Gary Johnson is a True Libertarian

[M.Hays]

So I have been thinking lately on how Gary Johnson is more of a true Libertarian than Ron Paul is and thought I would bring the idea here for discussion. Here is how I came to that conclusion. First, when it comes to immigration and supporting strong borders Johnson follows more directly the Libertarian stance. Second, Johnson’s support of womens right to choose, although slightly controversial, is definitely more Libertarian. Finally, that Dr. Paul has not come out as strongly against the Drug War has raised questions among some pure Libertarians.

Since we know that Gary is running for president in 2012 (via the New Republic article (http://www.tnr.com/article/magazine/78543/Gary-johnson-2012-republican-candidate-new-mexico?page=0,0&passthru=MWFjY2RkZDlmYWRlY2U5YmIyYTk1N2NhZDczMzA2Z Dc)), and assuming that Ron Paul decides not to run, Gary will be the only one who can really represent Libertarians, and even if Ron does run, Gary is more in line with their views. What do you think?

[nate895]

Second, Johnson’s support of womens right to choose, ?

Exactly why I will never vote for him.

[Kotin]

You are kidding right?

Dr Paul not coming out against the drug war as strong!? Lol ok..


Sorry but it's going to be Ron Paul in 2012, no one else.. GJ is fine.. But it's not going to happen..


And as for what you said on abortion, that is YOUR opinion.. In my opinion and many others, Ron Paul takes the real libertarian stance when it comes to protecting the life of the unborn.

[Elwar]

As a huge Gary Johnson supporter I will just say that he is running his campaign as a moderate.

He has moved far from his libertarian purity for the campaign. It is a strategy. We'll see if it works or not.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

All the in-fighting, arguing, etc. when/if they both run is going to be a pain and not helpful.

[LudwigVonMisoSoup]

Exactly why I will never vote for him.

Let me take this opportunity to say: no politician will ever be responsible for an overturn of Roe v. Wade. This issue is dead in the water until the Supreme Court ever decides to re-hear this case (spoiler alert: they won't). If you're basing your vote on a candidate based on a stance which he has no impact, you're a fool. I'm pro-choice (until fetal viability), but I would never not vote for someone because they're pro-life, like Ron Paul. This is because I know he has no control over it and never will.

[Elwar]

Yes...the abortion issue is SO important right now...


Helps to have a country left, no matter which side the abortion decision falls.

[BamaFanNKy]

All the in-fighting, arguing, etc. when/if they both run is going to be a pain and not helpful.

See Kotin and Josh were at a table with me this week. I still believe we need 3 Gary's and 3 Ron's running. We can't just rest on one possible liberty minded guy to get nominated. The more in the race of our ilk, the better shot we have on getting at least one elected.

Run Ron, Run Gary..... Let's get a few more out there.

[Acralight]

I can see how he would be considered more libertarian. I learned about how to be a Libertarian from Ron Paul so it is hard for me to see someone else try to fill those shoes, but I can understand it. I could without a doubt throw my support being Gary Johnson in 2012. Especially, with Ron Paul's endorsement!

And as for the Abortion issue it is my understanding that the majority of true libertarians are pro-choice and being pro-life is more of an exception than a rule. It definitely is not a deal breaker as far as being a Libertarian goes.

[Seraphim]

See Kotin and Josh were at a table with me this week. I still believe we need 3 Gary's and 3 Ron's running. We can't just rest on one possible liberty minded guy to get nominated. The more in the race of our ilk, the better shot we have on getting at least one elected.

Run Ron, Run Gary..... Let's get a few more out there.

Agreed...

Wouldn't it be nice to go from SUPPORT THE MAJOR LIBERTY CANDIDATE to PICK FROM A HANDFUL OF LIBERTY CANDIDATES?

I think so.

[nate895]

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was supposed to compromise on the "Thou shalt not murder" thing. I'll fall back in line.

Whatever. I'm sick of debating this with the pro-death crowd.

[SilentBull]

Abortion is the only issue where two natural rights actually clash: Life and Property. I am pro choice, but I completely understand the arguments of those who are pro-life. That is one issue where I think you can be on either side, and still consider yourself a libertarian.

[specsaregood]

"the new republic", why oh why does that site sound familiar......

[teacherone]

we are clearly being infiltrated by a bunch of johnson supporters trying to cause a ruckus.

silly johnsons.

[specsaregood]

we are clearly being infiltrated by a bunch of johnson supporters trying to cause a ruckus.

silly johnsons.

Now I remember. It was the new republic that came out with those newsletters on the eve of the new hampshire primary.

I guess it makes sense they would push any candidate that could help divide Dr. Paul's support.

[Elwar]

Why do we have to go through this over and over and over and over and over and over and over????

The more the merrier in the debates.

One will drop and out and endorse the other.

Do you see Mitt folks crying about Newt and Pawlenty joining the race and "dividing" the neo-cons?

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson at the #1 and #2 spot would be great for all of us.

[phill4paul]

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was supposed to compromise on the "Thou shalt not murder" thing. I'll fall back in line.

Whatever. I'm sick of debating this with the pro-death crowd.

Not to drag this out nate895 and I agree with you about beating a dead horse. I was just wondering what your stance was as I don't recall reading it before.
Are you pro-life, end Roe vs. Wade and return decision to the states?
Just wondering because I'm pro-choice, end Roe vs. Wade and return decision to the states.

[BamaFanNKy]

My question is this..... who else is Libertarian or "Liberty" enough to be #3, #4, #5 and #6.

[phill4paul]

The more the merrier in the debates.



That is the way I see it. We NEED more voices.

[Kotin]

See Kotin and Josh were at a table with me this week. I still believe we need 3 Gary's and 3 Ron's running. We can't just rest on one possible liberty minded guy to get nominated. The more in the race of our ilk, the better shot we have on getting at least one elected.

Run Ron, Run Gary..... Let's get a few more out there.

I agree.. But only under the condition that this is coordinated beforehand.. Or else it is prone to have problems.. If we had this type of situation without any coordination, they would be stepping on each other's toes with respect to fundraising.. Also this would cause infighting within the grassroots if not done right..

And for me it would have to be Ron Paul at the end of the day.. Regardless of who else runs.. We laid all the ground work for him in the last presidential election..

[akforme]

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was supposed to compromise on the "Thou shalt not murder" thing. I'll fall back in line.

Whatever. I'm sick of debating this with the pro-death crowd.

whatever. were debating the we can't think for ourselves because we were told to believe in a book crowd.

[BamaFanNKy]

I agree.. But only under the condition that this is coordinated beforehand.. Or else it is prone to have problems.. If we had this type of situation without any coordination, they would be stepping on each other's toes with respect to fundraising.. Also this would cause infighting within the grassroots if not done right..

See, I don't have a problem with toes stepped on. Because in the end:
YouTube - The Beatles - Come Together (Custom Music Video) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8LZGQ4MkvQ)

[silentshout]

The more the merrier. I like Johnson, I like RP.

[twister5400]

The way I see it, Gary Johnson running, with Ron Paul running, tremendously helps Ron Paul. First of all, during the debates, we will have more than one voice of reason when it comes to debating the more hawkish neocon viewpoints. We will have two people defending cutting spending and increasing civil liberties. At the same time, Ron Paul has made serious gains over the last 3 years. More people now look at Ron Paul with a sense of appreciation instead of the disdain they showed a couple of years ago.

With just Ron Paul running, he would receive the brunt of the backlash and hatred for what he is saying. Now, is Gary Johnson is ok with it, he can be the scapegoat. He will be the one who pushes the envelope, while Ron Paul will look more mainstream. The people who once said Ron Paul is crazy will be saying "Gary Johnson is crazy". Instead of Chris Wallace or whoever it was asking whether or not Ron Paul is running in the wrong party or whether or not he is electable, they will do it to Gary Johnson. I hope that is Gary Johnson's reasoning behind running. I know he has to have political aspirations, but at the same time, he has seen what Ron Paul has done over the last few years. I hope that he realizes that he is going to take a beating when it comes to the media. But after three or four years, more and more people will have thought through the positions and will be on his side.

While this goes on, I think that it will make Ron Paul look more electable. Remember, that was our problem last time. Too many people were saying, "Ron Paul may be right, but he isn't electable." Now it will be "Ron Paul is and has been right." While we will simultaneously hear "Gary Johnson is unelectable." Bad for Gary Johnson, as far as this election cycle goes, but extremely good for the liberty movement as a whole. Gary Johnson will have to deal with the shit, but will see his gains in a couple of years; just like Ron Paul.

