5 votes

Why I Don't Care What Rand Paul Thinks About Abortion

I believe abortion is the wedge issue that Progressives and the LSM will use to divide the Liberty Movement and guarantee that the Clinton Dynasty wins the 2016 election. I'm already seeing this in comment-section trolling against Rand Paul.

Do the math…if Conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians vote as a block, there is no way for Progressives to overcome those numbers. Only by splintering off pro-choice voters do the Progressives have any hope at winning national elections.

"Because she's pro-choice" isn't a good enough reason to vote for a Progressive, ever.

So, here's my take on abortion. I have completely mixed feelings, so my opinions are guaranteed to enrage almost everyone who reads this; but I truly hope that those of us who are pro-choice can recognize who our real enemies are, moving into the 2016 campaign. It won't matter if abortion remains legal if most of us are unemployed, bankrupt and/or locked up in FEMA camps.

I grew up in the early seventies, during the "womens' movement." In middle school, I saw a number of young teen girls like myself who got pregnant and dropped out of school and ended up with pretty miserable lives as poor, uneducated single mothers.

Unlike these girls, I didn't have sex until I was an adult, and I never had unprotected sex. So I'm not now, nor have I ever been, "in the market" for an abortion. Even so, I've been pro-choice ever since I first learned what an abortion was. Why? Because even today, I don't know what choice I would make if I were to get pregnant.

I have medical issues that would make any pregnancy very risky to the point of being life-threatening. And there's the potential for hereditary problems that I don't want to pass on to any children. And yet…even if my own life were at stake, or if I knew for a fact my child would be born with severe genetic problems, I don't know that I have it in me to have an abortion. No matter how much I needed one, I still think it's a gruesome and heart-rending choice.

I'm pro-choice because if I can't even make that decision for myself, how in the world would I be qualified to make it for anyone else? (And the fact is, Roe v Wade will not ever be overturned. It just won't. )

Rand Paul, as the son of an OB/GYN who delivered 4,000 babies, is (understandably) anti-abortion. I think he's entitled to his opinion. I also don't believe that as President he has the ability (or will) to inflict his personal abortion beliefs on me on a Federal level. Like is father, Rand has stated that abortion is a State issue. And even in the unlikely event that he did try to outlaw abortion, and the whole of Congress went along with him, it's very easy for me to do as I've always done—act responsibly—to ensure that I don't get pregnant. Yes, I can "opt out" of the entire abortion debate by taking personal responsibility. (Thanks to the 2nd Amendment, I can also take personal responsibility to protect myself from rape and the minute chance of getting pregnant against my will.)

Any pro-choice woman who is afraid of being denied access to abortion can do what it takes to ensure that she doesn't need one in the first place. Condoms are cheap. Abstinence is free. In virtually every county in America there's a non-profit organization or social service agency that will give you free birth control if you ask for it.

And for my anti-abortion friends (with whom I strongly empathize) — Roe v Wade is settled law. The best the anti-abortion movement can hope for (in my opinion) is to make abortion so culturally and socially unacceptable that only women who medically need them will seek them out. In the same way that drunk driving and smoking have marked people as social pariahs, I believe social pressure can make abortions rare, yet still legal and safe for the few women who medically need them.

We pro-choice libertarians, conservatives and Republicans must take the "abortion sledgehammer" away from Progressives and their fellow travelers in the media. And just as importantly, we shouldn't use it against each other when we have so many other fish to fry before we can all enjoy a return to a Constitutional Republic.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It is no one elses business

Abortion should not be used as a political football. It is a divisive topic used to inflame the population, steering you away from what the real issues are.

It is also none of anyone's business if a woman needs to have an abortion/terminate an unwanted pregnancy. It should never be illegal in any capacity, except, limited by the number of months. No one should have one past 3 1/2 months. By that time you will know for sure, and can arrange one sensibly.

I remember the days of the coat hangars, and butcher doctors. Also many went to other extremes to get rid of a fetus. Yes, just a fetus, not yet a baby - that can breath and exist outside of the female.

This is a female issue, woman's rights issue.
Once we women give this up, what else will be taken away?
Susan B Anthony, Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Carrie Chapman Catt, and many others before us gave their lives to ensure women had rights. "Not for Ourselves Alone" says it all. We don't know what other women may need to ensure they keep their personal freedom.

Termination of a pregnancy is a medical, personal decision.
Stay out of other peoples private business.
The public and any politician does not belong in the Ob/Gyn clinic.

The people who are so against abortion, are you in line to adopt that unwanted child. Are you willing to support it with time, money, housing, medical, clothing.

Stop blaming just the woman. Men should be forced to have a vasectomy when they desert a pregnant woman. No more sperms, no more unwanted pregnancy.

The pill, condoms, etc, are not guaranteed.
Stop condemning women.
It is just simply none of your business.

I may not approve, or desire the choice. At least women have one.

Don't give up your rights as Women.


"Not for Ourselves Alone"

Support other women - Globally!

Fine, just as long as you

Fine, just as long as you acknowledge that it's none of your business if I choose to murder my next door neighbor.

Wrong Correlation

In regards to your response, how many unwanted delivered babies have you adopted.

Murdering your neighbor is quite different than choosing to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

It isn't my business if you want to murder your neighbor, or if you do.

It is my business if you attempt to take away women's rights.

Women are the ones who have to be burdened with an unwanted child, and the choice should be theirs alone.

How exactly would murdering

How exactly would murdering my neighbor be any different than choosing to murder a baby in the womb? How exactly is a baby in the womb less of a person than my next door neighbor?

It's simply not true that Roe

It's simply not true that Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Right now we're likely just one vote away on the Supreme Court from overturning Roe v. Wade. A President Paul could easily pick one or two more pro Constitution, anti Roe justices, and Roe v. Wade would be overturned. Let's hope that happens.

R.Paul was most moderate on Gay/Women's rights

I've defused the negative reaction some of my fellow progressive have when they find out I volunteered on the RP2012 campaign.

The media did a good job keeping progressives off the RP campaign.

I spoke at a Occupy forum in SF and made your same point; gay rights are the trend, and roe v. wade won't be overturned. But an anti-war president will be able to make an impact.

And let's look at where RP stood: voted against the Defence of Marriage Act (which Clinton signed into law) and voted with Pres. Obama to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell. Can't get much more "pro-gay rights" then that, especially in the GOP.

He supported the morning after pill, and never took the hard line regarding rape/incest abortions that many republicans do.

Rand seems more willing to take on the rhetoric of the evangelical right, which might hurt him in the General. We need a candidate/party that supports both Gun Rights and Gay Rights, until then the media is going to be able to divide progressives and libertarians that both just want to reduce violence and make government accountable.

Don't confuse progressives with neo-liberals, just like we shouldn't confuse conservative-libertarians with neo-cons. Neo-Cons/Neo-Liberals = Imperialists, Progressives/Libertarians = Federalists.

And let's not let the Anarcho-Capitalists pull the vote away from a genuine Federalist candidate, if ever one emerges.

Jack Wagner

Abortion, along with ending

Abortion, along with ending foreign wars, is the most important political issue there is. Defending all human life has to be the most important liberty issue. Without life there is no liberty.

We might not have that option.

What if your options are Rand Paul that doesn't address abortion and Hillary?

What does addressing abortion

What does addressing abortion have to do with anything? I don't necessarily think that it's smart to address the abortion issue, because it's a touchy issue that sometimes hurts Republicans. But I'm certainly hopeful that Rand will be a pro life Republican if elected President. I hope that he'll defend the life of the unborn and stop killing innocent people overseas. That's the only consistent position. People who are pro choice and anti war are inconsistent. People who are "pro life" and pro war are inconsistent.

I am pro-life.

But I am NOT a single-issue voter. Morality can not be legislated, however upholding the Bill of Rights will go a long way toward correcting many of the problems.

Vote the record, not the rhetoric.

Oh, and I don't care what Rand's or anyone's position is on this sidetracking issue. That is up to the individual to take up with the real man upstairs, if there is one.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

I share this whenever i see a post aboit abortion

Its a letter I wrote to my friend who is a ferocious opponent of abortion. So much so, that despite how much immorality he understands about the state, he still thinks its more important to be a statist so he can have believe in a prolife platform.