Here’s the vid:
Ron Paul reflects the tortured attitude most Americans have toward the moral quandary of abortion after rape. He is, like most Americans, ultimately inconsistent and conflicted. He believes that innocent human life exists from the moment of conception–and he would destroy that life in the case of a rape if necessary. His method for coping with that is to shroud the matter in fog and say, “We don’t know if the victim is pregnant, so we will administer estrogen which can have both a contraceptive and abortifacient effect and then choose not to know or think about what we may or may not have killed.”
I disagree with Dr. Paul on this, of course. His action is the equivalent of saying “There’s a rustling in the bushes. It may be a bear or it may be a hunter. I will fire into the bushes and then not look to find out what, if anything, I have shot.”
So is this a deal-breaker for me should Dr. Paul be on the ballot?Two points: First, there’s no deal to break since I have never been committed to voting for him. I’ve merely found him to be refreshing in contrast to the other candidates and he does not advocate any policies that involve me in supporting mortal sin.
Second, I don’t think this would dissuade me from voting for him since he advocates no policy here. He simply gives the (perfectly predictable) gut answer to what he, personally, would do in a crisis/rape situation. As critics have perpetually reminded me, we are not looking for a saint or a flawless moral theologian. True. I’m just looking for somebody who will not enact policies worthy of the everlasting fires of hell. Paul still does not seem to me to be advocating any gravely and intrinsically evil policies, so I would still consider him. He wants to get rid of Roe and turn the matter over to the states like a typical libertarian. Unlike every other GOP candidate, I think he means exactly what he says. It’s not the final answer to the problem, but it’s certainly a start.