You're not a libertarian

if you want to control people's sex lives or a woman's uterus. I keep hearing various pundits wax eloquent about Ron Paul and how he's the only Republican candidate who's truly for small government and personal freedom. Pshaw. He's not for personal freedom; he's for white male privilege. As long as he's fine with government restricting access to abortion, he's not a libertarian -- he's a misogynist trying to use a particular political philosophy as cover for his attempts to keep women barefoot and pregnant.

I have never understood Dr. Paul's opposition to abortion. Prior to entering politics, he practiced obstetrics and gynecology. Surely he must have seen first hand plenty of examples of pregnancies that never should have happened, but apparently his years as a physician just convinced him that every pregnancy should go full term, regardless of the circumstances.

The term "pro life" has always struck me as a misnomer. The vast majority of the "pro life" types I've known are actually only "pro fetus." They don't want to terminate any pregnancies, but they're fine with the death penalty, torture, and fighting endless wars in which thousands of civilians die. I will give Ron Paul some points for being against the last of those -- although only because they cost money. I've no doubt that if the U.S. military decided to start hiring itself out to other nations for cold, hard cash, Dr. Paul with be fine with that.