Leading With Abortion... Iowa Ad

[Cinnaboo]

The video (starting at 1:30):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uQNWHmiGj-k

No doubt it's already too late, but the half hour yet-to-be-aired Iowa broadcast produced by the campaign really upset me. This should, first and foremost, be an opportunity for Dr. Paul to introduce himself to a new constituency, so there's no excuse for splitting the viewers with such a polarizing statement in the first topic. Leading with shallow, heated politics is the territory of media-perpetuated entrenchment. A distraction! It's everything we're supposed to be against...

Even worse, it's rude.

Even worser, and I'm still surprised by this, it's a lie -- a deliberate half-truth designed to present his personal views as intended policy. No one unfamiliar with his actual position will come away from that footage thinking he would delegate it to the states. In fact, I needed to dissect the words very carefully to convince myself that he didn't flat-out promise a federal abortion ban if elected, right there on the stage.

Is this really what the Iowan people care about? The fetus is popular?

Maybe this is a smart move. Energize the registered republican base, because everyone who crossed the line has already committed, right?

Well, I would remind the campaign of non-voters, like my former self. People who are apathetic when the system is without truth.

"We're about to start a third war during recession and this guy leads with abortion?"

*click*

Maybe they should (could?) switch something more thought-provoking to the front?

[PimpBlimp]

Do you want to win or not?

This video was designed solely for the Iowa Republican. I think it will do its job.

[AggieforPaul]

In spite of everything else, I probably still wouldn't be supporting Paul if he weren't pro life. Abortion and immigration are the 2 issues I think most libertarians are wrong on.

Yeah, I respect that a lot of you are pro choice classic libertarians, but to win in Iowa, we have to convince more people like me.

And polarizing or not, the Human life Amendment has WAY more popular support than returning to the gold standard. I have a feeling most of your objections to the pro life message are personal convictions, not campaign strategy.

[Maverick]

Do you want to win or not?

oic. So the ends justify the means then, eh?

[hard@work]

The intended policy is to work towards a 50 state solution. He has never deviated from that once no matter how many times you try to imply that he has.

[literatim]

In spite of everything else, I probably still wouldn't be supporting Paul if he weren't pro life. Abortion and immigration are the 2 issues I think most libertarians are wrong on.

Yeah, I respect that a lot of you are pro choice classic libertarians, but to win in Iowa, we have to convince more people like me.

And polarizing or not, the Human life Amendment has WAY more popular support than returning to the gold standard. I have a feeling most of your objections to the pro life message are personal convictions, not campaign strategy.

Libertarians For Life (http://www.l4l.org/)

Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/)

[maxmerkel]

@Cinaboo: good post! sums up my view pretty well...

[Maverick]

The intended policy is to work towards a 50 state solution. He has never deviated from that once no matter how many times you try to imply that he has.

We all know that's what he wants to do, but you have to admit that just looking at this ad alone it looks like he's pushing for an outright ban.

[ksuguy]

I don't know what your background is, but if you want to reach conservative voters in the middle of America, you need to address the abortion question. Whenever I'm out talking to people, that is one thing they almost invariably bring up. Not just republicans either, democrats too. I'd imagine the demographics in Iowa are fairly comparable to the ones here in Kansas.

[burningfur]

The commercial is already shot and is going to IOWA.

You must've missed the big discussion about it.

I like the infomercial, it is excellent in showing his views.




The main reason I am supporting Ron Paul is because he will stop abortion constitutionally and as soon as possible, as a Christian, the abortion issue was always first to me.

[AggieforPaul]

Libertarians For Life (http://www.l4l.org/)

Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/)

Yeah, I know there are pro-life libertarians, but the official party platform says to let the woman choose what to do.

I especially like when the liberal media acts as if Dr. Paul is contradicting libertarianism by being pro life, and he retorts that he values liberty so much that he's willing to protect it for those unable to protect it themselves.

[literatim]

Yeah, I know there are pro-life libertarians, but the official party platform says to let the woman choose what to do.

I especially like when the liberal media acts as if Dr. Paul is contradicting libertarianism by being pro life, and he retorts that he values liberty so much that he's willing to protect it for those unable to protect it themselves.

That is one of the reasons why there is such a divide in the Libertarian Party and many jumped ship.

[AggieforPaul]

We all know that's what he wants to do, but you have to admit that just looking at this ad alone it looks like he's pushing for an outright ban.

