The Greatest Moral Failure of Our Time

Abortion.

If you’ve known me or followed my blog for any period of time, you’ll know where I stand morally on this issue. If you’d like a recap of my views on the morality of abortion, read this article and especially its followup. Today’s post presupposes that abortion is an evil practice, and will focus on candidates’ strategies for ending it.

How Did We Get Here?

Before getting into the pragmatic considerations, I think it’s important to get a little historical perspective. Before trying to figure out how to make abortion illegal, we should understand how it came to be legal in the first place.

First of all, it is important to note that the moral debate over abortion long predates the founding of America, and religion has always played an important role. John Calvin explicitly forbade abortion for theological reasons during the 16th century. Early Christians and Jews opposed abortion, though it was an accepted practice across the Roman Empire (along with infanticide and the abandoning of unwanted newborns).

There was never a time in our nation’s history when abortion was not practiced. During the colonial period, laws regarding abortion were varied and non-specific, but for the most part, it was considered to be murder.

Abortion is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, though many conservatives (including myself) interpret the Fifth Amendment’s clause that “No person shall be deprived of life… without due process of law” to implicitly protect the life of the unborn (one of the reasons why the debate over personhood is so important). Rather, this issue, like all criminal and civil matters, was left in the hands of the states via the Tenth Amendment.

Early on, abortions were rare, restricted primarily by the widespread belief that abortion killed a living person. As the nation expanded, morality relaxed, and abortion became more prevalent. The first laws explicitly restricting abortion were passed (by state legislatures) in the 1820’s. By the end of the 19th century, the rate of abortions was decreasing. Though most states had enacted legislation regulating the practice, abortion opponents realized that laws were not enough. They were  primarily focused on education and religious conversion (an apparently effective strategy).

The tide turned back again in the early 20th century. Public sentiment began to sway in favor of abortion, helped in large part by copious amounts of money being spent on advertising by those who were getting rich off of abortions (just one of the many ways in which abortion and economics are closely related concerns). The laws on the books were largely unenforced, and fewer and fewer people spoke against the practice.

By the late 1960’s, a majority of Americans wanted legalized abortion. State after state passed legislation legalizing abortion (the first signed into law by California Governor Ronald Reagan). Then, in 1973, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade overturned all state legislation, providing abortion on demand in all 50 states.

By that time, those advocating the right to life of America’s youngest citizens were vastly outnumbered. Though Catholics strongly opposed Roe v. Wade, few other Christians stood in the way. Even the Southern Baptist Convention passed resolutions recognizing the legitimacy of abortion in some circumstances; a position that, thankfully, began to change in the 1980’s.

Over the last three decades, the abortion debate has grown increasingly heated, becoming the single most important item on any politician’s platform in the eyes of many voters.

Much of this information comes from Marvin Olasky’s book Abortion Rites, summarized and excerpted here.

What Are Our Options?

Let me be clear… I do believe it is the government’s duty to criminalize abortion. Government is necessary because evil is a reality. Government is a blessing from God intended to restrain evil (Romans 13:3-4), a category into which abortion certainly fits. But there is, as they say, more than one way to skin a cat (also evil).

Ever since the political fight over abortion hit Prime Time, most people within the Pro-Life movement have sought a Federal solution: something that would instantly make abortion illegal in all 50 states by way of Congressional legislation or conservative nominees to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. This is the position of most within the mainstream GOP, just as it was for our last Republican President — who, by the way, was not able to make this happen despite enjoying six years with a strong Republican majority in both houses of Congress.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, advocates removing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to rule in this matter and returning the issue to the state legislatures. He has taken flak from many conservatives for his stance on abortion. He is often accused of not being “pro-life” enough because he does not favor a federal abortion ban. It is commonly claimed (even by those who supposedly favor small government) that the states could not adequately restrain abortion; only a national solution will do.

On the contrary, claims Paul in his 2010 book Liberty Defined (my review here):

I believe it is a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being… Demanding a national and only a national solution, as some do, gives credence to the very process that made abortions so prevalent. Ending nationally legalized abortions by federal court order is neither a practical answer to the problem, nor a constitutionally sound argument.

