Challenge to Liberty

by Ron Paul

  Economic forces at work today are dangerous. A crisis will come. It is now recognized that communism is not a viable option, but laissez-faire capitalism is not considered an alternative by the power brokers. When our welfare system falters, changes will occur. I foresee a form of fascism where our leaders will still be elected, but more government controls of business and of labor will emerge. I call this democratic fascism.

  Economics already plays a role in our attitudes toward abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia and this could prove to be very dangerous.

  With government involved in all aspects of the economy, particularly medicine, human life will increasingly be seen in economic terms. Economic value has already been placed on human life. Medical care is being rationed by government rules rather than distributed by market forces. Economics already plays a role in our attitudes toward abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, and this could prove to be very dangerous. Even if fascism is a threat to liberty, it has a democratic element.

  U.S. foreign policy has wrought havoc for millions of Americans and remains a threat. It is not the foreign policy of the Founders of this nation. It does not represent Constitutional principle. Hopefully, the low point of this policy was established with Viet Nam. But events in the Persian Gulf are reason for some to believe otherwise.

  An interventionist policy that compels us to be involved throughout the world in internal affairs of other nations is destined to cause trouble. Conflicts never cease, and we’re involved in all of them. Ultimately, however, the limiting factor is the ability of a nation to continue to finance worldwide militarism.

  Although Reagan’s years as President were relatively calm, he reignited the flames of militarism with his tough talk and easy targets. The mood of the American people today is confrontational, and military action is frequently advocated in dealing with the war on drugs and in hostage crises.

  The disastrous Viet Nam War, a predictable consequence of the interventionism which inevitably leads to political rather than defensive wars, was so alarming that a great deal of caution immediately followed its end. Today, however, attitudes are changing. Our 18 to 21-year-olds don’t even remember Viet Nam and the carnage that resulted. War now has become popular once again.

  Relative calm exists today in our relationship with the Soviet Union, but all we have to do to avoid complacency is to remember the Chinese tragedy at Tiananmen Square and Lithuania. I’m leery, because I have no confidence that the United States will lead the communist world away from centralized control of their economy to a free market.

  As the world economy comes under pressure, the chances of armed conflict will rise. The Moslem world, led by radical fundamentalists, combined with our foreign policy that prompts us to give billions of dollars to their bitter enemy, Israel, remains a perpetual hotbed of trouble in the Middle East.

  Economic conditions are unstable, and increasing government intervention already has helped erode our personal liberties. The flawed U.S. foreign policy of the 20th Century remains in place and is a threat to liberty and peace. Conscription to fight wars like Korea and Viet Nam is hardly the freedom for which the American Revolutionaries fought. Sudden changes in either the economy or in foreign affairs could prompt a rapid shift toward totalitarianism unless we have a firm grasp of what liberty is all about.

  The Great Depression was the key economic event symbolizing our flawed economic policy of the 20th Century, and the Viet Nam War is the foreign policy fiasco symbolizing a policy gone amiss.

  The social issue of this century is abortion. Changing attitudes toward laissez-faire economics and foreign nonintervention during this century parallel significant changes in our respect for life and liberty. Although the radical departure from free-market capitalism and a mind-your-own-business foreign policy occurred early in the 20th Century. The sexual revolution and attitudes toward abortion did not come until the second half.

  The social issue of this century is abortion.

  The exact reason is purely speculative, but it appears that a nation that loses respect for economic liberty and accepts an interventionist, imperialistic foreign policy invites an attitude of less respect for life and liberty. The fact that an 18-year-old can be conscripted to fight in a no-win, undeclared war on the other side of the world, financed through deliberate debasement of a currency, makes it clear that individual rights are a far cry from being absolute.

  Arguments of convenience in economics become factors in considering whether fetal life, once held sacred, should continue. To do so, a relative worth must be placed on life itself.

  Attitudes changed significantly in the 1960’s as Viet Nam and President Johnson’s War on Poverty raged. The 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs. Wade confirmed this attitudinal change, and for 16 years a callousness toward fetal life developed. But during the same period, the pro-life movement organized and gained strength, achieving a victory in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services.

  The violence initiated by anti-abortion groups at abortion centers indicates that the issue remains uppermost in the hearts and minds of many Americans.

  During this decade, we can expect stronger feelings and more acts of violence from both sides. We are probably only now at the beginning of the physical struggle over abortion. But this physical struggle will not solve the problem unless it is understood that the strong feelings are not over women’s reproductive rights, but reflect deeply held beliefs in the value of all life and liberty.

  It is not easy to sort out the rhetoric from the facts. Frequently both sides use the same language to capture the moral high ground. George F. Regas, Rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, said: “The society we seek says all life is sacred everywhere, for if it is cheap anywhere, it is cheap everywhere.” [4]

  This is a wonderful statement, but the only problem is that he used it in a sermon supporting abortion. His concept of life is sacred excludes the fetus and was used to justify government coercion in passing out condoms and food stamps. If we all were to agree that life is sacred before birth, as well as after birth, our problems would be minimized.

  Regas went on to explain: “I see no way the moral status of a fetus can be of greater moral standing than a woman deciding her destiny,” or being forced to: “…have an extra child that could destroy the family’s ability to cope.”

  There’s no need for moral superiority of the fetus. But if it’s perceived that the mother has greater moral standing, couldn’t the child who is discovered to have cerebral palsy after birth, destroy the family’s ability to cope even more than allowing a normal fetus to come to term and be adopted?

  If the president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) had argued in this vein, it wouldn’t be quite as serious a problem. But for a self-proclaimed 20th Century theological ethicist to do so tells us something of the nature of the crisis.

  Determining the value of human life cannot be done in a moral vacuum. Once arbitrary values are accepted, for the sake of convenience or economics, the door is left wide open for many abuses. At this point in our history when 1.5 million abortions are performed annually, it is no accident that it followed a sustained period of massive government growth and diminished personal freedom. Respect and understanding of liberty are certainly diminished since the days our Founders debated at the Constitutional Convention 200 years ago.

  Although the language used by pro-abortion forces is similar to that of pro-liberty advocates who argue for privacy, freedom of choice, and women’s rights, it’s their endorsement of relative human worth that places them in the philosophic camp of those who accept a relative concept of individual rights.

  As the 20th Century draws to an end, it’s clear that a moral crisis exists in this country. The severity of the economic problems is not yet evident. Our foreign policy is an accident waiting to happen. Personal liberty and privacy have deteriorated on a daily basis for decades, and when an economic or political crisis hits, the erosion of our freedoms wil
l accelerate. At the same time, we must make the moral decision concerning the value of pre-born human life and deal with the issue of abortion.

  The slippery slope theory is alive and well.

  The trends are ominous. If we do not change our economic course, the free market will be something of the past, and a form of government management—most likely of the fascist type—will be put in its place. If we do not change our foreign policy, we will see not only its perpetuation but the expansion of the military state and its industrial complex that already controls over $300 billion of our federal expenditures.

  If we do not develop a respect for individual liberty and for the value of human life—because it’s human life—and reject the notion of, as well as remove the need for, abortion, we can expect to see an even larger government deciding the economic value of all human life, at all stages—deciding who will live and who will die. The slippery slope theory is alive and well.

  We already see results of this changed attitude toward human life. A nation that aborts its children will not care for those already born.

  The liberal commonly ridicules the conservative right-to-lifer who is against abortion but opposes welfare, claiming such a person is a hypocrite. This ploy is not based on logic. Opposition to murder and theft does not mean that those who were not victimized must then be cared for by those who agreed that murder and theft were wrong. A position that rejects all acts of violence, including abortion, is not related to the subject of how people survive and whose responsibility it is to feed and clothe and care for the citizens.

  Liberals, of course, endorse welfarism and, therefore, already answer this question before dealing with abortion. But since abortion is used as a tool of many liberals for economic planning, it’s easy to understand their relating the two.

  Liberals continuously point out the horrors of unwanted children, living in poverty. But as horrible as poverty is, there’s something about death that is just a bit less appealing. Even the Soviets have come to realize that poverty does not come from the lack of centralized planning, but comes from too much of it. One should never permit the statist supporters of government solutions to poverty to link this to the justification of abortion.

  As horrible as poverty is, there’s something about death that is just a bit less appealing.

  It’s not only the liberals who do this, however. As a matter of fact, when the liberals do it, it’s more humane and less racist, and based more on economic ignorance than anything else. The conservative is frequently just as guilty.

  During my Congressional career, I had Republican conservative supporters try to persuade me to accept abortion, even government funding of abortion, because it was cheaper than allowing the minorities to swell the welfare rolls. Once indiscriminate destruction of life is permitted—even for seemingly noble reasons—others are encouraged to make use of the tool for sinister reasons for both economic planning and political.

  It is argued that Blacks should be pro-abortion as part of the civil rights movement but certain statistics should challenge this notion. Two Black abortions are performed for every three Black babies born in this country. Approximately 400,000 Black pregnancies are interrupted each year. Seventy per cent of planned parenthood clinics are in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. For minorities to equate abortion rights to civil rights invites support of a policy tacitly approved by some who are not displeased with the disproportionate number of Black abortions over white. Forty-three per cent of all abortions in the United States are performed on Black women.

  Are we seeing the arrival of the brave new world, or is this some moral sickness that has swept the land?

  Already we have documented evidence that abortion is used for sex selection. This has been a real embarrassment to the radical feminists because, inevitably, female fetuses are aborted. Are we seeing the arrival of the brave new world, or is this some moral sickness that has swept the land?

