Originally via Liberty Papers, I share Kip’s dismay about the libertarian credentials of this Ron Paul speech from the weekend waste of time in Iowa:
In case you don’t want to watch, here’s a transcript:
…Our campaign is all about freedom, prosperity, and PEACE!
But the one thing we have to remember is that you cannot have freedom without life. We must preserve all life if we expect to protect the individual liberty of each and every one of us. And that means the unborn as well.
Let me assure you, as an OB doctor and one that has studied history and economic policy in politics for a long time, I can assure you that life begins at conception. Life begins at conception and as an OB doctor, I had the legal responsibility of taking care of that life. If I did anything wrong, I could be sued. If anybody’s in an accident, and a fetus is killed, they can be sued. If in a violent act, a fetus is killed, you can be charged with murder. There is no reason in the world that this government can’t protect life, rather than the destruction of life, like they do when they finance abortion. That has to stop. And the most important way that can be stopped is the reversal and elimination of that horrible ruling, Roe v. Wade. It must be reversed.
All of this “Go Freedom!” talk is fascinating. I’m politically inclined to agree with the surface rhetoric coming from the Paul campaign because the talking points can be dressed up as libertarian. It’s just when the details come out that I’m 180 degrees away from where I’m assumed to be because of Rep. Paul’s brand of “libertarianism”.
But since Congressman Paul brought up a useful point on freedom, I’d like to get his opinion, as an OB, on another topic of rights involving children. From conception to birth, every child presumably has the same rights in Dr. Paul’s worldview. Once born, does every child have the right to be free from medically unnecessary circumcision, or does that right belong only to females? If the latter, do boys lose that right at birth, or do girls gain that right? Why? And is he angered by the federal government’s current, unequal stance on genital integrity?
7 thoughts on ““Each and every one of us” – prove it.”
Okay, I get that you’re a big fan of abortion. Personally, I find Dr. Paul’s statement on it to be at least a little bit persuasive and internally consistent.
What’s wrong with carrying the child to term and then permitting her to be adopted by someone who wants a child but can’t have one? Why is it necessary to kill her?
The circumcision issue is about as big a non-starter as anything I’ve ever heard. I don’t see guys marching down the street protesting the loss of their foreskins.
Ron Paul is just another pandering politician.
His supporters like to portray him as being highly principled, but he’s not (and neither are they, as you can see from the asinine comment above about infant circumcision being a non-issue because the victims aren’t “marching down the street”).
Actually, I’m not a fan of abortion. I’m personally against and am closer to Paul’s point on when life begins than anything. But my practical side understands that public policy must be informed by more than just this one piece of data, given that multiple people are involved. That does not mean I automatically come down on the side of abortion.
Circumcision has no dueling rights limitations like the abortion debate. The individual (infant boy) being cut is the only person who has any rights here, and his clearly require no medically unnecessary surgery. We grant that right to girls. That’s a gender equality issue, and it violates the Constitution Dr. Paul claims to love so dearly. It’s a fair and relevant question.
I also haven’t said that circumcision is an issue that has the masses agitated. It should, but it doesn’t. But you’re wrong in implication and in fact about the prevalence of displeasure. This video is from 2001, but this event, among many, takes place every year in Washington, DC. Along with protests in front of the Capitol, there is a “march down the street”, from the Capitol to the White House, with police escort.
I’m against abortion and against unnecessary genital surgery. You, I’m not so sure if you’re being as consistent. So let me ask you what you so readily defended in Dr. Paul. From conception to birth, every child presumably has the same rights in your worldview. Once born, does every child have the right to be free from medically unnecessary circumcision, or does that right belong only to females? If the latter, do boys lose that right at birth, or do girls gain that right? Why? And are you angered by the federal government’s current, unequal stance (pdf) on genital integrity?
Better yet, let me sum it up this way. The circumcision issue is a non-starter only if you’re not actually interested in the principles of what Dr. Paul said. By your dismissal, am I to assume that you’re concerned with principles only when it lines up with your established position/preference?
Dr. Paul certainly falls into that agenda. I’m curious as to what you think.
I also haven’t said that circumcision is an issue that has the masses agitated.
The issue of abolishing the Federal Reserve doesn’t have the masses agitated either, but I notice that didn’t stop Ron Paul from taking a position on it.
Excellent point re: Federal Reserve. And returning to the gold standard. And…
I want to root for Paul, but he’s a politician. His fervent supporters see him as great. He’s merely the least bad, but even that isn’t enough anymore.
Did you know American obstetricians are responsible for performing most of the circumcisions in this country?
Not only does Ron Paul probably support MGM, there’s an excellent chance he was one of the perps during his tenure as a doctor!
Comments are closed.