Convincing Single Isse Pro Choice Voters to Support Ron Paul

[Razmear]

I posted Ron Paul's statement of faith to a Yahoo group, and I'm getting a lot of replies that if he wasn't pro life they would be more willing to support Ron Paul.
I tried to explain that he would not ban abortion, but make it a states rights issue,and also that only Congress makes the laws, but no luck.
The Yahoo group is called Num6 and is made up of a few 'Free Recyclers', I might have lost the battle there, but would like to hear ideas for the next time I'm faced with the same problem.

Thanks,
eb

[DeadheadForPaul]

Let them know that there are a large number of pro-choicers in the Paul camp. I'm pro-choice, and I agree with Dr. Paul's position of states deciding the issue. Why should people in Alabama decide how people should live in California and vice versa?

[mport1]

Not sure, citing the Constitution probably won't help with these people.

[Dustancostine]

Some people are so single issue there is nothing you can do about it.

[LibertyBelle]

Inform them that Roe vs Wade could be overturned making abortion illegal in all 50 states. Sad that people are one issue voters.

[kylejack]

I posted Ron Paul's statement of faith to a Yahoo group, and I'm getting a lot of replies that if he wasn't pro life they would be more willing to support Ron Paul.
I tried to explain that he would not ban abortion, but make it a states rights issue,and also that only Congress makes the laws, but no luck.
The Yahoo group is called Num6 and is made up of a few 'Free Recyclers', I might have lost the battle there, but would like to hear ideas for the next time I'm faced with the same problem.

Thanks,
eb
Good lesson here: Stop posting that thing to non-religious places.

[ghemminger]

Why not go the other way and reach out to Pro-Life supporters....MAny have know idea who he is but would stand everyday at a Rally and hold a PRO-LIFE sign...my parents an example they came to my daily rally 2 days ago:)

[DeadheadForPaul]

Inform them that Roe vs Wade could be overturned making abortion illegal in all 50 states.

That wouldn't make abortion illegal in all 50 states...that would let the residents of each individual state decide whether abortion should be legal or illegal in their own state

[austin356]

I agree with Dr. Paul's position of states deciding the issue. Why should people in Alabama decide how people should live in California and vice versa?



A'men to that!

[V-rod]

I will never understand Pro "choice" (when its not dealing with rape). Treating a kid like a parasite. If you don't want it, keep your damn legs closed!

[LibertyBelle]

That wouldn't make abortion illegal in all 50 states...that would let the residents of each individual state decide whether abortion should be legal or illegal in their own state

Yes, that would be great and what RP wants. However, what I meant is that they could overturn it and make a federal law banning abortion instead, sorry if I wasn't clear.

i.e., if the federal gov't makes a law demanding the states allow abortion (at whatever stage), they could turn around and ban it like they did in Germany. State rights is the way to go, need to get away from the Federal gov't stronghold because like RP said it ruins it for everybody. The problem is that the federal law supports the pro-choicers right now so they are happy, but what if that law did a complete 180? That is what you can discuss with them.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Yes, that would be great and what RP wants. However, what I meant is that they could overturn it and make a federal law banning abortion instead, sorry if I wasn't clear.

i.e., if the federal gov't makes a law demanding the states allow abortion (at whatever stage), they could turn around and ban it like they did in Germany. State rights is the way to go, need to get away from the Federal gov't stronghold because like RP said it ruins it for everybody. The problem is that the federal law supports the pro-choicers right now so they are happy, but what if that law did a complete 180? That is what you can discuss with them.

:confused: Why would we support a federal law banning abortion? That's not what Dr. Paul wants. Maybe I'm not with it today :) If states got to decide, I'd expect some to have abortion and some to ban it

[LibertyEagle]

What do you *really* think, V? heh

[AnotherAmerican]

If you don't want it, keep your damn legs closed!

OK, as long as the father is legally required to take possession of, and care for, the baby in the event that the woman is unwilling or unable to. If you don't want it, keep it in your pants.

[HardyMacia]

I'm pro-choice and it Bush Sr.'s pro-life position is the main reason why I didn't vote for him.

You aren't going to get a pro-choice single issue voter to vote for Ron Paul so don't waste your time on that issue. Overturning RvW to them is giving up on their pro-choice victory.

Instead discuss the issues that they will agree with Ron Paul on. Getting out of Iraq and repealing the Patriot Act. These are much bigger issues to most people.

Since he's delivered 4000 babies I can understand Dr. Paul's pro-life position of lettings states decide since for him is a Constitutional decision which is why I'm willing to support for him even though he is pro-life.

[Slugg]

I think someone above had the right idea:
The sooner we get the decision back to the States, the sooner it becomes a non-issue for everyone. No longer will 'pro choice' people have to back away from an otherwise great presidential candidate. And vice-versa, pro lifers won't have to flip flop on such issues. It would make the country a better place for everyone. It's called 'Compromise.'

