Paul v. Goldberg on Roe v. Wade

Over at reason.tv's Rough Cut blog, a clip of Ron Paul on The View tussling (ever so patiently) with Constitutional scholar Whoopi Goldberg on the intricacies of Roe v. Wade.

Comments

[Episiarch]

I really can't watch video clips at work but man do I want to see this. Anybody got nothing to do who is willing to give me a few highlights?

[Taktix?]

...Constitutional scholar Whoopi Goldberg...

Moynihan wins the thread...

[teh]

I know I have heard Paul talk about the right to privacy before... does he not think it applies based on his religious belief that a fetus is a human and has rights? Does he think that the constitution protects a right to privacy otherwise?

[teh]

And yes, I would just watch the video if I wasn't at work.

[Jonathan Hohensee]

Whoopi whips it out

[Taktix?]

...religious belief that a fetus is a human...

Whoa! Loaded question time...

[Tom Walls]

So what else happened? Or was the whole View discussion centred on abortion?

[iowan]

I really can't watch video clips at work but man do I want to see this. Anybody got nothing to do who is willing to give me a few highlights?

I quiet, thoughtful, soft-spoken man talking about a tough issue surrounded by four women that earn their livings talking fast and loud.

[stephen the goldberger]

what a horrendous debate.

the next obvious question is Does a human embreyo have the right to life? If paul believes yes, as he has claimed, then how can he possibly believe its a state's rights issue. It becomes a bill of rights issue, and the state doesn't have a right to allow abortion (since it is then infringing on the basic rights of its citizens).

[GILMORE]

Huh. Normally I simply say, "ENOUGH RON PAUL FOR GODS SAKE!!" and re-offer my standing $5 bet that he wont win any primaries...

But man, he PWNED those ladies. I mean, as a rhetorical strategy.. he had a tiger trap filled with punji sticks, let them walk right into it. He basically got women on The View to say "well I'm not for ALL abortion"... and you could see the look on their faces, like, "wait a minute... did I just say that??"

Not that I care either way - i think Roe has been a red herring for 20+years, and whether or not we keep it, reproductive rights will only shift in a narrow band of 'acceptable compromise' between complete "freedom" (e.g. 14yr old girls get them free on Fridays!) and actuall 'ban'. The whole debate is to some degree divorced from reality; meaning, the significance it has for certain GOP voters is ridiculous... Its an endless tug of war that has little prospect of ending anytime soon.

I think the most telling comment was the yenta chick in the middle getting confused... "I dont get it, whats the difference between the States doing it and the Federal Government..??"

He was really patient. I give him credit. Most other politicians would have said, "...because life is precious...and god... and the bible...."*

(Mr Show season 4 = talk show on a life-raft sketch)

[curious]

stephan,

Are you Whoopi's brother?

[Dangerman]

He basically got women on The View to say "well I'm not for ALL abortion"... and you could see the look on their faces, like, "wait a minute... did I just say that??"

QFT

[Brad]

I haven't received the official libertarian memo yet -- do people really consider Paul to be libertarian, despite the long list of non-libertarian positions he takes? The more I learn about him, the more he just sounds like an isolationist who happens to be fiscally AND socially conservative.

I'd love for there to be a true libertarian alternative in this election, but I just don't see Paul as that guy.

I can't watch clips at work, either. So who won the debate of the people who aren't Constitutional scholars ... Whoopie (the entertainer) or Ron (the MD)?

[Stevo Darkly]

I know I have heard Paul talk about the right to privacy before... does he not think it applies based on his religious belief that a fetus is a human and has rights?

While one's church might have a particular stand on the matter, holding the position that a fetus is a human and has rights is not necessarily based on religious belief, or religious belief alone.

E.g., http://www.godlessprolifers.org

Nonreligious arguments can also be found at Libertarians for Life.

Just FYI.

[Stevo]

That 2nd link should be http://www.l4l.org

[Other Matt]

I really can't watch video clips at work but man do I want to see this. Anybody got nothing to do who is willing to give me a few highlights?