I think Ron Paul and Gary Johnson on the same debate stage seriously helps the liberty movement. The only drawback that I can think of will be fundraising. Gary Johnson better have his financial backers lined up or else he's gonna be in trouble and unable to move his campaign forward.

[Kotin]

See, I don't have a problem with toes stepped on. Because in the end:
YouTube - The Beatles - Come Together (Custom Music Video) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8LZGQ4MkvQ)

I know what you mean.. And I understand with our kind of movement, your scenario is more likely.. I just want to be the most effective.. In educating people and also gaining high political offices.. If that is the way to do it, then okay.. I still haven't made up my mind..

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Why do we have to go through this over and over and over and over and over and over and over????

The more the merrier in the debates.

One will drop and out and endorse the other.

Do you see Mitt folks crying about Newt and Pawlenty joining the race and "dividing" the neo-cons?

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson at the #1 and #2 spot would be great for all of us.

Pure bunk. Divided support, divided money bombs, divided everything is going to end with a divided result.

I'd rather Ron Paul run and get our full, undivided attention, support and resources than having someone siphon it off. It's completely foolish. It's nothing more than just throwing away the chance. It is not like with the pro-war crowd where they can afford to do this because they make up such a gigantic majority of the GOP.

[twister5400]

we just better be ready to write those letters to the editor and blog responses like we did for ron paul before. ron paul now has much more broad support, and will have many more people defending him. we'll need to make sure we defend gary johnson as much as possible. in the end it makes both more attractive, and helps the movement.

[specsaregood]

Why do we have to go through this over and over and over and over and over and over and over????

The more the merrier in the debates.


I'm fine with that. But when somebody joins up, links to a hate-filled site (TNR) and starts promoting other candidates and disparaging Dr. Paul's bonafides for the cause of liberty.......I choose to view them with a bit of skepticism. The only reason the TNR would promote Johnson would be to take away support from Dr. Paul.

[Elwar]

Pure bunk. Divided support, divided money bombs, divided everything is going to end with a divided result.

I'd rather Ron Paul run and get our full, undivided attention, support and resources than having someone siphon it off.

This would be true if Gary Johnson was targetting the Ron Paul grassroots.

He hasn't. He's been going after the moderates. He's been touting the Fair Tax, he's been touting lower spending and lower taxes. He supports an audit of the Federal Reserve with smarter monetary decisions by the Fed (on the campaign trail).

He's getting support from people that think Ron Paul is poison for whatever reason.

I've been running the garyjohnson2012.com site and get a lot of e-mails from people who think he's great and hardly even know much about Ron Paul.

He will bring support in. If it's enough maybe he'll do great and take off. Or maybe Ron Paul will take off. Either way, one will drop out and endorse the other.

There's already been some rumors that they talked it all over way back in 2008...I'm sure Paul and Johnson are on the same page on this one.

[Elwar]

I'm fine with that. But when somebody joins up, links to a hate-filled site (TNR) and starts promoting other candidates and disparaging Dr. Paul's bonafides for the cause of liberty.......I choose to view them with a bit of skepticism. The only reason the TNR would promote Johnson would be to take away support from Dr. Paul.

Ya, I found that peculiar as well.

Coming on to the Ron Paul Forums and saying Johnson is better than Ron Paul is not the way to go about things...almost purposefully so (from a 2 post n00b).

[RonPaulFanInGA]

There's already been some rumors that they talked it all over way back in 2008...I'm sure Paul and Johnson are on the same page on this one.

I hope you're right. Both of them running would be beyond stupid. One should run and the other endorse him.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well, I believe in proportionality, so the obvious choice to the abortion issue taking into consideration both self-ownership of the fetus, the mother, and the right to life. Therefore, the only sensible option (And Christians should believe in this too, since the Just War Theory presents itself with proportionality), is that the mother has the right to evict, but not kill. I think Walter Block has the most sensible and well-thought out position and I have adapted it.

As technology improves so will the options available to the mother. That said, the issue is fairly divided among libertarians. I think though in time most libertarians will come to the same position as Block -- evict, but not kill.

[Elwar]

I hope you're right. Both of them running would be beyond stupid. One should run and the other endorse him.

It would be better to endorse with a huge group of supporters already listening.

Johnson also mentioned that he's in this for the long haul...(meaning 2016 and beyond...)

[Inkblots]

I hope you're right. Both of them running would be beyond stupid. One should run and the other endorse him.

