Once again I agree with Ron Paul - well sort of ...

Ron Paul is dead on in this piece on the need to define the sanctity of life in America, not the first time that I've agreed with him, much to my chagrin.   However, I'd guess where I'd part ways with him is on how we do this, and the implications for our domestic, economic and social policies.  I see no role for government telling a woman what to do here; having said that, I'm generally anti-abortion except in early stage pregnancies (say first trimester) and where the life of the mother is at stake.  I hear a lot of talk about incest, rape or other situations, but I think these can easily fit within that first trimester.


Ron Paul on Life

On a broader topic, that of life and the sanctity of it in general, and the need to have an agreement in place for our society to lay a moral compass for our actions - absolutely.  Having said that I'd move to two places - war and poverty.

On war - what is different between a late term abortion and sending one of our citizens to some hell hole and having them either kill or be killed?  Usually it's economics or some misguided principle of nationalism that we haven't fully though through.   I'd say it's incredibly hypocritical to be virulently anti-abortion and pro war simultaneously.

On poverty - if life is sacred, should we be focused on creating an environment where those alive can live a fulfilling, meaningful life without the pains of hunger, homelessness and sickness?  Shouldn't our public policies be maximizing the happiness of the maximum number of people we can?  How can we, the greatest nation and people ever to have existed, live with ourselves with 16% of the nation in extreme poverty, >25% of our children going hungry at night, and the degree of homelessness we have today?  I'm staggered by the evident hypocrisy of those who would try to impose their will on women through so called "pro-life" policies and dogma, yet allow this condition to perpetuate and grow worse.