How to talk to pro-choicers?

[teleomorph]

I am not against overturning Roe v Wade but the sole argument I encounter the most (by far) among liberals is their abject terror of a pro-life candidate. No one is FOR late term abortions, of course, but the argument usually goes that the difference between a microscopic blastula with undifferentiated cells and an embryo with a brain and a working heart are as different between night and day. (about 40-50 days into pregnancy)

They also argue that abortion occurs in nature where many animals, including primates, will intentional eat certain plants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
So why should humans have less rights than animals?

Of course this is deep and possibly endless debate, especially in terms of women's rights, but I need help with this.

Any suggestions? I know it's supposed to be about state's rights but The Hon. Dr. Paul introduced a piece of legislature that would define life beginning at conception. Therefore, abortion (even morning-after pill) would be manslaughter. Therefore, abortion (even morning-after pill) would be illegal, NATIONALLY.

Well?

(maybe I'm playing a little devil's advocate but this "issue" is not going to disappear so better we discuss it now.)

:confused:

[newmedia4ron]

damn abortion, so many people are single issue voters over abortion

if some states allow abortion then one can just go to that state to have one

[RPinUptownChi]

Tell them its not going to matter whether abortion is legal or not if its going to cost you $25,000 to get one. Then direct the discussion into monetary policy. then u can argue about money. also tell them that ron paul wants to preserve states' rights to have abortion, unlike other GOP candidates...

With pro-choicers it is best to keep the conversation about how Ron Paul is more aggressive about getting troops out of Iraq than any Democrat and wants to head off a new war with Iran, unlike Hillary.

[Truth Warrior]

There is some mystical, magical, illusory and delusional timeline between not being a human being ( becoming ) during gestation. It does NOT exist.<IMHO>

[AlbemarleNC0003]

The bill was meant to determine life beginning at conception. Overturning Roe v Wade would allow the states to decide if they sanctioned murder. That's the best explanation I have and I find it very uncomfortable when presenting it to pro-life people.

[Soccrmastr]

give them pictures of aborted feti. then give them a ron paul pro life slim jim.

[BeFranklin]

Ron Paul will give it to the states, which very likely will make the whole issue less radicalized on either end.

[Maltheus]

I like to start off with, "did you know that Rudolph Giuliani wants to eat your unborn child?" That manages to really scare pregnant women. Then I go on with the whole OB/GYN thing.

[jnpg]

I always try to defuse this argument by pointing out that it is a loaded issue and no one has all the answers. Dr. Paul makes a lot of interesting points about the culpability of a doctor during pregnancy and the fact that fetuses are already recognized as legal entities. I personally am completely pro-life in my own views- but I do have a problem forcing this view on others (it's the libertarian in me, I suppose.) The thing that bothers me the most are the women that are so completely irresponsible and have unwanted pregnancies. It is not that hard to prevent it. The pill is VERY effective if taken correctly and it PREVENTS pregnancy. Use a condom and the pill to be sure. Animals certainly don't have this choice, but humans do. We have become a nation that blames everyone else for our problems instead of taking responsibility. This is my pet peeve and drives me insane!

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

Worst issue ever.

We should avoid it at all cost. Just say it's a states' right issue.

[AlisaOR]

They are pro choice when it comes to killing babies but the same people are against school choice try and make sense of that. I guess there more for selective choice.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Would they rather have government surveillance, eminent domain, free speech infringements, unreasonable searches and seizures, and other violations of their civil liberties in exchange for the FEDERAL right to have an abortion? Or would they rather have their constitutional freedoms maximized and protected even though abortion would be deferred to the states?

[tamor]

I am pro-choice. I do not think President Paul would sign a federal law one way or another about abortion, and since RoevsWade has been passed, he may have attempted to get such a law out of the federal realm. Remember RoevsWade was in a time when there was no morning-after-pill where the pregnancy is prevented. There was very little choice before RoevsWade - have the baby or do something illegal. He has said many times that this is an state issue. I respect what he believes and he respects what I believe. As technology and medical advances become better there will be little need for abortions. I know this may not help, but I just wanted to give you my view. thanks for listening

[jblosser]

I am not against overturning Roe v Wade but the sole argument I encounter the most (by far) among liberals is their abject terror of a pro-life candidate. No one is FOR late term abortions, of course,

Except that quite a lot of people are... it's just not as popular to talk about.


but the argument usually goes that the difference between a microscopic blastula with undifferentiated cells and an embryo with a brain and a working heart are as different between night and day. (about 40-50 days into pregnancy)

This is not a scientific distinction, it's an emotional one. And the question of when protection under the law applies to a human organism is a legal one. But it's neither here nor there, since it doesn't sound like you're interested in changing their mind on the issue, just on the candidate.


They also argue that abortion occurs in nature where many animals, including primates, will intentional eat certain plants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
So why should humans have less rights than animals?

Same disclaimer as above, but animals do a lot of things we don't do. They kill each other, for one. If you categorize this issue only as one of "less rights" for one party, you aren't taking the time to listen to the entire debate. Again, you aren't saying you want to change their mind, but if you want to get them with Ron, you at least as the presenter need to learn to see more sides of the issue.


Of course this is deep and possibly endless debate, especially in terms of women's rights, but I need help with this.

Any suggestions? I know it's supposed to be about state's rights but didn't he write a bill that would define life beginning at conception? That would be a federal law then, right?

A national law that would only be relevant where the national government cares about life, and as a side effect would help push the question back to the states.

There is no question that the pro-abortion crowd would "lose some ground" under Ron's proposal. There is no question that's one reason he proposes it -- he is pro-life, he wants pro-life states. So it's no surprise this is hard for them to accept. Unless they themselves are federalists who value states' rights, they don't have a personal interest in the status quo on this issue changing. Of course, if the pro-life crowd ever manages to get SCOTUS to reverse themselves on the issue, their tune may change.

They do, however, have a major interest in the status quo everywhere else changing, as others have noted. The economy is trashed. Our soldiers are dying. Iraqis are dying. Our Bill of Rights is gutted. ONE PERSON is talking about fixing any of this, and he's also talking about changing the abortion issue in a way that would still let states decide for themselves. If they can't live with that to fix the rest, they have to understand they are GOING to get the rest.

[roversaurus]

Pretend you are talking to a pro lifer.

I'm sorry, You aren't going to get everything you want.
Dr Paul is not going to ban abortion. He is going to try to overturn Roe v Wade.
It will be returned to the states. But many states, all states, are going to have
some form of legal abortions. Several states are going to ban it except for
emergencies and the women in those states will be able to go to neighboring
states. There WILL be fewer abortions, and that is a start, I just don't know how many. Some people will just travel a little farther for them.
Ron Paul is not going to make a Federal law to stop them.

[Minlawc]

Roe v Wade was an attack on the constitution.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

I disagree with Ron on this one. Pro Life is Anti-Woman http://youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU

[homah]

Pro Life is Anti-Woman http://youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU

You could just as easily say pro-choice is anti-baby.

Abortion is obviously not an issue that people are going to agree on anytime soon. Letting the states decide is the fair and constitutional thing to do, so if people ask that should be the answer. And frankly if someone doesn't agree with that, they don't care much about the constitution and aren't going to vote for Dr. Paul anyway, so we shouldn't waste our time on them.

