My reservations regarding Ron Paul...

skeptix · #1 11-01-2007, 05:18 AM

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?

JayTee · #2 11-01-2007, 05:21 AM

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.

DblBarrelJ · #3 11-01-2007, 05:22 AM

[ 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.

skeptix · #4 11-01-2007, 05:26 AM

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.

skeptix · #5 11-01-2007, 05:30 AM

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.

Phil153 · #6 11-01-2007, 05:31 AM

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.

skeptix · #7 11-01-2007, 05:38 AM

[ 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.

DblBarrelJ · #8 11-01-2007, 05:39 AM

[ 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.

JayTee · #9 11-01-2007, 05:40 AM

[ 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.

ZeroPointMachine · #10 11-01-2007, 05:45 AM

[ 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.....