Sigh. How can you be against Dr Paul's abortion stance? If you experienced what he has experienced in terms of witnessing an abortion, I'm sure you would feel the same way he does. And no, I do not believe that his abortion stance will hurt him AT ALL with voters.
12/26 Huffpo: They're now questioning Paul's Pro-Life stance....
- Thread starter freakout9903
- Start date
Sigh. How can you be against Dr Paul's abortion stance? If you experienced what he has experienced in terms of witnessing an abortion, I'm sure you would feel the same way he does. And no, I do not believe that his abortion stance will hurt him AT ALL with voters.
mosquitobite
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,821
Isn't it good when HuffPo is saying he's not pro-life?? Conservatives don't read HuffPo!
Sorry, I guess I see it as helping when you're addressing the Dem/Indy vote?
eta: yes - I agree with Milo.
It's not a hit piece when you consider their audience!!
Sorry, I guess I see it as helping when you're addressing the Dem/Indy vote?
eta: yes - I agree with Milo.
It's not a hit piece when you consider their audience!!
Congratulations on home-schooling, you have my respect. But let me say that children home-schooled by a parent who believes that Ron Paul is the most pro-life candidate may not be a representative cross section of people in that age range.
Everything will hurt you with voters, particularly with an issue like this. I don't think pro-choice people like myself necessarily have an issue with those who are personally troubled by abortion. The central issue politically is when that spills into laws. If Ron wants to pass the abortion issue onto the states, then I find that a lot more palatable than individuals like Bachmann and Santorum who want to pass a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
Be happy that Ron, acting on his personal beliefs, has struck a good balance on this issue in terms of the electorate. That also means you will get a little bit of static on both sides. I don't think Paul supporters are as used to that as the supporters of other candidates, as Ron tends to be fundamentally on one side of an issue or another.
Last edited:
Congrats Bruno
Justinfrom1776
Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 680
Congratulations to you, 1 more "good guy" in the world.. This fight has intensified for me big time since I became a parent.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
The problem isn't HuffPo, it is the people who put out the pledge who clearly just want clarification from Ron, meanwhile he is standing in a meat grinder and trying to campaign at the same time. The pledge people and Steve Deace have a radio town hall on this that all the other conservative candidates will be on. (Ron isn't in Iowa until tomorrow.) I wish this could have been cleared up before them, but the mass of attacks, Christmas intervening, and end of caucus campaign events long planned may mean he hasn't gotten back to them before their town hall. In which case I am sure the other candidates will be happy to explain THEIR version of what his note on the pledge meant.
Ron Paul's position is that the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to ban abortion through a federal law, so it has to be done through a Constitutional amendment.
You're not in touch with the left, then. based on my personal experience, i'd say there is a huge contingent of potential 'blue republican' cross-over vote that are held back because of the abortion issue. This has been a hot topic issue for decades, and the vast majority on both sides don't seem to even try to understand the position of the other side. That he is pro-life is as significant an issue to potential crossover voters as it would be to Republican voters were he pro-choice.
I disagree with RP's position but I do think that it would at least be a step in the right direction. I have no problem with a federal ban on abortion, particularly late term abortions, because they protect the constitutional rights of human beings. Constitutionally granted rights DO need to be protected at a federal level. There is no reason, ever, to kill a viable human being. If you don't want to raise him, there are plenty of others out there that do. Of course, the nitty gritty of ENFORCEMENT of the ban would need to be with the states.
Ultimately all disagreements on abortion boil down to whether enough a zygote/ fetus/ baby is a person with rights. These are very tricky issues, but not worth compromising or softening to try to appeal to "youth". Quite frankly, part of being a youth is that you don't understand the preciousness of life (yours or others). While I was a Christian who believed in the sanctity of life in theory, I understood nothing as a youth. Only after carrying four children in my womb and having the privilege of birthing and caring for three of them do I understand a little bit of what its about. Once you see your own child through an ultrasound, moving around with every single body part perfectly formed at only 12 weeks, abortion takes on a whole different meaning.
Ron Paul is running in the Republican primary, not the Democratic primary. He needs to focus on getting pro life voters to support him.
But does he support such a constitutional amendment? My understanding is that, in general, he prefers issues like this to be decided as locally as possible.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,515
This.
If this appears on HotAir, that could be a problem. On HuffPo? Not so much...
Someone is terribly mixed up. The amendment talk is about overturning Roe v. Wade so that states will actually have something to say in the matter, that's all. So long as the Supreme Court says, 'The Constitution says x, the only way to get them to admit that the Constitution says y is to amend it.
Last edited:
Yes, he does. He just doesn't think that is actually has a chance to pass, so it's not something he focuses on.
Cyberbrain
Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 249
Exactly and well said. It'd be just like how pro-lifers would see it if he was pro-choice. Major obstacle.
I'm personally not happy that he signed one of these stupid pledges period. He's not like other candidates, his record and word is solid 20 years back, he doesn't need to get pigeon-holed in one of these things. And on top of that he's a friggan OB/GYN, that tells you he's more serious about what he has to say about the issue than anything else. Pledges like this just end up causing practical problems and conflicting scenarios with the Constitution and legal system that you've now "pledged" yourself to.
Last edited:
Pisces
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,049
Rand Paul and Jesse Benton were on the Steve Deace show last week to talk about Ron's position on the personhood pledge and how he would handle it at the federal level. Steve Deace must have been on vacation because he wasn't there but surely he listens to his own show. Maybe he'll reference these interviews during his townhall? Here is a link to the Steve Deace show podcast containing these interviews: http://stevedeace.com/news/national-politics/deace-show-podcast-12-22-11/.
Jesse's take on what the federal govt would do about abortion sounds different than what a lot of people here are saying. Would he go on a show like Deace's and misrepresent Ron's views? This isn't a rhetorical question. I haven't heard many Jesse Benton interviews so I don't know the answer myself.
Feeding the Abscess
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 8,340
He said in the Des Moines Register editorial interview that he does not support an amendment, at 36:30:
He's been somewhat inconsistent on that issue then. This pledge that he signed contained language that stated abortion should be banned at the federal level. I've seen other articles by Ron where he stated that he supported a human life amendment. He even introduced a Human Life Amendment when he first came to Congress. So it doesn't seem like he has a clear position on that.
Last edited:
Similar threads