[LibertyBelle]

:confused: Why would we support a federal law banning abortion? That's not what Dr. Paul wants. Maybe I'm not with it today :) If states got to decide, I'd expect some to have abortion and some to ban it

Hee hee :)

Maybe not so quite with it, your head might be dead today, Deadhead. :D You, I, and Dr. Paul would not support a federal law banning abortion (and I am pro-life like the good doc). Making a point that if the federal gov't enforces something like Roe vs Wade, they could turn around and enforce a ban on abortion instead. Germany did it. Don't think pro-choicers would want that.

Back to the states.....yes, yes, yes, some would allow abortion and others not, and some allow them only up until a certain point.

I am pro-life, as opposed to pro-death. Just came up with that. :cool:

[Razmear]

Hey Hardy, Welcome aboard!!!
You delivered me a batch of Harry Browne signs back in 2000 when I lived in St Johnsbury, nice to see you on the forums!

[BarryDonegan]

pro choice/pro life debate is complicated because its all based on contentious statistics and arguements, so theres not a lot of real intelligent debate about it. its an issue to avoid, unfortunately.

for example, the stats on how safe abortion is are VERY contentious, more so than any other mainstream medical practice. there are studies that say it is TOTALLY safe and has no consequence at all, and there are others that say that it leads to infertility, results in unreported fatalities, and increases suicide rates by up to 5 times.

the people who are committed to each side only quote the studies that benefit their arguement, for example, most of which are lead by people with an agenda.

i only recently dug into the issue personally, which side im on i dont wanna say because ive become opinionated about it ever since i did some research, and this forum is more appropriate for discussing non contentious issues, but...

when researching abortion its hard to find any stats that prove anything conclusively either way without bias.

i made a blog framing the problem with the debate, and i think a lot of politicians use their stance on it as a wedge to get in with voters, without really researching it either. i think its a "show debate" in america, much like terrorism is. as in few people on either side of it are activists for or against it, its more about applying to a demographic. gay marriage is DEFINATELY this type of issue. why are we EVEN DISCUSSING THAT with our economy about to crash.

that is seriously a silly discussion, its a marriage contract in the eyes of the government, does that even matter? it puts you in a different tax filing, i guess, but its not nearly as serious as the 180 countries our CIA flip flops dictators and overthrows democratically elected leaders in. its obviously stuff thats showboated in front of us so we dont pay attention to the REAL SCARY stuff under the surface.

note i dont want any homosexuals to feel like gay marriage is a "silly issue", if your passionate about it nothing is silly, but its politically opportunist, because obviously there are focuses of government that result in poverty, death, and other things that are more important, that are held under the surface in favor of sexy discussions like that.

[Broadlighter]

The problem with abortion is that it is such a personal and divisive issue. It touches on our notions of what constitutes a living person and how much control over one's reproductive destiny one should have. It's so tough to draw the line that realistically the battle over abortion will never be won by intellectual argument, politics or changes in legislation.

Science created the problem by making abortions safe and easily available. The extremism in the Pro-Choice/Planned Parenthood camp and the Church driven pro-life camps do nothing better than to agitate everyone.

If abortion were made illegal today, women would continue having them and I don't believe that 99% of women who have abortions do so with murderous intent.

I believe medical science will eventually solve the problem when it figures out how to end a pregnancy without ending the life of the unborn. That will be the ultimate compromise solution.

Where does Ron Paul's candidacy fit in with this? I believe that an America under Ron Paul's leadership would benefit greatly from the reduction of economic pressures that lead to social problems. Families would become closer and more functional - young women would become less likely to put themselves in situations where they risk unwanted pregnancies.

If you connect the dots between the Fed's and the IRS's stranglehold over the monetary system and what happens in local communities it shouldn't surprise you how social problems come to the surface. With a return to sound money and the elimination of the income tax, people will get their lives back. This will result in fewer and fewer abortions and maybe instill in the consciousness a much higher regard for the value of human life.

This is what I would tell the pro-choicers who have a problem with Ron Paul's stand on abortion.

[BarryDonegan]

OK, as long as the father is legally required to take possession of, and care for, the baby in the event that the woman is unwilling or unable to. If you don't want it, keep it in your pants.


oh and for the record. THIS IS THE CASE. haha. men are financially obligated to care for children they dont want in all cases, and in many cases, ones illegitmately fathered to another man while they are common law married to a woman.

family law and how it treats men is something that needs SERIOUS help in this country. it is criminal.

there has even been a case of a woman extracting zygotes via oral sex and using it to impregnate herself secretly and she won a child support settlement for it.

the guy sued her for damages, mainly because he didnt want to father a child of a broken home, and this was very emotionally complex for him, and was denied even taking it to trial by civil court.

im not saying this in response to this as a part of any debate on abortion at all, but on an unrelated issue, mens treatment in family court is criminal. women have 5 ways to opt out of undesired babies, and men are legally bound to financially cover it no matter what, and have almost no chance of getting custody, and can be blocked form seeing their own children! men also do not have any way to have sexual intercourse that provides a 100% chance of no pregnancy that they can do themselves. women have many ways. a mans only options are condoms(14% failure rate) and abstinance. women can make the man use a condom, and also take birth control hormones(the combination of which is 99.9% effective), take morning after pills, abort, give up for adoption, etc.

its a really bad double standard, and it also places the most unavoidable consequences in the hand of the person with the least ability to avoid the problem, which leads to the most mistakes.

[Broadlighter]

There has even been a case of a woman extracting zygotes via oral sex and using it to impregnate herself secretly and she won a child support settlement for it.

Whoa there! Did you mean semen? A zygote is a newly impregnated ovum. If what you were saying is accurate, that would mean that this woman gave oral sex to another woman and she would have needed to stick her tongue all the way up the other woman's uterus. The zygote would have been at such a microscopic size that there would have been a gazillion to one chance she would capture it.

Man, that's some tongue.

[specsaregood]

Why not go the other way and reach out to Pro-Life supporters....MAny have know idea who he is but would stand everyday at a Rally and hold a PRO-LIFE sign...my parents an example they came to my daily rally 2 days ago:)

Many do know about him and I would expect a lot more support from the pro-life group once the 2nd tier guys drop out.

I was handing out cards at a fair a few weeks ago and walked by the pro-life booth. The lady behind the booth saw my Ron Paul shirt and came out to talk to me and tell me she loved the shirt. She ended up taking a stack of cards for her fellow pro-life advocates to hand out to people. In her own words, "We never seem to be able to nominate the good ones." I told her, we are about to change that!

[BarryDonegan]

Whoa there! Did you mean semen? A zygote is a newly impregnated ovum. If what you were saying is accurate, that would mean that this woman gave oral sex to another woman and she would have needed to stick her tongue all the way up the other woman's uterus. The zygote would have been at such a microscopic size that there would have been a gazillion to one chance she would capture it.

Man, that's some tongue.

HAHA my bad on the malapropism. i was trying to euphemistically describe semen.

essentially, she gave a man oral sex to extract the sperm and fertilized herself later.


another BIZARRE ruling is State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer (1993), in which a young boy was statutorially raped by his babysitter, and after she became pregnant, he was ruled to still have to pay child support, despite being 12 years old when he conceived. haha.

there is even some feeling that a sperm donor is not protected from having to pay child support if the mother pursues it.

the common law rule is that either the biological father, or the womans common law husband at the time of conception is required to pay child support for the entirety of the childhood, even in some states where the father didn't actually sire the child during the marriage, or where the biological father had no intentions of fathering a child and was lead there via deception

[hard@work]

I posted Ron Paul's statement of faith to a Yahoo group, and I'm getting a lot of replies that if he wasn't pro life they would be more willing to support Ron Paul.
I tried to explain that he would not ban abortion, but make it a states rights issue,and also that only Congress makes the laws, but no luck.
The Yahoo group is called Num6 and is made up of a few 'Free Recyclers', I might have lost the battle there, but would like to hear ideas for the next time I'm faced with the same problem.

Thanks,
eb

The first thing I say is that he was a Dr. who delivered 4,000 babies. So, how can I blame him for his views? I can definately forgive him if I disagree. How could you do what he's done and not feel this way?

That hits the sympathy chord.

The next thing I say is that even if I disagree with him on whether or not is should be legal, I do agree with him on that it is a terrible thing. And I am tired of this terrible thing hurting so many people, we need to start working on a real solution.

That hits them on the fatigue of the issue, the endless battle it has been. And it brings out an agreement that no SANE person cannot have - abortion is a sad thing to happen, no matter if you feel it should be ok to do. This is a point of agreement you can reach.

Then, I bring up solutions. More importantly, I bring up the difficulty pro-life and pro-choice have had in solving the issue. Doesn't it seem like we spend more time fighting over this horrible thing than taking care of it? And it seems like the decision on abortion is hanging on the balance of a single entity: the federal government. With so many opinions on how to stop abortion (because we all want there to be no abortions, pro-life or pro-choice if it was possible right? Not like any of us want abortion to be a replacement for birth control, right?) and everyone fighting over whether it should be absitenence or condoms in high school ... how are we going to stop this together? And... isn't this why we were supposed to be able to vote on these issues ... what happened to that?

This bring out the libertarian values in a person, that maybe just maybe we'd solve this together if it was a 50 state solution instead of a single all powerful decider ... one that could be pro-life someday as much as pro-choice.

In the end, unless you are a cold hearted bastard, you know abortion is a sad subject. And a painful thing to have to deal with. The philosophical debate aside, are we dealing with it?

If you believe in Ron Paul as a pro-choice supporter you believe in the power of the people to put an end to abortion directly. And, if one of our communities is more successful in ending this travesty - peacefully and together respectfully? I believe we would all see that there is a way.

That's what I say anyways. There's other ways constitutionally and financially. Forcing will on others by forcing them to support something they see as murder. List goes on, but the most important thing you can do here is learn why they feel the way they do and explain it to them in a way that shows them that a Ron Paul government is very healthy for Pro-choice.

A Ron Paul government is the ONLY government that will not try to capitalize politically on abortion. And that is one of the best reasons to get it out of the presidential election permanently.