RonPaulFanInGA, I share your concerns about two Liberty candidates running in the 2012 primaries. Our group of dedicated activists is deep, but unfortunately not very broad, and so it would be quite easy for an attempt to support two candidates to hurt both significantly, rather than redounding to our benefit.

However, look at this quote from the TNR article:

Johnson isn't merely testing the presidential waters; several Johnson confidants told me that nothing—not even another Ron Paul campaign—will stop him from running. "There's no waiting or seeing," says one. "It's a done deal."

"Everybody's been aware of it, even during the last campaign," says Paul, whom Johnson informed of his intentions in April 2008. "I don't remember when anybody didn't assume that he would run for president." Fortunately for Johnson, Paul, while not ruling out a second act, has shown little appetite for one. ("I have made no plans," he told me.) And if he doesn't run, he'll "most likely" throw his weight behind Johnson. "I can't imagine endorsing anybody else," he says.

This shows that they have talked about this. Hopefully they will coordinate in good faith, in such a fashion that we can have two strong national spokesmen for liberty in the 2011 debates, with the weaker candidate dropping out and endorsing the other in plenty of time to help the other in the early primaries. My concern is, of course, that that will be easier said than done. But we'll just have to wait and see.

[LisaNY]

This would be a great turn of events for the neo-conservatives. I'm sure they would love nothing more than for someone to split up the ron paul votes and donations.

call me a noob or paranoid or whatever, but as a former neocon I watched these guys trash paul for the past 3 years and can't help but be suspicious that some (tne, frum) are now promoting this johnson guy.

Just my opinion.

[PBrady]

The Gary haters on here who are afraid of "splitting up the vote/money" just confirms why I believe Ron won't win in 2012.

He can't just rely on us dedicated activists for the win. Nor can Gary. As others have mentioned, Gary is going after an entirely different audience, and one that is far more sustainable in the long run (in my opinion). Ron Paul is great, and always will be, but if you're really afraid of the money being split up by someone else similar to him entering the race, then clearly you (nor I for that matter) are very confident in him attracting more people to become dedicated supporters.

[Theocrat]

Exactly why I will never vote for him.

Unless Gary changes his views on protecting the unborn, he will never have my support. As a matter of fact, I will make a concerted effort to encourage all Christians to not support him in any office he seeks. Supporting the murder of unborn children (under the guise of "choice") is not moving in the direction of liberty for all. If you can't protect life, you can't preserve liberty. He cares more about legalizing a plant than saving the lives of unborn children.

[Imperial]

As a huge Gary Johnson supporter I will just say that he is running his campaign as a moderate.

He has moved far from his libertarian purity for the campaign. It is a strategy. We'll see if it works or not.

That DailyCaller interview seemed pretty libertarian to me. He is being advised by libertarian economist Jeffrey Miron, who is a pretty badass consequentialist libertarian.




Unless Gary changes his views on protecting the unborn, he will never have my support. As a matter of fact, I will make a concerted effort to encourage all Christians to not support him in any office he seeks. Supporting the murder of unborn children (under the guise of "choice") is not moving in the direction of liberty for all. If you can't protect life, you can't preserve liberty. He cares more about legalizing a plant than saving the lives of unborn children.

You do realize Gary Johnson as Governor of New Mexico removed state funding of abortion, despite his pro choice stance? There is little he can do as President of the United States to make abortion illegal, but he can cut off funding for abortion.

[Theocrat]

That DailyCaller interview seemed pretty libertarian to me. He is being advised by libertarian economist Jeffrey Miron, who is a pretty badass consequentialist libertarian.

You do realize Gary Johnson as Governor of New Mexico removed state funding of abortion, despite his pro choice stance? There is little he can do as President of the United States to make abortion illegal, but he can cut off funding for abortion.

That's great, if he did that. However, it's the principle of the matter that concerns me. Gary still believes, personally, that it's okay to kill innocent people. He would leave it up to a mother to destroy her unborn child. Do you realize how sick that is?

I'm sorry, but if he can't get that issue right, all the rest of his issues are meaningless, no matter how much of a "libertarian" he claims to be. He's willing to fight for the right to smoke cannibus, but he won't fight for the life of a baby in the womb named "Candice." He needs to get his priorities in order.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That's great, if he did that. However, it's the principle of the matter that concerns me. Gary still believes, personally, that it's okay to kill innocent people. He would leave it up to a mother to destroy her unborn child. Do you realize how sick that is?

