How to talk to pro-choicers?

[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]

I hate to say it but..

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.)

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]

Ugh, Abortion...

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!