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Razmear]

Here is my post back to the group that got me started on this thread, thanks for the advice so far. I plan on letting the issue drop now over there:

Re: Statement Of Faith

I'll just make one final point on the abortion issue, because this is
one of the most divisive issues in the country and I wouldn't expect
anyone on either side to change their opinion.

Currently the federal government specifically permits abortion
nationwide, which means at some point in the future they can legally
prohibit it nationwide, so long as it is treated as a national issue.

If abortion is no longer a federal issue but a state issue, as Ron
Paul recommends, you do not have to worry about 51% of the senate, or
5/9th of the Supreme Court making abortion illegal for the entire
country.
It would become an issue for the individual states to decide, and
trust me, you personally have much more influence over what your state
does than what the federal government does.

eb

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[Razmear]

Hi Jennifer,
I understand your position and can completely agree.
I am a man, and I am personally against abortion, mainly for the reason that I was adopted about 5 years before Roe v Wade became law, and if abortion on demand was available back in 1968 I might not be here.
That being said, I'd never tell someone else what to do on the issue because it's really none of my business and it is a balancing act between the potential life and the living person.
Also, the pro lifers who are also anti-birth control and anti sex ed piss me off completely. Abstinence does not work, but a condom does about 99% of the time.

If it is any consolation, W and Reagan were both staunch pro life presidents, and they haven't been able to get Roe v Wade overturned, so chances are Ron won't be able to either, but he will be able to save a generation of Americans and middle easterners from going to war and being killed or maimed.

eb

[Razmear]

Well, Raz. Leave it to you to make sense of a terrible issue. You have a great point. I think this should be said to every pro-choice voter out there.

Kudos.

Thanks, just don't send em to me if they disagree :D I'll let you know how it goes over in my 'test market' yahoo group.

eb

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[V-rod]

I am so tired of men thinking they have a say in this debate. How about if us women decided that life begins with the birth of a sperm and we decide this should be a state's right issue, and any man found fornicating without the intent to bear a child would be castrated? Why not vote on that? Why shouldn't that be a state's right issue?

A baby is a parasite in the same sense as the human race is a virus on this planet, and that is not exactly a valid argument in both cases.
I am against the death penalty as well, since there have been many innocent people who have been executed. As for your comments, it seems you have a real personal stake in this. I for one hold men in contempt more since they impose themselves a little more than women on men. The man and woman should equally be responsible for a new human life if they engage in sex. Even though I disagree with your statements, I can understand how you feel that a person has a right to their own body. Unlike the Bush cronies, I fully support contraceptives and the morning after pill, and in for abortion in the very rare cases of danger to the mother. Many of us believe that a fetus is alive when its heart starts beating. I agree with Doctor Paul when he says that the legal issues should be dealt with statewide.
I believe in Life, unlike many people I would risk my own life in defense of an innocent strange if they are in danger.
I do not look at other humans in any part of the world as sheep who can be killed at some whim. What I can discern from your rationale is that if a woman did not have the means to abort and had the child, then she could leave the infant to the elements and leave into nature's hands. If you accept that, then I would have some respect for your argument unlike many lifers who do would arrest someone for killing a baby right after birth but not after 8 months in the womb. I would not condemn anyone now of making the choice of terminating their pregnancy, but as a citizen I would want to be part of a society that respects all life.

[michaelwise]

My answer to the pro-choicers; Your Pattern Indicates Two Dimensional Thinking, You are not taking into account any of the other major issues.

[Syren123]

My answer to the pro-choicers; Your Pattern Indicates Two Dimensional Thinking, You are not taking into account any of the other major issues.

LOL
How well does THAT go over?!

[michaelwise]

LOL
How well does THAT go over?!

You can't convince them anyway, so why not get them thinking about something else.

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[jblosser]

I'm not trying to pick a fight (or is it already picked?), but since one of your complaints seems to be inconsistent people, you may as well know there are consistent ones out here.


I am so tired of men thinking they have a say in this debate.

As a man whose grandmother was told she *would* die if she gave birth to my mother, I tend to think my gender isn't entirely relevant to at least part of my "say" in this.


How about if us women decided that life begins with the birth of a sperm and we decide this should be a state's right issue, and any man found fornicating without the intent to bear a child would be castrated? Why not vote on that? Why shouldn't that be a state's right issue?

Because it is the use of force of one person over another.

Everything government does is the use of force of one person over another. That's the essential definition and distinction of government. If your state manages to pass such a law, fine for them. I imagine not many men who like to fornicate would choose to live there afterward, but the state can decide if they care or not.


Forcing a woman to carry a baby to term is force. Plain and simple. Dr. Paul is against coercion in every other instance but this.

Yes, it is force. But Dr. Paul is explicitly not an anarchist. He also supports coercion when one person asserts their right to defend themself against another, and when war is legally declared by the Congress. He supports a border fence and legal-only immigration. He supports allowing states to make their own laws on all criminal matters, including presumably a provision for enforcement, jails, and courts. He opposes an income tax, but supports other forms of non-graduated taxes such as sales tax and some excise taxes. Leaving criminal matters up to the states certainly leaves room for your "every sperm is sacred" possibility, and I see no reason such a potential would be impossible for him to imagine. These are all coercion. Everything government ever does is coercion. With respect, you don't get to redefine coercion to mean "forcing people to do things I don't like".


Pro-life, not pro-death. Give me a break. Get your bloody hands off of another person's body. You sanctimonious, self righteous, lover of force and ruler of the universe....Yeah, to hell with women. They are just chattel anyway. We have the right to tell them all what to do right?

So, it's pretty apparent your own personal reference point isn't leaving any room for the notion the unborn is due any consideration at all, yes? To hell with the unborn. They are just chattel anyway. We have the right to tell them all what to do right? I am not trying to characterize you unfairly, but that does appear to be where you are coming from?


Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner.

A republic protects the minority from force.

I imagine you can't be unware this is the exact same argument the "other side" would use, they just are talking about a different minority, and one that will never get the option to vote with their feet even under a states' rights model. But again, this is not a minority you would recognize as such, fair to say?

(And I'm not particulary trying to ignore the specific scenarios you mentioned, but it doesn't sound like that conversation would be very productive. Suffice it to say I agree people should be consistent in their morality, though I also am well aware that doctors are required to make difficult life and death decisions every day and tend to make them as well as can be expected when regulatory bodies don't decide for them.)

[ghemminger]

Say " would you like it if ur mom aborted you?":)

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[ghemminger]

no issue RP is Pro-Life

[michaelwise]

If a woman who doesn't want to keep a child gives it away then yes, I am fine with that. If a pregnant woman who doesn't want the child could give it away it would certainly make things easier. I would be for that too. But until your life is at stake, and for many out there, the choice is easy: they choose the baby, then you cannot fully understand this debate.

I also believe that if you have a sibling that cannot take care of itself, or a parent, the state cannot force you to take care of them. Until you are willing to take that stance then how can you justify forcing a woman to feed and house a fetus? And what about ole daddy dearest? Where is the law making him responsible for caring for the child for life if the mother does not want it? And I don't mean cash. I mean taking the child, and raising it himself, losing promotions at work, losing jobs in general, and being forced to live in poverty because he can't quite work hard enough to pay the 50k a year for full time childcare?

This is a very simple problem with a very simple solution: woman cannot get pregnant without sperm. So all men should be forced to have vasectomies until they are married and decide to have children. If a man impregnates a woman against her will, he should have to go to jail for assault and battery and be responsible for all the costs she will have to bear for the rest of her life. You forced her into it. You won't let her out of it. Then you (men) should bear the responsibility. Try making that a law and see how fast all you pro-life men run screaming to your legislators.

If you don't like that solution, then STFU.

Jennifer, don't have a cow. I'm looking at the big picture. Besides Ronald Regan and GW couldn't' overturn Row v. Wade, so what is there to worry about.

[ghemminger]

Yeah and don't abort your cow...

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[jblosser]

If a woman who doesn't want to keep a child gives it away then yes, I am fine with that. If a pregnant woman who doesn't want the child could give it away it would certainly make things easier.

What would make things easier is if we had enough of a market economy left to respond to the obvious need for a means for women who don't want to be pregnant to remove the unborn intact and let them develop externally.


If a man impregnates a woman against her will, he should have to go to jail for assault and battery and be responsible for all the costs she will have to bear for the rest of her life. You forced her into it. You won't let her out of it. Then you (men) should bear the responsibility. Try making that a law and see how fast all you pro-life men run screaming to your legislators.

If you don't like that solution, then STFU.

It depends on the operative phrase "impregnates a woman against her will". If the sex is consensual and the pregnancy is unplanned, I doubt jail time is called for, but certainly both partners have equal responsibility under the law. And yes, I'd have no problem supporting the notion they should share the responsibility to carry the kid to term if the science allowed it. It's not the unborn minority's fault the science isn't there yet, though. Surely we as a society can find a better solution for our lack of technology than widespread taking of life.

If the sex isn't even consensual or some other kind of fraud is involved with respect to the real pregnancy risk than jail time for assault and cost responsibility is the least thing the man has coming.

[ghemminger]

Rp says 4000 babies never ran into the probs u guys dicusssn

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[ghemminger]

Yes, to hell with the unformed. They don't get to turn a woman into a slave. NO ONE DOES. Not even her fully functioning, fully breathing, husband, mother, father, friend, sister, brother, pastor, neighbor or any other living creature.

You go girl Amen!!! Sista!!:D

[michaelwise]

But why didn't you address the scenario? That is the whole point of coercion and force. Would you force a 12 year old girl who had been gang raped to have a child? Make up your mind. Are you pro-choice or pro-life. That kid inside had no say in how it was conceived. And to what length are you willing to go to make sure she takes care of the kid inside right? Are you going to stop her from smoking? Drinking? Tie her down? Put her in jail until the kid is born?

Don't stop with your high and mighty preaching. Continue. How are you going to protect that zygote insider her? What are you willing to do to her? How much pain must she go through before you care about the host?

Ok. In a more compassionate nation, under a more favorable constitutional government, the needs of the few will, at times, out weigh the needs of the many.
I have no doubt that a reasonable outcome will be had by all.

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[foofighter20x]

How much pain must she go through before you care about the host?

Your appeals to emotion are logical fallacies.

Pain and suffering of a victim of a crime is no justification for the state-sanctioned murder of an innocent third party.

What crime did the fetus commit? It's a victim too.

[jblosser]

But why didn't you address the scenario? That is the whole point of coercion and force. Would you force a 12 year old girl who had been gang raped to have a child? Make up your mind. Are you pro-choice or pro-life. That kid inside had no say in how it was conceived. And to what length are you willing to go to make sure she takes care of the kid inside right? Are you going to stop her from smoking? Drinking? Tie her down? Put her in jail until the kid is born?

Don't stop with your high and mighty preaching. Continue. How are you going to protect that zygote insider her? What are you willing to do to her? How much pain must she go through before you care about the host?

I didn't answer it explicitly because you won't like my answer and I'd hope you might look at some of the other things I said, but I guess not.

So yes, you're quite right, the unborn kid in that scenario didn't do anything wrong, and no one has a right to take that life.

As for prenatal health issues, how the state interacts with parental rights on how kids are raised is probably the single hardest issue for free governments to deal with. The state has to be restrained, but not to the point kids are denied their right to not be abused. That applies both before and after birth, though, and is one of the main reasons these things should be left to the states, so things are kept local and accountable and people can respond to what works and change what doesn't.

[ghemminger]

Your appeals to emotion are logical fallacies.

Pain and suffering of a victim of a crime is no justification for the state-sanctioned murder of an innocent third party.

What crime did the fetus commit? It's a victim too.

Thanks YOU!!! You go girl!:D

[foofighter20x]

Maybe I am supporting the wrong candidate.

Just keep your eye on what Razmear said.

Better to let the states handle this than to duke it out over what the law should be at the federal level when there is no authorization in the Constitution for the federal government to make such a determination.

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[foofighter20x]

What crime does a helpless adult commit? Does that give you the right to force its very existence on another?

Ever hear of emergency contraception? I'm all for that.

[ghemminger]

Ouch that hurt

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[jblosser]

Yes, to hell with the unformed. They don't get to turn a woman into a slave. NO ONE DOES. Not even her fully functioning, fully breathing, husband, mother, father, friend, sister, brother, pastor, neighbor or any other living creature.

As long as we're clear. Minorities are only deserving of protection from aggression if their existence doesn't, by no fault of their own, require something of someone else.

[Razmear]

Jen, your supporting the right guy, dont let a few trolls piss ya off.

Lately their seems to be an influx of borderline ignorant folks hitting this forum, weather they are true RP supporters or trolls who are trying to stir the shit here, I'm not sure. The recent 'retarded' thread is a sign that things are not what they were here even a few weeks ago. Reminds me of the childish shit that used to be on the Yahoo discussion boards before they shut them down.

eb

[ghemminger]

Jen, your supporting the right guy, dont let a few trolls piss ya off.

Lately their seems to be an influx of borderline ignorant folks hitting this forum, weather they are true RP supporters or trolls who are trying to stir the shit here, I'm not sure. The recent 'retarded' thread is a sign that things are not what they were here even a few weeks ago. Reminds me of the childish shit that used to be on the Yahoo discussion boards before they shut them down.

eb

Righteuous!!! Yeah!:)

[foofighter20x]

Then you are a murderer too in their eyes. Either you have choice or not.

Nope. She technically isn't pregnant until the emryo implants on the uterine wall. If the embryo fails to attach, it never had a shot at life to begin with.

She has every right to prevent that from happening.

Once it does however, that's on her.

[Akus]

I posted Ron Paul's statement of faith to a Yahoo group, and I'm getting a lot of replies that if he wasn't pro life they would be more willing to support Ron Paul.
I tried to explain that he would not ban abortion, but make it a states rights issue,and also that only Congress makes the laws, but no luck.
The Yahoo group is called Num6 and is made up of a few 'Free Recyclers', I might have lost the battle there, but would like to hear ideas for the next time I'm faced with the same problem.

Thanks,
eb


Razmear, Dustancostine has a point. Some people are simply too close minded to allow the notion that they could be wrong. Some will continue to believe Ron Paul said we deserved 9/11. Some will continue to believe Ron Paul has to be pro-choice on the federal level to be a "real" freedom supporter. And some will continue to think Ron Paul is a 9/11 truther.

The harvest is still plentiful, and the workers that are few need to concentrate on people who know nothing about Ron Paul and not waste time with fanatics.

[ghemminger]

Razmear, Dustancostine has a point. Some people are simply too close minded to allow the notion that they could be wrong. Some will continue to believe Ron Paul said we deserved 9/11. Some will continue to believe Ron Paul has to be pro-choice on the federal level to be a "real" freedom supporter. And some will continue to think Ron Paul is a 9/11 truther.

The harvest is still plentiful, and the workers that are few need to concentrate on people who know nothing about Ron Paul and not waste time with fanatics.

Amen Brother...The workers are few...

[Razmear]

Razmear, Dustancostine has a point. Some people are simply too close minded to allow the notion that they could be wrong.

This is a philosophical issue, there is no right or wrong. The abortion debate is like a debate between an atheist and a christian about the existence of god. Neither one is right or wrong and one will never convince the other to change their mind, and arguing the point endlessly or insulting the other because they have a different opinion serves no useful purpose and is a distraction to the goal at hand.

We have one goal here, get Ron Paul elected President. Anything detrimental to that goal should be snuffed out promptly, and that definitely includes insulting other board members for not agreeing with your personal philosophy.

I started this thread asking a simple question about how to convince someone who agrees with everything else Ron Paul says, but is a pro-choice voter. I did not start it so that folks can tear each other apart for being pro-choice or pro-life.

Personally I prefer to be Pro-Common Sense, there is no one size fits all solution to the issue. As Harry Browne said, if the Government launched a 'War on Abortion' given their track record with the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty, men would be having abortions within 6 months.

And ghemminger, are you just trying to boost your post count with all these "you go girl" comments or do you actually have anything useful to say? Maybe im just getting tired because of the late hour, but your posts are starting to get annoying.

eb

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[ghemminger]

Go to hell. I have worked night and day for that man. I have published 7 articles about him. I have done nothing but support this campaign and you are calling me close-minded. I have called 2700 Iowans. Stuffed thousands of envelopes. Spray painted signs until I passed out in the heat. I have made stencils to send to people all across the country. I have posted on every news article I can find about the wonders of this man. I have influenced more people in one month than you can hope to your whole lifetime. And you dare to say that I should be kicked out of the group because you are an idiot? Wow, you must be great at gathering supporters.

Ok...calm down alll...we've had a little too much caffeine...now kiss ten times and make up...or Im sending you both to your room:mad:

[jblosser]

Razmear, I'm sorry if you think I'm calling names or being a troll or anything like it.

For my part if I see people having trouble with one of his issues and not being sure if they want to stick it out or not over that I prefer to try to help them work through it, whether I agree with them on the particulars or not. A whole lot of people are not sure they're comfortable with the soundbite version of "leave it to the states", and I don't think we do a disservice to discuss the implications. People deserve to know what they're getting into. I also don't think most of us who get the big issues are going to be sidelined by some disagreements we have on some particulars. (And I'm sure Jennifer is one of the ones who gets those big issues... no denigration is intended there.)

[ghemminger]

J I thinks this month we will see some nervous breakdowns...HAve u notice how hard people r giving to this campaign...

[jblosser]

Way too much time between big events and too much stress leading up to THE big event of Iowa. At least it's only a little over a day til the debate.

[ghemminger]

My pockets are empty,,,my wife wants to kill me , I have no sex life...I'm tired all the time...my RP fix is the only thing that keeps me going..

[Razmear]

jblosser, I'm not bitching at you, its more towards the whole tone of this forum over the past few days, folks are getting a lot more mean towards each other and there is no need for it.

[ghemminger]

it's because we are all sex deprived...ya know!!! it makes everyoene really uptight

[V-rod]

Go to hell. I have worked night and day for that man. I have published 7 articles about him. I have done nothing but support this campaign and you are calling me close-minded. I have called 2700 Iowans. Stuffed thousands of envelopes. Spray painted signs until I passed out in the heat. I have made stencils to send to people all across the country. I have posted on every news article I can find about the wonders of this man. I have influenced more people in one month than you can hope to your whole lifetime. And you dare to say that I should be kicked out of the group because you are an idiot? Wow, you must be great at gathering supporters.

You been throwing insults left and right at everyone, and I have been reprimanded once on this forum for far less. We all pretty much said what needs to be said on the issue, and the non-paul debates should be for the General Politics forum. I think I can speak for all of us when I say we all appreciate the amount of hard work you have put into the campaign. :)

[foofighter20x]

Go to hell. I have worked night and day for that man. I have published 7 articles about him. I have done nothing but support this campaign and you are calling me close-minded. I have called 2700 Iowans. Stuffed thousands of envelopes. Spray painted signs until I passed out in the heat. I have made stencils to send to people all across the country. I have posted on every news article I can find about the wonders of this man. I have influenced more people in one month than you can hope to your whole lifetime. And you dare to say that I should be kicked out of the group because you are an idiot? Wow, you must be great at gathering supporters.

You won't be kicked out...

So says me, the new sheriff in town.

*digs moderation panel and shiny badge*

Take it easy on each other folks. And welcome to the world of politics. Don't play if you can't stand a few scrapes and bruises.

