4 votes

The Youth, War, and Why Progressive Women Should Support Ron Paul

I've been working on this article for the last week while traveling around Denver. Started on the Amtrak last weekend, and finally sat myself down for the night to finish it. I hope this helps bring the support of women to the campaign:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

My two cents


Remove initial picture. It makes women look like they should be baby factories for soldiers (that is what the Nazis did and Al Queida does now).

Remove the first quote...too simple.


Change the Heading "Roe v. Wade and Abortion" to "What about Abortion?"

In that heading, keep: the gandhi quote, the first paragraph, Ron Paul's quote, and the "Dr. Paul has even recently stated..."

Delete everything else in that paragraph.


Move previous paragraph under this heading.


You could dramatically improve your persuasiveness by using more empathetic tone (you, your, etc). In fact, there are more "I" sentences than "you" sentences. "We" sentences are weak "you" sentences. And about half of your piece is written in third (boring) person.

Rewrite the whole thing in empathetic tone..."you", "your", "we", etc. Also add more of what's in it for them.

You are off to a great start. But the secret of great writing is rewriting.

BMWJIM's picture

This post will NOT bring women to the campaign.

This is a divisive post as you will see from below. It should be eliminated NOW!I have not seen one intellegengt women post thus far, This is a post to divide and nothing else!


1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.

Abortion is a divisive issue

That was the point of the post/article. No matter which "side" you take you are creating division. My point, the point I try to make in the article, that we need to move past this issue and look at what is important, and what we agree on.

I've had a lot of good responses to this article, some really good constructive criticism, and only a few negative comments such as yours and Mr. Spocks. I knew this wouldn't be an easy topic to cover, but I felt it was important to try.

Here's a response from "Birdlady" on the RonPaulForums:

"I posted this on my FB wall late last night before I went to bed and this morning I woke up to "Oh wow I really like Ron Paul" from people I had NO IDEA even knew who he was. This was a really good article for those on the fence and gives them some food for thought.

Thanks for posting this!"

You can check out the conversation there:


Also look at the "Thanks..." comment on this thread.

When I bring up Ron Paul around progressive groups there is always one bitter, angry, hateful, and ego-centric person that feels the need to attack me and the good Doctor.

I continue to move forward, despite rare opposition, because I believe in a better world, I believe that the Bible is right when it speak of God's Kingdom reborn on Earth. I am not religious, but I do think that love will overcome fear, and that we can solve all our problems if we work together.

What I've found however is that some people live in the fight. All they know is the fight. So when solutions, or people who are willing to put differences aside, come to the table, they must attack them, because they threaten the identity they have develop of being the victim, of being the warrior.

Most soldiers are happy when the war is over, because they truly fought for peace, but some live for war, exist in war, and will fight to keep it.

Abortion is a divisive issue, that is the point of my article, and its intent was to try to defuse it, if even just a little, and if even for just a few.

Jack Wagner

Somehow we need to move past RoeVWade

The problem is MEN are never part of the equation to the solution of ending abortion. This needs to change. Abortion should be ON DEMAND and both parties should be sterlized. There's a solution to end abortion.

Also, Ron Paul comes from the position of a OB-GYN who, "could be sued". It's against the law to teminate a wanted baby. It's the unwanted ones that women are VERY concerned. For example, recently a birth control company recalled EIGHT types of oral contraceptives for putting them in the wrong order. http://thesouthend.wayne.edu/index.php/article/2011/09/distr... Certainly, this is going to produce unwanted pregnancies, to women like Doctors, who owe $100K on medical school loans, same for any professional woman, the kind who take care of themselves and appreciate freedom. In a case like this, the Church would say it's God's will. But that's where women come to depend on the government, for rights, to earn a living that no one can provide for them, or not be a Mommy, or have to marry someone that the attraction was superficial. Pro-Choice is why so many women are Democrats.

War on Drugs is a class war more than a racist war, despite a majority of Hispanics, who are the majority in CA. The poorest of the poor are the biggest victims, no matter what color.

Nice blog! Write on


... no doubt, if there are disagreements, so be it. Great article. I was staunchly pro-life, until these pro-lifers in the pulpit, the pews and among GOP candidates acted as Bush's cheerleaders for his oil wars that killed more than a million innocent people.

My wife volunteers at a pregnancy resource center, saving one child at a time. That's the way to deal with the issue, at the coal face, personal counseling. It takes effort that cannot be outsourced to slimy politicians.

Warmongering pro-lifers are proof that the GOP Politburo has targeted abortion as just another issue by which to bait and hook the gullible. It starts off as a pro-life campaign and pretty soon a million people lie dying on the streets of oil rich Arab countries. Iran next, and they'll do it, because they can rely on the pro-lifers to support their cause.

Plano TX

So you are no longer pro-life because some other idiot

who said he was pro-life was also pro-war?

How does that change your own views on life?

I think, I hope I'm not overstepping to say this . . .

that sleuth51 has the same problem *I* have . . .

I really don't want to identify with the militant pro-life movement, since it isn't sincerely pro-life.

I am still not in favor of abortion, but I won't align with the warmongering pro-lifers.

It's awkward and unhappy, but *they* hijacked *us*.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Only if you let them. I think maybe you are giving too much

emphasis to labels and identity via labels.

I personally love to see the look of shock on people's faces when, after they find out I am pro-life, they then try to "snare me" with a snide remark about how I of course though, support the death penalty, and I tell them, "no - pro-life is pro-life, I do not support the death penalty." They usually don't know where to put themselves after that. Some then try to latch on to "yeah, but your type supports warmongering." To which again, I astonish them with my views that war should be rarely fought and only after a declaration issued once we are attacked. (I hold a similar position on self defense - only when absolutely necessary to ensure my own survival in a "them or me" situation, would I employ lethal force.)

I then politely chastise them for making assumptions about me before asking my positions, and that if they stopped labeling people and took people at their word and face value, we'd all find much more common ground.

Works every time!

Consistency is key. If you aren't consistent, you are wasting your energy on one track or the other.

good work--

I'm talking about the . . .

mailings spouse and I received for a year or so, regularly, from various 'pro-life' groups, featuring warmongering high profile people as . . . speakers for fund raisers--!

We used to be involved with these groups, but when we saw how inconsistent these groups were . . . we threw the brochures away. We used to support them; not any more.

You're a good 'example'. :)

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Ah, I understand now. Yes, I don't pay any mind to those either

I even had some take me off their lists and told them why. They are generally clueless. They like death, but only if they get to do the deciding of who lives and dies.

They don't change my own positions though, nor does their inconsistency cause me to change me calling myself pro-life. They are the "impostors" in that regard.

progressively backward you mean


I changed it to clarify my audience

Kind of my point, no matter how this is worded someone can find a problem with it.

I wanted to speak to "pro-choice" women about defusing the fear of Ron Paul Pro-Life position and putting it in perspective of his entire platform.

I took the caveat "[Despite His View on Abortion]" - I'm going to leave it how it is now, otherwise I'll have to edit it a million times to make everyone happy :)

I love that people are passionate about this, hopefully we can find a way to defuse the division this issue causes us.

Jack Wagner

Pro-death is not Pro-Paul

The opposite of pro-life is not pro-choice, it is pro-death. "Pro-choice" and "Reproductive Rights" are simply euphemisms for being pro-death. Unless you have life, you have no rights to liberty or property. And murder is murder, no matter the geography of the situation - a "right" certainly no one has. Do you have the "choice" to commit murder? Yes. The right? No.