It's great. I don't know the names of the women, other than Goldberg, but Behar(?) gets all wrapped up in a circle by RP. It's great. He does a very nice job.

[Michael Moynihan]

The abortion bit was the only clip excerpted on the ABC site. I'll check around this evening and see what has been YouTubed.

[Half assed defense of Dr. Paul]

I think the point is not what Ron Paul personally belives in, the point is that he will not try to put his private beliefs into law.

I don't think Dr. Ron smokes a fatty, eats the brown acid, makes it with a hooker and then brings her to get an abortion. I bet he persoanlly believe some (or all) of such behavior is repulsive. He just doesn't think that the constituitopn allows the federal governmnet to do anyhting about it.

[Lamar]

Ron Paul is flat out wrong on abortion.

[RP supporter]

He's flat out wrong on a lot of things, but he is right that the feds should not be involved.

[Steven Horwitz]

Brad writes:

I haven't received the official libertarian memo yet -- do people really consider Paul to be libertarian, despite the long list of non-libertarian positions he takes? The more I learn about him, the more he just sounds like an isolationist who happens to be fiscally AND socially conservative.

I think he IS socially conservative, but he's much less willing than other social conservatives to write it into law. That said, your point is a good one. I too am concerned about particular positions of his and the general tone of his campaign for just these reasons. I've offered some criticisms of Paul along those lines at Liberty and Power.

[fyodor]

stephen,

I'm not sure if I understand you. I don't believe the Bill of Rights stipulates what laws a state must pass.

Not that it would ever happen, of course, but I believe a state could legalize murder, and it would not, Constitutionally speaking, be any of the federal government's business.

I would think Paul is saying that the federal government's role in abortion should be the same as it is for any matter for which the Constitution does not enumerate powers for the federal government. Which is, none.

[assertion time]

Ron Paul is flat out right on abortion.

[Stevo Darkly]

the next obvious question is Does a human embreyo have the right to life? If paul believes yes, as he has claimed, then how can he possibly believe its a state's rights issue. It becomes a bill of rights issue, and the state doesn't have a right to allow abortion (since it is then infringing on the basic rights of its citizens).

However, there is not a nationwide consensus that a human embryo has a right to life -- large numbers of people are very strongly, even bitterly, divided on the issue. If Person A believes that, but many other people don't, then Person A can either (1) force everyone into accepting his position, or (2) persuade enough people into accepting his position until some kind of consensus is reached.

Option (1) is the quickest way to end the violation of fetus' rights, but it will probably require violating the rights of the others along the way, and probably isn't very stable, either -- you have a sizable number of dissidents who will work to overturn that status quo.

For a relatively sane abortion opponent such as Paul, letting it be a states' right issue is a compromise: Abortion can be outlawed where there is already something approaching a consensus supporting that position (at least a democratic majority), and in the meantime persuasion can be tried on the rest.

(An anarchist would argue that a mere democratic majority still violates the rights of the dissident minority, but it's seen as legitimate by most people most of the time under the system we have.)

[Tom Walls]

Goldberger, it's quite simple - murder is not a Bill of Rights issue, it's in the realm of state law. No contradiction here, so move along. People make the same jab at Fred Thompson for that and also his stated position on the Terry Schiavo case.

Brad, I don't know what you mean by a "long list of non-libertarian positions he takes." He's pretty libertarian through and through - every "short list" of libertarian criticisms of Ron I've seen is hopelessly nitpicky. I don't agree with everything Ron says or how he says it, but 85 to 90% is pretty damned good compatibility for me.

I'm personally pro-choice, and am perfectly willing to associate with pro-life libertarians such as Ron. He's not really running on the abortion issue at all, and I like his handling of it so far when it does come up. I don't agree with ending birthright citizenships and probably favor some sort of half-assed amnesty plan myself.

[J sub D]

He's flat out wrong on a lot of things, but he is right that the feds should not be involved.

Concur. And if Row v. Wade is overturned, I predict it will be a boon to the Democratic party. Be careful what you wish for.

[Jay D]

I don't understand abortion and right to privacy. If someone announces publicly that she had an abortion, is she waiving her privacy rights? Can she then be prosecuted?

[Daze]

Ron Paul has expressed contempt for the idea that individuals have a "right to privacy".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

On sexual freedom and reproductive rights, Paul is a typical authoritarian theocrat.

[me]

On sexual freedom and reproductive rights, Paul is a typical authoritarian theocrat.

umm, the typical authoritarian theocrat uses the federal government to please his imaginary sky god, mostly to put shame and purgation on those godless coastal sinners!

And maybe a couple of supreme court seats too!

[guy in the back row]

Daze,

I read the article and you are completely correct. He also thinks laws against sodomy are absurb.

I guess Dr. Paul would say that if you want an amedment to the constituion to protect privacy them you should have your representative wriote and submit it to the congress.

If he actually does win (not likely) then I'm guessinf there will be many escapees from places like Mississippi and South Carolina, with a downturn in their earnings.

[fyodor]

Daze,

"Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be" says Dr. Paul.

Yes, according to the article you cite, Paul opposes the federal judicial overturning of state laws based on the construed "right to privacy," but he just as clearly is against instituting these types of laws in the first place. I wouldn't say he's typical of any sort of politician that we're used to seeing at all, much less a "typical authoritarian theocrat."

[x,y]

Paul did an excellent job staying even-keeled.

I love the part where Behar can't even begin to fathom what the difference between state and federal action is and means. Oh, and the part where he gets her to admit that she's not for abortion on demand (she's very clear about that), then watching her squirm as he explains that's exactly what Roe (and its companion case) provide.

To be fair, it wasn't that impressive. Like the Patriots playing a HS football team. He was discussing a complex issue with people who didn't understand basic distinctions. I seriously doubt Goldberg or Behar has given any thought to the abortion issue beyond "A WOMAN'S BODY!"

[Daze]

"I think the point is not what Ron Paul personally belives in, the point is that he will not try to put his private beliefs into law. I don't think Dr. Ron smokes a fatty, eats the brown acid, makes it with a hooker and then brings her to get an abortion. I bet he persoanlly believe some (or all) of such behavior is repulsive. He just doesn't think that the constituitopn allows the federal governmnet to do anyhting about it."

Then how do you explain Paul's sponsorship of the "Sanctity of Life Act" in Congress?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1094

Clearly an attempt to put his private beliefs into law. And Congress is part of the federal government.

[Daze]

I seriously doubt Goldberg or Behar has given any thought to the abortion issue beyond "A WOMAN'S BODY!"

This is another way of saying that Goldberg and Behar support individual rights, while Paul supports government tyranny.

[Episiarch]

I don't understand libertarians who have lots of problems with Paul. Sure, you may disagree with him on a number of issues. But he's fucking lightyears better than anyone else out there. What the fuck do you want, libertarian Jesus? Because he's going to show up at about the same time the son-of-God Jesus will.

[TrickyVic]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 4th amendment, U.S. Constitution.

I'm not sure how anyone can read that and not believe privacy is a right.

Privacy was assumed by the founding fathers. The reason I say that is because the 4th amendment describes the requirement for government's prying eyes. They must have a reason, and declare that reason, and its particulars to a judge in order to get approval to view. The governments prying eyes are excluded from persons, houses, papers, and effects, until they convince a judge that they have a valid reason to search.

No vaild reason, no search. How is that not a right to privacy?

[TrickyVic]

"""I don't understand libertarians who have lots of problems with Paul. Sure, you may disagree with him on a number of issues. But he's fucking lightyears better than anyone else out there."""

I agree.

[Half assed defense of Dr. Paul]

I'm not a lawyer so I might be wrong, but this bill appears to do with the several states' rights to make abortion laws.

HR 1094 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1094
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 15, 2007

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on such date of enactment.

SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.

[TrickyVic]

I'm curious, in the national census, does a pregnant woman count as one or two?

[The Libertarian Guy]

Well, a fetus isn't the following:

A sack of flour
A puppy
A hood ornament for a 1951 Studebaker
A stack of dimpled-chad'ed ballot cards
A pound of horse meat
A CD box set of the best of Michael Bolton

So... what else could a fetus be but a human?

Not that this battle will EVER be won...

[Warren]

That was pretty damned good. He handled the whole bunch of biddies. Does anyone know if Al Gore or John Kerry was ever on the View? Because I think they would have let either of them talk for an hour about whatever while they waited to fellate them during commercials.

He did as fine a performance as possible. I just wish they'd have talked about foreign policy and maybe the drug war. Let that audience hear something they never thought of before.

I have several disagreements with Ron Paul. I have a few BIG disagreements with Ron Paul. But I can say without resorting to hyperbole that Ron Paul is a hundred million times better than any other politician on earth.

[Warren]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 4th amendment, U.S. Constitution.

I'm not sure how anyone can read that and not believe privacy is a right.

That's pretty much exactly what Ron said. You have privacy in your home, but that doesn't mean you can kill your child in your home.

[TrickyVic]

The Boston police want to search your womb to see if your fetus has a gun or any other contraband.

[Reinmoose]

I thought he did as well as he could have. I like when he talks about this issue that he brings up that he's an OBGYN. I don't think anyone can angrily scream at him about it being a women's body after that. This is not to say that I'm for the government outlawing abortions, I just think that it's very understandable for an OBGYN to be against abortion, and that he is clear that HE does not want to be in charge of outlawing it may do well for him with such liberal audiences.

[shecky]

Paul shows himself to be pretty good at deflection, which is probably the best tactic he could take, particularly with that crowd. Though I find it pretty unsatisfying.

[Robert]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 4th amendment, U.S. Constitution.

I'm not sure how anyone can read that and not believe privacy is a right.

Because "that" is specific and "privacy" is vague. People apply the term to a variety of concepts.

[GILMORE]

Daze | December 4, 2007, 5:08pm | #

This is another way of saying that Goldberg and Behar support individual rights, while Paul supports government tyranny.

You know, I read the 'sanctity' act before dude posted it above.

The interesting thing about it is that functionally, it does nothing to provide any guidelines about whether or not abortion is OK, but does TONS to limit what the fed can do about telling states whats up.

Meaning, it looks to me like a trojan horse, where prolifers will try and pass it because they like the lingo, but in the process, toss all federal power to regulate abortion out the window, forcing the states to all deal with it themselves.

If you call this 'government tyranny'..... Im confused.

Prolifers may think that this is step1 in ENDING ROE!!!! (sound of cheering evangelicals).... but, the point is, i dont think ending ROE really does shit about abortion in reality. Yes, there might be a few states that go South Dakota style.... initially... but look how that worked out

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/initiatives.htm

I think the ProLifers passion for ending Roe could be their achillees heel, frankly. They will win a battle... but in the end, probably hasten their own decent into irrelevance by taking Abortion issues off the national stage, which frees up politicians to, you know, actually have policy positions on other topics. For last 20years you could basically get elected by saying "I LIKE BABIES. MY OPPONENT WANTS TO KILL BABIES. VOTE FOR BABIES. VOTE FOR ME."

In essence, the 'sanctity of life act' should probably be renamed "the get abortion out of the national politics sphere, and let states deal with it Act"

Not as catchy, I know

[TrickyVic]

"""That's pretty much exactly what Ron said. You have privacy in your home, but that doesn't mean you can kill your child in your home."""

You only mentioned home, you also have a right to your person, papers, and effect outside of your home too. If it is agreed that the 4th amendment affords privacy, then you as a person has privacy. It was the first of a short list covered. I could easily see pro-choice people claim your right to privacy also extends inside one's womb. You have a right to be secure in your person as much as you do in your home, papers, and effects.

What is more core to the issue is the difference between potential and real people.

[TrickyVic]

"""Because "that" is specific and "privacy" is vague."""

The definition of privacy is specific, look it up in any dictionary. It's people lack of understand that makes it vague. It's in the interest of power to keep you from understanding and keeping it vague so it can mean whatever power wants it to mean. Such as the intel guy that recently said privacy means people protecting your information. I've looked in a few dictionaries, not a one had that definition.

[:$dfkthe#$SDA]

With respect to the bill introduced by Paul that is quoted above, I have been told that this was an attempt to moderate a federalizing plan into a constitutionally conforming plan.

[Warty]

Everyone looking for the link: hier.

What's the origin of "hier" anyway?

[Warty]

er, everyone looking for the video on Youtube, I mean. Stupid brain.

[Warty]

Well, a fetus isn't the following:

A sack of flour Correct.
A puppy Correct.
A hood ornament for a 1951 Studebaker You're not using your imagination.
A stack of dimpled-chad'ed ballot cards Correct.
A pound of horse meat Oh come on, it might as well be.
A CD box set of the best of Michael Bolton Michael Bolton's best is certainly no better than the sound of a fetus being aborted.

[Ashish George]

"On the question of whether Paul's record is consistent with the assertion that abortion is a state issue, this seems pretty straightforward. When you say that abortion is a state issue and then vote for a federal abortion regulation...I think the contradiction is fairly ironclad. Admittedly, Paul's inconsistency is lesser than most other 'overturning Roe will send the issue back to the states' types; he has, for example, consistently voted against legislation making it a crime to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion. This is in contrast to Ponnuru's favorite candidate John McCain, who while arguing that abortion should be sent back to the states has not only voted for pretty much every federal abortion regulation to come down the pike but also supports a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion in all 50 states. I don't think elaborate argument is required to demonstrate the inconsistency of such policy positions. While in some cases the federalism dodge may involve a simple error in judgment, when you simultaneously claim that abortion should be a state issue and favor federal abortion regulation I don't think claims of dishonesty are particularly unfair. Ponnuru also claims that 'there are good reasons to expect stalemate at the federal level.' This is probably true insofar as a flat-out ban on abortion is concerned, but 1)there are plenty of abortion regulations short of a ban which may have a chance of being passed (and some of which already have), and 2)such claims often involve the assumption that the abortion debate will displaced to the state level, which given that most opponents of Roe also favor (and logically should favor) federal abortion legislation is quite clearly false."

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=11&year=2007&base_name=more_on_paul_and_abortion

And I think Paul's background as a doctor is to his position on abortion as McCain's military experience is to his opinion on Iraq: Both men may sympathize with those involved quite strongly and may understand the technical details and jargon associated with those issues better than your average politician, but it doesn't necessarily bring them any closer to having right priorities.

[Joe S.]

Ron Paul is anti-war, anti-torture, and pro-civil rights. Any self-proclaimed 'social libertarian' who would reject Ron Paul at this critical point in history is more of a self-righteous fundamentalist and more of a servant of the Cheney Imperium than any follower of Pat Robertson.

[SxCx]

As apprehensive as I feel validating Kate Walsh, there isn't much solace in picturing a rape-induced pregnancy having to travel across the country to become undone, simply because the native state's majority didn't want it in their backyard.

Roe might be overreaching, but I don't think the federal government has zero obligations to the issue.

[stephen the goldberger]

"Goldberger, it's quite simple - murder is not a Bill of Rights issue, it's in the realm of state law."

I reread the bill of rights and take back what I said. You are correct.

[Sam Grove]

I offer my thoughts on the matter.

The two sides of the debate have very different concerns creating an impasse.

So, the woman's side results from the fact that through much of human history, women, as a class, have been regarded as reproductive slaves by the dominant males. Women have an awareness of this.

So we must consider that rape is common enough that most women can imagine themselves as being potential victims of this crime, and, if abortion is prohibited, women impregnated by force would find themselves as once again being regarded as reproductive slaves.

If we then make the proviso that abortion shall be allowed in such a case, then we would have admitted that abortion, per se, is not murder, else the exception could not be made.

But we do regard that a human life is indeed at stake in such matters.

But the issue is not the life of human tissue, but the existence of a self owning being. If this is held as the issue, then we must admit that we are not able to define when such a being comes into existence.

This leaves us in the position of making an arbitrary decision.

My preference is that prior to birth, the pre-born are solely in the custody of the mother and that female individuals, ideally, should be in full control of whether they become impregnated and that fully informed humans shall choose wisely.

In the case of Roe v. Wade, I have no problem of the matter being turned back to states where we can, as informed citizens, keep the government out of reproductive issues.

[Brad]

Anybody who writes this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

immediately makes my "do note vote for" list. Anytime somebody starts sounding an idiotic as half of the Fox News talking heads, I have to pass.

If this is a fraud that I fell for, I will happily stand corrected.

[Brian]

"the next obvious question is Does a human embreyo have the right to life? If paul believes yes, as he has claimed, then how can he possibly believe its a state's rights issue."

Wtf's one got to do with the other? I don't think he's said his views regarding the biological beginning/ending of life are reflected in the Constitution. He thinks life starts here, and also the Constitution says to leave it up to the states. Why can't he say them both?

How about Goldberg asking 'bout all that stuff goin' on over in China. What a dumbass.

[Edward]

The best thing to do when confronted with what Ron Paul actually believes is to plug your ears, close your eyes, and hum loudly. Unless you're a Nazi or a Christian Identity wingnut, of course.

[Pig Mannix]

Another poll, Pew Research shows Paul with 9% support in New Hampshire.

That's encouraging. Hopefully he can win support at least in the double-digits by the primary....

[Mad Max]

"I know I have heard Paul talk about the right to privacy before... does he not think it applies based on his religious belief that a fetus is a human and has rights? Does he think that the constitution protects a right to privacy otherwise?"

Usually, when someone on H&R uses the word 'religious' about a particular viewpoint, we know that the viewpoint in question is being portrayed as wrong and/or evil. So it proves here.

Speaking of religious leaders interjecting themselves in the abortion debate, this year we observed the 40th anniversary of the Clergy Consultation Service. Founded in 1967 when abortion was still a crime, even in New York, the Clergy Consultation Service was a network of ministers and rabbis who referred pregnant women for illegal abortions - or, as they put is, "therapeutic abortions which some may regard as illegal."

http://www.rcrc.org/programs/clergyconsultationservice.cfm

The aptly-named Congresswoman Louise Slaughter praised the Clergy Consultation Service in a commemorative speech:

http://www.rcrc.org/pdf/CCSA_Congressional_Record.pdf

These links are from the Web site of the *Religious* Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Obviously, since these religious leaders were promoting abortion in their official capacities, the principle of guilt-by-association means that anyone who supports abortion must do so from religious motives. When someone says they're "pro-choice," reply, "oh, you're a religious fanatic like those Clergy Consultation Service fundamentalists!"

"However, there is not a nationwide consensus that a human embryo has a right to life -- large numbers of people are very strongly, even bitterly, divided on the issue. If Person A believes that, but many other people don't, then Person A can either (1) force everyone into accepting his position, or (2) persuade enough people into accepting his position until some kind of consensus is reached."

I know you're supporting the perfectly valid federalism argument for letting the states handle abortion, but your rationale is not something I'd agree with. Just because you can't get a consensus on who is entitled to human rights, or on what human rights are, doesn't mean those rights don't exist. The rights libertarians fight for don't have a consensus behind them yet, for example.

I read once that a convention of clergymen in Arkansas, early in the twentieth century, took a vote on a resolution saying that black people have souls, and the resolution passed by a bare majority. H&R posters should substitute "rights" for "souls," and ask whether such a narrow division of opinion would justify the government intervening and "forcing" those who don't believe black people have rights to recognize those rights.

[robc]

If I have a right to privacy, why is my employer allowed to tell the Feds how much they pay me?

[Sam Grove]

What are the most important issues confronting U.S. citizens?

The war?
The U.S. empire?
legal counterfeiting?
Entitlements?
Abortion?
Whether Ron Paul is an authentic Christian?

If RP doesn't win, then you can vote for one of the other Republicans (Huckabee?), Hillary (or Obama), or the LP candidate who will be lightly glossed over in the news and the polling.

Ron Paul promises to reel in the U.S. empire, work to end the legal counterfeiting, the IRS, etc, and move in the direction of a smaller federal government.

So what do you want, exactly?

A Ron Paul win would be a boost to the libertarian movement. That is something many of us have worked for all these years and the success of the Paul campaign is one of the fruits of our labors over the years.

Notice the lower case "l".

Don't be stupid about it. It's not about Ron Paul. This is our best opportunity yet.

[Daze]

That's pretty much exactly what Ron said. You have privacy in your home, but that doesn't mean you can kill your child in your home.

No, that's not what Ron Paul said. He very explicitly wrote that there is no right to privacy anywhere in the Constitution.

[Daze]

I don't understand libertarians who have lots of problems with Paul.

I don't understand libertarians who think we should treat Ron Paul like a messiah. He's just a politician. He deserves the same scrutiny as other politicians. He takes some positions I support, some I find reactionary and abhorrent. Why should he get a free pass?

[Edward]

Daze,

Get with the program. Ron Paul is fucking IT. Libertarianism hasn't been selling so well in the free market of ideas, and along comes this self-described libertarian--forget the reactionary nativist shit and fundamentalist Christian nonsense--who's polling 7% and bit higher. It's fucking earth shattering! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Sig Heil! Oops.

[Sam Grove]

Why should he get a free pass?

Don't give him a free pass. I'll tell anyone I don't agree with him on certain issues.

But don't let his 'imperfections' distract you from an opportunity to rein in the empire and bring an end to long distance murder at the end of our tax dollars.

[MJ]

"I know I have heard Paul talk about the right to privacy before... does he not think it applies based on his religious belief that a fetus is a human and has rights? Does he think that the constitution protects a right to privacy otherwise?"-teh

teh, a fetus is an individual human organism, that is factually indisputable. For the most part human individuals are assumed to inately possess rights. So, the idea that fetuses should be given the benefit of the doubt on whetehr they possess rights is not an outlandish concept. Furthermore, that humans in general have rights, comes in part from religious beliefs. The Declaration of Independence says that a man's rights come from his Creator. So denying that an assertion of rights has validity because it is in part based on religious beliefs does not get us anywhere useful.

The question becomes when does one person's rights trump another's? What you seem to be saying is, if I believe your right to swing your fist where you want ends at the tip of my nose, then I don't believe you have a right to swing your fist anywhere else. Just because Ron Paul may not believe a woman's right to privacy does not trump her unborn child's right to live, it does not mean that Ron Paul believes there are no privacy rights.

[Edward]

But don't let his 'imperfections' distract you from an opportunity to rein in the empire

Oh yeah, the empire is shaking in its boots!

"Oh no, not Ron Paul! We give up! The Empire is finished!"

[smartass sob]

@ Stevo Darkly

(An anarchist would argue that a mere democratic majority still violates the rights of the dissident minority, but it's seen as legitimate by most people most of the time under the system we have.)

By "most people most of the time under the system we have" did you mean to say that it's seen as legitimate by a "mere democratic majority"? 😉

[R C Dean]

Yes, according to the article you cite, Paul opposes the federal judicial overturning of state laws based on the construed "right to privacy," but he just as clearly is against instituting these types of laws in the first place. I wouldn't say he's typical of any sort of politician that we're used to seeing at all, much less a "typical authoritarian theocrat."

Because Ron Paul actually thinks we should apply the Constitution we have, not the Constitution some judge wishes we had.

The real Constitution doesn't really have a "right to privacy" that could be enforced against state laws. Even the 10A doesn't limit the states, so there are no federal Constitutional grounds for overturning laws against sodomy.

That position is perfectly consistent with also believing laws against sodomy are stupid and ridiculous.

[x,y]

I'll also note that our illustrious Supreme Court *found* the right to privacy in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the 14th Amendment, not the 4th.

[The Libertarian Guy]

A hood ornament for a 1951 Studebaker *You're not using your imagination.*

Sorry, Warty... I'm a fan of "orphan" automobiles, and Studebakers are my favorite. Therefore, I was using my imagination.

I'm still retching over having brought up Michael Boltoh, though.

[guy in the back row]

Sorry to threadjack, but it looks from the video that Ron was making Whoopi think.

That's not too shabby.

