The Green Libertarian

...because our freedom and future matter...

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Welcome to the Green Libertarian Dot Net

Ron Paul vs abortion

E-mail Print PDF

I first set out this article to disagree with Ron Paul's proposed legislation on federally defining life as at conception. He has also proposed legislation overturning Roe vs Wade which I do not disagree with. In his previous statements, he has clearly said he thinks this is a state issue which the people of a state should decide on. I agree.

So if he also wants a federal definition of life at conception, I can't see how this won't over ride the state's right to decide. If it is a federal crime to murder, and life is a life at conception, then wouldn't the 14th Amendment require the federal government to over ride the state?

But instead, I though I would instead state his logic for such as stance:

"I don't see it as a privacy issue," he said. "I think it's only a life issue. As an obstetrician, I can verify the fact that the life does exist. It's very much alive, and it's very human, and I have a legal responsibility for it. If I do any harm, I can be sued for it. If an individual kills a fetus, they can be hauled off to court for it. So it's a legal life. To say that life doesn't exist -- if someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to this. So why is it life one time but not another time?"

"The government doesn't have the right to invade your home or have cameras in your home," he said. "That doesn't give you the right to kill a child just because it was born and it was in the crib and you didn't like the way it looked and you went, 'Oh, we don't want to keep this baby.' Everybody knows it's illegal and it's killing. But one minute before the baby's born they come to me and if I did the abortion I'd get paid for it. So that's a real contradiction about the definition of life."

"If I can't defend life, how am I going to defend the liberty of every single individual on how they're going to run their lives? And I essentially do that, so I think that I have to be consistent on defending life or the defense of liberty doesn't hold up."

If your political outlook is based on logic not emotion, its hard to disagree with the above. Women have been charged with manslaughter for killing their unborn child. So how can it also be acceptable to hire someone else to do the same thing? Its kind of like the paradox that paying someone for sex (prostitution) is illegal but if you film it (pornography) it's legal.

If the federal government's narrow role includes protecting civil rights, how can it not step in to stop manslaughter? If it does, how can there not be something that defines what life is or when it begins? Otherwise the action is subjective. So I came to realize I don't oppose a federal definition but I disagree with the timeline of when life is life.

We cannot have public policy decided by religious opinion. I believe Jefferson would want science to prevail. Unfortunately, science can't define what life is nor when it starts. Technically, the cells of the sperm and the egg, are.. alive. They are just not a "human life" yet. Additionally, different religions would have different opinions on the subject and we cannot adopt the definition of just one. Instead I think a more reasonable compromise would be to consider multiple sides of this issue to define when life starts.

Forcing someone to bear a child they don't want also doesn't give a good result to this situation. Obviously, there is a cultural and behavioral need for women and men, to stop unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Abortion is the last option not the first. Pregnancy doesn't just happen to people. It requires a series of choices to occur for it to happen. Outside of rape, there really is no excuse to have an "unwanted" pregnancy.

Its not the 1950's anymore. Kids know where babies come from.

The left would say we need more sex ed. We need free condoms. We need abortion on demand without the knowledge or consent of parents.

The right would say no to any abortion and that life starts the moment there's a twinkle in the eye.

Neither of these stances is intelligent, reasonable, or result in a good outcome.

People get pregnant because they don't want to properly use birth control. Not that they don't have access to it. Not that condoms are too expensive. Two people can be sexual and not have intercourse. There's a variety of ways pregnancy can be prevented by ANYONE. When those at risk the most for pregnancy all have fancier cell phones than me, money is not the problem...

So clearly, there has to be personal responsibility in this matter. Further there is absolutely no reason people should be waiting more than one month from the discovery of a pregnancy to deal with it. Why in the world late term abortions are still legal is beyond me.

I believe a more reasonable solution is this:

  1. A federal definition on life that details the maximum involvement the federal government can have in the matter. Life would be defined after a national symposium allowing the input of science, religion, and citizens. If it were my decision alone, it would be the average point in development prior to a formed heart and brain. It would be at the end or prior to the end of the first trimester. Somewhere around when the pineal gland forms.
  2. Abortion would be state defined (if desired). If the people of a state believe life is at conception, let them decide that beyond the federal decision. Those that disagree are free to live in another state or travel to a state that allows abortions to out of state residence. If someone was more prudish on the matter, say in California, they are free to move to a state where people agree with them more.
  3. Women in lenient states would have somewhere around 1-2 months AFTER discovery of their pregnancy to decide on the matter. Women have to take responsibility (if they decide to be sexually active) to know their bodies and their cycles. Those with irregular periods, are sexually active, and not practicing safe sex should periodically be checking with pregnancy tests.
  4. Men have to take the responsibility of maintaining communicative and honest relationships. If two people can't agree on their sex life, they shouldn't be having sex with each other.
  5. The morning after pill would not have a federal restriction and be OTC IF ALL associated health risks are disclosed from its use.
  6. If you choose to fail all of the above, you can live with the consequences of your actions...
Last Updated on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 16:49

Gun Control

E-mail Print PDF

Works great if you're the one who controls the guns...


Newer website: Buck the System

E-mail Print PDF
Last Updated on Monday, 13 February 2012 11:42

Samuel L. Jackson: ‘I Voted for Barack Because He Was Black’

E-mail Print PDF

Samuel L. Jackson: ‘I Voted for Barack Because He Was Black’

from the same guy that said the Tea Part is racist because they oppose Barack, says he only voted for him because of race. So who's the racist?

Yet Another Beloved Hollywood Actor Thinks the Tea Party is Racist

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

Last Updated on Monday, 13 February 2012 17:03

LRC Ron Paul Merchandise

E-mail Print PDF


Page 9 of 85

Subscribe to TGL

Quote of the Day

People should “assume the possibility of a breakdown of the civilized infrastructure.”

“Your safe haven must be self-sufficient and capable of growing some kind of food, it should be well-stocked with seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc. Think Swiss Family Robinson. Even in America and Europe there could be moments of riot and rebellion when law and order temporarily completely breaks down.”

~ Barton M. Biggs, the former chief global strategist at Morgan Stanley