Nevada GOP drops Pro-Life Platform

[cornell]

When was the last time an "average voter" gave two $hits about what was in or not in a party platform?

THIS! This is just a distraction to divide people, no one really cares what is in the party "platform"

Based on this forum I reckon the division has succeeded?

 

[DamianTV]

Wasn't Diana Orrock, RNC Committeewoman for Nevada (and woman quoted defending the platform change) a Ron Paul supporter?

She might have been. Honestly, the name doesnt sound too familiar so I dont really know. They went thru the committeeperson positions rather quickly.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

THIS! This is just a distraction to divide people, no one really cares what is in the party "platform"

Based on this forum I reckon the division has succeeded?

I have seen legislators levered around by the platform and forced to abandon bills they wanted or support bills they do not. Platforms do not much impact voters, they can, however, affect elected persons so long as there is another elected person at their elbow willing to use it as leverage.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Some of the platform-gutting in NC is simply to hide hypocrisy. There has been an anti-gambling plank in the platform for decades. I couldn't really care less myself, I don't think government belongs being involved in such a matter. HOWEVER, the NCGOP removed the anti-gambling plank for the first time ahead of the 2014 State convention, because the 2014 State convention is being held in a casino.

Of all the reasons for pulling that plank out of the platform, that HAS to be the worst and most hypocritical reason ever conceived.

It is still great progress and a victory for freedom

 

[Keith and stuff]

THIS! This is just a distraction to divide people, no one really cares what is in the party "platform"

Based on this forum I reckon the division has succeeded?

In New Hampshire, the House Republican Alliance, the most influential group in the NH House Republican Caucus, cares. It recommends votes based on the NHGOP Platform, the NH Constitution and the US Constitution. For example, people had been trying to make NH the only state with a decent jury nullification law in the nation for a decade. Thankfully, it got written into the NH platform. That's one of the reasons it became law, and now NH has the only decent jury nullification law in the nation.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It is still great progress and a victory for freedom

Sadly, not really. It will not actually affect policy, it will probably end up back in the platform come 2015, and the only purpose of the change is to hide the leadership's hypocrisy. We'd gain more to openly demonstrate to hypocrisy and maybe fix the platform forever than to simply have it missing from the platform for only a single year get a pass on the hypocrisy.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Some of the platform-gutting in NC is simply to hide hypocrisy. There has been an anti-gambling plank in the platform for decades. I couldn't really care less myself, I don't think government belongs being involved in such a matter. HOWEVER, the NCGOP removed the anti-gambling plank for the first time ahead of the 2014 State convention, because the 2014 State convention is being held in a casino.

Of all the reasons for pulling that plank out of the platform, that HAS to be the worst and most hypocritical reason ever conceived.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Sadly, not really. It will not actually affect policy, it will probably end up back in the platform come 2015, and the only purpose of the change is to hide the leadership's hypocrisy. We'd gain more to openly demonstrate to hypocrisy and maybe fix the platform forever than to simply have it missing from the platform for only a single year get a pass on the hypocrisy.

Baby steps Where I live, Republicans are more in favor of allowing big dollar gambling them Democrats, yet token opposition to big dollar gambling is still in the state platform.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I can't say about Rand, but the Ron Paul position is that protection for human life begins at implantation, not at conception - so it's not truly a pro-life position even though it's far from a pro-choice position.

If that's true, then biblically, Ron is a more accurate pro-lifer than Rand. The Bible sets forth the idea that "the life is in the blood," so to me, taking the scriptures literally, I believe that life begins when the first blood cells are manufactured by the child's body. Unless I am mistaken, taking conception as "Day 0," implantation is "Day 7 - Day 9" and the production of blood is "Day 12 - Day 14."

"Life begins at conception" is not a biblical idea, it is a political idea. It seems to be preferred because it's simply easier to vet than the actual biblical implantation/blood position. It does, however, lead to a secular politician having the ability to claim "holier than thou" over an actual believer, should that believer hold to what the scriptures actually reveal.

Given that Ron's definition more closely matches objective reality, I'm going to have to side with Ron on this and state that he has the stronger and more accurate "Pro-Life" position, as revealed by the objective truth of the Word, and not by political correctness of the day.

 

[specsaregood]

I can't say about Rand, but the Ron Paul position is that protection for human life begins at implantation, not at conception - so it's not truly a pro-life position even though it's far from a pro-choice position.

I don't think that is quite accurate. Ron's argument is both scientific and legal. He has said many times that he believes life begins at conception; BUT that it would be impossible to prove life prior to any implantation. If you can't prove that conception occurred, then you can't prove that you ended a life with any birth control.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[John F Kennedy III]

The Pro-life position doesn't address that women own their bodies. The "pro-choice" position doesn't address the life of the child. It is okay to evict, but not to kill someone who didn't even choose to be their in the first place. So you can remove the child so long as they live. Technology is getting to this point where this is possible to do earlier and earlier. Also as we advance in technology abortion will be less of an issue.

It would be like you wake up one day and suddenly there is some guy handcuffed to your porch. You ask him, "What happened". "I don't know, man. I just woke up and found myself here. I didn't even choose to do this or even mean to violate your property rights". So you help the guy. You don't shoot him in the face.

I really like Walter Block's "Evictionism". It is the only abortion position that ever made absolute sense to me.

This ^

 

[Christian Liberty]

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'm mostly indifferent to gay marriage As a political issue, at any rate. Conservatives should never have supported getting the government involved in marriage to begin with. I don't support government changing the legal definition of marriage, but its also a non-issue for me. The only way it would become an issue is if someone were running a thick type "If you aren't pro-gay marriage than you're just like the bigots who owned slaves" types of arguments. I probably couldn't support somebody who went too far in that direction. Gary Johnson was annoying with regards to it, but not terrible.

Abortion, on the other hand, well, that's an important issue to me. I'm all for decentralizing it, but at some level you're going to have to deal with it. I'd rather see traditional government eliminated entirely and for free market governments to deal with this issue, but until then, the most you can do is decentralize. The whole "pro-choice on everything" mantra doesn't really work because we could say the same for traditional murder. That said, I don't support Federal level involvement, in either abortion or murder (I realize this is redundant.) Both are state level issues under the constitution.

I do not think they could still be considered "Paul people" if they are pro-death since Ron/Rand are pro-life.

I agree, except that I wouldn't call Rand a "Paul person" despite his last name...

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 could live with this if the platform actually was neutral (or silent.) However, the LP platform's attempt at staying neutral is kind of pathetic. Any "neutral" stance that defends a "pro-choice" position, even if it does not defend abortion, is problematic.

l
Life and death are not "beliefs".

Exactly.

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!

He did? I've never heard this before. Link?

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.

Should we legalize murder then?

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.

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.

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

I'm not gay and I'm not a fetus, and I'm certainly not a gay fetus. However, on this day, I am a victim of armed theft on a massive, massive scale.