by Ron Paul
In a free society, of course, the patient would be the sole determiner of who provides medical care, not a government licensing agency. The court’s majority, (Roe vs. Wade) by designating that only licensed MDs could perform abortions, obviously thought more of the medical monopoly than the value of pre-born human life.
Today paramedical personnel are performing a growing number of medical procedures. The truth is that non-physicians are capable of doing sterile abortions at less cost.
For some reason, the political community insists on involving the physician in this process, gaining intellectual and scientific sanction for what is going on.
If we must have abortions, at least let someone else do them. A physician must have a schizophrenic attitude toward medicine and life to deliberately destroy human life without a second thought. Leave this nasty business, if it must be done, to other trained personnel.
A grim statistic of our times is that in some cities there are more abortions than live births…
A grim statistic our times is that in some cities (Washington, D.C., for instance) there are more abortions than live births and physicians who abort more fetuses than deliver babies.
Physicians—don’t glamorize, condone, sanction, glorify or justify the nasty business of abortion by participating. That’s what the proponents want—that’s what makes it “o.k.”; a sign of medical approval helps the participants to morally accept the procedure. Proponents need it to be a minor medical procedure, not a major moral consideration where the responsibility falls on them.
Obstetrical medical literature, prior to 1973, never dealt with the scientific technology of killing a fetus. Since 1973, the articles are commonplace, including articles that tell how to minimize risk to the mother when the fetus is in the late second trimester (a time when the infant’s weight is two pounds or more.
And it’s all done as casually and routinely as describing how to remove a toenail, without blinking an eye. It is this unbelievably cold attitude regarding the act of abortion, not the laws themselves, that reveals the moral crisis of the day. It strikes me as tragic that great medical universities spend time and energy instructing young physicians to efficiently kill a fetus.
Abortion will never disappear completely, since a perfect moral society is unachievable. But the physician, supposedly trained and motivated to cure disease and preserve life, should cease participating in this gruesome business of aborting small fetuses with suction curettes and dismembering larger ones in various medical procedures.
And it’s all done as casually and routinely as describing how to remove a toenail…
If the procedure is to be performed with “magic” pills, let the burden fall on the drug companies, the paramedics, and the patients who can count out the necessary number of pills just as easily as a physician.
Law reflects the morality of society. Fine tuning of society comes from the moral character of the individuals within the society, not from abundant laws. The more difficult and complex the problem, the more it ought to be left to a voluntary solution without government interference.
Some may respond and argue that this is the exact reason there should be no restrictions whatsoever regarding abortion. This would be true if abortion were not the initiation of force or an act of aggression. Even if promiscuity were the main reason prompting abortion—and legalizing abortion is proven to encourage illegitimate pregnancy—this is not the reason to ban abortion.
The purpose of law is not to impose on society what one individual might think is a proper moral position for the people. The purpose of the ban on abortion is to prohibit aggression—the minimal requirement for a civilized society to exist.
The purpose of law is not to impose on society what one individual might think is a proper moral position for the people.
The problems of promiscuity and immoral habits are not the responsibility of the government, but rather of the individual, the family, and the church.
Convenient abortion involves an act of violence and is related to the problem of promiscuity, but only the killing of the fetus should be dealt with by law. Abortion on demand, especially for teenagers at the exclusion of parental responsibility, places the problem of promiscuous sex in an amoral climate.
Legal and medical sanctions of casual abortion for illegitimate and inconvenient pregnancy make a moral statement regarding the pregnancy and disposal of the fetus.
Law should never deal with teaching individuals right and wrong, nor deal with habits of sex, religion, politics, or philosophy. Law must be based on the moral principle that all initiation of force is wrong.
If innocent pre-born life is denied any legal consideration, the social problems that contribute to unwanted pregnancy are compounded by the signal sent by legalized abortion. Abortion violence covers up the consequence of irresponsible behavior and accentuates the problem.
Proponents who argued for legalization said it would not increase illegitimate pregnancy. But it did. It became a convenient, after-the-fact contraceptive, and many young girls who used to have one illegitimate pregnancy during childhood, now end up with multiple pregnancies and abortions, some frequently in one year.
It has been my personal observation in practicing obstetrics that many parents accept abortion unenthusiastically and with reservation. They generally feel overwhelmed by the influence outside the home regarding sex from TV, movies, books, and music. They express resentment that their role as parents as primary teacher of moral standards has been challenged and undermined, making them feel helpless and unhappy, but resigned, nonetheless, to going the next step and accepting abortion as the solution to the problem stemming from a moral code not of their making.
Parents express the same frustration when they have a child on drugs. I’m sure there are feelings of parental guilt as well, since outside social influence is dominating, and the standards they advocate for their children are not heeded.
Legalized abortion-on-demand confirms to society, and especially to young people, that the moral code accepts sex-on-demand as the norm. Abortion is a wrong, not a right.
Abortion is either right or it is wrong. It cannot be neither right nor wrong. And it cannot be both right and wrong. If it is wrong—which I believe it is—our society suffers if it is legalized, because the loss of respect for pre-born life affects respect for life in general. The fire of disenchantment with life is fueled by a policy that condones the killing of the small and helpless.
A society that aborts its children by the millions is more prone to allow its sick and indigent to live homeless in the streets, because the value of all life is diminished.
A society that aborts its children by the millions is more prone to allow its sick and indigent to live homeless in the streets because the value of all life is diminished. Twenty to twenty-five percent of our children live in poverty. Forty percent of the occupants in shelters are homeless children. The problem is directly related to the disintegration of the family, which victimizes children the most.
Ours is also a society that permits carnage of millions in senseless political wars. It’s a society that is more likely to spend billions on weapons that serve only the interest of the arms manufacturers and have nothing to do with the defense of the country.
Life is of such reduced value that the children and many adults who experience the resulting hardships escape reality with the senseless use of mind-altering drugs (legal and illegal).
It is a society that conscripts its children to die in senseless war, or to discipline them in a national service program that is supposed to substitute the state for the family as the molder of character.
We now have a system turned topsy-turvy. Government is supposed to protect property, but by promoting the welfare state, it steals from one group and passes it on to another. Government is supposed to protect life, but it does the opposite by encouraging abortion, and at times, even financing it.
Some might argue that my reasons for not legalizing abortion are
the same reasons drugs ought not be legal. Still some will argue that lack of laws regarding the use of drugs makes a moral statement condoning their use. No one has ever shown that laws regarding personal behavior work. That is not the purpose of law in a free society.
Government is supposed to protect life, but it does the opposite by encouraging abortion, and at times, even financing it.
Legalizing drugs may or may not encourage drug use, but even if it did, it would not justify government interference in personal habits. If violence results from the use of drugs, that should be dealt with by proper legislation. But most of the violence associated with drugs occurs because drugs are illegal, and their obscene profits prompt the epidemic of violent crime that is seen in all major cities and most of the minor ones in the country today.
Drug usage is a victimless crime where only the participant who makes a decision to use drugs is harmed. That individual is a victim of his or her own bad judgment, but there is no victim, in the criminal sense, where a crime is committed. In abortion, there is a victim, the human fetus.
Government cannot protect us from ourselves.
Anti-abortion laws should not be written because of illegitimate pregnancies or as a statement regarding sexual behavior. They should exist only to curtail violent behavior. Without laws against abortion, the violent act of abortion is endorsed, and that, plus a subtle acceptance of the reasons abortions are desired and performed on-demand compound the problem—lack of respect for the value of human life.
Government cannot protect us from ourselves.
Still some will argue that lack of laws regarding the use of drugs makes a moral statement condoning their use. But no one has ever shown that laws regarding personal behavior work, and besides, that is not the purpose of law in a free society.
Personal habits of health, religion, philosophy, and politics are to be totally unregulated by government. Permitting free choice says nothing about condoning the choices individuals make in any of these areas. Government cannot and should not ever try to protect us from ourselves. Restrictions against aggressive behavior is all that is justified.
Although legalized abortion compounds the problem, attitude changes won’t come as a result of any particular law. The question we must answer is whether, in a society that properly condemns murder and theft, we will also look upon the killing of a human fetus as an act of aggression.
About the Author
Ron Paul, M.D.
Ron Paul and his wife have five children and seven grandchildren. Born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 1935, Dr. Paul is a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University School of Medicine. For five years he was a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard.
Elected to Congress four times (1976-1984), Dr. Ron Paul is a national leader for sound money, the free market, Constitutional government, personal liberty, a strong defense, and a noninterventionist foreign policy. He was a member of the House Banking Committee, where he focused on ending Federal Reserve manipulation of the dollar and instituting an honest monetary system. He was also co-founder with Senator Jesse Helms of the U.S. Gold Commission. As a result of the Commission, the U.S. Treasury once again started minting gold coins after fifty years, one of the few Constitutional functions of government. He was the Libertarian Candidate for President in 1988, traveling more than 700,000 miles to spread the message of Liberty.
Ron Paul is editor and publisher of The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report, distinguished counselor to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and practicing physician in Lake Jackson, Texas. A successful entrepreneur, Ron Paul founded FREE, the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a free-market educational foundation. A current project of FREE is the National Endowment for Liberty and its production of a weekly television series entitled “At Issue”.
His many honors include: the Taxpayers’ Best Friend Award from the National Taxpayers Union, the Liberty Award of the American Economic Council, the Mises Institute’s Grose-close Prize and Leadership Award, the Man of the Year Award from the World Gold Association, the Leadership Award of the Coalition for Peace Through Strength, the Distinguished Service Award from Americans for Constitutional Action, the highest rating ever given by the Council for a Competitive Economy, the Torch of Freedom Award from the Young Conservatives of Texas, the Leadership Award from the Conservative Caucus, and the Guardian of Freedom Award from the Young Americans for Freedom.
His books include The Ron Paul Money Book; Abortion and Liberty; Freedom Under Siege; Challenge to Liberty; The Case for Gold; Gold, Peace, and Prosperity; and Ten Myths About Paper Money;
Sources
1. Chicago Tribune. April 24, 1988, Sec. 6, p 3.
2. The New York Times. April 23, 1989, p 22.
3. Libertarian Review Foundation. 1985. pp 107-8.
4. Los Angeles Times. August 6, 1989.
5. The Christian Observer. January 1989, p 19a.
6. The Wall Street Journal. June 13, 1989.
7. Crisis Magazine. January 1988.