Thursday, January 12, 2012

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.


  1. Thanks for pointing this out! I have a very good friend who actually said she prefers Ron Paul to any of the other candidates! I told her she obviously did not know all his policies!

  2. You have written my thoughts! Abortion is awful; lack of access to abortion is worse.
    Ron Paul zigs where he should zag.

  3. If men could get pg they wouldn't be pro life.

  4. I agree that the pro-"life" folks certainly limit their concern to the womb - beyond that, let 'em starve and be uneducated...

    I hadn't know this about Paul - I admit I have paid very little attetion to the GOP circus.

  5. Ron Paul is more aptly described as a constitutionalist. He supports the freedom for states to choose whether or not they would like to legalize abortion. While he is an opponent of abortion, he is a strong proponent of constitutional law, the tenth amendment of which reads that those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states. If elected, he stated he would not support a federal law outright banning all abortion.

    As for the pro-life jibe, it's insulting to think that the true motivation behind pro-lifers is that of misogyny, just as it's insulting to believe the true motivation behind pro-choice is infanticide.

    It's people like you who make me ashamed to call myself a libertarian, if that is what you call yourself; the party is based in temperance and rationality, and you seemed to have completely eschewed both.

  6. JPT, I've never claimed to be a libertarian, and am baffled as to why you'd think I'd lump myself in with those persons who promote that particular political philosophy.


My space, my rules: play nice and keep it on topic.