Please help me convert people on the abortion issue
I think this is one of the biggest stumbling blocks in converting more liberals to RP. In many people's minds, the stigma of being pro-life is often associated with Bible thumping far right wing nutjobs. How can I explain that it's all part of the 'divide and conquer' tactics that have been shoved down our throats for so long, and that there are MUCH bigger issues at stake here? Am I correct in telling people that Roe vs. Wade authorizes third trimester and partial birth abortions - and funds them with taxpayer dollars - which means even those who only oppose these types of abortions end up paying for them? And that the matter of federal funding creates 'blowback' amongst the more radical proponents of the pro-life movement, often leading to unnecessary violence?
Help me please, I've got some voters to convert!
I'm so proud
to be a Ron Paul supporter - just reading these replies, I see that it's these difficult issues where we really shine. The founders created a government to protect rights, not to define them.
once your reproductive
"rights" can be determined at central (government) level courts it becomes the "law of the land" Couldn't that centralized level also deem you to have one child only, and coerce you to abort all others? The situation in China is heartbreaking and is misunderstood by many in this country. Not to mention, tax monies(ours) fund these population measures under the UN.
There are people who do not understand they have been indoctrinated into a death culture by accepting abortion as a "right". "Family Planning" has been at work for a long time spreading this ideology. Margret Sanger was a friend to Hitler and the idea of abortion is basically a communistic value (or lack of value) of life.
I believe you are correct
on all three points. (also see my link below to a life affirming group of feminists )
Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
Great topic to get RP Support!!
I actually used the abortion issue to convert my mom (pro-choice) to RP. What I said was . . . Dr. Paul believes that abortion is murder, but has never nor will ever support Federal legislation that makes abortion illegal because he believes the Constitution doesn't give the Fed the power to do so. Can you find me another politician that would take such a stand on ANY issue?
That was all it took.
That
says it all. What a great post - thanks.
Tough
... but ask them, at what point is it OK to abort a fetus? 2 weeks, 2 months, 6 months? 9 months? Is a baby in the womb 2 minutes before birth any less a person than one outside the womb? If a fertilized egg is not a person, then where does one draw the line? There is no line, to draw it must be arbitrary. Should this be up to the mother? Should the mother be permitted to draw that line? This is a valid argument, and the states have every right to take this position under the constitution, THAT's the right which Ron Paul defends - the right of the states to decide the difficult issues for their inhabitants.
Really, Ron Paul IS the Pro-Choice candidate, because he defends the rights of the states and the people.
Yes, Not Needed
There are so many MORE IMPORTANT issues that are at hand other than abortion.
- Total Economic Collapse?
- Loss of Freedoms of the Already Born
- No IRS hello!
Why is everyone suddenly worried they can't have abortions? Look at ALL the other rights that have ACTUALLY BEEN TAKEN away. Maybe they'll wake up when you tell them Obama voted FOR the Patriot Act.
Abortion is such a non issue - its just there to divide people and make them chose between candidates that are actually all the same...
EXCEPT RON PAUL!
Not needed
You will never get liberals to vote for Ron by talking about abortion. Don't even bother. Hell, I support abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research and I'm still voting for Ron Paul.
Talk about small government, state rights, and keeping us on the path the Founding Fathers wanted. That's how you win people over to Ron Paul.
Watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRWeBpKBXac
delete my account!!!
Hahah
:-D
Ask Them To Define "Choice"
Ask your potential RP supporter who is Pro-Choice this question:
What good is it to you to retain the freedom to choose to have an abortion,
If all your other freedoms of choice are revoked?
Kind of like saying, "Yippee; I won my pet issue!" as you get marched into "camps". At that point, it really doesn't matter what your pet issue is, or on what side of the fence you're on.
Because you may very well be behind one.
Find the person's other key issues. Focus on how much they stand to lose on all those other issues if a candidate other than RP is seated in the Oval Office. Iconoclastic thinking is a fatal detriment -- it often causes one to proudly stand up for one issue, while losing everything else...thereby ultimately losing the one issue they "won".
In the meantime, go here Right Now and shoot off a few emails. We need to benefit from Jane Roe's endorsement!
Ron Paul wants to push all of these sensitive issues
closer to the people, at the State level. There is no reason for the federal Government to dictate Federally how the States need to decide locally.
This is part of his entire logic. The Federal government needs to push all of the decision making process back to the States and with that all of the money, budget, so on. The fact that all of this is now concentrated in D.C. is the main reason why there are so many lobbyists and so much corruption.
With everything thus centralized, the more government the less money will end up where is needed most.
People have to see this as consistent plan. You can't have it both ways because it will end up back where it started: corruption in D.C.
M
"You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more."
Yes you are correct
Roe V. Wade does permit 3rd trimester abortions for any reason.
You may want to try the trade off approach. Ron Paul will get us out of ALL the military problems in the world and save thousands of American Lives. Is this issue so important to them that they would have sacrificed the 4,000 Americans plus 1.5 million Iraqi's.
What about Iran? Hillor or Obama won't remove us from Iraq.
as a pro-choice, non-christian "liberal"
I agree with Ron Paul's pro-life platform.
As weird as that sounds, it really makes sense to me.
As a doctor, Ron Paul vowed to uphold the Hippocratic Oath. This means he must respect and protect life above all else. If he did not do this he would be breaking his vow. I believe that the leader of the free world should also hold life in the highest regard... be it the life of a soldier, a civilian, or the unborn.
At first, Dr. Paul's staunch pro-life position was a big hang-up for me, but after researching Roe v. Wade and studying Ron Paul's statements I came to a more complex understanding of the issue.
I think if more pro-choice people really understood where Ron Paul was coming from on this they would begin to see that there are several problems with Roe v Wade. There are details that are not included in Roe, such as when does a person gain civil liberties? And is aborting a 1 month old fetus the same as aborting at 7 or 8 months? Should the Federal government be involved in procreation rights or is this something that should be worked on at a state level? Is Roe v. Wade even constitutional?
I don't think many people who are pro-choice would be very comfortable with the idea of full term abortions. But from what I understand, this is possible under Roe v. Wade. Current statistics have late term abortions (after 20 weeks) at approximately 13,000 per year in the US... and rarely is this necessary to protect the health of the mother.
Although Dr. Paul is personally pro-life, he realizes that it is not in the Federal government's jurisdiction to pass legislation on procreation. If we allow the supreme court to rule on this, who is to say that they cannot reverse the decision at some point and put a federal ban on abortions? Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and believes this is a state decision that should be voted on by residents.
As a pro-choice voter I think that this issue needs to be discussed and worked out in state legislature... not at the Federal level. Even very liberal judges and scholars agree that Roe v. Wade is not constitutional.
From the other side of the fence....
I personally think abortion is wrong, BUT I also believe that I cannot force people to agree with me by legislating my morality at the Federal level. Ron Paul himself said at the Values Voters debate that when we try to legislate our morality, forcing it on those who don't agree, we set ourselves up to have our freedoms restricted by those who disagree with us. He also said Abortion is a heart issue, and changing hearts and minds is more effective than legislation. He's right. For a group doing just that check out www.feministsforlife.org .
Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
actually, I think we're on the same side of the fence
I agree with everything you said.
Ethically I think abortion is very problematic, but government can't impose morality.
It really comes down to a question of civil liberties and when they are instilled.
I am so happy to see this discussion thread!
This is the critical issue that seems to divide us. It must be overcome to achieve the unity that we need to defeat the global ruling elite, which use the divide and conquer approach whenever possible, to keep us enslaved.
I have not read all the responses yet, but I do want to say that I believe that if we do not come up with a successful strategy to deal with this issue, we will be kept divided and powerless.
We cannot allow ourselves to be demonized over this, nor should we demonize them. I know this is a hard pill to swallow for some, but we can all be holier than thou or we can be free.
When dealing with people on the left, I tell them, yes we have a difference of opinion, but can't we work it out after we deal with more pressing issues like the war in Iraq and the economy? I have found that this usually produces a quiet response and indicates to me that it makes them think and isn't that what we all want? We all need to think and not give knee jerk reactions to emotional issues.
If they're vehemently pro-choice, why bother?
I couldn't help notice when working as a journalist that when it comes to abortion, those who believe one way or the other generally are passionate about it. Many are VERY passionate -- and not likely to change no matter what you say.
Rather than spending hours trying to persuade people who aren't going to change, say "thank you very much" and move on to prospects who are either pro-life or open minded -- unless the abortion issue is more important to you than electing Ron Paul.
Personally I have much better results when I let the voter I'm talking to guide the discussion. "What's important to you?" I ask, and then I reply to their concerns. Trying to foist my views on others often backfires, as when I told two neighbors about Ron Paul's position on guns -- and they then handed me back the Slim Jims I had just given them. If I'd kept my big mouth shut and let them choose the topics, they might still be prospects!
Remind them
that if we let the FEDERAL govt decide to make abortions LEGAL, not only is it a violation of the Constitution to give the FEDERAL govt that authority, but that same federal govt can then "change their mind" and make ALL abortions ILLEGAL. If we give them AUTHORITY to decide, they may make the wrong decision.
And it's not much of a stretch for the federal govt to then decide they have authority to decide other aspects of our private lives. When they "favor" a particular President/administration and don't mind their version of some law directing their behavior, they might not care. But then ask what they would you do if a President/administration came into office whom they did not like or trust -- and they already have the authority in place to change the laws against their liking?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
To learn what really happened, check out
www.whatreallyhappened.com
Find out how "entangling alliances" interfered with the rights, and honor, of these U.S. Navy sailors from the USS Liberty www.ussliberty.org
Tell them...
to watch this video from beginning to end and then answer a simple question: "When does life begin?"
www.whendoeslifebegin.info
If you want your 'choice'
Then alter every law that holds anyone accountable for the death of an unborn child under any circumstances to absolve them of their liability.
Life starts at conception. The responsibility for protecting that yet unborn life & the liability for ending those lives prematurely rests with those who would cause harm to that unborn child.
A pregnant mother and her unborn child are killed by a drunk driver. The driver can be convicted and sentenced on TWO counts of murder/homicide/manslaughter. A physician makes a mistake, and an unborn child dies. The doctor is convicted of malpractice and held civily liable.
You want choice? Well, I'm done with those who choose to have it both ways. When a child is concieved, it is life. If you want to argue that it is not, then absolve anyone that causes that child harm across the board. If it is, then realize and admit that that child is entitled to the right to it's life granted by our creator and protected by our Constitution.
When you take away the protection of our most basic right, there are no more rights left to protect.
Wear a condom for World Peace
This is my commentary why we should support Ron Paul and get over the idea that abortion liberates women.
http://karinfriedemann.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html
Vincebodie, You said, "Am I
Vincebodie,
You said, "Am I correct in telling people that Roe vs. Wade authorizes third trimester and partial birth abortions - and funds them with taxpayer dollars - which means even those who only oppose these types of abortions end up paying for them?" YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
I don't agree that that causes a backlash as you said, though it's an interesting idea...whatever works. In my personal experience and observation it has been radical pro-choicers who have -grapped our pamphlets, grabbed our membership lists, started blasting rude statements at us with their microphone...this is just one incident from my college days when I was a part of a pro-life club that held educational events and BBQs. We had a stand at the fair where all clubs participate and they came up and attacked us. Just an example. Anyhow..as far as how to 'reach' pro-choicers? (I think 'convert' is the wrong term.) I would probably suggest
1. focusing on the other issues at hand, such as taxes, small government, give power back to the states and the people, freedom of choice in healthcare and education etc
2. also, RP is for the people to decide, and if the states truly wanted to make abortion legal, then that may well happen (Personally, I hope not)
Hope my thoughts my have been some use. :)
All the best!
Tell them
that it is a woman's choice not the Federal Gov'ts choice.
Same as:
Our right to bare arms
Our right to keep set our oun temp in our homes
The right to smoke in our homes
The right to protest
The right to buy the car we want
The right to home school our children
The right to keep our wages
The right to have our privacy
The right of free speech on the internet
The right to vote
The right to use alternative medicine
The right to... ok anyone else...I'm jamming up here....????
Mathew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Show The View Video
The question is: do you want to convert them on the issue? Or convert them to support Ron Paul?
If the latter, simply point out that Ron Paul as president has no power over the issue other than to sign or veto what Congress sends him, and to nominate judges who must be approved by Congress.
Congress has the power over this issue, which is why it goes nowhere. Because of the divided opinions, it's no-win politically, and they won't even take the simple suggestion that the states should do what they want.
Nothing will change on this issue until society changes what it wants.
IMissLiberty
IMissLiberty
Good post.
Good post.
The way I approach this
First I tell them Roe v. Wade nationalizes the abortion question. So that, if it is ever overturned, you may get a NATIONAL prohibition on abortion. The correct path as with so many Ron Paul positions, is to leave it up to the states. That way, you have 50 different experiments in dealing with the issue, and most will probably drift to a moderate handling of it, e.g. 1st trimester abortions freely permitted, 3rd trimester prohibited, and 2nd trimester provisional. But there will always be states where abortions are permitted up to the day of childbirth, and others with abortion completely prohibited. People can gravitate to states that correspond with their positions on the issue. The end result will be less fighting about it.
I really don't think even fairly hard-core pro-choice folks are content with the notion of viable babies in dumpsters. They are hard-core because they don't want to lose abortion altogether, or see women thrown in jail for using an IUD. If a path is shown that will reliably preserve reasonable access to abortion, while getting rid of things like partial birth abortion, I think many will go for it.
Anyway, the final thing to say about it is, no matter what Ron Paul (or any other presidential candidate) thinks about it, he still needs the cooperation of Congress to make any changes.
Oh, one final note about it. There are two extreme poles of this debate: 1) life is sacred, which means even abortions for rape or incest should not be permitted, and women who use IUDs, or morning-after pills are to be tried for murder, and 2) life until the time of birth is worthless, so a minute before birth a perfectly viable baby may be killed with no sanction whatever and thrown in a dumpster. I don't think most people would be very comfortable with either of these extreme positions; but the fact is, with Roe v. Wade, we are actually, legally, and across the nation, stuck at one of them. No wonder the debate is so devisive! Send this one back to the states, folks!
I agree!
Great post! I agree wholeheartedly. Ron Paul unites people. Putting the decisions to the states will greatly defuse the volatility of the arguments on both sides.
I am PRO-CHOICE
As a civil libertarian, I understand his position on abortion, that sacks of goo with human DNA have the rights of humans. I believe that sexually mature women controlling their own bodies is a civil right that far outweighs goo sack rights.
But let me ask you all this: What should the punishment be for women who got abortions if abortion became illegal?
Pro-lifers have a hard time with this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo
I'm voting for Ron with trepidation. This is the one issue that to me goes against my beliefs about protecting freedom.
sorry for replying to my own message...
but the fact that no one would really actually punish a woman for having an illegal abortion (the way they would for a murderer), the fact that we don't have funerals for miscarriages, and fetuses are not counted on census, etc....
PROVES that an abortion is very different from murder.
(also the fact that a lot of anti-abortionists--kind of like anti-gay Republicans--are hypocrites who've had abortions or arranged for them, and are in self-willed denial)
All this proves that the MOTHER can and should decide. Otherwise, Mother Nature should be prosecuted every time a fertilized egg is washed out during a woman's period.