Ron Paul - Never Trust a Person with Two First Names

Never trust a person with two first names is a idiosyncratic saying thrown out from time to time by a good friend of mine.

I thought of this little saying this morning when I read the following from a post by Wendy McElroy which is in response to this Ron Paul YouTube video from the Iowa Republican straw poll wherein Ron Paul broaches the subject of abortion.

A YouTube video that makes clear that Paul’s main priority is not anti-war or free trade but the prohibition of abortion. And PLEASE don’t give me the f*cking line that he believes this matter should be left to states as though that position is some sort of benign argument. States’ rights or perogatives do not exist any more than federal rights and perogatives exist; only individuals have rights. What exists is my body and my right to everything that is beneath my own skin. I am not such a blithering idiot as to believe that a politician who wants a smaller government (a local or state government) to absolutely negate my self-ownership is a benign friend while someone who wants a larger government to do so is my vicious enemy. Both are morally equal as enemies, both are politically equal as dangerous.

Too true.  And while I think abortion is repugnant, neither state governments, nor the federal government, should have any say in the matter. 

Posted by on 08/15 at 05:08 AM
  1. I’m at work so I can’t watch the video right now, but from everything I have read regarding Ron Paul, his primary focus in all his legislative efforts has been making sure what the federal government does is in line with what the Constitution allows. And since there is no explicit mention of a right to killing a human fetus in the Constitution, it should not be protected by the federal government. That leaves the states perfectly free to decide the legal status of abortion (and where to draw the line) on their own. And while Dr. Paul may have a moral issue with the idea of abortion, I don’t see him trying to enact anti-RoevWade legislation - just repealing the poor (on Constitutional grounds) decision on the books today.

    On an aside, I think arguments from “right to self-ownership” break down in the unique case where one human life lives inside another, and was not placed there against that person’s will. Actions have consequences, and except in the case of rape or viable health concerns for the mother, giving birth and then giving the child up for adoption seems preferable - on a moral level - to abortion. In either case you don’t have to worry about raising a child you don’t want. But in one case the child gets a chance to have a life.

    Of course, issues so contentious will not likely have a resolution which pleases everyone. Which is another reason to put the decision at the state level, giving people 50 potential choices to decide how it should be handled.

    Sorry, but I can’t throw out Ron Paul with the disgusting bath water that normally passes for viable presidential candidates. If you care one bit for individual liberty, Constitutional restraint, and actually reducing government (instead of slowing the growth), there is no other game in town. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. And yes, I know he’ll lose. Thus is the state of our country today.

    Posted by  on  08/15  at  07:22 AM
  2. "What exists is my body and my right to everything that is beneath my own skin."

    Wendy disappoints me here, with this sort of thing generally mindlessly offered by hysterics.  It’s dead wrong in its incompleteness: the debate over the exact status of the fetus aside, what also exists is the father, whose interests in the matter only very rarely get consideration.

    In general: my curse upon anyone and everyone who handles sex so casually that it actually comes to the point of a decision like this.

    Posted by Billy Beck  on  08/15  at  08:23 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main