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

Originally posted by Jack Squat
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Jack Squat

Nice edit to you too!

Who care if a state can make it illegal to have an abortion? If that state collectively decided that's what they want, then all the power to them, majority rules! I think it's safe to say there will be more states thats legalize abortion than criminalize it. So if preggo slut doesn't want a little disaster in her life and happens to live in a state where it's illegal, she can take a short drive and get that little monster sucked out of her a state over. So stop being stupid.

1) "Majority Rules"= Dangerous language from a Ron Paul supporter (I assume you are). NEVER let that kind of language cloud your judgement. We shouldn't be touting the fallacy of collectivism and mob rule.

2) Before Roe v. Wade abortion was ILLEGAL in roughly 30 states. That's more than half. So depending on history you're in error with you assumptions.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


All I can say is then you move. I beleive in states having the right, as long as I get a say and it's majority rule, if I don't like how it goes, I will move to a state that isn't so restrictive. Just my $.02. And just let them try to restrict the right for my child to cross a state line to get a medical procedure done, they'd be sorry, and probably dead, too, if not severely injured. Besides, like we see with gay marriage, most states made these things legal before the federal precendent.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Oh well, they can basically go to a neighboring state that it IS legal in and have it done there. So what's the problem? Or do you think they'll start restricting travel?

They might start restricting travel. If there's no federal regulation of these state laws, a state could prohibit people traveling into their borders to receive an abortion. They could do anything they want. That's my point. Without federal protection of women's rights, women will LOSE their rights.

I've always been impressed with the quality of your posts. But, honestly you are starting to veer off into lala land with this one.

You are supposing a situation that is not feasible. States acting like they on the boarder with a foreign country..would never happen under Ron Paul. You are pulling this scenario out of your tin foil hat.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by SunnyDee

 

I have no idea what the states will do. But my Constitutional right to privacy and being secure in my person (rights guaranteed on a federal level) are threatened by the idea of laws being made that affect whether I can CHOOSE something for my body or not.

Well, every election cycle the threat of overturning roe v wade is put forth, so you are really not that protected federally either. I agree with you, it should be private, but it's not.

Originally posted by Jack Squat
Who care if a state can make it illegal to have an abortion? If that state collectively decided that's what they want, then all the power to them, majority rules!

And if they decide to make pot illegal and put the offenders to death, that's OK, too?
And if a state makes a law that black people can't go in certain restaurants, that's fine!
Your state law prohibits public display of religious paraphernalia, that's just peachy!

Majority rules! Just move to another state! And you're calling ME stupid?

Not that anyone here has any interest, but Majority Rules, Minority Rights

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Without federal protection of women's rights, women will LOSE their rights.

So with that analogy I can insert,and take it a step further.........

Without federal protection of HUMANS rights, HUMANS will LOSE their rights.

How many rights has Americans as a whole lost with Federal Laws Infringing ?

Boy,our Constitution is just TP now a days for lawmakers.

Man how i hate these people who open a post with an opinion which is not researched and based on half truths and propaganda they heard someone else spew..


furthermore..use a god damn condom...

you do not OWN your child...for f sakes...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by SunnyDee

 

So, I can go to the next state? What if I'm poor? What if I don't have a car? What if 46 of the 50 states outlaw abortion? Are young women supposed to travel to Alaska so they can have a medical procedure and keep the state out of their womb???

First I'll comment on your second point, if all states are tyrannical we have a problem and people should withdrawal their consent to be governed.

As for being too poor to afford a thirty dollar bus ticket, I suppose at that point you do need someone to take care of you, but wouldnt family be more logical than government in that department?

I disagree with RP on abortion.

RP should leave this issue alone.

A females reproductive freedom is extremely delicate subject, should a 14 year old girl have reproductive freedom to have a baby? Should a recovering drug addicts be free to have a baby? Should a woman who has physiological problems be free to have a baby? Should some one who has been know for domestic abuse to have a baby? What about if some one has got no money or a home should they have rights to have a baby? What about someone who has a police record should they have a baby?

There are a ton of ethical issues when it comes to reproduction not just female but male as well, personally I reckon none of the above should have babies what so ever I think there the reason why there are so many bad people in the world a bad upbringing and no good role model in sight as a child, that can really affect the child mental development. When a kid see there parents drunk,high,poor,beaten up or just having a mental breakdown is not a good environment for a kid at all. If you have one of the above don't have a kid until your know your not going to fall back into your old ways!

I think that banning the contraceptive pill is just plain dumb, So know loads of under 16/18's are going to have there life ruined by 1 mistake, and say if someone who was in one of the relationships I talked about above? it probably means that kids are not going to have a good chance in life. So now the adoption service is probably going to be overflowing with bastards (I mean that in the no offensive way) and kids who mothers just cant look after them so to me it just seams like it is going to be a huge strain on the USA adoption/foster service which I assume is like most adoption services around the world, in which case is probably already overflowing with kids. Seams very idiotic thing for Ron Paul to do.

On the other hand the pill does not filter through our water systems and it normally ends up in the water supply making men infertile due to the oestrogen in it, maybe he is looking at from that angle, or is that a rumour?

Originally posted by Destinyone
You are supposing a situation that is not feasible. States acting like they on the boarder with a foreign country..would never happen under Ron Paul.

