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

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's FREEDOM. If people want to have sex casually and carelessly, that's their FREEDOM. If there's a medical means to stop an unwanted pregnancy that results from safe sex OR careless sex, that's FREEDOM.

Legislating morality is NOT Freedom.

Freedom comes with responsibility, you can't just carelessly do whatever you want, that is why we have laws in the first place. There are also preemptive medical means of preventing pregnancy, so you can have sex all you want without getting pregnant, but you would rather have the option to have a baby in the future even though you aren't responsible enough to keep from having one in the first place.

Sex = Children, what is it about women and their quest for rights that do not understand this. A woman's alleged "right" does not come before all other rights and living things, nor does it come before taking responsibility for your actions.

What you are claiming isn't freedom or a right, it's irresponsibility.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Ron Paul WANTS to restrict our freedom to choose.

You mean your freedom to careless have sex and disregard the consequences of it?

Though you can relax, I support your irresponsible view on abortion, but only because the idiot children that come out of situations like that are probably better off not being born anyways.

Oh hes making murder illegal? That's REALLY bad. Sarcasm aside, unless you're raped, you shouldnt have the option of an abortion. Just my honest opinion. But i dont think hes making it illegal anyway, hes making it the choice of the state, not the federal government.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


My point in making this thread is to show that Ron Paul isn't as all-fired freedom-loving as people think he is, when it comes to women, at least...

As opposed to who......

Who in either party will do you believe will represent you better , in all aspects of being an American.

Who?

Originally posted by RSF77
Freedom comes with responsibility, you can't just carelessly do whatever you want, that is why we have laws in the first place.

So, it sounds like you're saying the purpose of laws is to restrict our freedom... if we don't act responsibly, we don't deserve the freedom?

Sex = Children, what is it about women and their quest for rights that do not understand this.

There should be no "quest for rights". We HAVE the rights. It's when government interferes and tries to tell us that we don't that I get supremely annoyed.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Praetorius

 

Originally posted by Praetorius
In regards to the pro-freedom argument, how can we square our concern on the abortion issue with facts that the government continues to impose such limitations and intrusions like the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of '06, NDAA, and the like?

I can't. I don't want ANY of it.

But you HAVE it nonetheless.

The good with the bad. The right to choose those laws you dont want,didnt matter,did it.

Let me ask you this.

Is Abortion a bigger issue for you,then those above?
Is Dr Pauls stance on Abortion a bigger issue then his stance on the Patriot Act,the Military Commissions Act of '06, NDAA?

How many Republicans have stated that those laws are Unconstitutional? Hell, even Democrat's?


I wish you luck in the next Presidential elections,and finding a Presidential hopeful that fits your bill of becoming a President. I can GUARANTEE,you will not find one that will stand with all you want in life,or believe in.


Unless you run for Presidency............



Peace Heretic..................................

Originally posted by isaac7777
Sarcasm aside, unless you're raped, you shouldnt have the option of an abortion.

What if it's a danger to my life? What if it's my father's baby? What if I can't afford a baby?

Click here for more information.

As far as I am concerned, reproductive freedom is far too extensive in the US, and should be seriously curtailed in case of late-term abortions, endangerment of proper development of a foetus and people unprepared for parenthood. That said..

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (B) the term ‘person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

I also disagree with this proposed law. But the thing is, any system where people vote for a limited number of politicians is destined to degenerate into voting for a lesser evil, and so Ron is still probably the best of the bunch, IMHO.

I made a relevant thread some time ago:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

See, that's just the thing with central planning, huge overarching regulation, and nationalized Federal laws ...

It's all well and good as long as it works in your favor, according to your sensibilities, etc.

BUT

The minute you give the Govt that sort of overreaching authority to sanction *whatever* - they NOW have the power to ban it.

Somehow, SOMEHOW people do not ever consider the latter.

If they are big enough to give it so you, they are strong enough to take it away.

The KEY is NEVER extending that sort of power to central Gov't the first place so they are NEVER in the position to take it away from you.

Conversely, if you left the matter up to the states - you will always have options. Not to mention - this is in accordance with the rule of law. Pretty much sums it up don't you think??

As an added bonus ~

Corruption is infinitely easier to address on a local level!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, it sounds like you're saying the purpose of laws is to restrict our freedom... if we don't act responsibly, we don't deserve the freedom?

You don't have the freedom to do whatever you want, I can't go murder or steal from people if I wanted the freedom to do that. We have specific freedoms that we call rights, abortion isn't included. This is a long standing agreement between citizens and a government and the idea is not solely ours, the founding fathers got the idea from somewhere else actually.