[mmink15]

I know there is a clip I'll go look for it, where Ron Paul said, "The idea that we need a federal abortion police is ridiculous." I'll be back with that clip/

[mmink15]

I know there is a clip I'll go look for it, where Ron Paul said, "The idea that we need a federal abortion police is ridiculous." I'll be back with that clip/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJs1wfCTjRw

I've shown this to people and been able to move onto the next issue effectively

[CTAC]

If you are pro-choice, you should not let goverment make that decision for you. Otherwise the next president will have power to change it back. Leaving that decision to states (or, even better, to people themselves) is what we need. What's acceptable in California, may not be acceptable in Utah. But we have choice to leave the place if we do not like it. If federal goverments makes decision we do not have a choice. Be pro-choice!

[Andrew76]

Well, I'm a diehard Ron Paul supporter, and I'm also absolutely pro-choice. I'm sure a whole gang of us could debate the issue of abortion and Ron Paul's stance on it and how I believe life begins at the moment of birth, as does one of Paul's heroes, Ayn Rand, and how I feel his stance on this doesn't really jive with his support of individual freedoms, etc., etc., etc.....

BUT,... in spite of all that, I'm still an RP supporter. Why? Because he's against a federal law either for or against. He thinks it should be up to individual states to decide, which I'm totally fine with. People who are pro-choice and won't vote Paul because of it, explain it to them this way: Imagine if all the pro-life people got together and finally passed a Federal ban on all abortions. The way the law is set up now, ie: through the federal government, the pro-life people only have to fight one battle: the battle in D.C. They can focus all their energy in one convenient place, as hard as it would actually be to do.

What needs to be pointed out to pro-choicers is, if there can be a federal law that's pro-choice (as there is now), the possibility exists that in the future there could be a federal pro-life rule too. If it were a state's rights issue, the pro-life crowd would then have to fight 50 battles, state by state, instead of one. Make sense?

Ron Paul's position, perhaps without intending to, is very very positive for the choice movement. Again, if a one-size-fits-all decision is made in D.C., it can swing BOTH ways. Just because D.C. has decided it's legal now, doesn't mean it'll always be that way. And again, if it were up to individual states to decide, as it stands now (the vast majority of Americans are pro-choice), this would make it exceptionally difficult for the anti-choice movement since they would have to spread their work out over 50 states instead of being able to conveniently focus all efforts at the Federal level.

Having said all that, I'm sure many of you disagree with my views on abortion, but, for the time being I think we can all agree that there are MUCH larger issues at hand here, and this issue must take a back seat for now. ie: no matter where you stand on the abortion issue, we need to come together for the greater purpose of getting Ron Paul elected.

Beyond that, if this eventually becomes a state's right to decide one way or the other on abortion, I can guaruntee that I'll be opposing the anti-choice movement every step of the way. And think of how much easier it'll be for me to oppose such a ban, and how much more effective I can be if all I have to do is deal with my local government as opposed to the gigantic bureaucratic black hole of D.C.? An individual's actions would have much greater effect if all he had to deal with was local government. Goodbye apathy!

And... c'mon people, Bush is pro-life too. Nothing has changed. This issue is being used to scare people.

[GHoeberX]

Perhaps tell them that there are LOADS of Ron Paul supporters who are pro-choice, BUT they still support Ron Paul because other issues are usually far more important (economy, patriot act, iraq-war) for RP-supporters.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Perhaps tell them that there are LOADS of Ron Paul supporters who are pro-choice, BUT they still support Ron Paul because other issues are usually far more important (economy, patriot act, iraq-war) for RP-supporters.

I'm with you on that one.

[NCMarc]

Hey, there's not going to be one single candidate that fits every mold.

Ron Paul delivered babies, he's not going to be for aborting them. He's made the point on many occasions that nobody wants to have a late term abortion but it's legal under the law, and then why if he hurts a fetus it has rights but not the baby when the mom wants to kill the baby?

I know this is a touchy subject with most, but no President has the power to change the law. It's congress. Whether or not a President is for or against, it's not likely to change for the foreseeable future.

A pro-choice person: Well, that's the law and it's not likely to change whether the President thinks it's right or not. You might want to bring that up with Congress if you want it to be permanent. But, do you think it's right to terminate at 8 months? at 7 months? when is it ok and when isn't it?

A pro-life person: Dr. Paul has delivered 4,000 babies, of course he's pro-life. However, if you really want to see this, you need to get congress and the courts to repeal Roe vs. Wade. Oh, by the way, Jane "Roe" just endorsed Ron Paul for President.

Also: It's not the role of Government to regulate morality.

Then I'd shift focus on the important stuff... none of this matters if we don't fix the economy. Otherwise, no one will be able to afford a baby.

-Marc

[BillyFromPhilly]

Im pro-choice. Abortion is a wedge issue and has little to no impact on my decision who I want to see as president.

What I see as more important are the monetary policies of our nation.

Thats why I am voting, contributing, and supporting Ron Paul.

[RPinUptownChi]

yeah its better to stay away from abortion imo...

[affa]

damn abortion, so many people are single issue voters over abortion

if some states allow abortion then one can just go to that state to have one

The problem here is that this only allows the rich to get abortions. Anyone pro-choice will call you out on this instantly.

I think what needs to be emphasized it that private charities could, would, and should arise that would help subsidize bus/plane fair for low income women. But even this will be a hard sell, since the fact of the matter is that many people do not want RvW overturned.

[affa]

give them pictures of aborted feti. then give them a ron paul pro life slim jim.

Do not do this. Worst. Advice. Ever.

[Azprint]

Stupid issue, I am pro choice myself and this 'issue' gotta be the most retarded piece of crap issue on my political agenda.

[nike]

I'm another pro choice Ron Paul supporter perplexed by two things. 1) why we waste so much time debating health care, which in any other instance is a personal choice, in the public arena. What I see a doctor for is no one else's business, and it bewilders and angers me that other people think they have to the right to tell me what health care options I'm legally able to choose. 2) why the majority of the people getting into my personal business telling me what I can do with my body happens to belong to the gender that can't get pregnant.

There should be no law regarding the health care a woman chooses, including her reproductive freedom. It should be no different than electing any other form of health care.

[ccarson]

Ugh...abortion is such a patently irrelevant issue. Seriously, why do you care about other people's business? Doesn't affect me.

If you must talk about abortion with someone who doesn't want Roe v. Wade overturned, just stick to your guns about following the Constitution. The dissenting judges had it right when they wrote their opinion in that case -- constitutionally, abortion is not a Constitutionally protected right. Check the bill of rights -- see anything in there about a mother's right to abort a fetus? It's so clearly a state's rights issue, but the court's agenda at the time was to force liberalization of laws instead of actually deciding cases based on the Constitution.

[dvictr]

you cant talk to them.. those damn murderers

[dude58677]

I am not against overturning Roe v Wade but the sole argument I encounter the most (by far) among liberals is their abject terror of a pro-life candidate. No one is FOR late term abortions, of course, but the argument usually goes that the difference between a microscopic blastula with undifferentiated cells and an embryo with a brain and a working heart are as different between night and day. (about 40-50 days into pregnancy)

They also argue that abortion occurs in nature where many animals, including primates, will intentional eat certain plants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
So why should humans have less rights than animals?

Of course this is deep and possibly endless debate, especially in terms of women's rights, but I need help with this.

Any suggestions? I know it's supposed to be about state's rights but didn't he write a bill that would define life beginning at conception? That would be a federal law then, right?

:confused:


Ron Paul says that from his medical expertise that abortions are not needed.

[Truth Warrior]

PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCIES, it's what the grownups do. :D It's not rocket science!

[thehittgirl]

I tell them that Ron Paul does not want to run our lives and doesn't believe it's the federal government to do so, and that he it will become a state issue.

[AlisaOR]

pro-choice? I hate that description. What about the babies choice? Babies can live even when born at 1 pound with today’s medical technology. It's pro-murder or pro-extermination. With all the contraception available there is no excuse for getting pregnant and there is even the day after drug but once the baby is viable outside the womb it is murder to take its life.

[Rob]

If you talk to someone who brings this up within the first couple min of talking to you about Ron Paul, you're screwed.

I'd estimate you have about 0.01% of convincing them to vote Ron Paul. You're best strategy is to move on to the next person.

[Sey.Naci]

give them pictures of aborted feti. then give them a ron paul pro life slim jim.No, that actually gets the opposite reaction than you're after. What does work is mentioning that R v W allows late-term abortions and that reversing R v W will not make abortion illegal. It will simply remove the feds from determining the issue.

[Rob]

Since we're all talking about abortion here, I'm going to throw a major bone into this discussion.

Prove that human life that human life does not begin BEFORE the moment of conception.

Read that statement carefully, because you've probably never heard anyone make the point I'm making before.

As for me, I believe abortion is a very complicated issue that most try to oversimplify. The situation of an unwanted pregnancy is one in which someone is going to lose, period. Most times it will in fact be that everyone involved loses.

[Grandson of Liberty]

I don't know why pro-choicers should have anything against Ron Paul. If they truly value "choice," they should respect that his choice is simply different than the one they might make.

[mrkurtz]

IMHO, we should thinking about targeting pro-choice Republicans. The caricatures most posters are describing are found mostly within the Democratic Party. That is, you won't be able to sway the conversation away from woman's rights side of it; I have had no success with that topic and you should try at all costs to avoid that being the topic of conversation.

However, the pro-choice Republicans can be swayed simply because of the more compelling state's rights issue. But again, try not to bring up the topic; let them decide prioritize state's rights and the constitution over all these other "distraction" issues.

[teleomorph]

NO ONE HERE TOUCHED ON A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF MY QUESTION:

The Hon. Dr. Paul introduced a piece of legislature that would define life beginning at conception. Therefore, abortion (even morning-after pill) would be manslaughter. Therefore, abortion (even morning-after pill) would be illegal, NATIONALLY.

Well?

(maybe I'm playing a little devil's advocate but this "issue" is not going to disappear so better we discuss it now.)

[mrkurtz]

NO ONE HERE TOUCHED ON A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF MY QUESTION:

The Hon. Dr. Paul introduced a piece of legislature that would define life beginning at conception. Therefore, abortion (even morning-after pill) would be manslaughter. Therefore, abortion (even morning-after pill) would be illegal, NATIONALLY.

Well?

(maybe I'm playing a little devil's advocate but this "issue" is not going to disappear so better we discuss it now.)

You did just modify your OP... lol.

You're playing into the politicization of this non-issue. When the economy is in the crapper and there is no 1st world nation left, you'll wish that you'd never brought up the topic.

Let's be pragmatic here, this is a state's rights issue vs federal law issue. You have to hammer this home indirectly; if you go full frontal assault on the complexity of the abortion issue, you will bring this non-issue to the front which is the LAST thing you want.

[Johncjackson]

Worst issue ever.

We should avoid it at all cost. Just say it's a states' right issue.

Agreed. There is no success converting on this issue. I know people who have changed their minds, but it always takes YEARS or a traumatic personal event.

The campaign should be all about Peace and Sound Economy. If people care more about abortion than living in a peaceful country with a sound economy, I dont know what to say.

In reality, this is one issue where the President will likely have little or no effect any time soon anyway.

[jblosser]

NO ONE HERE TOUCHED ON A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF MY QUESTION:

The Hon. Dr. Paul introduced a piece of legislature that would define life beginning at conception. Therefore, abortion (even morning-after pill) would be manslaughter. Therefore, abortion (even morning-after pill) would be illegal, NATIONALLY.

Well?

(maybe I'm playing a little devil's advocate but this "issue" is not going to disappear so better we discuss it now.)

I certainly did address it:


A national law that would only be relevant where the national government cares about life, and as a side effect would help push the question back to the states.

There is not a Constutional national law against manslaughter. The national definition of life is only relevant for national laws that reference life.

[UnitedWeStand]

China has forced abortion.

I was pro-choice, but now I'm pro-no fed control over my reproduction at all.

[mokkan88]

Tell them that women have a choice whether or not they want to have sex or not. There are also contraceptives. You can finish by telling them that irresponsibility is not a mandate for condoning murder.

Okay, I'd leave that last bit out... But still, use logic and reason. Women do have a choice, and once they make that choice, they should "nut up" (oxymoron ;)) and take responsibility.

[Shii]

Tell them that women have a choice whether or not they want to have sex or not.
That's a horrible argument and you know it, women get raped too, or they get drunk, or a condom breaks, etc. Pregnancy is never 100% avoidable unless if you are a sexless robot.

This is very simple. Tell them that you recognize the importance of abortion, but that abortion simply isn't defined in the Constitution, and we can't read into the Constitution all the things we'd like to see in the country or else we get GWB. So, they should make an amendment, or else give it back to the states.

[NoxTwilight]

Don't worry about it right now - there are WAY more immediate problems that we have to worry about. In a free and prosperous society, we will have much better luck dealing with issues like this.

By the way, I am a pro-choice democratic female. The above is my humble opinion but it is also my view that any educated and informed woman should recognize this regardless of what side of the issue she happens to be on.

[Gustogus]

Don't worry about it right now - there are WAY more immediate problems that we have to worry about. In a free and prosperous society, we will have much better luck dealing with issues like this.

By the way, I am a pro-choice democratic female. The above is my humble opinion but it is also my view that any educated and informed woman should recognize this regardless of what side of the issue she happens to be on.

Abortion is a major "wedge" issue to many southern voters. Jutst look at what Iowa and Louisiana delegates have had to say. We still have"Caucusing" left to do come super Tuesday and beyond.

Our delegates need to be armed with an appropriate response to people that "really care about abortion", face it, its an issue caucus goers will vote on.

Best bet, if its pro-life, bring up the "bill to define life at conception". At face value how much more pro-life can ya get, and just kinda leave it there.... OF course you may not want to get into the actual federal implications of that throwing it back to the states.

IF its pro-choice, make the Supreme Court/single point of failure argument. All you need is a republican Supreme court and Huckabee presidency to make Abortion 100% illegal everywhere. Why risk it? Thats the beauty of federalism, there is no true single point of failure :)

IF its

[whyter]

Wow - interesting topic.. I've been 100% pro-Paul for a long time. There's only been one issue I haven't agreed on, and choice is it.. I've been content enough to deal with one issue, since I so agree with everything else. Some of the comments earlier in this thread almost made me regret the donations I've given.. Let me give you a hint.. People have different opinions about all of the topics, I highly suggest some of you tone down the words you choose to use regarding these issues. You have every right to your beliefs, as do I, I just choose my words carefully when discussing these topics with others when things are so critical.. And when doing so in public, I stay far away from the words that might offend, or worse yet turn people off completely. I wouldn't dare try to sway any opinions on this topic at this time, it would simply detract from what's important right now. This country needs fixing, and we all agree that RP is the fix we need.

Odd I don't even feel like submitting this post right now.. I hope you understand where I'm coming from, I hope it didn't offend your valued opinions, because I believe all of us are vital right now to making this succeed, we just happen to have different slants on some subjects.

I'd be more than happy to discuss this via email or PM, I really do have an opinion on this.

Thanks for your time,
Rob

[Azurite]

I am not against overturning Roe v Wade but the sole argument I encounter the most (by far) among liberals is their abject terror of a pro-life candidate. No one is FOR late term abortions, of course, but the argument usually goes that the difference between a microscopic blastula with undifferentiated cells and an embryo with a brain and a working heart are as different between night and day. (about 40-50 days into pregnancy)

They also argue that abortion occurs in nature where many animals, including primates, will intentional eat certain plants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
So why should humans have less rights than animals?

Of course this is deep and possibly endless debate, especially in terms of women's rights, but I need help with this.

Any suggestions? I know it's supposed to be about state's rights but The Hon. Dr. Paul introduced a piece of legislature that would define life beginning at conception. Therefore, abortion (even morning-after pill) would be manslaughter. Therefore, abortion (even morning-after pill) would be illegal, NATIONALLY.

Well?

(maybe I'm playing a little devil's advocate but this "issue" is not going to disappear so better we discuss it now.)

:confused:

I firmly believe that it is a matter of the states... but that aside, if I were to throw in my two cents, I would agree with the Good Doctor. The cells may be considered "undifferentiated", but they are moving toward the greater whole. This becomes very obvious around 5 weeks when the heart starts beating- one of the most complicated and vital organs to any animal's existence. To our primitive understanding of science we may see it as "undifferentiated" but I find it hard to believe that there is a nonsensical overgrowth of cells in the early days that should be overlooked. I am a Microbiologist. Granted, my passion is in life that is far simpler than a human, but if a single-celled organism (IF that) can split and create life... ONE CELL creating TWO... what makes us think for a second that when a sperm and egg meet, life is not created?

If a liberal would believe that a living single-celled organism can evolve into a living multi-celled organism, than why is it so hard to believe that two human cells can't join to form a multi-celled organism?

I mean- they really do believe amoeba's are alive, don't they?

[Gustogus]

I firmly believe that it is a matter of the states... but that aside, if I were to throw in my two cents, I would agree with the Good Doctor. The cells may be considered "undifferentiated", but they are moving toward the greater whole. This becomes very obvious around 5 weeks when the heart starts beating- one of the most complicated and vital organs to any animal's existence. To our primitive understanding of science we may see it as "undifferentiated" but I find it hard to believe that there is a nonsensical overgrowth of cells in the early days that should be overlooked. I am a Microbiologist. Granted, my passion is in life that is far simpler than a human, but if a single-celled organism (IF that) can split and create life... ONE CELL creating TWO... what makes us think for a second that when a sperm and egg meet, life is not created?

If a liberal would believe that a living single-celled organism can evolve into a living multi-celled organism, than why is it so hard to believe that two human cells can't join to form a multi-celled organism?

I mean- they really do believe amoeba's are alive, don't they?

The ultimate wedge issue.

From a pro-choice perspective, its not simply a matter of defining life, but of defining viable life.

I've struggled (as I'm sure most people have) with this issue, and have settled into a personal compromise of abortion up until the 3rd trimester.

I understand that pro-lifers view the point of conception as a viable human being, but if so, that presents us with a whole new slate of new legal potholes.

How do we protect the child from what the woman decides to ingest? We have laws that prevent you from giving a child cigarettes and beer...what about pregnant women?

Ok, how bout this, Alcohol and smoking are the most detrimental to a fetus in the first few weeks of preganancy, a time in which most women aren't even aware there pregnant..... do we now make smoking and drinking illegal for all women of child bearing age?

Silly slippery slope arguments I know, but if we are to define, as a nation, that a fetus is an american citizen subject to all of it rights and protections a lot of things start to teeter.

Any way you slice it, the mother and the fetus or irrevocably linked(until the third trimester, at which science can seperate them safely), and that puts freedom and life directly at odds.

just my random thoughts on the topic

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

They also argue that abortion occurs in nature where many animals, including primates, will intentional eat certain plants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
So why should humans have less rights than animals?

This sounds like the abortion pill. Ron Paul wants to end the FDA and stop the FDA from regulating/banning RU-486. Tell them that.

[honkywill]

my approach has always been to emphasize that he is against it on the federal level. each state would be differrent, but that would also take it out of national spotlight and allow people to vote on the real issues(economy, foreign policy) instead of being so bitterly divided by these smaller issues.

[Azurite]

The ultimate wedge issue.

From a pro-choice perspective, its not simply a matter of defining life, but of defining viable life.

I've struggled (as I'm sure most people have) with this issue, and have settled into a personal compromise of abortion up until the 3rd trimester.

I understand that pro-lifers view the point of conception as a viable human being, but if so, that presents us with a whole new slate of new legal potholes.

How do we protect the child from what the woman decides to ingest? We have laws that prevent you from giving a child cigarettes and beer...what about pregnant women?

Ok, how bout this, Alcohol and smoking are the most detrimental to a fetus in the first few weeks of preganancy, a time in which most women aren't even aware there pregnant..... do we now make smoking and drinking illegal for all women of child bearing age?

Silly slippery slope arguments I know, but if we are to define, as a nation, that a fetus is an american citizen subject to all of it rights and protections a lot of things start to teeter.

Any way you slice it, the mother and the fetus or irrevocably linked(until the third trimester, at which science can seperate them safely), and that puts freedom and life directly at odds.

just my random thoughts on the topic

Is "viable" life a separate category? From what I understand, the question isn't "viable" life... it's what is LIFE. Pro-lifers aren't interested at what point baby can make a break for it, they want to protect baby at the very point baby becomes "Baby." Even what constitutes viable life is under debate- babies are surviving at younger and younger gestational ages outside of the mother. Even before the third trimester, babies are dreaming, seeing, hearing... the heart has been beating since about 5 weeks... It is a VERY tough subject. But I can only speak from experience... when my ER doc tried to tell me that my baby was "nothing but a ball of cells and could stay or go", I was pissed. Her heart was beating. She was alive. To dismiss her as less than such was an insult.

[teleomorph]

Abortion is a major "wedge" issue to many southern voters.

AND it's freakin MAJOR wedge issue with liberal voters. In fact it is THE most major issue that is preventing the majority of liberals from backing Paul.

I'm sorry but there is absolutely no scientific, moral or even logical stance behind defining "life" at conception. So the sperm isn't "alive"? What about consciousness, when does that start?

It was a breakthrough when we learned how conception worked. (No one knew about the ovum until well after the microscope.) Therefore it is not without merit to refrain from presuming that "life" begins at conception or that very early abortions are murder.

I'm not trying to make a big fuss over this. Obviously preventing a police-state or desperate, violent measures on behalf of the power-elites or further genocides, etc. etc. is why we are putting Dr. Paul in office.

The issue will not be resolved in any way any time soon and, yes, there are more pending things to focus on. But in terms of gaining support, I'm bringing it up because it really is the defacto argument against him by those on the left.

[aravoth]

The ultimate wedge issue.

From a pro-choice perspective, its not simply a matter of defining life, but of defining viable life.

I've struggled (as I'm sure most people have) with this issue, and have settled into a personal compromise of abortion up until the 3rd trimester.

I understand that pro-lifers view the point of conception as a viable human being, but if so, that presents us with a whole new slate of new legal potholes.

How do we protect the child from what the woman decides to ingest? We have laws that prevent you from giving a child cigarettes and beer...what about pregnant women?

Ok, how bout this, Alcohol and smoking are the most detrimental to a fetus in the first few weeks of preganancy, a time in which most women aren't even aware there pregnant..... do we now make smoking and drinking illegal for all women of child bearing age?

Silly slippery slope arguments I know, but if we are to define, as a nation, that a fetus is an american citizen subject to all of it rights and protections a lot of things start to teeter.

Any way you slice it, the mother and the fetus or irrevocably linked(until the third trimester, at which science can seperate them safely), and that puts freedom and life directly at odds.

just my random thoughts on the topic

It doesn't put freedom and life at odds. The woman was free to have sex and get pregnant. She didn't have too. And I don't mean "boo hoo the friggan condom broke", I mean she didn't have to have her legs in the air. It really is that simple. It comes down to choices. She, and the guy that knocked her up have to deal with it, for better or for worse.

Life is viable from the day it is conceived. A one celled amoeba is viable, it grows, consumes and breaths. So does a fetus.

I don't really care if "legalities" get in the way of a pregant women wanting to down a 1/5th of whiskey. Someone has got to speak for the kid in her belly that can't speak for himself.

[teleomorph]

They also argue that abortion occurs in nature where many animals, including primates, will intentional eat certain plants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
So why should humans have less rights than animals?

This sounds like the abortion pill. Ron Paul wants to end the FDA and stop the FDA from regulating/banning RU-486. Tell them that.

Ahhhh!!! YES!! THANK YOU! PERFECT RESPONSE! I will use that! :D

[Gustogus]

Is "viable" life a separate category? From what I understand, the question isn't "viable" life... it's what is LIFE. Pro-lifers aren't interested at what point baby can make a break for it, they want to protect baby at the very point baby becomes "Baby." Even what constitutes viable life is under debate- babies are surviving at younger and younger gestational ages outside of the mother. Even before the third trimester, babies are dreaming, seeing, hearing... the heart has been beating since about 5 weeks... It is a VERY tough subject. But I can only speak from experience... when my ER doc tried to tell me that my baby was "nothing but a ball of cells and could stay or go", I was pissed. Her heart was beating. She was alive. To dismiss her as less than such was an insult.

I truly do understand the Pro-Life argument. I was Pro-Life for years, but upon following it to its logical conclusion I did ultimately come right up against womens rights.

Like I said, If we're going to bestow "personhood" on the unborn, that neccessitates the full weight of the state protecting that child with all the power it would use to protect a 2 year old.

That means pregnant women become wards of the state until that child is born.

Unless you think its ok for pregnant women to get drunk, smoke a pack of cigarettes and deliver babies with severe mental problems.

Like it or not Mothers and the unborn are linked. They are not "Seperate entities", if you value the welfare of the unborn, then you have to value a limitation on the freedoms of the mother. Otherwise your simply placing a value on some ideal of "life" other then the reality that this "Life" could be irrevocably harmed due to the actions of an irresponsible mother.

Its a very sticky situation, up until the 3rd trimester I'm comfortable with erring on the side of the mother and personal freedom... I admit its a compromise...but its the best I can come up with.

[aravoth]

I truly do understand the Pro-Life argument. I was Pro-Life for years, but upon following it to its logical conclusion I did ultimately come right up against womens rights.

Like I said, If we're going to bestow "personhood" on the unborn, that neccessitates the full weight of the state protecting that child with all the power it would use to protect a 2 year old.

That means pregnant women become wards of the state until that child is born.

Unless you think its ok for pregnant women to get drunk, smoke a pack of cigarettes and deliver babies with severe mental problems.

Like it or not Mothers and the unborn are linked. They are not "Seperate entities", if you value the welfare of the unborn, then you have to value a limitation on the freedoms of the mother. Otherwise your simply placing a value on some ideal of "life" other then the reality that this "Life" could be irrevocably harmed due to the actions of an irresponsible mother.

Its a very sticky situation, up until the 3rd trimester I'm comfortable with erring on the side of the mother and personal freedom... I admit its a compromise...but its the best I can come up with.

Then let them drink , smoke and do whatever they want when they are pregnant. As long as they get no handouts from anyone. They can bare the full weight of their idiotic mentality. I refuse to pay for a public abortion, and I refuse to pay for a child whose stupid ass mother couldn't figure out that smoking a pack a day and drinking her ass off was a bad thing to do.

Freedom means dealing with the mistakes you had the freedom to make. It also means that it is none of my business. Personal views aside I cannot force my opinion legally in on anyone. Likewise, no one can force their mistakes on mine.

I am not responsible for other people's lot in life, nor are they responsible for mine. I would never pay to support them, and I would never ask to be supported by them.

[Azurite]

I truly do understand the Pro-Life argument. I was Pro-Life for years, but upon following it to its logical conclusion I did ultimately come right up against womens rights.

Like I said, If we're going to bestow "personhood" on the unborn, that neccessitates the full weight of the state protecting that child with all the power it would use to protect a 2 year old.

That means pregnant women become wards of the state until that child is born.

Unless you think its ok for pregnant women to get drunk, smoke a pack of cigarettes and deliver babies with severe mental problems.

Like it or not Mothers and the unborn are linked. They are not "Seperate entities", if you value the welfare of the unborn, then you have to value a limitation on the freedoms of the mother. Otherwise your simply placing a value on some ideal of "life" other then the reality that this "Life" could be irrevocably harmed due to the actions of an irresponsible mother.

Its a very sticky situation, up until the 3rd trimester I'm comfortable with erring on the side of the mother and personal freedom... I admit its a compromise...but its the best I can come up with.

But I thought the argument was about what to tell Pro-choicers? Whether or not we believe life begins at conception or birth, there are people out there that believe it is within the law (and apparently conscience) to end a life at their will. You are right about the influence mother has on baby. It is scary, but it is a fact. But not all mothers smoke, drink, or do drugs. So does there come a point where you have a governmentally appointed person to decide which one can live? "Oh, you smoke? Ok, we can kill your baby." "What... you had a few beers during the first two months? Oh... your baby will just be all wrong so it's OK if we kill it." It doesn't work that way. And I have no idea WHAT the happy medium is, but I would rather leave it to the states, live in one that says no, and go about my business. As to the OP- emphasize that it is NOT the government's right to decide what you should do. If your state's elected disagree with you, fight with all you've got to change it. You can only go with what you believe is right and true and fight for it. That's what this country stands for. Keep it that way.

[Ricochet]

Thanks to Punks4RonPaul for this info:

A good assessment of Ron Paul’s positions on abortion on this blog:

http://thereconstitutionrevolution.blogspot.com/2007_07_22_archive.html

An excerpt from: A DEFENSE OF RON PAUL'S VOTING RECORD:
IN HIS OWN WORDS
By Bryan John Dini

-abortion: Paul challenges us to reconsider our fundamentals on this one, and argues that a pro-life libertarian is not a contradiction in terms. In fact he argues that the pro-life position is consistent with the libertarian non-aggression principle and reaffirms the essential connection between life and liberty, in that you cannot defend the one without the other. Remember, libertarians do not believe violent and/or aggressive force is authorized except in the case of imminent personal and/or national defense. For this reason, Paul made an exception to ab*rtion *if* it will protect the life of the mother, which he admits is a very rare case indeed. This also extends to his opposition to the death penalty (which is again, "pro-life") and his belief that Roe v. Wade should be overturned not only because he believes all social issues like this should be left to the individual states that are closer to the needs of the various communities, but also because it allows for the slippery slope possibility of including human life in the "natural" sphere along with animals and vegetation, making way for eugenics-type programs, patents on sections of the human genome, and more genetically modified organisms. This is why he also backed legislation that would deem "life to begin at conception." Of course, the states would still have final jurisdiction over how this "life" is to be treated and prosecuted in court, but Paul believes it is an essential step forward in defining the issue, as the federal government has a constitutional duty to protect life and liberty above all else. This duty immediately trumps dubious privacy and property issues, which he spells out below. If you think the debate is over as to *where* life begins, you are mistaken. Ask any bio-ethicist.

Ron Paul’s own words on the subject can be found in this:

Interview with the San Francisco Chronicle Board of Editors

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=5&entry_id=18533

(he also cites, in this interview, two of his heroes in the great non-violence tradition, Martin Luther King & Gandhi )

Q: Does your view of a limited role of government also apply to social issues like choice on ab*rtion or on same sex marriage?

A: On personal associations, all of them, they’re legal, but neither can they be prohibited nor can those who have personal relationships use their relationships to force them on me or on the taxpayer, which means that same sex marriage they can do whatever they want so long as they’re not hurting people, you know, voluntary consent but when it comes to abortion the issue isn’t so much freedom of choice the issue is whether there’s a life involved. If there’s a life involved you have to protect the life of all individuals and that becomes more difficult and more complicated – the more difficult and more complicated the issue the more local it should be – so I want to denationalize it, I don’t think the courts should rule on it, I don’t think the federal government should rule on it. They shouldn’t take – if you’re for abortion, she’s not, I’m allowed to take your money (if you’re against it) and allow abortions to occur, that’s so offensive and I as a physician and one who has tried to understand the legal status of the fetus, it’s very legal, it’s alive, it’s human, has legal rights, it has inheritance rights. If you accidentally injure the fetus you’re liable, if somebody in a violent act kills it your taken to court for a violent act, even murder in some states, so we can’t ignore that. It’s not just simply a privacy issue, because if it were strictly a privacy issue, our homes are our castles and should be absolutely private, if you say its only a privacy issue you’ve actually legalized infanticide (garbled)...

This thing has become such a difficult issue for so many because now I can get paid for doing the abortion on a 3, or a 4, or a 5 lb. infant and get paid for it but the babies born, the girl throws it away we arrest her what’s the difference between the value of that life one minute before birth and one minute after birth. I think legally we have to resolve that and there will be times – first I don’t want the federal government involved - and there are certainly times in very, very early pregnancy where the definition of pregnancy is un-definable. Even though I’m strong right-to-life I recognize that [if] you can’t define it medically or legally how can you make a crime out of it? So let’s say, the ‘day after pill’ and things that’s getting overly burdened with details that confuse the issues more and I’m sure the people who think of abortion as wonderful and perfect as an absolute right don’t think about seeing a five pound baby extracted and [then] allowed to die. I don’t think they want that, yet they’ve sort of endorsed it, so I think we have a ways to go in discussing that issue and I think that our system offers the solution, which will never be perfect and that is the same way as marijuana: let the states sort it out, not have a federal government and a federal court come in and say: you cannot do this or: you will subsidize this. Government should be more neutral in most of these of things.


National Public Radio
All Things Considered, July 25, 2007

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12224561

Q: Abortion. Should it be maintained as legal by a supreme court ruling of the United States or is it a proper matter for the states?

A: No. I don’t think the supreme court should be involved because the more difficult the problem the more local it should be. We don’t have to authority for our federal government or our supreme court to deal with the issue of punishment for violence and we have all kinds of charges for violence murder first degree second degree third degree manslaughter and the states sort these things out and courts sort them out and judges and juries on what should be a criminal act and so I think under the intent of the Constitution it was never meant that we should pick out one area, which is considered by many as an act of violence and treat that differently on all the other acts of violence


See also, this excellent point:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=916

Abortion: Yes, Paul thinks abortion is murder but there is a difference between taking a so-called "morning after pill" and a person committing "the horrible murder when you see someone lying in the floor and someone takes a gun and puts it to their head. I don't equate those and don't expect the law or juries to treat them exactly alike."


Here is an excellent article written by a pro-choice female:
Understanding Ron Paul’s Stance on Abortion
http://www.ronpaulnewengland.com/index.php/understanding-ron-pauls-stance-..ion

I am an avid Ron Paul supporter. I am also pro-choice whereas he holds strong pro-life views, yet I agree with him completely on abortion. Confused yet? Read on–this is the exact misunderstanding of abortion that I want to eradicate–you can be pro-choice and against the terms of Roe v. Wade. How? Because Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, and Ron Paul recognizes this without a pro-life bias as I do without a pro-choice predisposition of my own.

[Gustogus]

I don't really care if "legalities" get in the way of a pregant women wanting to down a 1/5th of whiskey. Someone has got to speak for the kid in her belly that can't speak for himself.

Ok, now follow that train of thought to its logical conclusion..

I take it you are advocating for the rights of the unborn to be born whole and healthy and protected.

We know, thanks to science, that the point in which the unborn are most susceptible to FASD is in the first few weeks - month of pregnancy.

Its at that point that alcohol can have the largest negative impact (mental retardation, learning disabilities, physical disabilities)

The only way to prevent this sort of damage would be to establish alcohol prohibiton for all sexually active women. I mean we don't allow drinking and driving because of the harm you may cause another person, why should drinking and sex be any different if it can have just as traumatic an impact...

"well thats silly", yeah..well...how else are you going to stop women who don't want to be pregnant from poisoning there own kids?... remember we're talking about the good of the children here.

Now look, I'm not saying this is what pro-lifers are proposing, I'm just saying this is the logical conclusion drawn from a doctrine that instills the unborn with all the rights and priveleges of the born.

[Gustogus]

But I thought the argument was about what to tell Pro-choicers? Whether or not we believe life begins at conception or birth, there are people out there that believe it is within the law (and apparently conscience) to end a life at their will. You are right about the influence mother has on baby. It is scary, but it is a fact. But not all mothers smoke, drink, or do drugs. So does there come a point where you have a governmentally appointed person to decide which one can live? "Oh, you smoke? Ok, we can kill your baby." "What... you had a few beers during the first two months? Oh... your baby will just be all wrong so it's OK if we kill it." It doesn't work that way. And I have no idea WHAT the happy medium is, but I would rather leave it to the states, live in one that says no, and go about my business. As to the OP- emphasize that it is NOT the government's right to decide what you should do. If your state's elected disagree with you, fight with all you've got to change it. You can only go with what you believe is right and true and fight for it. That's what this country stands for. Keep it that way.

Oh, I completely agree on the states rights issue.
I was just pointing out a Pro-choice point of view. It was more to pass the time and have a nice discussion then actually try and change any minds ore speak to the OP topic..

[jesse27]

I think they should petition their goverenor on the issue.

[misericordia]

I'd say to a pro-choicer, that I was one once too, but that much like ROE, after
my abortion I came to understand very quickly that I made the wrong choice, and have been eaten up by guilt ever since.