Not at all! What do you think states rights are??? They are laws that states make and are enforced within their BORDERS. This absolutely can and probably WOULD happen in a Ron Paul America. Each state with its own laws. Like 50 little countries.

I personally believe that matter should be left alone by Ron Paul. But other supporters disagree.

The whole subject is a mess and a wedge issue.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

- Thomas Jefferson

Regarding your link on the Planned Parenthood issue:

In a new statement about his pro-life views, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said he would sign a ban on taxpayer funding of the Planned Parenthood abortion business if elected president.

I'm curious, what is the likelihood that such a bill would make it past Congress in the first place? The same issue applies to his Sanctity of Life act, as well. As usual, I can understand the concern, but given the realistic doubt of Congress ever passing such legislation in the first place, I have to continue to consider it a non-issue.

That said, consider the other options we have on the republican side, most pushing for a constitutional amendment at the federal level to ban abortions nationwide. While I consider this equally unlikely - which unlikely option would abortion advocates prefer, in all honesty?

As usual, we have the fact that even in the unlikely event Paul's views somehow came to fruition on the Planned Parenthood issue, the states and the people themselves would still be every bit as free to fund such programs directly, and Paul also has advocated use of the "morning after" pill to address possible unintended pregnancies.

As far as claiming this reflects a willingness on Paul's part to stick his nose into or legislate regarding a woman's body, this is actually the opposite - realizing that the federal government has no authority to decide on the matter one way or the other, which is consistent with Paul's views on most other similar matters.

And the disconnect between this issue and all others of related kind always strikes me - I do understand how serious this matter is viewed by advocates, but I wonder, where is the similar concern for all other existing federal violations of personal liberty and what one can do with their own body? We're concerned about abortion, but not about a federal drug war that wastes billions of dollars annually, results in police state actions and human rights violations in overcrowded prison systems, indiscriminately punishes minorities, and actually increases our society's drug problems?

What about the rights of people around the world to be secure in their own lives and property against oppression and invasion via US foreign policy?

Are we trading undue concern over an unlikely possibility for an entire host of existing and ongoing violations of life and liberty here at home and around the world, which no one other than Paul is realistically seeking to address? One issue most likely not to come to fruition should enable these definite atrocities to continue happening to millions around the world?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Take care, sister.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Jack Squat
Who care if a state can make it illegal to have an abortion? If that state collectively decided that's what they want, then all the power to them, majority rules!

And if they decide to make pot illegal and put the offenders to death, that's OK, too?
And if a state makes a law that black people can't go in certain restaurants, that's fine!
Your state law prohibits public display of religious paraphernalia, that's just peachy!

Majority rules! Just moce to another state! And you're calling ME stupid?

Not that anyone here has any interest, but Majority Rules, Minority Rights

I didn't CALL you stupid. I said you were BEING stupid.
You're reaching for hypothetical scenarios that are so unlikely to happen it's laughable.

If your choice is between the guy who will let you have a fetus vaccuumed outta you in any state you want, but also usher in WW3, and the guy who will bring the troops home from everywhere, but MIGHT leave you in a state where you may be forced to take a short drive to remove your tiny pea-sized nightmare from your gut... it's an easy choice!

Originally posted by sonnny1
Without federal protection of HUMANS rights, HUMANS will LOSE their rights.

Exactly. We agree.

Originally posted by Acetradamus

Man how i hate these people who open a post with an opinion which is not researched and based on half truths and propaganda they heard someone else spew..

I got this ALL from Ron Paul's websites and his statements on the Internet.

reply to post by Jack Squat
Your attitude isn't helping, friend. Let's keep this calm and realize that people do have their concerns - downplaying them disrespectfully will only drive a wedge, and despite the fact that it's an unlikely issue, it is a matter of liberty she has a right to be concerned about.

This is how I interpret his position: He is against any federal law governing that a life could be terminated. He, however, would allow the states to decide for themselves whether it should be allowed. He has said many times that that Federal Law should be used to protect peoples liberties, not take them away. But since he sees abortion as taking away a life, he doesn't feel that it is protecting the fetus's rights, hence, no Federal Law on abortion.

Originally posted by filosophia
As for being too poor to afford a thirty dollar bus ticket, I suppose at that point you do need someone to take care of you, but wouldnt family be more logical than government in that department?

That $30 could feed a family for a week for some people in this nation... And not everyone has family that can help. It just seems like people are thinking only of themselves and don't care about anyone else. As someone said earlier: "It's not my problem"... Perhaps that should be the Ron Paul mantra...

I think about the likelihood of overturning Roe vs. Wade and that would be a MOUNTAIN of a battle. RP has so many other issues he would have to work on, if he picked 'abortion' as his main focus, I and many supporters would probably tell him to get to work and stop BSing around.

I'm Pro Choice but I just don't know where the power lies to get involved. States issue or Federal issue covered under property or privacy?

I don't believe someone is a 'person' at conception, there is NO proof. Yet many do.

The whole thing is back and forth for years and it wastes time. Our main problem is NOT abortion. If we fix the economy and have prosperity, abortions will decline and those that ARE born will have better chances of a good life.

Like I said, RP should leave this one issue alone.