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 baffled by people that vote based on abortion

Don't you see that you have been programmed to be passionate about a wedge issue that allows you to simply tune someone out if they are on the wrong side?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

No. It's not a wedge issue.

No. It's not a wedge issue. It's the profound principle of protecting the life of someone who has zero ability to protect his own life. When I first heard Ron Paul in that 2007 South Carolina debate, as fast as I could type, I researched his position on abortion. I'm not programmed. I just believe what I believe.

Pretty clearly a wedge issue.

Pretty clearly a wedge issue. Proof: the GOP did not do jack sh!! on the subject when they had 100% control of the Government. They keep it around because they know they can manipulate single issue voters into voting on that one issue and ignoring all the piled up dead bodies in the middle east and in the ghetto. Voting for Gary Johnson would at least solve those two problems if not the first.

Ventura 2012

I agree it may be a wedge

I agree it may be a wedge issue to the GOP but I'm serious about it. It's no wedge to me. It's only about protecting life of the innocent. You may have seen this piece by Chuck Baldwin. Baldwin agrees with both of us.

"PRO-LIFE" CANDIDATES SHOULD PUT UP OR SHUT UP
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin415.htm

Also,

why would someone downvote this thread. The OP didn't even take a strong position. He/She just asked DP for their viewpoint. Terrible.

Firmly in the "pro choice"

Camp here. Simply because I do not believe a single cell (fertilized egg) has any reason to have more protection than any random bacteria. I have no problem with Dr. Paul's stance because he isn't attempting to force me to adopt his personal view point. He is sticking with the constitution. Though I happen to agree with GJ on the issue personally, I would not support him if he believed the Federal Gov't had any right whatsoever to intervene with an individual (or state depending on how it goes down once we wrestle control from the Central Gov't)when they decide how to deal with this issue.

Of course, probably because I am "pro choice" I don't see this as a terribly pressing issue considering the hill we are trying to climb, so I was pleasantly surprised to see so many "pro choicers" with Dr. Paul, and I would hope to see the "pro lifers" on board with a Dr. Paul type who happened to personally be "pro choice".

Denise B's picture

I think that you are

very fortunate tsv that your mother didn't take the same position you have while she was pregnant with you. What about a fully formed fetus with a heart, arms, legs and the ability to suck its thumb? That's what you have at 5 months, although Gary Johnson still thinks its okay to kill that child because he's still in the womb, just shy of viable.

Also, I do not see how the federal government usurping the rights of the states to decide this issue for themselves is "sticking with the Constitution"...there is nothing in the Constitution which gives them the authority to do this. Be careful what you preach tsv, because you are in danger of becoming a hypocrite...you have no problem supporting what the feds have done because it happens to fit your "personal view point".

Careful Denise

you may come off as a bit condescending. If you had read my post instead of getting all worked up because I disagree with you, you would see that it is quite plain I do not support the Federal Gov't having dominion over this issue. It is a problem reserved for the people and/or the state gov'ts to sort out. Nowhere in my entire comment did I suggest or insinuate anything otherwise.

From my comment:

"Though I happen to agree with GJ on the issue personally, I would not support him if he believed the Federal Gov't had any right whatsoever to intervene with an individual (or state depending on how it goes down once we wrestle control from the Central Gov't)when they decide how to deal with this issue."

As far as when abortion becomes unethical, I believe rational people can disagree. I don't think you are an idiot for seeing this issue the way you do, I just don't see it the same way.

If you were asking my opinion re: what if your mom had an abortion. As a zygote, I would have been physically incapable of hurting or caring, as such it wouldn't have been possible for it to matter to me. Of course because this process hadn't developed enough for consciousness to arise there would be no me either.

I think that this.....

issue should not be a deal breaker. After all the government should have no place in health and social issues. This is a personal choice issue and there should be no reason to push your views on to someone else for either side.

"Freedom is never easy in a world of tyranny" - ME

I am pro-choice

And would have voted for Ron Paul because he would not use the unconstitutional power of federal government to enforce his view...simple as that!

I struggled with this...

I remember telling my wife that I did not think I could do it. I have never voted for a pro-choice person before. In fact, a HUGE reason that I got on the Ron Paul bandwagon was because he, in fact, lived the pro-life message by delivering thousands of babies and never committing one act of abortion. I may not have joined the rEVOLution without that part. It still surprises me that the pro-life movement would not have gotten on the Ron Paul bandwagon as purely pro-life as he was.

I will say though that as far as I have heard and read, Gary Johnson personally is pro-choice but is for overturning Roe vs Wade, bringing it back to the states. This was Ron Paul's political position. I do not want the federal government overseeing our lives, and so to bring it back to the state level would be a healthy thing, so SD - if they want to ban it completely - they can, and if people want to move there because of it, great, but if NY wants to keep some aspects, they can do that too.

Long answer I know, but it is something I have struggled with. And pending Mitt Romney doesn't surprise us all and publicly apologize to the delegates for how they were treated and also announce that he will be asking Ron Paul to be his personal Constitutional advisor or Secretary of the Treasury, Gary Johnson has my vote.

Our country's downfall is

Our country's downfall is based on more than a single issue. That's what's really important.

.

Hi again,
I wanted to mention that if a leader can not or will not protect innocent life where ever it may be found, how can we expect them to protect liberty? After all, this is one of gvts most important mandates, to protect life, liberty and happiness..
thanks again,
Have a great day, and thanks for the post!,

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

You're right.

The intent to protect against "Possibilities" seems to always be at the forefront of every pro-choice argument.

The only intent that the government should have is to protect life. Possibilities can not be predicted, just as a life can't be predicted.

I am pro-life

Gary's stance is the same as Dr. Pauls, in that he understands that not only is is not a federal issue, but that Roe vs. Wade was not correctly decided on a constitutional basis. Though Gary calls himself pro-choice, if he sticks to his beliefs constitutionally then he'd be the most pro-life president we've ever had since the Roe decision, at least in terms of actually advancing the pro-life movement. I'd love to be able to pass a life amendment, but that won't happen until about 75% of americans are pro-life, in the meantime I hope to make whatever gains for the movement that can be made. I expect overturning Roe and returning it to a state level basis would save the lives of many innocent children until such time as a life amendment can be passed.

Josh Brueggen
Engineer
Entrepreneur
Gardener
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois