My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

Ok, misleading title, there is really only one. Abortion.

From my understanding he would not institute some sort of national ban on abortion (please correct me if I am wrong), but would allow the states to make their own rulings regarding this matter.

This is definitely not the biggest issue for me, but I am a man. My concern lies in the reaction so so many females will have to this one issue. It doesn't bother me that he is a Christian (I am agnostic), and it doesn't bother me that he abhors abortion (I am pro-choice). What bothers me is that he greatly reduces his electability by running on this issue at all.

While he may gather support among Christian conservatives, I think he alienates a large portion of the folks that would generally be swayed by the rest of his platform.

Thoughts?

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

If he advocated universal healthcare he'd probably get a few more votes too. I don't agree with the stance that he's taken on abortion either, btw.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, misleading title, there is really only one. Abortion.

From my understanding he would not institute some sort of national ban on abortion (please correct me if I am wrong), but would allow the states to make their own rulings regarding this matter.

This is definitely not the biggest issue for me, but I am a man. My concern lies in the reaction so so many females will have to this one issue. It doesn't bother me that he is a Christian (I am agnostic), and it doesn't bother me that he abhors abortion (I am pro-choice). What bothers me is that he greatly reduces his electability by running on this issue at all.

While he may gather support among Christian conservatives, I think he alienates a large portion of the folks that would generally be swayed by the rest of his platform.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it bother you? If it's a State's Rights issue, it means exactly that, the individual states make the decision.

I personally see no problem with the States making their own decisions on anything. Let the people vote.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

To me it seems the difference is that his opposition to government-funded health care falls in line perfectly with the rest of his platform.

The abortion issue seems out of place to me, but please no long-winded explanations of why the rights of a fetus trump those of the mother. Either position is easily argued. What I'm interested in is thoughts of how this affects his electability as well as possible refinement of my understanding of his plans on this matter if elected.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

DblbarrelJ, imo this concerns the rights of the individual trumping the will of the majority. While I strongly believe state's should have much more leeway in deciding how to govern their state, I don't think they should have the right to legislate on matters of personal liberty.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

My big concern with Paul is his lack of compromise and his lack of understanding or caring about the practical consequences of his actions.

Abortion is a great example. Making it entirely states rights will have the practical effect of increasing government regulation in people's private lives, and will result in the banning of abortion in some states.

I find it rather bizarre that he places total emphasis on a highly debatable constitutional point - which many scholars more learned than Paul disagree with - without considering the practical consequences it will have for people's lives.

I have a feeling that if the US had overwhelming intelligence that they were about to be nuked, he would veto doing something "unconstitutional" to stop it in order to make a point.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
My big concern with Paul is his lack of compromise and his lack of understanding or caring about the practical consequences of his actions.

Abortion is a great example. Making it entirely states rights will have the practical effect of increasing government regulation in people's private lives, and will result in the banning of abortion in some states.

I find it rather bizarre that he places total emphasis on a highly debatable constitutional point - which many scholars more learned than Paul disagree with - without considering the practical consequences it will have for people's lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think these are valid criticisms that I would very much like some more learned Paul supporters to touch on.

[ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling that if the US had overwhelming intelligence that they were about to be nuked, he would veto doing something "unconstitutional" to stop it in order to make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

This however, is a completely unreasonable assumption imo. You seem to verge on sarcasm here, which is intellectually dishonest. I have no doubt that Ron Paul would take any real threat to the US very seriously.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
DblbarrelJ, imo this concerns the rights of the individual trumping the will of the majority. While I strongly believe state's should have much more leeway in deciding how to govern their state, I don't think they should have the right to legislate on matters of personal liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost every piece of state legislation involves personal liberty in some form or another.

Whats the difference in the State of Hawaii refusing people the liberty of possessing a firearm, or the state of Georgia refusing people the personal liberty of not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle, and a state deciding by a democratic process that they want to outlaw abortion?

Anytime government moves, it directly effects your personal liberty in some way.

Edited to add If you don't like the abortion laws in your state, you can move to one you do.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
My big concern with Paul is his lack of compromise and his lack of understanding or caring about the practical consequences of his actions.

Abortion is a great example. Making it entirely states rights will have the practical effect of increasing government regulation in people's private lives, and will result in the banning of abortion in some states.

