JEFF LOVES JESSICA SAID:
Ron Paul is staunchly pro-life.
Of course, that's the Mario Cuomo defense. "I'm personally opposed, but..."
Ron Paul is running for president. So the question is how his "staunchly pro-life" sentiments translate into public policy.
The logical conclusion of Steve's argument is that we need a one-world government.
Well, since I am an anarchist, I don't see that conclusion as a bad thing. (This is JLJ, by the way--JLJ is an alternate screen name I keep posting under accidentally)
ReplyDeleteIf you're an anarchist, why defend a man who's running for high political office?
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is about the only politician I would ever consider supporting. Because he's the man. And because I consider ending our murderous foreign occupations (RP is one of the very few national politicians who would actually do this) to be a far higher priority than taking an absolutist position against political involvement.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, how has the supposed pro-life commitment of the mainstream GOP translated into any tangible public policy? Oh that's right, it hasn't. Ever. The GOP plays the pro-life card like the dems play the anti-war card. Empty rhetoric to harvest votes.
ReplyDeleteAs pro-abortion advocates have been noting over the last fifteen years, just because Republicans haven't overturned Roe v Wade at a national level doesn't mean they haven't done a lot of work at the state level to limit access to abortion. This is something where focusing only on the national and federal level can overlook substantial activity in the states.
ReplyDelete"The GOP plays the pro-life card"-J
ReplyDeleteSome do, and some don't.
"As pro-abortion advocates have been noting over the last fifteen years, just because Republicans haven't overturned Roe v Wade at a national level doesn't mean they haven't done a lot of work at the state level to limit access to abortion."
ReplyDeleteGreat, so we agree that Ron Paul is correct, that it's preferable to leave this issue to the states rather than to the federal government?
So if some states outlaw murder, while other states decriminalize murder, that's okay?
ReplyDeleteSteve, if you can give me a tangible example of the GOP enacting meaningful pro-life policy at the national level, then by all means, please do so.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, I can't understand your objection to Ron Paul on this issue. What, you don't like the fact that he doesn't spew out the dishonest rhetoric that most other GOP presidential candidates do?
Take the ban on partial-birth abortion.
ReplyDeleteIf it was a states rights issue that doesn't necessarily make it a done deal that every state would legalize abortion. The main thing is that government subsidizes abortion therefore we get more of it. George Bush put into effects a Partial Birth abortion ban but didn't do anything to stop planned parenthood, in fact large amounts went to them when he had total control of congress, should we expect another republican to do it? I'm skeptical. I do believe Ron will defund as much as possible.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the slow response--life gets busy. About the partial birth abortion ban, you may see it differently than I do, but that particular legislation looks to me like the GOP throwing its supporters a brittle bone, to keep them coming back for more. The ban pertains to the intact dilation and extraction procedure, which if the statistics I've seen are correct, accounted for only .2% of abortions performed in the US before the ban (the year 2000, to be precise). Furthermore, physicians can still perform late term abortions via saline injections. If that's the best the GOP can do in 30 years, consider me unimpressed.
ReplyDeleteAnd Brian's point is an important one: Ron Paul is one of the few who would seek to defund current federal subsidies.
Ron Paul was on Jon Stewart last night. Very interesting. You may disagree with Ron, but he does speak honestly and Constitutionally.
ReplyDelete