A response to Paul & the abortion issue.
Submitted by vijayrajwani on Sat, 11/24/2007 - 07:44As Paul gains popularity, the smear-campaigns are starting, whether by other candidates or private individuals.
Yesterday on the NY Craigslist community board under the politics section was the most ridiculous post about Paul & abortion... Which basically played the emotional-hypothetical of "what if a 12-year-old got raped... Paul would put her in jail..." etc... Totally ridiculous.
Here is how I responded:
http://newyork.craigslist.org/que/pol/487662949.html
Agree, disagree? Feedback.
Vijay
»
Good response.
It's important to also point out that a Supreme Court that can decide in favor of legalized abortion (Roe vs. Wade) can just as easily be against it, and change the law to suit the current political climate. What Dr. Paul is proposing involves removing the decision from the Federal court and placing the decision back into the hands of the States. This does not automatically make abortion illegal, or legal. It simply allows each State to set their own definitions and laws with regard to this complex issue.
This is obviously a touchy subject and has no easy answers.
While I am anti-abortion, I am also pro-women's choice. Having a safe medical procedure available to a women who seeks council and termination of the pregnancy (based on their State's rules) is better (in my opinion) than having abortions in "back alleys" and under unsafe conditions. I don't agree with abortion under every circumstance, but I do not have any issue with a woman who has been raped, or become pregnant from incest or other forced situation. There should be limits, and there should be serious consequences for those who abuse the procedure.
This one topic can be a deal-breaker for many pro-choice voters, especially women who are steadfast in their reasoning that Roe vs. Wade is one of the best decisions ever made by the Supreme Court.
I am certainly no more qualified to argue either way, but I'd ultimately like to see decisions not specifically based on interpreting the Constitution to be returned to the States.
AGREE
You expressed Ron Paul's position and defense well. Dr. Paul is quite logical and fair on this. The Pro-Choice Individuals feel their cause is not only a privacy issue but a liberty issue, hence their label. Dr. Paul shows that the Unborn has his life and liberty taken from him by those involved in his demise. You cannot have your liberty if someone can decide to take your life. Why cannot Pro-Choice People understand this? My answer: They want liberty only for themselves. What they do not realize is--if everyone does not have liberty, neither do they. There is a law that cannot be broken: What goes around comes around. In biblical words, "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap." We need to continue sowing liberty with Dr. Paul and The Founders. Does this not mean that--instead of just looking out for our own self-interests--we look out for one other, including our Unborn Children?
Ruling by prayer
Ruling by prayer
Federalism solves social issues
I think your best bet is to be honest and persuade this individual about why using federalism to defer decisions to the states and individuals is a good idea that makes everyone happy.
People who are extremely interested in legislating social policy will not be huge fans of Ron Paul. People who want politicians to sign a law that says, "You must do exactly like me or else I'm going to get the federal government to fine or imprison you" do not understand the constitution; they will do much better with another candidate.
There are better alternatives -- just look at how we treat our friends abroad.
Japan allows both abortion and capital punishment. Few New York liberals get bent out of shape that their very similar Tokyo urbanite supports the death penalty. Few rural Georgians get upset that family farmers with similar cultural values in rural Toyama can get abortions.
So why should they get any more upset about each other?
New Yorkers trying to force Georgians how to live just make Georgians angry. Georgians trying to force New Yorkers how to live make New Yorkers unhappy.
The best solution is for you to live life in your neck of the woods how you want and for me to live life in my neck of the woods how I want -- and each of us allows the other to do the same (just like we do for the Japanese). Then our friends can decide who they want to be their neighbor based on who they will get along with.
This philosophy will ensure the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of conflict.
You may be blue-eyed
but you're no fool.
What is it about this concept that people don't get?