Before getting elected to Congress in the late 1970s, Paul delivered more than 4,000 babies as an OB/GYN. When it comes to abortion, he believes the mother's freedom of choice is mitigated by an obligation to protect the life of the "unborn child," stating on his campaign Web site that he never found abortion necessary to save the life of one of his patients. He is also a sponsor of HR 300, proposed legislation that his Web site says would "negate the effects of Roe v. Wade."
If elected president, Paul told me he would continue to pursue such a policy.
"I think the Roe v. Wade situation was a big mistake and the states ought to have the right to decide on the issue, so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues," he said.
Roe v. Wade was decided in large part under the doctrine of substantive due process as an issue of privacy. Paul thinks that basis for the ruling is flawed.
"I don't see it as a privacy issue," he said. "I think it's only a life issue. As an obstetrician, I can verify the fact that the life does exist. It's very much alive, and it's very human, and I have a legal responsibility for it. If I do any harm, I can be sued for it. If an individual kills a fetus, they can be hauled off to court for it. So it's a legal life. To say that life doesn't exist -- if someone kills a fetus in a car accident, they have to answer to this. So why is it life one time but not another time?"
While admitting situations such as rape and incest require further consideration, he continued his rebuke of the Supreme Court's privacy basis for legalizing abortion.
"The government doesn't have the right to invade your home or have cameras in your home," he said. "That doesn't give you the right to kill a child just because it was born and it was in the crib and you didn't like the way it looked and you went, 'Oh, we don't want to keep this baby.' Everybody knows it's illegal and it's killing. But one minute before the baby's born they come to me and if I did the abortion I'd get paid for it. So that's a real contradiction about the definition of life."
While some would consider his stance on abortion and many of his other positions inconsistent, Paul does not think so, instead tying in his pro-life stance with the larger logic of his world-view.
"If I can't defend life, how am I going to defend the liberty of every single individual on how they're going to run their lives? And I essentially do that, so I think that I have to be consistent on defending life or the defense of liberty doesn't hold up."
Statistics show that those countries that have the most restrictive laws concerning birth control have the highest rates of abortion and vice/versa. This is actually due to the accessibility to ALL forms of birth control- including the morning after pill. It stands to reason that the easier it is to get birth control the less abortions occur. Instead of focusing on dead fetuses- we should all be striving to make birth control far easier for people to get. It is an over the counter drug in most of Europe- no prescription needed. Same with the morning after pill. I don't see Ron Paul fighting against this kind of access, and THIS kind of solution would truly lower abortion
rates.
But removing the mandate from the federal level is in the best interest of your own ability to make decisions locally.
Lastly, raising children changes us, so aborting "retarded" ones is short-changing ourselves in the long run.
Most people should not have kids and God must have a big time sense of humor--the ones who should not have them are so fertile--we used to joke "she could get preggers if she is within 500' of a hard prick" and so many folks who would make great parents can't even get preggers at $20k or $30K a pop for in vitro--totally whacko---and I go back to what I have been saying--to hell with any other avenue of discussion in regards to abortion--to deny abortions to women basically strips them of the most fundamental of rights they can have---pretty much everything else is moot for women if they have no control over their reproductive capabilities----they may as well not have any other rights then!!!
We have so many unwanted and abuse children in our country and in the world. Parents that abuse and use their own flesh and blood. If we are honest with ourselves we would admit that there are many children that would have be better off never being born. We all see the suffering of these children everyday and yet very few of us give it a second thought. Most of us go on with our lives as if it doesn't exist. If people are honest with themselves they would have to admit it is not a big priority in their lives, the way these children live or die. Hell, our favorite past time is watching people humiliate themselves on TV.
I saw more hatred from the American people about Michael Vick's brutality of dogs than the suffering of the most innocent among us. Where was the outrage when that idiot president vetoed the health care bill for the children? The pro lifer wants to save the unborn but don't give a damn about the children once they make it into this world. So I say to Ron Paul and his ilk, try taking care of the children that are here now and suffering. After all, Ron, you have all the answers. NOT!
Ron Paul is right on this issue.
Abortions, drugs, guns...all will still be around no matter how many laws are passed.
When these laws are passed restricting and prohibiting these things they become more dangerous and more costly...especially to those who have nothing to do with these things at all.
The best example is the War On Some Drugs...it is the greatest Domestic policy failure in US history.
before 1902 all drugs wee available for anyone and the problems were minimal, now the problems are incredibly large and could all be ended by repealing all drug laws .
They are obviously all unconstitutional anyway. Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness covers that and many other issues.
The public is much less safe because of these laws.