Ron Paul

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Here is a blog I posted on myspace about Ron Paul:

Okay, so this is my take on Ron Paul. He is essentially a small government type. Kind of a blend between a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist. I like his emphasis on small government, but his lack of a stance (at least on his campaign page) on issues such as gay marriage, education, improving the welfare/medicare problem, the environment, and the increasing gap between the rich and the poor is a setback for me. Here I will show where I support him and where I disagree with him:

Abortion: I agree that we need to end abortion. The amount of unborn children that are killed every year is quite terrifying. While I wish to end this, if we merely banned abortion, there would still be an unacceptable number of abortions yearly. And the number of deaths from so-called "coat-hanger" abortions would increase greatly. What is needed is an end to poverty (a huge factor for abortions), an increase in support for alternatives like adoption and child support, an enforcement of the father (as many of the abortions are done by single mothers) rearing the child, a forced decrease in the number of casual abortions or abortions used as birth control, and support for single families. All the while, the government should be greatly decreasing its spending on abortions (like its support of Planned Parenthood). That is my stance on abortion.

Personal Privacy: Ron Paul is very strongly against the "Patriot Act," and I think I agree with him. My stance on this issue is not entirely developed, as I think it is a very complicated matter. I think that Benjamin Franklin said something about there being a decision between freedom/privacy and security and that freedom should be primary.

Debt and Taxes: I agree that the government is spending too much and especially on failing agencies and programs. Our "national defence" spending is completely unacceptable, and our continued funding for the failing welfare, medicare, and medicaid programs is detrimental to this nation. While I agree that we need to cut back on government spending, to also lower taxes would only support the rich and harm the poor. There is middle ground here.

Immigration Reform: Much to my chagrin (ha, I love that word), Ron Paul is far too conservative on immigration. While I do want secure borders, it cannot come at the expense of fellow human beings and separation of families. The majority of Americans support Amnesty for present illegal immigrants. I don't want to just open our borders to anyone, but we have to truly protect families, even if they are not from America. If we are going to claim to be pro-family, how will we look when we destroy millions of families? Somewhat hypocritical. We have been the nation of immigrants for centuries, will that change now?

War and Foreign Policy: Here, I agree with Paul. This war was sold to us. It was a little devil dressed up in a beautiful gown promising to give us bountiful gifts, but like all devils it was deceitful. It was a lie. There were no WMDs; we are not wanted in Iraq nor Afghanistan. The war is costing us billions, almost trillions of dollars. And thousands of Americans (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis). We need to bring our troops home from around the world. We can help other nations without our military present. Another way is possible, and more peaceful.

Property Rights: For the most part I agree here. Eminent Domain is increasingly being used for the benefit of Big Business. However, sometimes it is completely necessary. Take, for example, the local case of the expansion of Ustick. The traffic was reaching such a level that it was a hazard to public safety. Thus, there are times when eminent domain is very beneficial and necessary.

American Sovereignty and Independence: Paul likes to claim the threat of the New World Order brought in by the UN, NAFTA and the EU. While I respect his opinion, the UN is harmless. If it doesn't clean up its act soon, it will be gone in the next 10 years. NAFTA may pose more of a "threat", but Paul's plan is not quite the solution needed. He wants to leave any international agency that doesn't bow to our whims. America may need to protect its sovereignty, but we cannot mistake sovereignty and independence (good) with superiority (bad).

I would like to know Paul's stance on other issues, as they are equally important. I hope you liked my (exhausting) commentary.

I had links to FCNL's (Friend's Council on National Legislation, the oldest lobbyist organization in the Nation ) page on him, but I couldn't copy them here. I'll try and get them to you.

Namaste,

Greg

[Steven E. Webster]

Gregory,

I can support your approach to abortion with several caveats. I'm for ending poverty and for eliminating as many of the causes that lead women to choose abortion as possible. What I don't want to see happen is making women and doctors criminals when they make informed choices to have abortions.

I think defunding Planned Parenthood might have the opposite effect from what you suppose--eliminating Planned Parenthood might increase the number of abortions. That's a question worth exploring.

You say you don't want to see women driven to "back alley abortions"--women will do desparate things to themselves as well as to their unborn babies if their choices are restricted by society, and they aren't given viable options (like the resources to rear a child.)

In honesty, I need to add that I do not believe an unborn baby exists as a human being with rights from the moment of conception, nor for a period of time after that. The ancient or medieval church, I understand, believed that there was a moment of "quickening" some time after conception when the fetus becomes a living human being--maybe that moment was as late as three months from conception.

I'm not wanting to debate your convictions--I'm just suggesting that there are other reasonable ways of viewing this problem. How one feels about the issue has to do with how one views the beginnings of life.

My fear is that we'd find it alot easier to make all abortion illegal than to eliminate poverty. So we'd do the easy thing and leave the difficult thing undone. If we'd begin with the difficult thing--eliminating poverty--we would likely lower the number of abortions, as you hope.

Steven Webster

[pnggrad79]

I am not necessarily pro-abortion. I tend to be more pro-life, but not as a black or white issue. There are many times where abortion is not the best choice, but the only choice, and I think women need to be able to make that decision for themselves.

I am also a teacher and I witness on a daily basis children born to mothers, who should have never reproduced because they don't take care of their kids, they neglect them, introduce them to tawdry activities (we had 11 year old girls doing a pole dance on the monkey bars and charging the boys $1 to watch them, in the playground) and are more concerned with themselves than they are their children. I had at least 3 kids this year whose parents are on drugs, in rehab, jail, or dead, and they are being raised by grandparents, aunts, uncles, or foster care. I had 2 kids living in various motels because mom's boyfriend kept beating her up and she had to move.

All that to say, my opinion is if you choose to breed, you need to make sure that you know what you are getting yourself into, because children are a huge responsibility and if you can't handle it or you think it will be easy, adopt them out, or don't have them.

So it is not a black and white issue with me. I am not for just anyone being able to have kids. I think people should have to go through an application process and be interviewed to see if they could be good parents, before they are allowed to reproduce. It is not right to bring a child into this world if they aren't going to be cared for properly.

[u-dog]

There is ONLY one solution to unwanted pregancy and abortion.

RELIABLE, EASY, AFFORDABLE contraception

but we won't ever embrace that solution because certain religious groups (who will remain nameless) will oppose it based on silly notions about the meaning and purpose of sex. The high number of abortions is the DIRECT COST of those silly ideas.

As soon as we can effectively seperate sex from the fear of disease and unintentional reproduction we can begin to address the REAL meaning and moral significance of Sex in its various forms.

[BruceChris]

Or a soap box issue, as I sometimes say. 20 years ago, I was on a local TV talk show, supposedly a *showdown* between the Pro Lifers, and the Pro Choicers. (It must have been a ratings month)

All of the expected arguments were trotted out, with the expected results. Some people raised their voices, or pronounced moral judgement, and very few opinions were changed.

Then I got my 30 seconds of air time, and I advocated for sex education, and birth control, and allowed that abstenance is certainly an acceptable form of birth control. With existing methods of birth control, this should reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by at least 95%.

As soon as I sat down, the two sides were right back at it again. If they had had heard a word I said, they were certainly not going to let that stand in the way of a good "Hollier Than Thou" fest.

Am I pro-choice? He** yes. But the most important choice that everyone has to make is the one that they make before they have sex. If you don't want to start making babies, then make sure that you do something to make sure that it doesn't happen.

As a teenager, when caught without birth control, I have resorted to committing "Outercourse". It was the only morally responsible thing to do, other than taking a cold shower.

I see that u-dog and png have posted ahead of me, so,

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[BruceChris]

Two more things. First, I agree with Hillary, abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.

Second, as more and more people begin to figure out that sex is really not dirty, as they have in Europe, unwanted pregnancies AND abortions will drop.

