In his forthcoming book, Liberty Defined, Congressman Ron Paul explains why he is pro-life:
On one occasion in the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, while visiting a surgical suite as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately two pounds.
It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice.
Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue.
That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant born was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted.
But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child’s life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die.
These were human lives. There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances.
Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I’ve never understood how an act of violence, killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right.
Read the rest. While I appreciate Paul’s pro-life stance, I’m sad to see that he puts the liberal adherence to federalism ahead of the child’s life. If the child is a human being, then they should have the same national civil right protections as the rest of us. The federal government has a responsibility to protect all it’s citizens—including those still in the womb.