I find it rather bizarre that he places total emphasis on a highly debatable constitutional point - which many scholars more learned than Paul disagree with - without considering the practical consequences it will have for people's lives.

I have a feeling that if the US had overwhelming intelligence that they were about to be nuked, he would veto doing something "unconstitutional" to stop it in order to make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who thinks that Paul's stance on abortion isn't due to his personal beliefs is kidding themselves. He's got so much right, though, that I'm still going to vote for him, not because it matters but I because I feel good for a day.

As to your nuke attack claim, LOL. Unless you mean he would veto a measure to invade a country other than the one that poses the threat.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
My big concern with Paul is his lack of compromise and his lack of understanding or caring about the practical consequences of his actions.

Abortion is a great example. Making it entirely states rights will have the practical effect of increasing government regulation in people's private lives, and will result in the banning of abortion in some states.

I find it rather bizarre that he places total emphasis on a highly debatable constitutional point - which many scholars more learned than Paul disagree with - without considering the practical consequences it will have for people's lives.

I have a feeling that if the US had overwhelming intelligence that they were about to be nuked, he would veto doing something "unconstitutional" to stop it in order to make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there obviously couldn't possibly be a Constitutional solution to the problem. That damned piece of paper is gonna get us all killed.....

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]


Edited to add If you don't like the abortion laws in your state, you drive to one that allows abortion. Hell, make a romantic weekend getaway out of it. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DblbarrelJ, imo this concerns the rights of the individual trumping the will of the majority. While I strongly believe state's should have much more leeway in deciding how to govern their state, I don't think they should have the right to legislate on matters of personal liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost every piece of state legislation involves personal liberty in some form or another.

Whats the difference in the State of Hawaii refusing people the liberty of possessing a firearm, or the state of Georgia refusing people the personal liberty of not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle, and a state deciding by a democratic process that they want to outlaw abortion?

Anytime government moves, it directly effects your personal liberty in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see that it has to be this way. I don't see that state's rights should trump constitutional rights. But I admit it's a slippery issue, which is also easily argued on both sides of the coin.

[ QUOTE ]
Edited to add If you don't like the abortion laws in your state, you can move to one you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

My concern with this is that abortion laws may not seem relevant to someone until the issue actually comes up. I don't see that people will want to pack up and move just on this one issue. Also, this would allow more freedom to those wealthy enough to take advantage of moving or traveling to another state. Many that request an abortion are impoverished and may find it quite difficult to excercise freedoms that others "enjoy".

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Edited to add If you don't like the abortion laws in your state, you drive to one that allows abortion. Hell, make a romantic weekend getaway out of it. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

A VERY good point imo!

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

One of my concerns with Ron Paul is that people who work for him distributed racist propoganda appealing to the lowest common denominator to get votes. I feel Ron Paul does this in his speeches on issues such as tax, health care, government and so on. For example, when he described Bill Gates as a good example for why it is safe to hand over government power to private power I almost puked.

And generally on an sidenote I don't find his meek kind old man persona very convincing.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My big concern with Paul is his lack of compromise and his lack of understanding or caring about the practical consequences of his actions.

Abortion is a great example. Making it entirely states rights will have the practical effect of increasing government regulation in people's private lives, and will result in the banning of abortion in some states.

I find it rather bizarre that he places total emphasis on a highly debatable constitutional point - which many scholars more learned than Paul disagree with - without considering the practical consequences it will have for people's lives.

I have a feeling that if the US had overwhelming intelligence that they were about to be nuked, he would veto doing something "unconstitutional" to stop it in order to make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who thinks that Paul's stance on abortion isn't due to his personal beliefs is kidding themselves. He's got so much right, though, that I'm still going to vote for him, not because it matters but I because I feel good for a day.

As to your nuke attack claim, LOL. Unless you mean he would veto a measure to invade a country other than the one that poses the threat.

[/ QUOTE ]


I guess I'm one of the ones who is kidding himself. I think its because he believes state issues should be left up to the states, not the federal government. Thats basically his entire platform. If he wanted his stance to be based on his personal preference (Abortion = bad) it would sound more like "I want to make abortions illegal!" not "I want to let the states decide social issues."

