Nevada GOP drops Pro-Life Platform

Tywysog Cymru

Member
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
3,167
http://www.reviewjournal.com/politi...inst-abortions-gay-marriage-endorses-sandoval

They also dropped opposition to gay marriage and endorsed Sandoval.

Amid raucous debate, Nevada Republican Party conventioneers on Saturday stripped opposition to gay marriage and abortion from the party platform and endorsed Gov. Brian Sandoval for governor in the June 10 primary despite misgivings by conservatives, his criticism of the process and his absence from the meeting...

By a show of hands, convention-goers adopted the platform as proposed by a separate committee without the two planks on marriage and abortion, following the Clark County GOP’s lead in removing hot-button social issues from the party’s statement of its principles. Some 520 delegates attended the convention, but less than half were present when the platform was adopted at about 7:30 p.m. Little debate preceded the vote, a far contrast to earlier in day.
State party Chairman Michael McDonald said it was a successful convention at the end of the day.
“I think it was about inclusion, not exclusion,” McDonald said, referring to the platform. “This is where the party is going.”
Republicans who sat on the platform committee said they decided not to deal with social issues this year because the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have weighed in and it doesn’t make sense for the party of “personal freedom” to have the government or the political party get involved in people’s personal lives...

Of course, they talk about personal liberties while doing this. It seems like personal liberties only apply to abortion in today's political atmosphere.
 
This is the Ron Paul guys, right? If so, I agree, esp. on the gay marriage thing. Fiscal issues and civil liberties should come first. Social issues are a boondoggle. We continually lose elections because of it.
 
I do not think they could still be considered "Paul people" if they are pro-death since Ron/Rand are pro-life.

Well, there are a LOT of us who are Paul people, but who don't share the doctrinaire "ban all abortions" position. The reason why we started fighting over this immediately is exactly why this should not be part of any platform, and folks can just believe what they want.
 
I don't care. I personally do care but politically the GOP's stance seems unwinnable and a turnoff to many that could agree with them on many other things. I say this as someone who has had heated debates about abortion with the few liberal friends that I have. That topic seems to be the go-to debate if the demopublican vs repulicrat issue comes up. The things we can agree on are many but that abortion topic seems to not win very many over.
 
This takes away some of the stuff the medias like to talk about during election season. It makes it harder to put D and R in neat little columns, and encourages the voters to engage the candidates more.
 
Don't we have better things to do then weaken our stance on protecting life? For crying out loud, Ron Paul left his church over them not defending life!

Don't we have better things to do then spending time trying to support legislation that puts more people in jail? Hey I'm all for stopping abortion but I am not at all about doing it by legislation.
 
I don't care. I personally do care but politically the GOP's stance seems unwinnable and a turnoff to many that could agree with them on many other things. I say this as someone who has had heated debates about abortion with the few liberal friends that I have. That topic seems to be the go-to debate if the demopublican vs repulicrat issue comes up. The things we can agree on are many but that abortion topic seems to not win very many over.

The Liberty movement has a lot of unpopular stances that are unlikely to win people over. And protecting life is one of the most important civil rights issues of the 21st century, we shouldn't abandon it.
 
And protecting life is one of the most important civil rights issues of the 21st century, we shouldn't abandon it.

No, it's not. That's utter BS. You do understand why some libertarians don't want to give the power to the State (a State which they don't trust) to come in and tell families what they can do with the pregnancies, right? Each pregnancy is different, and there are some real reasons on why abortions are sometimes necessary. If you don't like abortions, don't get one, but don't be a Statist about it and tell me what to do.

If you want to stop abortions by public awareness campaigns, please knock yourself out. Don't make laws which ruin people's lives. There's nothing libertarian about putting a mother to death for having an abortion to save her life.
 
No, it's not. That's utter BS. You do understand why some libertarians don't want to give the power to the State (a State which they don't trust) to come in and tell families what they can do with the pregnancies, right? Each pregnancy is different, and there are some real reasons on why abortions are sometimes necessary. If you don't like abortions, don't get one, but don't be a Statist about it and tell me what to do.

If you want to stop abortions by public awareness campaigns, please knock yourself out. Don't make laws which ruin people's lives. There's nothing libertarian about putting a mother to death for having an abortion to save her life.

So, let's legalize murder. There'd be less people in prisons.

Less than 1 per cent of abortions are to save the woman's life. As technology advances, that number will decrease. And most pro-lifers make an exception for that case anyway.

Most Libertarians oppose Roe v Wade as an overreach by the federal government. Even pro-choice Libertarians want the states to decide so people can vote with their feet.
 
Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty
by Congressman Ron Paul
Libertarians for Life,1981
Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.

Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.

We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.

A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.

A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.

We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.

I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.
 
So, let's legalize murder. There'd be less people in prisons.

Less than 1 per cent of abortions are to save the woman's life. As technology advances, that number will decrease. And most pro-lifers make an exception for that case anyway.

Most Libertarians oppose Roe v Wade as an overreach by the federal government. Even pro-choice Libertarians want the states to decide so people can vote with their feet.

If you really believe abortion is murder, then why is it ok to murder an innocent child because it threatens the health of the mother? if you truly believe what you say, then the mother and fetus has equal right to life and both should be let to stick it out and let the fittest survive. The problem with this issue is that it cannot be policed like regular murder. A pregnant woman can take a pill she is not supposed to take by "accident" or fall by "accident" or maybe use a coat hanger to do the job.

We just have to say no at abortion police and try and use the power of persuasion to win people over. I think this is a good move by the Nevada GOP, no longer will the dems use the wedge issue to divide us while they steal our money and run our lives for us
 
So, let's legalize murder. There'd be less people in prisons.

Less than 1 per cent of abortions are to save the woman's life. As technology advances, that number will decrease. And most pro-lifers make an exception for that case anyway.

Most Libertarians oppose Roe v Wade as an overreach by the federal government. Even pro-choice Libertarians want the states to decide so people can vote with their feet.

I do agree that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned, because it's an overreach.
 
Back
Top