Need To Know Ron Paul's Position

[more liberty]

After much research without success, I need your help to discover Ron Paul's stance on an issue important to me.

What is his stance on Genital Integrity rights?

In other words, does he support each person's individual liberty to be free from an unwanted and unnecessary circumcision.

This is particularly interesting since Dr. Paul is an OB, and therefore has probably either performed them himself, or refused to on principle.

Before someone else says it, I do realize that Dr. Paul, the presidential candidate, would probably say this is not an issue for the federal government. In that case, I want to know his position on this at the state level.

I consider this an important individual liberty question. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness require a physical body with which to exercise them. Will Dr. Paul stand up for the rights of infants to keep their whole bodies, and their bodies whole?

[reposted from the Health Freedom forum]

http://www.nocirc.org

 

[tsiguy96]

what a silly question, for every person who complains about being circumcized, 10,000 more are happy about it.

 

[billyjoeallen]

You are either really weird or you are intentionally trying to derail the discussion.

I hope you are really weird. Then we can discuss this issue during the inauguration party. ..of President Paul's second term. Right now we have work to do.

Peace.

 

[VoluntaryMan]

what a silly question, for every person who complains about being circumcized, 10,000 more are happy about it.

Put me down as happy. I can't imagine going through it as an adult. My son is circumcized, too, although I did hesitate over the decision. I just assumed that, although it would cause him temporary pain, he'd feel the same way about it that I did. Interesting point, but I side with parental decision on this.

I have a question: how hany members of your organization are pro choice?

No. Never mind.

 

[more liberty]

OK

what a silly question, for every person who complains about being circumcized, 10,000 more are happy about it.

This an important individual liberty issue for myself and others. If it isn't for you, that's fine. I want to know Ron Paul's position on this because it will impact my support for him, that's why I'm asking, not to start a generalized discussion about circumcision.

 

[more liberty]

I'm somewhat optimistic

You are either really weird or you are intentionally trying to derail the discussion.

I hope you are really weird. Then we can discuss this issue during the inauguration party. ..of President Paul's second term. Right now we have work to do.

Peace.

Given his strong tack record on individual liberties, I'm more optimistic that Ron Paul would support each person's right to decide for themselves whether to get an unnecessary circumcision than would other candidates. But I can't find his position on this anywhere. I'm sorry you consider my question weird, but it's important to me.

 

[angrydragon]

I believe this would be left upto the states and the parents.

 

[more liberty]

That's what I want to know

I believe this would be left upto the states and the parents.

Yes I recognized in my question this is more properly a state versus federal issue, so I want to know Ron Paul's position on this as a state issue. I want to know if he prioritizes the right of the individual to not have perfectly healthy, normal, and significant body parts removed, over any claim of parental right to authorize or professional right to perform such an action without medical indication.

 

[tsiguy96]

Yes I recognized in my question this is more properly a state versus federal issue, so I want to know Ron Paul's position on this as a state issue. I want to know if he prioritizes the right of the individual to not have perfectly healthy, normal, and significant body parts removed, over any claim of parental right to authorize or professional right to perform such an action without medical indication.

it is not required by law for you to have your sons circumsized, you have a choice, as do other parents. if they want their sons to have the operation, thats fine, but no one is forced to do either one. its been parental decision since it started happening, theres no reason to change that as its working fine as it is.

 

[Corydoras]

I understand your concern about the rights of the chlld distinct from the rights of the parent(s) and the powers of the state.

I don't think Ron Paul has ever addressed this issue as a matter of public policy, and he's never held a state or local post, so I think there is simply insufficient evidence to say.

 

[VoluntaryMan]

Seems to me that one of the 1st acts of rebellion that teenagers engage in is some form of self-mutilation. Perhaps, if there were no infant circumcisions, it would become some sort of rite of passage, something else for parents to get upset about: "You did what to your what!?"

 

[more liberty]

Your view is clear, but what is Ron Paul's view?

it is not required by law for you to have your sons circumsized, you have a choice, as do other parents. if they want their sons to have the operation, thats fine, but no one is forced to do either one. its been parental decision since it started happening, theres no reason to change that as its working fine as it is.

Well, that is what I want to know. I want to know if Ron Paul agrees with me, that bodily integrity is an inalienable individual right, and that persons of any age retain the right to natural sexual development undisturbed by adults with sharp instruments, or whether he agrees with you that the parental right to make medical decisions by proxy for their children includes irreversibly removing important parts of the body when there is no medical indication for it.

 

[more liberty]

Thanks

I understand your concern about the rights of the chlld distinct from the rights of the parent(s) and the powers of the state.

I don't think Ron Paul has ever addressed this issue as a matter of public policy, and he's never held a state or local post, so I think there is simply insufficient evidence to say.

Thank you for understanding my concern. That he may never have publicized a stance on this issue still leaves me interested in his view. I can't believe it's because he hasn't considered the issue, because as an OB, he almost certainly has already either taken a principled stance to not perform them (absent medical indication), or has actually performed them himself just because parents ask him to. Knowing his stance on this will tell me something important about his personal ethics.

 

[more liberty]

I guess it's possible

Seems to me that one of the 1st acts of rebellion that teenagers engage in is some form of self-mutilation. Perhaps, if there were no infant circumcisions, it would become some sort of rite of passage, something else for parents to get upset about: "You did what to your what!?"

You may be right, but since that would be self-chosen and thus not forced on anybody, there is no risk to individual liberty. That said, I'm not aware of any outbreak of circumcision as youthful rebellion in Europe or Asia or anywhere else.

 

[fish114]

I would tend to agree with your position here (personally), but I am curious as to why this is an issue for you, considering that (as you correctly assume) that he would leave it up to the states?

For example, Ron Paul does not believe in evolution, and he personally doesnt believe it ought to be taught in schools. I disagree with him. Had he believed that the federal government has the authority to prohibit the teaching in public schools, I would not support him. But he doesn't - he believes it should be up to the states. The great thing about libertarianism is that we believe your personal views ought to have nothing to do with politics - because they are just that, personal.

 

[more liberty]

I would tend to agree with your position here (personally), but I am curious as to why this is an issue for you, considering that (as you correctly assume) that he would leave it up to the states?

For example, Ron Paul does not believe in evolution, and he personally doesnt believe it ought to be taught in schools. I disagree with him. Had he believed that the federal government has the authority to prohibit the teaching in public schools, I would not support him. But he doesn't - he believes it should be up to the states. The great thing about libertarianism is that we believe your personal views ought to have nothing to do with politics - because they are just that, personal.

Frankly it's because I'm looking for a champion on this issue, and I'd consider it a strong plus for a presidential candidate to recognize this as an individual liberty issue and possess the ethics which lead to that conclusion, even if the presidency provides little direct opportunity to support that right. Also, I think discovering that he agrees with you and I on this issue would open a lot of eyes and change some minds. It would certainly raise my level of support and enthusiasm for him.

That said, I'm not sure I agree with Ron Paul's presumed position that this is purely a state issue, because I consider bodily integrity a fundamental human right.

 

[angrydragon]

I think Dr. Paul would see it the same as the parents responsibility on whether or not to inject shots into the baby. That parents, as the baby's guardians can decide for themselves if it's right or not to do or give anything to the baby. Of course there was the physical harm aspect of circumcision, but is it threating the baby's life in anyway?

I'm not sure, but really as Dr. Paul has said, the more difficult the problem, the more local the solution should be.

 

[Cinci4RP]

what a silly question, for every person who complains about being circumcized, 10,000 more are happy about it.

Poor Mr. Happy never got a choice

 

[more liberty]

I think Dr. Paul would see it the same as the parents responsibility on whether or not to inject shots into the baby. That parents, as the baby's guardians can decide for themselves if it's right or not to do or give anything to the baby. Of course there was the physical harm aspect of circumcision, but is it threating the baby's life in anyway?

I hope Dr. Paul would recognize that the responsibility for guardians to provide medical care is not a license to perform arbitrary surgeries that are not in the medical interests of the child. I hope he would agree that there are ethical limits to what parents can consent to by proxy for a child, and to what doctors may accept proxy consent for, which are narrower in scope than what informed and consenting adults may choose for themselves. However I do not know what he thinks about this, hence the thread.

The physical harm (and loss of autonomy) are exactly the issues, and yes, some small percentage of children die every year from complications of their circumcision.

 

[angrydragon]

So is this a make it or break it for you? If Dr. Paul supports it or doesn't support, he'll lose your support?