Des Moines Register's coverage of Ron's new pro-life ad

[sailingaway]

Prolife ad from Ron Paul campaign hits airwaves today

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/10/14/prolife-ad-from-ron-paul-campaign-hits-airwaves-today/

[trey4sports]

no link?

[sailingaway]

NOT deserving of its own thread, CBS, determined not to call Ron's views 'pro-life' says he is pushing for 'anti-abortion rights'.

h xxp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120470-503544.html

[sailingaway]

no link?

:o

I was just going to fix that but someone else did...

[bluesc]

NOT deserving of its own thread, CBS, determined not to call Ron's views 'pro-life' says he is pushing for 'anti-abortion rights'.

h xxp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120470-503544.html

Coverage is getting worse or nonexistent. They must be terrified of him. Bring on the misinformation.

[KramerDSP]

CBS is the absolute worst. They have never had a single pro-Ron Paul article in years.

[osan]

Prolife ad from Ron Paul campaign hits airwaves today

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/10/14/prolife-ad-from-ron-paul-campaign-hits-airwaves-today/

I have not read the article just FYI... on dialup so I have to surf judiciously as everything takes forever.

That said, it is my opinion that ANY ad on this ridiculously divisive issue is a major error.

RP is NOT going to win over hard left liberals, so his ad falls on deaf ears there. Scratch one population.

He does not need to preach to the choir. Scratch another subset.

He DOES need to attract the fence sitters. Some of those, perhaps a large proportion of them, may be pro-choice or at the very least wary of anyone they perceive as looking to further intrude on their rights. Forget about right and wrong on this and focus on PERCEPTION, which is all that counts in this game.

What is "pro-life" for one is tyranny to another. This is incontrovertible fact and RP should recognize it, accept it, and work in accord with this truth. Raising this idiotic issue is most likely to position him in the minds of many who might otherwise be swayed to his camp as a one-issue candidate. Alienating legions of potential allies is not the way to go. If he turns them off before they take the opportunity to examine the rest of his eminently sound positions, what is he accomplishing that is better than shooting himself in the foot? If they take a look at his other positions and happen upon his pro-life stance, I would give at least even odds that the rest of his positions may be enough to sway them in his favor. If the first thing they see in THEIR MINDS is just another fundamentalist christian nut, those voters are lost.

Not airing such ads is NOT a compromise of his principles, nor is it in any way dishonest or deceptive. It is the judicious choosing of which battles to present to the world at a given time. This is part of what sound campaigning is about. Win the minds and the votes will follow. Pissing people off at the get-go will not win those minds and abortion is perhaps THE representative example of the sort of issue that immediately drives people away before they will put their brains into gear. This is strategy 001 for a world where the average intellect is hopelessly mired in VERY bad habits.

I would pull these ads yesterday and focus on the issues that will not immediately alienate large subsets of potential allies.

I hope his advisers take this to heart and act on it. For pity's sake, he cannot afford too many fukups in strategy. He a good and an honest man who must deal with oceans of people with pitifully poor mental training. Within the bounds of what I perceive to be his sound and worthy principles, pragmatism must rule the day. Period.

[ds21089]

CBS is the absolute worst. They have never had a single pro-Ron Paul article in years.

Gee I wonder why. Ever see the logo? (It's watching you!) Wonder who controls it...

[XTreat]

I have not read the article just FYI... on dialup so I have to surf judiciously as everything takes forever.

That said, it is my opinion that ANY ad on this ridiculously divisive issue is a major error.

RP is NOT going to win over hard left liberals, so his ad falls on deaf ears there. Scratch one population.

He does not need to preach to the choir. Scratch another subset.

He DOES need to attract the fence sitters. Some of those, perhaps a large proportion of them, may be pro-choice or at the very least wary of anyone they perceive as looking to further intrude on their rights. Forget about right and wrong on this and focus on PERCEPTION, which is all that counts in this game.

What is "pro-life" for one is tyranny to another. This is incontrovertible fact and RP should recognize it, accept it, and work in accord with this truth. Raising this idiotic issue is most likely to position him in the minds of many who might otherwise be swayed to his camp as a one-issue candidate. Alienating legions of potential allies is not the way to go. If he turns them off before they take the opportunity to examine the rest of his eminently sound positions, what is he accomplishing that is better than shooting himself in the foot? If they take a look at his other positions and happen upon his pro-life stance, I would give at least even odds that the rest of his positions may be enough to sway them in his favor. If the first thing they see in THEIR MINDS is just another fundamentalist christian nut, those voters are lost.

