Rethinking Abortion?

Ron Paul's soon-to-be-released book is called, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. Of the importance of the book, Lew Rockwell announces, "It’s Time To Rethink Everything."

I certainly agree. It's time to rethink everything about the State. There are, however, certain things we don't have to rethink: "Thou shalt not kill." "Thou shalt not steal."

Of Ron Paul's position on abortion, Rockwell says this:

The book is arranged alphabetically, which makes the subject of abortion the very first entry. Where do you suppose Ron Paul stands on this issue? Let's just say that if you think you have followed the conventional debate, you are in for something completely different.

I'm always in favor of something "completely different." And no issue needs something "completely different" more than abortion. Small-Government Conservatives won't cross the bridge to libertarianism as long as they believe murder will be condoned. Jefferson is quoted by conservatives as saying,

"The chief purpose of government is to protect life. Abandon that and you have abandoned all."

"The care of human life, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

Why have a government if it doesn't protect life?

Rockwell continues:

Ron is a vehement opponent of abortion, and he explains why in ways that will bring readers around to his perspective (which is that of a man who has delivered thousands of babies). Then he moves to the entirely different area of public policy, pointing out that a centralized edict on this subject runs contrary to every moral and practical dictate of human liberty. A centralized pro-life policy is as wrong as a centralized mandatory-legalization policy. He wants a repeal of Roe. He doesn't want state funding. But if a community wants to permit the practice, while he would certainly oppose that at the local level, his view is that the federal government should have nothing to say about it either way.

His position is shocking and out of the mainstream, to be sure, but it is also supremely practical. In innumerable communities around the country today, abortion clinics compete with alternative women's clinics to provide for those in need of pregnancy services. In fact, if you want to look where the pro-life movement has seen gains, it is not in the area of political organization but in providing a market service for those who are seeking an alternative to abortion. This is a case in point of how liberty serves to work out our core disagreements.

I don't think this is going to make converts. I don't think pro-lifers are going to feel like the "core disagreement" has been worked out. How does this reasoning work if we substitute "slavery" for "abortion?"

Ron is a vehement opponent of slavery, and he explains why in ways that will bring readers around to his perspective (which is that of a man who has emancipated thousands of slaves). Then he moves to the entirely different area of public policy, pointing out that a centralized edict on slavery runs contrary to every moral and practical dictate of human liberty. A centralized abolitionist policy is as wrong as a centralized national enslavement policy. He wants a repeal of court decisions which outlaw state abolitionist laws. He doesn't want state funded slavery. But if a community wants to permit slavery, while he would certainly oppose that at the local level, his view is that the federal government should have nothing to say about it either way.

His position is shocking and out of the mainstream, to be sure, but it is also supremely practical. In innumerable communities around the country today, slavery auctions compete with underground railroads to provide for those in need of human services. In fact, if you want to look where the abolitionist movement has seen gains, it is not in the area of political organization but in providing a market service for those who are seeking an alternative to slavery. This is a case in point of how liberty serves to work out our core disagreements.

This is not "something completely different." Ron Paul's son Rand was scrutinized by the media for not genuflecting before the centralized Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What if cannibalism becomes trendy?

Ron is a vehement opponent of cannibalism, and he explains why in ways that will bring readers around to his perspective (which is that of a man who has rescued thousands of people who were about to be killed and eaten). Then he moves to the entirely different area of public policy, pointing out that a centralized edict on cannibalism runs contrary to every moral and practical dictate of human liberty. A centralized anti-cannibalism policy is as wrong as a centralized mandatory cannibalism policy. He wants a repeal of federal court decisions which outlaw state laws against cannibalism. He doesn't want state funded cannibalism. But if a community wants to permit cannibalism, while he would certainly oppose that at the local level, his view is that the federal government should have nothing to say about it either way.

His position is shocking and out of the mainstream, to be sure, but it is also supremely practical. In innumerable communities around the country today, cannibalism diners compete with vegan diners to provide for those in need of food. In fact, if you want to look where the anti-cannibalism movement has seen gains, it is not in the area of political organization but in providing a market service for those who are seeking an alternative to cannibalism. This is a case in point of how liberty serves to work out our core disagreements.

What's "shocking" to the small-government conservative is elevating the political issue of "federalism" to the same level as the issue of human life itself. The "core disagreement" here has not really been worked out. The core disagreement is whether it is moral to kill another human being.

I am not shocked by Ron Paul's argument. I agree that the federal government of the United States has no constitutional jurisdiction to tell the states that they either must or cannot legalize/criminalize murder, rape, or theft. The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, according to Madison, "will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." But "federalism" is not the core disagreement. People will not be sold on libertarianism if it appears to approve murder.

Imagine that you're working intensely on some project at home, when in back of you, or around the corner, you hear your 4 year-old son ask, "Daddy, can I kill this?" Do you let this question interrupt your concentration, or do you just say, "Whatever." It may just be an insect, but it may be the cherished family pet. Or it may be the lad's newly-arrived baby sister. "Daddy, can I kill this?" The first thing a father should do is ask, "What is it?" That's the only proper way to answer the question, "Can I kill this?"

One hour after delivery, a baby is a human being. "Thou shalt not murder." All government laws agree. One hour before delivery, however, the laws disagree, because we haven't answered the core question: "What is it?"

Babies are not bugs. Babies are human beings. Abortion is murder.

Once there is agreement on the core issue of murder, we can confront a secondary issue. If a woman conspires with a doctor to murder her baby, how should we respond? That is, how should you respond? How should I respond? Should we stone the woman and her doctor? Should we lock them up in my basement with a psychopath? Should you and I create a government to do this?

As a Christian, I believe these questions lead to a libertarian ("anarcho-capitalist") society. But the questions presuppose a prior working out of the core disagreement on "What is it?" and what we are permitted by "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to do with "it."