A bizarre move by Ron Paul

[bascule]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

 

Ron Paul is trying to turn Roe vs Wade into a states rights issue. He has a rather unique perspective on this: He's an OB/GYN and also a libertarian. I can certainly see where he's coming from.

 

However, I feel this is an extremely difficult issue and that the ramifications transcend states rights. What this calls into question is at what point humans receive the protections of the Constitution and come under the rule of law.

 

Are these things States should be deciding? I certainly don't think so...

[PhDP]

Bizarre... Ron Paul ? Impossible !

[ParanoiA]

I have to admit being torn on this one. On the one hand, I really appreciate decentralizing controversial issues like this. A one-size-fits-all solution is not appropriate for issues that the country is obviously so split on. And I like more power and diversity on the state level.

 

However, bascule's got a really good point. It's kind of like leaving the constitutionality of "murder" to the states. This is a good spot for federal law.

 

I'm leaning towards Dr Paul on this one so far, since it's such a sensitive issue and the country is split on it. I'll be interested in the evolution of this thread, as this view is subject to change.

 

One thing to note here is that while Dr. Paul is pro-life, he's still refraining from using federal power to stop abortion. That's an interesting priority statement in terms of principles and beliefs.

[john5746]

Seems to me, if he really feels that life begins at conception, he should want to make murder illegal in all states. Does he want to have the issue of murder left to the states? He should be opposed to any procedures that may endanger fertilized eggs - such as fertility clinics. Any miscarriage should be investigated as a possible homicide or manslaughter, with the doctor as a possible accomplice.

[DrDNA]

I watched the Rep debates the other night on TV and finally realized that Paul is in this in much the same way Ross Perot was in it.

 

He appears (to me) to be shaking the tree with no real desire to actually win a nomination or the eventual race. He (and we) will win in the sense that he should continue to cause some awakening to his quite valid pet issues and/or a politcal shift, but, sadly, that may be it.

[D H]

However, bascule's got a really good point. It's kind of like leaving the constitutionality of "murder" to the states.

 

Does he have a point? For the most part the constitution and US law do leave the matter of murder up to the states. It is only a federal crime to kill someone if the murder victim works for or on behalf of the US government. Killing a neighbor or a local convenience store clerk or even the state governor is a matter of state law, not federal law (unless the murder was a "hate crime", that is, but that is a different issue).

[ParanoiA]

I watched the Rep debates the other night on TV and finally realized that Paul is in this in much the same way Ross Perot was in it.

 

He appears (to me) to be shaking the tree with no real desire to actually win a nomination or the eventual race. He (and we) will win in the sense that he should continue to cause some awakening to his quite valid pet issues and/or a politcal shift, but, sadly, that may be it.

 

I used to think the same thing, but I don't believe it - or maybe I can't believe it. But, I don't think he'd run on the republican ticket if he didn't think he was going to win. Afterall, as a 3rd party candidate, he would have more exposure post-primary, when the rest of the country actually starts paying attention to the race, debates and so forth. On the republican ticket, he risks being ousted before the country even starts paying attention. So how much good would shaking the tree do then?

 

I think people of principle, that put those values ahead of everything else are going to come off that way. He answers questions directly, without hesitation, with no dancing or skirting, and usually with a ready to go logical background to thrown in. And he doesn't try to make himself palatable to everyone - just lets the chips fall where they may.

 

Isn't that basically Ros Perot? Isn't that basically any truly principled candidate?

 

People are scared to death of that. That's why candidates don't worry about looking fake anymore, as society is more comfortable with that now. Now we want them to be fake, and to try to be all things to all people. We actually cheer when they pull this off. And we write them off when they don't. Hence, Dr Paul will be ignored and dismissed until the bitter end - self fulfilling in a way.

 

Does he have a point? For the most part the constitution and US law do leave the matter of murder up to the states. It is only a federal crime to kill someone if the murder victim works for or on behalf of the US government. Killing a neighbor or a local convenience store clerk or even the state governor is a matter of state law, not federal law (unless the murder was a "hate crime", that is, but that is a different issue).

 

But, don't they leave the matter of "punishment" up to the states? I mean, life is protected by the constitution. They don't leave murder up to the states to decide if it's protected or not under that constitution. And I think that's the point bascule is getting at. I could be wrong.

[ecoli]

I agree with Ron Paul's policy (and this is one of the reasons I'm going to vote for him) even if I don't agree with his personal opinion on the matter.

 

I don't agree with the federal government taking any responsibility for this, and for other social issues like it. It's for state and local governments to decide. There's no reason to pass federal law on this issue, and in my opinion, the fact the federal government feels that it has the right to make a ruling on this issue demonstrates that its over stepped its bounds.

[CDarwin]

I've always been a bit skeptical of Roe v. Wade. I'm pro-choice personally, but I wonder at the legal basis for the Roe decision. Privacy? Where's that in the Constitution? And how is it the business of the federal courts to be standardizing what I at least believe is in the realm of family law?