new member looking for clarity on a couple of issues

[scmomof2]

Everytime I hear Mr. Paul speak I like him more and more, but I need some additional clarity on a couple of issues. :confused:
1. He is listed as strongly pro-life however, from what I have heard him say he seems to agree with the Roe v Wade decision??? Am I correct?, can I count on him to appoint judges who will uphold this decision? With the way he feels about privacy and rights I can't believe he would want it over turned?

2. Stem cell research? Says he does not support fed. gov. funding? What is his answer.......

Thanks, I appreciate the help! I usually vote democratic but I am very disappointed with my party .... I don't understand why with W's approval ratings to low they are not doing more. :mad:

[angrydragon]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=5889

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul252.html

Ron Paul is a big believer in individual privacy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul228.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul71.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul14.html

[angelatc]

I'm pro life too, but I think RvW was wrongly decided. Ron Paul is personally anti-abortion, but from a political standpoint he believes that there is no Constitutional right to abortion, and the issue should therefore be decided on a state-by-state basis.

Personally, I"d like to see the issue become a Constitutional amendment so we wouldn't have to worry about it every time we got a new SC justice.

Stem cell funding: he does not believe in the federal government funding much at all. :) Personally I agree with him on this for a couple of reasons, one reason being that the patents will eventually end up owned by a private company so why should we finance it?

There are more reasons. Here's a good article: http://www.globalchange.com/stemcells2.htm

Here's a thread on another board that hashes out a lot of arguments between the two camps. http://www.revsroadhouse.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=197&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

[scmomof2]

for the great threads..... leaves me in a tough spot, glad its still a long way off to make up mind. These are 2 huge issues for me and I afraid his stance on both of these will probably not allow me to vote for him. But i will keep listening to him, and hope a democrat gets in and is smart enough to offer him a cabinet position.

[cjhowe]

for the great threads..... leaves me in a tough spot, glad its still a long way off to make up mind. These are 2 huge issues for me and I afraid his stance on both of these will probably not allow me to vote for him. But i will keep listening to him, and hope a democrat gets in and is smart enough to offer him a cabinet position.

Hi scmomof2 welcome to the forums! I understand these are important issues for many people. Why do you feel that it is a federal issue as opposed to a state issue?

[RonPaul2012grassroots]

for the great threads..... leaves me in a tough spot, glad its still a long way off to make up mind. These are 2 huge issues for me and I afraid his stance on both of these will probably not allow me to vote for him. But i will keep listening to him, and hope a democrat gets in and is smart enough to offer him a cabinet position.

If anyone other than Ron Paul takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, we are sooooo thoroughly screwed.

I suggest you look into the North American Union. It means the total destruction of the republic.

[scmomof2]

thanks for the welcome - I believe the states should have some control however, I worry about laws constantly changing with each new election.... We keep beating our heads over laws that already exsist and never get on to new things. Like fixing social security once and for all!!
Make a logical decision on gun control, abortion, stem cell research, etc... and then let states have control over how to pay for these programs, how to govern them - IE... abortion - let the state decide the age of consent with out parential notification, sex education, etc... let state decide how to register guns, how many per household, what safety courses you need etc...

Someone suggested the North American union? not sure what that is??

[cjhowe]

thanks for the welcome - I believe the states should have some control however, I worry about laws constantly changing with each new election.... We keep beating our heads over laws that already exsist and never get on to new things. Like fixing social security once and for all!!
Make a logical decision on gun control, abortion, stem cell research, etc... and then let states have control over how to pay for these programs, how to govern them - IE... abortion - let the state decide the age of consent with out parential notification, sex education, etc... let state decide how to register guns, how many per household, what safety courses you need etc...

Someone suggested the North American union? not sure what that is??

In regards to the social issues, I generally have similar views to your own (pro choice, pro stem cell research). However, on each of the issues you brought up, why should the federal government have any input?

[scmomof2]

In regards to the social issues, I generally have similar views to your own (pro choice, pro stem cell research). However, on each of the issues you brought up, why should the federal government have any input?

before I started listening to Ron Paul state control versus fed control wasn't really something I thought of.... My main objection to state control is the quick ability for certain rights to get quickly overturned and taken away with out many people paying enough attention - in NY where I lived most of my life we would have these special issues to vote on - and out of the dismal 34% of registered voters that voted (on an off year election) ony 18% voted on these topics.....
But I am open to hearing why you so strongly oppose the fed. gov intervention - here is your chance to enlighten a newbie!!

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

before I started listening to Ron Paul state control versus fed control wasn't really something I thought of.... My main objection to state control is the quick ability for certain rights to get quickly overturned and taken away with out many people paying enough attention - in NY where I lived most of my life we would have these special issues to vote on - and out of the dismal 34% of registered voters that voted (on an off year election) ony 18% voted on these topics.....
But I am open to hearing why you so strongly oppose the fed. gov intervention - here is your chance to enlighten a newbie!!

Glad to have you on board...

[angrydragon]

What rights?

[cjhowe]

before I started listening to Ron Paul state control versus fed control wasn't really something I thought of.... My main objection to state control is the quick ability for certain rights to get quickly overturned and taken away with out many people paying enough attention - in NY where I lived most of my life we would have these special issues to vote on - and out of the dismal 34% of registered voters that voted (on an off year election) ony 18% voted on these topics.....
But I am open to hearing why you so strongly oppose the fed. gov intervention - here is your chance to enlighten a newbie!!

What you point out is a symptom of these issues being debated on the federal level. The things that most affect our lives are being decided in D.C., so we have no interest in what is going on in our city councils, our county boards or our state legislatures.

If you remove these topics from federal debate, the issue doesn't go away, however our venue to discuss them becomes more local. Having these discussions more local prevents people from being apathetic. You can get a forum in your state to have your opinion heard rather easily, however there's very little chance you will in your lifetime get a forum in D.C.


We elect our U.S. Congressmen to represent our state's interests to the country, instead they represent our country's interest to our state. The states rights viewpoint is that the federal government is supposed to be protecting our rights, not dictating them.

[scmomof2]

What you point out is a symptom of these issues being debated on the federal level. The things that most affect our lives are being decided in D.C., so we have no interest in what is going on in our city councils, our county boards or our state legislatures.

If you remove these topics from federal debate, the issue doesn't go away, however our venue to discuss them becomes more local. Having these discussions more local prevents people from being apathetic. You can get a forum in your state to have your opinion heard rather easily, however there's very little chance you will in your lifetime get a forum in D.C.


We elect our U.S. Congressmen to represent our state's interests to the country, instead they represent our country's interest to our state. The states rights viewpoint is that the federal government is supposed to be protecting our rights, not dictating them.

so glad I found this forum - thanks for that point.... What you have said really hits home..... It would put it our there for more discussion - force people to pay more attention - so many people can't even tell you their senators names much less their state congressman - thanks again for the positive information:D

[BravoSix]

What you point out is a symptom of these issues being debated on the federal level. The things that most affect our lives are being decided in D.C., so we have no interest in what is going on in our city councils, our county boards or our state legislatures.

If you remove these topics from federal debate, the issue doesn't go away, however our venue to discuss them becomes more local. Having these discussions more local prevents people from being apathetic. You can get a forum in your state to have your opinion heard rather easily, however there's very little chance you will in your lifetime get a forum in D.C.


We elect our U.S. Congressmen to represent our state's interests to the country, instead they represent our country's interest to our state. The states rights viewpoint is that the federal government is supposed to be protecting our rights, not dictating them.



Talk about coincidence.....

I just had a very similar conversation with my mom, who lives in South Carolina. :eek: