Read Scott

While I’m staunchly pro-life and would love to see it completely reversed in America, I think the state rights’ concept is the best compromise we could come up with. I’m pretty sure that was the policy before Roe vs Wade. If I could know that abortions were illegal in Oklahoma, I could at least rest assured that my state did not allow this.

Also, highly emotional issues are better resolved at the states’ level. Capital punishment is a good example of this.

Finally, I’m getting tired of voting straight line Republican always because they are the supposed pro-life party. In many ways, they are not pro-life in the fact that an influential part of their leadership consists of war mongers. Also, the leadership and pundits of Fox News sure liked Giuilani who was unabashedly pro-choice.

I don’t think abortion, murder in general, robbery, theft and so on should move to the central government whether federal or UN or galactic.

The Constitution puts limitations on the government, not on the people.

Individuals and voluntary organizations can help others around the world in a great variety of ways. The federal government under a policy of non-intervention would not get in the way of that. That is a reasonable way this nation can help others.

As far as helping others, by defending the weak, the US government does not represent this nation well and tends to choose the wrong side and then lingers and meddles. Often the problem occurs because of meddling. For example, Iraq got a wink from the US before invading Kuwait.

Personally, I think abortion is one of the biggest, if not the biggest way that people dodge responsibility. People want to have sex but don’t want to deal with some of the consequences that come with it…including pregnancy. I am only talking about consensual sex, not rape. Although, it’d be awesome if someone gave up a child to be adopted who was conceived in rape, I wouldn’t judge them if they terminated the pregnancy. It’d still be awfully sad to see another child killed but I haven’t walked in her shoes.

Just my two cents.

Cindy Beall’s last blog post..Big ?D?

@Tulsa - I understand the desire to compromise, and in the case of abortion, that might be a good first step. However, the first step cannot be our last step and therefore our destination. It should be exactly what it is…a first step.

@Thomas - I agree that the Constitution exists to limit government and not people, but it also exists to uphold life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If abortion exists in this country, then life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are being stripped from unborn American humans.

@Cindy - Thanks for the comment. I love it when you bring conversation to the table. You’re always forthright, even if it’s a tough stance. Dodging responsibility is exactly what’s happening in abortion, outside those cases of rape, which are much more difficult to set a line in the sand for.

I don’t disagree that it should only be a first step. Abortion is murder plain and simple and we are in the middle of Holocaust if you believe that. I would want it outlawed in every state eventually. But, we could at least divide and conquer starting with the conservative states.

Tulsa Atlas’s last blog post..Classifying Libertarians

This is a tough issue. While I completely believe in the sanctity of life and would love to see abortions end in our nation I have to look at our standing President. He went into office with the promise of ending abortion and the backing of the religious right and what did he do about the issue during his two terms? Nothing.

Brad Ruggles
http://www.bradruggles.com

Brad Ruggles’s last blog post..My Wife, Editor-In-Chief

@Tulsa - As a first step, I feel like there should be some sentiment to want to abolish the crime altogether. It doesn’t seem like his aim is that direction.

@Brad - It’s a shame that our sitting president has alienated so many people that used to love him. Whether it’s his foreign policy, his lack of action on issues he promised to change, or his polarizing tendencies on seemingly unimportant issues, his supporters are feeling less and less connected to his values and ideals.

Scott, I passed this post along to a friend that I knew liked Ron. He wrote this back in response…

I appreciate that you sent me this snippet. The writer hasn’t presented the information correctly and is confused about this issue. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is against abortion and has a plan to do anything about it (that I’ve ever heard about). Before I explain that it’s important to mention what you probably already know about the history of abortion. Before 1969 there were abortions performed for cases of rape and incest and we have about as many of those today as we did then. What happened in 1969 in the Rowe vs Rade case in the Supreme Court declared on a federal level that fetuses weren’t persons therefore they were not protected by our Consistution. That was a really bad day for the Supreme Court and they opened the door that 40 million women have walked through since then to have abortions for any or without any reason. That decision was made by 9 people and made for our nation. Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist and he makes the case that the Supreme Court had no right to do that on a federal level and the issue should be decided at the state level. So when the writer says that “Ron Paul thinks that abortion is a state’s rights issue…” he/she is correct. When the writer implies that Ron Paul support abortion he/she couldn’t be more wrong. Ron Paul is against abortion and would use the office of the President to dismantle it on the level that he can influence it on - the federal level. I have no idea why this activist doesn’t think this is great news. Once the issue is pushed to the states abortion will be legal in some cases and illegal in others and some types of abortion will be legal in some places and illegal in others. This has the potential to be a major victory for our camp because people will be voting on the issue which they never had a chance to do. In the worst case scenario Ron Paul’s plan could make no change only if every single state passed a law that allowed abortion for any and all cases. That is so unlikely I am tempted to say that it couldn’t happen. Also, the argument that the writer made “If the American federal government has an obligation…” is another uninformed one. Since the federal government, in a collosal blunder, declared fetuses non persons then they have no reason to protect their human rights since they don’t think that they do have human rights. Of course we know that fetuses are human and should be protected. Of course we know abortion is murder. But if you’re going to make abortion the main issue for choosing a president, and it’s my main issue, then you need to get your facts straight. The writer doesn’t have his/her facts straight, that’s a pity. Elect a Democrat and this issue probably gets worse. Elect a different Republican and nothing probably happens. Elect Ron Paul and the 50 states get to vote on state laws…. Which shall I choose….. Which shall I choose.

Nathaniel Scott’s last blog post..Inspiration

I agree with the above post. As long as the federal government is involved, we have no say. On the state level, we would have the opportunity the actually vote against it. It may be a human’s right issue, but as it is now, we really dont have much of a way of defending that right.

mikesingletary’s last blog post..Re: Lasse Gjertsen

@Everyone - This is why I love blogging and why blogs, to me, are the best way to start discussion. I came into this post with a specific view about Ron Paul. After only a few posts here, I feel like I’ve been enlightened. Thanks for the honest conversation guys.

I agree with “mikesingletary”.