Topic: Ron Paul
Is Ron Paul's anti choice position a deal breaker? Ayn Rand wrote that a woman has a right to abort based on her whim. Would Rand hold that one should not support or vote for Ron Paul because he is anti choice?by William
(libertarian)
Sunday, August 17, 2008
When the Continental Congress discussed Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence the representatives from the slave colonies refused to vote for independence unless clauses which abolished slavery were removed.
The representatives had already established that a vote for independence would have to be unanimous so their refusal to sign and demand the offensive clauses be deleted carried weight with those in favor of independence from the British Empire.
I imagine that generally speaking the appearance of upholding slavery would be egregious to libertarians. The inclination of freedom lovers would be to stand their ground on the issue. But that would have resulted in defeat of the motion to declare independence.
I find myself in an analogous position in supporting Ron Paul for president despite his adamant position against a woman's right to choose to end her pregnancy. I am as prochoice as one can be and do not subscribe to the contention that unborn are persons or have rights at all. Normally that would be a deal breaker for me.
I generally would not vote for an anti choice candidate who is willing, in effect, to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. I see that as "involuntary servitude" as forbidden in the very Constitution of which Ron Paul considers himself to be the champion.
In the present context in which the alternative candidates would make matters worse if elected, I continue to work to try to enable Ron Paul to be the Republican nominee. As you may know there is a project called the dvds4delegates project which was successful in getting 48% of the Alaskan delegates to the nominating convention to be Ron Paul people.
Now the project is distributing two DVDs in the hope of persuading delegates at the Republican convention to choose Ron Paul instead of McCain. After the DVDs are sent they will be uploaded to youtube for general viewing.
In my opinion only Ron Paul adheres to the principles enshrined by the Founders in the Constitution with the exception of his anti choice position. So many other crucial issues exist which the other candidates are oblivious of, such as the Federal Reserve System's destruction of the dollar, the huge growth in the Federal Budget which threatens to bankrupt the country, the worldwide military bases which are so expensive to support, and domestic programs not authorized in the Constitution, that only Ron Paul would address.
Therefore I will continue to support the efforts for Ron Paul to become the nominee of the Republican party despite his mistaken position on abortion. I also ignore the fact that he refers to evolution as "just a theory."
William
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 11 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of William only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. William is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
How can a pregnancy be considered "involuntary servitude" if the woman willingly chooses to have intercourse? Like modern day government bailouts, if a woman makes a bad decision (unprotected sex), shouldn't she "suffer the consequences" of that decision rather than be bailed out?
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-08-17 21:21:52
A candidate's position on the role of government at the Federal, State and local levels is far more important than what the candidate thinks about abortion, or any other specific faith-based position. So long as the candidate does not advocate using the force of government to impose their faith on people of different faiths I don't care if he freely expresses his personal beliefs and actively pursues them on a local basis. We are all entitled to that freedom.
A big part of the problem with our government is that people win elections based on what they believe by promising fellow believers they will use the power of government to enhance the standing of their faith. Regardless if the faith is religious or non-religious in nature. -Jahfre Fire Eater
I wasn't able to take this article very seriously because of a serious error the author made in the deck. Ayn Rand did not ever say that any human being should perform any action on a whim; in her view, every principle, value and action needs to be founded upon rational evaluation and logic. That the author would even make such an error shows that his understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy may need to be modified.
Your article has sparked some responses I agree with and a few I don't. You've picked at an emotional issue ready to ever distract one's focus from root challenges within our current form of government. To find a candidate that is pro-choice while clueless on the oath of office is folly. As stated above, Dr. Paul has his beliefs (he's a baby doctor after all) yet believes the issue too personal to be solved at the federal level. His soon to be unveiled Campaign for Liberty restores our Old Republic, let's focus on fixing the system first...then we can debate the emotional.
In Ayn Rand's response to a Pope's Encyclical entitled Humanae Vitae, her response was entitled Of Living Death, she supported a woman's right to choose whether to remain pregnant or not.
Ayn Rand emphasized her position by stating at the end of her article that the woman did not have to have a good reason to end her pregnancy and that her mere whim on the matter would be sufficient.
Anyone who would compel a woman to remain pregnant against her will by preventing her from obtaining a pregnancy would be guilty of "involuntary servitude."
Any law based on unprovable religious beliefs, such as the belief that the soul enters a fertilized ovum, is tantamount to establishment of a religion and in violation of the First Amendment of the BIll of RIghts.
Most politicians put their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution and to defend it against enemies both foreign and domestic, and then go on to support legislation not authorized in Article 1 Section 8. Their oath of office is an empty, meaningless ritual and no one, no interviewer or journalist has ever, to my knowledge ever asked potential office holders,like Obama or McCain or Hillary, just what that oath means to them and what Article 1 Section 8 means to them.
Ron Paul is the only Congressman who takes the oath seriously, reads legislation before signing or rejecting it, and is a man of principle who has never voted for a Federal program not authorized in the Constitution.
The overall majority position in the GOP is pro-life. This is one reason why Rudy Giuliani never had a chance to become the nominee.
As to Paul's views on abortion, I refer you to radio interviews, booklet he has written as well as what he has written about it in "The Revolution - a manifesto". The constitution is to project life, liberty and happiness, and not killing an unborn baby is part of life, therefore constitutional and the taking of that life (initiation of force) is unconstitutional, as it negates life.
Question to you: why is it OK that a baby can be killed one minute or one hour before birth, but one minute or one hour after birth, according to Roe & Wade, it is considered a murder. What difference does the baby undergone that makes it OK to kill it an hour before birth, but an hour after birth it is murder? This is the issue you have to answer.
Also, do you really consider Ayn Rand as the A%O of trurth and philosophy? If you do, I will enjoy the laugh. (PS: I do have a MA in Philosophy).
What I find disturbing in the Republican party is that the abortion issue is used as a lure in a bait-and-switch tactic to get principled people to do things that they would normally say no to.
Here's how it works:
Do you believe in God? Yes.
Do you believe all life is sacred, because it's created by God? That makes sense. Yes.
We're the party that believes that too. It's our top issue. Those other guys are evil. Come join us. O.k.
Then they are stuck going along with a series of anti-life positions, including the death penalty, undeclared wars, assassination of suspected terrorists and torture to the point of death.
During the presidential campaign Fred Thompson took a principled stand against many in the Republican Party, after he reviewed the Terri Schiavo case. He said that difficult end-of-life cases are best dealt with at the level of government closest to the people, more so the State than the federal government. The spouse should make the final decision, more so than parents and siblings, because of his or her proximity to the patient. Abortion is also a difficult end-of-life decision, where there are no winners. Unless you want to count the careers of politicians, which are built on other people's personal tragedies.
I think Dr. Paul's position is consistent with many obstetricians, who are trained to think of the baby as a living human before birth. He solidified his pro-life stand after he saw a botched abortion as a medical student. I saw the birth of all five of my children, yuck.
As far as evolution being "just a theory", that it is. It's a very good theory, describing similarities and differences among species, including the rapid modification of viruses. I have heard arguments where evolution is used as proof that God doesn't exist. Faith in God doesn't require the same burden of proof as science or the law. Trying to use science to sway true believers is a futile excercise, even more frustrating than, say, trying to get cats to sing.
I'm not entirely sure there's any Constitutional basis in banning abortion as the Constitution and equal protection of law are applied to persons, not yet-to-be persons.
That said, abortion is certainly an abhorrant practice when viewed in the color of medical ethics and the role of the physician.
The solution might be volunteerism (pregnancy resource centers) and social response. Not legislation.
This pro-life pro-choice arguement will be extinct in a generation or two... after all, the pro-choicer's are killing thier kids.
Perhaps the best way to advance a particular ideology (Christianity, Islam, pro-life or pro-choice) is to out-reproduce the "other guy". It is much easier than winning converts from the other side. Pro-choicers aren't reproducing at the same rate as pro-lifers (that's the downside to aborting your kids). It is a generationally self destructive ideology - and I believe it is doomed to failure.
