Not Happy with Iowa Infomercial...

[Naraku]

Wow, really, really good points. I especially like the one that we should not legalize it just because some people might do it, just like we should not legalize murder, just because some people might do it anyways.

Well the real problem is a lot of pro-choice individuals will try to argue about rape, incest, and so forth, but the vast majority of cases are really just people not practicing safe sex. Nothing more, nothing less.

For instance condoms, when used properly, have a 99% rate of success. Also, one that requires no chemicals or condoms or anything is simply avoid ovulation periods. When people use this method by simply not having sex around when the women is ovulating and use it effectively it also has a 99% chances of success. In other words, simply having sex at different times can have the same effectiveness as using a condom. If the two are used together you basically have a 1 in 10,000 chance of having a pregnancy.

Problem is, many people won't use either because they don't want to wait or they feel it makes things less enjoyable. Then, when they do, they don't take care to use those methods properly and so they end up getting pregnant.

Never mind abstinence is 100% effective. Whenever this is brought up people always bring up rape, but that's like 1% of all abortions and most of the time it's not because of the rape, but because of normal reasons like finances, rape was simply the cause of the pregnancy. Most women who get pregnant from rape want to have the child and enjoy having the child and it actually is a generally positive outcome of a negative experience.

The only argument of any worth is protecting the life of the mother and according to Ron Paul, who is an expert in this field, this is rarely necessary and through his career never was.

People who bother to look at the statistics and the state of mind would know the problem with unwanted pregnancies is not the pregnancy, but most often the individuals involved.

And just as a sidenote, I was referring to the 99% that believe in abortion not 99% of the Democrats.

Oh yes, but I still think that's a bit much. I think there are quite a few, for instance, who simply want to limit the amount of abortions, rather than make them illegal. I used to be of that view and I can respect that view more than people who are blatantly pro-choice. I can even respect the eugenics-style argument even if I think they're completely wrong since it's at least understandable.

However, to claim abortion is not wrong, is actually a civil right and a religious issue is just astounding and irreconcilable to me. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[phree]

Dr. Paul's supporters can't even agree about abortion and yet some people think it's wise to begin an ad with it...

 

[Akus]

I'm in Iowa right now visiting relatives over Christmas. Politics is crazy here. Every day, the political phone words words words.....

Here's the YouTube of the informercial in question:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQNWHmiGj-k
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wekzQrQfacg

404
Reason to be sad or otherwise dissatisfied not found.

 

[PledgeForPaul]

It is a real easy argument to win. Just explain to them that Ron Paul being a scholar of the constitution believes that Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional based on the fact that it interferes with state rights. Paul believes that it should be left up for the states to decide. As the President it is more important for him to protect all life and liberty.

The same argument could be made about keeping slavery at the state level. You are making the core issue of what life is to an incorrect binary definition when you reduce the argument to "protecting life".

This thread is not making me lose faith in Ron Paul supporters so much as it is making me lose faith in America.

 

[PledgeForPaul]

However, to claim abortion is not wrong, is actually a civil right and a religious issue is just astounding and irreconcilable to me. It just doesn't make sense.

A religious issue is what the pro-life side requires to define life at conception. A scientific non-religious viewpoint would define life either at a point of significant neural activity or where roe vs wade currently defines it (when the fetus can live independent of the mother).

 

[nc4rp]

some people are incapable of comprehending the logic of Dr. Paul. Those are the same people who say "im a democrat, my daddy was a democrat, and my daddy's daddy was a democrat, and I'd vote democratic if it was MICKY MOUSE running for office."

- I have actually heard this, for real.

 

[literatim]

Dr. Paul's supporters can't even agree about abortion and yet some people think it's wise to begin an ad with it...

We mostly aren't Iowan, not alone Iowan Republicans.

 

[richk]

some people are incapable of comprehending the logic of Dr. Paul. Those are the same people who say "im a democrat, my daddy was a democrat, and my daddy's daddy was a democrat, and I'd vote democratic if it was MICKY MOUSE running for office."

- I have actually heard this, for real.

I have heard this on the Republican side, also. Hell, they cannot even admit they made a mistake in Iraq. (30 yr Republican, btw).

In fact, I have more liberal friends that like Paul than Republican friends. Go figure. Not hard if you think about it.

Quit trying to be divisive.

 

[literatim]

I have heard this on the Republican side, also. Hell, they cannot even admit they made a mistake in Iraq. (30 yr Republican, btw).

In fact, I have more liberal friends that like Paul than Republican friends. Go figure. Not hard if you think about it.

Quit trying to be divisive.

Ask them if they support Clinton going into Kosovo.

 

[adwads]

I'm sick of all of these posts saying that being pro-choice is not a valid position. 1/3 of people on this forum are pro-choice. Do you really want to drive away 1/3 of Dr. Paul's support?? All that we, as pro-choicers, are asking is that the informercial ACCURATELY state Dr. Paul's position, which is that he is PERSONALLY pro-life, but that each state should decide the issue for itself. The infomerical DOES NOT accurately state RP's position, hence the dislike for the informercial

 

[richk]

Ask them if they support Clinton going into Kosovo.

When did this forum become Rep vs. Dem? I thought we were all on the same side?

 

[adwads]

When did this forum become Rep vs. Dem? I thought we were all on the same side?

I know, we need to knock it off...Not everybody who is pro-choice is a liberal democrat. I'm a libertarian and I'm pro-choice. Everybody just deal with it.

 

[V4Vendetta]

That infomercial is not for Liberal's! It's targeted to the state of Iowa, which is conservative.

 

[adwads]

That infomercial is not for Liberal's! It's targeted to the state of Iowa, which is conservative.

RP shouldn't pander like other politicians do. He should state his positions fully and accurately no matter which group he is talking to.

 

[rs3515]

There have been several people on this thread spreading misinformation about the Iowa caucus. First, to be absolutely clear, the Iowa caucus is NOT an open caucus. It is closed. This means the individual must be registered with the appropriate party prior to participating.

They can register the night of the caucus, but the likelihood of someone switching from Democrat to Republican is much lower than someone switching from "no party" to Republican. That's why we've been focused on the no party voters for the Letter Writing Campaign.

As for the whole discussion on using Dr. Paul's pro-life position in the infomercial, it's absolutely the right way to go. People in Iowa want to know this. I'm sure some Iowans who have heard about Dr. Paul get the sense he sounds more like a Democrat (anti-war, focused on civil liberties, etc.). This knocks it out of the park right from the beginning ... he is a conservative and he follows Republican ideals. It is immediately going to make the viewer more receptive to hearing what's next.

 

[Naraku]

PledgeForPaul

This thread is not making me lose faith in Ron Paul supporters so much as it is making me lose faith in America.

Agreed. What kind of country are we living in when people think women shouldn't be allowed to kill their babies?

A religious issue is what the pro-life side requires to define life at conception. A scientific non-religious viewpoint would define life either at a point of significant neural activity or where roe vs wade currently defines it (when the fetus can live independent of the mother).

I'm not religious and I'm pro-life so where does your crackerjack logic apply to me?

Abortion is not a religious issue or a civil rights issue. It's a human rights issue. No legitimate scientist would say an organism is not truly alive until there's brain activity. It's simply not true. Trees don't have brains but they are undoubtedly alive and they don't grow any brains over the years, let alone a few months like an embryo.

It's laughable that anyone could possibly assert an embryo is not alive. What kind of junk science are you using?

richk

When did this forum become Rep vs. Dem? I thought we were all on the same side?

Just because we all support Ron Paul for President doesn't mean we all take the same positions and some people, myself included, are quite adamant about the whole not killing babies thing.

 

[adwads]

As for the whole discussion on using Dr. Paul's pro-life position in the infomercial, it's absolutely the right way to go. People in Iowa want to know this. I'm sure some Iowans who have heard about Dr. Paul get the sense he sounds more like a Democrat (anti-war, focused on civil liberties, etc.). This knocks it out of the park right from the beginning ... he is a conservative and he follows Republican ideals. It is immediately going to make the viewer more receptive to hearing what's next.

RP is risking losing all of his pro-choice support by not explaining that he would leave abortion up to the states

 

[adwads]

PledgeForPaul



Agreed. What kind of country are we living in when people think women shouldn't be allowed to kill their babies?



I'm not religious and I'm pro-life so where does your crackerjack logic apply to me?

Abortion is not a religious issue or a civil rights issue. It's a human rights issue. No legitimate scientist would say an organism is not truly alive until there's brain activity. It's simply not true. Trees don't have brains but they are undoubtedly alive and they don't grow any brains over the years, let alone a few months like an embryo.

It's laughable that anyone could possibly assert an embryo is not alive. What kind of junk science are you using?

richk



Just because we all support Ron Paul for President doesn't mean we all take the same positions and some people, myself included, are quite adamant about the whole not killing babies thing.

Let's NOT have a debate about abortion here--it would be unproductive. You're alienating all the pro-choice people on these forums by implying that they like to murder babies. The fact is that 1/3 of RP's supporters are pro-choice, so you have to learn to live with them.

 

[nullzero]

RP is risking losing all of his pro-choice support by not explaining that he would leave abortion up to the states

Dont think that will happen if he gets republican nomination.... He could just focus again more on the state rights on the issue. Rommey and the rest of the crew flip flop on everything and do 100X more micro targeting on issues then RP even did. If you want to win this corrupt game you got to do the same micro targeting... its the corrupt and broken political system in place that causes this. If all states had the nomination on the same day we would not have this problem.

 

[grizzums]

I'm just glad Dr. Paul is wise enough to understand that a divisive subject like this is best to be sorted out by the states.

I'm happy to support to candidacy of RP as I wouldn't even think about supporting the candidacy of some of this forums members.