippy. But, you can’t disguise prohibition as regulation. They already tried that with alcohol. Look where it got em’……….
August 30th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Ron Pauls finest moment was during that speech and what he described.
August 31st, 2011 at 7:05 am
If you’re pro-prostitution and pro-life….I think there’s an inconsistency there. Ron Paul is endearing but to much of a conflicted ideologue for me to take him seriously.
August 31st, 2011 at 7:11 am
The moral relativism of Ron Paul is another worry. It is un-American. Equating prostitution or drug use with attending church or donating to charity is fundamentally…..weird. Society should have the right, as do individuals which make up that society, to value activities that help or promote strong individuals and society, over vice that ultimately ruins. America was founded on strong, accepted moral values otherwise described as the Judeo-Christian ethic. Life is preferable to death. Loose or no family structure is not preferable to strong, traditional family units. Education is valued over ociosidad ignorance. Stuff like that. Ron Paul is societal ruin dressed in libertarianism. Bless his little old wizardly heart.
August 31st, 2011 at 8:43 am
Liz,
If Ron Paul is a ‘moral relativist’…..
You are a ‘constitutional relativist’……
You want to talk about societal ruin and un-Amercian sentiment? Go read the ‘Establisment Clause’ in the 1st Ammendment. Afterwards, we can talk about how much it has been ingnored…….