Taken in the context of "natural selection" pro-choicers are the dumbest ones of all - willingly removing their offspring from the gene pool (while the rest of the world attempts to spread their genes). I bet they never brought that up in sex ed class.
So do what you want with your kids... honestly. Your just helping me win the ideological war.
Good grief! Human beings have a conceptual level of consciousness. While you sound like you expect that pro life people will increase their numbers by procreation alone you must realize the following. Your children will still be open to listening to reason. If you indoctrinate your children with irrational ideas they will still be open to listening to reason.
I have been able to enlighten formerly indoctrinated young people to accept a more rational philosophy. It only took a couple of hours to counter years of brain washing by the mystics of faith.
Most people who choose to abort do so because it is the wrong time in their lives to have a first baby, or else they already have all the children they plan to have. Your assumption that pro choice people end up with no children is mistaken. In fact your whole ideology is mistaken and you are living in a dream world filled with your wishes and whims. Such a parent is unfit to raise children in the first place. All you will do is render them unfit to live in reality if you discourage them from using their own judgment and reason.
For the sake of your children's mental health please read Breaking Free by Nathaniel Branden.
As a father of 2 I view children as a gift and a blessing. It is a resonable expectation that when they grow up, they will view their children as a gift and a blessing. After all, that is how they are being brought up.
You apparently believe your children to be a burdon to be endured (until their 18). You will raise your children with that belief (assuming you "choose" to have them). When you tell them that you love them, do you include "your mother was having a good couple of months and the time was right, so she decided not to kill you pre-maturely".
Hey, their your children, keep em, love em, train em. For the love of God, quit trying to convince children like mine that it is OK to kill their own.
No one is trying to convince anyone to kill their own children!
I just don't want people like you to impose your theology on the government to pass laws violating the rights of individuals to make difficult choices in the event they are pregnant and for reasons of their own want to end the pregnancy.
A fertilized ovum, an embryo at the blastula or gastrula stage, and a fetus are not "children" or "persons" rather they are potential children and potential persons. There is a distinction which you should grasp before you interfere with a woman who is clearly a human being with the right to decide for herself whether to remain pregnant or not. Mind your own business and learn another distinction, the one between the church and the state.
Your unproven notions do not give you the justification from advocating government interference in the lives of others.
Faith is the willingness to accept as truth ideas or beliefs for which there is no rational evidence.
No wonder so much blood has been spilled thoughout history when faith ruled the world. We have been there, it was called the Dark Ages, and lasted until reason was rediscovered leading to the Enlightenment.
I never argued that government should or should not interfere in the abortion issue. My personal belief on that it is a state issue, not a federal issue (bad legislation).
My main argument is this: Aborting is the same as killing your child. Children are inconvienient, they are dependent, they are expensive, they have needs. There is no other time in a humans life where waiting 9 months turns the same act from "ok" to "crime punishable by death".
To advocate for abortion shows the depravity of your own mind. You are convinced that killing children is the right thing to do.
It reminds me of the Old Testament heathen nations - they would sacrifice their kids as burnt offerings. Apparently Baal was supposed to be good to them after making such a noble gesture. We do the same thing - but instead of Baal we sacrifice to "convenience"... a cell phone plan, a college education, a new boyfriend. It isn't (usually) as gruesome, and we have medical professionals operating instead of priests... but the result is the same.
The command in the OT wasn't to "stop" the heathens. The command was "don't be like them". So go ahead, kill your own. Don't expect Baal to grant you any favors though.
It is the function of the president to execute laws in place. Abortion is legal. Ron Paul has promised on several occasions that he would never do anything as president to change the legality of abortion. Obviously if a president is to execute the laws, he may be forced to execute laws that he personally doesn't agree with. But this isn't a dictatorship, and just because the president doesn't agree shouldn't be a hinderance.
Because it is unlikely that any person elected agrees with all laws (certainly all the people running now specifically do not agree) we assume that the president does their job, and not their will. Ron Paul's personal will is to make abortion illegal, but he promises to do nothing as president to make that a reality.
I trust Ron Paul when he says this. And if you vote for people on how they think, disregarding how they act, you have completely failed to understand the duties of president, or anything Ayn Rand ever said.