[smartass sob]

I'll also note that our illustrious Supreme Court *found* the right to privacy in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the 14th Amendment, not the 4th.

Wasn't the ninth amendment also cited by one of the justices in Griswald vs. Connecticut?

[excrementalist]

"My preference is that prior to birth, the pre-born are solely in the custody of the mother and that female individuals, ideally, should be in full control of whether they become impregnated and that fully informed humans shall choose wisely."

WooHoo , no more child support!

Wish they would show abortions of all types on the discovery channel. After all , it is just a medical procedure.

[TrickyVic]

"""teh, a fetus is an individual human organism, that is factually indisputable."""

Actually it's not an individual human because it requires a host to survive. It's more parasitic than individual. You can place a baby in a room and walk away for some duration. You can't do that with a fetus.

If Ron Paul thinks that the 4th amendment gives you a right to privacy in your house, he's failing to consider that person, papers, and effects have the same protection under that amendment.

""""The question becomes when does one person's rights trump another's? What you seem to be saying is, if I believe your right to swing your fist where you want ends at the tip of my nose, then I don't believe you have a right to swing your fist anywhere else.""""

Wow, you're really screwing up that analogy. The fist ends at the tip of my nose means you can do whatever you want with your fist as long as you don't hurt someone. It does NOT mean you can only swing in that direction.

[Stevo Darkly]

@ smartass sob:

"(An anarchist would argue that a mere democratic majority still violates the rights of the dissident minority, but it's seen as legitimate by most people most of the time under the system we have.)"

By "most people most of the time under the system we have" did you mean to say that it's seen as legitimate by a "mere democratic majority"? 😉

Hmm, yes, very perceptive: The majority is in favor of a political system that gives people in the majority the power to tell everyone else what to do.

"I loves my power!" cloaked in "the will of the people" and "democracy" and other good stuff.

Actually, though, I probably should have written my paragraph as:

"(An anarchist would argue that a mere democratic majority still violates the rights of the dissident minority, but it's seen as legitimate by almost everybody, most of the time, under the system we have.)"

"Almost everybody" being closer to a true consensus than merely "most people."

[Stevo Darkly]

@ Mad Max:

I know you're supporting the perfectly valid federalism argument for letting the states handle abortion, but your rationale is not something I'd agree with. Just because you can't get a consensus on who is entitled to human rights, or on what human rights are, doesn't mean those rights don't exist. The rights libertarians fight for don't have a consensus behind them yet, for example.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with what you say about rights. My own position is that I'm convinced that abortion is a form of homicide, and I used to call myself an abortion abolitinist.

However, there is the practical matter of how do you enforce the protection of those rights? If about half, or even a sizable minority, of the population fails to recognize those rights exists -- and on top of that, believes that protecting those rights actually violates somebody else's rights -- how do you proceed?

An unpopular law, even if it's "the right thing to do," is going to be very difficult to enforce. Most successful "law enforcement" is really done through social disapproval and people's internalization of that disapproval. Hardly anybody thinks it's actually wrong to drive 5 mph over the speed limit on the highway, for example, so the speed limit law is almost never enforced, really.

I've come to realize that if abortion abolitionists manage to capture all the relevant decision-making offices and outlaw abortion tomorrow, it would still be a very unpopular law and would probably require some pretty brutal measures to effectively enforce it.

I read once that a convention of clergymen in Arkansas, early in the twentieth century, took a vote on a resolution saying that black people have souls, and the resolution passed by a bare majority. H&R posters should substitute "rights" for "souls," and ask whether such a narrow division of opinion would justify the government intervening and "forcing" those who don't believe black people have rights to recognize those rights.

As a practical matter, it would depend on how much force the government would have to apply to get the white majority to recognize that black people have rights. If it got down to the point of, "Dang it, either everyone in Atlanta must agree to recognize black people's human rights or we're going to drop a nuclear bomb on the city," then that would probably violate more rights than protect them.

Shoot, I have to leave -- I'll try to think more about this later.

[Gavin]

This should put all doubts to rest about whether or not the fetus has rights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk16Xz8IWNk