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

Originally posted by Jack Squat
He's pro-life but not against the States right to legalize abortion.

I am so sick of hearing this states right argument.

I'm no Constitutionalist - - but wasn't it written/signed 224 years ago - - and there were only 13 states/colonies? Maybe that worked then - - but it doesn't work today.

Someone please explain to me why Civil Rights should not be 100% Federal and 100% equal for everyone.

Explain to me why marriage is a state issue. An explanation that makes logical sense.

Do I want Sheriff Arpaio making decisions on my reproductive rights? Hell NO!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Good post!

This kind of thing is why my support for RP has waned considerably... he makes this big show about being all Pro Freedom, but as this demonstrates, he, as with most these days, means that to apply to the freedoms he supports and approves of, not so much the "irresponsible" freedoms he doesn't like.

I am old enough to remember what it was like in this country pre-Roe V Wade and pre-Planned Parenthood. I remember when news stories about another woman dying due to trying to abort herself, or going to some butcher were common enough to be merely sad instead of shocking.

And I remember how those news stories stopped after Roe V Wade and after establishment of Planned Parenthood.

And I am not willing to support going back to those days just so somebody's medieval religous views can be imposed on the general population.

reply to post by Annee

Someone please explain to me why Civil Rights should not be 100% Federal and 100% equal for everyone.

Good question. Makes me wonder why we don't have them on so many other issues, and why we have such prevalent abuses of government, life, and liberty that most of our officials don't really seem to care about, other than expanding them...

Explain to me why marriage is a state issue. An explanation that makes logical sense.

Somewhat agreed - I personally don't think any level of government has any valid authority getting involved with it, which is why I believe the people are responsible for getting involved and making sure the knuckleheads BUTT OUT - but Paul is absolutely correct in that it's also not a federal issue.

Take care, Annee.

reply to post by Praetorius

Originally posted by Praetorius
I'm curious, what is the likelihood that such a bill would make it past Congress in the first place?

How can we possibly know the likelihoods? People seem to think that the stuff they support will surely get passed (Repeal ObamaCare, The Patriot Act and stop the war on drugs) but they're just certain that this Sanctity of Life Act and some of his other drastic (and possibly immediate) items on his agenda, won't get passed anyway, so nothing to worry about.

On what do you base the likelihood that something will pass or fail? I would have placed a very small likelihood on the idea that The Patriot Act would be extended time and time again by several different Congresses under different parties, but I was really wrong about that. I don't have much faith that Congress would NOW vote to repeal it. What makes it more likely to be repealed under a Paul presidency? What makes it unlikely that his Sanctity of Life Act will NOT?

This is the reason his desire to legislate morality and in effect REMOVE freedoms that we now have, scares me. And even though I have no horse in the abortion race, as I am anti-abortion (I wouldn't have one unless it threatened my health), I am also pro-choice. My pro-choice stance is BASED on the concept of freedom. REAL freedom, where I support the rights of others, even though I disagree with them.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Voting is sometimes like gambling...there's no such thing as a sure thing when it comes to politics. The best you can do, is assess the information available, as best as you can. Walk into to the voting booth, and cast your vote with a clear conscience. No one else can be your conscience. for you....


That's why so many people say to avoid conversations about religion, and politics. They are both such *personal* subjects.

reply to post by followtheevidence

Originally posted by followtheevidence
DENYING voters the right to vote on social policy at the state level as prescribed by the Constitution is the act which restricts our freedom to choose.

A woman's right to her person is not a "social policy", IMO. It's a privacy issue. If there's something in my body and I want it out, and we have the medical means to do so, then we should have the freedom to choose, without interference from government, state or federal.

"Denying the voters" to vote on whether or not I should have autonomy over my body is the RIGHT thing to do. It's none of the voters' business what I do with my body. We each have individual choice. Forcing me to choose YOUR choice is not freedom.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

How can we possibly know the likelihoods? People seem to think that the stuff they support will surely get passed (Repeal ObamaCare, The Patriot Act and stop the war on drugs) but they're just certain that this Sanctity of Life Act and some of his other drastic (and possibly immediate) items on his agenda, won't get passed anyway, so nothing to worry about.

On what do you base the likelihood that something will pass or fail?

Well, I'd personally suggest looking at the number of co-sponsors as well as the popular resistance and political climate otherwise as a good indicator.

I would have placed a very small likelihood on the idea that The Patriot Act would be extended time and time again by several different Congresses under different parties, but I was really wrong about that. I don't have much faith that Congress would NOW vote to repeal it. What makes it more likely to be repealed under a Paul presidency? What makes it unlikely that his Sanctity of Life Act will NOT?

Well, honestly I never expected them not to keep passing/extending it, so we've got to say I have a better track record than you do on that one.

As to the extensions and why it would be repealed under Paul - the president has to sign the extensions into law, no? Do you really expect Paul would? But you expect the Sanctity of Life Act to get reintroduced and somehow pass the House and the Senate? I will say the odds are definitely in my favor on both counts, from any realistic assessment.

This is the reason his desire to legislate morality and in effect REMOVE freedoms that we now have, scares me. And even though I have no horse in the abortion race, as I am anti-abortion (I wouldn't have one unless it threatened my health), I am also pro-choice. My pro-choice stance is BASED on the concept of freedom. REAL freedom, where I support the rights of others, even though I disagree with them.

And that's definitely honorable:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

But as I mentioned earlier on the thread, how on earth can we weigh such unlikely odds to continue to give indirect tacit approval to leaders and enablers who have put in place such offensive overreaches of power and abuses of liberty, and who show all indication of continuing to do so?

I don't mean to beat dead horses, but a big part of my concern it what presidents DO have the power to do directly, and Paul is one of the only options I can see with an serious intention to make right steps on many very important issues (while being limited by presidential authority and a resistant congress to most of his thoughts that otherwise bother people). End the wars, don't approve unjust laws, direct the DOJ to stop giving states and people a hard time, pardon the non-violent, and so on.

His more 'radical' views would of necessity be externally tempered, and I have no doubt he would work to right the wrongs no one else seems all that bothered by.

Just my personal thoughts, of course.

reply to post by Godofgamblers
*frown*

We do not approve this message.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Byrd


I think the multiple birth defects one is the hardest for me.

My bias is to still carry the baby. I've seen sooooo many redemptive results from doing so--through all the pain and suffering.

However, I'm not going to haughtily judge anyone who chooses differently.

In terms of saving the mother or neither--OF COURSE, SAVE THE MOTHER. No brainer there, imho.

Yeah, prevention is the mature, responsible route.

reply to post by Maslo


That thread looks great! I wish I had seen it then. Your OP expresses many of my concerns. And I feel better knowing that a federal government, made up of a fairly even mix of conservatives and liberals from ALL states, will have a better chance of meeting my desires and protecting things that are important to me than a state. I imagine the differences in some of the laws in California and Texas, for example... That could be some crazy stuff!

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!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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

YES! YES! YES!

I am so thankful for ATS and other discussion boards - - - to be able to honestly discuss in-depth Ron Paul and these issues.

From an emotional self-centered perspective - - I might have made the mistake of supporting him.

On paper some things sound good - - also the repetitive propaganda "states rights".

In reality its insane - - takes away our rights - - and creates "control states" - - and division of any possibility of a unified country.

There is no way this man should be in charge of this country.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


As Jewish Psychiatrist imprisoned in a death camp by Hitler asserted virtually every class he taught:

Viktor Frankl, MD, PhD:

THERE IS !!!!NO!!!! FREEDOM WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY.

Being irresponsible and then !DEMANDING! 'freedom' anyway is a 2 year old's mentality and value.
.
.
en.wikipedia.org...
.
.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
This would allow the people of any state to choose the level of permissibility that their own citizens choose.

Yes. The STATE would choose. And the people of my state have NO RIGHT to choose what happens in my body. The government should NOT have the choice. The individual should have the choice. The only way to insure that the individual has the choice is to insure that BOTH options are legal.

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.

I am a staunch supporter of male reproductive rights. I advocate for male abortion, too.

Anyway, many women are not pro-choice.

The whole idea of being pro-choice or pro-life is ludicrous. Anyone who thinks they have the right to legally dictate what goes on in a woman's body is just pro-control. This decision should be made by individuals, not governments.

Originally posted by Praetorius

Explain to me why marriage is a state issue. An explanation that makes logical sense.

Somewhat agreed - I personally don't think any level of government has any valid authority getting involved with it, which is why I believe the people are responsible for getting involved and making sure the knuckleheads BUTT OUT - but Paul is absolutely correct in that it's also not a federal issue.

I'm not going to get into the philosophical debate of marriage is a personal thing. That is a different discussion.

LEGAL government marriage should be 100% the same for the entire country - - which means Federal.

It is stupid that states have separate marriage rights.

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003

LINK

As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem. ~Ron Paul

“Not all Americans are comfortable with the Obama administration’s decision to mandate coverage of birth control and morning-after pills, and the considerations of these people, many of them Christian conservatives, are worthy of careful consideration — not mockery.”~Ron Paul


Question:

If you don't believe in something,why should your tax dollars go to something You don't fundamentally,or morally believe in ,Federal or State level ?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

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.

Logically . . .

1. IF man is nothing more than a rat, a pigeon, a radish or a rock . . .

there are NO RIGHTS.

ALL IS MERELY TIME PLUS CHANCE. A bloke has just as much "right" to shred you--baby and all--or not--as feed you. In that 'reality' might makes right, alone. Lovely.

2. IF man is created by God . . . then the "rights" come from God according to HIS priorities and values.

Choose.

There aren't a lot of options.

The CHOICE, is yours . . . just be consistent . . . and realize the consequences of such CHOICE.

.
.

reply to post by Annee
We'll have to agree to disagree with this one, as I've got to stand on my point that it's stupid for government to have a say in it regardless. What consenting adults choose to do, and what agreements people decide to reach as long as they don't impose on anyone else, should be beyond the purview of anyone else.

And when we've got a majority of republican candidates working to impose FEDERAL limits on this by advocating constitutional amendments against gay marriage (on top of everything else), I think at the very least we should all be working to put the best *republican* option on the table so you are left with the two best possible outcomes when the general election arrives.

That's about the only way I can read it, anyway. Thanks for your reply, Annee.

reply to post by filosophia

Originally posted by filosophia
When abortion was illegal, doctors did it anyways,

No kidding. I was there... When Abortion Was Illegal

Of these, tens upon tens of thousands died from illegal abortions or complications arising from them. One 1932 study estimated that illegal abortions or complications from them were the cause of death for 15,000 women each year. Current, more conservative, estimates of the death toll still stand at between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per year.

Some of these deaths were the result of the abortions themselves, but many more were from infection and hemorrhaging afterward. Because of the fear of being punished and socially ostracized, many women--and their doctors--kept their real condition a secret.

If you can't afford it why should i have to pay for it through taxes?

My post isn't about Planned Parenthood or federal funding of abortion. I mentioned Planned Parenthood in the context of women getting birth control there. If they can't afford birth control and their state makes abortion illegal, she's SOL and another unwanted baby is born.