Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul: Social issues are a loser in the election (watch Video)
Hotair ^ | 02/20/2012 | ED MORRISSEY

Posted on 02/20/2012 6:31:00 PM PST by SeekAndFind

Yesterday on CNN's State of the Union, Candy Crowley asked Ron Paul about the new focus in national politics on social issues and whether a national debate focusing on them would help Republicans in November. Paul called it a "losing position" but neglects to mention that he has campaigned on his opposition to abortion at least since the Ames straw poll, an omission caught by CNS News:

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO

“Do you–are you uncomfortable–certainly Rick Santorum is the one who has been in the forefront of some of this talk on social issues, but there have been others in the race,” Crowley asked Paul. “Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?”

“No,” said Paul. “I think it’s a losing position.

“I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved,” Paul continued. “And they’re not to be at the national level. We’re not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”

Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the “Personhood Pledge” published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”

The current context of the debate on social issues hinges on federal mandates, a point which Paul acknowledges in this interview. Why would that be a loser? It’s practically the entire context of his campaign — reducing the power of federal government to issue the kind of mandates like the HHS mandate for employers to essentially provide free contraception to their employees. Tying that in with social issues should make the argument stronger, at least if it’s handled correctly.

Matt Lewis argues that not only is Paul wrong, but history shows that Republicans do well when social issues are in play:

As Jeffrey Bell’s forthcoming book (per the Wall Street Journal’s review) notes,

“Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964. … The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period.

“. . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”

(Emphasis mine.)

As much as moderate Republicans and cosmopolitan conservatives might lament the resurrection of the culture wars (which were foisted upon us, and appear to have been rekindled once again by liberal overreach), they were electorally fruitful for the GOP.

What is more, the notion that running on the economy (what Mr. Romney presumably seems comfortable doing) is a panacea, is dubious. The economy appears to be recovering (at least, the unemployment rate is dropping), a point which will obviously make it harder, should the trend continue, to oust Obama.

Even more to the point, history does not seem indicate that a struggling economy — regardless of who is to blame — or who currently occupies the White House — will benefit the Republican candidate in a general election. (This, of course, is controversial. Jimmy Carter’s handling of the economy was surely one cause of his 1980 defeat, but would he have been defeated had it not been for the Iranian hostages?)

If the economy starts heating up — which the CBO, among many others, predicts won’t happen — the election will have to hinge on larger, basic issues of limited power and Obama’s overreach. If we shy away from challenging Obama on those positions now, we probably won’t have a candidate willing to do it in November.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: rino; ronpaul; socialissues

1 posted on 02/20/2012 6:31:11 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Paul called it a “losing position”

What ever Paul says,
What ever Paul does,
Where ever Paul is standing...

is a “Loosing Position”.


2 posted on 02/20/2012 6:35:35 PM PST by LtKerst (Lt Kerst)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Then why did he vote against the bill which would prohibit transportation of minors across state lines for the purpose of abortions without parental consent.


3 posted on 02/20/2012 6:40:10 PM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Ron Paul : Social issues are a loser in the election
4 posted on 02/20/2012 6:43:05 PM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

does he think the GOP will win without the social conservative vote?


5 posted on 02/20/2012 6:44:42 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Paulbots will try to spin Paul's statement as backing states' rights over federal mandates.

That's just damage control. The fact is that Paul hates social conservatism.

6 posted on 02/20/2012 6:44:42 PM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LtKerst

Maybe so, but he’s right on this one. Santorum is too easily drawn into these religious/social discussions and it’s going to kill us if he’s our candidate. The other candidates have the sense to call this crap for what it is—media manipulation. But Santorum takes the bait. The Obama media would love for nothing more than to turn this into a birth control/women in the workplace/church and state election to deflect from Obama’s disasterous economic policies. Paul may be a nut, but he’s right on this one.


7 posted on 02/20/2012 6:46:47 PM PST by MissesBush (Raising taxes on an economy in a death spiral is like taking up smoking when you have emphysema)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MissesBush

Avoiding So-Con issues like Dr. Nutjob suggests WILL KILL OUR CHANCES.


8 posted on 02/20/2012 6:50:42 PM PST by CainConservative (Santorum/Huck 2012 w/ Newt, Cain, Palin, Bach, Parker, Watts, Duncan, & Petraeus in the Cabinet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LtKerst

Paul called it a “losing position”

What ever Paul says,
What ever Paul does,
Where ever Paul is standing...

is a “Loosing Position”.
__________________________________________________________

Can’t top that post....nuff said.


