PDA

View Full Version : (Video) Ron Paul On CNN American Morning Today




Immortal Technique
02-14-2011, 08:36 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctsja3awrD4

Airing Date Feb.14, 2011

Ron Paul On CNN American Morning Today

Still hunting for that morning joe interview, Paul did well in this interview, from the comments i read on here i thought it would not be that good, he did fine.


Ron Paul On Morning Joe SLAMS Obama: "He's A Warmonger"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLtYMMPISLs

Airing Date Feb.14, 2011

Ron Paul On Morning Joe SLAMS Obama: "He's A Warmonger"!

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-14-2011, 08:41 AM
VOLUNTARYISM ha :p

newbitech
02-14-2011, 08:42 AM
yeah, not what I expected from the comments else where. Right to life vs. Freedom to choose clash. He addressed this by saying we cannot compel people to act a certain way.

He doesn't want people to have abortions, but he can't force them to give birth. That's how I took his respons.e

hazek
02-14-2011, 08:49 AM
He doesn't want people to have abortions, but he can't force them to give birth. That's how I took his response.

+1

Brett85
02-14-2011, 08:57 AM
yeah, not what I expected from the comments else where. Right to life vs. Freedom to choose clash. He addressed this by saying we cannot compel people to act a certain way.

He doesn't want people to have abortions, but he can't force them to give birth. That's how I took his respons.e

I don't think so, unless he just changed his position on abortion overnight. He's always been opposed to legal abortion. Nice try though.

MRoCkEd
02-14-2011, 08:59 AM
I don't think so, unless he just changed his position on abortion overnight. He's always been opposed to legal abortion. Nice try though.

Maybe he was just flustered from the question, because his answer sounded like that.

ClayTrainor
02-14-2011, 08:59 AM
VOLUNTARYISM ha :p

Haha, it was awesome to hear him use that word. :D

Tal
02-14-2011, 09:01 AM
He kinda dodged the abortion question I think, he should have just said ''well abortion is a tricky issue since its a question of how you define life and murder, we dont allow people the freedom to choose whether they want to kill anyone they want because that hurts others and that is why I oppose people having the choice to abort babies since I consider them to be individuals''.

reduen
02-14-2011, 09:01 AM
How much of this interview did we miss?

reduen
02-14-2011, 09:03 AM
He kinda dodged the abortion question I think, he should have just said ''well abortion is a tricky issue since its a question of how you define life and murder, we dont allow people the freedom to choose whether they want to kill anyone they want because that hurts others and that is why I oppose people having the choice to abort babies since I consider them to be individuals''.

He has said it like this many times in the past.

BamaFanNKy
02-14-2011, 09:03 AM
Prohibition doesn't work.... I'm glad she didn't come back with, "We saw that when abortion was outlawed and we had a large amount of dangerous backroom abortions."

Brett85
02-14-2011, 09:04 AM
Maybe he was just flustered from the question, because his answer sounded like that.

It seemed like he tried to avoid the question. Rand seems to be much more outspoken on the abortion issue than Ron. He flat out said on O'Reilly's show that he supports a Constitutional amendment banning all abortions.

RileyE104
02-14-2011, 09:04 AM
I don't think so, unless he just changed his position on abortion overnight. He's always been opposed to legal abortion. Nice try though.

I thought he was personally opposed to it but mainly opposed to it on the federal level.

ClayTrainor
02-14-2011, 09:07 AM
Prohibition doesn't work.... I'm glad she didn't come back with, "We saw that when abortion was outlawed and we had a large amount of dangerous backroom abortions."

That's exactly what would happen, if Abortion was outlawed. I think Ron summed it all up nicely with the "Prohibition doesn't work" statement. I can't imagine he actually believes the federal government is actually capable of outlawing such a thing to over 300 million people in a rational way, without creating a dangerous black market. He understands economics too well to believe that.

AlexMerced
02-14-2011, 09:10 AM
I don't think so, unless he just changed his position on abortion overnight. He's always been opposed to legal abortion. Nice try though.

Hes not against abortion in the sense of ending a Pregnancy, he's against the destruction of a fetus. He once in an interview talked about how technology is quickly making this a moot issue cause women will be able to remove the fetus early on. So the woman has the choice to carry the baby or not, but she doesn't have to kill the darn thing.

This is the same position Walter block and I have on the issue that it is a conflict between two individuals property rights and that the ideal solution is one that reconnizes the right of both parties, I think block referred to this position as extractionism.

I'll find the video where Ron Paul makes same argument this afternoon, if look up Ron Paul and abortion you'll find it soon enough, it was probably one of the most candid videos of where I've seen Paul being more libertarian than conservative.

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 09:11 AM
It seemed like he tried to avoid the question. Rand seems to be much more outspoken on the abortion issue than Ron. He flat out said on O'Reilly's show that he supports a Constitutional amendment banning all abortions.

SHIT! We lost tons of Dem and Independent supporters last time over Ron trying to appeal to Christian Conservatives on this issue. His stance is that there is noting in the Constitution giving teh Federal Government the power to ban abortions. What states do on this issue, is up to the states. Dems / Independents lefties, etc are fine with that position. A federal ban on abortion is a deal breaker! We loose supporters when they think that is his possition, and it is not his position.

-t

BamaFanNKy
02-14-2011, 09:16 AM
The correct stance for those that are Pro-Life:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD9lVV4lVcQ

Brett85
02-14-2011, 09:19 AM
SHIT! We lost tons of Dem and Independent supporters last time over Ron trying to appeal to Christian Conservatives on this issue. His stance is that there is noting in the Constitution giving teh Federal Government the power to ban abortions. What states do on this issue, is up to the states. Dems / Independents lefties, etc are fine with that position. A federal ban on abortion is a deal breaker! We loose supporters when they think that is his possition, and it is not his position.

-t

If Dems and independents won't vote for Ron because he doesn't support killing babies, then that's their problem. Ron is against legal abortion, but he has simply said that the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to ban abortion. It's simply a constitutional position. He's never said that he wouldn't support a constitutional amendment banning it.

Also, if Ron is actually going to run as a REPUBLICAN then he has to appeal to socially conservative Republican primary voters, not pro choice Democrats and independents.

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 09:19 AM
Hes not against abortion in the sense of ending a Pregnancy, he's against the destruction of a fetus. He once in an interview talked about how technology is quickly making this a moot issue cause women will be able to remove the fetus early on. So the woman has the choice to carry the baby or not, but she doesn't have to kill the darn thing.

That's fascinating and would really put the issue to rest. Do you have a link?

I can see couples that can't conceive on their own, lining up to get "fully loaded" embryos implanted. Also lesbian couples. I could also foresee some women making a living off getting knocked up in order to sell them.

The one catch is disease. In cases where you had HIV/AIDS, sickle cell, and various inherited, degenerative diseases like multiple sclerosis - who would want the embryos?

I suppose you could freeze them and wait for medicine to catch up.

-t

YumYum
02-14-2011, 09:19 AM
SHIT! We lost tons of Dem and Independent supporters last time over Ron trying to appeal to Christian Conservatives on this issue. His stance is that there is noting in the Constitution giving teh Federal Government the power to ban abortions. What states do on this issue, is up to the states. Dems / Independents lefties, etc are fine with that position. A federal ban on abortion is a deal breaker! We loose supporters when they think that is his possition, and it is not his position.

-t

That's the point. Ron knows he will win by gaining more leftist/conservatives to his side. I'm against abortion, but when it comes down to it, you can't deny a woman the right to make the ultimate decision.

newbitech
02-14-2011, 09:21 AM
I don't think so, unless he just changed his position on abortion overnight. He's always been opposed to legal abortion. Nice try though.

I wasn't trying anything. Ron Paul compared this to the drug issue. He doesn't believe that people should take drugs, but its up to the parents and the church etc.. to get that person off drugs. Not some law or law enforcement. Yes, he is strong Right to Life. He also believes there isn't an issue dividing right to life and freedom of choice.

