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!
How to talk to pro-choicers?
- Thread starter teleomorph
- Start date
Andrew76
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2007
- Messages
- 346
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.
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.
crazyfacedjenkins
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,443
I'm with you on that one.
No one candidate fits all.
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
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
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 158
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.
What I see as more important are the monetary policies of our nation.
Thats why I am voting, contributing, and supporting Ron Paul.
R
RPinUptownChi
Guest
yeah its better to stay away from abortion imo...
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.
Do not do this. Worst. Advice. Ever.
nike
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
- Messages
- 80
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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?
Ron Paul says that from his medical expertise that abortions are not needed.
Truth Warrior
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 18,789
PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCIES, it's what the grownups do. 
It's not rocket science!
It's not rocket science!
thehittgirl
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 725
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 37
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.
Sey.Naci
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,285
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Similar threads