9 posted on 02/20/2012 6:55:16 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MissesBush
.


Agree with you as well ... these are "States Rights" issues ...


However, Ricky Santorum's "boyish" Youth betrays him as he consistently falls into MSM question-traps ...

In addition, Ricky's knowledge of BOTH American History and the Constitution leave him "severely" handicapped to respond ...

Of course ... you know where I'm headed with this ...

"Newt Gingrich" ...



Newt Gingrich plays Grand-Master "chess" with these questions ... compared to most Anyone else ...

and that includes playing several moves ahead ...

Newt will eventually get Obama so confused and twisted on national television ... the MSM will probably SCREAM and refer to it as a "high tech lynching" ...




.
10 posted on 02/20/2012 6:56:14 PM PST by Patton@Bastogne (Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin in 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Ron Paul should be personally well versed in what it takes to be a (perennial) loser.


11 posted on 02/20/2012 6:58:55 PM PST by Ron H.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Ron Paul 2012: Because the Constitution doesn’t say that twelve-year-olds can’t become prostitutes.


12 posted on 02/20/2012 7:01:28 PM PST by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

RE: Ron Paul 2012: Because the Constitution doesn’t say that twelve-year-olds can’t become prostitutes

Now that would not characterize his position. He would argue that it would be a STATES ISSUE because he trust the states to handle this situation better than the Federal government.


13 posted on 02/20/2012 7:11:33 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
So Cons, as defined by many, are two legs of a three-legged conservative stool. I am socially conservative in that I think abortion is a form of murder, and I think we have a moral obligation to halt and turn back the social trending toward open homosexuality; I believe embrace of homosexuality in a culture is a symptom of decadence and evil influence.

But I AM EQUALLY PASSIONATE in my rejection of goverment meddling and intrusion on personal freedoms. I think there are a lot of Americans like that. They want the freedom to behave morally and they want liberty from oppressive, punitive government.

Where do I fit in the "conservative" picture? I hate oppressive punitive government as much as I hate abortion and the gay agenda. The way I see it, we're NEVER going to resolve those social issues until we restore limited government. Think about all the social decay in our America --
- abortion, Roe v Wade...
- open homosexuality in our churches, our schools, our military, our workplaces, our civic groups, and our communities......
- a slothful, avaricious population that lives off of Government charity, from food stamps to welfare...

...... THIS MALAISE that we Social Conservatives passionately reject, has been created, fed, and grown by our oppressive, punitive Federal government.

Because that government is punitive, we are HANDCUFFED and unable to lawfully, peacefully reject open homosexuality in our societies, workplaces, clubs, schools, etc. We are forced to standby as abortion is made accessible and legal on demand. We are PREVENTED from having any say over how our charity is distributed, and CHARITYY is a major and crucial part of Christian morality. Our oppressive government has removed charity from us as a tool.

Our oppressive, punitive government has been a MAJOR cause of the social ills we so passionately reject.

America needs a Republican president who is as outspoken and dedicated to the cause of dismantling oppressive, punitive government, as he is to shunning abortion and the gay agenda.

A president who moralizes can only moralize. A president who sets to work with the stated goal of dismantling oppressive government, including activist judges, is the one who will help restore morality to the U.S.

Godspeed Newt Gingrich.

14 posted on 02/20/2012 7:16:55 PM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patton@Bastogne
Newt will eventually get Obama so confused and twisted on national television ... the MSM will probably SCREAM and refer to it as a "high tech lynching" ...

From your keyboard to God's eyes!

Godspeed Newt.

15 posted on 02/20/2012 7:22:29 PM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I love Ron Paul and until recently I supported him on this forum. I did so, not because I thought he could/would win but because I thought he feared God, loved the truth and hated covetousness. However, he lost me because he said, as an OB, he would pump estrogen into a rape victim to kill the baby. (not his words but his meaning). Where is the fear? Where is the truth?

Of all people, Ron Paul should not care about whether "social issues" (false trichotomy) are a "winning issue". The truth is the only thing that matters. Santorum has made many mistakes that trouble me. He has supported a lot of indefensible spending and I'm not sure he hates covetousness as much as Ron Paul, but I don't think he could kill a baby.

16 posted on 02/20/2012 7:39:23 PM PST by Theophilus (Not merely prolife, but prolific)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patton@Bastogne

If Newt is the nominee, Obama will find an excuse not to debate. Mr. Gingrich needs to show that he can win / rise in the polls on other strengths besides debating.


17 posted on 02/20/2012 7:40:46 PM PST by Ingtar ("But it is hard to maintain an aura of invincibility after you have been vinced..." Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Patton@Bastogne

If Newt is the nominee, Obama will find an excuse not to debate. Mr. Gingrich needs to show that he can win / rise in the polls on other strengths besides debating.


18 posted on 02/20/2012 7:44:59 PM PST by Ingtar ("But it is hard to maintain an aura of invincibility after you have been vinced..." Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The man has no true conception of God-given, unalienable rights.


19 posted on 02/20/2012 8:12:23 PM PST by EternalVigilance (We still hold these truths to be self-evident...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patton@Bastogne
Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the “Personhood Pledge” published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”

Obviously Ron Paul doesn't see that as a state's rights issue.

20 posted on 02/20/2012 8:40:16 PM PST by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964. … The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period."

What is this?

Did the author forget that we had the last half of the Great Depression and WWII in that timeframe?

21 posted on 02/20/2012 9:03:49 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
And you think they'll win without the small-government, fiscal conservatives?

The Republican party is a tripod, with social conservatives... fiscal conservatives, and national defense/law-n-order conservatives. Nominate a candidate that is weak in any one of the three will guarantee failure.

22 posted on 02/20/2012 9:07:37 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
Ron Paul 2012: Because the Constitution doesn’t say that twelve-year-olds can’t become prostitutes.

Goodwithagun 2012: Because there are no states or state laws in America to cover this...

23 posted on 02/20/2012 9:10:34 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964. …

That's because there was a fundamental social consensus until 1964. There were no serious "social issues." Then the pill hit, and the sexual revolution began.

24 posted on 02/20/2012 9:12:47 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
An infomercial with Newt standing next to an empty chair, answering key questions from a friendly "Moderator" would be a very effective campaign ad. He did basically the same thing with the special orders in Congress in 1994.

If Obama refuses to debate he'll be dead meat.

25 posted on 02/20/2012 9:20:31 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus

There should be a law that would prevent a woman who was raped from immediately going to a hospital and getting a shot of estrogen to prevent her from becoming pregnant?

That is what Ron Paul said, “immediately” after being raped. What he actually said matters to me, not what others say he said as is so often the case here and elsewhere.

Having read Ron Paul’s words from the article this thread is on, I consider Ron Paul the most pro-life one running and that he sees a plan to actually stop millions of abortions and that he wants a right to life law for the unborn. I support that 100% and all the spin in the world does not change what he actually said.

Hmmm... this pro life so-con likes what he sees and hears. I am not going to become anti-Paul because that is the latest fad. I like the guy and like what he proposes in 99% of his policies and promises, no one else running comes close.

I also believe him, something I am having a hard time with on any of the others considering their records both in office and out of office.

Small govt, trillion dollar cut in spending year one, a plan to actually do something to end abortion, and having all branches of govt actually bound by the constitution. Gee what a kook!


26 posted on 02/20/2012 9:54:28 PM PST by free_life (If you ask Jesus to forgive you and to save you, He will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

I have been thinking that, also. And it will be two-pronged, his reason not to debate will be an all-consuming national/international emergency requiring all his attention, aka October Surprise... Newt doesn’t necessarily need the debates, but he does need the airtime...


27 posted on 02/21/2012 5:28:51 AM PST by true believer forever (Save the Irish Setters - Vote Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: free_life

Most pro-life? Then why did he voted a against a bill bill that would have prohibited minors being transported across state lines to get abortions without parents consent?
The estrogen shot?
Really, and he knows the woman was raped when? He said he would give the shot, to prevent pregnancy (means there is a baby), you can’t prevent pregnancy if the woman is not pregnant.


