Posted on 01/03/2012 4:25:56 PM PST by mnehring
For at least some of the Republican candidates, I don’t doubt that the position that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape, incest and the mother’s life stems from sincere, deep moral conviction.
But Iowa front-runner Ron Paul’s position that states should outlaw abortion even in these “hard cases” but the federal government should not extend any rights to the unborn ought to be more disturbing to the pro-life movement than even an outright pro-abortion position.
Let’s start with the pro-life problem with Paul’s position. If abortion truly takes a human life, then there’s a very clear governmental interest in preventing abortions in cases–late term abortions–where there’s little room for scientific doubt that the fetus is a viable human life. If the federal government has any function at all, furthermore, it has a clear responsibility to protect life when the states are unable or unwilling to do so. This is why the federal government provides for national defense and why its failure to prevent lynching in the Jim Crowe South ought to be considered an enormous moral failure.
Pro-choicers, even radical ones who believe that post-delivery infanticide is justified in certain rare cases don’t reject the idea that the federal government should enforce some standards. In fact, they almost all believe in current federal case law that supports legal abortion and then elevate some values–sexual freedom, free choice in general, reduction of overall human suffering–above the value of human life itself.
Many pro-choicers, furthermore, point to the difficulty of determining when when human life begins and have sympathy for the very difficult situations faced by many women who seek abortions. And, thus, while millions of Americans (me included) have pro-life views, hardly any pro-lifers actually feel that abortion should be treated in the same manner as murder and most see some cases–hard cases–where abortion ought to be permitted anyway.
Paul’s position, like a pro-choice position, places another value (a less powerful federal government) above the value of human life. In so doing, it implicitly leaves room for states to allow things like mandatory abortions of the genetically “defective” children, the (theoretical) practice of “farming” fetuses for organ transplants, and taxpayer subsidies for abortion that involve federal dollars. These practices are, for obvious reasons, a lot more problematic than the “hard case” that abortions Paul wants to prohibit and, at least in the first two cases, most pro-choicers would probably find common ground with pro-lifers in believing the federal government should step in to prohibit them.
But Paul’s desire to diminish federal power leaves tremendous room for them. And that’s why it’s morally even more troublesome than a pro-choice position.
While a federal statute which protected infants who were unambiguously "born" in the United States would probably be a legitimate exercise of the Fourteenth Amendment, I do not fault those who think that getting the federal government out of the abortion business altogether and letting states set their own standards for abortion just as they do for other types of homicide would be better than trying to have it intervene to protect infants. At the very least, I would suggest that one should see what happens when states are allowed to define the legal status of abortion before declaring the states' actions to be inadequate.
Ok, where is the real David Frum? This isn’t even a convincing phony.
Ping a ling
Even at playing contrarian, Frum sucks. Diminishing the central governments power in deference to States rights does not make one “suspect”... He is always so full of crap.
How about the National Right to Life’s opinion then?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2826622/posts
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Neither the term nor the theory of "states' rights" exists ANYWHERE in our Constitution. Persons have rights which come from God, states have enumerated powers granted by "we the People."
The Constitution DOES NOT empower any government to infringe upon a person's God-given right to life.
Paul may claim to be anti-abortion, but in reality he is pro-choice-by-state.
-—”...Either Ron Paul will use governmental authority to stop the slaughter of children, or he is just another worthless politician.” SOURCE American Right To Life——
Why are we singling out Ron Paul here? Have any of the other candidates stated that they would enforce the 14th Amendment to include the unborn and use presidential power to forcibly stop abortions in this country? What “governmental authority” does the president have to “stop the slaughter” of the unborn?
You install constitutional judges, you get rid of Roe v Wade, and it gets kicked back to the States. I presume in the time period it takes to get a Constitutional Amendment against abortion in place (approximately infinity) , States’ Rights will have to do. Just like it was before 1970.
That is an effective strategy however, Paul isn’t saying that as a strategy, he is saying life has no fundamental protection on the federal level.
I have no problem with people fighting it on the State level, but when you cross the line and say your own life isn’t a fundamental right, you have basically taken a steaming dump on the Constitution.
I don’t think relying on the 14th amendment alone is going to cut it. We need a specific Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion, IMO.
“Paul may claim to be anti-abortion, but in reality he is pro-choice-by-state.”
Not only that but:
“Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)”
snip http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm#Abortion
Why is Ron Paul against a parent deciding what’s right for their minor child?
Seems we have it covered.. but even not counting that. Read the entire Constitution. None of the rights exist if there is no right for the right-holder to exist in the first place. The fundamental right to one's own life underscores the entire Constitution.
-Why is Ron Paul against a parent deciding what’s right for their minor child?-
Maybe he doesn’t think its within the enumerated powers of the federal govt to enact such laws. Just a guess.
Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
That's from the 2008 Republican Platform. In one form or another it's been there since RR. Ron might have missed it editing his newsletters, but on this issue he's in the wrong party primary. Unless he wants to change the platform, which he should have made clear.
BTW, note the issue is the Declaration.
Holy Crap, I was going to make some snarkey comment until I noticed, it is Monty Python Spam.. LOL...
“Maybe he doesn’t think its within the enumerated powers of the federal govt to enact such laws. Just a guess.”
It sounds to me as if he wants laws that trump the parent’s rights to decide what’s best for their minor child.
As a practical measure, application of 14th amendment personhood to the unborn child is the swiftest and cleanest route to a solution. Without it the best we can hope for is a return to the mishmash of 1970.
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.