I've found myself personally insulted by the so-called "Objectivists" I've found that certainly hold the notion of individuality high, yet somehow manage to hang it a little too high, and forget that exactly the reason each individual should value himself, is what gives value to the people around you. You can not have a government of people you love. You cannot have a government of people that all think exactly like you. You are an individual, and as long as you fail to see that SO IS EVERYONE ELSE you won't understand why not everyone has to agree with you on every issue to be able to serve the purpose they have sought.
I suppose a less grand example than the presidency would be one of refusing to shop at a store because the teller believes in a religion that you despise. Assume he's doing his job perfectly and his religion has no bearing on his performance, or his words to you, but you go elsewhere on "principle" or rather, projected idealism. If the president can do his job perfectly, why are the supposed fans of Ayn Rand rejecting Ron Paul for his religion, or his opinion on abortion. Those aren't logical factors in themselves. Not if he can and would do the job correctly, and more likely better than any president before him. Ayn Rand went into great detail in Virtue of Selfishness about how an employer would select an employee based on who applying for the job was best suited and met the minimum requirements. Certainly you don't hire people on a presumption of perfection, that is, you don't refuse to hire anyone just because you haven't found your perfect employee, you instead set standards that you know to be necessary, and you don't hire anyone that doesn't at least meet those standards, it is possible you won't find the right employee, but it wasn't from an impossible standard, it was a minimum standard, and you can set the minimum as high as you need to, but every point needs to have a reason. A reason why this specific person doing this specific job needs to have this specific attribute, and I don't see how an opinion is a qualifier if you assume the person isn't acting on opinion, but rather contractually agreed duty. It isn't a compromise to vote for someone you don't entirely agree with, instead it is irrational to expect such a candidate to exist, unless everyone votes for themselves.
No person who Ayn Rand worked with or who she touted as great, or who touted her as great agreed on everything. It doesn't exist. And it doesn't need to . There's already one of you. That's enough.
Posted By: larry sullivan
Date: 2008-08-18 14:32:47
I agree with you 100% on abortion, however your understanding of Ron Pauls position on the issue is not correct. While he is anti-abortion, he believes the the fed has no authority to legislate on the issue and it should be left up to the states. Which is what the constitution says.
For those of you who bring up the issue of a woman making a choice to have unprotected sex clearly havent looked at all the.possible situations. It's never a black and white issue. As we all know it is possible to conceive even while using multiple forms of contraception. Also there is rape. Anyone who would advocate forcing a rape victim to keep a child conceived during that rape deserves to get raped themselves.
Lastly morality cannot and should not be legislated. And contrary to Charles Ranalli's comment, our governments attempt to do so is one major cause our slide into "totalitarian tyranny" as he put it. If you dont like having personal freedoms, Chuck, then move somewhere where you wouldn't be afforded any.
Rand didn't write a response to Humanae Vitae; "On Living Death" was a response to Paul VI's Progressio Populorum (sp), which condemned both capitalism and socialism, and advocated a "third way" in economics.
IIRC, Rand did say that "one could argue" about the last trimester of a pregnancy, but that the crucial issue involved the first three months. Her conclusion, which followed from her Aristotelian definition of "man" (everything follows from definitions in Objectivism) as "rational animal."
Ron Paul's notion of "leaving it up to the states" is exactly the same as saying a woman does not have the right to an abortion.
If a woman has a right, then it is a right...it is not something a state may take away. Should we allow states to decide if they will allow slavery, too? Oh! I forgot, a lot of libertarians actually do hold this view...saying that the slave states were within their rights to secede and continue their slavery.
States ought not to have rights. Governments do not have rights. Rights are something that individual's have.
I'm also a pro-choice Ron Paul supporter. I remember thinking it would be the deal breaker, too -
After much reading (mostly of Ron Paul's complete view on it, as well as studying up more on state constitutions) I only thought that Roe vs Wade was the 'right ruling' because I didn't fully understand State Constitutions and state sovereingty (and why it was set up that way, by brilliant men so long ago), what freedom of choice really is, and what a 'federal ruling' on a state issue actually does in terms of making it impossible for a huge chunk of society as a whole to be at peace with their solemn pact in the state of their choice and its state constitution.