28 posted on 02/21/2012 6:00:44 AM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: free_life

Paul has been in congress for decades, he has done nothing. Why do yo think as president he would do anything.
99% of his policies - really.
Voting against aide to Israel but for aide to palestine, because as he says Israel is the biggest terrorist state in the middle east.
99% of his policies - really
The ones that state America is responsible for 9/11 (even though we have been fighting islam since 1776). Jefferson said the best way to deal with islam is kill them all.
Paul knows nothing about the founding or the constitution anymore than Fred Phelps knows the Bible.
Do you even know what his policies are? Not what people say they are but what he actually says and writes.


29 posted on 02/21/2012 6:05:55 AM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Please note that all donations
at this point will go to update
Free Republic's computer system
We have the need for SPEED before the election!


Donate Just One Monthly
And Become a FR Hero


Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

30 posted on 02/21/2012 8:02:09 AM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GeronL
does he think the GOP will win without the social conservative vote?

Cut and Run does not care if the GOP wins. He is just looking to get some attention and fill his bank account with donations. Donations from anti-military paulbots who say they are military to make it look like the surrender monkey has support from the military he wants to destroy.
31 posted on 02/21/2012 11:53:55 AM PST by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: free_life
There should be a law that would prevent a woman who was raped from immediately going to a hospital and getting a shot of estrogen to prevent her from becoming pregnant?

No, current laws against murder should protect embryos as living persons at every stage of development. The estrogen shot (Dr. Paul hypothetically prescribed) prevents the implantation of an existing embryo and therefore it is an assault with intent to murder the embryo just as if you strangled me. The "immediacy" of the treatment (assault) is irrelevant because a the injection could not prevent a fertilization if ovulation has already taken place.

Like I said, I love Dr Paul, just like you, but protecting life is not a priority for him. He wants it off the Federal table and he does not want to have to deal with the painful minutia involved with protecting a person who make only consist of proverbial handful of cells that may have gotten half of his genetic material from an "honest" rapist.

I don't think one can be more or less pro-life either you are or you aren't and Dr. Paul is either confused or he is obfuscating. In a TEA party meaning during Rand Paul's senate primary campaign, I warned Rand about speaking ambiguously, incoherently or evasively about abortion. I also implored him to declare and describe abortion to be the economic and security issue that it is. Maybe Ron is right and it and other "social issues" a losing issues for this campaign. If they are, than we are lost and hopeless.

If I find Rick Santorum making the same equivocations, then I won't support him either.

32 posted on 02/22/2012 10:34:45 AM PST by Theophilus (Not merely prolife, but prolific)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus

None of the candidates have proposed a law that would prevent a rape victim from getting a shot of estrogen immediately after being raped. Nor do I believe any would, including Santorum. Such a law would never get through congress even in pre legal abortion days. Nobody is going to criminally prosecute a woman for preventing a pregnancy from happening immediately after being raped. So Ron Paul is being a realist instead of trying to spin it politically to make himself look good, that is my opinion on him regarding this.

As a Christian I believe life begins before conception (Jer 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you) and that physical life begins at conception but I would not support a law that would prevent a woman who was raped from being able to get a shot of estrogen immediately after being being raped. And I still consider myself 100% pro-life.

It can take up to 5 days for a sperm to reach the fallopian tube and as short as 30 minutes. For a sperm to fertilize an egg, 24 hrs at a minimum according to what I have read and as long as 14 days. A shot of estrogen prevents the egg from being fertilized so conception has not happened.

I say all this with the full knowledge I am accountable to God for what I say and do.

I also know people who I am very close to, who were conceived by rape and I am very very glad they were allowed to be conceived thus born.


33 posted on 02/22/2012 2:59:15 PM PST by free_life (If you ask Jesus to forgive you and to save you, He will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: free_life
A shot of estrogen prevents the egg from being fertilized so conception has not happened.

I did the research, estrogen has not been used to stop pregnancy since the 60's (when Ron Paul practiced). Now progesterone, mifepristone and/or misoprostol are used.

I'm against abortifacients of any kind being used to perform an abortifacient (killing an embryo) function. I don't consider anyone in favor of an abortifacient pro-life. I'm uncertain of where you stand because I think one of us (possibly me) must have a misunderstanding of how things work.

Be careful of how you interpret the word "conception" because some people consider it to mean "implantation" instead of "fertilization".

Finally, I'm not looking for a law or laws from a President. I'm looking for a consistent world-view and mindset that protects innocent blood and does not hold children responsible for the sins of their fathers. Sure we're arguing on the extreme and complicated margin of the debate, but if everyone who claims they are pro-life really is, then the slaughter would be abating and it is not. The Mississipi Personhood Amendment loss is proof of that.

