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

[Nefertiti]

The problem is see with abortion is no one "gets an abortion" by themselves under the present law. Usually a doctor is performing it. I am all for banning doctors from doing abortions, but allowing individuals to perform them on themselves-and they will have to suffer the consequences of their actions themselves-physical, spiritual and psychological. But the way the status quo is now, I think it is totally wrong to call an abortion an act of individual liberty when it involves at least a doctor, if not other medical personnel.

 

[Fred McRomliani]

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."

Homosexuality is legal.

Abortion is legalized murder.

Try to show some compassion for the people with no rights.

 

[mjt]

Unfortunately, someone in my family has had two abortions. My wife and I had even tried to convince her to have the last baby and we would raise it as our own. She has been involved in drugs for years and all we can do is give her support and pray for her. But what we are finding out is that the drug abuse is enhanced by her guilt over the abortions. Abortion is such a trama to a woman! But racist groups with government money like planned parenthood promote it. Abortion doesn't only kill the baby, it destroys a womans soul. Sorry to be so morbid...

As far as gay rights, I also have a gay cousin who would give the shirt off of his back to you. He is the nicest person but I disagree with his lifestyle. So my stance is this....you can come out of your closet, but don't come out of mine!....lol....He though that was funny! Bottom line, what you do is your business.

 

[American]

Always a hard core libertarian to want everything or nothing. You dont help your own party with this position. Its been a long time getting this way and its going to be a long time trying to return.

 

[Hope]

Ron Paul has said that he wouldn't ban gay marriage and that he thinks the whole issue of marriage should be a private contract with no involvement by the government at all. I agree with that.

I don't call pro-lifers names or make up lies about them, so I'd appreciate if the pro-lifers exacted the same courtesy without making ridiculous claims about abortion being intrinsically harmful to the women who receive them.

 

[Corydoras]

ridiculous claims about abortion being intrinsically harmful to the women who receive them.

I can't see someone's "soul" being "destroyed" as being harmful if souls don't exist.

 

[Cindy]

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

It really is that simple. a pro choice state can elect pro choice candidates. A pro life state can elect pro life candidates. people are free to move from state to state.

Plenty of Liberty and freedom in there.

I am pro choice, yet, all that Paul has to offer which this country desparately needed decades ago is too good to pass up over that one issue, which really isn't a big problem considering the citizens can still ultimately decide from state to state abortion laws based on who they elect.

I suppose you would rather live in The Kingdom of Rudy where gestapo like police ask you for your papers at road blocks? Or is it Queendom Hillary where IRS thugs will steal 60% of your paycheck to take care of lazy people who need a nanny government to wipe their butt for them.

Paul is the only choice for Freedom, Individual responcibility to self and others, and Prosperity lovers!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Cindy]

I forgot to touch on the gay rights concerned.

Paul can care less about what two consenting adults do with each other, as long as they do not harm anyone else.

He has already said that.

He also said that it is not the Federal Governments job to start redefining words that already have definitions in the dictionary.

mar·riage /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

Paul is just being reasonable and practicle.

What if he started supporting the Feds redefining dictionary words and soon, the word arrested will be stretched and redefined as, being thrown in gitmo without habeous corpous?

He has never spoken out against people having the freedom and right to petition their state legislatures to legalize some form of a civil union between two people of the same sex.

He just says that whatever happens, the Feds need to stay out of making Federal laws, and have no business redefining words from the dictionary in the process of making Unconstitutional Federal Laws.

 

[Richandler]

Was pro-abortion and recently grew up. I'm now pro-choice anti-abortion. Simply put a woman has a choice before she gets pregnant. In fact she has one choice she can get wrong and still not get progenant. Women already have choice the civil rights movement and feminist movement just want more power not rights. Men do not have a right to kill a fetus and neither should a woman. Women need to take responisibility for their actions. Responsibility is a big message in this campaign.

 

[Vaughn]

It really should be up to the States. People are not lemmings they understand the pros and cons of abortion. For instance, when South Dakota had a ban on abortion on the ballot the very religious and pro-life people of South Dakota voted it down because it did not allow for an abortion if the woman was raped or if the child had severe genetic or physical abnormalities. So one of the most pro-life states actually voted a ban down because they felt it was not medically sound. Europe never has these debates on abortion because they put it up for a vote- we should too. Just my opinion.

On gays, if two people fall in love and want to live their lives together and get married then I think that’s perfectly fine. Politicians are the last people who should be telling us how to live. On Ron Paul’s Google interview he says something much to this effect.

 

[Hope]

Was pro-abortion and recently grew up. I'm now pro-choice anti-abortion. Simply put a woman has a choice before she gets pregnant. In fact she has one choice she can get wrong and still not get progenant. Women already have choice the civil rights movement and feminist movement just want more power not rights. Men do not have a right to kill a fetus and neither should a woman. Women need to take responisibility for their actions. Responsibility is a big message in this campaign.

