Comment: Nuances...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: This Debate Will Be SO Interesting (see in situ)

Nuances...

As I've put it on other blogs, although I'm a Catholic, I would vote for a bigoted anti-catholic who would destroy the government's power over a pro-Catholic who would use (and expand) the power to force everyone to act how they saw fit.

Yet libertarians are divided. The strongest pro-life arguments I've heard are from Doris Gordon, l4l.org, a pro-life atheist! The problem is some libertarians would deny rights by definition. OK, so if as an individual, I believe that women should not have rights, do I have the right to act upon my personal belief?

Being an OB, I think Dr. Paul would be able to argue in both ways for libertarians. That it is appropriate as a states rights issue (so make the case to your legislature or move), and that scientifically they are human and entitled to human rights, so the pro-abortionist is in error on the issue. If they want to be able to kill human beings before birth so much they would reject someone else who is closer on 99.5% of the rest of the issues, there is no hope for them.

On the war, Ronald Reagan brought the troops home from Lebanon after the truck bombing. It was a sit-and-bleed situation and he saw the wisdom that there could be no victory. And the support for the war is probably softer than you think - another fine question would be Define victory in Iraq or on terror and explain how you would achieve it. Reagan also banned shipments of cluster bombs to Israel when they used them in Lebanon in civilian areas. The answer to the war problem is to point out all the proper and constitutional things they should be doing HERE, and wouldn't it have been better to have the militia available to help in New Orleans instead of sitting and being shot in Iraq?