Is Ron Paul’s position on abortion inconsistent with his other views?
Glenn Greenwald writes about Left wing commentators attacking Ron Paul for his position on abortion:
Writing at The American Prospect blog, Dana Goldstein criticizes Andrew Sullivan for endorsing Ron Paul as the GOP candidate (Sullivan also endorsed Democrat Barack Obama, his clearly preferred candidate) and specifically objected to Sullivan’s praise of Paul on civil libertarian grounds. Goldstein’s complaint: Paul’s pro-life position means he believes in freedom “only when it comes to half of the population” and therefore no “thinking person committed to individual rights” could coherently support him.
Ezra Klein offers qualified agreement: “it’s a bit hard to square the immense affection Ron Paul receives from putative civil libertarians with his intensely restrictive attitude towards such issues as whether a woman will be forced to use her body as a vessel for childbearing.” The premise here appears to be that abortion is not merely one issue, but an issue of such overarching importance that having the wrong position there ought to preclude “any thinking person committed to individual rights” from supporting that individual, regardless of their views on every other issue.
There are several problems here. First, they misrepresent Paul’s position on abortion by simply describing is as “pro-life.” His position is a bit more specific. While Paul personally opposes abortion, his political position is that is shouldn’t be a federal issue. It should be up to the states. And as President, he’d have no effect on state decisions. This is not at all inconsistent with his constitutional principles.
Furthermore, defining abortion as an “individual rights” issue is disingenuous. People who oppose abortion aren’t saying that the mother doesn’t have any civil rights, they are saying that the fetus also has civil rights. It all hinges upon whether or not you regard the fetus as a human being with all the rights inherent to human beings, or as a “something else” upon which the mother of the fetus has complete control.
To be fair to his critics, support for an entirely state-mandated approach to abortion is a de facto support for its being outlawed across much of the US. The cynic in me wonders whether he’d be so willing to give that right to the states if he was personally opposed to abortion.
It’s not so much that it’s incompatible with his constitutional position but rather that it’s incompatible with a liberal view on abortion. Whether that’s important enough to not vote for the man is obviously up to individual voters, but I don’t think it’s particularly irrational for it to turn you off from him completely—I know it’s one of a few things that would preclude me from voting for him were I an American, anyway.
Hmmm Speaking as a woman I had that first impression too. However the year is 2008 democrats out number republicans and many GOPers are liberal, most states would ban late term abortions just as they are banned now, but that would be it… I can’t imagine that if any states did ban abortion entirely it would be more than the few bible belt states. That said a woman could still cross state line to acquire an abortion if need be.
It would stop our tax dollars from funding said abortions, it would hopefully slow dpwn those women that do use it as a form of birth control..Putting it into a state level decision is constitutional…
I’m not a woman
I think ladiliberty’s comment hit the nail right on the head.