There are more than 13,000,000 women in america who have had this experience.

http://www.hopeafterabortion.com/

[affa]

What I've learned from this thread:

If confronted with someone who is pro-choice, please follow these instructions:

If pro-life, tell them Dr. Paul thinks the federal gov't has no business deciding one way or another - if we grant them the power to decide it's legal, we are thereby granting them them ability to criminalize it in the future. Tell them that's why it's none of the gov'ts business. Period. Maybe add in that he's 72 and has helped birth over 4,000 babies which may help explain why he is pro-life. Then DROP IT. Immediately. Even if it means politely opting out of the conversation and walking away. Maybe they'll meet some other Ron Paul supporter who can follow the next set of instructions. Because odds are, if you keep talking, we'll lose them.

If you're pro-choice, talk them through it. You already know how, because YOU have come to respect Dr. Paul despite disagreeing with him on this issue.

Seriously, some of you with your "legs up in the air" rhetoric will only create enemies, not compatriots.

Don't use the message of Dr. Paul to push pro-life views. This is about getting the good doctor the PRESIDENCY, not getting people riled up.

Put it this way - I'm vegan. Would you find it effective if I pushed slaughterhouse leaflets on you, trying to convert you to veganism while simultaneously telling you to vote Kucinich? HELL NO. That's not how people change their views. Sadly, it's as ludicrous as some of the ideas I've seen in this thread.

[goldismoney]

You could just as easily say pro-choice is anti-baby.

Abortion is obviously not an issue that people are going to agree on anytime soon. Letting the states decide is the fair and constitutional thing to do, so if people ask that should be the answer. And frankly if someone doesn't agree with that, they don't care much about the constitution and aren't going to vote for Dr. Paul anyway, so we shouldn't waste our time on them.

+1

[Azurite]

Oh, I completely agree on the states rights issue.
I was just pointing out a Pro-choice point of view. It was more to pass the time and have a nice discussion then actually try and change any minds ore speak to the OP topic..

LOL! Abortion is NEVER a "nice discussion!"

[Fields]

You could just as easily say pro-choice is anti-baby.

Abortion is obviously not an issue that people are going to agree on anytime soon. Letting the states decide is the fair and constitutional thing to do, so if people ask that should be the answer. And frankly if someone doesn't agree with that, they don't care much about the constitution and aren't going to vote for Dr. Paul anyway, so we shouldn't waste our time on them.

This answers the thread. End of story.

[RichardC]

I am personally pro-choice and a RP supporter. The way I see it, he is the only candidate with a unifying message on the issue of abortion, as difficult as this issue is.

The main problem is people are penned into their little liberal vs conservative arguments. As soon as you say something that appears to lean one direction, they lump you in with that category. They take certain stances as 'code' for something more sinister. The problem with abortion, whether you are personally pro-life or pro-choice, it is that it is inherently divisive, and it has NO clear moral imperative one way or the other.

You may think the issue is clear, but I guarantee you the other half of the country disagrees. This is not at all a simple women's rights issue or equality issue, because it calls for the rights of one life over another. Even that point is highly debatable, depending on how you personally define life. So because it is a human rights issue with no clear moral imperative, that will always divide us rather than unite us, it has no place being national law. It is unethical to legislate this issue nationally, one way or the other. That is point #1 that everyone must accept and understand.

Once you accept that, you must take it to states rights and have faith in the states to handle this issue better than the federal government does. Many pro-choicers see this as code for a pro-life agenda, but it really isn't. It's a constitutional agenda, one that believes sticky social issues like this should not be one rule fits all. Remind them that this is part of the reason why we have states, to legislate locally when its more appropriate to do so. Remind them that this is not a reversal or going back to old times, that it is done today. Nevada legalizes gambling and prostitution, because it makes sense for them to allow this at a local level. And people vote with their dollars on this by going to Vegas for adult fun. There doesn't need to be anything reprehensible about it... this is America. If you don't like how Nevada runs itself, don't go there.

So the vision for this country was that local governments would handle these more difficult social issues. This is a big reason why we even have states at all. This is point #2. Most pro-choice people live in CA or NY anyway, where the vast majority of intellectual, liberal, highest population cities are. CA and NY residents should have faith in their states to not only go pro-choice, but handle it better than the Fed would.

Point #3 is my favorite, because it considers the big picture and deals with a subject few people think about. The real problem with nationalizing the issue one way or the other is that it will always put it at risk for one group. The big fear for pro-choicers is that some conservative president with a litmus test will appoint conservative judges who will overturn Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal for all Americans. So liberals are in a constant battle with social conservatism, constantly fearful that they'll lose Roe v Wade to the changing political tide of this country. Think of all the effort they waste, all the money spent and despicable lobbying that goes on behind the scenes trying to either keep RvW alive, or kill it. Now imagine how much better off we'd be if we simply took this unethical, unconstitutional law out of the national equation.

Pro-choice people need to realize that even though they think and believe something personally, that this should not be national law. They put their own agenda at risk, and they risk losing the right completely by pushing it on half of America that will never agree with them. Really divisive social issues like this with no clear moral imperative have a solution in states rights. It's not perfect, but a perfect solution for an issue like this is *impossible*. And right now, their greed in wanting to keep it national puts their whole agenda at risk.

Remind them that once RvW is overturned, and someday it may very well be, that they'd wished they supported states rights at that point.

I think everyone can agree that there are far more important national issues to be dealing with. We'd all do better and be a better people if we didn't have to hear national politicians dance around and pander on social issues they have no business legislating. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, but that is where this social issue should remain.

I have to say RP opened my eyes on this topic in a way no politician ever did. Again I am personally pro-choice, and I recognize RP is personally pro-life, but our personal beliefs are superceded by the greater philosophy of Constitutionalism. It teaches us that there is another way, and it leads us out of these tired liberal v conservative political agendas that are nothing more than complete dead ends when it comes to finding common ground and solving real problems.

[Fields]

It doesn't put freedom and life at odds. The woman was free to have sex and get pregnant. She didn't have too. And I don't mean "boo hoo the friggan condom broke", I mean she didn't have to have her legs in the air. It really is that simple. It comes down to choices. She, and the guy that knocked her up have to deal with it, for better or for worse.

Life is viable from the day it is conceived. A one celled amoeba is viable, it grows, consumes and breaths. So does a fetus.

I don't really care if "legalities" get in the way of a pregant women wanting to down a 1/5th of whiskey. Someone has got to speak for the kid in her belly that can't speak for himself.

I though your videos were amazing. Now your thoughts are amazing me too. Thank you for the clarity.

[Fields]

I'd say to a pro-choicer, that I was one once too, but that much like ROE, after
my abortion I came to understand very quickly that I made the wrong choice, and have been eaten up by guilt ever since.

There are more than 13,000,000 women in america who have had this experience.

http://www.hopeafterabortion.com/

Thank you for your input. I have a lot of friends in your boat that learn how they truly feel when it is too late.

[freelance]

Point #3 is my favorite, because it considers the big picture and deals with a subject few people think about. The real problem with nationalizing the issue one way or the other is that it will always put it at risk for one group. The big fear for pro-choicers is that some conservative president with a litmus test will appoint conservative judges who will overturn Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal for all Americans. So liberals are in a constant battle with social conservatism, constantly fearful that they'll lose Roe v Wade to the changing political tide of this country. Think of all the effort they waste, all the money spent and despicable lobbying that goes on behind the scenes trying to either keep RvW alive, or kill it. Now imagine how much better off we'd be if we simply took this unethical, unconstitutional law out of the national equation.