I'll follow your posts as you defend Ron Paul, and I'll keep an open mind but you have not convinced me yet. I think he wants it both ways which is duplicitous. I'm also interested in any specific criticism you have for Santorum.

34 posted on 02/22/2012 5:34:12 PM PST by Theophilus (Not merely prolife, but prolific)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus

I am not saying it isn’t life because of the rape just that in the first hours no one, absolutely no one is going to stop a women getting a shot of whatever to prevent her egg from becoming fertilized so she does not become pregnant. Condoms prevent the sperm from reaching the egg and no one is going to outlaw them just as no one is going to outlaw and punish a woman who was raped from preventing herself from becoming pregnant.

Santorum voted for bills that included funding for Planned Parenthood. Ron Paul did not. Both men knew that funding would be used to kill a great many babies as PP is largest abortion chamber(s) in America. Which one is truly pro-life and which one keeps saying one thing to get the nomination but has a record of doing the opposite?


35 posted on 02/22/2012 11:01:33 PM PST by free_life (If you ask Jesus to forgive you and to save you, He will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: free_life
absolutely no one is going to stop a women getting a shot of whatever to prevent her egg from becoming fertilized so she does not become pregnant.

I think the shot of whatever is far more likely to prevent implantation than fertilization thus if a fertilization has already occurred or if it occurs in spite of the measure, it is an abortion. The best response to the question is to switch tracks and ask: "Why oh why are we not imposing capital punishment for rapists?"

If it is acceptable for a rape victim to do this because she has a obvious strong revulsion to carrying the child of a monster who need capital punishment, then we are on the untenable slippery slope to allowing abortion for anyone with a strong revulsion. The enemy knows this and that's why they keep asking the undermining question.

Santorum voted for bills that included funding for Planned Parenthood.

I'll research this.

36 posted on 02/23/2012 4:40:01 AM PST by Theophilus (Not merely prolife, but prolific)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus
Santorum voted for bills that included funding for Planned Parenthood.

From the debate last night concerning Title X:
Santorum: "I think I was making it clear that while I have a personal moral objection to it, even though I don't support it, that I voted for bills that included it. And I made it very clear in subsequent interviews that I don't support that, I've never supported it, and on an individual basis have voted against it."

That's not good enough for me, but if every bill before Congress contains such poison pills, then nobody could vote for anything. So what about the bills Santorum voted for, made them worth taking the poison?

37 posted on 02/23/2012 4:47:23 AM PST by Theophilus (Not merely prolife, but prolific)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus
If it is acceptable for a rape victim to do this because she has a obvious strong revulsion to carrying the child of a monster who need capital punishment, then we are on the untenable slippery slope to allowing abortion for anyone with a strong revulsion. The enemy knows this and that's why they keep asking the undermining question.

I see don't see a slippery slope being created if it was only permissible for a rape victim to immediately stop herself from becoming pregnant. Of course what we have now is abortion as contraception for anyone who wants it, even late in the pregnancy. Personally I would counsel a woman to not stop the pregnancy but I would not support a law that prevented her from stopping the pregnancy in the first day.

38 posted on 02/23/2012 10:45:42 AM PST by free_life (If you ask Jesus to forgive you and to save you, He will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus
Santorum voted for bills that included funding for Planned Parenthood. From the debate last night concerning Title X: Santorum: "I think I was making it clear that while I have a personal moral objection to it, even though I don't support it, that I voted for bills that included it. And I made it very clear in subsequent interviews that I don't support that, I've never supported it, and on an individual basis have voted against it." That's not good enough for me, but if every bill before Congress contains such poison pills, then nobody could vote for anything. So what about the bills Santorum voted for, made them worth taking the poison?

Not good enough for me either. Paul's position is if enough of the congresscritters stopped voting for Bill's with poison in them it would produce Bill's without the poison. This is why (one of the reasons) I respect the guy. We need people like him in politics to change what few are willing to change... it just keeps on the way it is and it is getting worse, much worse. I dread to think what we will have in 10 yrs.

39 posted on 02/23/2012 10:51:54 AM PST by free_life (If you ask Jesus to forgive you and to save you, He will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson