Who did Ron Paul vote for?

[RandRevolution]

Gary Johnson? He definitely would have endorsed him if not for Rand and I don't see any other alternatives that make sense, other than not voting, which I don't think he would do.

[RickyJ]

He might have voted for his son, or even himself. It is possible he didn't vote for president at all.

[hrdman2luv]

LOL, This may be one of 2012's most mind bending unanswered questions.. Amongst the 1,000's of others.

[compromise]

He probably voted for Johnson or Goode or just left it blank. Not that it matters.

He voted for Randy Weber for US Representative and Ted Cruz for US Senator.

[green73]

He wrote in Murry Rothbard.

[NoOneButPaul]

I really would like to know... I don't think he'll ever tell...

Does Texas even allow write ins?

[sailingaway]

Whomever he voted for he didn't feel strongly enough about to endorse.

[erowe1]

other than not voting, which I don't think he would do.

I could see him not voting.

[KrokHead]

If he voted for Romney that'd totally be a buzzkill.

[tfurrh]

NOBP

[sailingaway]

If he voted for Romney that'd totally be a buzzkill.

I highly doubt he would have done that, he even said something like 'well, they can be pretty sure I'm not voting for Romney...' if I remember correctly, in one of his late interviews on it, where he refused to say who he was voting for.

It might have been Fox. It was one of the ones where he was utterly sick of being pressed on the issue, near election day.

[jasonxe]

He voted for Liberty

[Barrex]

So how many people wrote in Ron Paul in the end?

[qh4dotcom]

Gary Johnson? He definitely would have endorsed him if not for Rand and I don't see any other alternatives that make sense, other than not voting, which I don't think he would do.

He was endorsing 3rd party candidates back in 2008 so I guess he did vote for Johnson.

[Confederate]

He was endorsing 3rd party candidates back in 2008 so I guess he did vote for Johnson.

I would hope he wouldn't vote for someone who believes a woman has he right to murder an unborn child.

Then again Ron Paul isn't truly pro-life himself...

[Confederate]

Regarding the neg rep I got from compromise:


"Then again Ron Paul isn't truly pro-life himself..." Huh?

No, Ron Paul is not truly pro-life. He claims to believe that life begins at conception yet is ok with birth control, the morning after pill, and contraceptive injections. All these methods are abortifacients as they prevent a fertilized egg from implanting itself. If you believe that life begins at conception they are murder. In this sense, Ron Paul is a hypocrite and a liar for calling himself 100% pro-life.

[erowe1]

Rok with birth control, the morning after pill, and contraceptive injections.

"Birth control" includes a lot of things, many of which certainly are not abortifacient. As for the others you mention, what exactly does he say about them? I have seen places where he's said things to the effect that they are options available to women. But I haven't seen him comment on the morality of them. Nor do I think that believing them to be abortifacients means a pro-life person has to be for banning the chemicals themselves.

Also, the word "conception" doesn't have a single technical definition. Someone might say they believe life begins at conception and be referring to anything from fertilization to implantation. Believing that life begins at implantation might not be a satisfactory view, but it doesn't make someone a liar if they claim to believe it begins at conception. I don't know what RP's exact view on that is.

[Confederate]

"Birth control" includes a lot of things, many of which certainly are not abortifacient. As for the others you mention, what exactly does he say about them? I have seen places where he's said things to the effect that they are options available to women. But I haven't seen him comment on the morality of them. Nor do I think that believing them to be abortifacients means a pro-life person has to be for banning the chemicals themselves.

He's said that he would give a woman a shot of estrogen after intercourse to prevent pregnancy.



MORGAN: You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped -- and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen -- but if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated?

PAUL: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen.


[Ron Paul] was asked about abortion in the case of rape. The answer to this, incidentally, is straightforward — when a woman conceives as the result of a rape, there is one guilty party, and two innocent parties. What the pro-aborts want to do is change the ratios — they want one victim instead of two, and they want two perpetrators instead of one. They want the man who took what didn’t belong to him to be joined by a woman who imitates him by taking what doesn’t belong to her.

In response to this question, Ron Paul said that a woman who is raped should go to an emergency room immediately, and get a shot of estrogen, which would prevent the implantation of a conceived child in the uterine wall. Further, he said that he would administer that shot of estrogen. Piers Morgan, astonished, said that he thought Ron Paul believed life begins at conception. Ron Paul said that he did, but that we don’t know at that point whether the woman is pregnant.

This, in effect, was saying that if we don’t know if someone is living in a room then it must be okay to fill it up with poison gas. This example might seem beside the point because, if we did that, we would eventually have to carry a dead body out. But, in the case of this small victim, nobody ever needs to know. But, speaking frankly, and just between us, “nobody need ever know” is not exactly a pro-life rallying cry.

The most charitable takeaway is that Ron Paul does not understand the issue, or the meaning of the words he is using. At all. He does not understand the ramifications of what it means to confess that “life begins at conception.” Further, this ignorance on a point of high magnitude was coming from a medical doctor who confessed that life begins at conception, and that, provided he didn’t know of that person’s presence, that he personally would have no problem taking that person’s life. If that’s not a muddle, I don’t know what would count at one.

http://www.dennyburk.com/doug-wilson-takes-on-ron-paul-on-abortion/

[thoughtomator]

Regarding the neg rep I got from compromise:



No, Ron Paul is not truly pro-life. He claims to believe that life begins at conception yet is ok with birth control, the morning after pill, and contraceptive injections. All these methods are abortifacients as they prevent a fertilized egg from implanting itself. If you believe that life begins at conception they are murder. In this sense, Ron Paul is a hypocrite and a liar for calling himself 100% pro-life.

