Thursday, September 20, 2007

Ron Paul Views License as Liberty. Life Loses.

Although I've never agreed with Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy, some of his answers at the Values Voter Debate on Monday evening should cause great alarm among pro-life and pro-family supporters. He showed a lack of understanding of true liberty, which explained his "No" answer on these two questions:
Bobby Schindler: My beloved sister Terri Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death in the land of abundance while the world watched – because she was disabled and unable to speak for herself. Would you pursue or support legislation that would protect the cognitively disabled and vulnerable people from being dehydrated to death by having their food and water taken away?

Dr. Rick Scarborough:
Will you agree to prosecute the broad range of illegal adult pornography rather that just the most extreme material, and prosecute all violators of federal obscenity law, including the new, so-called "white collar pornographers"?
(For a transcript of questions, see http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57685)

How could Ron Paul--widely hailed as a pro-life candidate--refuse to support legislation to protect innocent life? He explained his reasoning (libertarian more than conservative) in his closing statement:
We cannot go to Washington to dictate to us how we improve our personal behavior. You don't dictate--you don't legislate virtue.... You do that from your family, your friends, and your neighbors, but not from the federal government.
We come back to a fundamental question: What is the role of government? I agree with Rep. Paul that our federal government has greatly exceeded its proper role. But the Bible teaches that God established government to restrain and punish evil. (See Genesis 9, Romans 13, and I Peter 2:13-14.)

Moreover, the liberty that Rep. Paul prizes was given to man by God at creation. God gave us the ability to decide our own actions. But God placed limits on those actions. True liberty exists only within the boundaries of morality. No porn addict can legitimately claim he is exercising freedom. He is a slave to his own sinful desires. Although governments cannot break that slavery--only the blood of Jesus does that--governments have the responsibility to curtail it as much as possible to restrain evil, promote good, and protect the innocent victims of pornography.

As Alan Keyes has said, "No one has the right to do wrong."

We don't want to take this idea to the extreme of having government dictating our faith, but we must understand that every law is an attempt to dictate someone's idea of virtue. It is wrong for Mexicans to flood our southern border to take advantage of our benefits without putting back into the system, so we made it illegal. It is wrong for other nations (or terrorists) to attack us, so we have a strong national defense. It is wrong to murder, so we have laws against it--unless you are not yet born or are disabled.

Before Monday, I thought Ron Paul was firmly pro-life, but now I know better.

Monday night he made it clear that he doesn't believe the government has any business protecting the disabled from "being dehydrated to death by having their food and water taken away."

So the list of announced presidential candidates with a clear and consistent pro-life record includes: Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, John Cox, Alan Keyes, and Hugh Cort.

Wesley Wilson

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live targeted pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Disclaimer: Let Her Live does not endorse or oppose any political candidates, and political views expressed on this blog represent only the personal views of their authors.

Labels: , , ,

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ron Paul believes those issues are STATE issues - NOT federal.

Christians have become fixated on giving the feds too much power over the states.

This is exactly why Ron Paul opposed the Marriage Amendment - it's a stste issue.

We can no longer afford to turn our freedoms (and money) over to the federal government.

September 20, 2007 at 8:56 AM  
Anonymous LibertyMark said...

If government takes away a person's free will to choose good over evil, then evil has not been restrained in any way.

Only the saving grace of our Redeemer can make alive a heart that was dead to sin. Christians who advocate laws against vices are creating an illusion of good by forcing people at the point of a gun to act as if they are Christians even though they are not.

The government is not the Holy Spirit. It cannot change hearts with force. Especially the Federal government. That's all Ron Paul was say with his "no" to those questions. The Federal government is not authorized to take any action in these areas. Taking action in areas that are not authorized by the Constitution makes the Federal government a lawless, arbitrary thing that is not a force for good. These things need to be addressed at the state level.

September 20, 2007 at 9:04 AM  
Blogger Wesley Wilson said...

Thanks for the feedback.

I too regret the loss of federalism and desire to return to it.

Libertymark, the whole political arm of the pro-life movement is based on the notion that murder should be against the law. Scripture affirms that repeatedly.

We can argue whether it should be at the federal level or state level, but Ron Paul would not support legislation to make murdering disabled people through dehydration illegal.

That's how he answered the question, and it's not a pro-life answer.

Wesley

September 20, 2007 at 9:26 AM  
Anonymous LibertyMark said...

I'm not 100% sure of the context, but I think these questions were about what they would do if they were President. That implies that the questions were talking about legislation at the Federal level, which is why Ron Paul would say "no".

Ron Paul is an OB/GYN who has delivered thousands of babies. I believe in my heart that he is 100% dedicated to life. He just doesn't want the Federal government to have the power to bring the hammer down on all the states with a one-size-fits-all "solution" to these problems. Because, if you want the Federal government to have the power to mandate YOUR favorite position, then you have automatically given your opponent the power to mandate THEIR favorite position when they get in power. Thus, different groups of people bitterly fight with each other over access to this power.

Respectfully,

LibertyMark

September 20, 2007 at 9:41 AM  
Blogger Wesley Wilson said...

I see your point.

Theoretically, I would prefer all crimes except for crimes against the nation, such as treason, to be defined and outlawed at the state level. But murder must be outlawed, so politicians at the state level should try to do it there, and those at the federal level should try to do it there.

No matter where it is done, babies must be saved. It would have been better for every state to ban slavery, but some would not, so the only solution was a federal solution. (I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of the Civil War here.)

I believe it is the duty of every politician at every level to do what he can to restrict and end the evil of abortion, whether it is with the most desirable means or not.

Unfortunately, the reserved powers of the states and the people have been largely usurped. While we try to restore the constitutional model, let's use the means we have in the broken system we have to do what must be done.

Thanks,
Wesley

September 20, 2007 at 10:42 AM  
Blogger Daniel Wilson said...

We have to get an amendment to the US Constitution for life. Going back to the pre-Roe situation in which the states decided would be a step in the right direction, but murder is murder. It needs to be illegal in all 50 states.

If, as pre-Roe, New York, California and a few other states allow murder, that's still unacceptable.

The Constitution gives us the best form of government man has ever devised. But that form is so that we can govern RIGHT. The form of government is not an end in itself.

September 20, 2007 at 11:53 AM  
Blogger The Grahams said...

I too would support Mike Huckabee (were I eligible to vote). But if the Republican nominee were pro-choice, would you vote for them or support a third-party candidate?

Andrew

October 5, 2007 at 11:32 AM  
Blogger Wesley Wilson said...

Good to hear from you, Andrew. First, I do not consider these candidates to govern reliably pro-life:

* Romney (recent politically-convenient conversion)

* Thompson (pro-abortion senate campaign in the 90's)

* McCain (McCain-Feingold, sabotaging conservative judges)

* Ron Paul (won't be actively pro-life at the federal level, because he thinks it's a state issue)

That said, I could easily support most of these men in the general election, as they are generally pro-life. (I have problems with Ron Paul's foreign policy, but that's another issue.)

Only Giuliani is truly pro-abortion. To answer your question, I'm still wrestling with it, but I don't think I could vote for him.

Yes, Hillary would be worse, but the President leads his party, and we need at least one party to stand for decency, morality, and life. Right now that's the GOP. A pro-abort Republican President could damage the country more, because he could compromise the party that otherwise would be the moral alternative. I think I would go third party, and I think enough others would also that the conservative third party candidate would get at least as much support as Ross Perot did.

I don't think we will have that situation. The conservatives are splitting their support among several candidates, while the social liberals have one clear choice. After Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina conservative Republicans will unite around the leading conservative. We had better.

Wesley

October 5, 2007 at 12:18 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home