Ron Paul - clear on abortion

[j555]

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul supporters know exactly where he stands on this issue and as borodog brought up, it's just not a big issue to them. I think the majority of his support comes from males so it's probably not high on their radar. His personal views on abortion most likely don't concern very many people and they shouldn't matter. He believes and I believe the states should decide this issue.

[Moseley]

That quote is his personal belief. If his actions as President were based upon his beliefs in the Constitution, he would not try and get Roe v. Wade overturned.

He would keep the Supreme Court level, i.e., 3 conservatives, 3 moderates, 3 liberals.

At least that is what I would do. I do not believe in abortion, however, I would consider it a crime/misdemeanor worthy of impeachment, if I were to try (as President) and manipulate the court system solely to get my way.

He also believes we should do away with the Dept of Homeland Security and the Energy, Education and the CIA. He won't get his way there either.

What he will do:
Veto any budget greater than the government's revenues. When he does that, he could possibly become inept, as Congress will simply decide what bill is worthy of an override of his veto.....unless, Americans start screaming the way they did over amnesty, and the way they are now over giving illegals drivers licenses.

He will also give us (citizens) our privacy back. He will strip government of its privacy. He will require Congress declare war, rather than let them run & hide. He will return our forces from overseas. He will not spend billions on a missle defense system in Europe.

He remembers, and believes, in what Dwight D. Eisenhower had to say in his Farwell Adress concerning the Military Industrial Machine.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if I didn't support Dr. Paul I would have to start supporting because he drives Midge nuts.

Neither Dr. Paul's personal feelings about abortion nor what should be legislated regarding it at the state level have any relevence to his run for the presidency, because it is a state issue and not a federal one. The "worst" that Dr. Paul has done is introduce legislation to restore state sovereignty on the issue (just like he would do with innumerable other issues).

How many times does this have to come up?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 2007. N=1,002 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all registered voters).

"In deciding which presidential candidate to support in 2008, which one of the following issues is most important to you: [see below]?" Options rotated

ALL Republicans Democrats Independents
% % % %
The economy and jobs 22 14 30 19
Iraq 19 13 26 19
Health care 17 14 22 15
Terrorism and national security 15 27 5 14
Taxes and government spending 10 16 4 11
Immigration 7 10 3 8
The environment and global warming 5 1 7 8
Other/None of these (vol.) 1 2 - 1
Unsure 4 3 3 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBS News Poll. Oct. 12-16, 2007. N=1,143 registered voters nationwide.

"Which one issue would you most like to hear the candidates for president discuss during the 2008 presidential campaign?" Open-ended

%
War in Iraq 26
Health care 25
Economy/Jobs 11
Immigration 6
Education 3
Environment 2
Social Security 2
Defense/Military 2
Terrorism (general) 2
Abortion 1
Other 12
Unsure 8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEWSFLASH: NOBODY GIVES A [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a poll that concluded 90% of Kerry voters were actually completely wrong about his position on health care because the important issues simply dont get addressed. In reality the 'other' section is like 90% i.e. is the candidate funny? are they a family man? etc.- the issues that are sold to the public.

[ojc02]

Wow.

Killing people = wrong
I hope you don't disagree with that.

At what point does a someone become a person?
Conception - You should be pro-life
Birth - You should be pro-choice
Sometime inbetween - ?

Pretending this is a simple issue and yelling: ZOMG! He's a monster for being pro-life is asinine.

A baby weighing one pound can often be saved now if it's taken out of the womb. Kind explain why this poor thing doesn't deserve a chance to live?

(Incidentally, I'm not claiming I have a good answer, I'm abortion agnostic, I'm just not gonna claim that it's a totally LDO issue.)

[lehighguy]

This is something of a sticky issue for a libraterian. Normally you don't want the government making any decisions for you, but this is only the case in matters where no outside party is being harmed. Do drugs, you bear the consequences. Don't go to work in the morning, you bear the consequences. Let another guy stick a [censored] up your butt, you bear the consequences.

With abortion though, there is a third party, the child. You are clearly committing violence against the child, murder. What it all comes down to in the end is when you think lives begins. If you think it begins at birth then your just removing a growth in your uterus, perfectely legal. If it begins at conception it is outright murder and you should go to jail. There are many times in between people might choose.

How do we determine personhood? Well certainly not on an individual level. Some jackass can't just decide I'm not a person so he can make me his slave and shoot me if I disagree. The issue has to be decided by a figure in authority. What is life?

So you've got two choices for decision makers. States and the federal government. (Our society chose courts, which hasn't seemed to work). Ron Paul thinks the states should decide. I do too.

P.S.

Have you heard his abortion speech. As a medical student he walked in on an abortion being performed in the 60s. The doctor removed a well developed baby that could even breath and cry on its own. Then they throwed it in a waste basket in the corner and ignored it as it kept crying and crying until it died.

[Borodog]

That incident has haunted him and his conscience for almost fifty years, and informs his personal opinions on the issue greatly. I find it impossible to begrudge the man, an obgyn who has delivered 4000 babies, his opinion on thd subject.

[MC Chris]

so he would be ok with a woman doing drugs, but what about a pregnant woman doing drugs?

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
With abortion though, there is a third party, the child. You are clearly committing violence against the child, murder. What it all comes down to in the end is when you think lives begins. If you think it begins at birth then your just removing a growth in your uterus, perfectely legal. If it begins at conception it is outright murder and you should go to jail. There are many times in between people might choose.

[/ QUOTE ]
The issue is a little more complicated than that. Because even if the foetus should be considered a person, that does not necessarily mean that this person has a right to live on the expense of the mother's interests. I.e. the contention that aborting a foetus that can be considered a person is automatically murder has to be questioned.

[ QUOTE ]
That incident has haunted him and his conscience for almost fifty years, and informs his personal opinions on the issue greatly. I find it impossible to begrudge the man, an obgyn who has delivered 4000 babies, his opinion on thd subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
And I don't begrudge him for that and I don't think anybody should. But don't you think that it is valid and even necessary to question his views on the subject if they are, at least in part, based on a horrible event in his life and not an informed decision?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

Why would such a candidate gain any popularity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because most people care a lot more about the war and the economy and a ton of other issues than abortion. I definitely disagree with him on this and I also disagree with him on immigration, but I agree with him on just about everything else. 90% agreement vs. the 40% agreement I might get out of my second choice is good.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, because people are not aware or don't understand his reasoning!

[/ QUOTE ]

No, people are completely aware. He doesn't hide his views.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With abortion though, there is a third party, the child. You are clearly committing violence against the child, murder. What it all comes down to in the end is when you think lives begins. If you think it begins at birth then your just removing a growth in your uterus, perfectely legal. If it begins at conception it is outright murder and you should go to jail. There are many times in between people might choose.

[/ QUOTE ]
The issue is a little more complicated than that. Because even if the foetus should be considered a person, that does not necessarily mean that this person has a right to live on the expense of the mother's interests. I.e. the contention that aborting a foetus that can be considered a person is automatically murder has to be questioned.

[ QUOTE ]
That incident has haunted him and his conscience for almost fifty years, and informs his personal opinions on the issue greatly. I find it impossible to begrudge the man, an obgyn who has delivered 4000 babies, his opinion on thd subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
And I don't begrudge him for that and I don't think anybody should. But don't you think that it is valid and even necessary to question his views on the subject if they are, at least in part, based on a horrible event in his life and not an informed decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a foetus is a human being (I don't know) then it absolutely has the right live at the expense of it's mothers interests. Having sex without protection or with inadequate protection is signing a contract saying I will support any child that occurs as a result. You can give the child up for adoption but you have a positive moral obligation to make sure that it is well cared for. This is a chosen positive obligation when you initiated the action of having sex.

edit : I'm not giving the father a pass here either. He is signatory to the contract too. Ie if because of her biology the mother needs to take unpaid time off from work he has a chosen positive moral obligation to financially support her. As for the child the obligation is both financial and emotional.