What an interesting point. Perhaps if it went back to the states, we could get about the business of dealing with the "sanctity of life" as it pertains to the actual LIVING--you know, stop the global killing machine that we've built from the ground up--the killing machine that is finding its way to our shores via DHS and monies thrown at local law enforcement!

[affa]

I am personally pro-choice and a RP supporter. The way I see it, he is the only candidate with a unifying message on the issue of abortion, as difficult as this issue is.

The main problem is people are penned into their little liberal vs conservative arguments. As soon as you say something that appears to lean one direction, they lump you in with that category. They take certain stances as 'code' for something more sinister. The problem with abortion, whether you are personally pro-life or pro-choice, it is that it is inherently divisive, and it has NO clear moral imperative one way or the other.

You may think the issue is clear, but I guarantee you the other half of the country disagrees. This is not at all a simple women's rights issue or equality issue, because it calls for the rights of one life over another. Even that point is highly debatable, depending on how you personally define life. So because it is a human rights issue with no clear moral imperative, that will always divide us rather than unite us, it has no place being national law. It is unethical to legislate this issue nationally, one way or the other. That is point #1 that everyone must accept and understand.

Once you accept that, you must take it to states rights and have faith in the states to handle this issue better than the federal government does. Many pro-choicers see this as code for a pro-life agenda, but it really isn't. It's a constitutional agenda, one that believes sticky social issues like this should not be one rule fits all. Remind them that this is part of the reason why we have states, to legislate locally when its more appropriate to do so. Remind them that this is not a reversal or going back to old times, that it is done today. Nevada legalizes gambling and prostitution, because it makes sense for them to allow this at a local level. And people vote with their dollars on this by going to Vegas for adult fun. There doesn't need to be anything reprehensible about it... this is America. If you don't like how Nevada runs itself, don't go there.

So the vision for this country was that local governments would handle these more difficult social issues. This is a big reason why we even have states at all. This is point #2. Most pro-choice people live in CA or NY anyway, where the vast majority of intellectual, liberal, highest population cities are. CA and NY residents should have faith in their states to not only go pro-choice, but handle it better than the Fed would.

Point #3 is my favorite, because it considers the big picture and deals with a subject few people think about. The real problem with nationalizing the issue one way or the other is that it will always put it at risk for one group. The big fear for pro-choicers is that some conservative president with a litmus test will appoint conservative judges who will overturn Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal for all Americans. So liberals are in a constant battle with social conservatism, constantly fearful that they'll lose Roe v Wade to the changing political tide of this country. Think of all the effort they waste, all the money spent and despicable lobbying that goes on behind the scenes trying to either keep RvW alive, or kill it. Now imagine how much better off we'd be if we simply took this unethical, unconstitutional law out of the national equation.

Pro-choice people need to realize that even though they think and believe something personally, that this should not be national law. They put their own agenda at risk, and they risk losing the right completely by pushing it on half of America that will never agree with them. Really divisive social issues like this with no clear moral imperative have a solution in states rights. It's not perfect, but a perfect solution for an issue like this is *impossible*. And right now, their greed in wanting to keep it national puts their whole agenda at risk.

Remind them that once RvW is overturned, and someday it may very well be, that they'd wished they supported states rights at that point.

I think everyone can agree that there are far more important national issues to be dealing with. We'd all do better and be a better people if we didn't have to hear national politicians dance around and pander on social issues they have no business legislating. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, but that is where this social issue should remain.

I have to say RP opened my eyes on this topic in a way no politician ever did. Again I am personally pro-choice, and I recognize RP is personally pro-life, but our personal beliefs are superceded by the greater philosophy of Constitutionalism. It teaches us that there is another way, and it leads us out of these tired liberal v conservative political agendas that are nothing more than complete dead ends when it comes to finding common ground and solving real problems.

+infinity.

[affa]

I'd say to a pro-choicer, that I was one once too, but that much like ROE, after
my abortion I came to understand very quickly that I made the wrong choice, and have been eaten up by guilt ever since.

There are more than 13,000,000 women in america who have had this experience.

So, over 13 million women needed to have an abortion to realize they were against abortion. Including yourself.

Now do you understand why you can't convince someone else that abortion is wrong? They couldn't convince you, or those 13 million plus other women either! It's a personal decision that people will or will not come to on their own.

[literatim]

It doesn't put freedom and life at odds. The woman was free to have sex and get pregnant. She didn't have too. And I don't mean "boo hoo the friggan condom broke", I mean she didn't have to have her legs in the air. It really is that simple. It comes down to choices. She, and the guy that knocked her up have to deal with it, for better or for worse.

Life is viable from the day it is conceived. A one celled amoeba is viable, it grows, consumes and breaths. So does a fetus.

I don't really care if "legalities" get in the way of a pregant women wanting to down a 1/5th of whiskey. Someone has got to speak for the kid in her belly that can't speak for himself.

:cool:


So, over 13 million women needed to have an abortion to realize they were against abortion. Including yourself.

Now do you understand why you can't convince someone else that abortion is wrong? They couldn't convince you, or those 13 million plus other women either! It's a personal decision that people will or will not come to on their own.

It has nothing to do what people think is wrong. It is about what is wrong. People in Soviet Russia thought it was just fine to kill 50 million Christians.

[Truth Warrior]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life

[affa]

It has nothing to do what people think is wrong. It is about what is wrong.

And, oddly, nobody agrees on what is wrong. Both sides think the other side is misled and immoral. Both sides think they are on the side of just and good.

[daniroyer]

We need good economics and sound foriegn policy before we honestly can deal with abortion. I'm pro-choice and that's what won me over.

[BeallCanbe]

Dr. Paul is personally pro-life, but more importantly, he also says that the legal decision should be made at the local or state level, not the federal level ...

So if you are pro-choice, make sure you elect a pro-choice government in your state or local area.

Get the federal government off this issue and give the freedom of choice to the local and state, and thus give the choice to each individual citizen, isn't that better than any federal regulation?

[cjhowe]

China has forced abortion.

I was pro-choice, but now I'm pro-no fed control over my reproduction at all.

China does NOT have forced abortion. They have incentives (educational, job opportunities, etc) for not having multiple children. Have multiple children, lose incentives. That is not the same as forced abortion.

[Arklatex]

Just tell them the truth:

Ron Paul is personally against abortions, he's a doctor, but he has a good enough sense to realize that the president has no authority to make a mandate concerning this at the federal level, and would leave the decision up to the family level, local level, at most the state.

[katewag]

I have personally spoken to ~ a dozen women who told me they really like Ron Paul's philosophy on the economy, personal liberty, and the war; but they are pro-choice so they could never support him. When I tell them that I am also pro-choice, and that I have met MANY Ron Paul supporters who are also pro-choice, I can see the look of incomprehension on their faces. I usually add that Ron Paul would leave it up to the states, and that if we really don't want a central government determining every move, then we have to accept it that freedom of choice might have to be a fight that will happen in our state legislatures. This at least gets them interested and somewhat past the knee-jerk reaction. ( I still can't believe I like a pro-life candidate.) The main point I make is that they are talking to a Planned Parenthood volunteer worker who is so concerned about the direction our nation is taking, that I am putting protecting women's reproductive freedom on the back-burner for the moment, and so should they!

[Guymontag]

chuck a dead baby at em. bam!