Choice vs Pro-life

The interesting thing about this thread for me is that everyone here seems to have bought into the hypocritical weasel-wording practiced by both "sides" of this Great Debate. "Pro-life"; "pro-choice": both are crap. The argument isn't over "life", or "choice", it's about abortion. Some consider abortion a useful solution to the problem of undesired pregnancy; others do not.

Why not call it what it is? On this issue, you're either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. For my part, I simply cannot take seriously anyone who isn't willing at least to be honest about what they're talking about.

Dr. Paul is at least consistent on the issue, which is what sets him apart from pretty much all other politicians: he is in general anti-war, anti-death penalty, and anti-abortion. In other words, he doesn't believe that casual killing is a solution to any problem. He is truly "pro-life". Nor is he anti-choice; he merely believes that choice, i.e. freedom, must be based on responsibility.

By contrast, "pro-life" people mostly seem to take positive pleasure in killing furriners and "bad people", while most "pro-choice" people are enthusiastic proponents of totalitarian government control of every area of our lives -- including forcing those who are horrified by abortion to fund it.

Interestingly, I don't believe I've come across an abortion proponent who him/herself has ever been aborted. Not a very balanced sample.

On the other hand, I think abortion survivor Gianna Jessen deserves to be heard.

This whole abortion rights thing is very regional. I live in the south and so when I'm out convincing people to vote for Paul the FIRST question is "Is he pro-life?" and when I say yes it's an instant vote. You gotta remember that the largest voting block is evangelicals which are almost all pro-life. This represents the largest majority group in America. If he was pro-choice he wouldn't have any hope of winning. Our only hope now is that the evangelical vote won't solely go to Huckabee but will spread, like it has been, to Paul. Surprisingly to me a lot of Christian voters don't want us to continue the war but aren't vocal about it. Again, politically as so many have stated, if there's 1 issue you disagree with him on this issue will ensure him the most votes. Congress is too deadlocked on abortion to have anything pass anyway.

This came up for a supporter for Ron Paul who was a strong far left activist type in SF.

She said that although ron was pro life. He supports the states and my empowered vote to make this decision not uncontrollable washington or the courts.

More importantly she stated that its come down to loosing choice on everything else and my freedoms.

That doesnt leave me any choice but to go with Ron Paul.

To the single issue pro-choice voter, say this:

When power of the state takes away your right to speak freely, and the right to privacy in your own home, and has erased the US borders with Canada and Mexico for the NA Union, you can take solace in the fact that you still have the right to an abortion.

And when a future president is not satisfied with the power they have, and they create the Dept. of New Citizen Management, and decides it's in the federal governments interest, you can have a FORCED abortion, in the name of population control.

Ron Paul is 100% against abortion. I am willing to accept abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, before the fetus has an operational brain.

What we can both agree on is that there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government a right to regulate abortion at all. When 7 out of 9 Supreme Court judges said there was, they lied. This is a matter for the states. If conservative states are allowed to have sharp restrictions on abortion and liberal states less restrictive abortion laws, a much larger fraction of the population will be satisfied with the result than are now under our unconstitutional one-size-fits-all policy. In private conversations with pro-abortion liberals I've found that they agree with me that the Constitution says nothing about abortion, but they like Roe-vs-Wade because it gave them the result they want. I find such disregard for the rule of law contemptible. Such people have no right to complain if some conservative judge decides that the first, fourth, and fifth amendments have been superseded by various emanations and penumbras of other parts of the Constitution.

One consequence of Roe-vs-Wade is that it has poisoned the whole process of nominating Supreme Court judges. The only thing conservatives care about is whether he's pro-life, and the only thing the liberals care about is whether he's pro-abortion. It's as if nothing else matters.

You can argue that Bush was Pro-Life and he only managed to get us into an unwinnable occupation in Iraq that is costing the lives of thousands of our soldiers, thousands of Iraqi civilians and billions of dollars. Under his presidency, she still has the right to an abortion.
I think Ron Paul can do a little bit better than Bush.

You know, put it in perspective.

regarding the moral issue. However, the consitutional issue of Roe v. Wade is something that I take serious issue with. RvW needs to be overturned, as it is an affront to the rights of the states, and to the Constitution itself.

I think a woman should have the right to chose what happens with her body.

Obviously, her right to have an abortion conflicts with the fetus's right to have a life.

This is a big issue.

Here's an even bigger issue: our US Constitution is being systematically dismantled to the point that it's no longer clear if the Bill of Rights have any meaning. Checks and balances from 3 separate branches of government? Might be a thing of the past.

Let's restore the constitution first so that we can later have a good old fashioned American debate about abortion.

What kind of woman is against liberty for fetuses? I say give them liberty by letting them be born.

You had your chance at 'choice' when you failed to use a condom...and only communists and nazis are for weeding out the human population to include only the desirables.

But let facts be facts. At the absolute core of RP's philosophy is the rejection of force, individual responsibility and respect for life. If you support RP and reject this you are inconsistant in your own values.

You've already mentioned the fact that he believes it's a states rights issue. But the most important thing has to be a person's charachter. Ron Paul is someone you can actually trust. He's not running to be king. Unfortunately the others are, they are products of the system...They pretend because they don't think the average citizen can handle the Truth.

The truth is pretty ugly in the system of government we have right now. And there is only one candidate that can change it.

Mike
Ron Paul is my HERO!!!