“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)
Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)”
snip http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm#Abortion
Why is Ron Paul against a parent deciding what’s right for their minor child?
Apparently Ron Paul thinks this should be legislated by the States.
That’s a nice Constitutional viewpoint on it’s surface.
However, abortion supporters know that many States will be very liberal in their permission of it if the Federal government completely abandons the issue and leaves it to the States to legislate.
So in practical terms, making abortion issue a States rights issue would result in an ever-expanding abortion business as women seeking abortions would flock to abortion-friendly States.
The founders clearly were of the mind that a moral populace was necessary for a good government, even if the government is a representative one.
Abortion supporters make the issue one about a “woman’s right to control her own body”.
However, since a child in the womb is not it’s mother’s body, as it has it’s own DNA from the moment of conception, the issue is really one of a “mother’s responsibility to her child in her womb”, i.e., she has a responsibility to protect and nurture her child - because her child is completely dependent on her for survival while the child is in the mother’s womb.
Of course, in practical terms, the mother’s primary responsibility is to simply not intentionally kill her own child in her womb.