To be honest, I think that's what he'd want deep down if he didn't know the government was full of incompetent fools who could just as easily overturn a ban on abortion. He did vote for the federal PBA ban.

When he's addressed pro life groups, he's made the argument that his proposed bill the "we the people act" which gives the decision to the states is actually a MORE desirable option for prolifers, because it puts the decision in the hands of more local officials who are beholden to public opinion, rather than in the hands of cherry picked supreme court justices who could (and did) make a decision we're uncomfortable with.

[mokkan88]

Even worser, and I'm still surprised by this, it's a lie -- a deliberate half-truth designed to present his personal views as intended policy. No one unfamiliar with his actual position will come away from that footage thinking he would delegate it to the states. In fact, I needed to dissect the words very carefully to convince myself that he didn't flat-out promise a federal abortion ban if elected, right there on the stage.


Actually, it's not a lie. It's true that Ron Paul does not endorse a federal ban on abortions, but only because he believes the government does not have the right to make such a ban.

He does, however, believe the government has a constitutional obligation to protect life, which is why he has continually pushed to have life defined as beginning at conception. Such a move would effectively make abortion a form of murder.

He has been very open about his views on this.

[Ron LOL]

Right there with you, OP. The infomercial should lead with economic policy and the dollar crisis, and then tie that in to the war issue and our foreign policy. It would be an unbeatable one-two punch for selling withdrawal from Iraq to pro-war republicans.

Ron Paul really very critically needs to frame his Roe v. Wade argument as being strictly a constitutional issue. If he doesn't, he'll lose critical moderates, independents, and (yes) democrats.

[literatim]

He will do nothing but gain in Iowa.

[derdy]

I watched the first part and I like what I see so far.



:)

[Cinnaboo]

To clarify, since Aggie outed me, I am pro-abortion.

In answer to the notion that I'm biased, I guarantee that I would not be making a fuss if the video made a distinction there between Ron Paul's personal convictions and his intended policy of deference to states' rights. Dishonesty is the issue here, and this is the first time I've seen that since I've followed Paul's campaign. I'm not offended by his comments.

It really comes back to why I'm supporting him. To me, Ron Paul is a symbol of hope -- hope that one day an American politician can stand on a stage and say something interesting. People are being reduced to focus groups, and they've formed a nasty habit of applauding for well-phrased conclusions rather than articulate, adaptive reasoning. To my nonpartisan ears, agreement applause is nails on a chalkboard.


He does, however, believe the government has a constitutional obligation to protect life, which is why he has continually pushed to have life defined as beginning at conception. Such a move would effectively make abortion a form of murder.

He has been very open about his views on this.
I did not know that... and I'll have to repress my reaction until I see it in context and dated.

I've heard him asked about abortion several times though, and he's always said he would leave it to the states. Planning to redefine life would be a direct conflict. So no, that's not exactly open.

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

There's no way he still holds that position?

[coboman]

I am fervently pro-choice, and here are my opinions.
The way I see it he states 3 points:

1) He promises is to revoke Row vs Wade (which allows for third trimester babies that could survive on their own, to be killed). This is not only a pro-life position. It is a human position.

2) He states his believe that "life" begins at conception. I don't share that notion, and neither do most scientists.
Life starts way before conception. Sperms are alive (that is why they move their tales, that is why they can be killed with spermicide). The ovule is alive. That is irrelevant.

What is relevant is when "human life" starts. And a good indication of that, is when human life ends. When a person is "brain dead", or in "vegetative state", then it is officially dead.
Brain activity (of the neocortex) is the indication of conscious, "human life".

An embryo has no brain, therefore, no brain activity. Hence, no human life.

I'd rather he didn't say that, because this notion stops all scientific efforts to work with embryos (i.e. stem cell research)


3) He proposes to stop federal funding of abortions. Which is fine by me. I someone needs an abortion, it shouldn't have to have the funding of the federal government to do it.

[AggieforPaul]

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/show

Sponsor: Ron Paul

2/15/2007--Introduced.
Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes more...that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.

[mokkan88]

"In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called 'population control.' Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn."

Source: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/87/statement-of-faith/

[mokkan88]

2) He states his believe that "life" begins at conception. I don't share that notion, and neither do most scientists.


