Would you support a pro-choice liberty candidate?

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I'm just curious to hear your opinions on this. Assuming the candidate was pro-choice but good on every other issue, like a Ron Paul or Thomas Massie. What would be your level of support?

Also the same criteria except add on non-religious background.

 

[AuH20]

I guess if he was great on everything else.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

Yes, I support Gary Johnson.

 

[Neil Desmond]

I do support pro-choice candidates. I'm opposed to candidates who think that government should make their choices for them.

People should be able to choose whether they want healthcare or not, how much they want to pay their employees, what school they want to send their children to, whether they want to own, carry, and conceal weapons or not, whether they want to have sex or not, whether they want to have children or not, whether they want to smoke pot or not, etc.

 

[Nic]

Yes. Abortion is pretty much the last issue I have any concern for.

 

[oyarde]

I'm just curious to hear your opinions on this. Assuming the candidate was pro-choice but good on every other issue, like a Ron Paul or Thomas Massie. What would be your level of support?

Also the same criteria except add on non-religious background.

Yes , probably , I am assuming the opponent would be bad on everything else as all national office Dems are....

 

[Christian Liberty]

I have seriously mixed feelings about this. I guess I should say "it depends." (note that in this thread I am using the term "pro-choice" solely to refer to an abortion. I actually rather like Neil Desmond's point, and think the terminology WRT this debate is kind of dumb, but I'm using the term in the way the OP intended it.)

Take Gary Johnson. Technically, he was pro-choice. But he didn't want to impose his view on the entire country. As rarely as he seemed to care about the 10th amendment, he did on this issue (interestingly, as much as Ron Paul does care about the 10th amendment, the only areas that I know of where he has compromised on it relate to this issue.) I believe Peter Schiff is also pro-choice, but believes it is a state-level issue.

This is different, in my mind, than the Democratic Party stance which wants to impose legalized murder on the entire country.

To some extent, it would also probably depend on whether the alternative was pro-choice or pro-life. If both candidates supported abortion rights, but one was great on everything else and the other candidate generally sucked, I'd be more likely to vote for the otherwise great candidate, whereas if one candidate sucked but was pro-life while the other was pro-choice but otherwise great, I'd be more likely to waste my vote or not vote at all.

I don't know, there's probably an extreme situation that would cause me to deviate from this, but in general, I would not support any candidate who was OK with Roe v Wade, no matter what else they supported. However, if the candidate at least recognized the 10th amendment with regards to this issue, I'd start looking at everything else.

 

[MichaelDavis]

I do support pro-choice candidates. I'm opposed to candidates who think that government should make their choices for them.

You mean Ron Paul?

 

[Christian Liberty]

You mean Ron Paul?

I don't think Neil is taking a position on abortion. I think Neil is mocking the fact that the term "pro-choice" is thrown around as if someone who is "pro-choice" actually supports liberty. When in reality most of the time they support the government making almost every choice for us, except whether or not to murder our children in the womb.

 

[eduardo89]

No. I would never support any candidate who would vote to continue or expand government-sanctioned murder of the unborn.

When it comes to voting I could only vote for a pro-'choice' candidate if the alternative were much worse on every other issue and abortion was not one of the major issues for the 'better' pro-'choice' candidate.

 

[cajuncocoa]

No. If you don't support the right to life, it's my opinion that you're not really a liberty candidate.

 

[DamianTV]

This ought to be a poll instead of post reply. Potential for conflict as not everyone here is either pro life or pro choice. That and I dont think anyone here is fond of being told what their opinions should be.

 

[TheTyke]

No. There's no such thing. Without life, there can be no liberty.

 

[Neil Desmond]

You mean Ron Paul?

Yep, but he isn't a non-religious background (former) candidate.

 

[lib3rtarian]

I'm just curious to hear your opinions on this. Assuming the candidate was pro-choice but good on every other issue, like a Ron Paul or Thomas Massie. What would be your level of support?

Absolutely, with the following caveats:

1) No tax-payer funding of abortions. (You abort your kid with your own money.)
2) Roe v. Wade must still be overturned and abortion legislated at the state level.

Also the same criteria except add on non-religious background.

Absolutely, I am non-religious myself.

 

[Valli6]

I would support.

 

[Neil Desmond]

I don't think Neil is taking a position on abortion. I think Neil is mocking the fact that the term "pro-choice" is thrown around as if someone who is "pro-choice" actually supports liberty. When in reality most of the time they support the government making almost every choice for us, except whether or not to murder our children in the womb.

Yeah, basically something like this. I never saw any mention or use of the word abortion, up to that point. If the context of abortion is specified, then I'm aware that "pro-choice" is associated with so-called "abortion rights" and "pro-life" is associated with making abortion illegal or abortion alternatives, etc.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The religious background thing is of minimal relevance to me. Most Republicans (and Democrats, to a slightly lesser extent) use religious belief as a manipulative tool to trick gullible Christians. I was bummed to find out, as I read Ron Paul's response to Rothbard's death, that Ron's Christian theology seems like its pretty awful (Ron seems to think that Rothbard was "God's own", despite Rothbard being an atheist.) I already knew that Ron was really wishy washy on homosexuality as a moral issue. He's still the best congress has ever had, and the relative weakness of his theology on non-political matters was mostly irrelevant.

Now, given a choice between a liberty candidate who was a Christian, and one who was not, I'd side with the Christian if both of them were identical on issues. But that would be a dream scenario anyway. Even getting one candidate with a shot at winning who supports liberty is a miracle most times.

 

[Origanalist]

Absolutely, with the following caveats:

1) No tax-payer funding of abortions. (You abort your kid with your own money.)
2) Roe v. Wade must still be overturned and abortion legislated at the state level.



Absolutely, I am non-religious myself.

I am solidly pro life. However I must agree with this. Also, I would never live in a pro abortion state if I had a choice.

edit; Also, if Roe v Wade were overturned, the number of States allowing abortion would be small in my opinion.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I am solidly pro life. However I must agree with this. Also, I would never live in a pro abortion state if I had a choice.

Yeah, I agree with that to. I basically said the same thing, only in a more-long winded way.

I didn't even address the tax-payer funding because I thought that was a given. Much as I don't like it, I understand some libertarians seem to think the NAP doesn't apply until birth. But there's absolutely ZERO room for debate on the funding issue.