Teflon Libertarian Ron Paul opposes women's right to choose. What do you have to say now?

Question

Since when does a libertarian advocate the "right" of the state to interfere in personal choices of people about what they do with their own bodies?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1860939/posts

"Ultimately, Paul said he wants to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade and make it a state issue again, where state legislatures are free to pass abortion bans."

Answer 1

There are many problems with Ron Paul. That is one of them.

Answer 2

Maybe he just thinks that the US constitution is silent on the question of abortion.

With that in mind, he thinks that states should decide the issue.

I too would like to see Roe v Wade overturned. I have mixed feelings about it.

1) I don't really understand the basis for Roe v. Wade
2) I think women should be free to have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy
3) I would like to see the issue disappear from national political campaigns
4) I would like to see some hypocritical Republicans get hurt when one of their issues gets taken away.
5) So let's return the issue to the states. Most states would probably pass laws allowing abortion, so it would not be a big loss in that sense.

Answer 3

This is one of the areas in which the generally libertarian Ron Paul holds an anti-libertarian view.

As to getting back to the Constitution, while Paul correctly notes that the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to ban abortion, it also bars state and local governments from banning abortion (see the Ninth Amendment).

And as to those who like to bring up the number of babies that Paul has delivered, they need to explain the relevance -- fewer babies to deliver, less work for Ron Paul?

News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Answer 4

LOL
So we have a leftist here that wants to tear down Ron Paul
LOL

Lets be perfectly clear here - ALL libertarians - if they are REAL libertarians - are "pro-life" as you would have the term used

You see - as a libertarian - we believe in freedom of choice without the use of force or fraud - abortion is the forced death of the baby fetus - therefore - its wrong

This is and has always been Ron's point of view. It is nothing new to us that know him and so you bringing it up as a point to try to tear him down is really meaningless.

Also - he wants it as a states rights issue rather then a fed issue - this is also true of a libertarian philosophy - you see - according to the constitution - that which is NOT granted to the fed by the constitution is reserved for the states and the people - since its NOT in the constitution it rightfully is a states issue - so he is rght for wanting it there

I am sure there are a lot of other issues that shoudl also be in the state level - like gay marriages, gay adoptiong etc etc.....none of this is the federal governments business

If you want the feds to control your personal life thats up to you - for me - I want them as far away from me as possible - the less they are involved in my life the more freedom I will have

If you want to be a slave - vote for ron paul so that I can be free and then you can come to my house and be my slave any time you wish - I made this offer before but for some reason I dont seem to have any takers

Why dont yuo guys want to be my slave instead of the governments slave?? Are you afraid I might help you succeed at something while they cannot??

Answer 5

YOU have just told a lie.
He does NOT oppose a womans right to choose.
I'm not a Paul supporter but I agree with his position that the Federal Government should never have involved itself in the abortion issue. The Constitution sets forth those areas that the federal government should be involved in and your sex life is NOT one of them.
It is an issue for the states.

Answer 6

Abortion divides libertarians just as it divides others. Some consider it invading a woman's right to choose, other's consider it the killing of an unborn baby. Do you defend the rights of the woman or the unborn child?

Just because one is a libertarian doesn't mean one marches lockstep in view with the party platform.

I'm a registered Libertarian, but not a big Ron Paul fan, and not because of abortion either.

Answer 7

Oh yes let's kill the next generation. And while we're at it, why don't we start a government program where you get to have the kid, take it home for 30 days and if you're not into parenting, take it back and the government will figure out what to do with it.After all being a parent might interfear with your absolute right to do whatever you feel like whenever you want to. Pass the bong man.

Answer 8

What do you have to say about obviously never reading the Constitution? The federal government is not authorized to make abortion legal or make a sweeping ban. This is a state issue, and the people of every region have the right to decide amongst themselves which side they want to take on this issue. That is Ron Paul's stance, and it should be everybody's.

Answer 9

It should always be between a women and her god should she decide to have an abortion, I would never want to take that right away from her,a child is not a child until it is born, there is no such thing as an unborn child, as there is no such thing as being almost pregnant, either you are pregnant or you are not, either you are a child or u are not.But some people will want to try and make their religious beliefs into law, at that time we will not be a free state but a religious state, just like Iran and some other countries.

Answer 10

One can be both pro-choice and against Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade is a winner-take-all decision made by the central State. If the State has the power to disallow prohibition of abortion per Roe, it also has the power to prohibit abortion outright, or even make them compulsory. Libertarians don't want the State to have that much power. We see how bad it is with drug prohibition. If it's up to the central rulers regarding abortion, it up to the rulers regarding marijuana, sex, what foods you can eat, etc.

Ideally, rights would be recognized, and the decision should be local. For abortion, that would mean IMO abortion would be up to the pregant person, and recognized by PDA (or community or county or province/state). Worst of all is for the power to be in the central State. In short, you cannot assume that someone against Roe v Wade is anti-choice. They may be anti-big govt and pro-choice.

Now on to libertarian principle. Libertarians support individual rights for people (aka moral agents, "persons"). But who/what is a moral agent? Libertarianism takes moral agent as a basic "axiomatic" concept, kind of like a point in geometry. Some define it as a creature with sentience and a moral facilty, others consider mainly biological attributes and related potentialities. The bottom line is, since "person" is undefined, libertarians who agree with the rights principle can disagree on the abortion issue - for the "personness" of a fetus is precisely the issue. (At least, as it's generally framed.) If you think a fetus is a legitimate moral agent, then abortion is murder. If you think a fetus is not a moral agent, e.g. not having developed or demonstrated a moral faculty, then abortion has little more moral relevance than removing a parasite, picking off a tick.

Then there is Rothbard's take, that moral agency is moot: Even if a fetus is a moral agent, no one has a right to live parasitically off another. One has every right to remove a parasite, even if it is human. (Thought experiment: Suppose you woke up one morning and Smith had grafted himself onto your body Siamese Twin-style. Suppose you could not remove Smith without killing him. Is it moral to remove him? Rothbard and I say "yes.") But I digress.

Summary: Libertarians can be either for or against Roe v Wade (depending on whether they emphasize outcome or process), and they can be for or against abortion choice (depending on how they define "person".) Ron Paul does not lose his libertarian credentials by considering a fetus to be a person, and hence, considering abortion to be murder.