“To those who argue that we cannot allow the states to make decisions on abortion since some will make the wrong ones, I reply that that is an excellent argument for world government — for how can we allow individual countries to decide on abortion or other moral issues, if some may make the wrong decisions? Yet the dangers of world government speak for themselves.”
Congressman Dr. Ron Paul
The Revolution — pg. 61
This is my problem with Libertarianism. When it is given its head it turns into license for criminal behavior.
Paul, argues here for states rights on the issue of abortion but if he were to be consistent why wouldn’t we argue for states rights on the issue of first degree murder? Why wouldn’t we argue for the rights of individual states to sanction rape? Why wouldn’t we argue for states rights to turn their state into a Muslim Caliphate ruled by Sharia law? Why wouldn’t we argue for states rights to require burning widows upon the death pyre of their dead husbands?
I’m all for allowing maximum liberty but there is a point where liberty becomes criminal license. Allowing states to sanction first degree murder, in terms of abortion, when the Constitution guarantees due process for all citizens, as well as a speedy trial (where is the trial for the unborn child?), is simply not something that falls under states rights. States do not have the right to sanction first degree murder.
On the whole nonsense that Paul raises suggesting that insisting on a uniform policy outlawing abortion will lead to a world government forcing other countries not to preform abortions is simply answered by the word “jurisdiction.” These united States have no jurisdiction on abortion in other sovereign nations.
Congressman Paul is completely wrong on abortion and his stance suggests that he doesn’t really believe that abortion is murder.
Libertarian are a silly bunch. Too dogmatic for my tastes.
“The public sector is always bad! The private sector is always good!”
Selah
Hi Bret,
Usually I agree with what you write, but I disagree with your analysis here at several junctures:
1. The quotation from Paul represents a reductio ad absurdum. According to Paul, those who say states cannot deal with the abortion issue because they might get it wrong leads to absurdity (world government).
Where has Paul argued, as you imply, that uniform law leads to world government? I don’t see that in the quotation offered.
2. To identify your problem with Paul as tantamount to your problem with libertarianism is mistaken in my view. In fact, most libertarians would not agree with Paul’s stance on abortion.
What we’re seeing here is Paul’s political strategy on fighting abortion. Because he is a constitutionalist, he believes the federal government has no business being involved with abortion. Therefore, his political strategy is limitation of jurisdiction, not constitutional amendment. I think it’s fair for you to disagree with his political strategy, but that’s a far cry from Paul advancing some nutty brand of libertarianism that seeks to eliminate the rule of law.
3. You say that Paul isn’t consistent because he doesn’t argue for state rights on murder. I think he does. Paul argues that most acts of violence are handled by state law and that abortion should be no different. Paul may be wrong, but I think he’s consistent. 🙂
4. You may be correct that Paul does not view abortion as ipso facto murder, but Paul does view an abortion as an act of violence that the state should curtail.
OK – I am going to stick my neck out here…
First off, I will definitely agree with the statement that Dr. Paul is coming at the sin that is abortion from two different perspectives….the de jure perspective and the de facto perspective.
One is the way that things should be and the other deals pragmatically with that the way things are.
The states SHOULD and LEGALLY WERE separate, sovereign nations. However, for the past 150 years + the tyranny of those with bigger guns and monumental control over national and international markets have dictated that they would rather try to keep as many people under their thumb as possible through a strong national, federal government as opposed to trying to control 50 individual “mini-nations”…and who could blame them….if you’re going to try to be the top mob-boss you might as well do it to where you’re only having to oversee 1 channel instead of 50.
SO while we look at the 50 states legally and ‘de jure(ly)’ we know that they have THE RIGHT and obligation to set their own policy on how they SHOULD enforce God’s Law. On the other hand we also know that the fed has such a strong grip on them that, pragmatically/practically speaking, they DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT to set their own policy and enforce God’s Law the way that they should.
Now, I would contend that those who have the covenant obligation to set civil policy on how to enforce God’s Law should simply enact those God honoring policies and let the chips fall where they may (particularly on the state level).
Dr. Paul (being a U.S. Congressman) is in the unique position where his office, legally speaking does not have the right to set policy for 1 or even 50 states….but because of where the state of affairs are at and because abortion is a heinous crime he is willing to over step the bounds of that office (just as every one of his fellow representatives do) to stand up for the innocent…..because he knows that he knows that he KNOWS that regardless of procedure and protocols and jurisdictions ABORTING BABIES IS WRONG and we as a de facto nation will be held accountable for this transgression.
All that to say…I don’t actually have a problem with Dr. Paul’s position on abortion. I believe that he does all that his office allows him to do (and more) to stand up for the aborted children of our land. We have to remember that this is the guy that faithfully, every year, submits a bill to Congress to flat-out outlaw abortion…maybe we should cut him some slack.
….but I could be wrong….I have been wrong before…I guess I would sooner go after his stance on homosexuality than his position on abortion.