Uh, I think you still have a lot of growing up to do. No contraceptive is 100% effective. Also, many women who choose abortion did not have a choice because they were raped.

 

[NewEnd]

It is easier for one person to impact, or change a state law, than it is for them to change a federal law.

pro-choice, anti-abortion. I think adoption should be encouraged, and not bogged down in red tape and $5000 fees.

 

[Menthol Patch]

The federal government should NOT be involved in law enforcement.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Fans of Roe V. Wade really need to keep in mind the precariousness of their position. The protection of their abortion rights rests upon an unconstitutional decision by an elite panel of 9 individuals. That decision can easily be overturned with a shuffling of the members of the court. This method of setting public policy, through an elite unelected body, is fundamentally undemocratic. The fans of abortion rights may be happy with the status quo, but they need to understand that they are only a heartbeat away from having that status quo turned on it's head. They'd be much better off having the issue devolved to the states where it belongs.

 

[Vaughn]

Might help to mention that 70% of Americans say they are pro-choice.
At the same time 80% feel that unnecessary partial birth abortions should be illegal.

So i say let the people vote.

 

[rfbz]

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."

I agree with you 100%. I think that 100% liberty does, in a way, conflict with being against abortion. I do see Ron Pauls point however about protecting all life. I know he is sincere in his beliefs about this though and I understand where people are coming from.

I think what is optimal on this issue is to keep abortion legal, but set certain conditions so it doesn't get ridiculous. If a woman is raped, I believe she should be well within her rights to have an abortion. But I would not be against a ban on killing a baby that could be born within the next few days. I think there is a sensible middle ground somewhere, and that's where the debate should be - not on absolutes of either banning it or having it legal.


(I support Ron Paul 100% though, don't want there to be any doubt)

 

[AlexMerced]

Uh, I think you still have a lot of growing up to do. No contraceptive is 100% effective. Also, many women who choose abortion did not have a choice because they were raped.

DuH!

- Women who use contraceptives should know they are not 100% thus have accepted that possibility before using them

ex. Just cause I know chances are I'm ognna lose the lottery doesn't mean Ignore the minute possibility I might win

So that's a faulty argument

- Rape is a violation of autonomy, and in that case I think most people on both sides can justify it, though I think most people would encourage exploring alternatives in any situation before deciding to have an abortion



I'm pro-autonomy, but in most cases, autonomous decisions were already made before the pregnancy and no your just asking to not have personal responisbility



As for the humans reaching maximimum capacity, any study of geology shows that geological event will occur to balance things out. We've already seen this begun, trust me nature will make sure there isn't too many people

Nature is like a free market, leave it alone and it takes care of itself.

 

[AlexMerced]

I agree with you 100%. I think that 100% liberty does, in a way, conflict with being against abortion. I do see Ron Pauls point however about protecting all life. I know he is sincere in his beliefs about this though and I understand where people are coming from.

I think what is optimal on this issue is to keep abortion legal, but set certain conditions so it doesn't get ridiculous. If a woman is raped, I believe she should be well within her rights to have an abortion. But I would not be against a ban on killing a baby that could be born within the next few days. I think there is a sensible middle ground somewhere, and that's where the debate should be - not on absolutes of either banning it or having it legal.


(I support Ron Paul 100% though, don't want there to be any doubt)

Liberty is supposed to let people do what they want long as they don't infringe on other peoples lives, thus property rights

what makes abortion complicated, is they are infrining on each others property, the babies life and the mothers uterus, they both have a claim to individual rights. The child did not decide to infringe on thier mothers rights, this is situation of circumstance although the mother in MOST cases has taken action that resulted in possibility of this occuring.

It's not womans or babies rights issues, it's womans and babies right issue... that's why it's such icky issue with no right answers.

Although pro choice or pro-life you are ending a life whether you consider it human or not, cause all cell tissue is technically a living organism.

SO if you make the argument that it's not human life, does this mean I can go around massacring dogs and cats.

If not, then how about game hunting, is this violation of the liberty of the animals.

I mean that's a big of a ridiculous chain of thoughts, but the point is this is no a simple yes or no question.

Everybody is Pro-Choice AND Pro-Life cause ones a womans rights issue, and the other is issue about protecting people, which we all are for both, so difference lies in the semantics in which we are both.

 

[Paulite5112007]

I'm pro-choice and support him. Not all states will ban abortion so it will still be available. besides, I would rather fight that and many other issues at a local level than federal level

 

[ronpaulitician]

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

Agree, but even though I am pro-choice (and can never see myself infringing the right of any individual to fully control his or her own body), I think we need to determine where individuality starts. I don't think you can have a federal government to protect life, liberty and property without defining what life and liberty mean.