I don’t want to get into a long, drawn-out discussion of abortion.* I know where that can lead.

The world is not going to come to 100% agreement on abortion. However, we can come to 100% agreement on other choices, such as economic freedom, civil liberties, the right to free speech, and the right to choose to do anything else as long as it’s not harmful to anyone or in violation of their rights.

In fact, I just learned that in the 1980s, the Libertarian Party had bumper stickers saying: “Libertarians: We’re Pro-Choice on Everything.” There have also been groups such as “Libertarians for Life,” and abortion is not part of the official LP platform because of the nature of the question*. My point is that for those who think that being “pro-choice” is the most important freedom available to women, I ask what other choices, if any, they believe women should have:

• What about the choice for women to do what they want with your own money, that they earn through their own labor? With the new year, you’ve now begun working solely for the government again, and you won’t have “Tax Freedom” until May or so. You won’t be able to keep a dime of what you make between now and then– it all goes to Uncle Sam. Is that choice? Is that freedom?
• What about the women (or men) who have found that the best treatment for their terminal illness is medical marijuana? Should they be allowed to use it? Many pro-choicers are in favor of federal regulations on abortion; should states be allowed to pass laws regarding medical marijuana that go against the federal government? If yes, how do you explain that inconsistency?
• What about the choice to see democracy at work and vote to select the person who’s best to run the country, not necessarily the people who have been chosen as best by the current two-party system? What about the choice to hear other ideas besides those espoused by our current two parties? Why do current Democratic presidential candidates not wholeheartedly support allowing third parties into debates? What are they afraid of? Don’t we live in a democracy, and aren’t they pro-choice for voters?
• What about the choice to do what you want in the privacy of your own home, as long as it doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights… and even if other people may disagree with it?
• What about the choice to not hand out taxpayer subsidies to huge corporations? Isn’t that a choice that pro-choice members of Congress should also exercise, and give that money back to the people?
• Many women are close to their families. However, if one has relatives in Cuba, she can’t legally visit them. How is that pro-choice? Democrats often argue in favor of visas for family members rather than visas based on skills because they say it’s a “pro-family” position… what about those with Cuban, rather than Mexican or Central American, relatives? What about their families? What Democratic lawmakers allow people to have a complete choice in what countries they visit?
• If I live in a blue state and especially in an inner city and I want to protect myself from the violent criminals which I may find breaking into my house, I have two choices: break the law or move away. I often don’t have the choice of legally protecting myself with a firearm, even thought I might be trained in its use. This is especially critical for women, and it is more than a choice, many people would say it’s a right. Many people who would not allow this right do agree with abortion at a late stage “to protect the life of the mother.” What about the mother whose house is being broken into?

*For those who may care, here is my opinion on abortion. Personally, I don’t think abortion can be legislated at the federal level, since whether you agree or disagree with it depends almost solely on whether you think that the fetus in question is a person or not– if you do think it’s a person, you think that it has rights just as you and I do as people. If you don’t see it as a person, you think that the mother’s right to choose what to do with her body trumps anything else. These two sides pretty much can’t be reconciled as long as there is a debate over when life starts, and so a federal option either way just isn’t feasible. The current system isn’t right, either, because no matter when you think life starts, Roe vs. Wade allows for abortions to be performed up to birth, even a day before a due date, and that obviously is just not right. Babies can live on their own after five months in the womb. I think both sides take it too far, and the issue is just too divisive.

Tags: libertarians, libertarian, pro-choice, Blog for Choice Day

The filer, an immigration attorney named Eugene Flynn, explains:

“I agree with Ron Paul about 80% of the time. The problem is the other 20% is the most important to me, that is, immigration… Ron Paul offers no way to allow those illegally in the U.S. to get right with the law. Instead he wants to spend more and more money to create bigger bureaucracies to secure our borders to protect us from needed workers… We need a guest worker program NOW! One way to help get it is to defeat the (immigration) restrictionists such as Ron Paul.”

Hmm, that concern over a legal path to immigration wouldn’t have anything to do with Flynn being an immigration attorney who presumably advises said immigrants on these legal paths?

My thoughts:

• This is further proof to those who say that Ron Paul is a Republican, not a libertarian. This could help him in that vein as far as the GOP goes.
• Eugene Flynn may just be counting on Ron Paul getting the GOP nomination and not even running for Congress again, but for the whole enchilada– leaving the race wide open. Apparently, a Democrat hasn’t even bothered to file for the general election yet, Ron Paul’s seat is so safe.
• What does the Cato Institute have to say?

As for my position on the issue, it’s glaringly obvious that the only reason this is Flynn’s #1 issue is because he’s an immigration attorney. He doesn’t even live in RP’s district– he lives in Dallas. Sure, an eventual guest worker program would be nice when our economy is better, but for now, we do need a fence and we do need to get rid of subsidies and handouts for illegal immigrants, which encourage them to come here (one big component of this is birthright citizenship, which I believe should be abolished for those not legally here in the first place). Once we do that and see a return to sound money and free market economics, our economy will be booming and everyone will be begging to institute a guest worker program for all our new businesses, or perhaps we can just allow people to come freely and not subsidize them. But, it’s going to be difficult to get the Democrats to let go of their precious subsidies for what is becoming their most important voting base. So, it will be difficult and that’s what everyone needs to focus on right now.

Tags:Ron Paul 14th Congressional district, Ron Paul libertarian, Ron Paul Eugene Flynn, Libertarian candidate files Ron Paul congressional district

The LP celebrated by saying that it will assist (in a small way) the efforts of those of its members who would like to see Ron Paul get the Republican nomination.