Not airing such ads is NOT a compromise of his principles, nor is it in any way dishonest or deceptive. It is the judicious choosing of which battles to present to the world at a given time. This is part of what sound campaigning is about. Win the minds and the votes will follow. Pissing people off at the get-go will not win those minds and abortion is perhaps THE representative example of the sort of issue that immediately drives people away before they will put their brains into gear. This is strategy 001 for a world where the average intellect is hopelessly mired in VERY bad habits.

I would pull these ads yesterday and focus on the issues that will not immediately alienate large subsets of potential allies.

I hope his advisers take this to heart and act on it. For pity's sake, he cannot afford too many fukups in strategy. He a good and an honest man who must deal with oceans of people with pitifully poor mental training. Within the bounds of what I perceive to be his sound and worthy principles, pragmatism must rule the day. Period.

You may have a point, but you would be surprised how many people cited pro-life as their #1 issue when I was phone banking in Iowa. I imagine SC is not much different.

[harikaried]

you would be surprised how many people cited pro-life as their #1 issue when I was phone banking in IowaAbsolutely.

I wasn't doing the phone-from-home calling with the campaign before the Ames Straw Poll, but I did talk to some people in Iowa through rp2012.org that were undecided on Paul. Many of them asked what was Ron Paul's position on abortion, states rights, judicial legislation i.e., Roe vs Wade; and I told them his position, and they were very happy.

[puppetmaster]

I have not read the article just FYI... on dialup so I have to surf judiciously as everything takes forever.

That said, it is my opinion that ANY ad on this ridiculously divisive issue is a major error.

RP is NOT going to win over hard left liberals, so his ad falls on deaf ears there. Scratch one population.

He does not need to preach to the choir. Scratch another subset.

He DOES need to attract the fence sitters. Some of those, perhaps a large proportion of them, may be pro-choice or at the very least wary of anyone they perceive as looking to further intrude on their rights. Forget about right and wrong on this and focus on PERCEPTION, which is all that counts in this game.

What is "pro-life" for one is tyranny to another. This is incontrovertible fact and RP should recognize it, accept it, and work in accord with this truth. Raising this idiotic issue is most likely to position him in the minds of many who might otherwise be swayed to his camp as a one-issue candidate. Alienating legions of potential allies is not the way to go. If he turns them off before they take the opportunity to examine the rest of his eminently sound positions, what is he accomplishing that is better than shooting himself in the foot? If they take a look at his other positions and happen upon his pro-life stance, I would give at least even odds that the rest of his positions may be enough to sway them in his favor. If the first thing they see in THEIR MINDS is just another fundamentalist christian nut, those voters are lost.

Not airing such ads is NOT a compromise of his principles, nor is it in any way dishonest or deceptive. It is the judicious choosing of which battles to present to the world at a given time. This is part of what sound campaigning is about. Win the minds and the votes will follow. Pissing people off at the get-go will not win those minds and abortion is perhaps THE representative example of the sort of issue that immediately drives people away before they will put their brains into gear. This is strategy 001 for a world where the average intellect is hopelessly mired in VERY bad habits.

I would pull these ads yesterday and focus on the issues that will not immediately alienate large subsets of potential allies.

I hope his advisers take this to heart and act on it. For pity's sake, he cannot afford too many fukups in strategy. He a good and an honest man who must deal with oceans of people with pitifully poor mental training. Within the bounds of what I perceive to be his sound and worthy principles, pragmatism must rule the day. Period.

just curious how many calls you have made for the campaign? I heard many say "pro life" is issue # 1 and not from RP fans as I could tell.

[realtonygoodwin]

It is my number 1 issue too.

[Kimmie]

I used to be pro-choice. However, listening to Ron Paul's reasoning, logic, and belief why abortion is wrong has swayed my views. By addressing the issue of abortion. he may convert some people to pro life. Just imagine if Steve Jobs was aborted by his parents. A world without Apple products would be a huge loss.