Also, this is not a "woman's issue" - half of the babies that are murdered are male. The article is a load of crap and a denigration of Dr. Paul ("Despite his views on abortion.") Dr. Paul's beliefs, and more importantly, his actions ("as he thinks in his heart, so is he" - Proverbs 23:7) are a direct reflection of his search for, and promotion of, truth. Attacking him on this issue is indistinguishable from attacking his very core as a person and his years as a medical doctor where he used his skills to bring life, not take it.

As Tom Woods said in his "How to Make History for Ron Paul" video the other day, we shouldn't trick people into voting for Ron Paul. It is dishonest to try to twist Dr. Paul's views into something that is palatable to the pro-death crowd. Tell the truth, be honest, and let the chips fall where they may. Use Dr. Paul's tactic of persuading people that have incorrect views - don't lie to them like politicians do merely to get votes. Of course, if your view is wrong in the first place, you can't do that, can you?

The article asks, "Do you allow the continued killing of millions of women and children overseas through our multiple Wars"

Yeah, we don't want millions killed overseas, but it's ok to kill millions here at home.

"the continued deaths and mental illness thrust upon U.S. Soldier (Sons and Daughters)"

What about the mental health issues that aborting babies causes? Here's an article on that subject from just the other day


"and the continued destruction of families and communities at home through the War on Drugs"

Yeah, but destroying families by murdering babies? No problem.

This article is nothing more than support for murder - something ANY person of ANY political persuasion should be opposed to. And we certainly know Dr. Paul is. How someone could claim to be a Ron Paul supporter and support aborting children is beyond me. Remembering our God-given rights are life, liberty, and property, I don't know how anyone that claims to believe in those rights can support taking human life at its most innocent and defenseless stage, which then denies that person's opportunity to experience all other rights.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

I have always considered

I have always considered myself pro-choice. However, I do not consider myself "pro-choice" or "pro-life" ever since my entry into libertarianism. I don't agree that the state should help fund it with taxpayers money, and I also believe in states rights therefore I believe that Roe v. Wade should still be overturned. I *understand* why many libertarians are pro-life, and why Dr. Paul is as well. I do NOT criticize pro-life positions from those like Ron Paul or others because their positions are very well thought out and principled, and they have a good reason to be rather than just using it to get votes.

That said, while I agree that abortions are immoral and shouldn't be done, I find it difficult to figure out how such a crime can be enforced by the government. Do we arrest the mother, the doctor or both? And isn't it still logical that making it illegal won't stop people from getting them, and we will just be pushing it underground into the black market. We've seen how well the war on drugs actually stopped drug use.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be good advocacy and education on the subject, or that individuals shouldn't be given ALL other options instead of being convinced that abortion is the only way to go. On the contrary I believe in making sure that everyone has the ability to find other options. However, I just don't see how it is feasible to have government, the very organization we criticize for so many things, as being the answer to this very difficult moral problem.

liberty lover in Nor Cal!

I think you are mistakenly placing prevention as the immediate


No, prevention is not. That is a side effect.

Rights are secure when justice can be had.

We have laws against infanticide. Does that drive the practice underground? Do mothers and fathers still murder their children? Do we refuse to prosecute them because being a parent is "their choice?"

I'm sure each state would come up with its own solutions to your "who do we prosecute" question, but there are only so many answers - the mother who solicits the murder, or the doctor or whomever else performs it.

I fail to comprehend the artificial distinction that one is a mother and thus only then barred from killing her child upon giving birth. If someone who kills a pregnant woman, or in anyway harms the unborn child can be charged with a count of murder or attempted murder or any injurious claim on behalf of the baby, then so to can a mother be charged with infanticide, or a doctor with murder, for performing an abortion.

We don't even need new laws. Just half-intelligent judges and juries.

People also seem to forget murder trials get juries. So yes, the mother could be prosecuted. Will she get convicted? That's an entirely different prospect. Would the doctor be convicted? Highly likely.

We don't even need to overturn Roe, we simply need to prosecute - in State courts - abortion doctors for murder and clinicians for accessory. That will change the issue REAL quick.

with all the points you make

with all the points you make about it going underground etc... maybe both Men and Women will think twice before they partake in an adult situation which brings about Adult responcibility.

