I appreciate Ron Paul in that when he says small government, he means it, including giving us freedoms that social conservatives believe are morally objectionable.
Ok, I wanted to stay out of this political discussion, but I just can't stand
seeing this Ron Paul fawning go uncontested. Ron Paul is a social
conservative, and he legislates as one. He is so anti-choice that he has
introduced the Sanctity of Life Act four times; this act wouldn't just outlaw
abortion, it would outlaw birth control by defining human life as beginning at
conception. Love it or hate it, but please don't claim that Ron Paul is
anything other than a social conservative, legislatively speaking.
EDIT: As pointed out below, I was mistaken (ignorant) of the difference between contraceptive and contragestive; I still stand by my disappointment that the strongest libertarian voice in this country is steadfastly anti-choice, but I was incorrect on the matter of the common forms of birth control.
I realize the comment came off and being a huge Ron Paul fan, but I'm not. I was only pointing out that one can appreciate his consistency in the face of opposition in certain aspects from his own party.
I was listening to NPR today and there was a discussion about how Romney's political strategists dictate the man's political rhetoric in order to be able to placate or appeal to specific demographics. In other words, the man isn't genuine. He doesn't say what he really believes, only what his strategists say he should be saying to get the most votes.
I wish more politicians could be more honest to their core values and beliefs, but as a student of Political Science I understand the rules of the game incentivize this type of behavior.
Did anyone what The Adjustment Bureau? The guy gets elected because he was stopped the game and was honest with his supporters, though I doubt that would work in real life.
> "it would outlaw birth control by defining human life as beginning at conception"
Most forms of birth control prevent conception ("contraceptives"). Only a few types act after conception ("contragestives" [0], which prevent implantation). A law of the type you described would not affect most forms of birth control.
Ok, I wanted to stay out of this political discussion, but I just can't stand seeing this Ron Paul fawning go uncontested. Ron Paul is a social conservative, and he legislates as one. He is so anti-choice that he has introduced the Sanctity of Life Act four times; this act wouldn't just outlaw abortion, it would outlaw birth control by defining human life as beginning at conception. Love it or hate it, but please don't claim that Ron Paul is anything other than a social conservative, legislatively speaking.
EDIT: As pointed out below, I was mistaken (ignorant) of the difference between contraceptive and contragestive; I still stand by my disappointment that the strongest libertarian voice in this country is steadfastly anti-choice, but I was incorrect on the matter of the common forms of birth control.