***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate

[gobbomom]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
woman hating (aka pro-life) candidate

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just funny to me that you think his reason for being pro life is because he hates women. As an obstetrician I think his views on abortion carry more weight than most people including most women.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with both these points. Characterizing the abortion issue as being gender-specific is overlooking the true meaning of Roe v. Wade. I think Ron Paul actually gets it: abortion is an issue of privacy that is best handled at the state level.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with both these points. Characterizing the abortion issue as being gender-specific is overlooking the true meaning of Roe v. Wade. I think Ron Paul actually gets it: abortion is an issue of privacy that is best handled at the state level.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty clear the guy doesn't know the libertarian rebuttal to any of his positions, just based on the fact that he thinks empty rhetoric like 'woman hater' isn't going to get torn apart. I'd love to see if he can hold his own in a gun control debate. That's something I haven't witnessed in 2.5 years of reading this forum.

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
woman hating (aka pro-life) candidate

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just funny to me that you think his reason for being pro life is because he hates women. As an obstetrician I think his views on abortion carry more weight than most people including most women.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with both these points. Characterizing the abortion issue as being gender-specific is overlooking the true meaning of Roe v. Wade. I think Ron Paul actually gets it: abortion is an issue of privacy that is best handled at the state level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to lose your vote Gobbomom, but Paul doesn't view it as an issue of privacy, although that is very important and the reason he doesn't vote for these trafficking underage girls for abortion between states laws or whatever. He views it as an issue of life and a violent crime against it. It's not like the woman is able to just cut the feeding tube, she's literally killing the baby. (Sorry, the abortionist is killing the baby.)

As far as Federal laws go though, he'd like Roe v. Wade overturned and it to return to the states. There's basically nothing within his power as President though on this issue. He'll probably come down as moderately pro-choice during his tenure as he'll veto the only anti-abortion related laws that do get to his desk because they'll be ones like interstate laws for trafficking chicks going for abortions.

[gobbomom]

[ QUOTE ]


Not to lose your vote Gobbomom, but Paul doesn't view it as an issue of privacy, although that is very important and the reason he doesn't vote for these trafficking underage girls for abortion between states laws or whatever. He views it as an issue of life and a violent crime against it. It's not like the woman is able to just cut the feeding tube, she's literally killing the baby. (Sorry, the abortionist is killing the baby.)

As far as Federal laws go though, he'd like Roe v. Wade overturned and it to return to the states. There's basically nothing within his power as President though on this issue. He'll probably come down as moderately pro-choice during his tenure as he'll veto the only anti-abortion related laws that do get to his desk because they'll be ones like interstate laws for trafficking chicks going for abortions.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for the clarification. I assumed wrongly about his opinion based on his Libertarian stances, obviously. I'll admit it makes me view him skeptically on this issue. I'm still undecided between Paul and Obama, and it's their viewpoints on individual rights that I'm using to decide my support.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as Federal laws go though, he'd like Roe v. Wade overturned and it to return to the states. There's basically nothing within his power as President though on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... you know the Pres appoints Supreme Court Justices, right?

No way he would appoint a judge who didn't want RvW flipped, cause you know he wants to keep the gov't out of your business, but your uterus belongs to him.

(In defense of Paul, pretty much every Rep will appoint about the same judges on this issue, so if you're going to vote for a Rep this shouldn't be a Ron Paul deal breaker for you, but it can be a Rep deal breaker for you.

If you're pro-choice/women you can't rationalize your Rep on the grounds that the Pres can't make abortion unconstitutional because he does have power on the matter through SCJ appointments, you can however suggest that there are other issues which take precedent in your opinion, that's a value judgment).