I'm sorry, but if he can't get that issue right, all the rest of his issues are meaningless, no matter how much of a "libertarian" he claims to be. He's willing to fight for the right to smoke cannibus, but he won't fight for the life of a baby in the womb named "Candice." He needs to get his priorities in order.

Do you believe the mother has a right to evict the child, but not kill the child? If not, how do you reconcile your belief in proportionality (E.g. that the property owner (mother) has a right to evict a trespasser, but not to kill the trespasser)? Do you reject the Just War Theory also because it is based at least in part on proportionality?

[ChaosControl]

Gary Johnson supports returning abortion to the state level, which is what is needed to make it illegal anyway, outside of say a pro-life amendment which is infinitely more difficult than just getting one judge flip on the SC and a majority vote in a given state.

So even though he is "pro-choice", which I dislike, it is acceptable since he supports returning it locally. I'm one of the most "pro-life" people there are, but I can still support him because of this.

[Imperial]

That's great, if he did that. However, it's the principle of the matter that concerns me. Gary still believes, personally, that it's okay to kill innocent people. He would leave it up to a mother to destroy her unborn child. Do you realize how sick that is?

I'm sorry, but if he can't get that issue right, all the rest of his issues are meaningless, no matter how much of a "libertarian" he claims to be. He's willing to fight for the right to smoke cannibus, but he won't fight for the life of a baby in the womb named "Candice." He needs to get his priorities in order.

My problem with abortion-centric arguments is we are debating semantics. I dare say that both conservatives and liberals are right when it comes to abortion, as it all depends on where you believe life begins. If you think that life begins after the first trimester, it makes sense you would be fine with abortion up to that point. If you think life begins at conception, it makes sense you would oppose all abortion.

But do you see the problem? You are demonizing someone for something they are making a moral judgment on in good faith. I would fall on the pro-life side of the argument, but I recognize that people don't believe what they do because they like killing babies.

Gary Johnson's position accounts for this problem as best as possible.

[LibertyEagle]

So I have been thinking lately on how Gary Johnson is more of a true Libertarian than Ron Paul is and thought I would bring the idea here for discussion. Here is how I came to that conclusion. First, when it comes to immigration and supporting strong borders Johnson follows more directly the Libertarian stance. Second, Johnson’s support of womens right to choose, although slightly controversial, is definitely more Libertarian. Finally, that Dr. Paul has not come out as strongly against the Drug War has raised questions among some pure Libertarians.

Since we know that Gary is running for president in 2012 (via the New Republic article (http://www.tnr.com/article/magazine/78543/Gary-johnson-2012-republican-candidate-new-mexico?page=0,0&passthru=MWFjY2RkZDlmYWRlY2U5YmIyYTk1N2NhZDczMzA2Z Dc)), and assuming that Ron Paul decides not to run, Gary will be the only one who can really represent Libertarians, and even if Ron does run, Gary is more in line with their views. What do you think?

Are you implying he is for open borders? Because if he is, count me out.

[Theocrat]

My problem with abortion-centric arguments is we are debating semantics. I dare say that both conservatives and liberals are right when it comes to abortion, as it all depends on where you believe life begins. If you think that life begins after the first trimester, it makes sense you would be fine with abortion up to that point. If you think life begins at conception, it makes sense you would oppose all abortion.

But do you see the problem? You are demonizing someone for something they are making a moral judgment on in good faith. I would fall on the pro-life side of the argument, but I recognize that people don't believe what they do because they like killing babies.

Gary Johnson's position accounts for this problem as best as possible.

In my opinion, Gary needs to do a bit more research on the abortion issue because I believe he is wrong in his current position. No matter what stage you look at a fetus, it is always 100% human, biologically and spiritually. The fetus does not become human after a particular stage of development. That's a discussion for another thread, so I'm not going to dwell there. My point is the protection of innocent life, such as a baby in the womb, must never be abridged nor dismissed as a secondary issue, relegated to the "choice" of another person.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

In my opinion, Gary needs to do a bit more research on the abortion issue because I believe he is wrong in his current position. No matter what stage you look at a fetus, it is always 100% human, biologically and spiritually. The fetus does not become human after a particular stage of development. That's a discussion for another thread, so I'm not going to dwell there. My point is the protection of innocent life, such as a baby in the womb, must never be abridged nor dismissed as a secondary issue, relegated to the "choice" of another person.

So the mother has no right of eviction? The mother's body is her own property (You do believe that self-ownership is self-evident, right?). Similarly, the house owner has the right to evict a harmless homeless person who has wandered in, but doesn't have the right to kill him (This is upheld in christianity also, as proportionality). So your views aren't even in line with Christianity given the theological origins (Thomas Aquinas & other Natural Law theologians). Would you agree with me the mother has the right of eviction, but not of murder?

[LibertyEagle]

So the mother has no right of eviction? The mother's body is her own property (You do believe that self-ownership is self-evident, right?). Similarly, the house owner has the right to evict a harmless homeless person who has wandered in, but doesn't have the right to kill him (This is upheld in christianity also, as proportionality). So your views aren't even in line with Christianity given the theological origins (Thomas Aquinas & other Natural Law theologians). Would you agree with me the mother has the right of eviction, but not of murder?

The mother has the right to keep her legs together. If she chooses not to and becomes pregnant because of her decision, then she should be responsible for her own actions. We're all for personal responsibility, right? After she has delivered the child, she is perfectly able to give him/her up for adoption, or to evict, as you say.

[Theocrat]

So the mother has no right of eviction? The mother's body is her own property (You do believe that self-ownership is self-evident, right?). Similarly, the house owner has the right to evict a harmless homeless person who has wandered in, but doesn't have the right to kill him (This is upheld in christianity also, as proportionality). So your views aren't even in line with Christianity given the theological origins (Thomas Aquinas & other Natural Law theologians). Would you agree with me the mother has the right of eviction, but not of murder?

I don't understand what the intent of your questions is warranting, nor how it is relevant in the discussion of Gary Johnson's views on abortion.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't understand what the intent of your questions is warranting, nor how it is relevant in the discussion of Gary Johnson's views on abortion.

I was probing your views on abortion. Call it a curious endeavor on my part because you seem to be implying that one liberty overrules another liberty, but liberty is mutual, not an overruling system of preferences like freedom is. I gave the analogy. Just wondering how consistent you are :)

[Inkblots]

Putting aside for a moment the relative merits and demerits of Gary Johnson as a presidential candidate, the growing buzz in the press for Gary Johnson today is an interesting illustration of media narrative setting. Looking at the headlines on Google News, I find it fascinating that all these publications and blogs that ran down and dumped on Ron Paul in '08, and that are specifically hostile to the principles of liberty shaping government policy, are all simultaneously talking up Gary Johnson as a good, strong presidential contender, and often using the same phrase: 'the next Ron Paul'. Just look at the google results: The New Republic, The Atlantic, Frum Forum. Even more libertarian outfits like Reason (though they were anti-Paul in '08, too, let us not forget), and foreign publications like the UK Spectator.

I'm not making a value judgment with this post, I just think it's an interesting observation of how a narrative is shaped, and how much the media play follow the leader. Another recent example was that tussle between a Rand Paul supporter and the MoveOn activist, where almost all the headlines used identical language: "stomped on head". It's just interesting how much journalists and editorial writers copy one another, I suppose.

[LibertyEagle]

I was probing your views on abortion. Call it a curious endeavor on my part because you seem to be implying that one liberty overrules another liberty, but liberty is mutual, not an overruling system of preferences like freedom is. I gave the analogy. Just wondering how consistent you are :)

You do not have the liberty to murder another human life. Clear enough?

Your liberty only extends to the point that it starts infringing on someone else's. The someone else in this situation is the unborn.

[silentshout]

The mother has the right to keep her legs together. If she chooses not to and becomes pregnant because of her decision, then she should be responsible for her own actions. We're all for personal responsibility, right? After she has delivered the child, she is perfectly able to give him/her up for adoption, or to evict, as you say.

And if she has no choice, and is raped? girls as young as 10 can get pregnant, and pregnancy at that age could kill them.

Anyway, he is only personally pro-choice..he wants to leave it up to the states to decide. I am fine with that (and am pro-choice myself.)

[qh4dotcom]

And if she has no choice, and is raped? girls as young as 10 can get pregnant, and pregnancy at that age could kill them.

Anyway, he is only personally pro-choice..he wants to leave it up to the states to decide.

Good point and I am pro-life myself.