Don't waste your time talking about a nobody like Paul. The action is between Hilliary and Hussein Obama.

Actually, this is not fair to Paul. While he's very much anti-abortion, as a principled libertarian he believes the matter should be left to the states. And I've yet to hear him say anything about restricting access to contraception (though not financed by government). Finally, let's give him credit as the most anti-imperialist (with the possible exception of Kucinich) of all the candidates from either party.

I should add: As a principled federalist libertarian.

Life beginning at conception is religious dogma, how does this become a libertarian issue?
It seems to be totally anti-libertarian to take catholic doctrine and make it constitutional law.
If Jane Roe has a problem conscience now she needs to seek the absolution of a priest not interfere with my liberties.
Ron Paul is a total hypocrite on the issue of limited government.

Let's see. We have the US government committing genocide in the Mideast while at the same time taking away our most basic civil rights here at home. We also have a bevy of presidential candidates so anxious to curry favor with the Israeli Lobby that they are willing to attack Iran.

Excepting Ron Paul these very same candidates have also voted for or voiced support for Bush's most egregious attacks on our constitution.

Into these dire straits wades David Corn with his utterly silly comment about Ron Paul and his supposed opposition to abortion abortions.

What year is this, 1988 or 2008?

Is Corn's real concern about Dr. Paul's position on abortion or is it a smokescreen for something else entirely. I have never read any article written by Corn in which he advocates the cutting off of aid to I Israel as Paul does. Maybe Paul's position of Israel is considered a little too extreme for Corn.

Corn, after all, is Rupert Murdoch's favorite leftist. Does anyone really think that he would have gotten all those lucrative pundit jobs on Fox if he had really been a truly impartial authority on the Mideast.

Most libertarians don't tell other libertarians what they can do with their bodies.

Mr. "states rights" wants to amend the constitution to outlaw all abortions. That is not states rights, just another lying politicians serving up his opinions as potential laws.

Nothing libertarian about that.

Good thing Ron Paul will never break double digits on the national stage.

Do the Paultard’s really believe any politician can save us from the evil government?

It makes as much sense as the religious idiots that swear the constitution and America were founded on "Christian values" so they want to rewrite the constitution?

The arguments are too absurd to address. Their words and acts are juxtaposed to their very ideals.

How can anybody take them seriously?

As a Pro Choice Ron Paul supporter I can give you one person's take on the question:

"While a majority of Americans believe that abortions performed in the first trimester should generally be legal, a majority also believe that second trimester abortions should generally be illegal"

Many Pro Choice Americans do not even know that under the "viability" provision that roe v wade supports abortions into the late second trimester.

We are a Nation deeply divided over the issue of abortion, and always will be; But in the words of my 84 year old Roman Catholic grandmother: "The Federal Government has no business being in my crotch!"

I am a libertarian and I am also pro life. I believe in liberty for all living humans and I happen to believe that unborn children have natural liberty as well. I am an atheist and don't base my pro-life position on religion. Just trying to stay consistent. You can't give liberty to one set of people, but deny it to others.

The quote "While a majority of Americans believe that abortions performed in the first trimester should generally be legal, a majority also believe that second trimester abortions should generally be illegal"

was from an LA times 2000 survey article.

The reason David Corn mentioned the IUD is that it prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg, meaning it would become illegal under any law that defines life as beginning at conception.

Current data:

A woman should be able to get an abortion is she wants one, no matter what the reason, up until the time the fetus is viable, that is, live on its own
42%

Abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances, such as when a woman’s health is endangered or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest
46%

Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, even if the mother’s life is in danger
9%

No answer / Don’t know
3%

Source: Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs / Time
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,503 registered American voters, conducted from Nov. 12 to Nov. 19, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

via:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/americans_split_on_abortion_availability/

["The arguments are too absurd to address..."]

Does this mean that you're about to stop spending so much time and effort addressing them?

If that's the case, then your INaction will speak much more loudly than your words.
If not, then one must conclude that you're long on rhetoric and short on substance.

["How can anybody take them seriously?"]

It's obvious that you've taken Ron Paul quite seriously up to this point, given your massive output of anti-Ron Paul postings here, and around the blogosphere.

How can a libertarian be opposed to abortion? The chain of reasoning goes like this:
-A fetus is alive (basic biological fact)
-A fetus is a member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens (from the definition of species, no living individual can change species)
-All living humans deserve the status of legal persons (this is a belief and can be debated, the previous two are facts and cannot be)
-All legal persons have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property (belief)
-If they conflict, one person's right to life takes moral precedence over another's property rights (belief)
-Thus, a fetal human's right to live overrides the mother's property right to her womb until such time as that womb is no longer necessary to preserve the life of the fetus.
You don't have to agree with this belief system, but it is internally consistent and thus should not be ridiculed.

Paul shares this belief and it has guided his legislative actions according to the following set of priorities:
-Best is to recognize the unconstitutionality of a federal law on abortion and return it to states under the 10th amendment. This would be the focus of his Presidency's abortion policy
- Failing that, if we are going to insist on having a federal law on abortion, that law should be made by the elected members of Congress instead of 5 of 9 unelected judges. Paul's introduced bills represent his view of what that legislation should be, according to the belief system outlined above. If enough Americans agreed that that was a morally appropriate law, their elected representatives would pass it and the result would be "less unconstitutional" than rule by judicial fiat such as now exists.

The argument that morality cannot be legislated is simply ridiculous, law is not now nor has it ever been anything other than collective moral judgement. Society agrees that behavior x is immoral and it is made illegal.

Yes Ron Paul does not believe the Federal Government has any say on abortion. I do not believe my tax dollars should go towards someone else's abortion as well. If Ohio says abortion is illegal then it is because the people voted on it. If California says first term abortions are legal it is because the people spoke. If NH says third term abortions are legal then so be it. Some states have death penalties and some don't. Same idea if you ask me.

As far as your remark about the Department Of Education it all needs to go. Since the founding of the Department Of Education we have gone down hill. We are a super power and third world nations are smarter then most Americans today.

Why should my local land tax dollars (which should go directly to my school district) go to Washington and then be re routed to where they think it needs to be spent?

You can bash the man as much as you want but please be logical about it.

["It makes as much sense as the religious idiots that swear the constitution and America were founded on "Christian values" so they want to rewrite the constitution?"]

Hey, if the liberal position that the Constitution is "A Living, Breathing Document" which can be re-interpreted according to contemporary government/court whim holds sway, then you must accept that, at Some point, it will be re-interpreted in a way that liberals won't like.

["I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people."]
--Al Gore, 2000--

If someone wants to rewrite the Constitution, then the Constitution provides a process to do just that.
It's called "The Amendment Process".
The "Living Document" premise that calls for simple "re-interpretation" to implement changes is a prescription for disaster, and that should be obvious to even the most casual observer.

"smart fearless Journalism"...did you go to the FoxNews school of inflammatory remarks. wow! First, and last time I will be on this site.

Wow, I never knew that being a Libertarian meant we all had to buy into the exact same ideas. In fact I always thought the opposite.

Being Anti-Abortion is entirely consistent with being a Libertarian. If you believe that a fetus is a living human being, then that fetus is endowed with the same inalienable rights that the rest of us have. Aborting it would equate to murder. Irregardless of whether or not you agree with Congressman Paul on when life begins, you can't say that his view is inconsistent with Libertarianism if he believes the fetus is human.

First and last time I read this blog.

Look up your dictionary for the definition of "Genocide", moron.