Ron Paul says being anti-abortion is a Libertarian stance based in faith

Ron Paul, the conservative congressman from Texas known for his small-government beliefs rooted in Libertarianism, told an audience Monday in Iowa that government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women.

Speaking at the Iowa Family Leader's presidential lecture series in Sioux City, Paul, an obstetrician and a Christian, explained that he disagreed with the popular belief that to be a Libertarian means having a laissez faire attitude of "it's the woman's body; she can do whatever she wants."

"Life comes from our creator, not our government," Politico reported Paul as saying. "Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty."

Paul's stance on abortion won him the endorsement in 2008 of none other than "Jane Roe" from the landmark Roe v. Wade legal case of the '70s.

"Roe," whose real name is Norma McCorvey, became a pro-life advocate a decade ago and supported Paul in the last presidential election specifically because of his views on abortion. "I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade," McCorvey said. "He has never wavered ... on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn."

When Paul accepted the endorsement he said, "As much as I talk about economic liberties, and civil liberties and trying to avoid the killing overseas, I think the issue of life is paramount."

RELATED:

Another side to Ron Paul the pol: Dad

Ron Paul of Texas wins CPAC presidential straw poll

Trump on Ron Paul: 'He has no chance of getting elected'

-- Tony Pierce
twitter.com/busblog

Photo: Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) speaks in Sioux City, Iowa, on Monday. Credit: Tim Hynds / Sioux City Journal

Comments

[SC]

Simply put if you are a libertarian, you could hold the view that a fetus is a human life or a fetus is not a human life.

libertarianism doesn't imply what your belief about a fetus is. It implies that you hold a belief in the non-initiation of force, and that government's role is to protect individuals from the use of force by others.

Also a constitutionalist, doesn't necessarily believe or not believe that a fetus is a human life. He would be against the federal government providing funding for abortion centers like planned parenthood, and he would be against the federal government providing funding for adoption clinics that oppose abortion.

To say your beliefs shouldn't dictate your policy is simply ridiculous. Holding two contradictory beliefs is ridiculous though. The question is, is an anti-abortion stance contradictory with libertarian beliefs?

Being pro-life but being all gung-ho for war is ridiculous, being pro-choice but thinking the government should decide whether you wear your seatbelt, what you eat, if you can allow smoking in your restaurant, and how much of your labor is theirs is ridiculous.

[Susan (ksa4liberty)]

Yes, he said the main role of government should be to protect life and liberty. However, he DID NOT say that "government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women." That is an outright misrepresentation of what he said. Dr. Paul has always said, and still says, that federal government should have NO role in personal choices. He advises leaving highly charged issues like abortion, if they can not be solved at the most local level, to the states to decide so that a 'one-size is supposed to fit all, but never will' policy is not enforced on everyone.

[OPEN YOUR EYES]

In the end, is it murder? Scientists do not doubt it is life, they do not doubt it has human dna, but they hesitate to commit that it is a living human. It makes me so upset, religious or not, it is so obvious that induced abortion is the murder of a living human being! And don't start on viability, because through technology, that age gets younger and younger.

So, yes its murder, but its necessary? Wow, just because the child may be the result of incest or rape they are "mutant offspring"? Each life is precious. I have friends that you would consider mutant, maybe its not too late to kill them off? What is wrong with people? So ignorant and blind...

And by the way, the number one reason people get abortions is because it is inconvenient. An inconvenient life...there is no such thing. And we dont have the right to kill someone just because they don't fit into our plans. And that's the TRUTH

[DJ]

Wow... a little early to start misrepresenting Ron Paul's ideas. Don't cha think, Andrew? Of course, you did a pretty good job of that last election cycle. Sorry, but this time, you trying to give him a fair shake is a joke at this point.

Seriously, how can you continue to flame bait and revel in misleading the ignorant? Shame...

[ironchef]

When you have to butcher the paraphrasing of what Paul actually SAID just so you can attack the straw-man you want to attack you're really not a journalist.

Mr. Malcolm just isn't smart enough to actually criticize what Paul says. So you have to MAKE SH*T UP TO CRITICIZE.

You are pathetic Mr. Malcolm. And you're not even very good at your job as a paid attack dog.

[Jude]

So Ron Paul thinks he can interfere with the reproductive rights of women based only on his personal religious views? When he grows a uterus, I think he should have a say in this issue.

[Windy M]

Ron Paul is indeed wrong! This is from the Libertarian Party Platform (as found on their website):
"1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
His views on abortion are acceptable, his use of them in politics while calling himself a Libertarian are not!

[Jake]

.....If you don't want a child then, DON'T HAVE SEX. Enough said. Abortion is MURDER. I'm not even religious, this comes from COMMON SENSE, something that is lost in our nation. I enjoy looking at all the pro-choice peoples responses to this article, it truly is frightening to know that some in our nation approve of murder. They justify it by saying "She was rapped, therefore, she should have an abortion." That is the only point you guys can make, and that of "If she has the child, she isn't fit economically able to handle that responsibility, therefore, she will have to put it up for adoption. And it will become another one in the system." And again ill-guided individuals, if you don't want a child, either A. Wrap up. B. Birth Control or C. Don't HAVE SEX. It's that easy. Common FUCKING Sense.

[JT]

Ok, so he doesn't actually believe in freedom or an unintrusive govt.

He had me fooled for a while, glad he let the truth out now before I actually voted for him.

[Edge of the Palouse]

I gotta agree with Paul.

And where do you draw the line?
1) The baby is inside the woman's body so it's ok to kill a human being.
2) A child is living in a woman's house, so it's ok to kill it.
3) It's ok to kill someone living on your block?
4) How about killing someone who lives in your city?

John

[C. Wendt]

Not so much "dictate what happens in their wombs" as prohibit them from killing what is in their wombs; support for the prohibition of abortion is no different in principle from support for prohibition of murder, theft, rape, assault, etc., all of which Ron Paul also views as properly illegal.

[PK]

This article is obviously opposed to the idea that the "government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women."

This is the only freedom leftists believe in. They believe in dictatorship in all other areas. Why not be pro-choice across the board? That is basically the libertarian position (although abortion remains controversial among a minority of libertarians like Paul). Leftists don't believe in freedom to spend your money the way you want, the freedom to buy what light bulbs you want to buy, the freedom to educate your child the way you want, the freedom to do anything that they don't like.

Leftists are the most anti-choice people on the planet.

[PK]

This article is obviously opposed to the idea that the "government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women."

This is the only freedom leftists believe in. They believe in dictatorship in all other areas. Why not be pro-choice across the board? That is basically the libertarian position (although abortion remains controversial among a minority of libertarians like Paul). Leftists don't believe in freedom to spend your money the way you want, the freedom to buy what light bulbs you want to buy, the freedom to educate your child the way you want, the freedom to do anything that they don't like.

Leftists are the most anti-choice people on the planet.

[Tera Powers]

If I needed a reason to further mistrust "Libertarianism," I look no farther.

In addition to the lack of bodily autonomy, Rep. Paul apparently also believes "libertarians" should all be believers in a deity.

Wow. Way to out yourself, Ron.

[Art]

Idiotic discussion. How about the government counterfeiting operation driving up world food prices? How about starving children? How about children ripped in half by US bombs, screaming, their parents watching them die? How about the US sanctioning torture? How about the police state? The TSA? Homeland security at Wal-Mart?????

But let's forget all that messy stuff that Ron Paul is actually addressing...Let's talk about some pathetic side issue that will divide everyone and get your closed-minded simpleton jackass liberals up on their high horse.

Yes, vote for your D candidate so you can feel good about human rights, because what's really important is whether or not teenage girls have a post-conception birth control method provided by our loving, competent government.

[manuel]

WOW this article by Andrew Malcolm is written in a very twisted fashion. Ment to manipulate people into thinking Ron Paul is some crazy right wing. But what Ron Paul really believes, is there should be no federal funding of abortions, and decision should be left up to the states.

[Kayla M Abbott]

I'm a Libertarian and I believe a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body. The Government shouldn't have a say so on someone's personal freedom and choice.

Ron Paul may call himself, "Libertarian." But when it comes to personal issues such as this....he's very conservative.

[drew1503]

He actually wants the States to be able to decide and not have a Federal "blanket" rule. The media spins this view since they cannot attack his credibility.

[Tom Jefferson]

Ron Paul is my President!
Restore the Republic

[Ace]

I have to agree with Ron Paul. People have misused abortions for decades. I know women who have had several abortions based on mistakes or I've even heard this phrase "I don't wana have a baby with him." It's sickening. I do believe abortion should be legal for rapes and incest reasoning. But, to allow everyone the right is just disgusting and only allows the person who is having unsafe and reckless sex to think her actions are ok. Yes, many say it's a women's right. But, that doesn't make it right.

[terry]

I'm an atheist, pro-choice Ron Paul supporter. While I don't agree with him on his view of extending rights to fetuses, I agree with him that this is not the Federal gov's responsibility to regulate abortion (or most anything else).

Ron Paul 2012

[Marc Villa]

Right on Ron! It is the same machine that runs the FED, that promotes ( U N's Agenda 21" Sustainable Development ) which is the modern day eugenics movement, population reduction policies to limit growth. It is evil, just the same as Nazi Germany.

[Liberty Wolverine]

People saying that they won't vote for Ron Paul on this issue alone don't understand where he's coming from. He's personally against it, but that doesn't mean he wants abortion federally outlawed. He wants it to be decided by the individual states.

[BigKen]

Ron Paul has it right. If you think abortions are wonderful then you'll get to keep them in states that agree with that sentiment. If you think abortions are horrific then you'll be glad because Ron Paul will once and for all KILL THE BANK that is providing the money to government which provides money to Planned Parenthood. Funny name for an organization that removes parenthood, but anyway... No matter what your stance on abortions may be, what difference does it make if our entire economy collapses and no one can afford a loaf of bread?

Do you believe that our government is corrupt? If you answer yes, then the logical question becomes: Who is doing the corrupting? If government is corrupt, someone MUST be corrupting them. If we are successful in "Voting them all out" and leave in the system that corrupts them, what can we expect to happen? What does the Bible tell us about the root of all evil?

Prior to 1913, the people had direct veto power to the spending policies of the federal government. Because if the government wanted to borrow money, it had to go to the people for it. There was no central bank. It had to sell bonds. If you didn't want to go to war, you didn't buy bonds. If you didn't want the pork project that the government had in mind, you didn't buy the bonds.

It was a very simple, effective system. A Republican [form of government, not party] system that gave direct veto power to the people on economic policy. And by extension, a direct veto on all policies foreign and domestic. And it worked very well until 1913. That's how come government managed to stay small, because it didn't have an unlimited credit line to go on a shopping spree for 97 years... and make you pay for it.

So what happened in 1913 that took away our veto power? On December 23rd, the Federal Reserve Act was authorized by Congress in a "special session" when most of our Representatives were home with their families for the holidays. This Federal Reserve System [the FED] was then signed into law by Woodrow Wilson in January of 1914.

The third "Central Bank" was created in America. Thomas Jefferson had ended the first one [The First National Bank] and Andrew Jackson had ended the second one [The Second National Bank].

Our Representatives in Washington had effectively given OUR checkbook to an unknown group of individuals. The government no longer needs to sell bonds in order to perform any action they could come up with. Instead, they now have their own personal private bank that will "loan" money to them because the FED knows that "We the People" will get the bill and not our government. That's right, you and I get to pay for whatever they can come up with and we no longer have any say in the choices they make.

The FED has NEVER been so much as audited. Imagine creating a business of your own and not being subject to an audit. For that matter, just try being a human being living in America and not being subject to an audit! Why is it that every living human being and every business we start is subject to an audit but not the FED? Because the IRS works FOR the FED! The IRS is the "collection agency" for the FED.

We have had our veto power taken from us. We have had our monetary system given to a private, secretive group of unknown individuals.

Please consider this quote by our second president, John Adams: "All the perplexities, confusions, and distresses in America arise, not from defects in their constitution or confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation."

Please, take the time to learn about our Federal Reserve System and the UN-lawful money system that it controls.

[lela]

Ron Paul is a big fat hypocrite! If there is evil in this world, Ron Paul is evil.

[Phil]

Please do more research before writing stories. Ron Paul has stated repeatedly that abortion should be left up to the states to decide. I would suggest by starting with the question of what changes Roe v. Wade made to the federal government's involvement with abortion. This will provide insight as to why a constitutionalist like Ron Paul would say what you've quoted him as saying... Again, please read before writing. There's enough disinformation on the internet already. Thank you.

[Todash19]

I failed to find anywhere in this article where Paul said "government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women."

What your reading (or watching, the speech is out there) is his personal opinion as a citizen. As an elected official, he wants the role of the federal government removed and left to the people of the individual states, where it belongs.

The author here is steering sentiment with a liberal slant. Such a shame, too. Liberals have more in common with him then they care to admit. Anti-war, anti-drug war, and pro civil liberties, just to name a few.

Ron Paul 2012
The change you wanted

[Matthew]

Quick point - 'Fetus' is latin for 'Baby'. I do wish people would stop playing that semantical game.

[J]

Preventing pregnancy, using oral contraceptives are very different than a 4 month old baby being pulled out and killed.

[Aaron]

It's important to note that Paul doesn't want the Federal government to decide on the issue of abortion, but the individual state governments.

Not the worst idea in the world. It will allow for all those clamoring for prohibition to witness the error in their beliefs.

[ellen]

I agree with Dr. Paul that the limited role of government includes the defense of life.

[AdVader]

pro-life is religion independent !
femini$$m-samesex-atheism is the beast riding U$A-UN !

[justin]

This is trash journalism...where did Andrew go to school? He doesn't seem to be very qualified. This is a total misrepresentation of what he Ron Paul actually said. Wow what a disgrace to the great journalists that came before you...but just like you career...this too shall pass

[Paul N]

I think many people, including myself, don't see abortion as a major issue. I don't view abortion as an inalienable right. Rather, I view it as a tolerable activity that I want no part of, and wish no person has to make such a decision.

If anything I see this issue as a distraction from the pressing problems that are effecting our nation.

[syracuse]

My hero! Looks like he's about to catch a baby. Or attending to the birth of an idea...

[Dean]

I think it's very important to point out the difference between Ron Paul's beliefs and his stance on the legal issue of abortion. In his book "Liberty Defined" on page 5 he clearly states that "...the abortion problem is more of a social and moral issue than it is a legal one".

And as for overturning Roe v. Wade, it would only follow to overturn a decision that the federal government has a right to create a blanket law protecting mothers. Paul feels it should be left up to the individual states. It's a very personal conviction of his that the individual will begin to realize the value of an unborn life and he makes a very great argument for that. However the big difference is what he will actually impose on the American people, and basically it won't be a pro-choice mandate and it won't be a pro-life one either.