Ron Paul on Abortion, Markets and Power

If I could have had my way in the US elections, I would have seen Congressman Ron Paul elected as President. One of the reasons has to do with his stance on abortion. As a libertarian, he argues that abortion is not congruent with principles of freedom. In this piece, he even argues that the market suffers with legalised abortion and that there is a correlation between the pro-abortion position and the centralisation of governmental power.

Read “Abortion and the Centralization of Power” at
As a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies I am very
disturbed by the continued efforts of those on the left to establish absolute
rights to abortion. However, even more distressing is the notion that taxpayers
should be forced to subsidize life-ending procedures such as abortion and
embryonic stem cell research.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to “Ron Paul on Abortion, Markets and Power

  1. Mark

    Ian, Just realized my previous comment was incoherent at some points, so here is a rewrite:

    Good post! Ron Paul is the man! We need more of him in North America. If nothing else to slow down the march to tyranny.

    I think the only way a libertarian could consistently support abortion is if human life is assumed to begin later (like at birth).

    The “eviction” theory is inconsistent and bankrupt and can only be maintained if we are to deny that parents have implicit contracts with their children (to either care for them or allow someone else to do it for them). I think people who hold to the eviction idea inconsistently change their tune once the baby is born, and have a double-standard.

    I think there isn’t anyone who holds to the eviction theory that would categorically deny that parents, at some point, have an implicit contract with their kids to care for them (or allow someone else to care for them). A parent who “evicts” their toddler without taking appropriate measures to allow someone else the care of the child is easily identified as having committed an act of aggression. But somehow they don’t carry the logic over to younger children.

    Children can not be treated as an intruder, since they did not enter their situation voluntarily (whether the womb or the parents property). If someone involuntarily appears on your airplane, you do not have the right to evict them so that they die when they fall out of the plane. You can get them out, but only if you can preserve their life. (Now if they were forcing their way into the plane, ie. hijacking, the story will be different).

    Parents do have the option (though not a good option) to decide to cease caring for their children, but they must do so in a way that preserves the life of the child. There is the institution of adoption to place kids with new parents.

    At least thats a quick assessment of the eviction theory from its own principles (based on Walter Block’s / Rothbards comments on it–which support the eviction theory), and I think its a pretty good reason why libertarians should be pro-life! We take avoiding initiating force against others seriously in all cases.

    2:15 PM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s