Ron Paul??

Question

Given that a libertarian is one who upholds the principles of individual liberty and limited government, can one claim to be a libertarian and oppose women's right to choose?

I know he's running as a Republican, obviously, as no third-party candidate stands a snowball's chance in Hades.
But he has claimed to be a libertarian, and was wondering if this is entirely consistent with his positions on abortion rights.

Fripp, I would like to point out that a true Constitutionalist would likely find ample reason for federal protection of abortion rights, as did the sitting court of Roe v. Wade. From the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", to the privacy clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, there is a much stronger case for protecting citizens' reproductive rights than abolishing them, regardless of the official platform of the "Constitutional" Party.
And, in a more general sense, the "left to the states" idea is not being utilized correctly. There is no EXPLICIT right to not be raped in the Constitution, but bodily ownership and individual freedom IS mentioned. Abortion rights represent the same principle.

Answer 1

Elizabeth: I have starred this question because I don't think you will reach your target audience without it.

To give my answer to this question, if he were in fact a Libertarian, it would indeed be hypocritical to oppose a woman's right to abortion. And since it is the current law, it is indeed a right. Any retreat from the current legal status of abortion is a removal of what has already been deemed a constitutional right, and to be protected by law. And now that I think about this, it would be like the United States reversing the laws providing the abolition of slavery.

What's really concerning, is that Ron Paul according to comments here believes states have the right to determine the right of women to choose abortion. That's no more sensible than states choosing whether blacks should remain as slaves, or women should have the right to vote. Constitutional rights simply cannot be the legitimate purview of the states, because the constitution is meant to be equally binding upon all states. Any change in the status or rights provided by the constitution, is no less than a limitation of the constitution.

I think I've said enough for you to know my deeper thoughts on this matter.

Shingoshi Dao

Answer 2

I think libertarian and republican are labels of convenience based on the reality of the political landscape. Politics is not a Blue&Red yin-yang dichotomy like its portrayed, its a practical struggle amongst competing interests.

Some Americans, very few I might say, believe that some of the best solutions to dealing with this real life struggle is to separate the decision-making process on extremely controversial issues by the states. We might call them constitutionalists if there was a party structure & public sentiment to support it.

And often, these social controversies divide sharply along state lines and could altogether be avoided where no one feels their rights have been violated. Honestly, what do I care if Texas bans abortion? In the new system (original system?), I can vote with a moving van - and that vote would matter.

As an example, I might point to Europe, often cited by the left as an example of successful social policy and cited by many international investors as the new place to do business. Most *states/countries* in Europe allow abortion, but some do not. The list goes on for every American controversy you can name: homosexual marriage, drugs, abortion, taxes, education ... Each European state has its own competing social structure within an integrated economy and shared defense...

The funny thing is, Europe didn't come up with the idea... No, its in the U.S. constitution.

Answer 3

I did a bunch of research on ron paul today and that was the one thing i found that i totally disagree with him on, everyone has their opinions and fine they are all valid, from both sides, my quarrel is the fact that they are even wasting time talking about it, it shouldmt even be an issue, politicians should have and never again should talk about abortions, it is none of their buisness, if a woman wants or needs an abortion badly enough she will find a way, and id rather my hypothetical future daughter who might get raped be able to get a safe abortion from a real doctor. I just cant see why this is a government thing, the government does not have a uterus, and it is run by us men, no uterus no say this way or that,, and on that note, being a man I will shut the hell up and hope that not a second of any governmental debate or legislation ever wastes its time, energy, money, resources, and even the ink and paper on this thing that they should not even be addressing.. waste of my tax dollars. whatever they decide it is not really gonna change anything, therefore it is a waste of time

Answer 4

He is a Constitutionalist. He says what he means and means what he says. He doesn't have the prequalified answers that are memorized and planned to not offend. He tells you off the cuff. I agree with quite a bit of what he says and as a conservative I have to say that nobody else on the podium is doing anything for me. Read the Constitution; States rights!

Answer 5

I would think
definitely not

I don't like this guy at all
everybody is awe struck that a republican actually has some amount of logic about the middle east
WOW
everything else he says is really bad
like this
the people that like him i would bet have not looked into what he is about completely and i don't even think they would hear it

I would choose him over any other republican in the agonizing situation i had to make that choice
i may even think about picking him over a few democrats

the guy is a republican for a reason
i'm not saying democrats are good (actually i'll say they suck too)

I support Mike Gravel only
i used to think Kucinich was good too (maybe for VP) but he said nothing when they banned gravel from the debate for having low polls and lack of wealth
now i'm just blabbing

in my view No Way
but maybe a libertarian is a republican with a fraction of logic
don't look at the big fraction of typical

Answer 6

Paul is only opposed to abortion on a personal level, he does not believe the government can impose it's personal beliefs on it's citizens so he will leave that choice up to the states..


On a side note: Since when did Libertarian equate to being either for or against abortion?? "Apart from some very basic principles favoring personal freedom and free markets, there is not a canon of "official" libertarian beliefs. Libertarians may disagree with other libertarians over specific issues.. For example, they may differ over abortion issues, and some support the U.S. invasion of Iraq while some oppose it"

Answer 7

Good Point.

But he is totally against everything else that George Bush stands for, most notably the Iraq War.

Perhaps, Ron Paul's views are more closer to an Independent.

He leans toward the Democrats in their effort to stop this senseless war, and is for giving the power to the people. He is fiscally conservative, and is conservative on certain social issues.

Answer 8

And Ron Paul, who has delivered over 4000 babies, believes that unborn fetuses are entitled to the same liberty as anybody else. If he, as a doctor, is held liable when he hurts or kills the fetus of a woman, why is the woman not held accountable for doing the same thing? Are women allowed to kill their own infants?

Answer 9

He claims he was always a Republican except for the one year he tried to run for office. That one year only, he was a libertarian. He is rather insistant that he is a Republican.

Just because the Republican party doesn't seem to accept him as one, doesn't make him something else. He seems like he hold more traditional Republican values than any of the other candidates since Reagon.

Answer 10

Name one President or candidate that has been able to please all of the people all of the time. At least Ron Paul ticks the most boxes for the most people. Elizabeth you are picking at the bones. If that is one of the worst bad points you can find with the man then he is doing a lot better than the rest in my eyes.