Certainly states are capable of effectively enforcing laws criminalizing violent behavior. There is no Federal law prohibiting rape or murder, but both are crimes in all 50 states. In America, if you kill somebody (who has been born), you will be prosecuted not by the United States, but by the state in which the crime took place. In fact, the only crimes prohibited by the U.S. Constitution were treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Slavery was added to that list by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Why are we so opposed to the idea of returning jurisdiction of abortion to the states? Do we have so little confidence in our ability to govern ourselves locally?

I suspect the real reason is that we realize that in order for abortion to become illegal in all 50 states, we would have to engage in the difficult work of winning hearts and minds in the court of public opinion — something requiring much more dedication and perseverance than merely casting a vote for a candidate who claims to be pro-life. Few have the fortitude to engage in this duty, which is the fruit of generations of Americans who similarly neglected this responsibility.

It is time for us to realize that Dr. Paul is correct in agreeing with the 19th century pro-life advocates as he writes: “Legislation… will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.” We will never have a “truly moral society” until Christ returns, but we can reverse the moral decline of our nation, if only we realize that the solution is the Gospel, not the GOP.

Who Can We Trust?

Tactics aside, which candidates can we reliably trust to defend the unborn? Surely we aren’t just taking them at their word. After all, even Barack Obama has said (repeatedly) that his desire is to reduce the number of abortions in this country. All four GOP candidates say they oppose abortion. Which have consistent records to back that up?
Newt Gingrich — whose unrepentant serial adultery ought to cast plenty of doubt on his moral judgment — does not generally emphasize the abortion issue. Though he now says that he opposes abortion in all cases, he stated in 1995 that he supported federal funding for abortions in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the health of the mother.

Mitt Romney has similarly (and famously) changed his views on abortion. After previously supporting abortion “rights”, Romney began to describe himself as pro-life. Romney, like Paul, opposes a federal abortion ban, preferring to leave the matter to the states.

Unlike Gingrich and Romney, I do not doubt Rick Santorum’s personal convictions on this matter (though his wife’s views have certainly changed). I admire his willingness to take a stand against abortion. I just think his tactics are poor. Furthermore, I think his record of big government spending reflects a basic lack of understanding of how economics is inseparable from other ethical issues. This is evidenced by his recent defense of (and even bragging about) his vote to fund Title X family planning services. Though he says that his vote was to provide non-abortive contraceptives, the fact remains that funds are fungible, and that one of the beneficiaries was Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America.

Ron Paul was pro-life long before it was cool. His strong convictions stem from an experience during his residency as a young OB/GYN in the 1960’s, in which he witnessed a botched abortion. The baby survived outside the womb, but was left to die by the medical personnel. This deeply troubled him, and led him to conclude that there could be “no consistent moral basis to the value of life” in a society that allowed abortion. As a libertarian physician, he urged other doctors to refuse to participate in abortion regardless of its legality, and to resume the practice of taking the Hippocratic oath, which includes a pledge not to do abortions, and which his med school graduating class (like so many others) had ignored.

From the beginning of his career as a politician, he has repeatedly asserted that personal liberty is impossible where abortion is condoned. This is most notable in his book Abortion and Liberty (available free online here), published way back in 1983, and in this 1981 short essay entitled “Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty”. His strong (yet unheralded) Christian faith and track record on abortion, combined with his pragmatic, Constitutional plan to restrain violence against the unborn ought to give every lover of life and liberty cause to rally behind him.

Where Should We Go From Here?

There is no doubt in my mind that abortion is the greatest moral failure of our time. It is to our generation what slavery was to William Wilberforce’s. It is our culture’s ethical blind spot. If we hope to see the practice end in our lifetime, we must have men like Wilberforce. Principled, charismatic men with unwavering focus, willing to stand up for what they believe in the face of constant ridicule and scorn, able to recruit political allies while rallying passionate grassroots support, understanding that laws are useless to restrain evil that is not recognized as such by the people.

Sound like anyone we know?

Like Wilberforce’s struggle against the slave trade, it may take decades to win the philosophical battle. In the meantime, there are some  practical matters which do fall under the Constitutional authority of the President and Congress which have a much better chance of reducing the actual number of abortions than the GOP’s standard operating procedure. Here are a few bullet points that I think may be within reach in the next few years:

  • A majority vote in Congress combined with the President’s signature can remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court from ruling on something Constitutionally delegated to the States, which is much simpler than repealing Roe v. Wade or passing a constitutional amendment. Abortion would still be legal in some states, initially, but this is a good first step.
  • Legislation that would define “life” as beginning at conception and the term “person” as including all human life (such as the Sanctity of Life Act introduced by Congressman Paul in 2011200920072005, etc.) would provide immediate protection for the unborn under the Constitution without requiring an Amendment.
  • Deregulate the adoption market, making it easier to provide options to mothers with unwanted pregnancies.

For further reading, I highly recommend reading Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue by R.C. Sproul, and Ron Paul’s chapter on abortion from Liberty Defined. This chapter is available for free online here, and I have summarized it here. It’s only a few pages, but is perhaps the most articulate, succinct moral defense of the sanctity of life beginning at conception I have ever read.

The tenth amendment is the foundation of the Constitution.”
~ Thomas Jefferson

Greed and Virtue

“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.” – Thomas Jefferson

In the last week I’ve written about what I see as the purpose of Government, and why I favor a small government. Today, I’ll state the case for why I am a Capitalist, and why the study of economics is so crucially important.

Capitalism is a pretty big buzz word these days. People either love it or loathe it. Unfortunately, most people seem to have very strong convictions one way or the other without having much of an understanding of economics. I know, because I was one of those people for a long time.

Several years ago, I started reading a lot about economics, and I find it absolutely fascinating! I’m certainly no expert, but I am much better informed, more articulate, and have much stronger convictions. I don’t want to go into a whole lot of detail in this post, but I do want to highlight a couple major points that I think are worth considering, and then I’ll point you to some resources where you can do some more digging if you like.

Economics is a Moral Issue

This is one of the biggest things I think conservative Christians overlook. In politics, we tend to think of things like abortion and homosexuality as “moral” issues, while economics is a secondary concern. Therefore, those who are often classified as “values voters” focus most of their time (and opinions) on these emotional issues, giving economics a backseat.

Our liberal friends, on the other hand, understand very well that economics is a moral issue. Many of them rightly show concern for the poor, seeking things like economic prosperity and health care for the marginalized. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that, by and large, their intentions are good, but I tend to differ substantially with them on how best to improve the condition of the poor.

The net result is that in large part, Progressives have successfully framed the great economic “bottom up” vs. “top down” debate in their own moral terms. It seems that most people — including many professing Capitalists — have accepted the idea that capitalism favors the wealthy, while things like welfare and universal health care favor the working class. I would argue that, in reality, it is the elite who ultimately benefit from Socialist economics, while free markets are in the best interest of all citizens, regardless of their economic class.

What I would like to see is for many more conservative Christians to give serious study to economics. When they do, they will see that abortion, gay marriage, and all the other “social” issues they care about are really inseparable from economics, which I’ll address in upcoming posts. We need to be able to clearly articulate not just the differences between Marxist, Keynesian, and Austrian economics, but also to be able to tell people what kind of Capitalists we are. Which leads me to my next point…

Greed is Bad

One would think this should go without saying, but it doesn’t. Many capitalists, even Christians, agree with Gordon Gekko from the 1987 movie Wall Street:

Where does this sentiment come from that greed is good; that capitalism is based on greed? Basically, it comes from a misunderstanding of what the 18th century economist Adam Smith called “self-interest”. On first reading, there may not seem to be much difference between “self-interest” and “selfishness”, but in reality there is a world of difference. Smith’s philosophy, outlined in his book The Wealth of Nations (published in 1776), was very nuanced (here’s a good introduction), and included a robust understanding of ethics and virtue, in which altruism went hand-in-hand with self-interest.

Another influential philosopher, 20th century author Ayn Rand, contributed heavily to the idea that greed is good. She perverted Smith’s concept of self-interest. In her philosophy of Objectivism, altruism and faith are a detriment to society, and selfishness is a virtue. Her books continue to gain in popularity — particularly her novel Atlas Shrugged, which was made into a movie last year. While there is much that is good in Rand’s defense of capitalism, her philosophy is totally incompatible with the teachings of Christ.

