PDA

View Full Version : Abortion issues: Ron Paul needs to reach out to evangelicals




terlinguatx
09-30-2007, 11:22 AM
I think they will fall in love with his demeanor and honest spirit. But more importantly he could really stress the fact that he's an obstetrician, and has delivered over 4,000 babies and knows the beauty of life. He can point out how he's going to take REALISTIC steps to leave abortion up to the states as federalism dictates.

This is the optimal and constitutional solution. The more liberal coastal states will surely allow it and the more conservative ones will ban it -- PROBLEM SOLVED. All the national animosity and friction caused by making it the national law of the land will dissappear. Each state's individual values and worldview will determine whether or not they think its appropriate.

So in summary: Paul, let them know how you've given LIFE to thousands, and that you're going to give the power of CHOICE to the states not the federal government. We can gain a lot of the traditional republican voters without alienating more liberal supporters, plus it's the constitutional thing to do.

steph3n
09-30-2007, 11:25 AM
I think his site summarizes this best and doesn't dwell on it, its a divisive subject.

However since it is a state's right issues and Paul is all for freedom I don't think he'd be against crossing the border to a state supporting abortion for those so inclined.

It boils down to what is right by the constitution, and clearly that leaves it to the states.

richard1984
09-30-2007, 11:29 AM
The other day after the debate I was wondering why he hasn't been using his "big guns" yet (things like mentioning that he's an OB doctor who has delivered over 4000 babies, etc.). Maybe he's saving them for when it really matters--closer to the primaries and especially when he gets the nomination. But for now, I think he's waiting for more attention before he lets loose his full arsenol of Awesomeness!

He is, without a doubt, the best candidate!

goRPaul
09-30-2007, 11:31 AM
The evangelical base is an interesting group. They came out for Bush in huge numbers, but if they don't see a candidate who supports their views, they won't bother showing up.

Optimistically, by the time December and January rolls around, this base will notice Ron and come out to vote for him. That would make a huge difference if he wins this group over for the primaries.

jmarinara
09-30-2007, 11:33 AM
Except the problem is that most evangelicals, myself included, think that it isn't a states rights issue, but rather the federal government failing to do it's job and protect the fundamental right to life. Yes, that's right I think Paul is wrong on this one.

The problem lies in the fact that a majority (a majority, not most) of evangelicals don't see the issue like I do:

1. Paul will give us pro-lifers a huge boost in the fight to end baby murder as some 30+ states will surely outlaw it. Think William Wilburforce and slavery.

2. Everyone else is pandering (think Alan Keyes), lying (think Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney), or just plain wrong (think all the democrats and Rudy)

3. There are other issues, that, although not as important as life, are still pretty darn important (like the federal reserve, saving the constitution, etc.) and everyone else is woefully mis guided on these issues.

terlinguatx
09-30-2007, 11:33 AM
The other day after the debate I was wondering why he hasn't been using his "big guns" yet (things like mentioning that he's an OB doctor who has delivered over 4000 babies, etc.). Maybe he's saving them for when it really matters--closer to the primaries and especially when he gets the nomination (but for now, I think he's waiting for more attention before he lets loose his full arsenol of Awesomeness!

He is, without a doubt, the best candidate!

yeah, good points

terlinguatx
09-30-2007, 11:37 AM
Except the problem is that most evangelicals, myself included, think that it isn't a states rights issue, but rather the federal government failing to do it's job and protect the fundamental right to life. Yes, that's right I think Paul is wrong on this one.

The problem lies in the fact that a majority (a majority, not most) of evangelicals don't see the issue like I do:

1. Paul will give us pro-lifers a huge boost in the fight to end baby murder as some 30+ states will surely outlaw it. Think William Wilburforce and slavery.

2. Everyone else is pandering (think Alan Keyes), lying (think Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney), or just plain wrong (think all the democrats and Rudy)

3. There are other issues, that, although not as important as life, are still pretty darn important (like the federal reserve, saving the constitution, etc.) and everyone else is woefully mis guided on these issues.

I can respect that. Leaving it to the states is leaps and bounds ahead of what Reagan, and Bush did by allowing it to be the national law of the land. Nothing's ever going to be perfect in a democracy, but allowing states to outlaw or allow it will make great progress.

More importantly I think it's realistically achievable.

steph3n
09-30-2007, 11:38 AM
Nothing's ever going to be perfect in a democracy, but allowing states to outlaw or allow it will make great progress.


Don't continue spreading lies, we are NOT a democracy.

dircha
09-30-2007, 11:38 AM
The Evangelical domestic agenda is:
- Federal ban on abortion
- Federal ban on gay marriage
- Federal ban on stem cell research

And their foreign policy agenda is:
- Wage war in the Middle East to defeat Islamic terrorists and protect Israel

It was just last week that even Fred Thompson was being booed by a religious right crowd for not supporting a federal ban on gay marriage.

Huckabee and Brownback support all of these positions last I checked.

So unless by "reaching out" you mean changing his positions, winning the Evangelical vote is not an easy proposition.

steph3n
09-30-2007, 11:41 AM
dircha, we should not group them all like this, there are some among us here supporting Paul.

SwooshOU
09-30-2007, 11:46 AM
Perhaps we should leave it to the states to determine if 2 year olds should have the right to live.

terlinguatx
09-30-2007, 11:47 AM
The Evangelical domestic agenda is:
- Federal ban on abortion
- Federal ban on gay marriage
- Federal ban on stem cell research

And their foreign policy agenda is:
- Wage war in the Middle East to defeat Islamic terrorists and protect Israel

It was just last week that even Fred Thompson was being booed by a religious right crowd for not supporting a federal ban on gay marriage.

Huckabee and Brownback support all of these positions last I checked.

So unless by "reaching out" you mean changing his positions, winning the Evangelical vote is not an easy proposition.

And what has Bush 1, or 2 or Reagan done about abortion, nothing! Paul will make progress from the evangelical perspective unlike any other candidate. It'd be wholly unrealistic to make these prohibitions federal. other candidates just pay lip service to this and will do nothing about it.

terlinguatx
09-30-2007, 11:51 AM
Perhaps we should leave it to the states to determine if 2 year olds should have the right to live.

I see your point, but there are people out there that believe with just as much conviction that an unborn baby is not alive. No matter what you say they will not change their mind, and I'm sure no matter what they say to you, you will not change your mind. So for the time being the only progress that can be made is leaving it up to the states. Where like-minded people in each state will determine its legality.

dircha
09-30-2007, 11:52 AM
And what has Bush 1, or 2 or Reagan done about abortion, nothing! Paul will make progress from the evangelical perspective unlike any other candidate. It'd be wholly unrealistic to make these prohibitions federal. other candidates just pay lip service to this and will do nothing about it.

But Huckabee already does support all these "litmus test" positions, and seems to be growing as the darling of the religious right. And I think this is a trend that will continue now that Gingrich has announced he is not running. After Thompson failed to impress, and failed to get the support of Dobson, many conservative Christians I know had been holding out for a Gingrich candidacy.

So I think Ron Paul has to do more than reach out. I think he has to make the case why he deserves their support over Huckabee, which is a challenging undertaking.

And remember that Bush got such support from the religious right because he "spoke their language". Well, Huckabee is a pastor.

DrNoZone
09-30-2007, 11:57 AM
Except the problem is that most evangelicals, myself included, think that it isn't a states rights issue, but rather the federal government failing to do it's job and protect the fundamental right to life. Yes, that's right I think Paul is wrong on this one.


Well, no offense, but that would make you and those who think it isn't a states rights issue incorrect. Anything not SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the Constitution as a Federal issue is by definition a states rights issue.

terlinguatx
09-30-2007, 11:58 AM
But Huckabee already does support all these "litmus test" positions, and seems to be growing as the darling of the religious right. And I think this is a trend that will continue now that Gingrich has announced he is not running. After Thompson failed to impress, and failed to get the support of Dobson, many conservative Christians I know had been holding out for a Gingrich candidacy.

So I think Ron Paul has to do more than reach out. I think he has to make the case why he deserves their support over Huckabee, which is a challenging undertaking.

And remember that Bush got such support from the religious right because he "spoke their language". Well, Huckabee is a pastor.

Yeah. Paul has his years of practicing medicine going for him which will resound with people. The others might be the darling, but if PAUL stresses his experiences as an obstetriction with delivering babies he can steal many evangelicals away I think.

Corydoras
09-30-2007, 12:00 PM
unless by "reaching out" you mean changing his positions, winning the Evangelical vote is not an easy proposition.

I agree. Because they have latched onto the idea that the United States as a WHOLE is a "Christian nation," they want everything to get done through the Federal government.

They also don't want to have to fight legislative battles state by state.

jmarinara
09-30-2007, 12:00 PM
The Evangelical domestic agenda is:
- Federal ban on abortion
- Federal ban on gay marriage
- Federal ban on stem cell research

And their foreign policy agenda is:
- Wage war in the Middle East to defeat Islamic terrorists and protect Israel

It was just last week that even Fred Thompson was being booed by a religious right crowd for not supporting a federal ban on gay marriage.

Huckabee and Brownback support all of these positions last I checked.

So unless by "reaching out" you mean changing his positions, winning the Evangelical vote is not an easy proposition.

Yes, ending abortion is very important to us evangelicals, and I think you ought to recognize that stem cell research is simply a tangent of that agenda. And yes, for some the constitutional ban on gay marriage is important to many of us (although not to me. I think homosexuality is a sin and should not be heralded, but it's not the fed governments place to make these types of decisions)

But you are wrong that all of us want to defeat "Islamic terrorists" in the middle east. Not true. Lots of evangelicals don't like the war, although admittedly, not most.

Also, if you want to win evangelicals, the time has come to point out that the state of Arkansas supported planned parenthood and paid for abortions under Mike Huckabee, and that Sam Brownback did nothing during his term as senator to end abortion including not supporting Ron Paul's bills to remove the supreme courts jurisdiction from the issue of life.

Integrity. It still means something to some of us Christians out there.

jmarinara
09-30-2007, 12:05 PM
Well, no offense, but that would make you and those who think it isn't a states rights issue incorrect. Anything not SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the Constitution as a Federal issue is by definition a states rights issue.

Out of curiosity, do you think that slavery should have been left to the states?

steph3n
09-30-2007, 12:12 PM
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Declaration of Independence:

All men are created equal


Now before we get into a huge debate, yes I know that slavery still happened after all mean are created equal, and that was WRONG.

SwooshOU
09-30-2007, 12:12 PM
I see your point, but there are people out there that believe with just as much conviction that an unborn baby is not alive.

To assume that two living beings conceive non-living beings is asinine. One would think that in light of that, science would be on the side of life.

My support for Ron Paul stands and my donations will continue, but this is a sensitive issue that will be fought over and argued about until science is willing to admit that it is a life.

As an aside, I would venture a guess that most people who are pro-choice would be opposed to countries that selectively execute females in utero because their value is perceived as less than males. Obviously, if it is "not alive" then there should be no issue.

richard1984
09-30-2007, 12:17 PM
Maybe we can try this tactic with the evangelicals, Southern Baptists, etc.:

Present Ron Paul as “the best candidate you’ve never heard about.”
Why haven’t they heard about him? “Because of the pro-abortion, liberal media bias--they're afraid that Dr. Paul might actually make this country better, and take us back to our moral, Christian roots!”

You know? Something like that. I would say that most Christians like the thought of being the underdog (they sure do talk/brag about it enough in church--"The whole world is against us because we’re Christians” and so forth).
Set them up so that they get the feeling/impression that they are fighting for Goodness and Righteousness in the face of Evil here.
Tell them that Dr. Paul is just like them. He’s a real patriot, a true Christian, extremely intelligent, honest, with a perfect 10-term voting record, etc.

Something like that might really energize them and shake them out of their Faux News slumber!

jmarinara
09-30-2007, 12:19 PM
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Declaration of Independence:

All men are created equal


Now before we get into a huge debate, yes I know that slavery still happened after all mean are created equal, and that was WRONG.

Sorry, I don't really understand your position here. Are you saying that it was wrong that it was left to the states, or right that it was left to the states and some states decided wrongly?

I'm not trying to trap anyone with this question, I'm honestly curious.

steph3n
09-30-2007, 12:20 PM
I am saying slavery goes against our very independence.

The constitution does not address abortion, therefore it is a state issue.

DrNoZone
09-30-2007, 12:30 PM
I am saying slavery goes against our very independence.

The constitution does not address abortion, therefore it is a state issue.

Slavery isn't addressed by the Constitution either. It is very clear that both issues are states rights issues. Now, they COULD be addressed in the Constitution, but that requires amendment. So for all of those who believe both issues SHOULD be addressed at the Federal level, there is a legal and Constitutional way to go about that.

Zarxrax
09-30-2007, 12:32 PM
I am saying slavery goes against our very independence.

The constitution does not address abortion, therefore it is a state issue.

So then surely killing people before they are even born must also go against our very independence? This is the way pro-lifers see it.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-30-2007, 12:34 PM
I am saying slavery goes against our very independence.

The constitution does not address abortion, therefore it is a state issue.

9th amendment

terlinguatx
09-30-2007, 12:38 PM
The divisiveness of this issue shows why our founders chose Federalism as our form of government, and the importance of Paul restoring it. Federalism is an organization of basically sovereign states under an overarching yet minimal federal framework. Back when the nation was formed you had predominantly catholic states, quaker states, protestant states, slave states, and states without slaves. The fathers knew it would be impossible for them to all share the same views on everything, and they respected the difference of opinion. The best way to have them coexist was under federalism.

Today the notion has disappeared, many states are seen as nothing more than organizational units and not the sovereign bodies they were intended to be. National laws concerning gun controll, abortion, gay rights, etc.. are now affecting every state in contrast to what the constitution dictates. We need to change our mindset. Instead of demanding that abortion be outlawed federally, just be concerned with your own state. It's your sovereign home, and Paul wants to give the right to choose back to you. Don't worry about other states, that is what started this trouble in the first place when influential judges decided that they would force EVERY state in the union to allow abortions. This will reduce national friction and allow the different peoples to choose.

steph3n
09-30-2007, 12:40 PM
Personally I am not against it at a federal level so long as it is done properly via constitutional means.

Slavery however was against the declaration of independence, which of course is not part of the constitution and not addressed in the 1st 10 ammendments. I know and firmly believe slavery is wrong in any form, and that includes slavery to our government.

At this point now the ONLY constitutional way to address it is via the state, or an amendment. The constitution is already trampled on at this point, and I support Ron Paul to go BACK to it. Then from there the advocates of federal abortion ban can take it up properly and not smear it further.


So then surely killing people before they are even born must also go against our very independence? This is the way pro-lifers see it.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-30-2007, 12:41 PM
I think of it this way:

constitution trumps all state law, there can be no "federal law" only constitution amendments

state constitutions cannot contradict the us constitution

congress represents the people in the federal government

legislature represents the people in the state

governor...governs lol

senators represent the state in the federal government

erowe1
09-30-2007, 02:12 PM
Those of you who are saying the Constitution doesn't address slavery are only correct insomuch as you're talking about the Constitution as it existed prior to the Civil War. But clearly the 14th amendment and other post-Civil War amendments do have the effect of prohibiting slavery at the level of federal law. Pro-lifers could argue that the same amendment protects the unborn at the level of federal law, particularly if a federal law is passed declaring that human life and personhood begins at conception, such as a law that Paul has advocated.

But that being said, yes , it is definitely true that overturning Roe v. Wade and restoring a federalist approach to the abortion issue would be seen by all pro-lifers as a major victory. And it is also true that, despite their recent embrace of Bush/Huckabee "compassionate conservatism", there is a stream of evangelical voters that remains deeply committed to small government, the Constitution, and federalism. Paul can and will definitely gain the support of many such voters.

Hope
09-30-2007, 02:23 PM
To the people who are saying "Maybe it should be left up to the states to decide if killing two-year-olds is murder..."

Murder, rape, etc. laws are all decided by state. How they define them, how they are punished. So why should abortion be a federal issue? It shouldn't. *shrugs*

JosephTheLibertarian
09-30-2007, 02:38 PM
9th amendment

erowe1
09-30-2007, 04:27 PM
To the people who are saying "Maybe it should be left up to the states to decide if killing two-year-olds is murder..."

Murder, rape, etc. laws are all decided by state. How they define them, how they are punished. So why should abortion be a federal issue? It shouldn't. *shrugs*

Hope, the argument would be that, while it is up to the states to legislate and enforce the laws they have regarding rape and murder, etc., it is also the case that they are obligated to do so in some way that protects their citizens rights, and the federal govt. is obligated to make sure they do so, via the 14th amendment. The same might then be said about abortion.

Thunderbolt
09-30-2007, 05:01 PM
Well, no offense, but that would make you and those who think it isn't a states rights issue incorrect. Anything not SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the Constitution as a Federal issue is by definition a states rights issue.


This right to an abortion is in the Constitution. Specifically: the 9th Amendment.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Therefore, it is a federal issue and it is a protected right.

oops sorry there Joseph. Didn't see your comment. I agree with you.

Thunderbolt
09-30-2007, 05:03 PM
Those of you who are saying the Constitution doesn't address slavery are only correct insomuch as you're talking about the Constitution as it existed prior to the Civil War. But clearly the 14th amendment and other post-Civil War amendments do have the effect of prohibiting slavery at the level of federal law. Pro-lifers could argue that the same amendment protects the unborn at the level of federal law, particularly if a federal law is passed declaring that human life and personhood begins at conception, such as a law that Paul has advocated.

But that being said, yes , it is definitely true that overturning Roe v. Wade and restoring a federalist approach to the abortion issue would be seen by all pro-lifers as a major victory. And it is also true that, despite their recent embrace of Bush/Huckabee "compassionate conservatism", there is a stream of evangelical voters that remains deeply committed to small government, the Constitution, and federalism. Paul can and will definitely gain the support of many such voters.

Pro-choicers will see the 14th as protecting a female from being forced to be a captor to a parasite and being forced to take care of it, feed it, give it her blood and risk her life to have it.

Thunderbolt
09-30-2007, 05:06 PM
Except the problem is that most evangelicals, myself included, think that it isn't a states rights issue, but rather the federal government failing to do it's job and protect the fundamental right to life. Yes, that's right I think Paul is wrong on this one.

The problem lies in the fact that a majority (a majority, not most) of evangelicals don't see the issue like I do:

1. Paul will give us pro-lifers a huge boost in the fight to end baby murder as some 30+ states will surely outlaw it. Think William Wilburforce and slavery.

2. Everyone else is pandering (think Alan Keyes), lying (think Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney), or just plain wrong (think all the democrats and Rudy)

3. There are other issues, that, although not as important as life, are still pretty darn important (like the federal reserve, saving the constitution, etc.) and everyone else is woefully mis guided on these issues.

I agree with you that evangelicals won't like him for his stance. Neither do the pro-choicers. He has a bit of a lose/lose issue with this one. He pleases no one.

That is why I hate to have use any literature that says that he is pro-life because you lose both sides.

libertarian4321
09-30-2007, 05:12 PM
But more importantly he could really stress the fact that he's an obstetrician, and has delivered over 4,000 babies and knows the beauty of life.

Most of the evangelicals want nothing short of a Federal ban on abortion. Ron Paul isn't calling for a ban on abortion.

The other candidates are actively pandering to this group.

Hence, it seems unlikely that Ron Paul is going to attract these people with this issue.

Therefore, its a waste of time when there are so many other people out there who can be reached relatively easy.

We don't have to attract everyone, folks- focus on people likely to be receptive to the message, preferably those not being openly courted by the other Republicans.

At best, Ron is a "me too" candidate to the evangelical anti-abortion crowd- he won't pull them in large numbers.

erowe1
09-30-2007, 05:34 PM
Most of the evangelicals want nothing short of a Federal ban on abortion.

Would you please provide your source for whatever poll of evangelicals supports this remarkable claim? I've never encountered it before. And this is certainly not something that has ever been demanded of Republican candidates before.