If RP is all about liberty then why let others dictate your views on gay or abortion?

[StateofTrance]

even if that means that the state(s) will be the "decider" on these issues?

Where is the message of individual liberty? I can be gay and support my sister get an abortion..why should that affect you? why should my neighbor care? This is MY life. The state(s) should have no rights to interfere in my personal life.

Either full liberty of individuality, or no liberty. Half baked liberty is not what I call "liberty."

 

[jpa]

the state should protect the life of the unborn child. That is the purpose of the state, to protect life & liberty.

We do not have "full liberty" to take other people's lives at our own whims

 

[navi]

It would be that simple if we were only talking about the mother. There's a human being inside of her too. Does a human being at an early stage of development have the same rights as everyone else?

 

[DJ RP]

If we were talking about your right to have a tattoo or cut off your own fingers fine. But there is a compelling argument that a feotus is a life that needs to be protected. Especially as it cannot defend itself at all.

Personally I'm not sure about the abortion issue. I think there's a big difference between having one in the first month or two and having one at eight months. I definitely don't think ron is being inconsistent. He makes a good argument.

 

[james1844]

Yo. I'm pro-choice. I disagree with Ron the Rov v. Wade issue.

 

[Salamando]

He has to follow the constitution which makes those topics upto the state. Theres nothing you can do if you are a strict constitutionalist.

 

[Buzz]

the state should protect the life of the unborn child. That is the purpose of the state, to protect life & liberty.

We do not have "full liberty" to take other people's lives at our own whims

Yup. There's a difference between liberty and full-out anarchy. We still need laws and whatnot.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

even if that means that the state(s) will be the "decider" on these issues?

Where is the message of individual liberty? I can be gay and support my sister get an abortion..why should that affect you? why should my neighbor care? This is MY life. The state(s) should have no rights to interfere in my personal life.

Either full liberty of individuality, or no liberty. Half baked liberty is not what I call "liberty."

1. he believes in states deciding, okay?

2. pro lifers recognize fetus as life - government is here to preserve life, right? that would be why they oppose abortions

3. I'm taking the middle ground. While I don't believe a woman should be forced to stay pregnant, I think that abortions are...brutal. How about an alternative? Removing the fetus? Then we can try to sustain or transfer it to another woman.

Ron Paul has made me rethink my thoughts on abortion

 

[Steve4RP]

The Federal Government has the powers granted to it by the constitution, from that point the states have the ability to decide on it laws as long as they are not in conflict with the constitution. The liberties of the individuals of each state are basically determined by the people of each state, if you want to express your individual liberties of your state vote for them.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Campaign for pro-abortion state politicians, and also campaign for Ron Paul for President. Problem solved.

 

[jpa]

oh and for those are interested. RP takes crap from pro-life groups for support of RU486 (day after pill) and the birth control pill. He believes human life begins at conception, but he is on the record he is fine with a state definition of 'heartbeat & brainwaves' (where my personal opinion is).

This country does need protect the lives of the 4-9 months old fetus. It is shameful that it is still legal to kill a 6lb person.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What's wrong with the middle ground? View abortion (unless it's life or death) as murder and just take the fetus out without killing it? Maybe a transfer to another woman? Some other options

 

[seapilot]

In Dr.Pauls hour long interview with NH journalists he talked indepth about the abortion issue. It was very eye opening. This is an ethics issue more than a federal issue. For libertarians it also is a dividing issue as many see it one way or the other as well. It comes down to right to life , liberty and property. When technically is an individual life to have liberty? Conception to 9 months? Right now its legal for the Federal govt to pay a doctor to abort at 8 months, but if a pregnant woman is killed in a negligence car accident the guilty party could get tried for double homicide. This is why the state level would better handle the ethics. I believe it would lead to more ethical laws, and abortion would be allowed for the night after pill or up to a week if it was due to violent assault.

 

[jpa]

you don't need to transfer it to another women. Modern medince can keep a preemy alive at 1lb, and at 2lb the survival rate is above 90%.

I know all this because my wife is 33 weeks pregnant, and our daugher just passed 3lbs.

 

[Tidewise]

Let me make it REAL simple for you ...

NINTH AMENDMENT
[size=+2]The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[/size]

TENTH AMENDMENT
[size=+2]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/size]

"This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them."

-- Alexander Hamilton (speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 17 June 1788)
Reference: The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., vol. 2 (28)

 

[werdd]

I've been pro choice in the past mostly because i beleive that the earth is approaching the maximum capacity of human life it can nourish. Thats a rather cynical view, but then again i dont like people young lifes dying, i mean my parents chose pro-life. I think eventually in the future, abortions will be encouraged... but for now i think abortion should be decided on the state level.

Also a plus side of banning abortions is that it might make us more cautious with our sexual activity, young women would be smarter if they knew they would have to carry the child. So banning abortion might even solve the population cap by people having less babies, impossible to tell.

So i dont totally agree with RP here, but i wave his shortcomings for his overwhelming positive qualities. I encourage others to do the same

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

you don't need to transfer it to another women. Modern medince can keep a preemy alive at 1lb, and at 2lb the survival rate is above 90%.

I know all this because my wife is 33 weeks pregnant, and our daugher just passed 3lbs.

that's why I said there should be some options on the table. You don't have to kill a fetus/baby in order to "fix" the problem

 

[Corydoras]

What do you see as problematic in RP's positions on homosexuality? That people can get married heterosexually or homosexually but that government should not recognize any marriages?

 

[Jon S]

well on gay rights i have to agree and say that it in no way affects others and should be legal across the board. but abortion has many many many gray areas and some people see it as murder which they do not want in their state. i am personally pro-choice but its not my place to say everyone has to live with something that they consider to be murder. which is why it should be a states issue.

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

Ron Paul has really made me think about this issue! His story at the Value Voters summit was really powerful and helped me to see why he believes so strongly in protecting life. The freedom message brings us together, it doesn't divide us!