Comment: A rational fence-sitter

(See in situ)

A rational fence-sitter

It seems that people automatically assume that someone is either passionately pro-life, or passionately pro-choice. I am neither, and see valid points in both sides' arguments. I see the issue as a conflict of 2 human rights, made more complex by the lack of a universal definition of exactly when an unborn infant is considered to be a person in his or her own right. I also think that the entire debate is effectively moot when it comes to presidential elections. Abortion policy was set by the Supreme Court in 1974. It hasn't changed since then, regardless of who was president, and despite constant screaming from both sides. The abortion issue is therefore a distraction in my mind when it comes to choosing a candidate. I support Ron Paul wholeheartedly. I accept his pro-life position as sincere and rational. I support Gary Johnson because he's the best option I have left on the ballot here in Virginia. I accept his (mostly) pro-choice position as sincere and rational. I also recognize that the solution proposed by both men is to leave the problem to the states. I agree absolutely with that solution, so effectively there is no difference between the two on the issue.