"Why did I spend $85,000 to support Ron Paul ?"
- Thread starter TheDudeofLife
- Start date
Agreed. I have no quibble with RP's stance that the Federal government has no business making decisions of such a personal nature and should divest itself of those types of rulings. He has a personal belief, presumably based on his religious views in this area, and is entitled to them. He maintains that it should at the MOST be a state issue or even better a local decision.
This is one area that I do see some conflict in his philosophy. Whether his moral repugnance will overshadow the belief that an individual is supreme in the ownership of his (or her in this case) body as sacrosanct remains unclear to me. He maintains that life begins at conception and has a right to that life, but if he is true to his libertarian ideals of limited government he would not pursue any laws in this matter. Especially as president.
Ideally the revocation of R v. W would ultimately result in no laws of any kind regarding this issue (not likely I know). It should be left to the parties involved, who if they so choose would have professional services available to them, while those opposed to the idea would have to get used to the idea that it is just none of their damned business.
Ron Paul and all of you are missing the true theory of libertarian rights in the abortion issue.
Libertarianism is about exercising your natural born rights freely so long as it does not harm or interfere in the rights of others.
The abortion issue is not to be dealt with in the political world.
The mistake that has placed it in politics is that somehow the fetus has become the property of another person.
Most people accept this view because the fetus is a human form that seems so different then "us" so we assume ownership of it.
Being in a womb helps justify that principle in our minds.
For several hundred years we had almost the same view of Africans. They were a human form that seemed so different then us that we assumed ownership of that race. They became our property.
We eventually became enlighten about the wrongs of slavery and someday that will happen to the fetus. until then the poor fetus is the "expression" of a woman's free choice....so sad
Libertarianism is about exercising your natural born rights freely so long as it does not harm or interfere in the rights of others.
The abortion issue is not to be dealt with in the political world.
The mistake that has placed it in politics is that somehow the fetus has become the property of another person.
Most people accept this view because the fetus is a human form that seems so different then "us" so we assume ownership of it.
Being in a womb helps justify that principle in our minds.
For several hundred years we had almost the same view of Africans. They were a human form that seemed so different then us that we assumed ownership of that race. They became our property.
We eventually became enlighten about the wrongs of slavery and someday that will happen to the fetus. until then the poor fetus is the "expression" of a woman's free choice....so sad
Look, it has nothing to do with my personal views on abortion, in fact it has nothing to do the whole abortion controversy per se. My comment was about the inconsistency of Ron Paul's position on this issue i.e. believing in [absolute] freedom and yet helping deprive at least some women of their right to choose because this one specific freedom is not in line with Ron Paul's personal beliefs.
Nevadan's response was intelligent and well thought out, he did acknowledge a conflict in Ron Paul's philosophy regarding this issue and that was the only point I was trying to make. For you ratboy to keep screaming about freedom in every post and then turn around and claim that it's OK to take away a right if it's done by a state government (as opposed to the federal government) is a tad disingenuous.
I honestly don't want to get involved in a stupid debate on whether a fetus is a baby. Suffice it to say that a huge number of people in this country and in the world (probably a significant majority) disagree with this point of view, nevertheless you're trying to force your personal views on them. Some libertarianism!
My "main focal point for attacking Ron Paul" was not his position on abortion per se but the inconsistency of his positions - i.e. freedom on one hand and denying women their freedom because of his personal beliefs on the other hand.
As far as my personal position on abortion is concerned - I am pro-choice. I am not afraid to debate it as you suggested, I simply don't want to as I frankly don't care about this issue, I have never researched it, I don't vote on it and I won't lose sleep whether abortions are allowed or banned. As I said before the thread is not about me and it's not even about Ron Paul's personal views on abortion, it's about libertarians failing a litmus test.