Great Points!

I am not pro-abortion. I made a lot of back-and-forth changes in the article, but I could find no "safe way" of addressing the issue. I knew people who felt strongly on either side would find a problem with it.

That is a great article! I have said this for years that abortion isn't something to be taken lightly, and I've even written about how abortion is used to lower minority population (genocide).

I personally feel it should not be made illegal though, but would understand states that wish for it to be prevented.

There is also a legitimate case for the rights and privacy of the woman (as is the argument that got Roe v. Wade passed in the first place). I agree it is a fine line (and I understand you would see no line at all) between abortion and infanticide.

However, in cases of the woman's health, rape (forced pregnancy), incest, and damaged fetuses, it's hard to argue against allowing the woman the right to an abortion.

People who feel absolute about one side or the other won't be convinced by any argument.

You have a great point of view, mind linking that article in the comments on my article?

My intention was not to "trick" people into voting for Ron Paul, but to show how fears about his Pro-Life policy are unwarranted, and that if someone feels passionate about "Reproductive Rights" that they have options to continue that cause and support Ron Paul at the same time.

I think that if we continue to communicate without alienating each other we can prevent a greater number of abortions than we do by being divided by the issue.

Jack Wagner

Then perhaps you shouldn't have addressed the issue from that


As someone else said, make the case of Dr. Paul and let the chips fall where they may. Don't try to twist his views to make them seem palatable to someone who is not palatable to Dr. Paul.

Oh, but you are

"I am not pro-abortion."

Yes, you are. By using terms like "reproductive rights" and "legitimate case for the rights and privacy of the woman" and saying you wouldn't make it illegal, you are using double speak and directly supporting abortion. I tried to add a P.S. to my original post, and it didn't work, so I'll include my comment here: I have an instinctual distrust of someone that uses the Left's terminology - pro-choice, reproductive rights, progressives, etc. Let's not cave to them on calling evil people, concepts or philosophies what they really are.

"However, in cases of the woman's health, rape (forced pregnancy), incest, and damaged fetuses, it's hard to argue against allowing the woman the right to an abortion."

No, it isn't. But that's another of the bogus pro-death arguments, because the percentage of those situations is so small yet it is used to support wholesale slaughter of unborn babies.

"People who feel absolute about one side or the other won't be convinced by any argument."

Like everything else you have written on the subject, that is also untrue. There are many women who were once pro-abortion, and after having one and dealing with the guilt it caused have become very pro-life. Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe - who lied about being raped) has been part of the pro-life movement for almost 20 years now.

"You have a great point of view, mind linking that article in the comments on my article?"

No, because I don't want you to have my email address, and I don't want to lend even minuscule support or credibility to your website.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

A few quick points:

Just watched this Ron Paul video on Abortion where he talks about cases where as a doctor he does need to remove a fetus (in cases where neither the fetus nor the woman would survive).


I said arguments won't convince, what you are pointing to are experiences in which the person made the decision to change their mind. But I guess sometimes people can be convinced by a good argument, I just find putting focus in trying to debate a change in someone is often counterproductive.

Even Ron Paul doesn't use the extreme language of "evil."

I'm glad you support him though!

Thanks for the healthy exchange!

Jack Wagner

Why appeal to Paul?

Why are you appealing to Dr. Paul on this issue, yet not espousing his views? What you mention regarding removing a fetus was not about abortion, it was about a tubal pregnancy. A very dishonest argument - bait and switch, as they say.

You appeal to a video where he discusses the issue of abortion to somehow buttress your support for abortion, yet how many abortions did he ever perform? In case you don't know, it's the number that comes before 1. He is against abortion, you are for it.

You appeal to Dr. Paul talking about an extremely rare case where a baby ends up having to be removed from the mother (again, it was not an abortion issue, and why do you use the term fetus - afraid to face the fact that it is a person?) to justify abortion on demand, instead of holding his view that it is a person from conception and should not be killed?

