Ron Paul

An interesting interview with Ron Paul about the constitution and Roe v Wade:

Well, because the fact that they want to do it at a federal level is a total failure. How many abortions have there been since 1973, since it was legalized by Roe v. Wade? So they don’t have any argument that that would be a better way. They would argue – and I would agree – that my suggestion is not perfect, because there would still be abortions done. But in some states there would be a lot less abortions done. That would be my argument.

There are many states today who have had Roe v Wade foisted upon them. The democratic consensus is staunchly pro-life. So Ron Paul makes a whole lot of sense on this one, and pro-life activists could focus their attention on the more local level. Furthermore, an Obama administration could set the Supreme Court back decades on this one.

I for one like this libertarian approach to life.

Now that Hillary has conceded defeat, sort of, we can examine Obama’s platform.

On abortion, it’s not good. Not good at all.

Oftentimes pro-lifers will declare there’s no middle ground on abortion–voting against amendments that would outlaw some abortions but not all, because they don’t go far enough.

But there is some middle ground to be found. Most everyone–even those who are pro-choice–find late-term abortion abhorrent. Most every civilized person shies away from eugenics, though eugenic abortions are common in Canada today. (Note the Canadian Down Syndrome Society’s new TV campaign: Different Genes, Same Value.)

Barack Obama’s position on abortion has been relentlessly extreme–against life. This link, from the Atlantic Monthly, discusses just how extreme he has been. He has not done anything conciliatory on this front. Late term abortions? Fine by him.

As a side note, I stumbled on this link, for different reasons yesterday–you can choose your topic and get the candidate’s summary position on it. On abortion, I like Ron Paul’s the best. The man don’t mince words:

Paul said he views the fetus as a “human being [with] legal rights … from the day of conception.” He reconciles his anti-abortion outlook with his libertarian views, saying, “I do not say that because our homes are our castles that we have the right to murder our children.”

If I were American, I might vote for him, just for that clear-as-a-bell statement. I guess if you are the long shot, (ie. Ron Paul’s not going to be President) you can afford to say things like that.

_____________________________

Tanya sticks up for Ron Paul:

Even when he was full-swing campaigning, he didn’t mince words at all. And not just on the issue of abortion. The man would have been quite a president. Sigh.

Creative solutions to overturn abortion

American politics and abortion

Meta