2008 Woodie Awards
Making informed decisions is key to avoiding division
Brett Sowerby
Issue date: 12/13/07 Section: Soap Box
In light of the recent opinion piece written by Derek Dobachesky, it seemed high-time to take another look at Ron Paul's run for the presidency.
Surprisingly, I agree with many of the statements made by Paul's supporters. I, being a fiscal conservative, agree with reducing the U.S.'s expenditure as well as the overall size of our government. I actually enjoy the fact that Paul is taking a vastly different approach to how the government should be run than his opposition. He has also made use of the largely untapped - and quite significant - on-line support, shown by the massive amounts of Internet donations to his campaign. These make Paul an interesting candidate and point to America's dissatisfaction with mainstream politicians.
To address the many rabid Paul supporters who believe that a Paul presidency is the only manner to extricate ourselves from the mired political situation in which we now find ourselves in, let us first look at Paul's stance on the issues.
The one to which I take the most umbrage is his opposition to abortion. He claims in his 40 years of practicing medicine, he did not once consider terminating a pregnancy. Apparently, Paul had never met a woman impregnated by a rapist or worse yet, a victim of incestuous rape. In fact, he now supports legislation that would effectively negate Roe v. Wade, allowing states to ban abortions at any point in the pregnancy. Do not misunderstand my point here; I'm not in favor of killing fetuses left and right. I think it's a terrible form of birth control. I am also a proponent of adoption. However, Paul touts his piece of legislation as "ending federal court tyranny." How is preventing women from having control of their body ending tyranny?
While I do agree with Paul in regards to HMOs and the fact that they have been assisted by the government to be as corrupt as they have become, that's where the similarity in our views end. In the same breath, Paul states that U.S. citizens travel to Canada to receive less expensive medicines while stating that - according to Paul - Canadians are coming to the U.S. to obtain care. His suggestion to completely privatize medicine would leave millions without healthcare. This would only add to our country's already overcrowded emergency rooms and further drive a wedge between the rich and the poor.
Surprisingly, I agree with many of the statements made by Paul's supporters. I, being a fiscal conservative, agree with reducing the U.S.'s expenditure as well as the overall size of our government. I actually enjoy the fact that Paul is taking a vastly different approach to how the government should be run than his opposition. He has also made use of the largely untapped - and quite significant - on-line support, shown by the massive amounts of Internet donations to his campaign. These make Paul an interesting candidate and point to America's dissatisfaction with mainstream politicians.
To address the many rabid Paul supporters who believe that a Paul presidency is the only manner to extricate ourselves from the mired political situation in which we now find ourselves in, let us first look at Paul's stance on the issues.
The one to which I take the most umbrage is his opposition to abortion. He claims in his 40 years of practicing medicine, he did not once consider terminating a pregnancy. Apparently, Paul had never met a woman impregnated by a rapist or worse yet, a victim of incestuous rape. In fact, he now supports legislation that would effectively negate Roe v. Wade, allowing states to ban abortions at any point in the pregnancy. Do not misunderstand my point here; I'm not in favor of killing fetuses left and right. I think it's a terrible form of birth control. I am also a proponent of adoption. However, Paul touts his piece of legislation as "ending federal court tyranny." How is preventing women from having control of their body ending tyranny?
While I do agree with Paul in regards to HMOs and the fact that they have been assisted by the government to be as corrupt as they have become, that's where the similarity in our views end. In the same breath, Paul states that U.S. citizens travel to Canada to receive less expensive medicines while stating that - according to Paul - Canadians are coming to the U.S. to obtain care. His suggestion to completely privatize medicine would leave millions without healthcare. This would only add to our country's already overcrowded emergency rooms and further drive a wedge between the rich and the poor.
Viewing Comments 1 - 8 of 8
afterforever
posted 12/13/07 @ 1:07 AM EST
Think about it. The few opposing views you stated are incomplete because the money you send to DC in payroll tax would stay with you because Presidnet Paul would close the IRS, and most likely your state would raise taxes to cover the cost. (Continued…)
Robert
posted 12/13/07 @ 1:08 AM EST
Not agreeing Ron Paul's personal view on abortion is not a legitimate reason not to vote for him. America has had several pro-life presidents, and abortion is still legal. (Continued…)
silus
posted 12/13/07 @ 1:20 AM EST
"How is preventing women from having control of their body ending tyranny?"
You were doing well in that part of the argument until you wrote that. To understand this issue neutrally, you should understand the fundamental issue. (Continued…)
Marcelo
posted 12/13/07 @ 1:58 AM EST
Hello,
You are misinformed about the issues. For a very informative video on Dr. Paul's positions, you can visit the following:
http://www.ronpaulnation. (Continued…)
Jeffrey Shakoor
posted 12/13/07 @ 1:58 AM EST
The problem people have with Ron Paul is they hear bits and pieces of what he says and draw a quick conclusion. There's a reason why his supporters are doing what they do, they have read and studied him as I have. (Continued…)
Amir
posted 12/13/07 @ 2:12 AM EST
"These programs will have to exist for just a bit longer until there is some semblance of equality in our nation."
Governments shouldn't and don't create economic equality, and whenever they attempt to they create class hierarchy and economic collapse. (Continued…)
Brian
posted 12/13/07 @ 8:06 AM EST
well the reason abortion has remained such a hot and complex issue is the fact that both arguments are compelling and valid. one argument supports the life and future of a human being, the other argument supports the life and future of a human being. (Continued…)
Richard Wicks
posted 12/14/07 @ 1:17 AM EST
"However, Paul touts his piece of legislation as "ending federal court tyranny." How is preventing women from having control of their body ending tyranny?"
What's wrong with having states decide?
That's his whole point. (Continued…)
Post a Comment