What to say to prochoice people

[UnitedWeStand]

A man came to our meetup tonight very upset about Ron Paul's stance on abortion. I thought many of us might encounter this situation, so heres my two cents..

Ron Paul doesn't want to ban abortion. He wants to ban federal control of abortion. He wants you to be able to have a say in the abortion laws for your state. Most people are able to physically go to their state capital to protest or rally or attend meetings about laws they support or oppose. Most people are unable to go to Washington to do the same. State level legislation gives you more power over the legislation that influences you.

One reason that I have now understood to oppose federal abortion laws is that China has forced abortions. While many people may argue about whether they think abortion is immoral/murder/safer etc...the bottom line is that we definately do not want the federal government to be able to decide when it is ok to kill someone.

That being said, I have always thought of myself as pro-choice--not for my babies, mind you.. but its always been my opinion that a mother that wants to have an abortion is not going to be a very good mother to that baby anyway..

Ron Paul of course we all know abhors abortion. He is very forthright about all of his positions. He has seen, I read, babies taken from the mother and thrown into a bucket, stilll living.

Just because he has been 100% honest about all of his positions and can be heard stating the same consistent postions several times does not mean that he will be able to enact his positons into law without congressional approval etc. Id rather disagree with 2% of his platform while understanding all 100%, than agree with 2% and not knowing the other 98%..

[jsu718]

Just go with the truth. Ron Paul is a man who believes in doing what is right, not what goes along with his personal opinions and beliefs. Ron Paul opposes a federal ban on abortion even while being pro-life himself.

[TruePatriot44]

The republic was designed for state democracies to determine the rights of a fetus. The constitution doesn't say anything about abortion and therefore should be left to the states.

[bbachtung]

In short, a federal government powerful enough to legalize abortion nationwide is powerful enough to outlaw abortion nationwide.

[sw33tbabiblu3]

In short, a federal government powerful enough to legalize abortion nationwide is powerful enough to outlaw abortion nationwide.

This is not Ron Paul's position. This also is not a true statement. Legalizing something is a lot easier than outlawing it, for the simple fact that outlawing it would require consequences to be laid out, court cases to be settled, etc.

[Fox McCloud]

I've found that with most militant pro-choice people like that person, it's not always worth arguing; there's some that don't even want the States to be able to decide...for example, one pro-choice person said to me "I don't like this whole "'States' rights' thing, abortions should be legal no matter what". He just spat on the Constitution. As I told someone who was clearly in support of gay marriage and a few other things "while I might not agree on things the States do, I support their right to do it, as it's entirely Constitutional". I brought out the 10th amendment...he countered with the line "nor prohibited by it to the States" in the 10th amendment saying that States had no authority to infringe on people's rights.

this is a weak argument, as that line refers to anything in the Constitution that already applies to the States (such as the 2nd amendment, 3rd amendment, etc)....not that they can't strip you of your rights.

Yeah, I don't like the idea they can pass a State amendment making burping in public illegal, but it's their Constitutional right to do so.

[BarryDonegan]

Explain his perspective. He's an OB/GYN. not every elected official will reflect the wishes of every constituent. whether or not someone cares deeply about protecting the unborn or protecting a woman's right to abort, its still a boutique issue, and not an issue of principle.

if you are not planning on having an abortion, protecting abortion RIGHTS itself is more something you do because you don't like the type of person who opposes abortion, or you don't want to submit to theocratic rule. if someone would vote for a president based solely on their position on abortion, without desiring an abortion in the future, they are not making a logical choice based on the issues, they are making an emotional response to fear of theocratic rule.

[SleepingNative]

An active and involved community is a healthy community. The participation and expression of all must remain welcome, and local choice is what gives us ALL a choice.

This is why pro-choicers and supporters of gay marriage have absolutely nothing to fear from a Paul Presidency. It's about putting the control back into the hands of those from whom it has been divested: you. This is the secret to the Constitution's remarkable power to unite. It is why America was such a truly great nation to begin with. If you disagree with Dr. Paul's personal views on any area of the Law, remember: because of his unadulterated devotion to protect, uphold, and restore our Constitution - it is YOU he seeks the Law to reflect, his personal views notwithstanding.

Peace,
Philip

[hawks4ronpaul]

I made a similar suggestion in another thread:

"Ron Paul will stop the federal government's interference in women's decisions. Ron Paul defends state choice."

In other words, he opposes the Roe court's power grab and favors a return to state-level democratic "state choice."

"Pro-choice" people instantly became federalism/"states rights" supporters when Bush became president and AG Ashcroft began tinkering with federal rules that might override local rule.

I am talking about how to sell "pro-choice" people on RP's platform (find the common ground), not trying to debate the merits of RP's platform.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[BarryDonegan]

yeah, the only hope is to show the people that any power grab by a part of the state that goes outside of its design sets up unintended consequences. like, it may be nice for the president to seize total power in the case of an emergency to solve a problem, but its not one of the choices. when this shortcut is taken to solve a problem, it opens up the government for the caligulas and neros of the world 100 years later to use the same justification to turn people into lightposts or whatever wicked intent they may have.

it simply isn't an option, and any public official who would break the rules to solve a legitimate problem is a bad and ineffective public servant, and should be driven from office.

this relates to people like F.D.R. or whatever, it doesn't matter how serious the problem, you can't go breaking the rules as the executor OF the rules, it sends the message that the rules are meaningless and that its open season to break them, and thats the environment that is developing now.

[LibertyRevolution]

I think we should just put down on paper that a fetus has no rights. You don’t own your body until you are born. Up until the minute your born your are a part of your mother body, not an independent person, thus you have no rights until your born. As long as you are inside another being, their rights supersede your rights.
Your rights are bestowed to you as a individual, by your creator. To me this means that your rights are granted to you upon birth, by your parents, the people that created you. Can a fetus father refuse to have a test done on it even if its mother approves it? No. Who has the rights, the mother. Does a fetus have rights, NO.

[LiberalDemForRP]

Ron Paul doesn't want to ban abortion. He wants to ban federal control of abortion.
....
Id rather disagree with 2% of his platform while understanding all 100%, than agree with 2% and not knowing the other 98%..

I am pro-choice as well. I think the argument you've stated is effective. It will be a cold, cold day in hell when Roe v. Wade is overturned, anyhow.

I don't agree with all of Paul's opinions; however, the parts I do agree with outweigh that in which I don't.

[terlinguatx]

...

[Cyclone]

The republic was designed for state democracies to determine the rights of a fetus. The constitution doesn't say anything about abortion and therefore should be left to the states.


Sorry, that is not going to fly either. The Constitution doesn't give you rights, you retain all inalienable rights. Many women feel that includes the right not to carry a baby to term. See Amendment IX. For those who have not memorized the it: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Therefore, it is 100% Constitutional, even required by the Constitution that a woman retain her right to choose.

And a large majority of women that have abortions are too young too vote so saying this is a state's right issue so they will get to vote at that level doesn't help either, especially not for pro-choice women in states where they know they will be oppressed by the tyranny of the majority.

The best argument I have, and it is semi-weak I admit, but it is better than those other arguments is that at least if you diffuse the power no one can ever come along and ban abortions across the whole country again.

Never can women be completely oppressed by one guy who gets into office - besides the court is nearly stacked enough right now anyway and you could lose the right completely any day now, so would you rather gamble on the court that Bush stacked or go with a man who wants to split the power up among the states.

No matter what, you are going to lose a large percentage of pro-choice voters over this issue. For many women it is their number one issue and always will be.

Who wants to take the chance that a majority would decide that all abortions are illegal in the case of rape or incest? That is too frightening for any woman to imagine and men vote on this issue too. The young girls today take for granted their right to do things, but throughout most of history in most places, women have been oppressed. Many still know that.

What next? If you don't eat well enough and the baby dies, is that against the law? What if you don't take the right vitamins, or too many vitamins, or the wrong vitamins, or smoke, or drink, or dance, or don't wear your seatbelt, or you do wear your seatbelt, the list goes on and on. Once you force a woman to bear a child you then get to force her to take care of it the whole time it is inside her. We already put women in jail if they drink too much during a pregnancy, what next?

And I am sorry, but that story about the baby still breathing? I don't know when that happened, but today we would call that murder. You cannot throw a living breathing baby into the garbage can. Period. So that story doesn't sway anyone who is pro-choice, they just get angry at you for trying to manipulate them.

No, the best answer is that this saves them from the tyranny of the Supreme Court, a court that is put together by white males, is nearly full of white males, and this way, they are protected from them.

[UnitedWeStand]

"And I am sorry, but that story about the baby still breathing? I don't know when that happened, but today we would call that murder. You cannot throw a living breathing baby into the garbage can. Period. So that story doesn't sway anyone who is pro-choice, they just get angry at you for trying to manipulate them"


Im not sure where I read it anymore, sorry. But it was sited as having happened during Ron Paul's residency--which would have been a long time ago. It was some Ron Paul biography.


