Former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul issued the following statement regarding this week’s annual March for Life event:
“I extend best wishes to all those attending today’s March for Life. Roe versus Wade, which usurped jurisdiction over abortion from state and local governments in order to deny the unborn’s right to life, is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in American history. None of our rights are secure when government denies the right to life of any group. It is no coincidence that the acceptance of abortion has been accompanied by a growth of government power in all areas. The devaluing of life caused by the casual acceptance of abortion has also spilled over into our foreign policy with the casual acceptance of ‘preemptive’ war and Presidential kill lists. Throughout my Congressional career I led the effort to end taxpayer-financing of abortion. It is outrageous that the federal government forces pro-life Americans to subsidize activities some believe is murder. Ending all federal funding and support for abortion—including Obamacare’s abortion mandates– must be a priority for all who support life and liberty.”
(Editor’s Note: The above communication does not necessarily reflect the editorial position of FITSNews.com. To submit your letter, news release, email blast, media advisory or issues statement for publication, click here).
51 comments
Libertarians would not interfere with a woman’s right to choose. It would be an invasion of privacy by men with guns.
Libertarians support equal opportunity in its most literal definition across all issues. Equal protection of the law is one of them, without the garunteed right at a chance for life– there is no guaranteed right for anything.Without life, freedom can not be practiced.
Equal protection my ass. Libertarians see society as a dog eat dog proposition. Finder’s keepers, let the buyer beware. The last thing they are obsessive about is interfering between you and your doctor – if he wants to prescribe heroin or meth, they will stand aside. Do you seriously think they’ll give a fuck about some woman who doesn’t want to carry her blastocyst to term? That kind of subtlety is just not in the cards.
Look at the popularity of pro-life among libertarians, and get back to me, Mr. Galt.
Incorrect on so many levels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j09tM1RtydE
Every sperm has the right to a chance to penetrate an egg!
Death penalty for Onanism!
Right, because the government has gotten so much smaller as a result of Roe v Wade…? Since when is outlawing murder of the defenseless a libertarian position? Certainly not constitutional. When killing children in utero was illegal, our nation protected the constitutional rights of our youngest children AND suffered none of the characteristic mandates to pay for this horrid procedure.
Why should states have the power to allow murder? Protecting life should absolutely be a federal power (again, see the constitution).
What part of “abortion is a states rights issue” do you not understand?
Libertarians could give a good god damn about abortion, heroin, health care, social security, medicare, the FDA… shit, they don’t give a fuck about a bunch of superstitious Mormons – let them have 40 wives! And if Evangelicals want to have priests instead of cops – more power to them!
You’re naive if you think they will foot the bill to enforce a law that puts someone between your elective medical procedures and your doctor. They want LESS Government in the bedroom and hospital, not more. If you want to be euthanized – see ya! Not my problem.
Libertarians – ptui!
Wrong again. Interesting your pushing this as libertarian. Clearly this is the desire of the 9am christian.
Protecting life, protecting children, is the responsibility of the parent.
So do people who want to kill babies.
babies don’t live in the womb
Wow, what have you been smoking? Ha!!!
If I thought there were babies in the womb, I’d need treatment.
I don’t think there’s that much pot or crack on Earth to make me see babies in the womb…. a small stroke, maybe.
Once you grant government the power to deny women access to abortion, you have opened the door to granting government the power to compel abortion.
Government should have no power or authority in either scenario. The decision to abort is a personal decision, no less sacred than a decision to abstain from sex entirely.
You can’t stop a murderer bent on murder…We see how it has failed.
I have created a bumper sticker that reads:
IF abortion is murder, THEN abstinence is genocide.
The only thing you don’t take into consideration is that with abstinence, you are only dealing with one and with abortion you are dealing with two human lives. And one of those lives cannot speak for themselves………Makes a big difference!!!!
Your final statement is 100% accurate. Your first is just beyond silly.
Because I give a homeless person a dollar, I grant him/her the power to rob me?
Damn you make good sense.
Your logic is astounding.
I see your point but who then protects the rights of the unborn?
Your question rests on the assumption that the unborn have any rights at all. Does the unfertilized egg have rights? After all, it might have the potential of a genius that will save mankind within its 23 chromosomes. And what about the rights of millions of sperm hoping to get lucky?
The only rights that matter are the rights of the man and woman who were the sources of those gametes, and if there is a disagreement between these two, the rights of the woman in whose body the united gametes reside, and from whose body every subsequent molecule necessary for further development will come, must prevail over the wishes of the rest of the world.
Nothing else really matters.
Spoken like a true life hating liberal!
Ron Paul, who I voted for twice, is dead wrong on this issue. To the contrary, Justice Blackmun’s opinion was premised on the privacy rights of the mother where it was determined a fetus could not survive outside the womb. This notion of privacy is just as important today, as Paul and other libertarian types are right in their criticism of the NSA as being a statist mechanism to destroy individual privacy. However, religious dogma is no justification to deviate from this support for privacy. And whether the states or the federal government infringe on this right to privacy should be immaterial, as the individual is the basic unit of civil society, not the states.
the Doctor is not wrong. Privacy has nothing to do with murder.
A fetus cant survive outside the womb? My 2 year old cant survive on her own either. Should I have the to ‘abort’ her? That is complete and utter nonsense!
They will call it “Post-natal Abortion” and their propaganda machine will take the stance that those who oppose post-natal abortion are trying to “interfere with the family”.
If ‘the right to life’ is a Constitutional guarantee, then, by definition, it’s not a states’ rights issue, it’s a federal issue.
Incorrect. The right to life, or any other right, is not provided by The Constitution of These United States. It is protected by it. As the protection is guaranteed “for the people, by the people”, it is not a federal issue. It is a personal one.
a personal one?
A personal right, that is not provided for by the Constitution, which is merely designed to enumerate those rights and provide for a republican form of government to secure those rights.
In an effort to bring sanity to the comments section I offer this rebuttal to all who stand on a side. There is no side to this issue.
Murder is not a constitutional right. It’s murder. Surely there is not one among you who would say (well one or two of the hardcore I’m sure) that it is not wholesale murder to kill a baby for gender selection, IQ potential or how about because the child may or may not choose to become homosexual. Abortion on demand is murder, plain and simple. It is clearly as the pro lifers state, black and white.
On the flip side of that coin is the medical issue (for which the 9 am sunday Christian will undoubtedly have some backlash to this comment). A woman dying in her hospital bed with the choice from the doctor ‘You or the baby. I can only save one’. And I mean dying right now, not from cancer in 50 years because the birth caused some damage that caused a cellular mutation of the genetic code that eventually becomes some disease that hasn’t been invented yet for which we undoubtedly pour Trillions of dollars into at some point. Who the hell are you to step in between this family and the baby and make that decision.
Roe v Wade did one thing and one thing only. Injected government into a purely personal decision between the family and God. If a doctor chooses not to perform an abortion, BFD. There’s plenty of libitard clunts that call themselves doctor that would be happy to murder your baby. Always has been, always will be.
Fuck all y’all little liberal bitches. Take your politics and go the fuck home.
Sorry ’bout that last line or two. Meh
Ahem
WTH does that mean?
Sorry Ron, but I’m pretty sure you mean “casual acceptance of ‘preventive war,'” and not “casual acceptance of preemptive war'”.
In 1981 — when Roe v. Wade was less than 10 years old — President Reagan and nearly every member of Congress condemned Israel for its preventive strikes on the nation of Iraq in a military action known as Operation Opera. One member of Congress — Dr. Ron Paul — stood with Israel on the matter, explaining that Israel’s preventive military strikes which killed 11 people were morally justified on the basis of Israel’s right to self-defense.
20 years later, the G W Bush administration actually cited Operation Opera as precedent justifying preventive war policy, in an effort to garner support among conservatives for Bush’s planned invasion of Iraq.
Maybe he’s just senile?
That’s a strong possibility, too.
he uses the phrase “unborn’s right to life” as if it has a definite meaning. it isn’t in the constitution – which only applies to people “born or naturalized in the United States”. isn’t Paul the guy with the pocket constitution? or is he the old guy who’s full of shit?
So your name says it. You are an idiot in the wind. “…endowed by our creator…”
The Constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are described in the Constitution as ‘inalienable’ rights. Without arguing over the Source from which those rights derive, it is self-evident that these rights exist. Clearly, those rights can be violated. It is a government’s sole purpose to help secure those rights. If it can not, it loses its moral authority. When the laws of a country are such that the defenseless are not protected… that is a Tyranny and laws should be changed to better secure those rights from being violated.
Yeah, unfortunately those rights that are desired by the lemmings are only those rights that benefit them. You know those rights to be moral, upstanding, productive citizens. Those are inconvenient. They would rather bring on the right to indiscriminately defend their lifestyle rather than their families.
You’re confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution of the United States. They are completely separate documents. Oh, but please do proceed with lecturing to the rest of us about your half-witted theories. It’s extremely entertaining.
Joe, you are mixing documents up a little there guy, but what you really need to know is the far right does not like the Declaration of Independence. It contains radical liberal ideas.
They spend all of their time ignoring the founding principals set out in the Declaration and trying to pretend the Constitution does not say what it says about the promoting the general welfare and insuring domestic tranquility.
The Republicans, teanuts, and teanutarians basically operate on a theory of if they like it its constitutional and if they don’t like it, its not constitutional.
I have been in this fight on the side of choice for over 44 years (that’s pre-Roe for the math-challenged) and have been asked many times, “What if your mother had aborted you?!”
Depending on my mood at the time, I sometimes replied “We would not be having this conversation” and go on my way. But sometimes I would reply “What if my Daddy had zigged instead of zagged at the critical moment?” Or, “What if my mother had a headache when “my” egg was on its journey down the tubes?”
This was usually met with a blank stare. It had never entered their minds to look at their life prospectively from the viewpoint of their gametes before conception. They could only look back on their history from the present.
After thoughtfully considering all the “right to life” arguments, I have come to the conclusion that the ultimate basis for opposition to abortion is dislike of women being able to enjoy sex without having to pay the price of childbirth.
Everything else is mere casuistry.
Your full of shit. They weren’t looking back from their personal history of existance. They were dumbfounded by your ignorance on the subject of murder. By your own arguments men should have the equal right to terminate unwanted pregnancy.
And here is your beloved Roe v Wade in all of it’s current glory.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/23/judge-rules-kan-sperm-donor-owes-child-support/?intcmp=latestnews
Ron Paul changed my mind on this issue. He was the first to challenge me with the scenario that once the baby leaves the mother, it has a right to life, but while it’s still inside the mother, it doesn’t.
Murder isn’t mentioned once in the Constitution. It’s up to the states to define murder and the punishments for it.
Is it just me, or did he put too much shoe polish on his right eyebrow?
Looks like a tumor!