Women Who Support Ron Paul: What About Your Reproductive Freedom?

I am not anti-abortion but I say # it. It's worth the direction Paul wants to take our country in.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


I don't think too many people would argue that under those circumstances an abortion would be unacceptable, except maybe extremely religious people. That isn't rational IMHO.

However, rampant lack of responsibility for life that you create is not an excuse for an abortion.

Sorry, double post.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


What would be wrong with having 50 "little" countries? That is what was intended after all. What you are forgetting is that States would be competing for residents.

Why do you think that a central location should have authority over people that they never see, meet, think about or listen to?

Your fears are unfounded. States still have to abide by their own constitutions and they can't just go making any willy nilly law that they want to without the consent of the governed.

Anyhow what is to stop the federal government from making the tyrannical laws you speak of? Oh wait, they have...

Bad federal laws affect everybody, bad state laws affect only the state and they are much easier to change when they get it wrong. That is the whole point.

At the State level people actually have access to and can address there concerns with their government representatives.

You have a very weak understanding of this topic and all of your posts in this thread stem from fear of what it is very obvious to me, what you don't fully understand. You know just enough to get it all wrong.

reply to post by RSF77


What if a female you knew who was in her mid 30's, middle class worker who is on the train home who never hurt a fly, never got into any legal trouble with cops or courts on anything, stays to herself mostly, volunteers at an animal shelter for 20 hours a week and while she's literately 500 feet from her apartment building's door she's snatched using an ether soaked hankercheif, she gets forced into a back alley with a knife to her throat and after he gets her to the spot he brutally rapes and assaults her. Is her lifestyle of don't annoy people, don't step on people and live life motto a reason to attack her?

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Well, like I just said I don't think many people would oppose an abortion in that situation, I certainly wouldn't because it is not the woman's fault, certainly not her responsibility.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I am under the impression that part of the federal government's JOB is to protect the rights of ALL the people in this country, including WOMEN!

All people may include [developed] fetuses as well. A fetus is factually and rationally a organism of the species homo sapien. Pro-choicers try to get around this by affirming that a fetus is at no point human, more akin to a tumor or a lump of cells. This defense is beyond dissonance & quite irrational.

I personally have no problem with abortion up until a certain point; e.g when the brain develops & post-viability. Late-term abortions are completely grotesque and shouldn't be allowed. I do believe saying it should be illegal to 'abort' the day after a woman is impregnated is ludicrous.

However I understand where Ron Paul is coming from & it's a VERY difficult position, especially considering political/ethical correctness. He's Christian and very opposed to it; but his libertarian values back his moral contention. If life begins in the womb, even that [defenseless] life should have the same liberty and protection that every other human being has.

I go back and forth on abortion, just like I do Ron Paul.

Thing about it is, though, the fact that the guy is willing to leave it up to the States for the most part rather than just legislating it himself at the federal level goes a long way to easing my vehement disagreement.

reply to post by RSF77


The problem is they want to penalize and felonize it. They want to end it at all costs regardless of the circumstances that led to it.

I live in a state that would most certainly make it Illegal (SC) and I am incredibly pro-choice.


HOWEVER.

There are things I am willing to accept if we can have someone with some sense in the White House, so I would accept that. Way back when, a close family member had to drive to another state for an abortion (it was not legal here then).

I went to a Planned Parenthood facility once, and let me tell you, it was not free. I don't know if that's just because of the state I live in or what. You can go to the Health Department here and get birth control for next to nothing, I believe that should stay as an option for women in poverty.

There are natural ways to avoid pregnancy that worked long before we had abortion clinics.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


So what is to stop women from taking a pill to abort their pregnancy the day after?

In cases of rape, incest and other criminal impregnation. The only possible exception to that I could see is if the woman was incapacitated (or illegally restrained) for that time or she didn't go to the hospital on her own accord.

reply to post by RSF77


I don't think that's considered abortion? The morning after pill, which can be taken 3 days (or more) after the act of intercourse, prevents the pregnancy; it does not end it.

reply to post by RSF77


What about in the event the father is abusive and beats her every day? Should she have to BE FORCED to deal with that douchewaded azzhat for decades? A kid with him will serve as a constant reminder of the constant abuse and torment she had to endure which would make her take it out on the kid. Should a kid feel like they weren't wanted or loved?

I know at this point in my life I cannot afford a kid and know that I can't so which means I have none due to this reason because I know full well that I cannot give the kid the life that all kids deserve. They are to have the very best of everything in this world. Love, family, heart, unity, loyalty all unconditionally. If you can barely afford to keep an apartment over your head then how the heil are you gonna afford to have a kid. Not everyone can be so fortunate that they want or worry over and for nothing. This is not reality for the majority of people.

My great aunt and Frank Sinatra's either mom or aunt were midwives at the turn of the 1900's and ran a very successful private practice whose clients included a literate who's who of Hudson County, NJ Socialites! Many NY (5th Avenue, Wall Street) clients as well/

reply to post by Raelsatu


I'm not sure, I guess it is up to the interpretation of the individual whether it is actual abortion or not.

Though some people speak as if Ron Paul wants women who were raped to have their rapists babies.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Yea, I feel some sympathy for women in that situation. My wife was in two very bad relationships before she met me, I may sound sexist, but in reality I am a very compassionate husband. All I can say is to leave the bastard.

Women don't have to put up with morons for boyfriends, husbands. Just leave them and go out on your own, women have the same rights and responsibilities that males do, if not more, don't depend on men.

I have rarely logged in and have browsed this site almost everyday for 2 years just to see what is going with ats. And so I want to say hi to everyone and now express an opinion.

