by Ron Paul
In other words, abortion done through the suction curette could be put out of his mind, but the ones that he was forced to look at could not. But does putting one’s head in the sand, refusing to look at what is being done, do any more then deny a problem exists? His attitude was not unique. No one likes to, literally, look at abortion.
A principal in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, prohibited a seventh grader from displaying an abortion project. The young girl had collected ten jars of human fetuses, ranging from six weeks to five-and-a-half months. The principal objected that it was inappropriate for the age group participating in the exhibit. The project, considered offensive by some, was quickly graded, given a blue ribbon, and removed before the other students viewed it. [2]
It’s easy to understand that if teachers, lawyers, doctors, parents, and politicians say abortion is permissible, twelve-year-old children will accept the issue casually. If the student had displayed kidneys or other organs, I’m sure there would have been no objection. But uneasiness, for good reason, was felt with this shameless openness displayed by a child.
It’s easy to understand that if teachers, lawyers, doctors, parents, and politicians say abortion is permissible, twelve-year-old children will accept the issue casually.
Pro-abortion supporters are quite willing to discuss abortion, assuming the fetus is always too small to see. They never concede that Roe vs. Wade made it technically legal to abort a fetus up until the day prior to birth. Closing their eyes to this fact has helped the pro-life movement paint the pro-abortion people as cold-hearted baby killers.
In the early years of my practice, I frequently delivered unwed girls who put their babies up for adoption. After 1973 this practice virtually stopped. Many homes for pregnant teenagers were closed and attitudes rapidly changed. Young girls would come to the office and inquire about an abortion just as casually as if they were asking for a penicillin shot.
Indeed, times and attitudes had changed. It’s true that courts reflect prevailing attitudes and, certainly, the attitude toward life and liberty had changed in the decades prior to Roe vs. Wade. The court’s ruling reflected the sociological changes, which had already taken place.
The relativistic political scientists easily explain that law, rights, and the Constitution must continually adapt to the times. They are unconcerned with the principles of liberty that are long-enduring and should never be cast aside.
But court rulings also accelerate certain changes. Once abortion was made legal, millions who previously had never dreamed of participating in an abortion soon accepted it casually. Contraceptives and responsibility for one’s sexual activities were of less concern, since an abortion could easily be obtained if needed. It shocks many to find that young girls who undergo an abortion frequently do not learn from the experience. Having three abortions within one calendar year is not unheard of.
Abortion has become a socially accepted form of contraception. Welfare liberals supporting abortions become hysterical over the issue of public funding for abortion, believing not only that abortion is their right, but that others in society so strongly objecting to abortion should pay for them.
If not condemning late abortions was the first tactical error of the pro-abortionist in the struggle, demanding that pro-life taxpayers pay for the ugly procedure was the second. It provided the energy the pro-life forces needed to mobilize the millions who have now persuaded many people in this country that abortion is more than the removal of a glob of tissue. The recent Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services ruling reflects the changes brought on by the pro-life movement.
In 1974 I ran for Congress the first time. The abortion issue did not motivate me to run. It was not an issue in the campaign, nor in any of my congressional campaigns thereafter. Richard Nixon’s economic and monetary policy had more to do with my entering politics than the abortion issue. Economics still dominates my political thinking.
Nevertheless, the abortion issue is the key social issue of the 20th Century, and the resolution to the problem is not yet on the horizon. It cannot be separated from the issue of liberty.
In 1988, when I was the Libertarian Party’s Presidential Candidate, the abortion issue was raised by some in the media and some in the party. Anxious to catch me in a contradiction with the party platform, they frequently asked about my pro-life position. My answer was to explain that approximately a third of the Libertarian Party members believe that the platform contradicts the libertarian principle of nonaggression. If the resistance to my position was so great in the Libertarian Party, the nomination could not have been obtained.
This issue has not yet been resolved in any of the three major parties. But all Libertarians oppose public funding of abortion, something that cannot be said for either the Republican or Democratic Parties.
The abortion issue is the key social issue of the 20th Century…it cannot be separated from the issue of liberty.
During the hectic pace of campaigning, I took a 24-hour break to visit my alma mater at Duke University. A daring taxi ride through Boston from Brandeis University to Logan Field barely got me to my son’s graduation from medical school. I arrived that Friday evening just as the Hippocratic Oath Ceremony was beginning. Having missed my own graduation, it was a delight to make this one. I also was fascinated that the university had reinstated the recitation of the Hippocratic Oath. But you can imagine my surprise when I found out how they handled the controversial portion of the oath dealing with abortion.
The original oath clearly states the ethical principles that were accepted by the medical profession for two thousand four hundred years. The oath, taken for centuries by thousands of physicians, states:
I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner, I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art.
The oath my son took was quite different. The former oath was summarized to:
I do solemnly swear…that I will exercise my Art, solely for the care of my patients and the prevention of disease and will give no drugs and perform no operation for a criminal purpose and far less suggest such a thing.
This is dramatically different from the original and has significant meaning for our times.
Some will argue that the original Greek words were difficult to translate to current meaning. But something more has been lost in the translation to modern language. Ethical principles have been radically changed.
The original oath that set ethical standards until the second half of the 20th Century clearly states the role of the physician is to “heal” and abstain from “…whatever is deleterious and mischievous.” It means that the medical skills learned could never be used for murder, and medical knowledge could never be conveyed to another if it were to be used to kill. Immediately following this pledge not to murder, within the same sentence, the original oath states that the physician “…will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.” The oath is short, and this pledge is a major portion of it.
Just because things are legal certainly does not make them ethical.
The modern version destroys the notion that ethical standards should be above the law. Just because things are legal certainly does not make them ethical. The original Hippocratic Oath set the highest ethical standards and was unconcerned with the law.
What does the modern version do? It states that the doctor can do anything he or she wants to as long as it’s legal. The law becomes synonymous with ethical behavior. The state rules are supreme, ethical behavior is no longer expected.
And if one looks at the professional behavior of many physicians and attorneys, it’s not difficult to understand what’s going on in an age that has rejected ethical behavior.
Physicians under Hitler’s regime par
ticipated in legal procedures, but no one would argue they were ethical. The oath now says that if abortion or euthanasia or infanticide or human experimentation is legal (not criminal), it’s acceptable. Situation ethics is in full bloom.
Although the modern oath agrees with the original on confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship, the state now is no more protective of a patient’s medical privacy than of his financial or political privacy.
It is not surprising to find that medical records are turned over to snooping bureaucrats without too much difficulty, since 60 percent of medicine is now delivered by government agencies and government is the sole determiner of ethical standards. With the rationing of Medicare and mounting drug and AIDS hysteria, this problem will get much worse.
My return to hear my son recite the Hippocratic Oath was startling, to say the least. Nonetheless, the ceremony and the graduation were attended with pride and pleasure.
Ethical behavior does not come from reciting an oath. The oath merely reflects current thinking regarding ethical standards. The behavior of young people reflects the behavior and the teaching of their parents and their closest teachers. And for many, it seems that the university professors and politicians have a great deal of influence for setting this standard.
I have once again returned to the private practice of obstetrics and gynecology in Lake Jackson, Texas, and find I’m as delighted as ever in participating in bringing new life into the world. Abortions, obviously, are still done on a wholesale basis, but the issue is not a critical issue in the medical community of the small town where I practice, where abortions are not performed. The physicians in the neighboring big cities take care of that.
Adoptions still occur, and just possibly, may be increasing. Also, homes for unwed girls seem to be more numerous now than they were a decade ago. This is a good sign.
Once it’s realized that a baby exists with a heartbeat and brain waves, it’s not quite as easy to close one’s eyes and deny that a new life exists, even when it exists in utero.
Abortion is a symptom of a much deeper-seated problem: the relative value of all life and the contest between liberty and the monolithic state.
However, the moral dilemma is not likely to fade away soon. As more and more of us become informed, the larger the number will be who become militantly pro-life.
Pro-abortion groups will become more militant as court decisions move us away from abortion on demand, abortion used as a contraceptive, and third-trimester abortions. The moral crisis that exists in this country is responsible for the confrontation between the opposing factions.
Abortion is a symptom of a much deeper seated problem: the relative value of all life and the contest between liberty and the monolithic state. The difficulty in the abortion debate is the value of life that some of us claim deserves protection, and others would deny. If our views on abortion were to reflect only our values on this issue, our society would suffer far less. Politically, some may claim to be single-issue—in the cause of pro-life—but the position one holds regarding this issue must reflect the attitude one holds of all life and liberty.
Although many who endorse abortion can be pro-liberty on all other issues, the philosophic consequence of this position leads to the conclusion that my obstetrical professor was so willing to accept—selective infanticide, i.e., selective murder.
The issue of liberty, the role of government, and the responsibility of the individual family are tightly hinged to the concept of all life.
A nation or culture that encourages tossing a pre-born infant into the garbage cannot discipline the young mother who throws her newborn baby into the gutter, or the seventh grade science student who proudly displays aborted fetuses.
Government exists to protect life and liberty, not to participate in arbitrarily devising relative standards for life such as acceptable disease states, IQs, gestational age, or social convenience for carrying a baby to term. Respect for even less-than-perfect life is required if liberty for all is to be protected and not trampled on by the government.
The economic crisis looming ahead and the material welfare of all citizens should be of monumental concern to every one of us. The flawed foreign policy of the past three generations has given more tragedy than we ever needed and is a threat to world peace. But in the decade to come, a major decision will be made by Western civilization that possibly will determine the future of freedom for the 21st Century. One way or another, everyone will participate in the decision.
Others will join the emotional tirades that come from both sides, while violating the rights of some in an attempt to protect the rights of others. The solution ought to come through intellectual discussion, with each side trying to persuade the other of the merits of its arguments.
Recognizing the sacred value of all human life is crucial if a moral, just, and free society is to survive.
Abortion is not a non-issue. It is not a single, isolated issue. It is a key issue that must be dealt with. If no position is taken, a wrong position may be allowed to prevail by default.
CHAPTER II
A Unique Perspective
Many individuals involved in the pro-life movement come with strong religious feelings. Fundamentalist Christians and devout Catholics know exactly where they stand on the issue and vehemently oppose all abortion and, frequently, even contraception. Nonreligious individuals and those considered theologically liberal are generally strong supporters of the woman’s right to abort at convenience.
Exceptions to these rules, however, are commonplace. Although it’s accurate to assume that most atheists support abortion, it’s interesting to note that some are strongly opposed. Frequently, if one finds an atheist who has a pro-life position, politically that person has a libertarian streak in his or her thinking. The argument for nonaggression and personal responsibility are important in persuading these individuals to support a pro-life position.
I have been a member of the Episcopal church for thirty years. It is a denomination with liberal political beliefs and one that never speaks out against abortion, while frequently condoning it. Strong religious conviction was not the motivating factor behind my adopting a pro-life position.
My medical experience played a role, but was not the only factor. In my early years, superficial knowledge made me sympathetic to the tragic circumstances that exist in all societies. Later, of course, the tragedy of abortion forced me to assess the problem from a moral and legal viewpoint.
Advanced scientific knowledge was important to Dr. Bernard Nathanson, obstetrician and author of Aborting America, in changing his mind about abortion. After participating in thousands of abortions, through the study of the fetus by ultrasound technique, he came to the conclusion that meaningful life exists in utero. Dr. Nathanson, at the time, was an atheist and critical of some of the tactics and arguments used by the Religious Right.
My experience in Congress made me neither more nor less pro-life. It did, however, make me think more carefully about the political solution to the problem. Any individual involved in the abortion debate who claims that there is a simple, straightforward answer should be suspect. My solution, or policy, proposed in this book, is based on my pro-life, libertarian beliefs. Hopefully it will offer some insight in the dilemma.
Libertarian answers to difficult social problems are no more perfect than are free-market answers to economic problems. Free markets do not create perfect economic conditions,but are better by far than any other economic policy. The same is true of libertarian solutions to social problems. Allowing free choices in personal matters does not deal with the morality or the wisdom of the choice made. Libertarians speak to this issue by saying only that acts of aggression should be prohibited.
My experience in Congress made me neither more nor less pro-life. It did, however, make me think more carefully about the political solution to the problem.
The abortion issue has been hotly debated in the Libertarian Party. Although all members must sign a pledge re
jecting the initiation of force in an effort to bring about social and economic changes, the interpretation of this pledge regarding abortion is a source of disagreement. The official position of the party remains pro-abortion; although from my experiences in traveling around the country for 18 months in 1987-1988 as a candidate for the nomination and the Libertarian Party’s nominee for President, my guess would be that a third or more of the active Libertarians are pro-life.
Clearly, had the party been radically pro-abortion, I would never have received the nomination, since my position was quite clear and was discussed openly on numerous occasions. My suspicion is that most Libertarians secretly wish they didn’t have to deal with this particular problem, just as do many Republicans and Democrats.
A few radical feminist Libertarians were outraged with my selection as the party candidate, due to my position on abortion. Whether it was guilt, or a “one-issue” approach to politics, that prompted the outbursts, I’m not sure, but there is no doubt that emotions can run high in a philosophic, political group where members come together, all agreeing to a narrow pledge guiding the group’s thinking.
The current debate within the Libertarian Party is not new. In the 1970s the party’s position was that abortion was not criminal prior to 100 days of gestation, but after that, it was. Obviously, an arbitrary gestational age of 100 days to set a time when a fetus qualifies for protection of the law makes no medical or legal sense.
This position was soon abandoned, and the pro-abortion position was adopted in 1978. The original position of using 100 days gestation as a critical time to gain the right to life was the tipoff that even Libertarians would have difficulties with developing a position satisfactory to all members. Once it was agreed that 100 days made little sense, it caused a widening of the disagreement. Those sympathetic to abortion for either personal or philosophic reasons were forced to choose birth as the time human beings gain the right to live. Those not sympathetic were pushed toward the moment of conception as the time rights are endowed. A few philosophized about using the onset of the heartbeat or brain waves as the starting date for legal life, and others talked of futuristic techniques where aborted fetuses could be kept alive and brought to birth.