No, Ron Paul is "personally opposed" to abortion.
He is opposed to Roe v. Wade, but he thinks the states should be able to decide for themselves.
The idea that states should be allowed to decide whether or not the slaughter of babies should be allowed IS NOT pro-life, it is pro-choice at best.
From “On the Issues”
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
As we can see, his voting record is a bit inconsistent.
Where in the Constitution does it state that the Federal Government has the right to usurp the State outside of the 10'th Amendments limitations? You see, that's the slippery slope. Use big federal government to stop one thing we don't like (abortion), but cry foul when the left uses it to usurp a state's decision on something they don't like. Big government is all bad for everybody. It's most certainly a state's decision. In fact, if you look at the founders' intent, and until the 14'th Amendment was enacted (never truly ratified) after the civil war, the Constitution was an agreement between the states and then the individual states' constitutions were between the states and the people. The Bill of Rights (and the Constitution as a whole) was an agreement between the states that none would use the confederacy to restrict those rights amongst the people of each others states. However, the Bill of Rights NEVER was intended to place bans on the people of the states; the Bill of Rights and the Constitution was to place bans on the confederacy (or, now the "Federal Government") as a treaty of sorts. Therefore, the federal government has no right - nor should it - to allow or disallow abortion, it's completely a state by state issue. In fact, if it had been left to the states as Constitutionally mandated, we would have saved millions upon millions of innocent babies by now. But since the left used the federal government to usurp state's rights (as you now propose), state's were left unconstitutionally helpless to stop the slaughter.
Allowing states to ban abortion is a massive improvement over the current situation, which doesn't allow such a ban at state or federal level.
Although Ron Paul recently has said Personhood is a good thing,
he has an inconsistent vision about ending abortion.
http://prolifeprofiles.com/paul