You claim he doesn't "use the extreme language of "evil."" You don't know if he's used that word before. He did call it an act of violence and lumped it in with murder, other crimes, and said it was more difficult than "just plain murder." He obviously considers it murder, and murder is evil. Are you going to take him to task for that? (btw, I wasn't talking about the use of the word 'evil' for people, concepts or philosophy limited only to the abortion issue. It applies to people like Bush and Obama and their actions as President. Evil is a legitimate word, has a definition, and it is not wrong to use it when applicable.) But my point is, why are you constantly appealing to Dr. Paul to promote a point of view that he doesn't? That is not intellectually honest. Dr. Paul in no way supports abortion, yet you do. Give it up. You lost.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Abortion is not a simple issue.

I honestly do not like abortions. I would never recommend one. I would be hurt if a woman aborted our child.

However, I don't not think that people I know who have had abortions are evil. I do not think they are murderers.

I do not even hate actual murderers. I do not damn them to hell. I do not apologize for them, yet I do not hate them.

Hate is a dangerous tool. It is a tool of evil, if there is such a thing.

I understand that you feel for the unborn. That you cherish the unborn and wish to prevent harm from them. I respect that.

I don't understand how you are filled with so much hate. I do not respect that.

Anger and hate are unhealthy, they will kill you.

"Man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires" (James 1:20)

"A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult." (Proverbs 12:16)

"And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." (2 Timothy 2:24)

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment ... first go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift." (Matthew 5:21-24)

"Do not say, "I'll pay you back for this wrong!" Wait for the LORD, and he will deliver you." (Proverbs 20:22)

Jack Wagner

Your pants are on fire

I am not filled with hate. I said nothing hateful to or about anyone. Once again, just like you did with your terminology, you are taking the leftist tactic of attempting to smear someone that disagrees with you by calling them a "hater."

You're not even very good at it, because you left out the words "spew" and "venom." They're always supposed to be used in these cases, too. Didn't you get the memo?

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Thank You!

I've learned my lesson in trying to have a discussion with you on differing views.

I thought this could be constructive. I was wrong.

I do see a lot of anger and immaturity in your comments. I'm sorry for pointing that out.

It has been a challenge to remain civil when talking to you. You are very good at getting under people's skin.

Thank you for the lesson.

Ron Paul 2012!

Jack Wagner

I see civility on both sides. And I don't see anger or

immaturity on his part.

I think you are reading that into what he is saying. Which tells me, you DO sit on the other side of the fence. Otherwise, you wouldn't feel "hate." If you are anti-abortion, you wouldn't feel or sense any hate in those comments.

If you feel he is under your skin, it's because he exposed your claim of being pro-life, yet remaining mired in the language of pro-death.

Your language and then your defense of it, gave you away. Your impressions of others, merely based on civil words, sealed the deal.



Jack Wagner

Changed the headline on here

Think I'll keep the original article headline, there is a decent exchange in the comment section that clarifies the point of the article.

Jack Wagner

Women's issue?

You know, I'd really like to see stats on the percentage of women who actually support abortion. I've seen plenty of women in the pro-life movement, and I've noticed many in leadership positions. Just because it's always touted in the press as a 'women's issue', does that make it so? Just like NOW says it speaks for women, well...no. It speaks for pro-abortion women. I see the "abortion is a women's issue" mantra the same as the "Paul is unelectable" mantra. The media repeating it doesn't make it so. Let's stop collectivizing women as being pro-abortion, and see them as individuals on this issue.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

And you are totally correct:



It's still pretty close, but more women are polled as being Pro-Life than Pro-Choice.


Jack Wagner

They are pro-choice until

they decide they "want" the baby growing inside them and then they will pass through hell to make sure it survives and is healthy.

Kinda duplicitous, don't ya think?

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul