Other: Did Ron Paul Convince you on Abortion?

[Sola_Fide]

No. Rothbard's argument has not be sufficiently refuted.

Pffft.... I've seen it destroyed by posters here. Ron goes out of his way to mention how Ayn Rand and Rothbard were wrong on the abortion issue too in The Revolution and Liberty Defined.

 

[Tankbot85]

Nope, but he did convince me of having a second look at the current system and made me realize government shouldn't decide what time during the pregnancy of a potential human being is considered life. But in the end, it is still up to the mother.

Pretty much this.

What others do with their loves is none of my business.

 

[kylejack]

No, he didn't. I am in favor of legal and safe abortion.

 

[Keith and stuff]

No. I already thought murdering a baby wasn't the best thing.

 

[Sola_Fide]

No, he didn't. I am in favor of legal and safe abortion.

Being Pro-Life Is Necessary To Defend Liberty by Ron Paul

Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.

Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.

We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.

A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.

A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.

We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.

I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.

 

[Sola_Fide]

dbl....

 

[dannno]

Ron Paul reminded me that not all people who are pro-life people are pre-marital sex haters like most people who are pro-life seem to be.. Most people (mainstream Republicans) who are pro-life they seem to hate the idea of people have pre-marital sex more than they seem to hate the idea of the actual murdering of the fetus. They have this attitude that seems to emanate this concept that a baby is some how punishment for the pleasure of having sex, and to avoid that punishment, or responsibility, goes against God's plan. These are the same people who are very much against contraception.

Ron Paul has helped me to explain to a lot of progressives that there are actually Republicans who have legitimate concerns against abortion and aren't just caught up in the anti-sex part. People who say that it is not consistent for a libertarian to be pro-life are easily knocked down, and although I am pro-choice I can see how being pro-life is also a consistent position for a libertarian to hold.

 

[dannno]

Being Pro-Life Is Necessary To Defend Liberty by Ron Paul

That is dependent on the assumption that a fetus is a human life. Not everybody believes that a fetus is fundamentally human during the first tri-mester or two. Most people can agree that it becomes fundamentally human at some point before being born.

 

[Jingles]

I've gone back and forth on the issue personally for many of years for I can absolutely completely understand both sides of the argument. I was a never an ardent "pro-lifer" in my neocon days but simply supported the positions for it was what republicans "believed". I was really rather "liberal" on social policy as an atheist neocon, but just conformed my view to the party line. At the moment I think evictionism is generally correct (for it addresses both self-ownership as well as "the life of the fetus"), but it's more of defining "what is life" is the issue for me. I also don't want to use state action against people who may view this differently. I just think abortion will become less relevant as we gain even better control of our reproductive processes and etc...

But in the grand scheme of things abortion is probably the absolute least important issue to me.

 

[kylejack]

Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law.

I read this part and thought he was going to go in to an argument about why an embryo with, say, 20 cells is a human being deserving of protection, but he didn't, so I maintain my position. Killing a fetus that has no sense of feeling, no sentience, no thought processes, is absolutely not the same as killing a baby with all its faculties.

For me, the timing of abortions is a legitimate point of inquiry, but not the legality of killing a zygote that has just implanted.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Well, there have been so many threads on this and I've spent so much time trying to do what Ron Paul suggested for me to do: try to convince pro-abortion libertarians how inconsistent they really are. But hey, you can only spend so much time doing it I guess. Some people (in this thread) are perfectly content with inconsistency...and I believe that inconsistency stems from a hatred of God. My opinion...take it or leave it.

For now, I will just remain with Ron Paul on this issue. He is right...as usual.

 

[Karsten]

Abortion and immigration are 2 issues that I disagree with Ron Paul on. I'm pro-choice (on everything) and for open borders.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

This is really the only way I can see how to deal with the rights of a fetus as a human being:

If this is true (a fetus being human), no human has the right to force someone else to care for it and sustain their life; as such, neither does a fetus. Arguing otherwise would logically mean that rights belong to groups of people rather than individuals. Ethically, forcing a woman to sustain a fetus against her will is no different than forcing us to sustain people who choose not to work.

This also means that killing the fetus, unless its presence is a mortal threat to the mother, is not permissible. Evicting the fetus, however, is not murder; otherwise, declining to give a sandwich to a starving man would be murder.

Arguing that the State should enforce regulation of this issue is a grave error. Forcing the sustenance of an individual at the hand of another person is an ethical defense of the entirety of the welfare state; from Social Security and Medicare all the way to food stamps and free housing.

I could also go into consequentalist reasoning, namely that the surest way to make a problem more potent, wider-ranging, and with further violation of rights is to involve the thieving death machine that is the State. Or that eviction allows the chance for someone else to voluntarily care for it, and could possibly spur an increase in early life technology, saving an untold number of lives. Or supplementing all of this with repealing all restrictions on adoptive services.

Adhering to the principles I've laid out above will lead to a greater respect for life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

If somebody wants to argue that the fetus is not human, and also possesses the ability to force another human to sustain its life... have fun.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Abortion and immigration are 2 issues that I disagree with Ron Paul on. I'm pro-choice (on everything) and for open borders.

A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

...

