How do you reply to Pro-Choicers?
How do you reply when people say they won't vote for paul because he's not pro-choice?
Here's my rough draft:
--------------------------------------------------------
I'm pro-choice as well, and am definitely voting for Paul. Unfortunately he does not support a woman's choice in regards to her unborn child. Yet he does support:
A woman's choice to use marijuana.
A woman's choice to educate her children at home, public or private school.
A woman's choice to defend herself.
A woman's choice to work in the sex industry.
A woman's choice to keep her land.
A woman's choice to save for her retirement.
A woman's choice to use the energy company she believes in most.
Paul is more pro-choice than pro-choicers.
------------------------
Should I drop the marijuana part, since that's a rather controversial subject? I notice the RP campaign shies away from it.
use a condom
use a condom
/Mike
Front Fell Off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg
I just tell them that if
I just tell them that if that's the most important issue they can think of, then they deserve to have Hillary as president.
Ron Paul is my hero :)
Simple
Ron paul voted to lift the ban on RU486.
not going to read through this BOATLOAD of comments, but...
....maybe tell them that "Ron Paul's stance, while pro-life, is NOT 'anti-choice.' All he supports is the Roe v. Wade decision being over-turned and each STATE being responsible for their own abortion (or NOT) laws."
more food for thought
I do respectfully submit that the pro-life argument is not quite as straightforward as some of you have laid out. Some extra thought excercises for you to consider:
If the mother were to die for a reason unrelated to the baby, does the baby then not also die? (assuming the baby is either below viablility age or you are not near a NICU [neonatal ICU]).
If the baby were to die for a reason unrelated to the mother, does the mother then also die?
Many mothers-to-be have experienced miscarriage due to a mother's rejection of the fetus for various possible reasons. Is it ok to just sit back and allow this natural process to occur, and if so what is the difference between allowing a woman's body to decide on abortion or allowing a woman's mind to decide on abortion?
If you've answered these questions fairly I believe you will agree the baby is very much a part of the mother and it is not true so much the other way around. And in the tug-o-war between a fetus's right to life and a woman's freedom to do with her body as she wishes, it is not too difficult to see how a freedom lover can choose the latter.
Of course I do wish no one ever had to make that choice, and perhaps someday we'll have a perfect contraceptive and perfect morals and no rapes and no miscarriages and abortion rates will drop to 0, but that is still a long ways away.
It is easy to see how so many smart and thoughtful people can come down on different sides of this issue, I believe, since the competing concerns are closely matched. But if you are a freedom lover, one for personal liberties, then I believe the pro-choice arguments make the better case. And I can definitely see how a self-described libertarian might come down on the pro-choice side of this argument.
I respect Ron Paul's stance, even though I do not agree with it, though I do agree that Roe v. Wade is judicial legislation, and that we should either let the states decide or create an amendment to the constitution explicitly stating the boundaries of a fetus's rights and a woman's rights.
With regard to what to tell people, tell them the truth. Tell them Ron Paul is pro-life, and if they are pro-choice then explain to them that they will have to weigh this difference and its relative value against all the other issues and the other candidates stances. Also explain that Paul is just one man and as President wants to reduce the power of the presidency, and that he would have a lot more control over foreign policy than he would over abortion legislation.
Dr. Paul wants to leave it up to the states.
Each state would decide, so you could choose to live in a state that advocated pro-choice. Dr. Paul does not think the Federal government should make the decision. I too, am pro-choice, and this is what I appreciate about Dr. Paul's platform, which is simply following the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say the Federal government has the power to legislate abortion, so it is left to the State government. It is much easier to influence a State government than it is a Federal one. Hope this helps.
Just tell them
that if they feel like they should have the right to commit murder, then the law (state) can have the right to prosecute for murder. Oh and tell them that they should be happy their mother was not pro choice! And one more thing......if it was just their body they were concerned with it would all be hunky dorey, but there is another person in there who won't get the right to decide if he/she is pro choice. I say let the baby decide!
"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within" W. Durant
Honestly? Just change the subject...
If they are determined, one-issue voters they will not be dissuaded. If you can convince them on other grounds, that's your best approach.
If they're a single-subject voter, you're not likely to change their mind. To tell the truth, if Dr. Paul weren't pro-life he wouldn't get my support - regardless of the rest of his positions. That's my conscience.
You're simply better off trying to persuade them on other issues if you can. This one is just a flashpoint...
None of this matters. Pro
None of this matters. Pro life or pro choice. The question is whether this is an issue that should be mandated nationwide by the Federal Government, and obviously it should not. Even given that abortion is murder (this is a big bone of contention between the two factions), murder is not only DEFINED at the state level, but punished at the state level as well. Why should murder of the unborn be different than murder of anybody else? If you accept that murder of the unborn be defined and regulated nationwide at the Federal level, then you must also accept that murder of the born should be as well, and nowhere in the Constitution is such a thing mandated. It is NOT a Federal issue. Nor should it be. What his personal feelings are should not be a consideration as long as he is willing to work within the law to change things rather than to break the law as every other candidate would according to their whims and beliefs.
www.paulforronpaul.com
FYI: Dr. Paul has authored pending legislation which would:
Declare that life begins at conception, thereby extending full civil rights to the unborn. I don't want to be argumentative here, but I want to point out to those who believe that Dr. Paul only wants to push this back to the states that it just ain't so. He wants to eliminate all abortions, everywhere, at any stage of development. That's alarming to the pro-abortionists, but for those of us who are pro-life, it's very reassuring.
...A woman's choice...
to bear arms, but I guess you got that in "defend herself."
To answer generally, since we are up here in the frozen Canadian north
I find pro choice people always act and feel awkward when the subject comes up.and they get that I am pro-life. I love that they feel awkward. It is sort of like the way some people react to "Jesus" spoken out loud (no profanity).
If I get the opportunity I mention that I sure am glad that none of "us" were flushed down toilets. Bringing it close to home. People always think awhile after that one.
Ron Paul is my hero.
cw
cw
A Scientific Perspective
The origin of life is a tough concept. There's no way around it. But as George Carlin once wrote, if the simple prospect of reproductive cells uniting was enough to define life, then any woman in the world not incessantly pregnant would be a monthly serial killer.
It only can be grasped to me to define life in the same way we define death. Most scientist define death at cessation of cognitive brain function. In turn, it then only makes sense to me to define life at the origin of cognitive brain function. This occurs somewhere between 16 and 22 weeks of development - which is precisely at the end of the allotted window for abortion under law. Everyone please remember that cognitive brain function means detected brain waves that relate to functional thought process. For a thorough and complete analysis of this subject see the link below:
http://tigtogblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/fetal-brain-developme...
I'm pro-choice... my two cents
I'm also pro-choice, but to be honest its the only thing I disagree with Ron Paul about. I think it comes down to when you see the 'child' gets it rights. From birth or from conception?
I'm open minded though and I respect pro-life supporters believes, and can actually see where they are coming from. I come to my stance by putting myself in someone else's shoes. While my gf and I take all precautions we can, if something accidentally happens, I want to know that I have the choice to continue my life as it is and not be forced to take on a 'burden' (Don't take that in a bad way, I want babies... But when I know I'm in a position to support them properly, not as a struggling parent).
I guess if I were talking to a pro-choicer I'd let them know where I stand, but why I still support Paul. And just outline all his other ideas and what he supports there.
Another good thing to mention is that while he is personally pro-life, he believes it to be a state-level issue and not something the federal government should get involved in. So him being elected isn't going to have a major impact on the issue.
If they are a reasonable prochoicer
I disagree with one of the posters below who said he wouldn't be able to appoint a prochoice (non activist) justice. This is the one thing NO Republican can get away with not doing and this is the most important issue, the SCJustice issue, for most Republicans. Roe vs Wade will be overturned (eventually).
But.....that won't make abortion illegal everywhere (or even most states I don't think) and any law made to prevent it will be unenforcable and WON'T be enforced.
If they are a reasonable and thoughtful prochoicer ask them if they don't wish the abortion issue would just go away! It is the most distorting and corrupting issue in politics. Neither side will ever give up so it should just be overturned. Let people live according to rules they can stand.
"What does conservatism today stand for? It stands for war. It stands for power. It stands for spying, jailing without trial, torture, counterfeiting without limit, and lying from morning to night."
Lew Rockwell
use this
Here's how you do it... First of all, we can all agree that both pro-life and pro-choice camps are large and emotionally charged. Secondly, it's an issue that has dogged politics for decades. Here's what we don't focus on though, and that is that it is used by politicians against the people. Every 4 years we have the candidate against and the candidate for, now we know that neither candidate truly represents both sides - it's impossible, right?
Not so fast, there is only one way to end the bickering and to please both sides. Give the people the choice, on the local level, which cities/states/towns would prefer the pro-life way of life. No one pro-choice wants a candidate that will strike down Roe v Wade AND mandate an end to abortion. No one pro-life wants to get behind a candidate that's pro late-term abortion, pro-abortion in any way. But here's the beauty of Ron's position: stop politicizing it and decide for yourself if you want to live in an area that's pro-life or pro-choice.
Now, that's a hard pill to swallow for some - but this issue will never be resolved because politicians can use it to polarize the electorate. RP's position will end the debate by allowing someone who doesn't want their tax dollars to be given to Planned Parenthood to live in a pro-life state. Vice versa for pro-choicers. We need to wake up to the fact that it polarizes and that we have more important worries that affect ALL Americans (like the economy). I am pro-life, but I am not in a position to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. **BUT, the Supreme Court has no right to do this either. That is why Roe v Wade should be overturned and I agree with the good doctor on that count!
This is an issue that SHOULD polarize a nation
Abortion SHOULD polarize the nation. It is the difference between murdering a human life, and allowing that human life to live.
Once you accept killing any part of humanity without due process of law and without that human life forfeiting his or her right to live by killing another -- then you have established MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. The stronger can kill the weaker at will. That's the principle you have established, however long it takes to manifest.
The science is irrefutable: each human life from conception is a) living and growing (or you wouldn't have to kill it); b) human chromosome pattern; c) needs only time and nourishment to become old man or woman, like the rest of us.
Already, we have partial birth abortion where the baby, at the moment of delivery, is pulled out feet first, when the skull is the only body part left in the woman, the baby is stabbed with a scissors in the back of the neck, then the skull collapsed, then the body is frozen and sent off to ghoulish labs where they try to crack the genetic code, or make cosmetics. This is the type of ghoulish, blatant murder all of the doctrainaire "pro-choicers" (pro-choice to kill, that is) have come to support. This is good vs. evil, it is not just a political football as the shallow of mind and shallow of moral radar -- often say.
As Dr. Paul said on the view to Joy Behar -- "You don't have the right to kill your two year old in your home, do you?" His point was that this "no one can tell a woman what to do with her child" line is BUNK. Also, the line "no one can tell a woman what to do with her own body is a lie -- because the baby's body is a new body that is totally different genetically from the woman's body, especially if it is a little boy.
Many young "pro-aborters" have just grown up drenched in the diabolical pro-abortion culture we live in (thanks to Big Media), and haven't thought it through.
It doesn't matter- its a non issue
I too am a pro choicer, but here is the way I see it.
Every year republicans get their people out to vote because of Roe v Wade. And each year nothing changes. The courts could change it right now if they wanted to, they have the votes.
Here is the crucial point : THEY DON'T WANT TO CHANGE IT! They can use the issue election after election to get their base out. And this issue is what so many people vote on. If they change it voters in the south might start considering issues like corruption and the economy. Its the same also with gay marriage. Republicans could have hammered through a constitutional ban on gay marriage if they wanted to, but again it gets out their voters. So they just talk it up, and never do anything.
They use these 2 issues to get elected and then do nothing about them........they just lie so they can get in office and plunder the treasury.
you are right
The wolves in sheep's clothing don't want to change. The issue is religious and civil. Abortion leads to euthanasia. As a doctor, Ron Paul, understands the implications of a pro-choice society. If one can choose to abort life at what stage will it stop? 12weeks gestation?, 4months?, 6months?, what about my 1 year old down syndrome daughter? what about my 14 year old brain damaged son? What about my 40 year old mother with cancer? what about my 70 year old father with emphysema?... In comes the religious aspect... who will be as god and decide. Are they willing to be judged for their decision?
I added a Proud Supporter of Ron Paul button to my homeschool "McGuffey" site!
http://www.mcguffeysonlinetutor.com/public/main.cfm
Forced child bearing is slavery; an answer to pro-choice voters
To force a woman to live 9 months with another attached to her and drawing sustenance from her blood is to make the mother the slave of her fetus. Slavery is unconstitutional. Hence, criminalization of abortion is unconstitutional. Roe should have been decided on the basis of the 13th amendment.
Pregnant women should be implored to give birth to their children, but never coerced to. No one, not even a helpless baby has the right to compel the prolonged demands of carrying him or her to term and giving birth. The mother has a human right to use self-defense, even deadly force, to free herself of one who would so enslave her. This said, I repeat, that we should discourage abortion by most means short of the use of force.
I tell pro-choice voters that under our system of federalism, which Dr. Paul champions, it would be impossible for Dr. Paul to outlaw abortion in all states. But under the type of totalitarian government that could emerge under the politics of each other presidential candidate, a President could easily outlaw abortion in every doctor's office in every town in the nation with but one touch of pen to paper. Or, under the authoritarian politics of the other candidates, a government could emerge that would force abortion on women who wish to bear their children. On balance, Dr. Paul is actually a greater protector of safe and legal abortions than a statist such a Huckabee who conceivably would attempt to ban abortion nationally by executive order - irrespective of whether Roe is overturned.
Let Freedom Ring
Let Freedom Ring
Dr. Paul would sign constitutional amendment banning abortion
You can only finesse this issue so far. Dr. Paul has stated over the years that he would sign a constitutional amendment to ban abortion altogether if presented to him/
He also introduced a bill in 2005 to make the unborn child a person from the moment of conception. If the fakes running the Republican house, Senate and White house in 2005 would have passed this, then all states would have been forced to immediately outlaw abortion.
You cannot finesse this issue. Abortion kills a human life. If it wasn't living, you wouldn't have to kill it. It has the human chromosome pattern from the first cell. The new life, from the moment of conception, only needs time and nourishment to grow into an old man or woman, -- as do you and I and everyone else.
Abortion kills a human life. It hurts the mother who does it forever, and often ruins her moral compass -- same goes for all who participate. Don't try to appease the "pro-abortionists" -- they are, in effect, accomplices to murder. Most abortions are done after the hands and feet are fully formed, always after the heart is beating; after the baby's face is visible. This is ghoulish pre-meditated murder. Everyone knows it's a baby. Even new mothers say, "I'm now eating for two." Don't appease those who are so insensitive as to want "Free sex" with the added price tag of occasional baby murder. These people are, de facto, moral monsters -- and they have to be made to realize it.
God will not bless a nation or a movement that tries to finesse this issue. Everyone knows that Dr. Paul is against abortion. He does not finesse it. Look at his 2005 bill, it would have been the staightest path to outlaw all abortion.
President doesn't sign Constitutional amendments
The President doesn't sign Constitutional amendments. It goes directly from Congress to the states. When the required number of states ratify, the Secretary of State or National Archivist verifies this.
The President has nothing to do with amendments one way or the other.
two ways to tell it
As a father whom as been at the birth of both my children, there is no way it can leave you untouch3d. i cannot even begin to fathm what assiting at 4000 births must be like but it has to have an impact.
Another message I find that works (and I am ostensibley prochoice and I support Dr Paul) is this: The declaration if independance speaks of Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in that order. Without liberty, there can be no pusruit of happiness, without life, there is no liberty.
Lastly, if you read history, much of the agruments agaisnt slavery 150 years ago were that it was immoral to have one person decide for another persons life. A tthat time, there were many pro-slavery people who never gave it another thought becasue they did not see slaves a shumans. This begs the question as to whether the unborn are human or not (and if not, then what is a human).
If that is the only issue they vote on
I ask them if that is the only issue they are concerned with. If they say "yes" then I tell them to vote Democratic. If they say "no", then I ask them about what other issues matter to them. Then I explain RP's positions.
We aren't going to change everybody's minds. We shouldn't try. I usually tell people they should vote their principles. That is what I do and that is what I expect them to do. It isn't surprising if they differ.
Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both
Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both
two ways to tell it
As a father whom as been at the birth of both my children, there is no way it can leave you untouch3d. i cannot even begin to fathm what assiting at 4000 births must be like but it has to have an impact.
Another message I find that works (and I am ostensibley prochoice and I support Dr Paul) is this: The declaration if independance speaks of Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in that order. Without liberty, there can be no pusruit of happiness, without life, there is no liberty.
Lastly, if you read history, much of the agruments agaisnt slavery 150 years ago were that it was immoral to have one person decide for another persons life. A tthat time, there were many pro-slavery people who never gave it another thought becasue they did not see slaves a shumans. This begs the question as to whether the unborn are human or not (and if not, then what is a human).
"Single-issue" voters won't be convinced
Some people are "single-issue" voters, and they won't be swayed by a candidate who doesn't have the "right" position on their one hot-button topic. This can be abortion, same-sex marriage, the Iraq war, or a number of other things.
I disagree with Ron Paul on this particular issue. However, it is so far down my list of issues that matter to me that it is not an issue. I think the key is to determine whether the pro-choice people you meet are single-issue voters. If not, find other common ground. Dr. Paul has enough good positions to go around!
_____________________
Don't blame me! I voted for Ron Paul!
Just state the facts...
Abortion is an issue that sways alot of voters on both sides. Paul does not try to sway anyone in either direction. Instead he just states the facts as to law, that Roe Vs. Wade is a result of the act of a court creating laws (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/roe-v-wade-a...). Laws can only be created by Congress. Therefore Roe vs Wade is not constitutional and should be overturned.
Always mention that Paul is an OB/GYN, has delivered 4000 babies, and the abortion issue is very personal to him. He is opposed to the process but feels it is an issue that, if legislated at all, it should be done at the state level.
If someone kills a pregnant woman, he can and probably will be charged with double murder, so the unborn child is recognized and has legal rights.
Also, in over 30years of practice, he has never seen an incident where an abortion was necessary to save the mother's life.
Let everyone know that the Constitution's, and therefore, Ron Paul's main function is to protect the rights and liberties of all Americans. Even the unborn.
The Constitutional Stance
Ask the pro abortion people if they are aware of the Constitution. Provide a copy if necessary. Ask them to find the section that authorizes the central government to involve itself in abortion. Finding that there is no authorization within the Constitution, remind them that all powers not delegated to the Federal government, are reserved to the States or to the people, respectively. It is rightly a matter for the individual States..
see here for ways to argue the abortion issue
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/28443#comment-244144
i put together a few pretty good arguments to present to pro-choice people in favor of RP.
see here for ways to argue the abortion issue
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/28443#comment-244144
i put together a few pretty good arguments to present to pro-choice people in favor of RP.
As someone who is pro-choice and voting for Dr. Paul . . .
Here's my justification:
1) He can't overturn Roe v Wade. With a democratic controlled house, he'll never be able to appoint a justice to the SCotUS if it means throwing off the life/choice balance.
2) His stance still allows for individual states to make those decisions, regardless of federal law.
3) You're not going to be able to afford any medical procedures, let alone one thats not covered by most insurance companies, if the economy continues the way it is.
There is no candidate thats perfect for everyone, because everyone has their own unique viewpoints. The general idea (which is what worked for me) is to show that his other issues outweigh this one, and that his own ideas on limited government make it even less of an issue.