Paul: Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Oct 14, 2007.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty

    by Congressman Ron Paul



    [​IMG]
    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.


    [SIZE=-1]Originally published as a 1981 article in LFL Reports: #1.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=-1]Ron Paul, M.D., was born in 1935. He is a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University, and served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force and the Air National Guard.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=-1]Congressman Paul (R-TX) and his wife Carol have five children. They make their home in Lake Jackson, Texas, where the Congressman practiced obstetrics and gynecology.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=-1]Convinced that the size, power, and cost of the Federal government had to be cut for our free society to survive, Dr. Paul ran for Congress and won a special election in April 1976. He was sworn in for his first full term in January 1979, representing the 22nd District until 1984. He was the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for President. In 1996, he returned to the Republican Party and again won election to Congress. [/SIZE]

    - www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html
     
    #1 KenH, Oct 14, 2007
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2007
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

    In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

    In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

    - www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

    If life is defined as beginning at conception at the federal level, then there is no need for a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Such a law would make abortion an act of murder without the need of a federal constitutional amendment.
     
  3. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    If only his voting record matched his election-cycle rhetoric.

    Far too many psuedo pro-lifers break out the wool they then use to pull over voters' eyes every election cycle. It's as regular as the changing of the leaves.
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    It clearly does.

    This thread is not about George W. Bush, but thank you for pointing that out about him.
     
  5. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ken, you must be joking. As was demonstrated in previos threads(and you have admitted before), Paul has as high a NARAL approval rating as any member of Congress. His voting record is not pro-life at all. He has failed miserably at voting to stem the tide of infanticide. Paul, Rudy, et.al. can use all the pro-life language they want, but the proof is in the pudding.

    Paul has a lot of strengths. His failure to vote pro-life is not one of them, and you have ceded as much. I hope you are not calling this a strength now.
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am saying that he has been more consistently pro-life in what he has advocated(but not 100%) than Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or Thompson.

    You can take these ratings by any of the various narrow interest groups, put your $5.00 with it, and buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, as far as I care.

    Look, if you want to vote for Giuliani in November 2008, go ahead. It ain't no skin off of my nose. I already know that I won't vote for either one of the socialists that the two major parties are going to nominate.
     
    #6 KenH, Oct 14, 2007
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2007
  7. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm basing it on the votes, not just what some interest group rates. However, those can't be totally discounted. But my evidence is his voting record.

    Rhetorically, Paul talks a very good pro-life game. However, talk is cheap. Romney does too. Get Rudy in front of the right audience and he panders...er, talks a good game also.

    From a record standpoint, is Paul more pro-life than Rudy? Probably. Romney? Jury's out, but I'd give Paul a slight nod. McCain? Close, but not quite. Paul doesn't come within sniffing distance of Tancredo, Hunter, Thompson, or Brownback.

    Pro-lifers have much to be suspicious of in the likes of Rudy, Romney, and Paul.

    And as Churchill once said, I have nothing else to say about this that is either relevant or true :thumbs:
     
  8. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't drink Starbucks, but I'll meet you at Panera anytime :)
    I don't want to. If I wanted to vote for a pro-choice egomaniac, I'd vote for Hillary (rim shot please).
     
  9. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Frankly, a candidate's position on the issue of abortion does not drive my vote. I try to survey a candidate's entire body of work.

    I only discuss abortion specifically in this forum because it seems like the issue of abortion does drive some posters' vote.

    A candidate does not have to agree with me on the issue of abortion in order to receive my vote.
     
  10. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I try not to be a one plank guy, either. However, a man's record on life to me is a good framework for what he/she thinks elsewhere. Plus, I tend to get a little more pro-life when my wife is carrying a pre-born child. :thumbs:

    I digress....when I look at a candidate, I try to look at their body of work, not just the body of rhetoric. A combination of both gives you a good idea. However, if a man's deeds contradict his rhetoric, I start asking questions. I wish more people did.
     
  11. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0

    :thumbs: I wish more people did.
     

Share This Page

Loading...