I've been thinking about Ron Paul's position on abortion, and I would have to consider him pro-choice. Here's why.
Being pro-choice isn't being pro-abortion (as many pro-lifers claim). It's about the ability to choose. Since Ron Paul would not attempt to outlaw abortion and would leave that decision up to the states, he is effectively pro-choice, since he is allowing the states to decide (or "choose") whether abortion should be legal.
The main difference between this position and that of most pro-choicers is at what level the choice takes place. It is RP's opinion that the choice take place at the state level. Pro-choicers (in general) believe that each woman gets to make that choice for herself. This difference can, of course, be significant, because if some state eventually does outlaw abortion, then a woman in that state no longer has the ability to choose. However, I still think RP is closer to being pro-choice than pro-life (in terms of the type of legislation he would support, not in his personal beliefs).
Another way to look at it - I think pro-life is synonymous with anti-abortion. Since RP would (reluctantly) allow abortions to continue, he is not anti-abortion and not a strict pro-lifer.
I don't mean to upset anyone by saying all of this and I welcome hearing others' opinions. I've been thinking about this quite a bit since I'm pro-choice and I've had to explain repeatedly to my liberal friends how I can support someone who is pro-life.
Z
Being pro-choice isn't being pro-abortion (as many pro-lifers claim). It's about the ability to choose. Since Ron Paul would not attempt to outlaw abortion and would leave that decision up to the states, he is effectively pro-choice, since he is allowing the states to decide (or "choose") whether abortion should be legal.
The main difference between this position and that of most pro-choicers is at what level the choice takes place. It is RP's opinion that the choice take place at the state level. Pro-choicers (in general) believe that each woman gets to make that choice for herself. This difference can, of course, be significant, because if some state eventually does outlaw abortion, then a woman in that state no longer has the ability to choose. However, I still think RP is closer to being pro-choice than pro-life (in terms of the type of legislation he would support, not in his personal beliefs).
Another way to look at it - I think pro-life is synonymous with anti-abortion. Since RP would (reluctantly) allow abortions to continue, he is not anti-abortion and not a strict pro-lifer.
I don't mean to upset anyone by saying all of this and I welcome hearing others' opinions. I've been thinking about this quite a bit since I'm pro-choice and I've had to explain repeatedly to my liberal friends how I can support someone who is pro-life.
Z