Recently, I noticed a troublesome consequence of the Ron Paul candidacy for president. An entire generation of men (and potentially women) who worship at the altar of Paul, and who consider themselves to be the highest arbiters of what constitutes freedom, may have been sucked into his backward views on a woman’s right to choose. They’ve demonstrated that while they claim they are the most independent-minded voters in the nation, they actually follow their unquestioned leader down every path he chooses. In other words, many of them have become completely comfortable with the idea that women do not have the same rights to liberty that men do. Given that his views on abortion, and even birth control, are some of the most regressive in this country, it is difficult to see how this damage can be undone.

I have the annoying misfortunate of being related to a Ron Paul sycophant. My Facebook newsfeed is often awash with Ron Paul propaganda even today, despite the dear leader’s “suspension” of active campaigning. His self-proclaimed “army” of followers is highly invested in the so-called delegate strategy, and despite the odds, simply not willing to let go. So, recently, a new type of post began to show up in my Facebook feed: anti-choice propaganda. One post involved an artist’s rendering of an alleged 12-week old fetus, looking for all the world like a day-old baby, cupped in a hand with the caption, “Does this look like a bunch of cells to you?” This post was coming from a young man who had traditionally supported women’s reproductive rights, that is, until Ron Paul started preaching.

I seriously doubt this is the only individual to morph his views to match his infallible idol. When I searched the Internet for similar anti-women’s rights Paulites, they were easy to find in comments sections across many different sites. For example, one comment read, “I think he is fighting for the individual rights of the baby, not the woman.” Another read, “If, as you crazily claim, that Ron Paul thinks that women aren’t people, then why doesn’t he qualify his anti-abortion position to exclude females in the womb?” Or there was, “Dr. Paul has enlightened me that abortion is wrong because it is taking a life.” They went on and on like this.

Just how repressive is Ron Paul when it comes to women’s right to choose? He has repeatedly forwarded proposals such as the “Sanctity of Life Act” which states that life begins at conception. People who want to give personhood rights to zygotes from the moment egg meets sperm typically want to outlaw most forms of birth control, because they do not just prevent the joining of egg and sperm, but rather prevent implantation of a zygote in the uterus…

Continue Reading: How Many Otherwise Socially Liberal Men Have Abandoned Reproductive Rights?

This is exactly the reason I can’t support Ron Paul in any fashion, even though I agree with his anti-war stance and drug policy. I also disagree with his views on civil rights legislation and his call to end government entities like the EPA and Department of Education. Well, I guess I disagree with most of what he says, but he is an entertaining little man. His “followers” are maddening, though.

From both ends of the political spectrum, his acolytes constantly lament the “sheeple” who drink the kool-aid of big government and feed the war machine. Their air of superiority and condescension instantly turns me off, even if I am inclined to agree with a portion of what they say. It is not persuasive to denigrate those who you would try to “enlighten.” To win the Info Wars, one shouldn’t sound so much like the drones that you so ardently despise. 

3 thoughts on “How Many Otherwise Socially Liberal Men Have Abandoned Reproductive Rights?

  1. I think you captured very well what troubles you about Ron Paul and the Libertarian crowd. I do like a few of the Libertarian positions, yet I come from a mindset that a society’s greatness is measured in how you take care of the less fortunate. If Ron Paul had his way, we would live in Potterville and not Bedford Falls. We cannot be totally on our own as using the 80/20 rule, the 20% would rule the roost and the others would be screwed. And, doing away with the EPA is about the most irresponsible position that could be taken by anyone. It is the only thing standing in the way of the petro-chemical and oil/ gas industries from killing more people or causing even more cancers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s