Conservative Christians need to be able to state the moral case for compassionate capitalism, which stands in stark contrast to the greed and cronyism rampant in the government and many corporations today. Jay Richards’ book Money, Greed, and God (my review) makes this distinction clearer than any other resource of which I’m aware. Ron Paul also contrasts his view of economics with Rand’s Objectivist philosophy in his book End the Fed.

“We’re All Keynesians Now”

This phrase originated in the 1960’s with economist Milton Friedman, but is popularly attributed to President Richard Nixon. The phrase refers to the economic philosophy of John Maynard Keynes, and is probably correct. Nowadays, though, most people don’t have a clue what Keynesianism is.

Economics in the 20th century is largely defined by the debate between Keynes and Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek (both of whom were capitalists, by the way). In a nutshell, Keynes believed that the best way to stimulate economic growth was for the government to control interest rates, and pump money into the economy to stimulate spending (think TARP). Hayek, on the other hand, believed that such government actions caused artificial economic “bubbles” which would inevitably burst, leading to a “boom and bust cycle” ultimately detrimental to the economy. Instead, he wanted markets to be totally free. Failing businesses must be allowed to fail, and there must be a predictable system of risk and reward for savings and investment.

The great irony today is that nearly everyone is a Keynesian, of some sort or another, including the vast majority of neo-conservatives and “Tea Party” candidates. The 2010 elections brought many representatives to Congress who vowed to cut spending, end the bailouts, and promote free markets, but nearly every one of them advocates military expansionism and interventionism (Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum all fall into this camp as well). What many fail to realize is that this is merely Keynesianism in a different form. One of the biggest parts of Keynes’ philosophy was that military spending was one of the greatest ways to bring a country out of a recession. In his chapter on Keynesianism in his book Liberty Defined (my review), Ron Paul pushes back strongly against this:

Most conservatives in Congress don’t think of themselves as supporters of Keynesian economics. But in truth, most are strong advocates of a special kind of “military” Keynesianism while being critical of liberal Keynesian politics of taxing, spending, and regulating the domestic economy. This involves another kind of stimulus of spending money on the military-industrial complex rather than purely domestic sectors like schools and infrastructure… Military Keynesianism is every bit as harmful as domestic Keynesianism.

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum (and Barack Obama, for that matter) can all truly claim to be Capitalists, but they are just different shades of the Keynesian variety. On social issues they have some differences, but none of them are willing to make any significant cuts in our nation’s budget — especially not where it might damage the powerful military-industrial complex. The more I read about Austrian economics, the more convinced I am that it’s time we all stop being Keynesians! Part of this means realizing that we can’t claim to favor small government and free markets if we insist on trying to maintain our worldwide military empire.

Educate Yourself

If you’re in my generation, chances are pretty good you didn’t study economics in high school or college. If you did, you almost undoubtedly were taught the Keynesian model. If there’s one thing I’d like you to take away from this post, it’s a desire to immerse yourself in the study of economics, particularly the Austrian school. But there’s a lot to wade through… where to begin?

First off, if you haven’t seen them, these videos made by the folks at EconStories.tv are an excellent (not to mention catchy and humorous) primer to the debate between Keynes and Hayek. Watching them will be 15 minutes VERY well spent!

After that, if you only read one book, I’d suggest the Richards book I mentioned above, Money, Greed, and God. I really can’t recommend it highly enough!

If you really want to learn, though, you need to go to original sources. Read the Austrian economists. Most of their work is very well written, and easier to understand than you might expect. I’d start with these, in this order:

When it comes to the current election cycle, I think it is worthwhile to read books by the candidates. I’ve not yet read Rick Santorum’s book, but have checked out books by Romney, Gingrich, Obama, and Paul. From an economics standpoint, there is no comparison. Ron Paul is not a great speaker, but his understanding of economics and his ability to lay out a clear and plausible plan for economic recovery is exponentially greater than any of his opponents, and comes through brilliantly in his writing. You owe it to yourself to read his books, especially Liberty Defined and End the Fed. I guarantee you’ll be glad you did, even if you don’t agree with him.

