My reservations regarding Ron Paul...

[skeptix]

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]

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.

[skeptix]

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.

[AlexM]

[ 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.

[Copernicus]

[ 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.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

His electability in the general election? It has no effect because he has 0% chance.

His electability in the primaries? It has no effect because primary voters know he has no chance in the general.

55% Giuliani 45% Romney 0% anyone else G and R could flip based on early showings, but I still think primary voters will be too concerned about the electability of a Mormon for him to win. If Romney would take 2d on a ticket with Giuliani I think that ticket would be brokered through.

I dont know that any Veep nominee has strong enough home support to swing the general in their state, so Veep needs to be chosen on platform primarily. Romney and Giuliani are pretty consistent in their platforms and the combo may actually look more conservative than either one individually.

[AlexM]

[ 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?

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the moral views represented the democratic opinion of the majority of the populace then sure alot of people (though admittedly not I) can easily answer yes.

It would appear Ron Paul would rather Bill Gates et al have more say.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the moral views represented the democratic opinion of the majority of the populace then sure alot of people (though admittedly not I) can easily answer yes.

It would appear Ron Paul would rather Bill Gates et al have more say.

[/ QUOTE ]

So... you agree with Ron Paul then randomly attack him for something unrelated and irrelevant? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[DblBarrelJ]

[ 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]

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.