If I am irresponsible enough to commit a crime against someone I am punished, one of the punishments include the loss of freedom, yes (though I will agree our gov goes way overboard on this now a days). Laws are necessary and they create order, people cannot have the freedom to do whatever they want, that would just take us back to the stone age.

While we all have a negative opinion on our lawmakers now, at the end of the day they are necessary. Women who abort babies they knowingly and willingly have sex to create is not freedom, I see it as irresponsibility and lack of concern for any consequences. Regardless, it is for the better in our current situation, but far from any right IMO.

There should be no "quest for rights". We HAVE the rights. It's when government interferes and tries to tell us that we don't that I get supremely annoyed.

Yep, you have the right to carelessly have sex and then disregard the child, or have it and sue the father for child support, after divorcing/breaking up with him. Enjoy your bogus choices that all began with your decision to have sex.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Not if the states don't think so. Rape? Danger to the Mother? Incest? If they want to make it ALL illegal, they can.

Whether or not the Sanctity Act passes is irrelevant.

Ron Paul WANTS to restrict our freedom to choose.

I'd hope by now you know that I respect your opinions and that I disagree. So, a few points:

- You claim that by removing Federal Authority in this, it will restrict freedom. It seems to be a relatively even swap when you consider that states may not do all the doom and gloom things you predict. A few might, but the outcry at this point would be deafening.

This would allow the people of any state to choose the level of permissibility that their own citizens choose. That State's Rights feature is the very definition of freedom as opposed to the Federal blanket approach. Keeping it Federal only dilutes the discussion with millions of other voices that have nothing to do with your particular state, it's needs, or the wants of it's citizens.

- When it comes to reproductive rights, I don't have a lot of sympathy for women. They have all the rights and can choose to give or deprive the child of any of his rights as she sees fit, barring the extreme.

I know you are a staunch supporter of women's reproductive rights, and while pro-life, I agree with you in many respects when it comes to respecting a woman's body. This, however, seems to gross contrast to the relative slavery or nonentity status of male reproductive rights. Our rights begin and end with the choice to wear a condom or not.

There is no informed consent with men. We have debtors prisons again and we have no real ability to choose parenthood that is even remotely equitable to a woman's.

- When comparing the rights between men and women in this topic, even a marked reduction in choice for a woman would still leave a vast imbalance on the side of the women. I honestly don't know why men put up with the blatant and sexist attitudes of people in this topic (in general, not this specific thread).

Anyway, many women are not pro-choice. My wife is pro-life as I am and she supports Paul. We have 4 children when it would have been "smarter" to abort a few of them so our best interest was served. We did not and do not condemn those that do.

- I will say that I don't feel that legislative curtailment of abortion is the best avenue to anything but a black market of dangerous abortions in the same realm of drugs, illegal guns, and prostitution. This is of no help to women or men.

Having it at the Federal Level (barring the religious nuts) really does seem to have a stymieing effect on getting anything done. It's too hot a topic and there are too many well funded groups mucking up the works to have a rational conversation. I may be wrong, but I feel that moving to the State level would give people greater access to and more control over this topic as it relates to their State.

Peace
KJ

I admire Ron Paul because he understands the abortion extremists have the non supporters in bondage to them.

There has to be a limitation to abortions, a respect to the people who don't want their tax dollars supporting needless abortions, partial birth abortions and the infringement on parents rights.

Ron Paul speaks for the babies who can't speak for themselves and for the people who are forced to support this limitless act of killing innocent babies.

eta:
I do not support 99% of the abortions preformed.

I think it would be very wise for the states to have the decision to allow or disallow abortions. At this point in our current dialogue over this matter its pretty clear to me that most people stand behind the right of the woman being able to do to her body whatever she needs/wants. To me it is very obvious what would happen, the states that allow abortion would be prospering as there are plenty of people out there who need or want an abortion so it could end up amounting to economic suicide if it wasnt allowed in a particular state. The states that allowed abortions would obviously prosper off of it financially and then others would follow suit.

This situation can be likened to marijuana legalization in Cali. The majority of the people there would like to see it legalized (actually thats not true, the serious marijuana advocates want NO GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT and that's why it didnt pass the last ballot, not because they were against legalizing it, they just want Big Bro to stay hands-off, after all why should they have a stranglehold over a perfectly functioning non-over-sighted industry, the government has clearly shown they dont deserve our money cause they dont use it wisely) but the blanket actions of the federal government wont allow it. Thats stupid when obviously the people have spoken, Ron Paul is just saying lets take away the ridiculous laws that nobody wants or needs and let the people/states decide.

Benevolent Heretic Dont you think you would have a better chance of getting your governor to listen to you after you have some in state support behind you than would the president who is saying well your 'advocates' only represent X% of X state out of 50 states. On a national level you are working with a fraction of a fraction, whereas if you garner support in your state and approach YOUR states governing body, dont you think you would have a better chance of getting things done?

