I hate writing about Ron Paul because the mere mention of his name sets off a firestorm. But here’s my deal with Ron Paul. he’s one of those guys that I listen to for about six minutes and I’m like “yes, Yes, YES!…wait what did he just say?” It’s always about that seventh minute that he says something…a little wacky.
But I’ve got to tell you in this instance he is exactly right. Last night he was at some conservative function and he took some libertarians to task for not being pro-life. I personally never understood why more libertarians weren’t pro-life so I’m on board with Paul here.
I flirted with libertarianism years ago and I remember being shocked that not everyone there was pro-life. In fact, hardly any of them were. I felt pretty out of place because so many of them seemed proud to flaunt their social liberalism as a way of differentiating themselves with plain ol’ conservatives. When I got into a discussion about abortion I was kinda’ shunned.
The Politico reports:
Speaking for the Iowa Family Leader’s presidential lecture series in Sioux City, Paul said that he is troubled when he hears libertarians advocate for abortion rights. Describing conversations with supporters, the Texas congressman and presidential hopeful said he often here a “libertarian type of argument” along the lines of “it’s the woman’s body. She can do whatever she wants. She can have an abortion.”
“I don’t like them to use that argument – that believing in liberty means you can kill the unborn,” Paul said.
Paul contended that libertarianism and opposing abortion are not separate philosophies, but rather stem from the same belief structure.
“Life comes from our creator, not our government. Liberty comes from our creator, not from government,” he said. “Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty.”
According to the Declaration of Independence our rights come from God and are therefore unalienable. It seems to me that allowing government to decide who can apply for human rights defeats the purpose. It makes the rights kind of alienable, doesn’t it?
But kudos to Ron Paul for this. The thing about Paul is that the guy does say what he thinks and in these times that’s pretty rare for a politician.
April 13, 2011 at 2:13 am
YAY RON PAUL! Thanks for posting this 🙂
April 13, 2011 at 2:30 am
wow! awesome! 🙂
April 13, 2011 at 2:47 am
Well, that's an impressive display of logic. Fortunately it didn't involve mentioning the Trilateral Commission.
April 13, 2011 at 2:51 am
ha
April 13, 2011 at 3:05 am
Hehe, I know that "yeah… yeah… yeah! … wait, what?" pattern!
Good on him.
I flirted with libertarianism years ago and I remember being shocked that not everyone there was pro-life. In fact, hardly any of them were.
Of course not. Libertarianism is often a slightly more mature/realistic form of college anarchy.
(This is not a slam against serious libertarians, as much as I disagree with some forms of the philosophy– it's sad but true, 90% of the self-proclaimed libertarians I run into are healthy young men without children or even a serious girlfriend who like the whole "screw everyone else!" aspect of anarchy, but understand contracts mean you get paid for your work.)
April 13, 2011 at 3:08 am
Now if he could just amend his "Sanctity of Life Act" to be compatible with the 14th Amendment…
April 13, 2011 at 4:36 am
Check out the article "Should Catholics Support Ron Paul" by D.L.Jones at The American Catholic
April 13, 2011 at 4:43 am
Big Tex-
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws seems pretty straight forward to me, but I imagine it gets butchered the same way the second does; because they mention how to become a citizen earlier in the paragraph, they pretend it only applies to citizens. (Although I don't see any international tourist hunting parties starting up, you know?)
April 13, 2011 at 4:48 am
According to the Constitution our rights come from God and are therefore unalienable.
I think you mean the Declaration of Independence, rather than the Constitution.
April 13, 2011 at 4:54 am
Yeah, pretty straight forward, Foxfier… In the article "anonymous" mentions, Lisa Graas helped (and PATIENTLY I might add) me see the flaw in Dr. Paul's proposed piece of legislation.
April 13, 2011 at 5:00 am
….Beyond that it shouldn't need to exist?
/sigh
April 13, 2011 at 7:39 am
Ron Paul 2012!
April 13, 2011 at 10:28 am
Ron Paul is an E.F. Schumacher kind of guy at heart with a couple of Ayn Rand tendencies.
April 13, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Yes Paul. Thanks for the heads up.
April 13, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Yeah, there's even a straightforward pro-life libertarian argument for atheists. If you don't want the government deciding things like whether or not you deserve to live at random times, then you have to take a property rights view that the unborn have rights to their own body. Now the woman has a right to her own body too, but they can't claim the child is trespassing because the parents are the ones who acted to cause its existence, not the child. To argue for abortion would be similar to arguing that kidnappers who brought their victims on their own property had a right to kill the victims because they were somehow violating the kidnappers rights!
So, if you've got an atheist who likes freedom, you might be able to get them to see reason on this issue.
April 14, 2011 at 2:51 pm
RP?! Oh good GRIEF!
Would somebody please DRAFT COL. ALLEN WEST!