About a week ago, in the midst of Ron Paul’s big 24-hour internet fund-raiser, I posted a small blurb on my private blog about the media’s literal blackballing of Ron Paul’s campaign (which is a rant for another time). A friend of mine commented, saying that while the media’s treatment of Paul was unfortunate, she’d never vote for him as it would mean bidding farewell to a woman’s right to an abortion.
Oh nos, The Big A! I know, I know. But seriously, while I’m sure a good deal of Independent and Democratic supporters (and even a few Republicans experiencing the old pendulum swing because of Bush’s embarrassing two consecutive terms) shudder at Ron Paul’s personal views on abortion, his political views are probably some of the most novel I’ve seen outside of, oh I don’t know, your average Libertarian candidate.
I don’t like the man’s personal opinions on the subject. I truly don’t. I think his definition of “human life” is far too broad and all-encompassing. Unlike the text of his bill, H.R. 1094, I don’t agree that “human life begins at conception”. I think human life exists in both sperm and egg; I believe it can’t “begin” because it’s already there, those cells are living and they’re genetically human. They ARE “human life”, and what that has to do with the right for a woman to remove any such organism from her body, I’m not sure. “Human life” is simply one of those generic, romanticized terms that push a lot of people’s Morality Button. “Protect human life, yeah, gotta do that, man” and so on and so forth.
However, that finding doesn’t amend the law, it only makes a declaration that the amendment is based on that finding. So, Ron Paul thinks a person is a person from conception. Good for him.
The rest of the bill is what’s important, and to tell you the truth – the bill isn’t pro-choice, nor is it pro-life. It’s basically one sweeping movement towards getting the federal government out of the Abortion Kool-Aid. Here’s why that’s a good idea.
I think most people have a pretty basic view of legislation as it relates to morality. “If I like it, it’s legal; if I don’t, it’s illegal” seems to be the most common principle, and I know I don’t have to explain to some people why that’s both dangerous and oppressive. Yet, we keep electing leaders who do just that – they give this one giant, federal entity the power to enforce certain laws over all 50 states even if the “majority” is very slim. You get 51% of the population deciding how the other 49% have to live most of the time. Might ends up determining right, and “right” ends up becoming a flimsy, fickle proposition.
While the status quo currently supports my ideas re: abortion, it doesn’t support my ideas concerning rights in general. To leave the recognition of rights solely up to the federal government is to put big power in the hands of a few. What this bill of Rep. Paul’s would do is take that power, break it up into smaller pieces and hand them out to many. Every state would have the right to decide, through its citizens’ elect, whether to keep abortion legal or not.
Undoubtedly, some states will see changes for the worse, but if I may inject my own personal (and admittedly unsubstantiated, though logical) 30 cents on this . . .
I haven’t met very many well-educated, levelheaded, well-to-do people who don’t, in some way, support abortion. Smart men and women know that family planning is vital to their own wellbeing and that of any potential offspring. You can’t go having five kids on an $8/hr job and expect to do very well in life. Several wise people get married (or become partners), stay childless for a few years while they stabilize their finances and prepare for all the expenses having children will generate, and then worry about soliciting visits from the old Stork. But does that mean they won’t have sex? Don’t be naive; of course they’ll have sex, and doing so ALWAYS increases the risk of unwanted pregnancy, even with birth control. You simply cannot prevent all instances of conception, but you can prevent birth via the luxury of legal abortion.
Of course, if you’re a financially savvy, successful person living in a state that doesn’t allow you to choose when you become a parent, but you live next door to a state that DOES, where are you likely to eventually live? People are happier and productive when they’re free, and when they have the greatest control possible over their own lives and circumstances. My opinion is that the only people who would be willing to remain in those specific few states that would make abortion illegal are those who are already willing to have children too early, therefore insuring they’ll raise children either poor or well into the lower middle-class, who are uneducated about the medical and scientific realities of abortion, and who value religious convention or emotional misconception over common sense. Those states will virtually chase away its most valuable members of society, leaving behind those who would be MOST likely to become burdens of the state, via welfare, food stamps and Medicaid.
Essentially, those states will shoot themselves in both proverbial feet, and eventually wonder why they’re limping behind everyone else. Those particular states already exist in such a fashion, even while abortion remains legal (I know, because I live in one of them). Take away that right and I’d literally chuckle at the eventual ramifications.
Might is very seldom right, and it is unfortunate that some of us live in a country where the majority are misguided and do not research their largely emotional opinions on certain issues. Frankly, big government would work better if people were A) pragmatic, B) smarter and C) smarter. But, if we’re talking practicality vs. idealism, I would much rather the decision of abortion (as well as other hot-buttons like drugs, prostitution, and the like) be left up to the states than the federal government. Smaller government is FAR easier to change if need be, and it’s a lot easier to move to another state that falls in line with one’s personal views than it is to move to another country.