 

[Indy Vidual]

Dr. Paul cannot be right about everything.

He convinced me that it's ok to have libertarian views and be against abortion.

You 'guys' do know we need a lot more college-age girls around here don't you?
Ever wonder why there is (generally) such a lack of women in the ranks?
Pro-choice is the Libertarian way!

Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state

 

[JohnM]

No, it was high school biology that convinced me on abortion.

It was because Ron Paul was anti-abortion that I was willing to listen to his opinions on a lot of other subjects - and willing to change my mind.

 

[floridasun1983]

Well, I am and always have been ardently pro-life. Perhaps its the fact that I am an adopted child, and realizing the option of being killed before I got a chance was a very real possibility, drove my development of that viewpoint.

I actually don't agree with Dr. Paul on the issue though. I contend that the 5th amendment protects the unborn from being killed without due process of law, and thus being in the Bill of Rights, is the supreme law of the land and is not a state issue. Dr. Paul seems to believe that this is a state issue. Its a strange position to be in, because I am a huge State's Rights supporter. I suspect that if I ever got the chance to discuss it one on one with Dr. Paul the difference would be in what is considered "Personhood."

I do absolutely agree with Dr. Paul though that the real issue is the morality of a nation that performs such terrible acts in the first place, and making it illegal will not simply solve the problem anymore than making drugs illegal has solved that one.

 

[thequietkid10]

I suppose I'm a pragmatist at heart.

For me, it is not enough to say "life begins at conception," humans take lives all the time, life that is much more advanced then a "fetus." And I'm not talking about war. For me it's a question of humanity. Humanity for me is the ability to think and to perceive the world around you. So for me abortion is acceptable up until the 8th week.

 

[The Free Hornet]

In the end such a “hot topic” as this one, really only serves to polarize those already united on much more substantial and pressing matters.

Yes.

When pro-life becomes pro-state intervention into our private medical affairs, it has gone too far. Many things can be deemed necessary to liberty. Famously, Thomas Jefferson thought education was so important, it ought to be taxpayer financed. He was wrong.

1) "life begins at conception" is at odds with the morning after pill or emergency contraception. To many in the pro-life crowd, preventing implantation should be no different than throwing the fetus (fertilized egg) on the sidewalk. Why is it not?

2) "life begins at conception" requires a faith-based approach as to what makes us human. There is nothing holy about our DNA even when combined with the DNA of another. Our brains, free will, and our individuality are what matter. That takes more than a few weeks.

3) Something can be immoral without the state intervening to stop it. That is the core of the liberty philosophy. A government big enough to stop abortion is nothing none of us claim to want, so why push for Federal definitions of life?

4) If you try to ban abortion, you won't win. You won't help the children - born or unborn. The liberty message is supposed to bring us together, but the abortion issue is one that tears us apart. Look at the government's war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terrorism. What exactly do you think the government can do right?

5) Properly understood, government is there to resolve matters when our rights are in conflict or threatened. When Joe assaults Bob or Mary thinks Sarah stole her money. Government as an advocate for the fetus is a dangerous thing and it won't stop with preventing abortions. The mother is either a better advocate for the unborn or in little-to-no position to be a mother. Getting an abortion means "not ready to be a mother".***

In a libertarian world, all the tools that could be used to prevent abortion ought not exist. The state should not license professionals and your medical history should be private.

Regarding politics, libertarian pro-lifers destroy coalition opportunities. Why should pro-lifers budge while the pro-choice crowd stands their ground: Because the pro-choice crowd

1) advocates for less government power
2) recognizes the folly and ineffectiveness of government

When someone uses abortion as a liberty litmus test, they do the movement a diservice. For starters, we have a very poor understanding of what the other would legally permit. Late term? (Ron Paul no) Emergency contraception (early-term abortion)? (Ron Paul yes? How is dropping that egg OK by Jesus?). More so, we don't know what sort of legislation they promote to enforce this pro-life vision. Is it the death penalty, life in prison at taxpayer expense, a small fine? Do the mother-to-be and abortionist share the penaltly equally?

Can you be pro-life and NOT favor government regulation of the issue??? Pro-life is synanymous with "opposition to the legaliziation of abortion" but is that the same as "opposition to the decriminalization of abortion" and why can't one simply be "opposed to abortion"???

Instead of aligning itself with the "safe, legal, and rare" crowed, the pro-life movement has gone out of its way to demonize the middleground. AFAIK, the pro choice movement as a whole doesn't ostracize those who oppose taxpayer funded abortion. You'll be ostracized for not wanting universal butt-wiping, but that is another issue.

Disregarding the nutjobs who won't support Ron Paul because he is pro life, I don't think it is unfair to characterize the pro choice view as an inclusive one and the pro life one as exclusive. It didn't need to be that way, but it is.

To answer the thread's question, "No, Ron Paul did not convince me that the state ought to be more powerful than it already is." Clear enough?


*** I fully exclude those who want to be a mother but have health problems or a developing baby with health problems. Not all of us are ready to support a child needing long-term care and the government has ensured that you will go bankrupt trying.

 

[dbenoy]

I'm a super opinionated guy and abortion is one of the few issues I struggle with. It's really complex and difficult.