[Dane]

Hardly. Little "l" libertarian Ron Paul has written a compelling anti-abortion argument based upon the same starting philosophy, because in his view the fetus is also an individual and therefore deserving of protection under the law.

Huh he voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.(Jun 1999)

and

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

To be fair he has voted against partial birth abortion in 2000 but that was an election year. Seems like Mr. Paul knows where his bread is buttered in election years.

[dirtboy]

Huh he voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.(Jun 1999) and Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

Probably because the federal government has no standing on such laws, as those are state matters. But, given your position on the federal drug war and the 10th Amendment, I hardly expect you to understand the concept of limited government as it applies to other areas of society.

To be fair he has voted against partial birth abortion in 2000 but that was an election year. Seems like Mr. Paul knows where his bread is buttered in election years.

Ron Paul doesn't need to pander to his constituency to get re-elected. But trolls like you find it necessary to impunge his character by questioning his motives.

[vin-one]

why would he care about an election if he was an appointed judge,
I thought that meant he was not elected?????