Gay/Abortion and Women's Rights

[boondoggle]

Hey, i'm 17 and new to the forums.. I won't be able to vote, but i've converted 2 of my teachers and both my parents. Right now i'm trying to get my sister to also vote for him and she's putting up a fight.

Her issue is that he is pro-life, and I told her that he would leave it up to the states to decide that and wouldn't force his opinion onto the country. Her argument was that saying "The states would choose" was his way of getting around it and that if he was for civil liberties he would agree that women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. She doesn't think that if her state voted to be pro-life and she wanted an abortion, that she would have to move to another state. My argument was wouldn't you rather move to a different state than a different country, where she said some people wouldn't be able to afford to. What do I say to that? I've already explained that he is for small government intervention and less federal interference.

Also, she is pro-gay marriage and I told her that he believed the definition was a man and a women, but that he would leave it up to each state. Again she sees this as a way to jump around the issue and I told her that it would be better because it was up to the people.

She agrees with him on everything like the foreign policy and stuff, but thinks that it would be a scary world because everyone would be left to themselves.. She's also concerned about financial aid to college students being cut, along with other programs in the education area...

Can you clarify this stuff for me so I can get her converted too? I love that she cares so much though and asks questions, she really likes looking into this stuff. Any good rebut would be great!

Thanks.

[Cjays]

What do I say to that?
Tell her she doesn't have to get pregnant.

[boondoggle]

That won't solve anything, she thinks your born with the right to choose what to do with your body... Is that really the only comeback though? Not gonna get anywhere being pushy.

[Cjays]

Ask her what the Constitution says about abortion, and promise her RP will follow the Constitution. If she's still stuck, then you'll have to convince her that all the other issues RP stands for are more important than supporting the birth control method used by cave-woman.

[boondoggle]

I think thats what i'm gonna end up doing, make her realize some things are just more important than that. Even though right now abortion is a big debate with her, she's hardcore women's activist though. Like, men get paid more than women and were not equal type of stuff. But, i'll just keep talking to her. She'll be my project... *creepy stare* ... Anddd i'm done.

[murrayrothbard]

I'll stay away from the abortion one. People lose all sight of rationality on that.

As for gay marriage, yes, RP has said that it's not the federal governments business, but that he also thinks it's not the state's business really at all. His personal position is that government should not be involved in marriage. It's simply a voluntary association between two people.

[Melissa]

Have her watch this interview from yesterday I found on Youtube it was great and really makes you look at the other side of things. It is a long interview but the best I have seen so far. The part about abortion is in the 2nd video I think. You can tell the lady gets a little huffy with the good Dr. but when you hear his answer you can only respect it and think to yourself God I want this man in office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx2vLUMmSiA&feature=PlayList&p=120BDA5B6348EB4B&index=0

[partypooper]

That won't solve anything, she thinks your born with the right to choose what to do with your body...

she is. she can choose whether to have sex or not.

[boondoggle]

Thanks Melissa... I e-mailed her the link to the second one, it could help.. Time will tell.

[Melissa]

Did you watch it. It really is the best Ron Paul Interview I have seen so far. Really long answers so you can really see if you agree on the issues with him. What is suprising I think is if more people saw this interview they would so agree that Dr. Paul is the right person for 2008 to get us back to some kind of idea that used to be the "American" idea.

[john_anderson_ii]

Women don't have rights. Gays don't have rights. Blacks don't have rights. People have rights. That's something she needs to understand. At some point, that extra embryonic tissue becomes a person, actual and whole. At some point, that embryonic tissue attains the right to life. Ron Paul happens to believe that point is the point of conception. Not everyone agrees with him. The Constitution has blessed us with a wonderful way of solving these problems, and that way is Amendment 10. Ron Paul is the ONLY pro-lifer who will set aside his personal beliefs and remove the Federal government from that issue as is proper. The only thing the Federal government can do is either outlaw it, or do nothing. Anything that is not outlawed is legal, you don't need a special law telling you that you are allowed to do something. Therefore, each state or county or community would have to tackle this issue as best they see fit. Roe Vs. Wade is preventing that, and should be overturned. Then the Federal Government should remain silent on the issue. Then all you sister would have to do is work hard to prevent her state from a passing a law against it.

[jumpyg1258]

I have heard in one of his various speeches that he does want the government to get out of the marriage business cause it really has no right being in it. I mean separation of church and state, c'mon people!!! =P

[Cjays]

Did you watch it. It really is the best Ron Paul Interview I have seen so far....
Thank you for point out that interview. I was going to recommend his interview with Adam Curry, which is where he also gets pretty descriptive on the subject.

[boondoggle]

Yeah, I liked how that female journalist (No clue what her name was) kept drilling him and he kept clarifying to her his position.. I haven't watched them all but the fact that the questions aren't fed to him and he has to justify and clarify his responses to the reporters just solidifies my support for him.

[Melissa]

Yes just when you think the good Dr. might stumble he clarifys his position even more so that you can only say well of course that is the way it should be.

[VoteRonPaul2008]

Well Paul voted against the amendment banning gay marrige... so he supports gays and a woman's right to chose is left up to the states

[RonPaulForLife]

Abortion:
The reason why it's such a heated issue in this country, as opposed to other countries, is because our abortion law was created by 9 appointed judges. Let's let the people decide, like they do in every other civilized country.
The morning after pill would still be available and women can drive to another state. You wouldn't even have to move.
If you can't afford it, the states can fund it on their own. No reason why we have to make someone in Alaska pay for an abortion in New York.

Gay marriage:
Why is the government regulating marriage? Gay marriage, polygamy, bigamy, Gay polygamous bigamy... they'd all be allowed by Ron Paul because Ron Paul wants the government out of such matters. He opposed the gay marriage ban amendment. He is the most extreme candidate, Democrat or Republican, in support of gay rights.

Financial aid for college:
States can still provide it. Why does it have to be federal? But I oppose it because I find it morally wrong. Why should someone who never had the benefit of college pay taxes to subsidize those who do go to college? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If anything college students should be taxed to pay for those single teenage mothers who will never get to go to college.

Department of Education:
Why is education being controlled by the federal government? Currently, the NYC public school system is being praised by educators around the US for its reforms. Just as NYC led the US in fighting crime in the 90's, NYC is leading the US in improving schools now. How are they doing it? Decentralization! The goal is to eventually spin off all of NYC's public schools into charter schools which would have control over their own affairs. This sort of low-level administration is the future of education, not national administration!

[Matt Collins]

People have rights. Actually it would be more proper to say that individuals have rights.

[Corydoras]

Remind her that he is going to be president, not dictator... he can't overturn Roe by himself.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Someone who would not monitor what I do in my home, listen in on my phone calls, read my e-mails, search my property, limit what I can say, or violate my privacy in any other way, but would support the right of the people to look for a balance between a woman's right to choose and a child's right to live.

OR

Someone who would track every aspect of my personal affairs, but would let women have abortions on demand, even if it's 8.5 months into the pregnancy and they would pay nothing for bringing the child to term.



Hmm... who's the true civil libertarian?

I guess I'll just never understand the extreme value some people place on this one issue, especially when it overrides issues of real importance to a presidential election, like national defense and fiscal policy.

[Lance C Roseman]

Tell her to talk to an adoptee, like myself, she may get a larger picture than the slogan she is brainwashed with.

[GeorgiaRPFan]

You could send your sister a link to The Silent Scream. Hard for people to be so enthusiastically pro-abortion when they see one performed on ultrasound, with the baby happily existing in the womb, then fighting off the suction tube violently before losing the battle with the doctor. Not for the faint of heart.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9JOOcS2Q_is

[0zzy]

I hate how people think the federal government MUST get involved from everything like marriage to drug enforcement. Ask her if she supports medical marijuana, and if she does, then tell her why leaving marriage up to the states is ducking it.

[TVMH]

I think Dr. Paul is more sensible on this issue than all the other candidates combined.

He stated on Adam Curry's podcast that within the first five days (I believe) there is no physical evidence of pregnancy. As a medical doctor, his credibility on this point, is unquestionable in my opinion.

This 5-day period is the window that rape and incest victims can have to make sure that a pregnancy does not continue. (say what you will about life beginning at conception, but I have a hard time believing that God wants incestual relationships to bear fruit).

With regard to abortion being needed to save a woman's life, again, I imagine Dr. Paul understands this issue better than any of the candidates, himself being an OB/GYN. He has stated that the more complicated the problem, the more local the solution should be. In my mind, there is no more complicated problem than this scenario, and the most local solution is between the patient and the doctor.

If she believes that abortion is justifiable for birth control methods after the 5-day window previously mentioned, I don't have a problem with her position being rightfullly challenged by the residents of her state.

[trout007]

Tell her Dr. Paul isn't trying to get out of the issue. The fact is the Constitution spells out what the federal government can and cannot do. Regulating abortion (which some would consider a violent crime similar to murder) is a state issue. States can and do have different punishments for murder. Some have life in prison, some have the death penalty, ect. The same would go for abortion. The penalties or lack thereof would be a states call. The beauty of this system is you would have 50 states trying different things with different results which can be evaluated to formulate effective policies.

This is a fundamental aspect of libertarian thought. The more divisive an issue the more local the decision should be made.

[Hope]

I think Dr. Paul is more sensible on this issue than all the other candidates combined.

He stated on Adam Curry's podcast that within the first five days (I believe) there is no physical evidence of pregnancy. As a medical doctor, his credibility on this point, is unquestionable in my opinion.

This 5-day period is the window that rape and incest victims can have to make sure that a pregnancy does not continue. (say what you will about life beginning at conception, but I have a hard time believing that God wants incestual relationships to bear fruit).

With regard to abortion being needed to save a woman's life, again, I imagine Dr. Paul understands this issue better than any of the candidates, himself being an OB/GYN. He has stated that the more complicated the problem, the more local the solution should be. In my mind, there is no more complicated problem than this scenario, and the most local solution is between the patient and the doctor.

If she believes that abortion is justifiable for birth control methods after the 5-day window previously mentioned, I don't have a problem with her position being rightfullly challenged by the residents of her state.

Can we safely rely on thirteen-year-old girls being able to get away from their abuser in a five day window? A girl that age may not even think about the possibility of being pregnant because of the trauma involved, and even if it does enter her mind, she may spend those first few days in such a state of shock, fear and confusion that she won't get to a doctor. It's the same thing with rape victims; psychological analysis have shown time and again that for some reason, pregnancy is the last thing on the minds of the victims. Shrinks attribute this in part due to the violent nature of the act inflicted upon them. Five days is a very small window of time for victims to be shaken into the realization of what has truly happened to them.

[TVMH]

Can we safely rely on thirteen-year-old girls being able to get away from their abuser in a five day window? A girl that age may not even think about the possibility of being pregnant because of the trauma involved, and even if it does enter her mind, she may spend those first few days in such a state of shock, fear and confusion that she won't get to a doctor. It's the same thing with rape victims; psychological analysis have shown time and again that for some reason, pregnancy is the last thing on the minds of the victims. Shrinks attribute this in part due to the violent nature of the act inflicted upon them. Five days is a very small window of time for victims to be shaken into the realization of what has truly happened to them.

This is one of the more complicated scenarios of which Dr. Paul makes frequent mention...all the more reason to return control of this issue to the most local authority possible.

[truthbetold]

Ron PAul has a plan to effectivly overturn Roe V. Wade through legislation. It is not right to steal money through taxes to pay for an abortion for someone else.

This turns it over to the states. Most states will make exceptions for such things as rape ect if they outlaw abortions and many won't outlaw abortions. Either way the Federal Govt has no right to make any law either way.

On gay marriage, same story, dictionaries make definitions not governments. All civil unions are protected under the constitution. However, "GAY Marraige" is a BS issue.

IT IS about socialogical acceptance and not any real "right" being violated. Gays can sign POA's now, so all their arguments of discrimination are invalid.

The federal government can't make a law to make 90% of the population accept a lifstyle they don't agree with. There is no discrimination now. It is a non-sequitor (it does not follow from their arguments) Their arguments are based in Emotional appeals and not facts.

[Corydoras]

Would she rather have a country where some states have legal abortion, or a country where a few dead Supreme Court justices might result in not only Roe v. Wade being overturned but abortion being outlawed throughout the country?

[Sey.Naci]

Oooh, that's a good answer!

[ClassicalLiberal]

The scary thing about leaving issues up to the states is that some of the states will deal with the issues in ways one doesn't like. Those of us who are old enough to remember state mandated segregation in the south, especially if we are from the north, tend to think of "state's rights" as a code for racism in particular, and for other policies we regard as socially backward and fundamentally unjust as well.

But here's something I think is scarier: A powerful national government enforcing objectionable policies on the whole country. Sure it would be a hassle for a woman to travel to another state to have a legal abortion, or for a gay couple to move to another state in order to get married. But it's not as much of a hassle as moving to another country.

In '04 when Duh-bya was reelected, I had all these friends threatening to move to Canada. So I Googled moving to Canada to see if they could even do it. Well, you know those Canadians are nice people. They give away health care and let same-sex couples get married. But guess what? The have immigration laws too. An American citizen can't just move to Canada and become a permanent resident or citizen because they don't like the policies of the national government in the U.S.

So, would you rather have fifty choices of where to live where you might find a system of laws more congenial to your own values and lifestyle, or would you rather have no choices, for all practical purposes because the "other side" got elected to the seats of national power? You could always try secession, but that didn't go too well last time around.