Biologically speaking, to be "alive" means that one undergoes metabolic processes. At conception (two weeks after sex, methinks), the organism that is the embryo immediately begins to undergo metabolic processes and is thus biologically alive.

[burningfur]

The infomercial is already shot, discussing the subject won't change anything about it.


This topic is quickly turning into something along the lines of Christian versus Atheist.


Can we drop the subject before it becomes a flame war?

[mokkan88]

Can we drop the subject before it becomes a flame war?
Agreed.

[AggieforPaul]

I am fervently pro-choice, and here are my opinions.
The way I see it he states 3 points:

1) He promises is to revoke Row vs Wade (which allows for third trimester babies that could survive on their own, to be killed). This is not only a pro-life position. It is a human position.

2) He states his believe that "life" begins at conception. I don't share that notion, and neither do most scientists.
Life starts way before conception. Sperms are alive (that is why they move their tales, that is why they can be killed with spermicide). The ovule is alive. That is irrelevant.

What is relevant is when "human life" starts. And a good indication of that, is when human life ends. When a person is "brain dead", or in "vegetative state", then it is officially dead.
Brain activity (of the neocortex) is the indication of conscious, "human life".

An embryo has no brain, therefore, no brain activity. Hence, no human life.

I'd rather he didn't say that, because this notion stops all scientific efforts to work with embryos (i.e. stem cell research)


3) He proposes to stop federal funding of abortions. Which is fine by me. I someone needs an abortion, it shouldn't have to have the funding of the federal government to do it.

You will be legally charged with murder if you go shoot someone in a coma, in a vegetative state, or on life support.

Your definition is unscientific. The 7 biological components are homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.

I reject the idea that you can be "kind of alive", or that there are "stages" of being alive. You either are or you aren't, and fetuses certainly meet the biological requirements of a living organism. Once you've acknowledged that, its pretty silly to argue they aren't "human" life. Do you believe they belong to something other than the hominidae family and the **** sapien species?

[saahmed]

This is kind of how I saw it at first, but then I watched the first half again. It does do a good job of introducing Ron Paul and kind of giving an overview of what he is all about. Iowa Republicans are Pro-Life and to win the Republican caucus you need these people. I think he should have started out with illegal immigration though, since that is also very big here and the issue is not as polarizing.

[Taco John]

We have a lot of young people here who are bright, but a lot of them don't understand political strategy, or even American Political Theory. If they did, they would understand that this video is damn near perfectly tailored to the Iowa Republican audience.

[mokkan88]

This is kind of how I saw it at first, but then I watched the first half again. It does do a good job of introducing Ron Paul and kind of giving an overview of what he is all about. Iowa Republicans are Pro-Life and to win the Republican caucus you need these people. I think he should have started out with illegal immigration though, since that is also very big here and the issue is not as polarizing.

I think opening with such a firm stance on a polarizing issue (that most Iowans agree with, no less) will help provide some degree of legitimacy for Paul. It will get their attention and will draw many of them that otherwise would have changed the channel to sit back and watch.

[burningfur]

We have a lot of young people here who are bright, but a lot of them don't understand political strategy, or even American Political Theory. If they did, they would understand that this video is damn near perfectly tailored to the Iowa Republican audience.

True.

[coboman]

Biologically speaking, to be "alive" means that one undergoes metabolic processes.

Sure. But a mosquito is alive (undergoing metabolic processes), and there is no law forbidding anyone to use insecticide.

Only human life is protected by the law.

This is important, because what he implies by saying that an embryo is a person. This is major ammunition for all people that want stem cell research funded by the federal government.
We could have Michael J. Fox claiming that voting for Ron Paul means that he has no hope of getting better from his Parkinson's disease.

This could be a dealbreaker for many people. Including me.

[burningfur]

there. Is. Nothing. You. Can. Do. To. Change. The. Infomercial!

[coboman]

I reject the idea that you can be "kind of alive", or that there are "stages" of being alive. You either are or you aren't, and fetuses certainly meet the biological requirements of a living organism. Once you've acknowledged that, its pretty silly to argue they aren't "human" life. Do you believe they belong to something other than the hominidae family and the **** sapien species?

And this is the argument that stops all work with embryos.
Stem cell research is a very important issue. It could cost us lots of support.