I would respectfully suggest that perhaps Dr. Paul has a more thoroughly considered position on the issue.

[green73]

PAUL: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen.

OMG, Ron Paul is a monster!

[BamaAla]

We should totally turn this into another abortion thread.

I'd venture a guess that he voted either Johnson or Goode if he cast one at all or didn't write himself in.

[Confederate]

I would respectfully suggest that perhaps Dr. Paul has a more thoroughly considered position on the issue.

He's philosophically inconsistent. If you believe life begins at conception then the right to life begins there as well. To claim that you would give a woman a shot that will kill that unborn person means you are not pro-life.

Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread further.

I honestly think Ron Paul didn't bother voting for president. Can't see him voting for Gary Johnson and I don't think he'd trust Goode after looking at his record in congress.

[erowe1]

if he cast one at all or didn't write himself in.

He definitely didn't write himself in.

[sailingaway]

He's philosophically inconsistent. If you believe life begins at conception then the right to life begins there as well. To claim that you would give a woman a shot that will kill that unborn person means you are not pro-life.

Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread further.

I honestly think Ron Paul didn't bother voting for president. Can't see him voting for Gary Johnson and I don't think he'd trust Goode after looking at his record in congress.


Ron doesn't think it does kill after conception the way he would use it. He says it takes up to two weeks for conception to occur and if someone came to him the next day he would give this estrogen shot that PREVENTS conception from occurring. There is no way to prove, scientifically, if conception occurred before then, but it would be very unusual, and given this, he considers that stopping conception not ending life post conception.

Similarly, birth control pills stop conception from occurring to begin with.

[sailingaway]

OMG, Ron Paul is a monster!

He clearly meant if it was really rape, not just claimed as rape when the mother regretted what she had done, some distant time later. Real rape she would know happened right away. There is up to a two week window before conception occurs.

[green73]

He clearly meant if it was really rape, not just claimed as rape when the mother regretted what she had done, some distant time later. Real rape she would know happened right away. There is up to a two week window before conception occurs.

Sorry, it was sarcasm.

[Occam's Banana]

If you believe that life begins at conception [abortifacients] are murder.

This is a non sequitur. If you believe that life begins at conception (however defined), then the subsequent effective use of an abortifacient is homicide. Whether it is also murder (and if so, in what degree) is debatable.

[sailingaway]

This is a non sequitur. If you believe that life begins at conception (however defined), then the subsequent effective use of an abortifacient is homicide. Whether it is also murder (and if so, in what degree) is debatable.

here is a view on what is an abortificant and what isn't, based on whether it is considered to be controception (as with Plan B estrogen shots) or to cause abortion, per this article: http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/what-abortifacient-and-what-it-isnt

doubtless views differ, but Ron acts based on his own views, developed as an OB/gyn.

[TheGrinch]

This is a non sequitur. If you believe that life begins at conception (however defined), then the subsequent effective use of an abortifacient is homicide. Whether it is also murder (and if so, in what degree) is debatable.

See this is the exact misconception that allows for liberals to call pro-lifers hypocritical murderers for masterbating.

Intercourse and sperm are not exclusive with conception, that's the meeting of a sperm and an egg. So taking preventative measures for the sperm and egg to not meet in an unplanned pregnancy is certainly not murder or inconsistent with a pro-life view. It's merely helping to ensure that one sperm meets the same fate of the (thousands?) of other ones that don't fertilize an egg....

And since I don't think anyone is willing to argue that a sperm is any more a form of life worth protecting than any other individual basic cell or organism that dies, I do not think it's at all the same as protecting what's created when a sperm and egg meet in conception. Without conception, I just don't see how you can treat that 1 sperm as any more worth saving then the thousands of other microcosms that are "murdered" without conception (including hair or dead skin cells even).

[FSP-Rebel]

Back in action
http://i49.tinypic.com/2h5nxac.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

here is a view on what is an abortificant and what isn't, based on whether it is considered to be controception (as with Plan B estrogen shots) or to cause abortion, per this article: http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/what-abortifacient-and-what-it-isnt

doubtless views differ, but Ron acts based on his own views, developed as an OB/gyn.

Abortion isn't one of my "hot button" issues, but based on everything I've heard RP say about about the matter, I agree with him pretty much 100 percent.

There are numerous possible & reasonably defensible positions on what does or not constitute an abortifacient, when conception does or does not occur, etc.

And that is just the beginning. Besides those seemingly intractable issues, there is the question of what kind of homicide(s) we are dealing with - a question which depends on a variety of circumstances (murder? manslaughter? self-defense? some brand new category? some combination of these things?). And then there's the matter of what, if any, restitutions/punishments are appropriate.

All excellent reasons why government - especially at the federal level - should not have much if any say in the matter.

[liveandletlive]

i believe he voted for Gary Johnson....

[FrankRep]

He was endorsing 3rd party candidates back in 2008 so I guess he did vote for Johnson.
Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.