I dont even know why i bothered asking you this question, its very clear you are just posting these threads and posts to bash Ron Paul.

I guarantee you it would be easier to speak directly to your states governor than the US President, afterall I bet the Governors have a hard time getting Obamas ear too.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by isaac7777
Sarcasm aside, unless you're raped, you shouldnt have the option of an abortion.

What if it's a danger to my life? What if it's my father's baby? What if I can't afford a baby?

When abortion was illegal, doctors did it anyways, some just to make money, but if abortion was illegal in all 50 states (57 according to Obama), a doctor would from his own sense of morality abort a baby if he thought it was a danger to the woman, otherwise he is not much of a doctor to begin with.

If you can't afford it why should i have to pay for it through taxes? You ignored or missed my post where I linked to a site detailing the tax funding to planned parenthood. So I'll ask again, do you think not a penny of taxes go to planned parenthood?

As for being raped by your father, a doctor would have sympathy and willingly break the law. But seriously, you are asking people to oppose ron paul because someone might be raped by their father? I'd be more worried about that "father" as opposed to ron paul.

Originally posted by isaac7777
Oh hes making murder illegal? That's REALLY bad. Sarcasm aside, unless you're raped, you shouldnt have the option of an abortion.

What about cases (this just happened to a friend of mine) where the baby has multiple birth defects (ancephalic) and wouldn't survive birth. A woman MUST carry a dead/dying baby to full term? Or (and this actually is in the Body Worlds exhibit) a case where the baby and mother are both dying and you can't save the baby but might be able to save the mother?

Or (this is from medical textbooks.. I was shocked when I read it and then shocked to find out that it's NOT uncommon) a case where the baby's head is wedged so tightly in the pelvis that it is stuck. There are two options (equally horrible) -- death of both or a really nasty abortion.)

During part of my (long and spotted) career, I was a teaching assistant at a medical school. I find that most people discussing this aren't aware of the medical situations surrounding this issue.

Of course, most unwanted pregnancies could be prevented by men wearing condoms. I don't see Dr Paul coming out in support of this as an alternative.

Originally posted by Maslo

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (B) the term ‘person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

Well is this stated as a 'natural person' or a 'legal person'?

I doubt this is the reasoning for the act, however, it could have the consequence of turning unborn babies into corporate state owned entities before they get the chance to decline the filing of their birth certificate!

legal person - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.

A person according to these definitions, is basically an entity - legal fiction - of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Isn't it odd that the word lawful is not used within these definitions?

assemblyoftrueisrael.com...

Don't mean to take this off topic, but it's an interesting adjunct.

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by RSF77

 

Wow, sex=children?! Really?

Yes Sex = Children, that has been the purpose of sex since the dawn of humanity. It seems like such a simple, stupid thing to have to tell someone, but IMO it seems like some people forget this.

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by RSF77

 

Sounds like something my great great great granny might say, or perhaps someone from Victorian England! Ladies, your role is to produce babies, don't even think of using sexual activity for some kind of kinky pleasure

Where did I say this? Your blowing this way out of proportion. A lot of those kinky pleasures don't even involve actual intercourse.

Any other words you want to try and put in my mouth while we're at it, apparently somewhere I said women's role is to produce babies. I guess according to you men should carry them or what?

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by RSF77

 

Careless sex? Never heard of accidents? Condoms break, coils malfunction, chemicals don't always do what they are expected to do.

Yea they do, turns out they say it right on the label when you buy it. That is no accident, you already know they aren't 100% effective.

Geez it's like we should be giving Sex Ed classes to adults instead of kids.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Hmmmmmmmmmm

"Reproductive Freedom"

1. Endeavor to CONCEIVE

OR

2. Endeavor to PREVENT CONCEPTION.

THAT'S PROPER "REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM."

Using selfishness, thoughtlessness, carelessness, inconvenience as an excuse to murder an unborn infant is

NOT FREEDOM.

That's Infanticide . . .

and slavery to one's selfishness.
.
.

reply to post by Byrd
Byrd, I have to admit that last bit confounds me when he's come out in approval of the morning after pill as a means of addressing unwanted (possible) pregnancies.

Could you clarify? Granted, I've never HEARD him advocate condom use, but I don't really think we can draw all that much from it...

And you otherwise provide good examples. While I believe elective abortions should be coached against and other options provided, I've always agreed with cases where both would die without the sacrifice of one or the other, etc. Mixed bag on the physical issues argument - I'd say it depends on exactly what we're dealing with (I don't believe my thought does much for your first - tragic - example...), but there are a lot of children born with tragic conditions who still find themselves in loving and capable homes.

My well-wishes go out to your friend. Very sad.