Hey Guys I thought since there's been some controversy over the opening abortion piece on the Ron Paul TV special I'd talk about the one issue that I've been avoiding, cause I'll admit it's an issue that's very low on my list either way. Ron Paul is staunchly pro-life, you definetley get this from the beginning of the TV special, but his political position is far more complex due to his loyalty to the US Constitution.
First off like his position on almost all federal laws and programs, they are in direct violation of the 10th amendment so he is AGAINST bills to ban/fund abortion on a federal level cause of this. If abortion is not the jurisdiction of the federal government, this does LEGALLY make Roe V. Wade a illegal ruling either way since it's not their jurisdiction to make that decision. So yes, this mean each state will decide how to handle abortion on it's own terms under the constitution. So even if he succeeds in overturning Roe V. Wade, Ron Paul's unwavering dogma would force him to veto any federal ban bills that may hit his desk, and Ron Pauls congressional record suggests he'd do just that.
So does making this a state decision benefit either side in particular, no. It actually benefits both sides equally in my opinion.
Pro-Lifers: From this perspective, a pro-lifer can immediately begin "saving lives" by passing state legislation in state to limit/ban abortion instead of waiting more years for court justices and such. Plus again, once you pass that legislation, a battle must be fought state by state so it makes it harder to reverse these changes.
Pro-Choicers: The supreme court has been a hard fought battle but eventually it's more than likely conservatives will get those final few judges they need to overturn RvW, I mean it's just a matter of time. In this scenario, you may lose some states but you don't lose the nation and it will take 50 battles to get rid of abortion instead of just one making the possibility of completely getting rid of abortion slim to none, which is better than the chances of federal ban with federal jurisdiction.
But what about the issue itself? I was raised catholic but I'm not very religious, so I avoid the argument that theere's an intrinsic value to life (which innately I'd agree with, yet it's not how I argue), yet I do believe in civil liberties and that every person has equal rights. In this issue you have two entities with infringing on each others civil liberties. The Women and The Child.
first let's break this down on a philosophical level
The Women: A womens body is her property do with as she pleases, in same way your house is your property. When a women is pregnant, the child is essentially trespassing on her property and IS violating her property rights. So a women as with someone trespassing in your
house has the rights to remove the trespasser, yet you still don't have the right to take a life which creates a dilemma.
Abortion = Terminating a pregnancy
A Women has every right in the world to terminate the pregnancy, but does she have rights to terminate the child?
The Child: The child is violating the womans rights by trespassing in her body, so she does have the right to make the baby leave her body. Although, the child still has a rights too. It's like if someone trespasses in your home you can do what you have to do EXCEPT kill them, cause then you have violated the trespassers rights.
Philosophical Conclusion: Abortion is only terminating a pregnancy, which a women has every right to do. At the point where a child's life must be taken to do so you then violate the child's rights. Luckily technology today you can have a baby removed without terminating the child as early as 5 month into the pregnancy well before the the third trimester when it becomes VERY CONTROVERSIAL.
Other thoughts to complicate all this:
- If a women had CONSENSUAL sex, even protected she is aware and has chosen to take the risk. Since no violation of autonomy occurred, does this mean the child is still trespassing?
- Of course rape is a violation of autonomy and is widely accepted exception to all this rhetoric so please no rape comments.
- If a womens life is at stake (extremely rare), then you have a situation where either party must murder the other to survive. In this case the human imperative of survival and right to protect ones life I would say takes precedence. So yeah, terminating the child here to protect ones life is logical decision to an individualist such as myself.
So does a women have a right to have an Abortion? Yes
Does a child have a right to life? Yes
Current technology creates a conflict between these two rights, since a women has a right to her property(her body) while a child has a right to it's life. Essentially terminating the child is morally wrong and a violation of civil liberties, yet so is the child's presence in the womb. This is a very complicated issue which is one reason I usually leave it for people who are a bit more passionate about it to fight. I agree with Ron Paul about the more complex an issue is the more localized an answer should be, and approve making it state jurisdiction.
Next Time: Positive and Negative Liberty, which is better?