He explained that by saying individuals cannot be compelled to take an action. "we" meaning the federal government cannot compel people to give birth. Again, not trying to twist his words, but his position on the issue is very delicate. Just because he is not going to force people to give birth, doesn't mean that he is some kind of baby killer. At the same time, him being pro-life in the abortion argument, doesn't mean he is going to come out and make laws forcing people to do things with their bodies like give birth or NOT smoke crack.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 09:23 AM
I wasn't trying anything. Ron Paul compared this to the drug issue. He doesn't believe that people should take drugs, but its up to the parents and the church etc.. to get that person off drugs. Not some law or law enforcement. Yes, he is strong Right to Life. He also believes there isn't an issue dividing right to life and freedom of choice.

He explained that by saying individuals cannot be compelled to take an action. "we" meaning the federal government cannot compel people to give birth. Again, not trying to twist his words, but his position on the issue is very delicate. Just because he is not going to force people to give birth, doesn't mean that he is some kind of baby killer. At the same time, him being pro-life in the abortion argument, doesn't mean he is going to come out and make laws forcing people to do things with their bodies like give birth or NOT smoke crack.

Do you not realize that Ron Paul wrote an entire book defending the pro life position from a libertarian perspective? He's also made it sound like in articles he's written that he would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 09:25 AM
I'm against abortion, but when it comes down to it, you can't deny a woman the right to make the ultimate decision.

And you can't deny my right to murder my next door neighbor.

newbitech
02-14-2011, 09:25 AM
Do you not realize that Ron Paul wrote an entire book defending the pro life position from a libertarian perspective?

I don't think you are reading what I am writing. You are not responding to my words. You responding to the position opposite yours. Stop doing that if you want me to continue explaining my opinion on what Ron Paul said in the OP interview.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 09:28 AM
I don't think you are reading what I am writing. You are not responding to my words. You responding to the position opposite yours. Stop doing that if you want me to continue explaining my opinion on what Ron Paul said in the OP interview.

This was your original quote:

"He doesn't want people to have abortions, but he can't force them to give birth."

That's a false statement as Ron is opposed to legal abortion. He's always been opposed to abortion rights, but has simply said that the federal government can't ban it short of a constitutional amendment. That doesn't mean that he supports "a woman's right to choose."

newbitech
02-14-2011, 09:29 AM
Do you not realize that Ron Paul wrote an entire book defending the pro life position from a libertarian perspective? He's also made it sound like in articles he's written that he would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

Has Ron Paul ever introduced legislation calling for an amendment to the Constitution? If not, why not?

erowe1
02-14-2011, 09:32 AM
I'm against abortion, but when it comes down to it, you can't deny a woman the right to make the ultimate decision.

That's kind of what my position is about murdering abortion doctors.

Whatever anyone thinks about whether murdering abortion doctors is right or wrong, it's their own personal religious view, and, while I am personally against murdering abortion doctors, I don't have the right to shove my religion down the throats of those who see it differently.

erowe1
02-14-2011, 09:36 AM
He's also made it sound like in articles he's written that he would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

Can you give us a link for that? I'm skeptical.

I don't think I would support such an amendment unless it includes a provision for states that opt out of banning abortion to secede from the union. But with a provision like that, I'd be all for it.

newbitech
02-14-2011, 09:37 AM
This was your original quote:

"He doesn't want people to have abortions, but he can't force them to give birth."

That's a false statement as Ron is opposed to legal abortion. He's always been opposed to abortion rights, but has simply said that the federal government can't ban it short of a constitutional amendment. That doesn't mean that he supports "a woman's right to choose."

He might be opposed to abortion as an individual, but as a Representative in the US Congress, he doesn't want to deny a person the right to choose. He absolutely does support a womans right to choose. Let's simply look at what he said here in response to the interviewer when presented with the apparent conflict between right to choose as an individual and right to life. He doesn't see a conflict at all, its just how you get there.

He uses the example of distribution of wealth. We'd all like to see a greater number of people sharing in the wealth they generate. We can either do this via compelling people through the current system, or let the free market distribute the wealth.

Yes it would be nice if all babies that were conceived would be born. We can do this via compulsion, or do it by letting the market decided. Of course the market meaning individuals without outside influence.

People are going to have abortions. Just like people are going to smoke pot. Ron Paul is not about to try to force people either way to NOT do these things. If you see it different, its ok. I don't think there is a conflict on the two sides unless and until government starts getting involved.

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 09:42 AM
That's kind of what my position is about murdering abortion doctors.

Whatever anyone thinks about whether murdering abortion doctors is right or wrong, it's their own personal religious view, and, while I am personally against murdering abortion doctors, I don't have the right to shove my religion down the throats of those who see it differently.

Can an abortion doctor (or your neighbor) survive outside the mothers womb on their own?

Not everyone believes life begins at conception.

I remember reading some years ago about a 9 year old Mexican girl who's mother had her take a bath in the same bathwater her brother had just used. She'd matured early and guess what was in the water... Yeah, she got pregnant.

Genetic material from the same lineage = birth defects
NINE years old? It would be questionable if her body could even support a child for 9 months.

Decisions, decisions... Oh wait! - It was Gods will, so force her to have it.

-t

Immortal Technique
02-14-2011, 09:44 AM
Just updated the thread with the Morning Joe interview :P
The msnbc interview was better :D

reduen
02-14-2011, 09:45 AM
SHIT! We lost tons of Dem and Independent supporters last time over Ron trying to appeal to Christian Conservatives on this issue. His stance is that there is noting in the Constitution giving teh Federal Government the power to ban abortions. What states do on this issue, is up to the states. Dems / Independents lefties, etc are fine with that position. A federal ban on abortion is a deal breaker! We loose supporters when they think that is his possition, and it is not his position.

-t

This has to be one of the least thought out posts that I have seen in a while. :rolleyes: Who do you think will win Dr. Paul the nomination to be Republican candidate for president in 2012? Do you think that it will be democrates and independants or Christian Conservatives?

YumYum
02-14-2011, 09:48 AM
He might be opposed to abortion as an individual, but as a Representative in the US Congress, he doesn't want to deny a person the right to choose. He absolutely does support a womans right to choose. Let's simply look at what he said here in response to the interviewer when presented with the apparent conflict between right to choose as an individual and right to life. He doesn't see a conflict at all, its just how you get there.

He uses the example of distribution of wealth. We'd all like to see a greater number of people sharing in the wealth they generate. We can either do this via compelling people through the current system, or let the free market distribute the wealth.

Yes it would be nice if all babies that were conceived would be born. We can do this via compulsion, or do it by letting the market decided. Of course the market meaning individuals without outside influence.

People are going to have abortions. Just like people are going to smoke pot. Ron Paul is not about to try to force people either way to NOT do these things. If you see it different, its ok. I don't think there is a conflict on the two sides unless and until government starts getting involved.

You are being very realistic about the whole matter. How do you stop abortions? The Christian Libertarians/Constitutionalists want the government to outlaw it. Why would they want the government dictating what people can and cannot do? That's a theme and contradiction. People on this forum want abortion to be outlawed by the government, but don't want taxes raised to pay for the government police who would enforce those laws. You can't have it both ways.

erowe1
02-14-2011, 09:49 AM
Not everyone believes life begins at conception.

So, in your opinion, the fact that not everyone believes abortion is wrong is important.

By the same token, you should acknowledge the fact that not everyone believes murdering abortion doctors is wrong as equally important.

BamaFanNKy
02-14-2011, 09:50 AM
Just watched the MSNBC interview.... much better, in fact Home Run, compared to this.

erowe1
02-14-2011, 09:52 AM
I remember reading some years ago about a 9 year old Mexican girl who's mother had her take a bath in the same bathwater her brother had just used. She'd matured early and guess what was in the water... Yeah, she got pregnant.


Let me guess, you read this in a chain email.

Tal
02-14-2011, 09:53 AM
nvm delete

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 09:54 AM
This has to be one of the least thought out posts that I have seen in a while. :rolleyes: Who do you think will win Dr. Paul the nomination to be Republican candidate for president in 2012? Do you think that it will be democrates and independants or Christian Conservatives?

Normal Conservative and Independents / Dems that register Republican in order to vote for him in the primaries. The Religious Right is not a majority of Conservatives / Republicans. Independents, however are a third of the voting block and there are a ton of Dems/progressives out there waking up to Dr. Paul offering some of that "change" they wanted and that he's the only anti-war candidate. The only anti-police state candidate. The pro-pot candidate. The pro-liberty candidate and the guy that got what's wrong about the economy right.

AlexMerced
02-14-2011, 09:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM

This is the video I was discussing with Walter Block, as for the one with Ron Paul that one will take some digging, cause it wasn't an abortion issue video, I think it was just a general interview he did at some college.

YumYum
02-14-2011, 09:56 AM
I seriously doubt Ron Paul can win the presidency without appealing to the blue state Jon Stewart style liberals, if he focusses too much on christian conservatives he will lose I think.

I like the compromise where you let states decide on whether they want to ban abortion, that seems reasonable to me and it allows people to live in states that share their values.

I agree. Christian conservatives don't like him. Leftists are starting to take notice of him and are catching on.

erowe1
02-14-2011, 09:57 AM
The Religious Right is not a majority of Conservatives / Republicans.

That may depend on whom you count as "religious right." But abortion is definitely extremely significant in the GOP primaries, particularly the Iowa caucuses. Being pro-choice brings a huge disadvantage. Granted, this doesn't mean that a candidate needs to make a hobby horse out of it. But he needs to show pro-lifers that he's on board with them enough, so that they don't immediately discount him and have a chance to consider the other issues.

Wren
02-14-2011, 09:59 AM
Another abortion thread..

YumYum
02-14-2011, 10:01 AM
That's kind of what my position is about murdering abortion doctors.

Whatever anyone thinks about whether murdering abortion doctors is right or wrong, it's their own personal religious view, and, while I am personally against murdering abortion doctors, I don't have the right to shove my religion down the throats of those who see it differently.

I don't think that is a valid argument even though I see your point. My cousin got knocked up and was going to get an abortion because her dad is a racist and the father of the baby is a minority race. I told her not to get an abortion; she would live the rest of her life to regret it. She listened to me and had a beautiful baby girl. My cousin doesn't work, she is on welfare, and her mother is raising the baby while my cousin is meeting guys and will most likely get knocked up again. I'm glad that you don't object that your tax dollars is taking care of my cousin's baby while she parties her life away.

newbitech
02-14-2011, 10:04 AM
You are being very realistic about the whole matter. How do you stop abortions? The Christian Libertarians/Constitutionalists want the government to outlaw it. Why would they want the government dictating what people can and cannot do? That's a theme and contradiction. People on this forum want abortion to be outlawed by the government, but don't want taxes raised to pay for the government police who would enforce those laws. You can't have it both ways.

Abortions happen naturally. They are just called something different. Miscarriage. Even the most advanced medical technology cannot stop abortions. Now when you take that in to consideration along with the idea that individuals can and will make choices regarding their own bodies despite politics, despite morals, despite technology, abortions cannot be stopped.

I don't think the question is pro-choice vs pro-life. I really like how Dr. Paul say he doesn't see the conflict here. The conflict is in how individuals approach the apparent conflict. So the question in my mind becomes, how can I be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time? The first thing I need to do is change my approach. I can't sit here and look at both positions and see them as diametrically opposed. So I need a completely different approach.

I think we simply leave this question up to the people who actually must make those decisions and prioritize that decision making in the following order.

The person who will be having their life directly altered gets the final say - The woman ( who also gets to make the decision for her unborn )
The persons responsible for making the decision that led to the pregnancy - The couple ( yes, the man deserves to have his voice heard )
The persons responsible for the treatment/procedure etc.. - The Doctors and Nurses at the clinic ( if the doctor won't do it he should be on record as to why not )
The person responsible for bringing precedence - The parents of the couple ( these folks also deserve to have their voice heard as the blood connection )
The person responsible for the moral health of all involved - The spiritual adviser ( this may or may not apply, but I believe in life or death decisions, the spiritual aspect of humanity cannot be over looked )

That's it. People on a forum, in the same neighborhood, or sitting exalted on a bench in a court room, or some other government building, have NO RIGHT at all to compel these individuals outside of their first amendment protections. That is, you can voice your displeasure up until the point where it starts having an impact on these folks to make this decision.

reduen
02-14-2011, 10:04 AM
Normal Conservative and Independents / Dems that register Republican in order to vote for him in the primaries. The Religious Right is not a majority of Conservatives / Republicans. Independents, however are a third of the voting block and there are a ton of Dems/progressives out there waking up to Dr. Paul offering some of that "change" they wanted and that he's the only anti-war candidate. The only anti-police state candidate. The pro-pot candidate. The pro-liberty candidate and the guy that got what's wrong about the economy right.

You are only fooling yourself here if you really believe this. I can tell you from experience, I am a Christian Conservative (I am not sure how that makes me different from a “normal conservative” by the way) and I am both County Chairman and Election Commissioner of my local republican party and it will most certainly not be the Dems and Independents that will win Dr. Paul the party’s nomination. Take that to the bank Tangent…

reduen
02-14-2011, 10:06 AM
I agree. Christian conservatives don't like him. Leftists are starting to take notice of him and are catching on.

He has to win the party's nomination first.... A party that is made up of mostly Christian Conservatives.

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 10:43 AM
You are only fooling yourself here if you really believe this. I can tell you from experience, I am a Christian Conservative (I am not sure how that makes me different from a “normal conservative” by the way) and I am both County Chairman and Election Commissioner of my local republican party and it will most certainly not be the Dems and Independents that will win Dr. Paul the party’s nomination. Take that to the bank Tangent…

We did some polls about who our members were when the Meetups were taking off. Fully a third of our members were Dems and Independents. When RP started talking about aborting, with an empasis on his personal possition as opposed to his political stance, those numbers took a nosedive.

-t

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 10:47 AM
Let me guess, you read this in a chain email.

No, I was actually pretty young at the time and it made both the TV and the newspaper because it was so rare for some to get pregnant that young. It was newsworthy, in the same sense that the octomom was. It was pre-web.

-t

ctiger2
02-14-2011, 10:47 AM
Good grief. With all the real problems in the world it always comes back to Gays, God & Guns...

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 10:48 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM

This is the video I was discussing with Walter Block, as for the one with Ron Paul that one will take some digging, cause it wasn't an abortion issue video, I think it was just a general interview he did at some college.

Thank you!

Brett85
02-14-2011, 10:49 AM
He might be opposed to abortion as an individual, but as a Representative in the US Congress, he doesn't want to deny a person the right to choose.

If that's the case then I will no longer support him. I won't support any politician who doesn't support liberty for the unborn.

newbitech
02-14-2011, 10:56 AM
If that's the case then I will no longer support him. I won't support any politician who doesn't support liberty for the unborn.

thats your choice.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 10:58 AM
thats your choice.

Well can you explain why Ron voted in favor of the ban on partial birth abortion if he's only personally opposed to abortion? And why has he stated that he supports banning abortion at the state level?

Brett85
02-14-2011, 11:01 AM
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?” Additionally, Ron Paul said that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is “an act of aggression” against a fetus.

reduen
02-14-2011, 11:04 AM
We did some polls about who our members were when the Meetups were taking off. Fully a third of our members were Dems and Independents. When RP started talking about aborting, with an empasis on his personal possition as opposed to his political stance, those numbers took a nosedive.

-t

Again, he has to get the party's nomination first and he will not do that with the support of Dems and Independants. You know, the party who is made up of Christian Conservatives... (Plain and simple.)

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 11:23 AM
Get the federal government out of abortion decision
Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.
Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007

Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction
I’m surprised that I don’t have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a president’s signature. It’s a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of new laws, let’s just use what we have & pass this type of legislation.
Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution
The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution. Apart from waiting forever for Supreme Court justices who rule in accordance with the Constitution, Americans do have some legislative recourse. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over a broad categories of cases.
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 60 Apr 1, 2008

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.
To prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes, including:

* Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor's home state waive the parental notification required by that state
* Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion
* Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor's home state have been satisfied
* Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian
* Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act

Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill HR 748 ; vote number 2005-144 on Apr 27, 2005

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.
The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999

Discussion on abortion over?

-t

Fredom101
02-14-2011, 11:27 AM
VOLUNTARYISM ha :p

FTW! Haha. :)

newbitech
02-14-2011, 11:29 AM
Well can you explain why Ron voted in favor of the ban on partial birth abortion if he's only personally opposed to abortion? And why has he stated that he supports banning abortion at the state level?

he's introduced and supported all kinds of legislation that will leave the choice closer to the individual. i just read in wikipedia where he voted on the partial ban to offset the effects of Roe V Wade. I know Dr. Paul is both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. Why? Because he supports legislation that will bring that choice closer to the individual.

Fredom101
02-14-2011, 11:31 AM
Good grief. With all the real problems in the world it always comes back to Gays, God & Guns...

Exactly! I did the calculation and abortion affects about 1% of the population. Ya think we might have bigger issues than that?

reduen
02-14-2011, 11:38 AM
Can an abortion doctor (or your neighbor) survive outside the mothers womb on their own?

Not everyone believes life begins at conception.

I remember reading some years ago about a 9 year old Mexican girl who's mother had her take a bath in the same bathwater her brother had just used. She'd matured early and guess what was in the water... Yeah, she got pregnant.

Genetic material from the same lineage = birth defects
NINE years old? It would be questionable if her body could even support a child for 9 months.

Decisions, decisions... Oh wait! - It was Gods will, so force her to have it.

-t

Pay real close attention starting at 2:05....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTjccxVZ8B0

Brett85
02-14-2011, 11:56 AM
he's introduced and supported all kinds of legislation that will leave the choice closer to the individual. i just read in wikipedia where he voted on the partial ban to offset the effects of Roe V Wade. I know Dr. Paul is both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. Why? Because he supports legislation that will bring that choice closer to the individual.

That is utter BS! The only reason why he's voted against some pro life bills is on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. He supports a ban on abortion as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 11:59 AM
Get the federal government out of abortion decision
Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.
Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007

Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction
I’m surprised that I don’t have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a president’s signature. It’s a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of new laws, let’s just use what we have & pass this type of legislation.
Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution
The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution. Apart from waiting forever for Supreme Court justices who rule in accordance with the Constitution, Americans do have some legislative recourse. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over a broad categories of cases.
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 60 Apr 1, 2008

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.
To prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes, including:

* Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor's home state waive the parental notification required by that state
* Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion
* Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor's home state have been satisfied
* Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian
* Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act

Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill HR 748 ; vote number 2005-144 on Apr 27, 2005

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.
The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999

Discussion on abortion over?

-t

So you're going to make the case that Ron is pro choice to the conservative Republicans in Iowa?

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 12:04 PM
So you're going to make the case that Ron is pro choice to the conservative Republicans in Iowa?

:rolleyes:

Please refer to post #51

-t

pcosmar
02-14-2011, 12:07 PM
So you're going to make the case that Ron is pro choice to the conservative Republicans in Iowa?

I would make the point that he is a Constitutionalist and personally opposes abortion. While I was at it I would point out that the abortion issue was used to SELL Obama care (Stupak). And that None of those elected to end abortion have done so, and that Ron Paul has the most consistent position on the issue.

erowe1
02-14-2011, 12:09 PM
I would make the point that he is a Constitutionalist and personally opposes abortion.

He does more than personally oppose abortion. He positively supports the right of states to ban it, and he actively works to remove the federal shackles that currently prevent them from doing so.

erowe1
02-14-2011, 12:12 PM
he's introduced and supported all kinds of legislation that will leave the choice closer to the individual. i just read in wikipedia where he voted on the partial ban to offset the effects of Roe V Wade. I know Dr. Paul is both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. Why? Because he supports legislation that will bring that choice closer to the individual.

Supporting legislation that unshackles the states in abortion legislation is pro-life, not pro-choice. The pro-choice position is to federalize abortion laws, such as was done by federal courts in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 12:18 PM
He does more than personally oppose abortion. He positively supports the right of states to ban it, and he actively works to remove the federal shackles that currently prevent them from doing so.

It's both.

This is a position liberals like. It means that the "rednecks" in the bible belt can ban it if they want, but it will allways be legal in California and anyone that is pro-choice but trapped "behind enemy lines" will always be able to get one by going to a more liberal state. The pro-life crowd likes it, because they can ban it where it's most offensive - though I have heard some say they wanted to ban it in CANADA! I'm talking Americans that want to elect politicians to put pressure on Canada to do this.... :rolleyes:

In general, it's a win-win position and a NON-ISSUE!

-t

Nate-ForLiberty
02-14-2011, 12:18 PM
Three things...

1. Did not read ur stoopid thread
2. Everytime that chick interviews Dr. Paul I get the distinct impression she wants to jump on his straw poll.
3. IT'S FREAKING FIVE THIRTY IN THE MORNING AND THAT MAN IS UP DEFENDING LIBERTY LIKE IT'S NOTHING!

when I grow up I want to be just like Ron Paul.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 12:20 PM
I would make the point that he is a Constitutionalist and personally opposes abortion. While I was at it I would point out that the abortion issue was used to SELL Obama care (Stupak). And that None of those elected to end abortion have done so, and that Ron Paul has the most consistent position on the issue.

It makes no difference to me at all whether he "personally opposes" abortion. I want to elect somebody who will put an end to this holocaust.

AZKing
02-14-2011, 12:24 PM
Three things...

1. Did not read ur stoopid thread
2. Everytime that chick interviews Dr. Paul I get the distinct impression she wants to jump on his straw poll.
3. IT'S FREAKING FIVE THIRTY IN THE MORNING AND THAT MAN IS UP DEFENDING LIBERTY LIKE IT'S NOTHING!

when I grow up I want to be just like Ron Paul.

No kidding. People are getting all worked up over what he said. Most everyone I know wouldn't be speaking too coherently at 5:30 in the morning either.

pcosmar
02-14-2011, 12:26 PM
It makes no difference to me at all whether he "personally opposes" abortion. I want to elect somebody who will put an end to this holocaust.

And out of the Hundreds of politicians that have run, and won, on that position,,,
How may have actually succeed in doing so?
They have, however pushed and passed much more UnConstitutional legislation. While using this issue as nothing more than a selling point.

Time to drop the dumb shit.

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 12:27 PM
It makes no difference to me at all whether he "personally opposes" abortion. I want to elect somebody who will put an end to this holocaust.

So who is running on a pro-life (through coercion from the federal level) ticket? It sure ain't Paul!

-t

Brett85
02-14-2011, 12:28 PM
So who is running on a pro-life (through coercion from the federal level) ticket? It sure ain't Paul!

-t

Does Ron Paul support allowing the states to legalize slavery as well?

erowe1
02-14-2011, 12:30 PM
This is a position liberals like.

No it isn't. Liberals insist on imposing their view on the rest of the country via any means necessary, including the courts. That's part of what makes them liberals. Liberals don't think Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are bad things. They think they're great things, and they regularly try to emulate those examples for everything else they want, from banning prayer in school, to banning the 10 commandments from courthouses, to repealing DADT, to redefining marriage, to using a law that explicitly prohibits racial quotas as a means of judicially legislating racial quotas, to making schools teach the views of human origins and safe sex.

Ron Paul's opposition to all those things and willingness to put teeth to that opposition with legislation like his We the People Act epitomizes conservatism. Are there a few liberals out there who agree with him on the 10th Amendment? Maybe a very tiny minority. And I'm glad they're out there and welcome their support. But I won't pretend we can count on much from them.

erowe1
02-14-2011, 12:31 PM
Does Ron Paul support allowing the states to legalize slavery as well?

He certainly doesn't support the use of federal resources to prevent them from doing so by force.

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 12:32 PM
Does Ron Paul support allowing the states to legalize slavery as well?

There is actually a Constitutional amendment on that one. So obviously not.

You might want to look at one of those red and blue maps before proposing the idiocy you are about to. It will NEVER PASS!

-t

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 12:35 PM
No it isn't. Liberals insist on imposing their view on the rest of the country via any means necessary, including the courts. That's part of what makes them liberals. Liberals don't think Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are bad things. They think they're great things, and they regularly try to emulate those examples for everything else they want, from banning prayer in school, to banning the 10 commandments from courthouses, to repealing DADT, to redefining marriage, to using a law that explicitly prohibits racial quotas as a means of judicially legislating racial quotas, to making schools teach the views of human origins and safe sex.

Ron Paul's opposition to all those things and willingness to put teeth to that opposition with legislation like his We the People Act epitomizes conservatism. Are there a few liberals out there who agree with him on the 10th Amendment? Maybe a very tiny minority. And I'm glad they're out there and welcome their support. But I won't pretend we can count on much from them.

Perhaps the neo-liberals / progressives - but there are a LOT of liberals that are nothing like that and supported him last time. More this time.

reduen
02-14-2011, 12:35 PM
No it isn't. Liberals insist on imposing their view on the rest of the country via any means necessary, including the courts. That's part of what makes them liberals. Liberals don't think Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are bad things. They think they're great things, and they regularly try to emulate those examples for everything else they want, from banning prayer in school, to banning the 10 commandments from courthouses, to repealing DADT, to redefining marriage, to using a law that explicitly prohibits racial quotas as a means of judicially legislating racial quotas, to making schools teach the views of human origins and safe sex.

Ron Paul's opposition to all those things and willingness to put teeth to that opposition with legislation like his We the People Act epitomizes conservatism. Are there a few liberals out there who agree with him on the 10th Amendment? Maybe a very tiny minority. And I'm glad they're out there and welcome their support. But I won't pretend we can count on much from them.

+1

Brett85
02-14-2011, 12:35 PM
There is actually a Constitutional amendment on that one. So obviously not.

You might want to look at one of those red and blue maps before proposing the idiocy you are about to. It will NEVER PASS!

-t

That constitutional amendment states that all persons have the right to life and liberty. The author of the Roe v. Wade decision stated that if you could prove that life begins at conception, the unborn would have protections under the Constitution. Since that time, it's become a scientific fact that life begins at conception.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 12:36 PM
He certainly doesn't support the use of federal resources to prevent them from doing so by force.

If that's the case then he's not a strict constitutionalist.

reduen
02-14-2011, 12:42 PM
That constitutional amendment states that all persons have the right to life and liberty. The author of the Roe v. Wade decision stated that if you could prove that life begins at conception, the unborn would have protections under the Constitution. Since that time, it's become a scientific fact that life begins at conception.

+ 1776... If it is a scientific fact that life begins at conception, (as Ron Paul and I believe that it is) then the constitution reafirms the fetuses right to life, liberty, etc...

pcosmar
02-14-2011, 12:43 PM
Does Ron Paul support allowing the states to legalize slavery as well?

Fuck the stupid shit.
You are sounding more and more like a troll again.

erowe1
02-14-2011, 12:43 PM
If that's the case then he's not a strict constitutionalist.

He definitely thinks the Constitution could stand some improvement. He's been pretty clear on that.

But I fail to see how this position makes him less than a strict constitutionalist anyway. The Constitution rarely dictates to Congress what it must do, but more often only tells it what it may do. Legislators who oppose the pursuit of legislation that enforces everything the Constitution says they may do are still acting within their oaths of office. It's those who step outside those boundaries who break those oaths.

This is illustrated explicitly in the 13th and 14th amendments, which would provide the basis for federal legislators wanting to use federal resources to prevent states from legalizing slavery by force. Both of these amendments state "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." They do not dictate to Congress what that legislation must be. Nor do they empower the courts to enforce them by legislation from the bench. A legislator who does not consider a Lincolnesque move of subjugating states against their will to have the kinds of laws they want them to have to be "appropriate legislation" does not by doing so fall short of being a strict constitutionalist.

Similarly, the Constitution authorizes Congress to impose excise taxes. But a legislator who opts to reduce excise taxes to zero is not breaking his oath of office. He's merely prescinding from using a power that is constitutional.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 12:44 PM
Fuck the stupid shit.
You are sounding more and more like a troll again.

I'm a troll because I have a literal interpretation of the 14th amendment? I'm just taking the same position that Rand takes on this issue. And why are you such an angry, obscene person?

Incrimsonias
02-14-2011, 12:58 PM
watch the video again. he didn't understand the question

georgiaboy
02-14-2011, 01:00 PM
thanks for these vids. Kirin on CNN and Joe S. seem to always give Ron a fair shake.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 01:03 PM
watch the video again. he didn't understand the question

I don't think he did either. Ron Paul has never said that he supports "a woman's right to choose" like many on here are falsely claiming.

pcosmar
02-14-2011, 01:04 PM
I'm a troll because I have a literal interpretation of the 14th amendment? I'm just taking the same position that Rand takes on this issue. And why are you such an angry, obscene person?

Because I am an American living behind enemy lines in a conquered land. I am tired of living under occupation.
And idiots like you would make a small issue the deciding factor in a chance to elect a liberator.

And I'm not all that fond of the 14 amendment. A repeal is in order.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 01:07 PM
Because I am an American living behind enemy lines in a conquered land. I am tired of living under occupation.
And idiots like you would make a small issue the deciding factor in a chance to elect a liberator.

Sorry, but when I view abortion as being mass murder it isn't a small issue to me. I would like for Ron Paul to clarify his stance on this issue. Many people here seem confused on where he actually stands.

erowe1
02-14-2011, 01:09 PM
Because I am an American living behind enemy lines in a conquered land. I am tired of living under occupation.
And idiots like you would make a small issue the deciding factor in a chance to elect a liberator.

1) It's not a small issue.
2) Even if you think it's a small issue, it shouldn't be hard to appreciate why so many people think otherwise.
3) Like it or not, many people do make it a deciding factor. We stand more to gain by showing them that Ron Paul is the best candidate for them than we do by telling them that they stand in the way of the agenda he's pursuing by having the view they do. When I first became a Ron Paul supporter, I was very wary of him because of the label "libertarian," which I took to mean that he was probably pro-choice. It was when I learned of his strong pro-life position that I really became sold on supporting him.

Sola_Fide
02-14-2011, 01:10 PM
Supporting legislation that unshackles the states in abortion legislation is pro-life, not pro-choice. The pro-choice position is to federalize abortion laws, such as was done by federal courts in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

Thank you for pointing this out Erowe!

reduen
02-14-2011, 01:11 PM
Because I am an American living behind enemy lines in a conquered land. I am tired of living under occupation.
And idiots like you would make a small issue the deciding factor in a chance to elect a liberator.

And I'm not all that fond of the 14 amendment. A repeal is in order.

Wow!!! I would argue that the death of an innocent child is never a small issue... I would only add that I am very glad that your mother chose life with you. In fact I am very greatfull that everyone in this threads mother chose life. We need you all! :)

newbitech
02-14-2011, 01:11 PM
I don't think he did either. Ron Paul has never said that he supports "a woman's right to choose" like many on here are falsely claiming.

women have been inducing miscarriages since women began getting pregnant. If Ron Paul prohibits abortion, then it will work just as well as Ron Paul prohibiting smoking crack.

surf
02-14-2011, 01:13 PM
Normal Conservative and Independents / Dems that register Republican in order to vote for him in the primaries. The Religious Right is not a majority of Conservatives / Republicans. Independents, however are a third of the voting block and there are a ton of Dems/progressives out there waking up to Dr. Paul offering some of that "change" they wanted and that he's the only anti-war candidate. The only anti-police state candidate. The pro-pot candidate. The pro-liberty candidate and the guy that got what's wrong about the economy right.
This. just about every democrat i speak with loves RP on almost everything, but abortion is almost a deal breaker for many. abortion is the last item on the list to discuss and sell Ron to most peopple, just like civil liberties and "gay rights" are at the bottom of the list when it comes to "old-school" republicans.

while every one of us experiences a different "demographic" in our commnunities and with our peers and friends, i think we must acknowledge that a potential victory depends on crossovers in the primaries/caucuses and disillusioned Obamites.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 01:13 PM
I've just always thought that Ron voted against SOME federal abortion laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. I can live with that if that was the basis for his votes. But he should at least support a constitutional amendment banning abortion, because there's nothing unconstitutional about a constitutional amendment. I may try to contact his office and get an answer on that.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 01:14 PM
women have been inducing miscarriages since women began getting pregnant. If Ron Paul prohibits abortion, then it will work just as well as Ron Paul prohibiting smoking crack.

Murder happens even though we have laws against it, so maybe we should just completely legalize murder. Better yet, let's just do away with all laws and see how anarchy works.

reduen
02-14-2011, 01:14 PM
Sorry, but when I view abortion as being mass murder it isn't a small issue to me. I would like for Ron Paul to clarify his stance on this issue. Many people here seem confused on where he actually stands.

Dr. Paul has made it very clear where he stands on abortion in the past. The confusion is not his burden to bear..... Did you watch the video I posted by chance?

Incrimsonias
02-14-2011, 01:19 PM
I don't think he did either. Ron Paul has never said that he supports "a woman's right to choose" like many on here are falsely claiming.

yea people freak out way to fast here. he wasn't addressing abortion with his answer. I think he just misheard the question

reduen
02-14-2011, 01:19 PM
Murder happens even though we have laws against it, so maybe we should just completely legalize murder. Better yet, let's just do away with all laws and see how anarchy works.

Watch it or I will take back the rep points I just gave you... Hehehe... ;)

pcosmar
02-14-2011, 01:20 PM
1) It's not a small issue.
2) Even if you think it's a small issue, it shouldn't be hard to appreciate why so many people think otherwise.
3) Like it or not, many people do make it a deciding factor. We stand more to gain by showing them that Ron Paul is the best candidate for them than we do by telling them that they stand in the way of the agenda he's pursuing by having the view they do. When I first became a Ron Paul supporter, I was very wary of him because of the label "libertarian," which I took to mean that he was probably pro-choice. It was when I learned of his strong pro-life position that I really became sold on supporting him.

I appreciate Ron's position. and believe it to be quite clear. I also oppose abortion.
When I say it is a small issue I mean the nuances of wording.
There have been more corrupt and dishonest politicians elected on this one issue than any other.
It was the issue used by Stupak to sell socialized health care.
It is the issue that gets more warmongers elected and more money wasted in pork projects than any other.
And none of them have any real intention of doing anything about abortion at all.

Ron's position would actuality have a real impact, but folks want to quibble about the wording.
That is a small issue.

Look at the bigger picture.

reduen
02-14-2011, 01:23 PM
I appreciate Ron's position. and believe it to be quite clear. I also oppose abortion.
When I say it is a small issue I mean the nuances of wording.
There have been more corrupt and dishonest politicians elected on this one issue than any other.
It was the issue used by Stupak to sell socialized health care.
It is the issue that gets more warmongers elected and more money wasted in pork projects than any other.
And none of them have any real intention of doing anything about abortion at all.

Ron's position would actuality have a real impact, but folks want to quibble about the wording.
That is a small issue.

Look at the bigger picture.

Dang it.....! Just when I thought I was going to be able to give you negative rep.... :)

newbitech
02-14-2011, 01:28 PM
Murder happens even though we have laws against it, so maybe we should just completely legalize murder. Better yet, let's just do away with all laws and see how anarchy works.

I didn't say legalize anything. I think Ron Paul would rather leave that decision to the people I listed in a previous post. Don't you?

ClayTrainor
02-14-2011, 01:43 PM
Lol @ folks who want to use the federal government to write some shit on a piece of paper to prohibit abortions.

Since when has government prohibition of anything ever worked to reduce the problem?

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 01:46 PM
Lol @ folks who want to use the federal government to write some shit on a piece of paper to prohibit abortions.

Since when has government prohibition of anything ever worked to reduce the problem?

Every time the Government has prohibited or declared a "war" on some perceived problem, we have gotten more of it.

-t

pcosmar
02-14-2011, 01:50 PM
Lol @ folks who want to use the federal government to write some shit on a piece of paper to prohibit abortions.

Since when has government prohibition of anything ever worked to reduce the problem?

It was the stroke of a Government pen that made it Legal and therefor socially acceptable.
I am not so bent on making it illegal as I am on changing the socially acceptable part. That is a Genie that won't go back in the bottle easily.
Simply changing the law back to what it was will not do it.

It is disturbing that out of a very good interview this has been the focus of this thread.

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 02:06 PM
It was the stroke of a Government pen that made it Legal and therefor socially acceptable.
I am not so bent on making it illegal as I am on changing the socially acceptable part. That is a Genie that won't go back in the bottle easily.
Simply changing the law back to what it was will not do it.

It is disturbing that out of a very good interview this has been the focus of this thread.

Who derailed the thread in each case? I'm guessing it's a short list.
I tend to avoid threads on this topic. At the same time, misunderstanding on Ron's position on this topic has lost us tons of support! :(

-t

reduen
02-14-2011, 02:19 PM
Who derailed the thread in each case? I'm guessing it's a short list.
I tend to avoid threads on this topic. At the same time, misunderstanding on Ron's position on this topic has lost us tons of support! :(

-t

Uuummm.... You must have really large hands. If you care to look back,you will see that the thread almost immediately got "hijacked" and your very first post was concerning this taboo topic! Just keepin it real....

Austin
02-14-2011, 02:21 PM
Regarding the abortion vs. freedom of choice question, Ron should have simply said: "That all depends on when you believe life begins. If you believe life begins at conception like I do, then there is no conflict."

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 02:28 PM
Uuummm.... You must have really large hands. If you care to look back,you will see that the thread almost immediately got "hijacked" and your very first post was concerning this taboo topic! Just keepin it real....

I was referring the pro-anti abortion debate. I believe this thread started about where his position was on the issue, not if abortion was good or bad. Very different things there. Much shorter thread to, if it stays on topic.

pcosmar
02-14-2011, 02:29 PM
Who derailed the thread in each case? I'm guessing it's a short list.
I tend to avoid threads on this topic. At the same time, misunderstanding on Ron's position on this topic has lost us tons of support! :(

-t

The usual suspects.

pcosmar
02-14-2011, 02:31 PM
Uuummm.... You must have really large hands. If you care to look back,you will see that the thread almost immediately got "hijacked" and your very first post was concerning this taboo topic! Just keepin it real....

It was hijacked almost immediately. Tangent didn't post till the second page at post #16.

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 02:33 PM
The usual suspects.

I see that reduen and TTC had each gotten in 2-3 posts before I made an observation about Paul's position and it's effect on our support in post #16

The "fetus fight" was certainly not of my instigation.

-t

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 02:34 PM
It was hijacked almost immediately. Tangent didn't post till the second page at post #16.

Thanks pcosmar!

-t

reduen
02-14-2011, 02:40 PM
It was hijacked almost immediately. Tangent didn't post till the second page at post #16.

My first post regarding the abortion topic was #60. I beat the snot out of Tangent....

reduen
02-14-2011, 02:41 PM
I see that reduen and TTC had each gotten in 2-3 posts before I made an observation about Paul's position and it's effect on our support in post #16

The "fetus fight" was certainly not of my instigation.

-t

Check again....!

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 02:41 PM
This. just about every democrat i speak with loves RP on almost everything, but abortion is almost a deal breaker for many. abortion is the last item on the list to discuss and sell Ron to most peopple, just like civil liberties and "gay rights" are at the bottom of the list when it comes to "old-school" republicans.

while every one of us experiences a different "demographic" in our commnunities and with our peers and friends, i think we must acknowledge that a potential victory depends on crossovers in the primaries/caucuses and disillusioned Obamites.

I've had several liberal RP supporters come out and talk to me about this and that it would mean that abortion would never be completely banned in this country is something they liked best about him. I've had several use that as their opening patter too! Granted, these were RP organizers working in California and other liberal places and they had attracted large Meetups with that approach.

-t

reduen
02-14-2011, 02:43 PM
Thanks pcosmar!

-t

What do you mean? I should be thanking him for proving my point....!

tangent4ronpaul
02-14-2011, 02:45 PM
:rolleyes:

waste of pixles...

reduen
02-14-2011, 02:51 PM
:(

KurtBoyer25L
02-14-2011, 03:45 PM
Gentlemen/ladies. Aren't you listening to these interviews?

A) He's running.

B) He's establishing talking points for the 2012 campaign: The Democrats and Republicans are each a farce. The tea party is failing. Our message is of peace and liberty, home and abroad. We can beat Obama with his unique appeal among independents, conservatives and liberals.

C) He is clearly energized by CPAC. I even get the sense that he thinks he just might win.

ctiger2
02-14-2011, 03:49 PM
How much of this interview did we miss?

Here's the entire thing:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4pH2ZAJKj4

pcosmar
02-14-2011, 04:10 PM
Gentlemen/ladies. Aren't you listening to these interviews?

A) He's running.

B) He's establishing talking points for the 2012 campaign: The Democrats and Republicans are each a farce. The tea party is failing. Our message is of peace and liberty, home and abroad. We can beat Obama with his unique appeal among independents, conservatives and liberals.

C) He is clearly energized by CPAC. I even get the sense that he thinks he just might win.

Pretty much how it sounded to me.
:)

Feeding the Abscess
02-14-2011, 04:16 PM
This was Ron's position in the last presidential cycle, too; personally against it, but also against legislating against it on a federal level. Slightly less vociferous than his position against the Drug War, but the sentiments are the same, nonetheless.

He laid the SMACKDOWN on Obama on Morning Joe. Ron at his best.

reduen
02-14-2011, 04:18 PM
Thank you kind sir (ctiger2)

Brett85
02-14-2011, 04:57 PM
This was Ron's position in the last presidential cycle, too; personally against it, but also against legislating against it on a federal level. Slightly less vociferous than his position against the Drug War, but the sentiments are the same, nonetheless.

He laid the SMACKDOWN on Obama on Morning Joe. Ron at his best.

Being personally opposed to abortion means nothing at all to me. It would be like if I said that I'm personally opposed to killing three year olds, but people should have the right to do it anyway.

Eric21ND
02-14-2011, 05:03 PM
I consider myself pro-choice but Ron damn near changed my mind when I heard speak on the topic. I thought Ron's abortion position was well-known here?!?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

NYgs23
02-14-2011, 06:06 PM
It sounded in that interview like he was saying he was "personally opposed" to it, but didn't think it should be prohibited, like his stance on drugs. But when you review all his previous actions and statements, it's clear he does support prohibiting it on the ground that it's the taking of a human life. So assume he simply misheard the question.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 06:09 PM
It sounded in that interview like he was saying he was "personally opposed" to it, but didn't think it should be prohibited, like his stance on drugs. But when you review all his previous actions and statements, it's clear he does support prohibiting it on the ground that it's the taking of a human life. So assume he simply misheard the question.

Yeah, I agree. But I certainly didn't like the way that he answered the question.

pcosmar
02-14-2011, 06:16 PM
Yeah, I agree. But I certainly didn't like the way that he answered the question.

Because that question was bait and a trap. He avoided the trap quite nicely while affirming his Pro-Life position. he changed the direction of the conversation.
There was SO much more in that interview that focusing on how he answered a poorly phrased question is puzzling.

axiomata
02-14-2011, 06:17 PM
Here's the entire thing:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4pH2ZAJKj4


Haven't read the whole thread, but did anyone else catch: "I talk a different message, obviously, than other candidates..."

Brett85
02-14-2011, 06:19 PM
Because that question was bait and a trap. He avoided the trap quite nicely while affirming his Pro-Life position. he changed the direction of the conversation.
There was SO much more in that interview that focusing on how he answered a poorly phrased question is puzzling.

I get confused when I always thought that Ron was pro life, and then all of these people posting on this thread keep claiming that he's pro choice.

pcosmar
02-14-2011, 06:20 PM
Haven't read the whole thread, but did anyone else catch: "I talk a different message, obviously, than other candidates..."

Heard that. Watch the Morning Joe interview too.
:)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLtYMMPISLs

low preference guy
02-14-2011, 06:37 PM
I get confused when I always thought that Ron was pro life, and then all of these people posting on this thread keep claiming that he's pro choice.

Ron Paul is pro-life and thinks the best solution is to advocate for pro-life legislation at the state level, after removing the jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to hear cases about abortion (something Congress has the authority to do but rarely does).

Brett85
02-14-2011, 06:43 PM
Ron Paul is pro-life and thinks the best solution is to advocate for pro-life legislation at the state level, after removing the jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to hear cases about abortion (something Congress has the authority to do but rarely does).

Right, but he does believe that abortion should be banned at the state level, correct?

erowe1
02-14-2011, 06:47 PM
Right, but he does believe that abortion should be banned at the state level, correct?

I have never heard him say how far states ought to go in restricting abortion, other than it should be more than they are currently permitted to do by Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. But he definitely does think that the federal government should not do anything to interfere with any state-level abortion restrictions, including ones that go as far as to ban it.

nayjevin
02-14-2011, 06:47 PM
Lol @ folks who want to use the federal government to write some shit on a piece of paper to prohibit abortions.

Since when has government prohibition of anything ever worked to reduce the problem?

Well, there's the 'all laws are just words' argument. And there's the 'how will you enforce it' argument. I'm sympathetic to both.

But I feel confident that RP would support this Amendment:

"No Federal Government monies shall be disbursed to abortions or programs to encourage abortions; neither shall they disburse to programs or initiatives to prevent abortions. The federal govenment hereby recognizes abortion as an issue left to the states."

And not this one:

"No one shall have an abortion."

nayjevin
02-14-2011, 06:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

Abortion and stem cell research go hand in hand. Buying embryos is big business, and the market is going up as technology advances. There will be groups who do not have as many embryos as they would like, and more abortions would solve that issue. De-moralizing actions toward the unborn might be in the best interest of such groups. I rarely hear this brought up - but I believe it's a major factor in how the abortion debate is framed on a national level.

AtomiC
02-14-2011, 06:54 PM
Abortion is murder, straight up.

QueenB4Liberty
02-14-2011, 08:35 PM
I don't think he did either. Ron Paul has never said that he supports "a woman's right to choose" like many on here are falsely claiming.

Can you please just admit already that you believe when a woman becomes pregnant, she loses her liberty (basically all her rights except her right to life) for 9 months? And everyone pretty much knows abortion will never be outlawed. Even if Ron Paul becomes the President, it won't happen.

erowe1
02-14-2011, 08:50 PM
Can you please just admit already that you believe when a woman becomes pregnant, she loses her liberty (basically all her rights except her right to life) for 9 months? And everyone pretty much knows abortion will never be outlawed. Even if Ron Paul becomes the President, it won't happen.

I'm pretty sure that if RP's Sanctity of Life Act every got signed into law, then there would be at least a few states that would outlaw all abortions except to save the life of the mother, and there would be at least a few more states that would outlaw abortions with additional exceptions for rape and incest, and there would be a whole bunch of states that would outlaw or significantly limit second and third trimester abortions. There would be some states that would keep abortion as unrestricted as they are now forced to do under federal law. But there would be zero states where abortion would become more accessible.

QueenB4Liberty
02-14-2011, 08:56 PM
I'm pretty sure that if RP's Sanctity of Life Act every got signed into law, then there would be at least a few states that would outlaw all abortions except to save the life of the mother, and there would be at least a few more states that would outlaw abortions with additional exceptions for rape and incest, and there would be a whole bunch of states that would outlaw or significantly limit second and third trimester abortions. There would be some states that would keep abortion as unrestricted as they are now forced to do under federal law. But there would be zero states where abortion would become more accessible.

Not answering the question. Are you saying we're going to have more underground railroads? Where women can travel to different states to get abortions kind of like slaves walked to their freedom to the North? And why is there an exception for the mother's life? What if her emotional health will be destroyed by carrying a pregnancy to term? Does that not matter? And why not try and outlaw abortion among all the 50 states? Because being pro-life doesn't just mean wanting to allow states themselves to make the decisions about abortion. Let's be real.

nayjevin
02-14-2011, 09:14 PM
It is possible to hold a moral postion of how people ought to act without believing one has the authority to enforce it via government. That is in fact liberty. Ron Paul is one of the best at separating his beliefs from his rightful powers of office. It is a misunderstanding of this that drives much of the misunderstanding of his positions.

Son of Detroit
02-14-2011, 09:38 PM
Pretty much how it sounded to me.
:)

I think this may be the first time I've ever seen pcosmar use this smiley :)

Instead of :( or :mad:.

Amazing, amazing.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 09:42 PM
Can you please just admit already that you believe when a woman becomes pregnant, she loses her liberty (basically all her rights except her right to life) for 9 months?

Absolutely not. They still have the same rights that they always had. In about 99% of the situations they made a choice that they knew could cause them to become pregnant. People need to take responsibility for their own decisions. The only thing I can say for sure is that every time an abortion takes place, the baby loses both it's life and it's liberty.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 09:45 PM
It is possible to hold a moral postion of how people ought to act without believing one has the authority to enforce it via government.

Right. I'm personally opposed to killing abortion doctors and would never do it myself, but I certainly don't want the government to legislate morality and stop people from killing abortion doctors.

pcosmar
02-14-2011, 09:45 PM
I think this may be the first time I've ever seen pcosmar use this smiley :)

Instead of :( or :mad:.

Amazing, amazing.

I use it, But very often I have little reason to smile.
This is one of those times.
:)

Still waiting for the official announcement (and warm weather) to paint 12 over the 08 on my sign.
;)

nayjevin
02-14-2011, 10:40 PM
Right. I'm personally opposed to killing abortion doctors and would never do it myself, but I certainly don't want the government to legislate morality and stop people from killing abortion doctors.

You're all over the place. Some people want to use government to prevent future crime (stop people from X) and some don't. Some people believe murder is being handled properly at the state level, others don't. Some people believe abortion is murder, and some don't. Some people believe some abortions are murders, and others aren't.

But the issue is clouded by throwing about emotionally charged soundbytes. The crux of the issue is disagreement over when a pregnancy becomes a person.

Ron rightfully points out that current law is hypocritical - a doctor can be sued for harming an unborn child. So obviously in some cases the law says 'this is a person who has rights.'

Anyone who debates abortion without focusing on 'when is it a person' is being dishonest or showing a lack of knowledge about the situation.

Brett85
02-14-2011, 10:44 PM
You're all over the place. Some people want to use government to prevent future crime (stop people from X) and some don't. Some people believe murder is being handled properly at the state level, others don't. Some people believe abortion is murder, and some don't. Some people believe some abortions are murders, and others aren't.

But the issue is clouded by throwing about emotionally charged soundbytes. The crux of the issue is disagreement over when a pregnancy becomes a person.

Ron rightfully points out that current law is hypocritical - a doctor can be sued for harming an unborn child. So obviously in some cases the law says 'this is a person who has rights.'

Anyone who debates abortion without focusing on 'when is it a person' is being dishonest or showing a lack of knowledge about the situation.

I was just being sarcastic and pointing out how ridiculous it is to say that you're "personally opposed" to abortion, but then say that it should remain legal anyway. I have more respect for people that just flat out say that they support abortion.

nayjevin
02-14-2011, 10:55 PM
I was just being sarcastic and pointing out how ridiculous it is to say that you're "personally opposed" to abortion, but then say that it should remain legal anyway. I have more respect for people that just flat out say that they support abortion.

That's not surprising to me. It seems you like to lead people to say they 'support' abortion, I would imagine you'd like it best when they save you the trouble of having to corner them there. This is a common tactic, but one that is not logically sound. A person's beliefs will be most accurately portrayed in his or her own words.

erowe1
02-15-2011, 09:00 AM
Not answering the question.
Did you ask me a question?


Are you saying we're going to have more underground railroads? Where women can travel to different states to get abortions kind of like slaves walked to their freedom to the North?
No. I haven't said anything like that. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I said that.


And why is there an exception for the mother's life?
You mean right now? Right now there isn't an exception like that. Right now there don't need to be any exceptions, because the effect of federal court rulings is that all states are required to allow all abortions for all reasons at all stages of pregnancy.

If you mean to ask why there would be some states with such a law with such exceptions in the hypothetical situation of their one day being allowed to have such laws, then I'm not sure how to answer that. How does one answer a question of why something is the case for a hypothetical situation that actually isn't the case?


What if her emotional health will be destroyed by carrying a pregnancy to term? Does that not matter?
What are you asking? Obviously some states would have laws that make exception for emotional health as well. Those exceptions would be foolish from a pro-life point of view, since they would effectively allow all abortions, and all any woman would have to do is sign a piece of paper or maybe pay a psychologist to sign one saying she'd have emotional damage if she had the baby, and the reality would be that she would run more risk of greater damage to herself by having an abortion than by having a baby, and that murdering someone is far worse than emotional damage anyway... But yeah, obviously some states would have laws like that. Like I said, some would keep abortion as unrestricted as it now is.


And why not try and outlaw abortion among all the 50 states?
Again, I don't get what you're asking. Are you asking if there are some people who want a federal law that bans abortion in all 50 states? Because, yes, of course there are some people who want that.


Because being pro-life doesn't just mean wanting to allow states themselves to make the decisions about abortion. Let's be real.
Says who? On the contrary, allowing states to decide for themselves is exactly what being pro-life means.

Being pro-life doesn't overturn the principle of noninterventionism. It doesn't undo the dictum of the Declaration of Independence that the only just powers governments can have are those which they derive from the consent of the governed. It doesn't place the moral burden on all pro-life people to fund some military operation to go take over China in order to replace their current abominable abortion laws with ones that respect life. The moral guilt for their tyranny resides on them. My duty with respect to those foreign sovereign states is not to send soldiers to make them American vassals, but missionaries to make them disciples of Jesus Christ, so that their society will reform from the level of the individual on up, just as ours needs to. The same thing I just said about China also applies to my obligations with respect to Massachusetts.

I would be fine with a constitutional amendment that demands that all states of the union must outlaw abortion, but only if the amendment included a provision that any states that do not cooperate in that are free to secede peacefully and will not be subjugated to the provisions of that amendment by conquest. There may be pro-lifers who wouldn't want such a clause, but their opinion about that would have nothing to do with their being pro-life.

sorianofan
02-15-2011, 09:34 AM
Ron Paul wants to take abortion out of Federal jurisdiction so states can ban it: end of story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act#We_the_People_Act

fj45lvr
02-15-2011, 09:58 AM
That's the point. Ron knows he will win by gaining more leftist/conservatives to his side. I'm against abortion, but when it comes down to it, you can't deny a woman the right to make the ultimate decision.

as a constitutionalist Paul knows that Murder is prosecuted at State level.