Flutterby™! : Why I am not for forced childbirth 2007-06-16 19:02:26.008947+00

Why I am not for forced childbirth

2007-06-16 19:02:26.008947+00 by Dan Lyke 8 comments

Figleaf recently had some harsh words for Senator Sam Brownback:

Sorry. I don't buy Brownback's argument that this is all about the sanctity of life. Forced-pregnancy rape fantasies are disturbingly rich genre in pornography and, one might assume, a disgracefully popular one among those who applaud him.

Yesterday he followed up on that with a post that I highly recommend reading, and today pointed to a a remembrance of Martha Solay titled Murio por ser pobre y por ser mujer, a Columbian woman who fought her country's anti-abortion laws, restrictions which killed her:

... She died because “pro-life” abortion laws in her country meant that she could not terminate her pregnancy, despite the fact that she had uterine cancer and waiting to treat it would inevitably kill her.

Martha, a street vendor, spent her last months trying trying to raise enough money to make sure that her children could survive without her. Her four girls, ages 17, 6, 5, and 2, are now orphans.

This, particularly, is why I don't care what else, for instance, Ron Paul may be pushing politically: if he believes in forced childbirth he does not believe in liberty or freedom. At least not for women.

He has said he does not agree with federal funding of it. He has said it is a states right issue, which I do not agree with.

This is why libertarians are to be questioned closely as they vary so much. That is why you want an Objectivist and not a libertarian or republican or liberal etc. But we don't have much of choice - Gulliani vs Hillary? barf -

You are not voting for a winner, you are voting to send a message: FREE us now! And if he began to win, others would appear and the abortion issue could be brought up. But now is not the time to not send a message that freedom is important.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-06-16 21:07:13.353656+00 by: crasch [edit history]

More specifically, Ron Paul does not believe that women should have the liberty to kill what he believes to be their unborn children. I don't think it's true that he does not believe in "liberty or freedom...for women" in general.

For example, I'm sure Paul would support the liberty of women to use recreational drugs, buy guns, read pornography on the internet, gamble online, and start a business free of stifling regulation. A Paul government is also much less likely to wiretap without a court order, imprison people without representation, or torture prisoners. Finally, women and men everywhere will have greater freedom to spend their money as they wish, since they won't be forced to finance the hundreds of billions of dollars that the Iraq war requires.

Pragmatically, a Paul government would likely have to contend with a Democratic congress. Pro-choice activists are well-organized, well-financed, and hyper-vigilant. It's highly unlikely he would be able to overturn Roe v. Wade via an amendment.

At best, he would be able to appoint pro-life judges. Assuming the worst case, Roe v. Wade would be overturned, and abortion would again become a state issue. Even then, in most states it would remain legal.

Although Paul would probably make no progress against abortion, a Paul government combined with a Democratic Congress, could

make a lot of progress in ending both the War in Iraq, the War on Terror, and the War on Drugs.

Moreover, except for Giuliani, none of the current leading candidates are much better on abortion than Paul:

Romney: same opinion as Paul; overturn Roe v. Wade, let states decide.
McCain: same opinion as Paul (supports rape, incest, life of the mother exceptions); overturn Roe v. Wade, let states decide.
Guiliani: makes wishy-washy statements to appease pro-life crowd, but pro-choice at heart.

The question then becomes: is Giuliani's stance on abortion important enough to tolerate his many other deficiencies? He supports the use of torture, warrantless wiretaps, expansion of the War in Iraq, continuation of the Drug War, gun restrictions, and restrictions on freedom of speech.

Giuliani has expressed that he believes the President has the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no judicial review, but that "he would want to use this authority infrequently"

I don't know about you, but I don't think Giuliani's first order of business is going to be to strengthen abortion rights.

Finally, you can support Paul in the Republican primaries, and still vote for the Democratic candidate in the actual election. If anyone other than Paul is nominated, the debates thereafter will be all about the Iraq war. If Paul is elected, ending the Iraq war will be a given, and the Paul will be able to hold the Democrats to the fire on the civil liberties issues they

are weak on.

I think we have little to lose, and a lot to gain, with Ron Paul as the Republican nominee.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-06-16 22:10:05.029283+00 by: Dan Lyke [edit history]

Ziffle, I think I agree with you: If it's a states rights issue, then so is Lawrence v. Texas

and Griswold v. Connecticut

. At some point the states should not have a right to infringe upon the freedoms of their citizens, and a basic acknowledgement that the states exist at the whim of the citizens, and not vice-versa, is core to that.

Chris, I think that his voting on the various "partial birth abortion" acts shows that, at the federal level, he's willing to prohibit an act which is done primarily to preserve the health and life of women. Whatever his rhetoric, that's his record.

As you point out, he's also done some things that are more in line with his rhetoric and my personal views, voting against the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" and the "Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act", but I have trouble getting past the fact that, in the name of making a statement, he was willing to try to ban at the federal level something that's done mainly (if not exclusively) to preserve the health of the woman carrying that fetus.

Now I may toss him a few bucks, but if I look a little deeper at what Ron Paul really believes that's kind of like supporting Jesse Jackson if the Democratic race were between Al Sharpton and Lyndon LaRouche.

I agree that his vote for the Partial Birth Abortions Act sucks and is inconsistent with his stated support for federalism. I also think his stance on immigration is inconsistent with liberty. But none of the other candidates, in my opinion, even comes close when you consider Paul's track record as a whole.

Out of all the currently declared candidates--Democrat or Republican--who do you think is better

than Ron Paul overall?

Incidentally, the Partial Birth Abortions Act has an exception for cases where the life of the mother is at stake. (Though no exception for the health of the mother.)

I don't think any one of them is better, but I do think that others will do anything it takes to get into power and to stay in power. If that's the case, then I'm far better off giving my money to issues organizations and letting the less principled candidates follow the trends that those organizations promote.

I think that Ron Paul believes. I think that Obama and Clinton and even Giuliani and Romney are mostly just power hungry slimeballs who'll go whichever way the votes take them. Far better that I should put resources into changing the causes that the aforementioned slimeballs need to pander to than that I put a believer whom I think can do great damage to my liberties into power.

If that's the case, then I'm far better off giving my money to issues organizations and letting the less principled candidates follow the trends that those organizations promote.

Fair enough. I think that's a great long term strategy. But I don't think that voting for Paul is inconsistent with it. If Paul wins, I think it would it would indicate to future candidates that they can win by pandering to civil libertarians.

And in the short term, someone is going to win the nomination, and I would much rather it be Paul. Yes, Paul does represent some risks, but I think the other candidates are much riskier than he is. After all, many of the groups that the other pols pander to are inimical to your civil liberties as well.

So you're saying that Objectivists don't vary in their opinion or position? They must all be lobotomized or something - or maybe they've been assimilated by the Borg! And you think this is good?

When I first set up comments on Flutterby, I really wanted to encourage the idea of cross-linking. So, reiterating much of what he's written here, crasch: Why Ron Paul should be the Republican nominee, even though his abortion views suck. Reiterates much of what's been said in this thread, but also makes a good case that Ron Paul would make a good spoiler candidate even if I'd end up voting against him in the general election.