Some states will reafirm a woman's right to choose, some states will take it away. Clearly freedom-loving Ron Paul and freedom-loving libertarians don't have any problem with women in at least some states losing their freedoms.
so at what point (age wise) is it not ok to kill a baby? are you against partial birth abortions? or is that a woman's right to choose?
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
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.
And you're so positive that it was a mistake that you wouldn't hesitate to force your views on the entire country, would you? Including those libertarians and non-libertarians who think that it's your views on fetuses and abortion that are wrong.
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!
i have only asked some questions. i have yet to disclose my position. it seems you are afraid of this debate yet... it is your main focal point for attacking Ron Paul. how odd. you want your fetus and eat it too. alas, you wish not to discuss what you brought to the table.
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.