The reason the founders set social issues up to be decided state by state was because in some religions, eye for an eye (re: death penalty for certain types of murder) doesn't go againt one's creator's supreme law.
How can we have freedom of religion and then force everyone to live in a state that allows something that, for some, goes against the word of their creator?
This is a nation built upon only the fundamental principles we can all agree upon, that only happen to be considered religious, but our founders knew, and we sometimes forget, that morality and good character and living by a code of solid ethics (re: don't lie, cheat or steal) along with some basic personal rights (equality in terms of life, liberty, property, seeking and obtaining of happiness) doesn't and need not belong to any one religion or lack of religion - as long as we can just agree upon a few basic rules, and set up states that vary in social ideology, be it religious of even non-religious, each citizen then is free to live in a state with a constitution that best reflects their personal social or religious ideology and also allows them to be at peace with their creator (or, if they have none, then to just be at peace within their own being with their personal selection.)
What we have done with this federal ruling (which I used to agree, strongly, was the correct ruling), is remove 'choice' from all who desire to live in a state in this union that does not allow murder to take place within its boundries. There is no such state for them now.
Roe vs Wade must be overturned in order to give pro-lifers a chance to reclaim a state that doesn't go against their creator's supreme law (thou shalt not kill, sixth commandment) which some hold very sacred. Interestingly, in some bibles, it's okay to kill someone if they kill someone, or even if they commit adultry - the 'thou shalt not kill' has some 'wiggle room' in various religions.
As we vote on the death penalty itself, I view abortion (now) as something that should be done in the same manner, state to state - I've always viewed abortion as murder, anyways, even though I'm pro-choice - I just always also viewed it as a person's choice to make and to determine if they could do it and still be at peace with whatever they considered their creator and/or their personal code of ethics/morality, should a creator not even be a part of their choice making equation.
This missing piece I never fully understood until last year is the brilliance of our founding fathers in keeping each state's social issues to each state in order to actually keep true freedom of religion while still maintaining an amazingly simple, logical, and compassionate set of principles as a foundation for a great nation.
Once you grasp that, you'll be as blown away as I was (and maybe even smack your own forehead as I did while sitting on a picnic table in a backyard... as it dawned on me how wrong I had been.)
I'm still pro choice - but now my pro choice just includes a deep love, understanding, respect and desire for the choice of those who wish to have even just one state that reflects their creator's wishes and intentions for mankind - it's like a new kinda pro choice.
The way I see it, as it's a social issue, we could easily set up privately funded social foundations to assist females financially who live in pro-life states who want abortions to get to a state that allows it, should Roe vs Wade be overturned - in this way, we could keep it a 'choice' without infringing on another 'choice.'
Sorry for any typos - no time to edit, have to hit bed. Hope this helped a little bit.
Posted By: larry sullivan
Date: 2008-08-18 18:41:03
software nerd-- though i agree with you that a woman has that right, to say that sates rights is the same thing as saying they dont have that right is rediculous. what do you say to those people who believe the unborn child has the right to live? just because you feel strongly about something doesnt mean we throw away the constitution. thats why we are in this mess in the first place
In case any of you would like to see Ron Paul as the nominee of the Republican Party you can help persuade the delegates who will make that decision by donating at the www.DVDs4Delegates.com website
The first DVD is being mailed as we speak and your donation will help cover the cost of the second or third DVDs.
As soon as the delegates have the DVD in hand it will be uploaded to youtube.com or else put on the dvds4delegates.com website.
Here is hoping the delegates are open to listening to reason.
Obviously, there are quite a few "pro-choice" libertarians out there. Murray Rothbard explains the typical libertarian "pro-choice" position in his book, The Ethics of Liberty. In a nutshell, the argument is based on the right of the woman to not be subjected to involuntary servitude (as already pointed out above).
In my opinion, this argument is the only major error in the book. The pro-life position is much more consistent with libertarian ethics.
The fetus, a living human (provable by any number of scientific methods...e.g. DNA, brain activity, heart beat) is placed in confinement (i.e. the uterus) as a direct result of an action of the mother (and father). It is physically impossible for the fetus to escape confinement, despite the mother's wishes. Therefore the mother and her doctor commit an overt and immoral act of aggression when they kill it.
For those who have a hard time understanding or accepting the above due to years of government brainwashing, here is an analagous example of Rothbard's argument: A woman (Amanda) is hanging out at home with her boyfriend and her boyfriend's daughter one day. Suddenly, the boyfriend is called away to a family emergency and has no choice but to leave his daughter with Amanda. Several hours go by, and Amanda tires of the "involuntary servitude" of caring for the little girl. She tells the little girl to leave, but the girl is unable to unlock the front door. So, in order to free herself from "tyranny", Amanda inserts a pair of scissors into the girl's scull and diposes of the body in the trash. Does this act suddenly become ethical if she had called her doctor first??
It is my stance that a fetus is a DNA specific individual, as a Constitutional Classical Liberal, otherwise known as a traditional libertarian, I consider that a primary factor in the rights of any individual. Being DNA specific should be a very important determining factor as how Rights, Natural and Un-Granted by government or anyone else, should be considered. The fact that a fetus is just as distinct as any other DNA specific individual entitled to Unalienable Rights, not granted by anyone are also unable to be removed by anyone, including government, as such those Unalienable Rights can only be abused by force or coercion. A fetus being DNA specific, is therefore, a distinct life from the life of his or her DNA specific mother. It's is a matter of choice? I think it is much deeper than merely choice, it reaches to the fundamental questions of what it means to have Unalienable Rights.
Its time to get off the pot. You as a person have a choice. Do you want to believe the choice of the tree of good and evil or the tree of life? Life is not for your judgement, it is Gods. May you be freed in acceptance. God gave us this life by his breath. Thank you, Gord.
Addiotional morning thoughts - in some state constitutions, you are 'created' with rights to life, liberty, property and the seeking/obtaining of happiness.
In some state constitutions, the right to life is something you are born with - along with the other rights. Seek out your state constitution to find out when your rights begin - the moment you are created, or the moment you are born.
We've got to put aside our emotions and look at this from strictly a technical standpoint via our constitutions- in what way is freedom and liberty best preserved and protected?
If we allow abortions in all states, pro choice individual choice wins but freedom and liberty lose for those who would never choose to live in a state that allowed it, if they had that personal choice. If we allow states to decide, some would allow it, some wouldn't, and freedom and liberty would prevail. We're supposed to be a bunch of sovereign states with varying social stances for this very reason: to protect liberty and freedom.
as abortion is something that has been around for centuries, I'm not so sure the choice of wording between born and created in different state constitutions was by chance - and Ron Paul, even with his firm, solid pro-life stance recognizes that in order to not spend a few more decades arguing about something very emotional, social and personal, it's vital to just refer to the constitution to see what it says is the best way to handle these kinds of issues.
Again, by making it a federal ruling for 'choice', we strip the 'choice' of pro life citizens to have even just one state that has a state constitution they can honor and abide by (how could someone honor a document that goes against the supreme law of their creator, risking eternal damnation? Or live in a nation that allows it on the federal level?)
We've got to give pro lifers a chance to have a state that reflects their deeply held convictions - we're hypocrites to call ourselves pro choice if we don't. If you believe freedom of religion is an important part of our nation's founding, and agree to protect it, you sorta have no other choice but to demand this decision go back to the states.
We disagree. You have failed to respond to my points at all. There is a distinction which you continue to fail to grasp. There is a difference between an actual human being e.g. the pregnant woman, and a potential human being, e.g. the fertilized ovum, the embryo, the fetus. You persist, erroneously in calling these potentials, a child, which they are not, not until it is born.
Then having misidentified a potential as an actual child you accuse me of advocating the killing of children. You are irrational and have made it clear that you are unwilling to have a discussion. Instead you persist in making false accusations and using ad hominem arguments, e.g. saying that I am depraved.
I am unwilling to continue to try to reason with you because you have shown yourself to be a person who does not use reason yourself. We do not use the same currency and cannot deal with each other.
Objectivism holds that the Law of Identity rules in the universe. EIther something is so or it is not. Either a woman, being a human being with a volitional, conceptual consciousness, which is the basis for the whole realm of ethics and gives meaning to the concept of individual rights, has a right to her own life, to freedom of action, to control of her body and to the pursuit of her own happiness. Implied in all that is that she owes others only to deal with them by mutual consent. Others in this context means other human beings, defined by the fact that they possess a volitional, conceptual consciousness as well, which is not true of unborn potential human beings.
The United States was established to protect and defend the rights of individuals and the federal government was forbidden from passing laws which infringe on the rights of individuals. A woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy in any state of the union. The issue is not up to the state legislatures. It is not a matter of giving the irrational members of our society a place they can call their own where they are free to violate the rights of citizens who do not share their mystical, irrational, unprovable beliefs.
Posted By: David Sullivan
Date: 2008-08-19 17:51:44
William, what irks you so much about using the term "pro life?" Generally, when others write columns and refer to those with your stance on the abortion issue, they use the term "pro choice" rather than "anti life." Using these terms just adds to the incendiary nature of the dialogue, and makes your "column" seem like something less.
An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus resulting in or caused by its death.
At one time I was ardently pro-choice, but as a small "L" libertarian, I began to think about the subject in relationship to what it means to hold libertarian ideals and principles. The question arose that a fetus is a DNA specific individual, while it is true that as that fetus forms in the womb of a woman, it is dependent upon that woman, that nevertheless doesn't contradict the fact that as a DNA specific individual it is in fact an individual person due the same respect as any other DNA specific individual.
Now, we can take claim that the choices of a woman are her own, and indeed they are when it comes to her own DNA specific body, but while she is pregnant she is host to another very different entity, with a different DNA, a different living organism with individual characteristics and very specific needs based upon those individual characters.
While it is a very thin line to dictate what is or is not correct for any person, the fact that a woman has an unwanted pregnancy does not preclude the responsibility to at least protect another DNA specific individual with the same aspects of principles that are due any other DNA specific individual, including the mother.
Libertarians proudly proclaim: Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force. Yet, when it comes to the aborting of a fetus, which based upon the scientific fact that it is a distinct DNA specific individual, that primary principle associated and proudly touted by libertarians is completely and totally ignored, or simply shifted to make allowances for the act of force involved in abortion.
I realize it is a very fine line, but it actually goes to the core of our principles. Like any other use of force, when used to protect a matter of choice for one individual while denying the most basic rights for another is contrary to such principles. If the fetus was not a DNA specific individual, but identical to its mother's DNA, then I would say yes, that fetus is a part of her mother's body and there is no obligation to prevent violence from being impemented to protect it since it could easily and scientifically be considered her body, but it is not, it is a different body, with a totally different makeup in its genetic arrangements.
What do we stand for, really? Are the principles upon which we base our political and philosophy really sound, or is it arbitrary based upon expediency? I have to wonder. Now, I have no religious grounds for being against abortion, but I do have a principled ground for it that I consider an extremely important question for every libertarian to ask themselves.
Also, there is another question concerning viability of the fetus, at this point abortions can be preformed up to the third trimestor, afterwards the fetus is considered, in a very relative sense, a viable "person". The question is that as medical technology pushes that point of viability back, what determines a "viable personage" of the fetus, will the law be revised and if so, what does that mean to the idea of choice?
When therefore does "personhood" begin? Is it a matter of birth, does that provide for the protection of an individual based upon the act being born or is it the fact that being a specific person with a specific DNA sequence provides proof not only of the "personhood" of the fetus, but also of the Natural Rights, we libertarians so ardently defend, that provides the "personhood" of that very individualistic individual we tend to relegate to a "non-person"?
Now, I do not have the right to use force on any person, no matter who they are, what they do, how they act, what they believe, etc., because they are individuals, possessing the Natrual Rights of personhood imparted to them in a very specific DNA pattern, why do we accept that a fetus, possessing another very specific DNA pattern is no equally deserving of the same Natural Rights?
Is it really a matter of choice? Is it a matter of law? Is it a matter of principle?
