The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread

[Infinite Jest]

I don't think some of you are quite grasping his sincere motivation for states' rights.

I'm not American, and I don't live in a federal system, so I don't fully understand the issues here. I think you clarified his position for me, so thanks

I could only see that logic coming from a woman. Are you a woman?

Nope. I just happen to value a woman's right to choose more than her (or my) right to choose to take drugs. Drug legalisation is an important issue to me, but if I had to choose between the two, I'd retain legal abortion.

 

[alasdairm]

I could only see that logic coming from a woman.

why?

alasdair

 

[mulberryman]

personally, if someone wanted to legalise all drugs, but criminalise abortion, there's no way I'd vote for them; but that's just my personal opinion).

If these are the only two issues to base on chosing a candidate (which they're obviously not likely to be), I'd say they get 50% approval, a failing grade, though the past seven years has proven we're most definitly gonna have to grade on the curve.

Personally, I like Ron Paul, and at this point I wholehearted support his candidacy. In truth, there's a very good chance I wouldn't vote for him in the national election, but dammit, he's better than any other member of the GOP alive today that I've ever heard of, and regardless of who I voted for, and even regardless of his personal views on abortion, I'd still be proud to call him Commander-In-Chief! :D

 

[5-HT2]

If he allows a removal of abortion rights through mismanagement of a bill, what good is he as someone who 'protects the individuals rights?'

Well, in his defense, he considers the zygote as an 'individual.' This is one of the issues where he has it wrong.

Let's not play silly buggers, Paul is a claimant to the Libertarian Ethos, he's running on a Republican ticket, his actions show him as actually a Statist.

Are you just trying to provoke debate or are you actually serious? I was under the impression that his voting record was consistently anti-state. It seems quite superficial to say that anybody who runs on the Republican ticket is automatically a statist. IIRC, it's harder to get ballot access as a third party.

He's pandering. He's pandering to the Religious Right on the abortion issue, an issue I remind you most Libertarians are 'pure' on. He's pandered to the Republicans to even get elected by adopting their party title. Paul will roll over and play, that is the message he is sending.

Let's face it, Paul is a politician. I think the Internet needs to pull its head out of the sand on this one.

Yeah, he is a politician, and any politician in today's world has to do some pandering. Sure, If I didn't feel that the USA is on the verge of becoming a police state and an economic basketcase, I wouldn't be as ardent in my support of him. In a crappy field of candidates, he seems to be the best option right now.

 

[mulberryman]

Should he not be nominated, I would hope he may run on a Unity'08 ticket. The only question is what progressive/Democratic candidate to chose as his running mate. I always liked Joe Biden, who has a real common sense attitude that could balance out some of Paul's vibrancy. Mike Gravel has it right on so many issues and would be another great choice, though there is the whole age and image factor to worry about.

 

[Broshious]

They are wrong. So long as a fetus cannot live outside its mother's body it has no rights. Its simply not human yet, it does not have the complexities required to fit that definition. The pro-life arguement is in every respect no more valid than enforcing manditory vegitarianism.

Still, both democracy and the sane rationality of human discretion can both be protected. There need not be an abortion clinic in every poduck backwood whistlestop county in Texas. Just as long as we're assured there'll be one in Dallas, San Antonio and Houston, and everywhere else the people democratically require.

I'm not saying he isn't wrong. I was just saying that as he sees the fetus as a human being then it must have the same rights as any other human being so it cannot be aborted. If he actually thinks this way then there can be no way he'd support any abortion clinic just like you or I wouldn't support a "Hitman Clinic".

 

[mulberryman]

Indeed, but its still only one issue.

 

[Mona Lisa]

Yes, it would be traumatic and a major hassle to have an unwanted pregnancy. But why can't why a woman can't just give the baby up for adoption if she doesn't want to raise it; if she's terrified of childbirth, a kind doctor could have her put to sleep so she didn't have to suffer any pain from the birth, etc. It's actually less damaging to her body to have a normal pregnancy than an abortion.

 

[mulberryman]

Well its not always that simple. Surely there is a point before a fetus is a baby, and not all pains of pregnancy are physical ones.

IMO, we should seek to envision a world where there is no disease, and no unwanted death of any human mind. Distinction must inevitably be made as to just what a human mind is, and in the light of progression to that world, an ever decreasing number of births will be neither desired nor necessary.

 

[QuestionEverything]

Yes, it would be traumatic and a major hassle to have an unwanted pregnancy. But why can't why a woman can't just give the baby up for adoption if she doesn't want to raise it; if she's terrified of childbirth, a kind doctor could have her put to sleep so she didn't have to suffer any pain from the birth, etc.

Why put her to sleep? So then she can have a C-section and undergo major surgery? Seems a bit ridiculous to me.

It's actually less damaging to her body to have a normal pregnancy than an abortion.

You're comparing apples and oranges. 'Damaging' in what way? Even if you're going for physically, you don't know that. Every pregnancy is different and don't be fooled into thinking that just because it's 'natural' that it isn't damaging to the body (let alone the mental health of a woman that does not want the pregnancy). It takes two years for the body to return to 'normal' after giving birth and pregnancies should be spaced at least 18 months apart in order to give yourself the best chance of a healthy pregnancy and fetus. Here is an article that explains some of it.

I like the popular saying, ''If you don't believe in abortions, don't have one.''

Mods, if this is going too far off I apologize.

 

[Finder]

But why can't why a woman can't just give the baby up for adoption if she doesn't want to raise it

Pretty simple: it's not necessarily the best option. Conversely, why can't she just have an abortion if it is an unwanted pregnancy?

 

[Infernal]

Are you just trying to provoke debate or are you actually serious? I was under the impression that his voting record was consistently anti-state. It seems quite superficial to say that anybody who runs on the Republican ticket is automatically a statist. IIRC, it's harder to get ballot access as a third party.

I'm sorry, poor choice of words. That should have read State's Rightist as Paul is certainly not a central planner. What I meant by it is that while the push to decentralize government can be a good one, doing so at the loss of personal freedoms is not Libertarian. Basically he removes something he doesn't agree with by passing it off to the states.

Yeah, he is a politician, and any politician in today's world has to do some pandering. Sure, If I didn't feel that the USA is on the verge of becoming a police state and an economic basketcase, I wouldn't be as ardent in my support of him. In a crappy field of candidates, he seems to be the best option right now.

Pandering is understandable but don't suppose a moral high ground about being different.

And to add, Dr. Paul may have never had to perform an abortion to save the life of a mother but if he's a doctor worth his salt, he has almost assuredly read a medical journal or text that describes such a situation.

 

[mulberryman]

I can't think of abortion ever being banned in any US state that has a major city in it. South Dakota is nowheresville and there's no reason to think they couldn't just hop a train to Omaha or something.

 

[Sir Jac]

I say ban abortions after the first trimester, making an exception if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. You can't make everyone happy, but imo it's the closest you can get to respecting the rights of the child and the mother equally.

I hear where DD is coming from though. Given the choice between 2 complete lives or 3 shattered lives, I know where I stand.

 

[Infernal]

I say ban abortions after the first trimester, making an exception if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. You can't make everyone happy, but imo it's the closest you can get to respecting the rights of the child and the mother equally.

I hear where DD is coming from though. Given the choice between 2 complete lives or 3 shattered lives, I know where I stand.

Basically, what you propose already exists.

 

[qwe]

Many Paul supporters state he's a "states rights" guy when it comes to abortion.. i think this sets the record straight

uh... he IS a states rights guy when it comes to abortion, your very article said so didnt it?:

removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life

 

[Blacksoulman]

uh... he IS a states rights guy when it comes to abortion, your very article said so:

what's the point of this thread?

it was to try and say that ron paul will put a federal ban on abortion. Which is totally absurd considering his voting record for the past 17 years and his outspoken reduction of federal government.

 

[foodisgood]

Basically, what you propose already exists.

what people dont understand is abortion is still legal all the way up to the point of giving birth. It's just that certain methods of abortion have been made illegal.

 

[mulberryman]

^^ Well, yeah a woman cannot be jailed for beating on her own stomache, and never should be. Aside from that, well....

...geez, I don't even know. Everybody's argueing on this issue and noone is listening to each other. I don't consider myself pro-life or pro-choice. How about pro-compromise. Can we just all realize that both sides are right and start accepting each others' ideas as equally valid?

 

[Infernal]

what people dont understand is abortion is still legal all the way up to the point of giving birth. It's just that certain methods of abortion have been made illegal.

Ok point, however, many medical practitioners discourage late term abortions due to increased risk with the lengthy pregnancy. Due to the availability of planned pregnancy education later term abortions are fairly uncommon. There isn't a law so to speak, rather a good deal of information and (hopefully) well informed medical practitioners attempting to guide people to safe choices.

Link