Ron Paul and Abortion

http://prolifeprofiles.com/ronpaul
[My Response to above Source follows below:]

A couple of weeks ago I was debating a friend about Ron Paul. He turned around and said, "I would never vote for Ron Paul because he wants to legalize heroine." His response is very similar to this article because it demonstrates a general lack of knowledge about our government and its operations. As I would be willing to explain Ron Paul's position on Abortion and why this article is wrong in its presuppositions, I must first explain two points: the structure of the United States government and the difference between form and content.

Form and content is a bit more philosophical than I enjoy explaining throught text, but it will demonstrate the severity of what this article is propounding. Picture a blue box filled with teddy bears. You continue to pack these boxes into a truck where you will later take these teddy bears to some children at their homes. But here is the catch. The blue boxes that you use to fill with teddy bears are the same boxes that other people are allowed to use but can fill them with anything they desire - as long as it fits in the box. One day, as you are placing a box of teddy bears into the back of your truck, to your dismay, you find hundreds of other blue boxes but they are filled with gasoline, weapons, fishing rods, and garden hoses. You see the problem. What are the children going to do with all this other stuff? The once child friendly blue boxes filled with teady bears are now the same blue boxes filled with harmfull or useless items.

Now, knowing this "catch" and it's outcome - that anyone can use your boxes and fill them with whatever they can fit into them - you know what you need to do: design a box that fits as tightly around the teddy bear as possible; Only allowing enough room for a teddy bear to fit inside. This, in short, is what every political debate is about - jamming a law into a box that doesn't rightly fit.

Next is our governmental structure. The constitution is our box (our form) that we are able to stuff our government (contents) in, and whatever doesn't fit inside this box should be removed. But to understand why it should be removed, even if a policy has its solidarity in christian principles, could only be explained by the natural universalism of our government. As with our teddy bear boxes being filled with harmful or useless obejcts, we must be proactive in questioning the box for our govnernment. We ask, "How do we operate a government with religious freedom, founded on Christian principles, while protecting citizens from both a minority(tyranny of the powerful) and a majority (tyranny of the populace)?" The proposed answer was the constitution and its proposed legislative process.

With this information, we can address the issue of banning abortion at the Federal Level. The contents of this proposition is agreeable - we want abortion banned. But what is harrowing is the form, or the box, by which it comes. The dissappointments of this box, or form, by which it must be passed are threefold. First, it would give the government another "unnamed power." The Federal Government, constitutionally, is only allowed to prosecute for three crimes: treason, crimes on the high sea, and counterfitting. The reason the U.S. Federal government was restricted leads me to my second point: the constitution was created to allow the least ability for a U.S. Citizen to appear before the powers of our nation to defend for his crime. Instead, the constitution promotes state-side prosecution and that a U.S. citizen should stand before a "jury of peers" for defense. Passing a bill against abortion only provides another avenue, and another reason, for the Federal Government to propound the idea that they are "allowed" to prosecute individual U.S. Citizens for committed crimes. And my third point is that it provides a path for the Federal Government to pass bills that would take the same form as this bill (ie. A bill that can be passed as long has it had sufficient moral imperitive, regardless of human right or "correctness".). This is why Ron Paul has continued to be against a Federal Law for or against abortion - it violates our constitutional form. Now we may ask, "what does he stand for?"

This is where the article had it all wrong, they say he is pro-choice. But let me ask you this, is a canidate that is for repealing Roe v. Wade and pulling all Federal Funds from Planned Parenthood a pro-choice canidate? Can someone be pro-choice yet strive to repeal abortion's single most powerful legal document and strive for pulling their single greatest funding source? I would say not. But again, the question still has not been answered. What does Ron Paul stand for?

Ron Paul stands for upholding both the United States Government process and for upholding the form and content. He believes that the best option is for the states to make the decision. And that decision does have Federal Impact. How? Because states are the only entity in the U.S. Constitution that is allowed to amend the constitution without Federal approval, and the only entity that is currently allowed to prosecute such crime. What he believes is that the unnamed power of birth regulation should be give to the "peers of those who would be punished" and not given to those who represent those people. He believes that those closest to the family should have the power to regulate what goes on in the family.

At this point I will take the time to answer specific questions that were posed in the article.

1) States Prosecute But Cannot Decriminalize Murder.

Honestly? Yes, states can decriminalize murder, but more specifically they can decriminalize or criminalize abortion. When Benjamin Franklin left liberty hall a woman approached and asked, "Is it a republic?" he replied very wittingly, "If you can keep it." In those five words he summed up the entire power given to those who under the constitution. That A) States can revise the constitution at will and B) that a jury can overturn any law in court.[Please Note - there is a philosophical assumption by what the writer means by "murder." By definition there is no such thing as "permissible murder"]

2) Human Rights Supersede States' Rights; "then they would also have the right to deprive any other class of citizen of life and liberty."

The problem is that the passage of an anti-abortion act would create the ability to pass further laws based on a "human rights" condition. Would you consider the banning of certain foods in the name of "human health" considered a good or bad thing? There are legitamate arguments for both sides. How about banning the number of fast food resturants because people can't handle themselves? There are good arguments for both sides. How about banning certain religions or fire arms in the name of saving lives? There are historical arguements for both sides. Ultimately, if you pass a bill as a "human rights trumps all rights" card you have paved a golden path to a plethora of abuses and unjust laws by both the minorty and the majority.