[MJU1983]

CBS is the absolute worst. They have never had a single pro-Ron Paul article in years.

Correct. CBS is trash.

[JohnGalt23g]

Osan, are you high?

20%+ of the GOP primary electorate says that life in either their top or near-the-top of their issue priorities. There is no counter-consitutency which is going to object solely on the basis of his stance on life. They don't exist.

Great ad, and I expect to see it run a lot, particularly in Iowa and SC.

[Apparition]

Baby murder is a major issue.
The ad is a homerun.

[AgentOrange]

I think this ad was needed. Unfortunately, there are some prominent status-quo "conservative" leaders have been spreading lies that Ron Paul is pro-abortion. The truth needed to be told--Ron Paul is very much pro-life, especially since the "average" Republican primary/caucus voter is pro-life.

[rich34]

I have not read the article just FYI... on dialup so I have to surf judiciously as everything takes forever.

That said, it is my opinion that ANY ad on this ridiculously divisive issue is a major error.

RP is NOT going to win over hard left liberals, so his ad falls on deaf ears there. Scratch one population.

He does not need to preach to the choir. Scratch another subset.

He DOES need to attract the fence sitters. Some of those, perhaps a large proportion of them, may be pro-choice or at the very least wary of anyone they perceive as looking to further intrude on their rights. Forget about right and wrong on this and focus on PERCEPTION, which is all that counts in this game.

What is "pro-life" for one is tyranny to another. This is incontrovertible fact and RP should recognize it, accept it, and work in accord with this truth. Raising this idiotic issue is most likely to position him in the minds of many who might otherwise be swayed to his camp as a one-issue candidate. Alienating legions of potential allies is not the way to go. If he turns them off before they take the opportunity to examine the rest of his eminently sound positions, what is he accomplishing that is better than shooting himself in the foot? If they take a look at his other positions and happen upon his pro-life stance, I would give at least even odds that the rest of his positions may be enough to sway them in his favor. If the first thing they see in THEIR MINDS is just another fundamentalist christian nut, those voters are lost.

Not airing such ads is NOT a compromise of his principles, nor is it in any way dishonest or deceptive. It is the judicious choosing of which battles to present to the world at a given time. This is part of what sound campaigning is about. Win the minds and the votes will follow. Pissing people off at the get-go will not win those minds and abortion is perhaps THE representative example of the sort of issue that immediately drives people away before they will put their brains into gear. This is strategy 001 for a world where the average intellect is hopelessly mired in VERY bad habits.

I would pull these ads yesterday and focus on the issues that will not immediately alienate large subsets of potential allies.

I hope his advisers take this to heart and act on it. For pity's sake, he cannot afford too many fukups in strategy. He a good and an honest man who must deal with oceans of people with pitifully poor mental training. Within the bounds of what I perceive to be his sound and worthy principles, pragmatism must rule the day. Period.

I totally disagree! I'm sorry this goes against your personal preferance, but I saw W Bush win 2 elections in a row pushing issues like this much harder than what the campaign is doing. I also watched Mike Huckabee win Iowa on the very same issue. This is a republican primary and this is the type of ad that will win Iowa for us. If we do that this ad will be the reason and an afterthought heading elsewhere except the Bible belt.

[tremendoustie]

In NH it's not even on the map. I've made around 300 calls for the campaign, and not one person listed pro-life as a top issue. It's all about jobs/economy.

I think this is a good ad, but Paul needs to come out with an ad showing his prediction of the financial crisis, economic credibility, etc, asap. I think if done right, such an ad could be absolutely killer.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Important to note, and make this distinction to all potential voters turned off by Ron's pro-life position:

He rejects a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion, has voted against bills that would restrict the right of individuals to cross state lines in order to have an abortion, believes that if any laws are necessary that it should be on the state level, believes persuasion is better than force of government and law in changing morality.

One can be pro-life while not being anti-abortion; if you understand what I'm saying (it's a game of semantics, like with almost all politics), you're a step ahead and should be able to make that distinction to potential voters without much difficulty.

[surf]

if it runs in my state i hope it is only on Fox news.

[osan]

I totally disagree! I'm sorry this goes against your personal preferance

Not sure what you mean by this, but I do not recall citing any personal preference.


but I saw W Bush win 2 elections in a row pushing issues like this much harder than what the campaign is doing. I also watched Mike Huckabee win Iowa on the very same issue. This is a republican primary and this is the type of ad that will win Iowa for us. If we do that this ad will be the reason and an afterthought heading elsewhere except the Bible belt.

Methinks some of you mistake what I wrote. I am not suggesting he hide his opinion on abortion, particularly if asked about it. As I wrote, the hard lefties will not cotton to him no matter what and such ads seems like preaching to the choir on the other. All I suggested is that he not drag this out as a major noise maker. There are plenty of other issues that can be used for that purpose, the various aspects of our current economic problems providing ample possibilities as well as those relating to these ridiculous wars and other international entanglements in which we find ourselves. If asked about his position, state it and do so with conviction. I have no problem with that. But the issue of abortion as a front page headliner for the campaign is poorly chosen. If RP has any hope of winning, it is likely he will do so by the skin of his skin. That means every single potential voter is damned important. I very much doubt he will win by anything even resembling a healthy margin, much less a landslide.

Therefore, all I have suggested is that he exercise care in choosing his headline issues. This abortion thing may be OK in IOWA. In shitholes like NY and NJ he may not fare so well. Perhaps he is prepared to write them off as hopeless - I am sure his people know the demographics better than I. But nevertheless there are perhaps still enough in even those places to make the effort worth the while not to drive potential allies away.

Someone wrote that single issue voters against RP do not exist. How do we know that? I've spoken with plenty of people who appear more than willing to allow single, personally important issues rule their balloting hands.

[osan]

Important to note, and make this distinction to all potential voters turned off by Ron's pro-life position:

He rejects a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion, has voted against bills that would restrict the right of individuals to cross state lines in order to have an abortion, believes that if any laws are necessary that it should be on the state level, believes persuasion is better than force of government and law in changing morality.

One can be pro-life while not being anti-abortion; if you understand what I'm saying (it's a game of semantics, like with almost all politics), you're a step ahead and should be able to make that distinction to potential voters without much difficulty.

This completely bolsters my point. Many people get WAY turned off by "pro-life" and am willing to wager that the proportion is uncomfortably close to a majority. That aside, if he is pro-life but refuses to enact bans, then the issue is utterly moot. Why wave this thing about is you are not going to act on it in the ways that are so often discussed? What is the point? What does that have to do with your presidency? It is OK to make mention of this in passing or in response to a query, but to drag this mess out of the basement where it belongs during campaign time, to pull the tail of that particular tiger seems imprudent to me.

Focus on the issues that have people REALLY wound up. If abortion is at the top of your list, then I suggest that perhaps you have not been paying sufficiently close attention to what has been happening along the lines of the economy, the interminable and endlessly costly wars, and our ever dwindling liberties now cowering in the shadow of Big Brother who is morbidly overweight, growing like kudzu, and adopting ever less pleasant postures with respect to human rights.

Don't parade divisive issues the opinions of which are not likely to be changed in anyone's minds. Focus on those of the immediately critical nature and for which there remains some hope of educating those not sure either way. Be practical.

[Invi]

I don't understand why pro-life would be a #1 issue for someone on a presidential candidate. :-/
There is nothing the president can do by himself to outlaw abortion within the confines of the constitution. Nor should there be, imo.

That said, I like the ad. I think it is personal, touching, and may help swing the undecided pro-life crowd our way.
I am also a woman who is pro-choice.
Perhaps more women will think he is sincere, look into his position on abortion, why, his position on Roe v Wade, and his position on states' rights and possibly drift our way.

edit: I would also like to say that this is the one issue that made me resistant to looking into RP more when BrooklynZoo first talked to me about him. Anything that went against my pro-choice views was dead to me. But I DID look into it and I DID understand, and while I am still pro-choice, here I am.

[Schiff_FTW]

I don't understand why pro-life would be a #1 issue for someone on a presidential candidate. :-/
There is nothing the president can do by himself to outlaw abortion within the confines of the constitution. Nor should there be, imo.


That's not true; presidents appoint Supreme Court justices who in turn interpret the Constitution, which is how we ended up with Roe in the first place.

I'm more-or-less ambivalent myself on this particular issue but I really like this strategy because it works. Doug Wead (now advising Paul) used it to great effect when he worked for George W. Bush.

[Feeding the Abscess]

That's not true; presidents appoint Supreme Court justices who in turn interpret the Constitution, which is how we ended up with Roe in the first place.

I'm more-or-less ambivalent myself on this particular issue but I really like this strategy because it works. Doug Wead (now advising Paul) used it to great effect when he worked for George W. Bush.

Wead also said that winning straw polls would force the media to give Ron coverage, and the exact opposite happened. Additionally, much of the benefit to having Wead (access to evangelical circles) was negated before he even signed on with Ron; Wead had a nasty falling out with the Bush administration, which in turn hurt his standing in evangelical circles.

[seapilot]

I don't understand why pro-life would be a #1 issue for someone on a presidential candidate. :-/
There is nothing the president can do by himself to outlaw abortion within the confines of the constitution. Nor should there be, imo.

That said, I like the ad. I think it is personal, touching, and may help swing the undecided pro-life crowd our way.
I am also a woman who is pro-choice.
Perhaps more women will think he is sincere, look into his position on abortion, why, his position on Roe v Wade, and his position on states' rights and possibly drift our way.

edit: I would also like to say that this is the one issue that made me resistant to looking into RP more when BrooklynZoo first talked to me about him. Anything that went against my pro-choice views was dead to me. But I DID look into it and I DID understand, and while I am still pro-choice, here I am.

You answered your own question. Anyone that is Pro-Life and thinks Ron is not , his views are dead to them. Now they learn he is Pro-Life they will investigate further and like what they find. He is the most pro life candidate out there on both ends. Where most Pro choice persons criticize the GOP on being pro war goes against the Pro Life principals, RP is one of the few that respect those principals.

[Occam's Banana]

such ads seems like preaching to the choir
If this were the general election, you would have a good point. But this is not the general election.
This is the Republican primary. "Preaching to the choir" is pretty much what primaries are all about.
This is especially true of conservative strongholds such as IA & SC.

[Invi]

You answered your own question. Anyone that is Pro-Life and thinks Ron is not , his views are dead to them. Now they learn he is Pro-Life they will investigate further and like what they find. He is the most pro life candidate out there on both ends. Where most Pro choice persons criticize the GOP on being pro war goes against the Pro Life principals, RP is one of the few that respect those principals.

But if they investigate further, and see that he will not legislate an abortion ban at the federal level, when that is what they are wanting?
Then perhaps their vote goes to someone who would.

[Liberty74]

I have not read the article just FYI... on dialup so I have to surf judiciously as everything takes forever.

That said, it is my opinion that ANY ad on this ridiculously divisive issue is a major error.

RP is NOT going to win over hard left liberals, so his ad falls on deaf ears there. Scratch one population.

He does not need to preach to the choir. Scratch another subset.

On the contrary. The ad is wonderful. It humanizes Ron Paul. The Republicans in Iowa are big on pro-life and believe this, I bet most people don't even know where RP stands on the issues besides, "He wants Iran to have nukes."

And NEWSFLASH - RP is not running for the Democrat nomination. Screw the "hard left liberals." This whole idea that we have to go after the liberals and progressives is time wasting. RP is a conservative libertarian hybrid.

[trey4sports]

family values and bein' pro-life is big in the midwest. Regardless of your own opinion of the ad it is the type of thing that GOP'rs want to hear.

[idiom]

We are more or less past the point where people can register to cross-over to vote for Ron in the primaries. It is about getting the GOP base out to vote for RP vs Romney. Abortion is *the* big fat wedge issue to do that in the early states where this is being run.

Once we get nominated it will be mostly a matter of sitting back and letting the GOP party machinery take the reigns. They will hold their nose push RP like crazy out of pure loyalty to the Big Elephant. Abortion will take a back seat to the Economy in the general.

[turbobrain9]

I have not read the article just FYI... on dialup so I have to surf judiciously as everything takes forever.

That said, it is my opinion that ANY ad on this ridiculously divisive issue is a major error.

RP is NOT going to win over hard left liberals, so his ad falls on deaf ears there. Scratch one population.

He does not need to preach to the choir. Scratch another subset.

He DOES need to attract the fence sitters. Some of those, perhaps a large proportion of them, may be pro-choice or at the very least wary of anyone they perceive as looking to further intrude on their rights. Forget about right and wrong on this and focus on PERCEPTION, which is all that counts in this game.

What is "pro-life" for one is tyranny to another. This is incontrovertible fact and RP should recognize it, accept it, and work in accord with this truth. Raising this idiotic issue is most likely to position him in the minds of many who might otherwise be swayed to his camp as a one-issue candidate. Alienating legions of potential allies is not the way to go. If he turns them off before they take the opportunity to examine the rest of his eminently sound positions, what is he accomplishing that is better than shooting himself in the foot? If they take a look at his other positions and happen upon his pro-life stance, I would give at least even odds that the rest of his positions may be enough to sway them in his favor. If the first thing they see in THEIR MINDS is just another fundamentalist christian nut, those voters are lost.

Not airing such ads is NOT a compromise of his principles, nor is it in any way dishonest or deceptive. It is the judicious choosing of which battles to present to the world at a given time. This is part of what sound campaigning is about. Win the minds and the votes will follow. Pissing people off at the get-go will not win those minds and abortion is perhaps THE representative example of the sort of issue that immediately drives people away before they will put their brains into gear. This is strategy 001 for a world where the average intellect is hopelessly mired in VERY bad habits.

I would pull these ads yesterday and focus on the issues that will not immediately alienate large subsets of potential allies.

I hope his advisers take this to heart and act on it. For pity's sake, he cannot afford too many fukups in strategy. He a good and an honest man who must deal with oceans of people with pitifully poor mental training. Within the bounds of what I perceive to be his sound and worthy principles, pragmatism must rule the day. Period.

I happen to agree with in theory and practice...however, my sense is that these ads are being run in IA and only IA, I hope...if my memory serves me correct about 60% of GOP primary voters in Iowa identify as evangelical (but I could be wrong). I think the campaign is trying to pull as many of those voters into the fold, away from Perry, Bachmann, and Cain...not to mention female voters. But I generally agree that this particular ad should be limited and the remaining ads should focus on the ECONOMY and FP....and more importantly Paul's credentials and record! Oh, I want to ad (not pun intended) that new ads should be targeted to address issues that are being discussed by the media...and ad that incorporates the OWS theme but clarify the issue of the bailout, fed etc..not necessarily the people protesting etc..but the themes that have come up...

[Butchie]

I don't understand why pro-life would be a #1 issue for someone on a presidential candidate. :-/
There is nothing the president can do by himself to outlaw abortion within the confines of the constitution. Nor should there be, imo.

That said, I like the ad. I think it is personal, touching, and may help swing the undecided pro-life crowd our way.
I am also a woman who is pro-choice.
Perhaps more women will think he is sincere, look into his position on abortion, why, his position on Roe v Wade, and his position on states' rights and possibly drift our way.

edit: I would also like to say that this is the one issue that made me resistant to looking into RP more when BrooklynZoo first talked to me about him. Anything that went against my pro-choice views was dead to me. But I DID look into it and I DID understand, and while I am still pro-choice, here I am.

I would also think Ron's argument may be similar to people like me, I am not religious so I don't come at this thing with the whole hellfire and brimstone angle, but I do believe in people taking repsonsiblity for their actions, isn't this in line with all of our principles here? You buy a house you can't afford, you deal with what may come, right? So why should this be any different, to me there is a really simple solution to this whole issue, don't get pregnant. (I know someone will ofcourse bring up the rape issue, OK, in those RARE cases of rape I would make an exception).

[Invi]

I would also think Ron's argument may be similar to people like me, I am not religious so I don't come at this thing with the whole hellfire and brimstone angle, but I do believe in people taking repsonsiblity for their actions, isn't this in line with all of our principles here? You buy a house you can't afford, you deal with what may come, right? So why should this be any different, to me there is a really simple solution to this whole issue, don't get pregnant. (I know someone will ofcourse bring up the rape issue, OK, in those RARE cases of rape I would make an exception).

That's what half of the argument seems to be about.
My mother had a child from rape. She could have aborted, but she didn't. She lives with the good of that every day, and occasionally she looks at her son and sees his father.
Not saying to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty, but not all women can deal with that. Not everyone is that strong. And sure, there's adoption, but they'd still be carrying that baby for 9 months or more, a consequence of an action that was not their own.
There does seem to be this idea in some conservative circles, though, that sex is only for procreation and nothing else, or that women are just using abortion as a convenient BC method.
I don't know about you, but a $500+ dollar medical bill is not convenient for me at all.

Would you want a life without sex until you were ready for children?
I think most do not.
I didn't. Now I'm having a baby, even though we took precautions. Now that is all fine and dandy for me, but it wouldn't be so great for some other people I know.
One girl I know has genetic problems she does not want to pass on to anyone. Should she simply avoid sex? Or have her uterus taken out to be sure? Because on the off chance that her BC fails and the condom breaks and she concieves, she's not going to have that baby.

The people I know, what they are going through, have gone through, and could go through in the future.. That has an impact on how I see things. I just can't see taking that option away all together, even if I may be opposed to it.

[Agorism]

bump

[PierzStyx]

That's what half of the argument seems to be about.
My mother had a child from rape. She could have aborted, but she didn't. She lives with the good of that every day, and occasionally she looks at her son and sees his father.
Not saying to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty, but not all women can deal with that. Not everyone is that strong. And sure, there's adoption, but they'd still be carrying that baby for 9 months or more, a consequence of an action that was not their own.
There does seem to be this idea in some conservative circles, though, that sex is only for procreation and nothing else, or that women are just using abortion as a convenient BC method.
I don't know about you, but a $500+ dollar medical bill is not convenient for me at all.

Would you want a life without sex until you were ready for children?
I think most do not.
I didn't. Now I'm having a baby, even though we took precautions. Now that is all fine and dandy for me, but it wouldn't be so great for some other people I know.
One girl I know has genetic problems she does not want to pass on to anyone. Should she simply avoid sex? Or have her uterus taken out to be sure? Because on the off chance that her BC fails and the condom breaks and she concieves, she's not going to have that baby.

The people I know, what they are going through, have gone through, and could go through in the future.. That has an impact on how I see things. I just can't see taking that option away all together, even if I may be opposed to it.

I can. I'm with Dr. Paul on this. You do not encourage liberty by ending any being's right to Life (remember the three greatest freedoms all others are based on are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), for any reason other than absolute need to preserve one's own life. And before the abortion= pursuit of happiness argument, the importance of those rights are as listed. Without Life, one cannot have Liberty, and without Liberty one cannot make choices that will either make them happier or more miserable. An dealing with those choices and their outcomes is part of liberty. I understand your argument about pain, I AM sympathetic. But for all my sympathy for the cases you have outline, my greater sympathies, and my sense of justice, lay with the child in the womb. It is the one with the least amount of choice or ability to act and yet none of its natural rights are diminished. Therefore it has to be protected even more than you or I who do have the ability to act and choose.

[PierzStyx]

"Unless we protect life we cannot protect liberty." Man, that short little video just about had me in tears.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Where can I see the ad? It's not on the Ron Paul Youtube page with the rest of his ads. :confused:

[beardedlinen]

In NH it's not even on the map. I've made around 300 calls for the campaign, and not one person listed pro-life as a top issue. It's all about jobs/economy.

I think this is a good ad, but Paul needs to come out with an ad showing his prediction of the financial crisis, economic credibility, etc, asap. I think if done right, such an ad could be absolutely killer.

Agreed COMPLETELY.

[sunghoko]

NOT deserving of its own thread, CBS, determined not to call Ron's views 'pro-life' says he is pushing for 'anti-abortion rights'.

h xxp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120470-503544.html

What a trash article. Absolutely trying to divide the libertarian support of Ron and with phrases such as "limited appeal"

[trey4sports]

We are more or less past the point where people can register to cross-over to vote for Ron in the primaries. It is about getting the GOP base out to vote for RP vs Romney. Abortion is *the* big fat wedge issue to do that in the early states where this is being run.

Once we get nominated it will be mostly a matter of sitting back and letting the GOP party machinery take the reigns. They will hold their nose push RP like crazy out of pure loyalty to the Big Elephant. Abortion will take a back seat to the Economy in the general.

GOP machine will not back Paul once he gets the nom. (at least that is my opinion)


What a trash article. Absolutely trying to divide the libertarian support of Ron and with phrases such as "limited appeal"


Ehhh, they are just pretty liberal.

[craezie]

I love this ad. My feeling is that while many pro-life conservatives will not vote for a candidate that isn't, pro-choice people who are in the conservative camp are probably going to be ok with compromise anyway. The rabid pro-choice people are likely not even on the radar for a Republican primary.

You wanted more women and Christians. This is how you get them. There is a general impression in mom and Christian circles (I run in them) that Ron Paul is very socially liberal. This is a block to getting through on other issues. This ad draws the line in the sand, and tugs at the heartstrings at the same time. I love the connection between defending life and liberty. When all those Bachman supporters give up, they have to go somewhere. Some of the other leading candidates have very poor records on this issue.

[Eric21ND]

GOP machine will not back Paul once he gets the nom. (at least that is my opinion)




Ehhh, they are just pretty liberal.

They backed Rand in Kentucky and Kentucky is PURE republican machinery with McConnell at the helm.

[Eric21ND]

I love this ad. My feeling is that while many pro-life conservatives will not vote for a candidate that isn't, pro-choice people who are in the conservative camp are probably going to be ok with compromise anyway. The rabid pro-choice people are likely not even on the radar for a Republican primary.

You wanted more women and Christians. This is how you get them. There is a general impression in mom and Christian circles (I run in them) that Ron Paul is very socially liberal. This is a block to getting through on other issues. This ad draws the line in the sand, and tugs at the heartstrings at the same time. I love the connection between defending life and liberty. When all those Bachman supporters give up, they have to go somewhere. Some of the other leading candidates have very poor records on this issue.
This ad is pure win in numerous ways.

[Butchie]

That's what half of the argument seems to be about.
My mother had a child from rape. She could have aborted, but she didn't. She lives with the good of that every day, and occasionally she looks at her son and sees his father.
Not saying to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty, but not all women can deal with that. Not everyone is that strong. And sure, there's adoption, but they'd still be carrying that baby for 9 months or more, a consequence of an action that was not their own.
There does seem to be this idea in some conservative circles, though, that sex is only for procreation and nothing else, or that women are just using abortion as a convenient BC method.
I don't know about you, but a $500+ dollar medical bill is not convenient for me at all.

Would you want a life without sex until you were ready for children?
I think most do not.
I didn't. Now I'm having a baby, even though we took precautions. Now that is all fine and dandy for me, but it wouldn't be so great for some other people I know.
One girl I know has genetic problems she does not want to pass on to anyone. Should she simply avoid sex? Or have her uterus taken out to be sure? Because on the off chance that her BC fails and the condom breaks and she concieves, she's not going to have that baby.

The people I know, what they are going through, have gone through, and could go through in the future.. That has an impact on how I see things. I just can't see taking that option away all together, even if I may be opposed to it.

Well, I clearly addressed the rape scenario hoping to avoid you using that defense, but I guess you didn't see it. As for your other points, again, I would say it's still about personal repsonsibility, am I trying to suggest people shouldn't have sex, no, but people should realize things can happen if you do, I don't see your argument as relevant bucause if I use the house example again you could argue "Well, what are you saying, people can't own a home?", and ofcourse I'm not saying people can't own a home, I'm just saying that is your decision, live with what happens.

While I'm not trying to say I've had some big army of women in my life, not even close, I have done the deed atleast a few times in my day and I've never gotten anyone pregnant, seems the excuse I hear right after the rape argument is "the condom broke", while this isn't impossible, 99.99999% of the time people say that it's BS.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Butchie]

If you're going to follow that line of reasoning, I guess you'd have to weigh it against something like, "Can you imagine what the world would have been like if Maria Anna Schicklgruber had aborted her illegitimate son (Alois Hitler). A world without Adolf Hitler would have been a huge plus in my book.

Maybe, maybe not, look at what a monster Stalin was, then imagine what an even greater monster he would have been without losing over a million soldiers, his entire tank aresenal, and burning a 3rd of his country fighting the Nazi's. Not that I'm one of those who believes "everything happens for a reason", just that I don't ever feel one person is ever that relevant, if they didn't do it, someone else would have.