It is a very hard question, and I have struggled with it for years, but I have come to the conclusion that there is more to this debate then we are usually readily willing to accept or consider.
The rights of an individual are not based on the fact of one\'s unique DNA specificity but rather, once one possesses a volitional, conceptual level of consciousness, which is the defining characteristic of a human being. This idea is not original with me, but is found in the non fiction essays of Ayn Rand, e.g. in The Virtue of Selfishness.
No man\'s needs constitute an obligation on the part of another man, or woman, or pregnant woman, to fulfill those needs.
The mere fact that someone, born or in the womb, needs anything, unless there is a contract which both have agreed to in advance, no one is obligated to fulfill that need.
I know the conventional wisdom and ethic holds otherwise and demands that you drop everything, give up your own selfish interests, even if they mean more to you at the moment, and rush to fill the need of any stray passerby, or distant unknown stranger in a land far away.
Politicians love the moral code which demands that you sacrifice yourself for the good of others, as it enables them to tax away with no inhibition, even beyond the limits of present revenue, or unbounded borrowing to be repaid by future generations, and still they thirst to spend and spend, authorizing the Federal Reserve System to print even more currency out of paper and ink with nothing solid to back it up.
That is the beauty of Ayn Rand\'s philosophy, she shows how metaphysics, epistemology and ethics all underlie the policies of any polltical system and why it is important to know explicitly where you stand in order to judge whether a candidate shares your values or not.
There is a distinction between a potential human being such as a fertilized ovum with a specific DNA, and an actual human being such as a pregnant woman. The former is in no position to exercize any action to sustain its life and is totally dependent on its host. The pregnant woman has the responsibility to decide whether she wants to carry the fetus to term or not and it is entirely at her mercy as to whether it enters the world or not.
If you were in her shoes you wouldn\'t want anyone else telling you what to do, or forbidding you from carrying the baby to be as the Chinese have done, they even force abortions against the mother\'s will!
In a free society the decision would be the pregnant woman\'s and not anyone else\'s, even if they outnumber her and wish to use political power to impose their will on her one way or another.
I am sure you agree! (Don\'t you hate it when I do that?)
I am a self styled individualistically oriented person who is scientifically oriented, a naturalist, who finds much to agree with in the Objectivist philosophy, and in the thinking of rational men and women in all fields.
Posted By: Jennifer Lee Pons
Date: 2008-10-24 00:11:44
William,
Your position on a woman's right to choose is puzzling. You claim to be pro-choice, but apparently your vote is for sale. I do mean that literally, since the draw of Ron Paul's campaign is primarily the elimination of income tax. I must assume that you either haven't given it much thought, or you completely lack empathy. I have "checked in" with the Libertarian Party for years, hoping to find they had finally realized how absurd it is to claim to defend the liberty of Americans while casually dismissing the rights of half the population. "Choice" isn't about whether or not to start a family. It's about the government legislating a profoundly intimate and personal aspect of a person's life! And that's the problem- this isn't the type of issue in which we can all "agree to disagree". William, if you vote for an anti-choice candidate- it's PERSONAL. You are voting directly to affect my own personal choices! My name is Jennifer and I am a cancer survivor. I would not qualify for an "imminent life threat" abortion, if such an allowance were made, even though a pregnancy is a DEATH SENTENCE for me due to my past uterine cancer. A spontaneous miscarriage would be inevitable, resulting in a fatal hemorrhage. By the time I was able to get the appropriate paperwork approved by a doctor and probably a court of law, it could be weeks--- and too late. Three Supreme Court Justices are due to retire during the next President's term. If replaced by anti-choice judges, Roe v. wade will be overturned. You don't know me, William. Would you drive by my house and throw a brick through my window? No? But you would support a candidate that would pass legislation that would relegate me to 2nd class citizenship- slavery to my own uterus, really, and you are willing to quite possibly cause my death? Cause and effect. My husband of 9 years, Tim, loves me very much. So do my parents. So do my brothers, nephews, nieces and friends. I am a person with a right to live! Even though you don't know me, please don't sell me out for a few tax dollars. I wouldn't do that to you.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
