Nick Gier has been a stalwart proponent of murdering the pre-born. In a recent editorial in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, he writes:
Following the principle of self-ownership of the body, libertarians traditionally have strongly supported a woman’s right to an abortion. But a “strongly pro-life” Paul is primarily responsible for the change in the party’s position on this issue.
That is not true. There has been a strong pro-life position among libertarians from the very beginning. Ron Paul is a vocal supporter of not murdering the pre-born, but that doesn’t make him the creator of that position.
He, along with other anti-abortion Libertarians, affirm the principle of “non-aggression,” and they believe that abortion is a fatal act of aggression.
The murder of the most innocent among us who have no ability to protect themselves: that is a fatal act of aggression.
This position begs the question of whether or not the fetus is a person, which our moral, legal and religious traditions have answered in the negative.
Clearly Gier is not ignorant, so he’s misdirecting again.
In 400 BC the famous Greek physician Hippocrates of Cos (considered the “Father of Medicine”) wrote what remains the most enduring tradition in all of medical history: The Hippocratic Oath. In it’s original form, it reads: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”
The original intent of the Hippocratic Oath lays in its devotion to the preservation of individual human life: pre-born and post-born.
For almost 2500 years, physicians have subscribed to the Hippocratic Oath as the guidelines of medical ethics. It’s only in recent history that abortion and euthanasia have been considered acceptable.
For example, the ancient Jews believed that if the fetus is a threat to the mother’s life, it is guilty as a “pursuer” under the negative commandment which demands that one may not “take pity on the life of a pursuer.”
He’s obfuscates again. A “threat to a mother’s life” is not the same thing as an inconvenience to the mother.
Citing the ancient Jews, he skipped the Jewish passage from Exodus 21:22-23 —”If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life…”
If someone hits a pregnant woman and there’s no injury to the unborn child, the father takes the attacker to court. However, if the baby dies, the attacker is to be put to death because he forfeited the life of the unborn child. The ancient Jews saw this as a capital offense, not a choice to eliminate inconvenience.
Because of pressure from Paul and his fellow Christian libertarians, the party platform now reads: “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” But Republican state governments are constantly intervening and violating the rights of women to their own bodies.
No, they are intervening to prevent the murder of the innocent. These words are from the Declaration of Geneva (1948) following the Nuremberg Code of Ethics in Medical Research: “I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”
It is Nick Gier who is on the wrong side of history; and on the wrong side of ethics. Murder of the preborn is just that: murder. And trying to put lipstick on a pig doesn’t make it any more attractive.