Abortion a womans right? hmm...
I am going to make this as short as possible and pose a comparison. As a male who has dated and befriended women who have undergone abortions, and as a former marijuana user (since it will be part of the comparison i mention this).

A sexually active woman and a marijuana user are similar in that they are both putting something in their bodies in hopes of having a little fun and reaching a pleausrable state of mind and body. We are also both taking chances of just having a good time or getting "caught"/"pregnant" and getting a sentence that neither of us desire but both chanced by our own choices. Now if she gets pregnant she is basically looking at a 9 month sentence and a life made more difficult with a child that stays with her. If I got caught I was looking at a 6 month to a year sentence with a life made more difficult being barred from certain jobs and aid programs with a record that stays with me. Now the maid difference I see is it has somehow became a right for the woman in the middle of her sentence to throw up her arms say it wasn't worth the pleasure she recived and walk away. And if I would get halfway into my sentence and throw up my arms and say it wasn't worth it they don't open the door and erase the records.

I guess what I am saying is that society is handling a lot of things wrong and we shouldn't try to legislate morals into the people. We are going to make bad decisions and people will put things into their bodies that give results they don't want. But just like I had to quit smoking pot to get away from the possible negatives, we all must either quit certain habits or face the consequences. I just ask that we not legislate for or against personal issues and not expect or force others to bail us out of the negative results of our own choices...

reply to post by matt47274


I can sympathize with you, but the ATS moderators will block your posts for talking about illegal substances. Kind of hypocritical I know for a site that preaches "Deny Ignorance".

It's a shame, I enjoy your fresh and unbiased opinion. I hope maybe they won't censor you because of phony rules, but they probably will.

Really gives a bad vibe to potential new members of the forum. They are afraid of repercussions despite the fact they want to fight the man.

On that last paragraph I can 100% agree with you, we are fully responsible for our own actions. Not only that, as US citizens we are responsible for a lot more than we know. Such a shame we can't talk about this stuff without people moderating us like children.

reply to post by RSF77


Well I hope thats not the case this time. Since I don't know who the mods are I can only hope that they see I only reference in comparison and not advocacy and that they would consider the merits of my statement. It does feel nice to finally get involved in a discussion.

A woman's right to "reproductive freedom"? Women will always have that right. It's called not having sex unless you understand that you might make a baby, and then you'll have to deal with that baby -- either by raising it or giving it to someone who can. And what about the right of the life created? As Mother Teresa said, "The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, which is war against the child. The mother doesn't learn to love, but kills to solve her own problems. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want." And, "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." And that's what it comes down to. The right to life versus the right to not be tied down to the responsibility of having a child. The right to life versus the right to be as irresponsible as you choose. And can anyone say for sure when life begins? Abortion could be the greatest case of genocide the world has ever known and it bothers so few people. Most people form an opinion without even doing research. Well, let me help.

There are 42 million reported abortions worldwide every year, according to The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. 11 million people died in the holocaust. Babies have been born and lived as young as 19 weeks, yet they can be legally aborted at up to 24 weeks.

93% of abortions occur for social reasons -- not things like rape or incest. Additionally, in a nine-month case study noted by The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology that took place in the UK, 159 women had abortions with over 26% of them being repeat procedures. Further, only 61% of the women who were receiving repeat abortions continued to use contraception methods and 14% had been positive for sexually transmitted diseases at some point in their lives.

And as if that wasn't enough, for those more concerned with the lives of the women carrying the child than the child itself, according to a US study published by the Journal of Youth and Adolescents, young women are more at risk of mental and emotional problems after having an abortion than they are if they continue on with an unwanted pregnancy. In the same study, Dr. Priscilla Coleman stated that “those who aborted such pregnancies were five times more likely to seek help for psychological and emotional problems afterwards, three times more likely to experience trouble sleeping, and nine times more likely to report marijuana use than those who carried their pregnancies to term.” She concluded that “abortion poses more risks to women than giving birth” (“Abortion” 53). In addition to the psychological factors and the threat of greater incidence of sexually transmitted diseases due to poorer contraceptive practices,there is also a link to higher mortality rates in women after they have received an abortion. In a study published in the Southern Medical Journal, researchers found that women who have had abortions are at a much greater risk of dying than women who carry the pregnancy full term (Reardon). Another study examined by the Southern Medical Journal found similarly frightening results: “[W]omen who had an induced abortion were 76% more likely to die than women who had not been pregnant, 102% more likely to die than women who miscarried, and 252% more likely to die than women who had carried to term” (Reardon). These statistics were due to higher rates of “suicide, accidents, homicide, mental disease and cerebrovascular disease” and they state that previous history of mental illness does not explain the higher death rates (Reardon). The mental and physical effects are staggering.

While death is legally defined as brain death, brain function is "reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks digestion," (source: The New England Journal of Medicine) yet, as I said, women can legally receive an abortion at 24 weeks in some states.

Wouldn't it make sense to err on the side of caution and preserve what could even potentially be considered a life?

Whose going to ultimately pay for all those unwanted and unloved babies...the government.

I like Paul, but he should leave this alone.

reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33


Ok, if people are so concerned about having to pay for babies who aren't adopted -- why aren't we demanding that the government kill people in hospice? How about people in prison? I mean all of them. If someone has a life sentence, why are we paying for them to live out the rest of their days there? What about people on welfare? If they can't prove that they contribute to society, why don't we kill them?

Seriously, the government funding foster care is the least of our problems. The government is funding tons of other stuff that we should complain about first.

Click here for what our taxes are funding.