Better leave this infomercial to Iowa, and try not to make it very popular on youTube.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

None of us agree 100% on everything. And you never WILL find someone who does. I don't agree on legalizing hard drugs (crack cocaine and heroin, xtc etc), though I would like to see a total policy shift, only lock up people caught dealing and not the addicted. but there will be plenty here who disagree with me, and fully agree with Ron's position. Does that mean I should abandon Ron Paul. Who ELSE would I support? He is the sole man with the integrity to say it how it is and not just pander to people.

.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

And this is the argument that stops all work with embryos.
Stem cell research is a very important issue. It could cost us lots of support.

Better leave this infomercial to Iowa, and try not to make it very popular on youTube.

No it really isn't. We have been forced to find ways around using fetuses, and we have done that quite well. The umbilical cord for example is full of stem cells. We are also learning how to turn any cell into a stem cell. If we harvest all umbilical cords instead of discarding them, we'd have absolutely zero need for using a fetus.

.

[literatim]

I really recommend everyone reading this article.

Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly (http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html)

[coboman]

My only suggestion is: do not make this video more popular.

People in favor of federal funding for stem cell research will watch the first two minutes, turn it off, and make up their minds right there that Ron Paul is not their candidate of choice.

[AggieforPaul]

And this is the argument that stops all work with embryos.
Stem cell research is a very important issue. It could cost us lots of support.

Better leave this infomercial to Iowa, and try not to make it very popular on youTube.

Ron Paul's objection to federally funded stem cell research has to do with his strict adherence to Constitutionally authorized spending measures, not with his pro life convictions.

I doubt his opponents would beat him over the head with that position, given how polarizing the issue is. Bush vetoed funding for embryonic stem cell research (and unlike RP, he signed every single other spending bill that came across his desk) despite the fact that his own brother has Crohn's disease, which is thought to be a disease that could potentially be cured with a stem cell transplant, and he hasn't gotten a ton of flack about it.

[rasheedwallace]

its a horrible video, and yes it is a bad idea to open with abortion.

[AggieforPaul]

My only suggestion is: do not make this video more popular.

People in favor of federal funding for stem cell research will watch the first two minutes, turn it off, and make up their minds right there that Ron Paul is not their candidate of choice.

And people who hate abortions will watch the first 2 minutes, and admire his stand on the issue. That's the trade off you have to make.

Its not as if his other positions have universal support either.

[literatim]

Harvesting embryonic stem cells is evil. It is the sacrifice of one group of human beings to help improve the lives of other groups of human beings.

[coboman]

OK. Last one from me: If I had known about Ron Paul first in my life, through this video, I would have looked another way and never turned back.

Here is an angry old man, talking about an antiabortion stand, like it is the basis of his political platform. Claiming to know that "life" begins at conception because he has studied "history, politics and economic policy (wtf???) for a long time".
And that's it. I would have stopped listening right there. Nothing he said afterwards would have mattered.

[NewEnd]

We all know that's what he wants to do, but you have to admit that just looking at this ad alone it looks like he's pushing for an outright ban.

That's my problem.
I can go for states rights, but his tack hard right is going to lose him some lefties. They may come back around if he centers up... btu that is risky.

The videos music needs to be redone as well. As I said in a different ad thread, peopel were saying they should have a youtuber make the next ad, but they were missing the impact of great and popular song choices. I think it would be worth the money to buy soem rights to popular songs for a commercial of this magnitude.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

That's my problem.
I can go for states rights, but his tack hard right is going to lose him some lefties. They may come back around if he centers up... btu that is risky.

The videos music needs to be redone as well. As I said in a different ad thread, peopel were saying they should have a youtuber make the next ad, but they were missing the impact of great and popular song choices. I think it would be worth the money to buy soem rights to popular songs for a commercial of this magnitude.

The music... If you listen carefully, there's a Michael Jackson lick in there!! Like, WTF??

.

[James R]

The video (starting at 1:30):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uQNWHmiGj-k

No doubt it's already too late, but the half hour yet-to-be-aired Iowa broadcast produced by the campaign really upset me. This should, first and foremost, be an opportunity for Dr. Paul to introduce himself to a new constituency, so there's no excuse for splitting the viewers with such a polarizing statement in the first topic. Leading with shallow, heated politics is the territory of media-perpetuated entrenchment. A distraction! It's everything we're supposed to be against...

Even worse, it's rude.

Even worser, and I'm still surprised by this, it's a lie -- a deliberate half-truth designed to present his personal views as intended policy. No one unfamiliar with his actual position will come away from that footage thinking he would delegate it to the states. In fact, I needed to dissect the words very carefully to convince myself that he didn't flat-out promise a federal abortion ban if elected, right there on the stage.

Is this really what the Iowan people care about? The fetus is popular?

Maybe this is a smart move. Energize the registered republican base, because everyone who crossed the line has already committed, right?

Well, I would remind the campaign of non-voters, like my former self. People who are apathetic when the system is without truth.

"We're about to start a third war during recession and this guy leads with abortion?"

*click*

Maybe they should (could?) switch something more thought-provoking to the front?

The start with abortion is the dumbest possible position to start with I know of. It really defies my imagination why they would do that. What other position would be dumber to start with? I have a fairly unique position in which I don't really care because there are signed and sealed cases for each side, but none the less its obvious that starting with a DIVIDING issue is the last thing you want to do. Put the most divisive issues 3/4 of the way into it. Start off with the unifying issues!

[AceNZ]

Ron Paul is not against stem cell research, although he is against federal funding for it. He has said, for example, that a fetus which is removed from the mother as part of a tubal pregnancy -- where it has no chance of surviving to full-term -- would be fine to use for stem cell research.

He explains this at length in his interview with the Nashua NH Telegraph (IMHO, one of his best interviews):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

[NewEnd]

The start with abortion is the dumbest possible position to start with I know of. It really defies my imagination why they would do that. What other position would be dumber to start with? I have a fairly unique position in which I don't really care because there are signed and sealed cases for each side, but none the less its obvious that starting with a DIVIDING issue is the last thing you want to do. Put the most divisive issues 3/4 of the way into it. Start off with the unifying issues!

He is trying to get those who will caucus to show up, I guess, and pro-lifers are hard campaigners.

[anotherone]

It drives me crazy that we have an insane foreign policy. Out of control domestic spending, etc.

... and the issue that makes or breaks peoples' support is abortion.

I could care less either way.

[coboman]

Abortion is a very emotional issue. People just shut off their brains, and use their guts when it comes to it.

I withdrew my support for Ron Paul when I saw the NH ad, where he stated his pro-life view so prominently for the first time.
Not only because I didn't agree with him, but because he was using my money to promote a message, which is not the main message.

The main point here is freedom and the constitution. Why make so much emphasis in such a divisive issue?
Anyway, enough rant. Peace everyone.

[AggieforPaul]

Abortion is a very emotional issue. People just shut off their brains, and use their guts when it comes to it.

I withdrew my support for Ron Paul when I saw the NH ad, where he stated his pro-life view so prominently for the first time.
Not only because I didn't agree with him, but because he was using my money to promote a message, which is not the main message.

The main point here is freedom and the constitution. Why make so much emphasis in such a divisive issue?
Anyway, enough rant. Peace everyone.

Good riddance. Good luck trying to find anyone among the establishment with even a morsel of integrity.

[noztnac]

I'm a Libertarian and a Christian. I am also pro life. But I don't think that this was the best way to begin the video. We'll see.

[noztnac]

OK. Last one from me: If I had known about Ron Paul first in my life, through this video, I would have looked another way and never turned back.

Here is an angry old man, talking about an antiabortion stand, like it is the basis of his political platform. Claiming to know that "life" begins at conception because he has studied "history, politics and economic policy (wtf???) for a long time".
And that's it. I would have stopped listening right there. Nothing he said afterwards would have mattered.

I think being an obstetrician should count for something.

[coboman]

Good riddance. Good luck trying to find anyone among the establishment with even a morsel of integrity.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have since then (when I found out about the Nov 5 moneybomb), restored my support for Ron Paul.

I let it go. I think that his stand on abortion is no longer relevant for me.
That is why I suggest not making this video very popular, because other people, like me, could distance from him. Or not even give him a chance.

[AggieforPaul]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have since then (when I found out about the Nov 5 moneybomb), restored my support for Ron Paul.

I let it go. I think that his stand on abortion is no longer relevant for me.
That is why I suggest not making this video very popular, because other people, like me, could distance from him. Or not even give him a chance.

Im glad you came around then, but I still disagree with you. Oh well, cant make everyone happy all the time.