[ghemminger]

You been throwing insults left and right at everyone, and I have been reprimanded once on this forum for far less. We all pretty much said what needs to be said on the issue, and the non-paul debates should be for the General Politics forum. I think I can speak for all of us when I say we all appreciate the amount of hard work you have put into the campaign. :)

Yeah I know Jen...This just an of night for here..she's like maxed out to the tenth degree..you guys need to take it easy on here...she's really sweet...She' been workin like 3 table at 3 Universities...and a whole bunch of other sh...I think your goin to see a lot mopre melt downs this month

[Akus]

Razmear, Dustancostine has a point. Some people are simply too close minded to allow the notion that they could be wrong. Some will continue to believe Ron Paul said we deserved 9/11. Some will continue to believe Ron Paul has to be pro-choice on the federal level to be a "real" freedom supporter. And some will continue to think Ron Paul is a 9/11 truther.

The harvest is still plentiful, and the workers that are few need to concentrate on people who know nothing about Ron Paul and not waste time with fanatics.


Go to hell. I have worked night and day for that man. I have published 7 articles about him. I have done nothing but support this campaign and you are calling me close-minded. I have called 2700 Iowans. Stuffed thousands of envelopes. Spray painted signs until I passed out in the heat. I have made stencils to send to people all across the country. I have posted on every news article I can find about the wonders of this man. I have influenced more people in one month than you can hope to your whole lifetime. And you dare to say that I should be kicked out of the group because you are an idiot? Wow, you must be great at gathering supporters.

I have never said anything like that, please do not make up what I said. The post that you quoted and replied to wasn't even addressed to you. Stop inventing enemies for yourself. I don't have a clue who you are and what you did.

This is beyond immature.

[dude58677]

Jennifer Reynold wrote" A woman cannot get pregnant without sperm"

And that is why a man has a voice.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Let's all just calm down here. I have been advocating a forum policy of non-intervention for a while now and it doesn't seem like people are listening. We need to stop with the name calling and start praising each other for joining in on the Ron Paul campaign. Personally, I think a woman should be able to choose, but others have different views and I respect that. I'm just glad that Dr. Paul is able to unite both sides and attract so many people with two opposing views on abortion to his message. The freedom message brings us together, it doesn't divide us.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Rp says 4000 babies never ran into the probs u guys dicusssn


:rolleyes:

My mom is a nurse, my father is a doctor, and all my friend's parents are doctors. I assure you that their concerns are very legitimate. My mom helped perform abortions and the majority of them were for 13 year olds who were either raped by strangers/family or had been sexually active since they first hit puberty. Addtionally, having the child would have been a threat to these girls just as it is sometimes a threat to grown women

[Win_Witka]

Hi Jennifer,
I understand your position and can completely agree.
I am a man, and I am personally against abortion, mainly for the reason that I was adopted about 5 years before Roe v Wade became law, and if abortion on demand was available back in 1968 I might not be here.
That being said, I'd never tell someone else what to do on the issue because it's really none of my business and it is a balancing act between the potential life and the living person.
Also, the pro lifers who are also anti-birth control and anti sex ed piss me off completely. Abstinence does not work, but a condom does about 99% of the time.

If it is any consolation, W and Reagan were both staunch pro life presidents, and they haven't been able to get Roe v Wade overturned, so chances are Ron won't be able to either, but he will be able to save a generation of Americans and middle easterners from going to war and being killed or maimed.

eb

I'm not saying that abortion should be in demand, but if one was raped the woman should have the choice to abort or have the child. I agree that abstinence doesn't work and strongly recommend that both partners use birth control. (ie. condoms and the patch, etc.)

[Win_Witka]

Nope. She technically isn't pregnant until the emryo implants on the uterine wall. If the embryo fails to attach, it never had a shot at life to begin with.

She has every right to prevent that from happening.

Once it does however, that's on her.

I agree with you 100%:)

[ronpaulfan]

Watch this video at 4:04

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGu-da6XvJQ

I almost cried when I heard why Ron Paul is pro life.

[ThePieSwindler]

wow why is this thread back lol? I remember reading it and thinking "yeah, not going to get involved in this disussion" especially once i saw how badly jennifer proceeded to flame everyone who disagreed with her. Start a new thread if the thread is more than a month old.. i know the whole "theres been a thread on thsi before, use the search function" response is prevalent, but damn, theres a difference between duplicating a hot or recent thread and necroing a thread like this.

[jgmaynard]

Here's what I say, and NH is VERY pro-choice...

"Hillary, Obama and Edwards have all stated that they will NOT get out of Iraq til at least 2013. Even if abortion became a state-by-state issue, I believe it's worth it to save 30-100,000 lives a year in Iraq."

Best argument I have found.

JM

[DaronWestbrooke]

Let them know that there are a large number of pro-choicers in the Paul camp. I'm pro-choice, and I agree with Dr. Paul's position of states deciding the issue. Why should people in Alabama decide how people should live in California and vice versa?

I am a pro-choice voter and I agree with deadhead. If U want to convince pro-choice, simply point out that Dr. Paul does not want a federal ban on abortion, he wants the people in each State to decide. People who are personally against abortion, like Dr. Paul, don't necessarlly want it outlawed. Dr. Paul wants the people to decide. The result would be that in most states, a woman's right to choose would not be in danger because most people overwhelmingly support it.