7 votes

Ron Paul or Gary Johnson and the Abortion Issue

So I'm going back and forth on whom to vote for next month. I know the many arguments for voting for Gary Johnson and for writing in Ron Paul.

Though, I would like to add to the percentage of folks who voted for Johnson in order to make a statement, I lean more towards voting for the candidate that I align with the most.

One of the biggest problems I have with Gary Johnson is that I am a libertarian that believes that a child in the womb is a life deserving of protection. Now, please let's not get into the abortion argument here, but I have two specific questions that will help me:

1. For you pro-choice Libertarians, why would you vote for Ron Paul who is so staunchly pro-life?

2. To you pro-life Libertarians, why would you compromise on this issue to vote for Gary Johnson?

Comment viewing options

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

I am pro-life

That was one of the main reasons I liked George W. Bush before I woke up. Oddly, with a pro-life president and a Republican House and Senate, pretty much nothing happened to truly limit abortion. I have decided that both the Republicans and Democrats mean to keep abortion as a distraction to keep us from attacking the real problems that are going on at the Federal level.

After learning from Ron Paul that abortion should be a state issue, and seeing that Johnson agrees with that position, I am comfortable voting for Johnson. To me the much larger pro-life issue is the unending warfare that the current system promotes, and I feel that voting for Gary Johnson is the best shot I have at making a dent in that.

Add in his stands against the Patriot Act, NDAA and other violations of our rights, and I have no problem voting for Johnson.

You've hit the nail on the head there re

distraction.

Great post and I say that as someone who would probably be called pro-choice. Imho both sides are guilty of using abortion as something to energize their base rather than something they have any real intention of changing one way or another.

It's a privacy issue with me

Where do any of us get off telling someone that believes differently what is right and wrong. We no nothing of the individual situation of anyone facing this decision. Besides the fact we have way more important issues to deal with. I myself am pro life. I will not stand in the way of anyone elses decision to give birth or whom to marry. Neither one has a direct impact on my life and even the good lord allowed us the choice to believe or not believe. This is a issue that is best left for the individual to decide on. I say butt out and mind your own business. IT's called individual liberty and I am a firm supporter of that.

The fetus "deserves" protection?

This is the type of logic that allows abortion to be a FABULOUS divide and conquer tactic. Who told you that life would be distributed fairly, and we would get what we deserve?
Motherhood is a sacred role. Why do you even consider basing your vote upon the notion of getting between a woman and her creator (not to mention up her goochie?)
The Creator gave us herbs to wash our womb, for we can be raped and there is no justice in forcing a woman to perpetuate the DNA of a rapist.
Which is it that you want someone else to decide for you, your moral decisions or your healthcare ones?
Abortion is NOT something we will all ever agree on, and knowing this, it will be a perennial "election issue" until we all grow up enough to STOP trying to impose our moral standards on others at the ballot box.
You all may succeed in making abortion illegal again. Did having it be illegal stop abortions before? (In case you are too young to remember, it did not.) Time to grow up, learn to live and let live.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

As I always say, you may have

As I always say, you may have a right to remove the fetus from your body. But you don't have a right to kill it. The goal of the abortionist is always to kill the fetus. If by accident it is delivered alive, they kill it in short order.

Rape is a rare case, and it may be that abortion is a justifiable homicide in that case. But make no mistake, a person still died.

So much for live and let live.

"herbs to wash your womb"?? how silly !!!

having murder be illegal has never stopped murders. so let's make murder legal too.

nr

A rational fence-sitter

It seems that people automatically assume that someone is either passionately pro-life, or passionately pro-choice. I am neither, and see valid points in both sides' arguments. I see the issue as a conflict of 2 human rights, made more complex by the lack of a universal definition of exactly when an unborn infant is considered to be a person in his or her own right. I also think that the entire debate is effectively moot when it comes to presidential elections. Abortion policy was set by the Supreme Court in 1974. It hasn't changed since then, regardless of who was president, and despite constant screaming from both sides. The abortion issue is therefore a distraction in my mind when it comes to choosing a candidate. I support Ron Paul wholeheartedly. I accept his pro-life position as sincere and rational. I support Gary Johnson because he's the best option I have left on the ballot here in Virginia. I accept his (mostly) pro-choice position as sincere and rational. I also recognize that the solution proposed by both men is to leave the problem to the states. I agree absolutely with that solution, so effectively there is no difference between the two on the issue.

What can a POTUS

do about Abortion? Write an executive order? Well I'm against Executive orders, no matter what they are for. Only congress can stop abortion by amending the constitution (that is the only way the SC can be over-ruled.)

Abortion is an issue pols use to divide us. There are too many issues that will effect the whole world, so I will keep my pro-life stance understanding any POTUS has zero control over it, and vote for GJ.

Also, GJ has issues that concern me more than his abortion stance, so I'm basically just voting for him to stick it to the GOP like the GOP stuck it to the delegates who sacrificed their time to be at the RNC.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

Abortion is not even a issue

Abortion is not even a issue and shouldn't be a govt topic. It's not about war or the economy. Abortion is all ready legal and that will never change. a candidate who has a stand against abortion doesnt mean he is going to reverse anything and its just another adversion issues from the real issues. Abortion is a personal decision and should be kept out of govt. I am voting for Gary because I believe in liberty and because Ron Paul isn't running. Write in is pointless because not all states do write ins.

1. Because you are sick of

1. Because you are sick of being manipulated by the abortion issue and Ron Paul's stance upholds federalism and the rule of law.

2.(Me) Because I am sick of being manipulated on the abortion issue and will not vote on that single issue.

Voting for someone who is not running is REALLY ignorant.

Ventura 2012

Pro Choice, Pro Paul, Pro Johnson

I'm pro-Paul because Liberty works. I'm pro-Johnson because Liberty works (and intend to vote for him as it appears he will get many more counted votes than Ron Paul and thus make a larger statement).

I would not attempt to convince someone that ending a pregnacy should be ok by their faith. I will only say that protection of the unborn is unrelated to why Liberty works.

pro-life

I might be voting for the constitution party candidate, since I'm not fond of Gary Johnsons stance on this issue.

pro-life but voting Johnson

I am also not for gay marriage.

On both issues I appreciate that reasonable people differ with me.

But his stances on the other issues are so good that the benefits outweigh the downside. Ron Paul is no longer running. Johnson is running. A vote for Johnson makes a statement that it is time to end the dinosaur GOP. ON a few issues, I find Johnson even better than Paul.

Johnson told me publicly that he wants to be a national liberty leader. Dr. Paul is deservedly retiring. I see Johnson working with Rand Paul and many other promising liberty Republicans and libertarians to keep the revolution going. Vote for Johnson.

I am pro-states rights.

Ron Paul AND Gary Johnson both agree abortion is a state issue and the federal government should not have jurisdiction, as regulating aborting is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.

Some beliefs systems hold that life begins at conception while others believe the "soul" does not enter the body until a infant takes its first breath. Since no one really "knows," we should be tolerant on this issue. For those of you who may misunderstand my words, I do happen to be pro-life and support state laws regulating abortion, particularly those involving "parental rights," both of parents of minors undergoing abortion and fathers of unborn children. If these men can be held legally responsible for supporting children they helped conceive, they should also have the right to have at least some say regarding terminating a pregnancy.

Denise B's picture

I couldn't disagree more

with your statement "since no one really "knows" we should be tolerant on this issue". To me, that's the same as saying, I don't really know for sure if vaccines cause autism, so let's be tolerant and keep injecting babies anyway. That makes no sense to me. If there is even a possibility that a child is being harmed, isn't the sensible thing to err on the side of caution? By the same token, if there is even a remote possibility that that unborn child already possesses a soul, shouldn't we do everything in our power to protect that precious little soul?

I guess what bothers me the most is when so-called libertarians preach self responsibility and accountability except of course when it comes to abortion. 99.9% of unwanted pregnancies are completely AVOIDABLE. Except in the very RARE instances where pregnancy occurs as a result of rape, the pregnant individual CHOSE to be irresponsible and reckless by allowing themselves to get pregnant when they did not want to have a child. Should not these people then have to deal with the consequences of their own reckless behavior? Why do millions of children have to be slaughtered every year simply because people can not act like responsible adults?

Because its their choice,

Because its their choice, their DNA, and their life to terminate, though I totally agree, that people have little accountability these days but I believe the conditioning like Abortions are "hip and my voting block" (DNC) set a stage as well.

Life Is at conception but bacteria is life, rats are life, and so on...its between the Mother, the Father, and a Doctor willing to do the procedure.

Denise B's picture

Are you actually trying

to say that there is no difference between human life and bacteria or rats?? Because if that is your contention, I could not disagree with you more. I believe that human life is precious and sacred and to try to say that it has no more value than a rat or bacteria is just unconsionable. I strongly disagree also that it is "their life to take"...that kind of thinking borders on criminal. So what about toddlers, does that concept apply to them as well? If I have a child that doesnt' behave can I just kill it, because it is my "DNA and my life to terminate"? You can't be serious!!

first breathe, then yes if

first breathe, then yes if your pro life you have to be a vegan(even then you are killing plant life). A rat has a brain it has pain censors, but you would gladly kill it.

Bacteria we have good bacteria in our stomachs thats needed to survive, it seems pretty important you dont exist without it.

you are probably religious to think humans deserve more rights, or superior than everything else.

thats the mind set to exploit nature and then humans, slavery was based on the "blacks had no souls" they were just "animals" Straw man arguments dont help your point it a sign of a weak debater,

A kid obviously has a right as an individual it doesnt need a host any more so its a viable individual. No need to kill it any way, if so I believe if you have the power to stop murder you should.

If you are pregnant its your choice your body, common sense is used.

Your opinion works on a fascist thinking, because with your premise miscarriages should hold the parents liable, and guilty of neglect you have investigations, did the mother smoke? what food did she eat? was she excited too often?....etc

Stay out of peoples bodies, once the kid is out adopt. By the way you must be adopting alot of the babies since your so passionate about the subject

Denise B's picture

You're out of

your mind and I have no desire to further debate anyone who has such a warped view of the world....by the way, newborns do still require a "host" (as u put it) because they are incapable of feeding themselves. I guess in your world they also have no rights and can be dumped in the trash with the rats. I honestly feel sorry for you.

host definition=An organism

host definition=An organism that is infected with or is fed upon by a parasitic or pathogenic organism (for example, a virus, nematode, fungus). The term can also be applied, loosely, to a plant supporting an epiphyte. An animal or plant that nourishes and supports a parasite; the host does not benefit and is often harmed by the association.(medicine) recipient of transplanted tissue or organ from a donor.An organism that a parasite is situated within.

You need a care taker once your born not a host, you must be a genius in the medical field.

I honestly think your crazy

You didnt answer my statements

Are you religous?

You think you are above other animals?

how many children do you adopt a year?

do you eat meat?

You are an evolved ape deal with it bible thumper

Koko the gorilla has more potential than you

Soooo...

Unfortunately NobleFree, once a topic on abortion gets started, it's pretty tough to not have a debate started about it apparently. :-) Just sayin'.

Not a whole lot of gray area for which side you stand on there.

Just to clarify, given some of the comments below...

...according to Dr. Paul's address at the South Carolina Pro-Life Forum this past January, he views sending this issue back to the states as an interim step that will save many lives while the federal amendment goal is still a good one, just hard to achieve. I'm fully with Dr. Paul on this.

You have to understand that this isn't just about the logistics of sending it back to the states; it's also about the character of the man and how his outlook on the value of ALL human life informs his worldview and decisionmaking as a whole.

Asking me to vote for Gary Johnson is kind of like asking me to vote for someone who wants to end the wars, end the Fed ... but, oh, he happens to be pro-choice on infanticide for a few months after birth. But don't worry, he's for letting states decide. You might not equate the killing of the unborn a few months before birth with the killing of the born three months after birth; and my goal isn't to convince you of that in this thread. The point is that I DO equate these things, so you can see how voting for someone who is ok with it would grate against my conscience.

Partial birth abortion is

Partial birth abortion is illegal, and GJ doesnt really support that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban)

is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", often referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

Denise B's picture

Partial birth abortion is illegal

but that is not the same as "late term" abortion, which Gary Johnson does approve of. His exact stance is that he supports abortion up until the time of fetus viabiliity (i.e. the fetus can live outside of the womb without medical intervention). A fetus may not reach that point until six or sometimes even seven months. By 12 weeks; however, the baby has fully formed arms, legs, fingers, toes, eyelids and a beating heart. http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-12-weeks.

Gary Johnson sees no issue with sucking these fully formed babies out of their mothers wombs because they are not quite ready yet to breathe on their own.

I am pro-choice

I am pro-choice and I never had problems with voting for Ron Paul 3 times(2 primaries,1 general write-in) because he is the man. and he is the only pro-lifer who is not a hypocrite.

The fact that Gary Johnson is pro-choice is good all the same.

I don't expect a civil war or a huge cultural change based on the presidents' personal stance.

Abortion is a serious issue, but it also has great ability to create infinite loop arguments among civilians with no fruit to bear while those in power stay there and get away with w/e else. i bet it will be a major issue in Obama vs. Romney with no fruit to bear besides more widespread squabbling among the general populace that votes major party.

Denise B's picture

For me, the abortion

issue is an absolute deal breaker for me. How can anybody claim to stand for personal liberty when they care nothing for the rights of the weakest among us...unborn children. And it is bad enough to support abortion, but to support late term abortion (which Gary Johnson does) is in my mind, disgusting and barbaric. This is an example of what a late term abortion actually looks like:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/LateT...

WARNING: It is not for the weak of heart.

I think that everyone that says that this type of thing is okay should get a good look at what they are condoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", often referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

Denise B's picture

See my reply above...

paartial-birth abortion is illegal (that would be the abortion of a viable fetus)...late term abortion is not (4,5,6 month abortions). Gary Johnson supports late term abortions.

No issue should be a deal

No issue should be a deal breaker for you, you need to weigh the results. All of the top 3 candidates running for President are pro-choice. The Republicans have never been sincere on abolishing abortion and never will be. You'd better start looking at some other issues!

Ventura 2012