P&L, BC

[rainbow7]

One of the most polarizing and counter-productive things that those who are adamantly opposed to abortion often do is to refer to those who are pro-choice as "pro-abortion" and caricature them as having no respect for life, advocating for something called "abortion on demand" (what is that???) and using abortion solely as a method of birth control. On the other hand, those on the left are sometimes just as likely to characterize everyone completely opposed to abortion under any circumstances as being lunatics. I just don't believe it is ever simple, nor that most women would choose abortion if they really believed they had another option they could live with.

It is hard to foresee the day when we will have no need for abortion....but to reduce the number of abortions, right and left need to be working together towards a common goal. This is hard because there is such a long history of combat between the two sides. In my experience most outspoken anti-choice people are also opposed to funding contraceptive research, sex education, and other efforts aimed at preventing unwanted pregnancy.

The largest number of abortions are performed because of birth control failure.....but simply improving contraceptive availability and effectiveness won't eliminate the need for abortion. Some abortions are medically necessary to protect a woman's life. Because some pregnancies are the result of rape and/or incest, working to reduce sexual violence is equally important. And what about the parents who discover that their unborn child has a condition that will likely result in her/his living only a few hours after birth? Theirs is an agonizing and uniquely personal decision that no one else can make for them.

Abortion HAS to be safe, legal and affordable, but we also need to be working to reduce the need for it!

Polly

[pnggrad79]

What exactly are you saying BC? We ( me and udog) slipped in here? What does that mean?

I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, but realizing we live in the real world and people don't always make the best choices for themselves or for the children they might be creating. I teach the kids who should have never been created by parents who didn't think before they hopped in the sack. If I had $1 for every child I wanted to take home away from their stupid parents, I would be a millionaire, of course I would have to be one to handle that many children!!!

I have also seen the emotional baggage a woman has to carry around if she has had an abortion. We need to decriminalize it and stop adding to the emotional weight carried around by women. Ultimately, it comes down to that time and place when it is just one person and God. We have no right to point fingers. Live and let live. Be a good influence to those children with idiots for parents.

[BruceChris]

in response to Steven, I noticed that you and u-dog had already posted. I think it's nice, for me to be able to maintain continuity, to post in response to the last post that I had read. It was not a problem here, and I just noted it in passing. I apologize, if it was taken as offensive.

I think that Polly has a good answer, and she probably makes better reading than I do.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[SEGrether]

Ron Paul has one heck of a backbone in some ways, but has none in others. As a libertarian, I was certainly pleased when he decided to run... but like others have mentioned, his tendency to label everything as a state issue (which I don't disagree with) is making him a little less appealing. Especially when he says he won't do anything to ban gay marriage but thinks states should. I think he'll have to show is true conservative stripes as a Presidential candidate more than he would as a Rep. It's a totally different game, sadly.

I'm hoping Bill Richardson can get some more air time. He's the libertarian-esque democrat.

[pnggrad79]

BC,
No offense taken, my friend, I just didn't know exactly what you meant and since I can't see your face or your expressions or tone of voice, it just made me wonder what you meant. I didn't take it as mean spirited or malevolent. You are a jewel and I like you.

[BruceChris]

u-dog, and moderators, can't we make this message in larger, brighter colors?

Originally Posted by u-dog

There is ONLY one solution to unwanted pregancy and abortion.

RELIABLE, EASY, AFFORDABLE contraception, and life-affirming sex education

but we won't ever embrace that solution because certain religious groups (who will remain nameless) will oppose it based on silly notions about the meaning and purpose of sex. The high number of abortions is the DIRECT COST of those silly ideas.

As soon as we can effectively seperate sex from the fear of disease and unintentional reproduction we can begin to address the REAL meaning and moral significance of Sex in its various forms.

Peace, and Love, and Anger, and Frustration, Bruce Chris

[RedneckDyke]

I think we should give girls depo at 13 and keep them on it till 21. Then maybe they'll be a bit more mature and less likely to have an abortion because the pregnancy will be more likely to be planned.
I am a libertarian. I don't want the gvt in my bedroom, in my wallet, on my phone, in my guns, or on my body.