sjw Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Excellent interview: If anything he's even more lucid 4 years after his first run.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted October 23, 2011 Author Share Posted October 23, 2011 It was quite interesting that he explicitly referred to allowing volunteers to help out in situations like Libya. One of my criticisms of his foreign policy just fell.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Ron Paul is great. I think the state of the U.S. has finally gotten so bad they'll give something reasonable a chance.I hope he's just protecting his self image, but the only issue I have with him is his approval of intellectual property rights. But overall, he's pretty much the best candidate America could ever hope for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 You both support his belief that Roe v. Wade and it's companion case be reversed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Actually, I've partly-apathetically considered myself pro-choice... but Ron had a good point. If it's illegal to kill a baby after birth, even if it's your own, why should it be legal before birth? Like-wise, it's a mother's obligation to look after her child after birth, why not before?Pro-lifers would be better off dropping the whole religious aspect of their argument and trying to make some sense...The only issue, I suppose, would be special cases like rape... If the state is going to force a mother to keep a child that she didn't create from her own volition, they shouldn't force her to take care of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 You both support his belief that Roe v. Wade and it's companion case be reversed?No, and I find his arguments regarding that disingenuous.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 But Selene, I also find your bringing the matter up in this context disingenuous.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Shayne:Disingenuous? How so?Being pro-life vs. being pro-death is a central liberty issue to Dr, Paul. To most "Objectivists," being pro-choice is a core central issue also. I have raised this issue every time Dr. Paul is mentioned here. So, I do not think I am being uncandid in raising it here.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 Shayne:Disingenuous? How so?It seemed to me that the implication of your question was that since I support Ron Paul, then maybe I support pro-raping-the-woman-a-second-time (I won't call it "pro-life" because it is anti-life and anti-rights to coerce a woman into having a child, she's not a farm animal).Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Shayne:Disingenuous? How so?It seemed to me that the implication of your question was that since I support Ron Paul, then maybe I support pro-raping-the-woman-a-second-time (I won't call it "pro-life" because it is anti-life and anti-rights to coerce a woman into having a child, she's not a farm animal).ShayneIn the article I read, Ron was quoted saying that he would have circumstances such as rape considered exceptions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Shayne:Disingenuous? How so?It seemed to me that the implication of your question was that since I support Ron Paul, then maybe I support pro-raping-the-woman-a-second-time (I won't call it "pro-life" because it is anti-life and anti-rights to coerce a woman into having a child, she's not a farm animal).ShayneThere was no "implication" to my question. I know that you are not for "raping-the-woman." How could you even conjure up that I would think that was your position? Seems that your conjuring is a tad disingenuous.Dr. Paul believes in a God and he is "pro-life." Neither of these positions disqualifies him for you correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 In the article I read, Ron was quoted saying that he would have circumstances such as rape considered exceptions...See, this is why his position is disingenuous. Just because a woman is raped does not mean that murder should be sanctioned. If he really thinks that abortion is murder then he should be consistent. Actually I'm glad he's not.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 Dr. Paul believes in a God and he is "pro-life." Neither of these positions disqualifies him for you correct?His position is that it's a "state's right" issue. I disagree -- I think the Feds should come down on states for violating the woman's rights -- but he is so radically better than other candidates in other respects that no, it doesn't disqualify him for me.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Paul is an odd contradiction. He believe you and I ought to be free, but that pregnant women should be brood-mares for the human race.I would bet that he does not see a contradiction here.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dglgmut Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 I don't know if he ever approve of abortion, though. He could be consistent in saying you can't kill anyone, and everyone has the right to life. If you were raped, though, have the baby and the state ought to find it a home.On the other side of the argument, though, where do you draw the line? Should condoms be illegal?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbeaulieu Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 To be fair, I doubt we will ever see a candidate that fits each and everyone's bill perfectly. There are so many core "pros" for Ron Paul being CinC, that I can take his stance on abortion. If he has caviats for it, then he's taking in those specific circumstances that a woman became pregnant against her will. I do respect his stance on being pro life. And I can certainly get past that he believes in God. Most people in my family are religious and I love them to pieces.Shayne, excellent clip, btw. I gained a lot more respect (if that's possible) at his response near the end regarding, essentially, the "who gives a shit about who mowed Romney's lawn" bit when we're facing a financial collapse. He's extremely focused.~ Shane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 I had the pleasure of meeting Ron Paul in person, when he made an address in East Aurora N.Y. which is near Buffalo N.Y. I looked him in the eye, shook his hand and exchanged a pleasantry or two. He struck me as being a square shooter and a human being. I cannot subscribe to his position on the matter of abortion, regardless of his reasons for having it. Here is the bad news. He is totally out of step with the voting public. The voters just love their little "bennies" from the government. They like their little perks and handouts regardless of the true cost and the disastrous results. The American voting public is shit stupid (look at what they have voted in in the last 100 years). The bottom line is the Ron Paul is unelectable. And even if he were voted in, he would be so out of synch with congress that his vetoes would be overriden by Congress. Do you think Congress is going to reduce our armed forces or our overseas commitments? Not a chance.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbeaulieu Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Bob, realistically, you are dead on. But we have to start somewhere. Let it be Ron Paul that becomes the pebble in the pond. Even if he can't win all the battles in Congress, he can sure draw a line and make a statement with 4 years of visibility. And his would be one hell of a foot to jam in the nation's door.~ Shane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 It's a folly to pretend to know exactly what the voters will do with Ron Paul. He should press ahead and you should support him if you think he's a good candidate.Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjw Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 Not good:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2533Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Bob, realistically, you are dead on. But we have to start somewhere. Let it be Ron Paul that becomes the pebble in the pond. Even if he can't win all the battles in Congress, he can sure draw a line and make a statement with 4 years of visibility. And his would be one hell of a foot to jam in the nation's door.~ ShaneThere is no harm in pissing into the wind. The worst outcome is getting a bit wet. That is not fatal.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbeaulieu Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Not good:http://www.govtrack....?bill=h111-2533ShayneI would hope that "significant likelyhood" would be a bit more concise in determining what constitutes "human" qualification. I didn't see where there was a clause (might have been mired in the grammar) for extenuating circumstances, which is problematic.~ Shane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GALTGULCH8 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 I think it is common knowledge that the Roman Catholic Church's attitude about reproduction is all about growing their flock of followers. Of course they are opposed to abortion because they don't care whether the child is the product of rape or not as long as it is raised to be another tithe-generator. Hence their unprovable contention that an immortal soul enters the ovum upon fertilization. Unfortunately Ron Paul is not scientific regarding his "understanding" of such matters. He raised his hand when asked who does not accept the theory of evolution! He has swallowed the Church's agenda whole without question.Never mind that an embryo has not yet reached the stage where it is capable of being conscious. Never mind that it is meaningless to speak of a fetus before birth, or before the age of viability, as having a right to its own life. Ron Paul has offered a bill declaring that a microscopic fertilized ovum as being a "person!"He may be correct on how far the country has drifted from the bounds of the Constitution and on the evils of the Federal Reserve and our interventionist domestic and foreign policies, but he is unreasonably caught up in his religious delusions, as is more than half the country regarding an afterlife, the existence of a supernatural realm, among other mystical notions.How I wish that Gary Johnson who shares most of Ron Paul's concerns but is more rational and scientific and is pro choice had whatever it takes to win this crucial election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbeaulieu Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 gulch8,Be that as it may, we have to take a lot of candidates with a bit of salt. If Ron Paul is elected, I'm sure this issue would not be his hot topic. Leading the country back towards the Consititution is and getting the economy back on track is. I don't agree with Ron Paul on all issues. And pro-life as a standard is where I'd agree to disagree.~ ShaneEdit: I just ran across this CNN article by David Frum - What if Abortion Became a Non-Issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now