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
One of my concerns with Ron Paul is that people who work for him distributed racist propoganda appealing to the lowest common denominator to get votes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi RedBean [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My big concern with Paul is his lack of compromise and his lack of understanding or caring about the practical consequences of his actions.

Abortion is a great example. Making it entirely states rights will have the practical effect of increasing government regulation in people's private lives, and will result in the banning of abortion in some states.

I find it rather bizarre that he places total emphasis on a highly debatable constitutional point - which many scholars more learned than Paul disagree with - without considering the practical consequences it will have for people's lives.

I have a feeling that if the US had overwhelming intelligence that they were about to be nuked, he would veto doing something "unconstitutional" to stop it in order to make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who thinks that Paul's stance on abortion isn't due to his personal beliefs is kidding themselves. He's got so much right, though, that I'm still going to vote for him, not because it matters but I because I feel good for a day.

As to your nuke attack claim, LOL. Unless you mean he would veto a measure to invade a country other than the one that poses the threat.

[/ QUOTE ]


I guess I'm one of the ones who is kidding himself. I think its because he believes state issues should be left up to the states, not the federal government. Thats basically his entire platform. If he wanted his stance to be based on his personal preference (Abortion = bad) it would sound more like "I want to make abortions illegal!" not "I want to let the states decide social issues."

[/ QUOTE ]

HR 1094

So Paul wants the federal government to define life as beginning at conception. Of course this isn't meant to try and force states to ban abortions since states decide whether or not it is a crime to commit murder.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

Didn't know about that JayTee. It's at odds with what he's been running as though, and statements he's made in interviews and debates. Very interesting.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

Doesnt the Unborn Victims of Violence Act basically state that life start at conception?

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't know about that JayTee. It's at odds with what he's been running as though, and statements he's made in interviews and debates. Very interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he had been born 20 years or so later we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

why?

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

As someone who is adamantly pro-choice, I agree entirely with Ron Paul's position on abortion.

The federal government has demonstrated itself to be very, very bad at "protecting" civil liberties, and we have a War on Drugs, a patriot act, and UIGEA laws to show for it. If you want liberty, you have to be willing to go the full mile and not ask for protection of the practices that you happen to like. If you're pro-choice and your state is going wacky, deal with the state, not the federation.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

I saw some comments on concern Paul wouldn't compromise. Initially, I felt the same, but recently I've seen a lot more of Paul's talk is advocating PHASED removal of programs, not just kill the programs immediately. I think this is a bit of compromise from him

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
As someone who is adamantly pro-choice, I agree entirely with Ron Paul's position on abortion.

The federal government has demonstrated itself to be very, very bad at "protecting" civil liberties, and we have a War on Drugs, a patriot act, and UIGEA laws to show for it. If you want liberty, you have to be willing to go the full mile and not ask for protection of the practices that you happen to like. If you're pro-choice and your state is going wacky, deal with the state, not the federation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government went on a major propoganda campaign against federal governments, namely, because federal governments have a say in the activities of private power. Interesting how many ways one can approach the issue.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]

I have a feeling that if the US had overwhelming intelligence that they were about to be nuked, he would veto doing something "unconstitutional" to stop it in order to make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly a president can act in self-defense to protect the country from an enemy without the consent of the Congress, and preemptive self-defense is no different from any other kind of self-defense. If the US found itself in the situation of Israel in 1967, I don't doubt that Paul would strike first without a declaration of war if that gave us an advantage militarily.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

Isn't Paul's states rights platform on par with most of his Republican opponents? Even Giuliani says he'd nominate a judge who would interpret the Constitution and overturn Roe v. Wade. So I don't see how this issue would cost him votes more so than his stances on the war and national security among Conservatives.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]

Hi RedBean [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey guy! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DblbarrelJ, imo this concerns the rights of the individual trumping the will of the majority. While I strongly believe state's should have much more leeway in deciding how to govern their state, I don't think they should have the right to legislate on matters of personal liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost every piece of state legislation involves personal liberty in some form or another.

Whats the difference in the State of Hawaii refusing people the liberty of possessing a firearm, or the state of Georgia refusing people the personal liberty of not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle, and a state deciding by a democratic process that they want to outlaw abortion?

Anytime government moves, it directly effects your personal liberty in some way.

Edited to add If you don't like the abortion laws in your state, you can move to one you do.



[/ QUOTE ]

If abortion was illegal in your state, and you went to another state to have one, would that be considered illegal? Would it be like going to a different state to buy booze and cigarettes because their taxes are lower?

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many that request an abortion are impoverished and may find it quite difficult to excercise freedoms that others "enjoy".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not too concerned with how "easily" people can exercise certain freedoms, but I agree that abortions are most important for poor people who can't afford to raise a child. When they are forced to have these kids it creates problems that everyone else has to deal with, paramount amoung them are increased crime rates.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
As someone who is adamantly pro-choice, I agree entirely with Ron Paul's position on abortion.

The federal government has demonstrated itself to be very, very bad at "protecting" civil liberties, and we have a War on Drugs, a patriot act, and UIGEA laws to show for it. If you want liberty, you have to be willing to go the full mile and not ask for protection of the practices that you happen to like. If you're pro-choice and your state is going wacky, deal with the state, not the federation.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think you'll have any more luck dealing with a state bureaucracy than you do with a federal level one? Violence is wrong within this arbitrary enclosure but if you make it into a smaller arbitrary enclosure then violence becomes ok? Love it or leave it becomes a valid argument if you only have to leave the state not the country?

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

It's easier to change things on the state level.

Anyways, if he lives in any state that isn't on the bibel belt, abortion would be legal, which is good for him.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

I don't understand what your problem is here. Currently, we have two moral view points and one of those is being violently forced on the populace by the federal government. Paul wants to change it so that the states can decide which moral view point is best for them and their people. Where's the bad?

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's easier to change things on the state level.


[/ QUOTE ]

Any proof?

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what your problem is here. Currently, we have two moral view points and one of those is being violently forced on the populace by the federal government. Paul wants to change it so that the states can decide which moral view point to force on their populace

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
If he advocated universal healthcare he'd probably get a few more votes too. I don't agree with the stance that he's taken on abortion either, btw.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you support using force to make people follow one group's moral views?

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what your problem is here. Currently, we have two moral view points and one of those is being violently forced on the populace by the federal government. Paul wants to change it so that the states can decide which moral view point is best for them and their people. Where's the bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, this is not necessarily correct. If my state's moral viewpoint includes allowing slavery, the federal government has the right to enforce an end to it. There are certain civil rights and moral stances your state doesn't have leeway on. Abortion could very well be one of them ad the courts have decided it is for now. (As we all know, th reasoning is weak and specious at best an the court has hypocritically failed to apply the same "penumbras" to a host of other rights).

But, if you allow each state to define personhood, then you allow each state to define civil rights, and that is against the constitution.

natedogg

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
To me it seems the difference is that his opposition to government-funded health care falls in line perfectly with the rest of his platform.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does.

[ QUOTE ]
The abortion issue seems out of place to me, but please no long-winded explanations of why the rights of a fetus trump those of the mother. Either position is easily argued.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not out of place and it has nothing to do with the actual abortion issue itself. You have two opposing and incompatible moral views and three options on how to deal with them:

1. Federal laws banning abortion (supporting side A)

2. Federal laws banning the banning of abortion (supporting side B)

3. No federal laws. Let the states make their own decisions. (supporting neither side)


#1 and #2 both involving forcing one group's morals on anothers. Option #3 is the only view consistent with the libertarian position.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what your problem is here. Currently, we have two moral view points and one of those is being violently forced on the populace by the federal government. Paul wants to change it so that the states can decide which moral view point to force on their populace

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Not disagreeing, but since one moral view is going to be forced in the populace either way, it's better for the states to decide which one is more suitable for them.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what your problem is here. Currently, we have two moral view points and one of those is being violently forced on the populace by the federal government. Paul wants to change it so that the states can decide which moral view point is best for them and their people. Where's the bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, this is not necessarily correct. If my state's moral viewpoint includes allowing slavery, the federal government has the right to enforce an end to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

With slavery, the initiation of force is black and white. With abortion, it is not.

Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
 

I think I'd like Ron Paul 100x better if people on here didn't refer to him as "Dr. Paul"... that just sounds pretentious and retarded imo.