Posted on 04/21/2011 6:54:18 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Ron Paul on Monday created some distance between himself and his fellow libertarians on abortion, telling a gathering of social conservatives in Iowa that protecting the unborn is integral to his philosophy.
Speaking for the Iowa Family Leader's presidential lecture series in Sioux City, Paul said that he is troubled when he hears libertarians advocate for abortion rights. Describing conversations with supporters, the Texas congressman and presidential hopeful said he often here a “libertarian type of argument” along the lines of “it’s the woman’s body. She can do whatever she wants. She can have an abortion.”
“I don’t like them to use that argument – that believing in liberty means you can kill the unborn,” Paul said.
Paul contended that libertarianism and opposing abortion are not separate philosophies, but rather stem from the same belief structure.
“Life comes from our creator, not our government. Liberty comes from our creator, not from government,” he said. “Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
fyi
Well, this won’t turn me into an overnight Ron Paul fan, but I’m very glad to hear it.
Has he said this sort of thing before? I can’t remember anything like this. Does he really mean it?
Beautifully argued, but it won’t convince Ayn Rand atheists.
Paul was an OB-GYN who delivered babies - I think he meant what he said.
Jefferson knew what he was doing when he wrote those priorities in that order. It was not just a list of fundamental rights; more importantly, it was a guideline for future legal decisions.
More than a few libertarians are deeply pro-life. The fetus is regarded by many of us as worthy of all the human rights we all should enjoy.
It’s a big improvement over most libertarians. Yet it’s obviously too comPlicated. A woman can Do whatever she wants to with her body— including when she hasn’t been born yet.
The government has no basis for selecting innocent people as legal targets for discretionary killing. It’s no different than if the federal government ruled 19 year olds are not legally human. The govt lacks that legit power.
Abortion rights libertarians don’t make sense.
I have been a fan and supporter of his since the 70s when I lived in Texas (not in his district). He was Prolife then; he is Prolife now.
In 1983 Dr Paul published Abortion and Liberty a booklet in which he set forth explicitly his Prolife, anti-death views.
Dr Paul is a man of principle and honesty. There need be no qualms about his Prolife commitment.
Does he really mean it?
Ron Paul has long been a “Pro-Life” Libertarian. When he ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988 that was a part of his platform. And while I’m very glad to hear him reaffirm it, I still won’t support him....
Geez, a mature adult when faced with a choice of their own life or that of their child, willingly gives up their own life so that the child may live. Duh.
Abortion is as arbitrary as slavery.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." - Thomas Jefferson
Yes, he has, and, yes, he does. He opposes Roe on Constitutional grounds. He wouldn’t support federal legislation outlawing abortion (but would cut off funding), also for Constitutional reasons. He does think that states can outlaw abortions.
Awesome quote.
God bless him.
Whether you like Ron Paul or not, he has the courage of his convictions.
Awesome quote.
God bless him.
Whether you like Ron Paul or not, he has the courage of his convictions.
Yes, he’s always been pro-life
Has he repudiated his long-time pro-choice for states position?
-- Ron Paul, Federalizing Social Policy, January 31, 2006
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.