- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
On the pro-choice thing: First, it's not philosophically inconsistent IF you believe that natural rights begin at conception.
Correction: "...IF you believe that natural rights begin at conception, and END with conception -- for the woman who has conceived."
I find this troubling anyway, doubly so coming from an ob/gyn who should view patients as people with lives and plans and responsibilities, not mere incubators.
That said, his view of the role of government means that the federal government shouldn't be involved in the question at all. That's a viewpoint that on the face of it should be acceptable to both sides. When you let the states deal with it, the people who live in the states are the ones that ultimately decide.
This is simply wrong. He calls himself an "unshakable foe of abortion" and writes, "There cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected." From Paul's own website:
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
The insistence that Paul regards abortion as a states' rights issue is clearly wrong according to the man's own words, yet this BS "states' rights" excuse is repeated over and over and over in forums like this one.
Also, whatever happened to contraception? Does it suddenly not exist?
"What happened to contraception" is that it doesn't always work, women will continue to need to end pregnancies safely, and their rights should trump any a blastocyst, embryo or fetus might enjoy. Unfortunately, post-born females are an afterthought to *Doctor* Paul.
Is it difficult to understand why pro-choicers are put off by his position and pro-choice women find it, coupled with his so-called libertarianism, insulting as hell?