Im not trying to make you angry, far from it. Im a woman, also. I'm even a pro-choice woman. I now understand that I dont want to be told I have to have an abortion by the federal government. You have to take away all of their jurisdiction of abortion in order to deny them the ability to force abortions. There shouldnt be any federal laws concerning my decision to have a baby anymore than there should be any federal laws concerning how i conceive those babies=)

[Grandson of Liberty]

I think I'd have to say. . .

President Ron Paul wouldn't have the power to outlaw abortion, so it comes down to the simple matter of whether you agree with him on the topic. If you are truly pro-choice, don't you have to respect the fact that he simply chooses differently?

[UnitedWeStand]

"Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling a late-term abortion performed during his residency, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”[134"

from=
h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Pro-life_legislation

I'm not trying to manipulate anyone with this, its just that a poster's query caused me to refind this info=)

[Broadlighter]

This is a such an emotional issue for pro-choicers that reasonable arguments may not cut it, but here is mine:

Is everyone's economic and personal freedom not worth the inconvenience for a young woman needing to cross state lines to get her abortion?

The same can be said for endless wars and foreign interventions.

In a Ron Paul world abortion would be for the most part unnecessary. Isn't that a more desireable situation?

[LukeP]

I find Paul very articulate in his positions:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KXZpuIXEzWk

I think that one can understand his views whether one agrees or not.

[Paul10]

....

[cheese]

the argument is: The constitution says nothing about regulating abortion. Only the protection of life (+liberty, and pursuit of yada yada).

There is no right to abortion in the constitution. You dont have to agree with Ron Paul on everything, but you know where he stands and why.

If people care more about abortion rights than the deaths in iraq, or loss of civil freedoms, or financial crisis on the horizon, I don't think any amount of smooth-talking will win them over.

[hawks4ronpaul]

It's more like "what to say to pro-life people". It's hard for some Christians to accept state rights'.

Yes, that is the other side of the coin but most options would be better than the status quo for pro-lifers.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[Paul10]

....

[Broadlighter]

The more I examine this issue, the more neutral I become. I lean more to pro-choice because there is so much about what women go through in pregnancy and society that as a man, I simply cannot understand.

Be that as it may, when looking at abortion from a natural law perspective, the case for abortion rights does not hold up. The most basic of all natural rights is the right to be alive. So with that, if you are going to argue for a woman's right to end her pregnancy, you have to determine when the life of an individual begins. Does it begin at conception? Does it begin at viability? Does it begin at birth? Making that call presents a very serious problem. Once our laws make that determination, we have now placed in the hands of our political and governing systems the power to decide who is and who is not a person. Are you sure we want to go there?

When a baby is conceived, it's just a mass of cells organizing itself, but there's very little distinction between it the mother's cellular makeup.

Viability as defined in Roe v. Wade is determined by whether the fetus can survive outside the womb if it had to. This is very tricky because there is no point along the pregancy where this is universal. Some babies can be viable as early as five months. At this stage the method of aborting the fetus usually involves some form of partial birth. What happens if the baby begins breathing? This has happened in cases where the doctor caused the fetus to come out through an injection of saline solution that was supposed to kill the fetus in the process, but the baby began breathing. The doctor was charged with murder.

Getting back to the first trimester scenario, what happens when a wanted baby is killed accidentally or by wrong treatment by a doctor? In those cases the fetus has rights and the mother has a right to sue for damages.

The method of natural law is that whatever the case is, it has to hold up under all circumstances. If a fetus has rights at any time in a pregnancy, except in cases of abortion, then its natural right to be alive doesn't hold up in all cases.

This brings up another problem for mothers who intend to have their babies. If you support abortion rights, would you be willing to absolve your prenatal physician from liabilities at least until your fetus is viable?

The only thing I'm left with is that of all the choices a woman has with pregnancy the choice to abort has got to be the most awful of them.

I think Ron Paul's idea of removing Federal jurisdiction over abortion is a step in the right direction. I also think the states should follow that lead as well.

This is something governments should not tamper with. Whether it is to promote pro-life or pro-choice values it places too much godlike power in the hands of politicians. Whatever comes out of it becomes a coerced solution and that only motivates people to keep the fight going. Meanwhile it rends our social fabric and turns people against one another.

It's interesting to note that Prescott Bush was involved in funding the organization, now known as Planned Parenthood. If you understand the Skull & Bones Hegelain method, it should come as no surprise that this issue was brought out to further divide us and cause people to place more dependency on the government.