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.)

 

[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

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