The trend is toward a middle ground:
Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
The trend is toward a middle ground:
I was really disappointed Rand didn't mention anything about abortion being a state issue. I was kind of disappointed it didn't come up in this thread either (it was long...and I read though it but maybe I missed it - doubtful since I did a search for the word to confirm).
Why even bother talking about banning abortion? Why not say it's up to the individual states to set their own laws?
Last edited by jtap; 04-24-2014 at 08:39 AM.
I think he's probably right.Originally Posted by William Tell
To win the Republican nomination you have to be able to credibly wear the label "pro-life." To fall on the side of pro-choice is suicide. It will cancel out anything else a candidate could have going for them. Ask Guiliani and Pete Wilson. Romney knew this, and made a point to bill himself as a pro-life candidate.
But you don't have to be extreme on that issue. You just have to lean enough that way. The Republicans who have won the nomination have always given just enough to pro-lifers to assuage their misgivings, and nothing more. Of course those have always also been the establishment-anointed candidates. And anyone who wants to rival them in the primary process has to position himself as the conservative alternative to the establishment. But even this position doesn't require pro-life radicalism.
Rand does need to be careful. He can't allow himself to go to the left of Jeb Bush on this issue. But he shouldn't try to make people see him as the guy who's hell bent on implementing a major federal ban on abortion. He needs to put the focus on the things that we can do, that most people already agree with or would tolerate, and that inexplicably haven't happened yet and just sit there without Republicans pushing them.
If he wants to distance himself from the all-or-nothing ban abortion position, then the way he does that rhetorically should be one that appeals to pro-lifers. He should express his strategy as one of not making the perfect the enemy of the good. While Republican politicians are pandering to pro-lifers with theoretical talk about federal abortion bans and symbolic gestures, there are low hanging fruits just sitting there in front of them that they aren't grabbing. Why does our government still fund abortion? Lets put our energy into stopping that completely. We can talk about what's next once we accomplish that.
Actually what seems to be "nuanced" to you is that you think the government can legislate morality through the barrel of a gun. Let's just say the government succeeded in banning abortions. Would you then be able to pat yourself on the back? Act like you have saved millions of lives? Abortions will still occur, you just pushed it into the black market. What will you do then? Send out tasks forces to stop these horrific murders? Prosecute anyone who takes part in illegal abortions to the fullest extent of the law to set an example?
How long before people start spending their entire lives in jail because of an abortion or people even getting killed because of it? Oh wait, let me guess, trust the government, they wouldn't do that right?
What does that even mean? Besides being the emptiest talking point ever? Are you an anarchist? If not, how exactly do you differentiate laws that are rooted from morality than laws that are based on... what? I believe one of the few roles of the state is to protect individuals from aggressions and that includes the protection of life, including pre-natal life.
Of course abortions will still occur. Nobody said otherwise - unless your view is that every law that is still broken should be repealed - including every other protection on life and property. You need to try to refute others' people arguments, not the ones you create on your own mind. I have little patience for strawman and slippery slope fallacies.
I don't really care what you have or don't have patience for. Your argument for government intervention still makes no sense. Laws against murder don't stop murder, they are meant as a deterrence. If you commit murder, you have a chance of going to jail for life or even being executed. Is that the intent you have with banning abortion as well?
Your argument against abortion is the same argument that is used to fight this losing drug war, the war on prostitution, the war on raw milk. It's all the same. You want the government to step in and point a gun at people so that you can feel morally "cleansed." It will lead to the same results as the rest of these futile attempts. You will not get abortion banned and if someday you do get it banned, the results will be just as I described. People won't stop abortions just because the government said so.
Learn from history. Find another issue to cling on to. Teach your family and kids about the immorality of abortion. You have a better chance of changing peoples mind that way instead of asking the government to step in and do it.
But he can't pass a law banning abortion. You might as well ask that he pass a law that turns the moon into cheese.
Iowans may ultimately decide it's better to have a winner in the White House who can thoughtfully articulate their pro-life positions from the bully pulpit, rather than backing someone who cannot win in November. And relish the opportunity to regain their republic from the special interests. And not be spied on, audited, taxed into oblivion, paid in funny money, indefinitely detained, tortured, unemployed, regulated, and sent off to war for profits.
Last edited by anaconda; 04-24-2014 at 06:32 PM.
I guess. There's just no one else in the race who I can support, so I guess I'm just going to have to suck it up and support Rand, as much as I hate what he said here and the direction that he's moving in. But I still think that these kind of remarks are going to be extremely damaging for him in Iowa. It's a self inflicted wound in my opinion. Maybe I'll be wrong.
I think if Rand makes it to the Oval Office he will, at some point, kick up a compelling and widespread debate on the right to life issue that advances the discussion. I think he's got your back.
I think that is probably the best compromise. He can talk about the value of life while making it possible for states where the voters are against abortion able to ban it. It would then prevent abortions in that state while still allowing people to travel to different states if they are that desperate for an abortion. Again, it won't stop it but it will create a big inconvenience for it while allowing the people who live in their states to know that their taxes aren't being used for abortions. It really is the best pro-life people can do without relying on the government to come in and point guns at people.
A President is never going to ban abortion. Social conservatives are deluding themselves with that one. Best they can do is appoint conservative judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is something Paul would do.
Maybe so, but you still don't want to appear weak on the issue when you're running in a GOP primary. It's a litmus test issue. And in the general election he can appeal to moderates and liberals on issues like foreign policy, government surveillance, and the war on drugs without sacrificing his principles on the life issue.
How do you and others who support this methodology propose we prevent others from taking two pills? I'm sure it will be as effective as the drug war in preventing pills from being taken.
The government can't enforce everything, but I think the abortion rate would significantly go down if the government passed a law closing down all public abortion clinics and prosecuting doctors who perform abortions.
Since I wasn't alive in the early '80s, I can't really speak authoritatively on the issue, but based on what I've seen of polling data, I would agree that the electorate is more pro-life now than it was then. This is not in conflict with the comment I directed towards TC, which stated that his approach to the abortion issue had been alienating people for decades. Absent people like Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin, I believe we could have abortion laws in this country similar to the ones they have throughout most of Europe, where abortion is illegal after the first trimester.
You are confusing contempt and disgust with hatred and vitriol. I harbor no ill will towards you. As with all people, I hope you have a happy and fulfilling life. I just wish you were smarter and less self-destructive.
Your mistaken and absurd belief that I have hatred in my heart is the product of a psychological defense mechanism that allows you to retain the perception of yourself as my moral superior, thereby insulating your ego from harm.
Read more, post less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...eagan#Abortion
Reagan was pro-life, and therefore anti-abortion.[26] He was quoted as saying, "If there is a question as to whether there is life or death, the doubt should be resolved in favor of life." In 1982, Ronald Reagan stated: "Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." [26]
As Governor of California, Reagan signed into law the "Therapeutic Abortion Act", in an effort to reduce the number of "back room abortions" performed in California.[27] As a result, approximately one million abortions would be performed; Reagan blamed this on doctors, arguing that they had deliberately misinterpreted the law.[26] At the time that the law was signed, Reagan had been in office for four months, and stated that had he been more experienced as governor he would not have signed it.[28] He then declared himself to be pro-life.
Reagan managed to gain the support of pro-life groups when running for president, despite his authorization of the "Therapeutic Abortion Act", by advocating a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother.[26] He saw "abortion on demand" as emotionally harmful.[26]
Who says he won't? It wouldn't surprise me at all to see him come out in favor of marijuana legalization before the 2016 election. Doing so later on when more people are paying attention will allow the move to have a larger positive impact.
Very few people vote Democrat over Republican for the sole reason that they want marijuana legalized and believe Democrats will do that but Republicans won't. A fair number of young/single people vote Democrat over Republican in large part because they think Republicans will ban all abortions but Democrats won't.
And again, Rand didn't even say that he doesn't want to ban all abortions in this interview - all he did was concede that it won't happen until the country is persuaded that doing so would be desirable. As someone who thinks abortion should be legal in the first trimester, this was nice to hear.
Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are going to be the conservative standard bearers. Jeb Bush and Chris Christie are going to represent the establishment. Rand is going to try and split the difference while portraying himself as the most electable, capable of uniting the two disparate factions while drawing on some traditionally Democratic voters in order to beat Hillary. Scott Walker will probably try to do the same thing, btw, but I expect him to be less successful than Rand.
He doesn't need to veer so far left as land deep in Democratic base territory, all he has to do is pick off enough fringe stragglers to build a majority. Focusing on issues like school choice, mandatory minimum sentencing reform, restoring voting rights to felons, reigning in the NSA, opposing senseless foreign interventions, and SOUNDING like a moderate on abortion appeals to voters in the middle/on the left. Surely you recognize this?
Indeed, and he was remarkably successful with it. Despite being painted as a freak and a weirdo by virtually every single person on Fox News for over four years, he consistently polled better in hypothetical match-ups with Obama than every other Republican candidate except Romney. A significant fractions of traditionally Democratic voters LIKED Ron Paul enough to prefer him over Obama. This strongly suggests that there is a "libertarian twist" amongst traditionally Democratic voters and that a more mainstream/moderate candidate like Rand may be able to win them over while retaining support amongst the GOP base/establishment.
A majority may not be as philosophically consistent as you or me, but a significant fraction absolutely do, and a small number even care enough about it that they'd switch party affiliations on that basis. If even just 2% make this switch, Rand can win.
If that's certain, then it's over. There's no point in Rand running. Because that's his only possible path to the Republican nomination.
I don't agree with you though. I think Rand can outflank both of those to the right, especially Huckabee.
In Republican primaries and caucuses? Won't work.
All killing is not treated equally by the law, and this is 100% appropriate. I can only assume that you're not a lawyer. Anyone who's been to law school/taken a class in criminal law would understand the need for different classifications of killing/criminal conduct. First-degree murder is not second-degree murder is not manslaughter.
Abortion should not be treated the same as other murders because it is not the same as other murders. But it is perfectly legitimate to argue that it should be made illegal and punished.
You are a despicable liar and should be publicly shamed. At no time has Rand stated that he would not support legislation to end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. You are no better than Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz - indeed, it'd be reasonable to argue that you're worse, since you are engaging in this campaign of lies and misinformation while purporting to be a pro-life advocate. Your dishonesty is repugnant.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ucus-3194.html
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to specsaregood again.
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us