This Ron Paul snippet of policy tells you exactly what his idea of freedom, liberty and life would be as President:
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.
Although Paul does not here engage in some of the most extreme rhetoric employed by some in the anti-abortion cross, he does refer to the fetus as the “unborn”. Again he does not use the word “murder” in this policy statement, he does say “that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected.” In his statement he imputes Rights upon the fetus, although no mention of Fetal Rights are found in the Constitution. Paul generally takes a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but in this case seems to bend the Constitution for his own personal distaste for abortion. He is adamantly anti-abortion. Just in case you think his followers don’t know this bit of truth about Ron Paul I found this online.
But wait, wait, don’t tell me! Here is a document that shows us that Paul does indeed use the word “murder” when referring to abortion. Here are his written thoughts on abortion:
Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.
What would the appropriate punishment for someone guilty of this “crime against humanity?”