Posted on 05/26/2010 2:25:51 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
Rand Paul on Abortion
Jacob Sullum | May 26, 2010
Let's take a breather from the heated argument over Rand Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act and instead discuss something completely uncontroversial: Rand Paul's position on the Life at Conception Act. As Ari Armstrong notes on his Free Colorado blog, Paul's anti-abortion stance, unlike his father's, goes beyond overturning Roe v. Wade and letting the states decide the issue. The younger Paul, who describes himself as "100% pro life," says "abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being," "life begins at conception," and "it is the duty of our government to protect this life." Toward that end, he supports "any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion," including "a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue." A Human Life Amendment would declare all fetuses to be persons with a right to life guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. A Life at Conception Act would seek to accomplish the same goal by statute. Hence either measure, rather than denationalizing the issue and letting states decide how to regulate abortion, would make abortion murder under federal law and render unconstitutional any state laws allowing it.
If you agree with Paul that "abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being," this may all seem perfectly sensible to you. Indeed, it can be defended on libertarian grounds. (As I've argued, the belief that abortion is murder would seem to justify even stronger action, assuming the government continues to shirk its duty.) But for anyone who rejects Paul's premise, the legal regime he envisions clearly violates a woman's right to control her own body, as Armstrong argues:
But a fertilized egg is not a person. A fertilized egg does not properly have the legal rights of a born infant. Abortion is not murder. Women have every right to take birth control drugs or obtain an abortion. Abortion bans place a woman's body under the control of the government and threaten to unleash a heavy-handed police state.
For the details of Armstrong's argument, see this 2008 paper (PDF). Since the disagreement about the moral status of the fetus will not be resolved in the foreseeable future, a federalist approach has the advantage of neutralizing the debate at the national level and allowing Americans to choose from a range of regulatory approaches. It is also more consistent with the (unamended) Constitution. But it is far from the ideal libertarian solution, which, depending on your view of abortion, is either prohibition or deregulation.
W. James Antle III profiled Rand Paul in the May issue of Reason. Last week Brian Doherty contemplated the significance of his primary victory.
Addendum: Libertarian Party Vice Chairman Joshua Koch cites Paul's support for a federal abortion ban, along with his opposition to gay marriage and his refusal to call for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, as grounds for running a candidate against him this fall, which he says the party is considering. "We're not going to let Rand determine what a Libertarian stands for," Koch, an erstwhile Paul supporter, told The Washington Post. "I'm here to say Rand does not have the Libertarian ideology."
But I guess you can't count on the Libertarian Party to criticize Rand Paul accurately, when they see the opportunity to cash in on some of Paul's fame and infamy by running a spoiler campaign.
losertarians eating their own...
You mean Liberaltarians.
I'd hoped that the Libertarian Party would take a pass on this election, the way they usually do whenever Ron Paul is the GOP candidate in his own district, but I guess that Rand Paul is not "pure" enough for them.
He is, after all, the Republican Nominee for Senate, by an almost 2-to-1 margin of Primary Votes.
So Rand Paul loses 0.8% of the vote. Big deal.
I guess that in this case, perhaps I do.
The Kentucky Libertarian Party is clearly more concerned about the "right" to Abortion, than they are about Rand Paul's staunch, libertarian-esque commitment to cutting Government Spending and Taxes.
Most of those goof balls consider the pro-life movement an infringement on one’s own rights, while ignoring the fact that an unborn baby has rights too. Reducing the size and scope of government power is a worthy goal, but many of these idiots take it too far to the point they come down on the side of total anarchy.
Proof that libertarians are not conservatives at all—just another attempt to live without God.
FWIW, I used to be a registered Libertarian, a long time ago; but I converted to Republican after deciding --
1.) That the Libertarian Party doesn't run enough Pro-Life candidates for my liking, Ron Paul and Harry Browne excepted; and...
2.) I don't really like stupid "holier than thou" stunts like this, and the LP pulls this kinda crap all the time.
The Tea Party better realize that Libertarians are not natural allies of social conservatives.
He is one of their own, he won’t get elected running as a Libertarian, just like his old man. The Kentucky GOP is stuck with him and they have to defend or deflect a lot of this foolishness.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
The implications of such a deeply-held belief are absolutely shocking to what might be called "modern sensibilities," which, with all the advanced scientific data, insist on the old "woman's own body" argument.
Obviously not, if they're running against him.
If I were running as a candidate against "BigSkyFreeper for Senate", it would be safe to say that I would not be considered to be "on your side". I would be trying to take votes from you; that's hardly supportive.
Well, actually — Paul is running for Senate, not Representative. But other than that, thanks for the post!
Libertarian principals support using government to prevent the strong from preying on the weak so protecting unborn human beings from being murdered is consistent unless you take the unscientific view that a fetus is no more important then a diseased appendix.
I agree with you.
unless you take the unscientific view that a fetus is no more important than a diseased appendix.
Unfortunately, the Kentucky Libertarian Party appears to be taking this position.
I'm certain that many of then were astonished at his being supported by another, "life begins at conception" like Sarah Palin.
This certainly isn't what my Libertarian friends tell me they stand for and they're even more pro-choice than NARAL!
They’re not fond of Rand Paul’s staunchly Pro-Life views, no.
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.