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” – Samuel Adams

Book Review: Liberty Defined

“Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom” by Ron Paul

In the run-up to any presidential election, it is not uncommon to see new books hit the market from the pens of those who are in the running. These books often take the form of memoirs, introducing readers to the candidates on a more personal level; at other times a politician will actually put in writing what he or she intends to do if elected. While I have nothing against biographies, I prefer the more policy-oriented texts from those who desire my vote.

Thankfully, Ron Paul’s books tend to fall into this latter category, and his latest is no exception. This book is quite different from his previous works, though. In it he writes more broadly, outlining his views on a wide variety of topics (arranged alphabetically from “Abortion” to “Zionism”) rather than focusing on a single topic à la End the Fed. This book will serve well as an introduction to Dr. Paul, whose message continues to gain popular support, though it has remained remarkably consistent through over 30 years of public service.

Rather than comment on the individual “essential issues”, I wanted to analyze Paul’s political philosophy as a whole, based on the arguments presented in this book. To do this, I asked three important questions that would help me (and perhaps others) decide whether this is a man I would support for President. The questions:

  1. Is his policy consistent?
  2. Are his objectives desirable?
  3. Can it work?

Consistency

Nobody likes a flip-flopper. Often a politician will hold a position on an issue so long as it is politically convenient, only to switch positions later. Sometimes this happens because he or she is too easily swayed by special interest groups or popular conventional wisdom (which is often no wisdom at all). Other times, it happens because a candidate’s political vision has no logical internal consistency. When politicians have supported positions that are mutually exclusive or policies that are working toward opposing ends, they eventually must backtrack.

One thing that struck me when reading this book was how consistent Paul’s logic is. On every issue his position is well thought out, clearly articulated, and organized around one central objective. His introduction says of this book and of his philosophy in general: “Above all, the theme is liberty. The goal is liberty.” Paul desires a government that exists solely to maximize personal liberty, and his commitment to his ideas has been unwaivering, even when they are very unpopular.

Love him or hate him, at least you know what you’re getting with Ron Paul.

Desirability

Of course, it’s possible for someone’s logic to be perfectly consistent yet still be based on undesirable objectives or false premises. So a reader (or voter) must ask: Do I want what Ron Paul wants?

On the surface, most everyone would agree that freedom is a good thing. Few would say that they desire less liberty. However, when it comes to personal responsibility — the flip side of the freedom coin — objections begin to be raised.

Ron Paul would have lovers of liberty realize that a government that allows its citizens the freedom to succeed must also allow them to be free to make poor choices and be responsible for their consequences. In business, this means letting companies fail (no matter how large or small) as the market regulates itself. Paul is an enthusiastic proponent of the “Austrian School” of economics. In his words, “the Austrian School champions private property, free markets, sound money, and the liberal society generally”.

What does the “liberal society” look like? Protecting individual freedom, according to this model, requires the federal government to be involved as little as possible in the lives of citizens, which necessitates a willingness to let individuals fail should their free choices result in harm to themselves. Thus, Paul is in favor of deregulating things like drugs and prostitution, while ending government welfare, unemployment, and a host of other programs that keep citizens reliant on the State.

Far from being a compassion-less society, this is a society that makes it easier for those in need to receive aid from family, friends, neighbors, religious organizations, and other local sources, which are far better suited to meet needs. Of course, this also leaves the responsibility for meeting those needs in the hands of compassionate individuals and communities, which is why our Founding Fathers were so insistent that a free society rested entirely on the morality of its people.

Two areas in which Paul encounters much resistance are products of his consistent approach to the size of the government. His philosophy of limited government requires ending the monopoly on education held by nationalized schools, and drastically scaling back the single largest hub of federal power and spending: the military. Strangely, many of the biggest proponents of free markets (who tend to support Paul’s economic policies) are also staunch supporters of public schooling and military empiricism — two things that inhibit market freedom more than nearly anything else. So people tend to look less favorably on Paul’s positions on competition for schooling and non-interventionist foreign policy.

Even in areas where people disagree with Paul, his arguments are compelling. Citizens from all points on the political spectrum owe it to themselves to consider Paul’s case. At the end of the day, though, your agreement with him will depend on how much freedom you really want (and want others to have). Real liberty, almost totally free from government regulation, can be a scary thing. Are we ready for that kind of responsibility?

Feasibility

Having considered his objectives, what about the premises on which Paul’s philosophy is based? One of the primary critiques of classical liberalism/libertarianism has long been that it is based on a Utopian fantasy; that it sounds good in theory, but can’t work in practice. Is this true?

In some senses, yes, it is true. The “Great American Experiment” (as Alexis de Toqueville called it) which sought to provide liberty for all was an imperfect system because it counted on the morality of sinful people. But the founders of that political system, which Paul seeks to reclaim for America, acknowledged its imperfection and made provision for compensating for Man’s inherent sinfulness by giving us a very limited government with many checks and balances, codified in the Constitution and protected by a Bill of Rights.

Besides, political systems are not to be judged against perfection, but against their competing alternatives (a point fleshed out by Jay Richards in Money, Greed, and God). There is no such thing as a “perfect” human government. So if one agrees that Ron Paul’s objectives are better than the alternatives, the proper question is whether it is achievable.

Paul’s book contains a mix of optimism and pragmatism. While he truly believes that his policies would work, he realizes that implementing them immediately would be too drastic a change from where we are now. Thus, he suggests several practical intermediate solutions that are steps in the right direction, which could be done upon his election (for instance, seeking to give public schools over to local control, rather than eliminating public schooling altogether).

Whether it could work may be moot, however. Unless more Americans come around to Ron Paul’s way of thinking, we may never get a chance to see whether his policies can work in 21st-century America. Even if he is never elected, though (and he is considered a long shot for the White House), Paul will not consider his endeavor a failure. He writes as a modern-day Cicero; hopeful to help save the Republic, but committed to passing on a legacy of ideas to educate future generations about the blessings of liberty and peace and a system of government that honors the rule of law. Should the United States prove to have passed the point of no return with regard to the loss of personal liberty, Paul hopes that his message will help preserve the vision of the founders of our nation to be revived again some day.

So, can Ron Paul’s policies work? I suppose that depends on whether or not one believes that America has crossed her Rubicon.

This is a book every politically interested citizen should read. Buy it here.

Ron Paul on Abortion

Yesterday I started in on Ron Paul’s new book Liberty Defined: The 50 Urgent Issues That Affect Our Freedom. So far it’s been an interesting read, though not as in-depth as I might have liked. Basically, it includes fifty short chapters with an overview of Paul’s libertarian views on the issues.

It was intriguing, though, to read the first chapter, which is on abortion (the issues are presented in alphabetical order). A gynecologist before entering the world of politics, Dr. Paul is staunchly against the practice of abortion, but his arguments against it are completely areligious. Instead, his pro-life stance is rooted in classic libertarian ideas of personal liberty, which also extends the concept of “pro-life” to opposing the death penalty and “preventive” wars of aggression. This has put him at odds with people all over the political spectrum.

Here is a summary of some of his biggest points:

  • There is no consistent moral basis for defending abortion as a “right”.
  • The federal government has no authority to rule on abortion as a right, as the Constitution lists only four crimes which come under federal jurisdiction: counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery. Abortion’s legality should be left to the states.
  • For the same reason, pro-life groups that seek a federal ruling to end abortion nationally “give credence to the very process that made abortions so prevalent.”
  • Laws and legislation will never be able to fully end the practice of abortion. “Only a truly moral society can do that.”
  • Deregulating the adoption market would reduce the number of abortions, as people would have far fewer hoops to jump through to give birth mothers options.
  • People cannot be consistently pro-life if they affirm things like torture, capital punishment, nation-building, and wars of aggression. It is an irony that most who so strongly oppose abortion now approve of the rest of these things, and vice versa.
For more, you can read the entire chapter online here. For MUCH more, you can read his 1983 book Abortion and Liberty, which is also free online here. He’s certainly been consistent in his position. In the opening line of that book he writes, “Abortion is the most fundamental issue involving natural rights and individual liberty.”