  Dr. Mitchell Golbus of the University of California, San Francisco, states that in 1973 only one percent of the geneticists in the country believed sex selection was morally acceptable, but today that number is twenty percent. Dr. Golbus explains: “It is very hard to make a moral argument about termination for sex, when you can have abortions for any reason.” [5]

  Can this be worse than aborting a fetus so a family can cope as the Episcopal Priest Regas argues?

  If it can be decided that fetal life is less valuable than newborn life, and female fetuses less valuable than male fetuses, we should not be surprised to see violence directed toward women. Spouse beating and rape are of epidemic proportion in this country. A Houston police officer in 1989 was convicted of kidnapping and raping a woman he arrested: he got ten years—probation. There’s something seriously wrong with a society that permits such a grotesque act by a police officer—hired to maintain the peace—as raping a person he arrested. A school teacher from our local community advises her female students to be very cautious if they are approached by a police officer, and not to stop if in a secluded area, because the police can’t be trusted.

  The American Humane Association reported that 20,860 children were abandoned in 1986, but admits the figures are inaccurate, since most cases were not recorded. From newborns to toddlers, children are being abandoned. Outrage is expressed by everyone, but pro-abortion supporters would never admit the epidemic has erupted since abortion has become acceptable.

  With perverse logic, they argue for more abortion to prevent unwanted children from being born, failing to see that placing relative value on life undermines the moral fabric of a society.

  The children who survive frequently suffer mental illnesses. James Leckman of Yale University reported that as many as 14 million U.S. children suffer from mental disorders, and the numbers are increasing. There’s no way of knowing if there is a direct relationship, but certainly, the abortion numbers correlate with children’s mental problems.

  Insecurity is the major factor in mental illness. Possibly children subconsciously recognize that life is precarious, fetuses are aborted, and other children are abandoned. This has been reported within families where surviving siblings felt threatened after the mother had an elective abortion.

  Child battering is a common occurrence. Emergency room physicians and pediatricians are alert to this phenomenon which has grown dramatically in the last 20 years. But it seems logical that if an unwanted fetus can be casually flushed down the drain, banging a few heads around is no big event.

  Between 1980 and 1986, child abuse more than doubled. Today more than two million cases of abuse and neglect are reported each year. Many more cases go unreported.

  In this latter half of the 20th Century, startling changes in attitudes have occurred. It’s not easy, but it’s crucial that fact be sorted out from fiction. If permissiveness and abortion-on-demand encourage violence toward women and children, and contribute to mental instability of our youth, we need to know it.

  In the August 14, 1986 issue of OB-GYN News, Dr. Louise Flick states that it’s time Obstetricians consider teenage sexual activity as “…the norm, not an indication of social deviance.” Teenage sexual acts have been occurring for a long time, but to come to the point where we are told that we must accept them as normal tells us something about the moral standards of the age in which we live. It’s highly unlikely that abortion solves anything if it is justified by saying we don’t need to have another child exposed to poverty, child abuse, and mental illness, if indeed, our overall callousness toward human life is the basic problem.

  There are many examples in history, including our own, where poverty and tough times did not lead to abortion, child beating, or children’s mental illness. A case might even be made for abortions being more acceptable in a well-off or purely materialistic society. Today we still enjoy enormous wealth, achieved through the freedom earned by previous generations.

  Almost all concern today is for material well being—for both rich and poor—and little thought is given to
the principles of individual liberty.

  Is it possible that there is a relationship between this attitude and abortion?

  CHAPTER IV

  Cliches of Abortion

  “If abortion is made illegal, back-alley abortions using filthy coat hangers will erupt.”

  This statement is nonsense! I have never personally heard of a case where a coat hanger was used to perform an abortion.

  Even in the 1960s and the early 1970s, prior to Roe vs. Wade, most illegal abortions were performed under sterile conditions, at times in hospitals, but more frequently in clinics, with suction curettes. There were plenty of complications, no doubt about it, and quite possibly some were done with coat hangers.

  But today there are still 7,500 serious complications from the 1.5 million legal abortions performed annually. This is a small percentage but, nonetheless, a significant number. The fact remains that 7,500 maternal complications from abortions do occur. Even if the percentage is smaller than the percentage of complications when abortions were illegal, the numbers are larger.

  That’s not counting the injury to the fetus—which really is the whole point of the abortion debate.

  Bernard Nathanson reports in Aborting America: “Since 1973, the maternal mortality rate for abortion, after the fourth month, is higher than childbirth.”

  The abortion procedure, sadly, has been perfected and will continue to be improved with the advent of drug-induced abortions. The picture painted by the pro-abortion forces, of women sneaking down dark back alleys, entering filthy rooms, and having a contaminated hanger used to perform the abortion, is done only for scandalous reasons. I don’t know anybody who truly believes this would actually happen.