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

Originally posted by Praetorius
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.

That is a different discussion.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

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

Wait, what? Could you clarify that one for me a bit? Thanks.

Sorry for the spin on this, but since we're on the freedom of choice and personal liberty issue, how do you feel about the following?:
a) the father's right to have a say in either terminating, or not, the pregnancy.
b) barring that, the father's right to accept or decline responsibility for liability of the child regardless of the mother's decision.

EDIT:
Ah...looking at the child support wiki page, does my option B above refer to "male abortion"?

reply to post by Praetorius


You make too damn much sense.

I do think he'd be able to get SOMEONE to write up a Sanctity Act for him to sign.

Can we please get back to Ron Paul

And not make this another Abortion discussion?

Originally posted by Godofgamblers

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
"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.

You sound like a typical liberal ghoul.

That's the first time that advocating individual freedom has gotten that kind of response, but OK.

And no you don't have a CHOICE when you're using MY tax dollars to support abortion.

I don't want your tax dollars. I have not mentioned federally funding abortions. That is not the subject.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Big difference between introducing the legislation and getting it through even one one half of congress, let alone both. I will have to continue to consider entirely unlikely (and much better than the alternative of one of the other republicans somehow getting into office and managing to impose a federal ban on abortion altogether, which I would consider no more unlikely than the other).

EDIT:

I don't want your tax dollars. I have not mentioned federally funding abortions. That is not the subject.

Well, you did bring up the Planned Parenthood federal funding issue in OP, dear. I think my Jefferson quote addressed that well.

PS - that gets a star for acknowledging my unending sensibility.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Godofgamblers

And no you don't have a CHOICE when you're using MY tax dollars to support abortion.

I don't want your tax dollars. I have not mentioned federally funding abortions. That is not the subject.

Probably OK though if our tax dollars paid for a nativity scene on the White House lawn.

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

reply to post by sonnny1

Originally posted by sonnny1
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 ?

Why are you talking about tax dollars? I'm not advocating for federal funds. Just safe abortion, protected on the federal level for women who live in this country.

To answer your question, I don't believe in the wars, but I still have to pay my taxes.

No rape or incest abortions, no contraceptives no nothing will be made for sale if he gets in.

reply to post by Praetorius

Originally posted by Praetorius
Sorry for the spin on this, but since we're on the freedom of choice and personal liberty issue, how do you feel about the following?:
a) the father's right to have a say in either terminating, or not, the pregnancy.
b) barring that, the father's right to accept or decline responsibility for liability of the child regardless of the mother's decision.

B. I support B. If a person doesn't want to have a baby and they end up accidentally merging sperm and egg, I think they both should have the opportunity (within a reasonable amount of time) to decide whether or not they want to be a parent. And both should have the choice to legally (and physically, in the case of the woman) decline.

reply to post by Annee
Curious - OF THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES, how do you feel about him?

Would you rather - or not - have one of the other republicans as the possible replacement for Obama? I can't see their proposed plans as anything less than vastly more offensive.. when they talk about repealing Roe v. Wade, they mean to replace it with a federal ban as compared to state choice, unless I'm sorely mistaken - as well as continuing all the other failed policies.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
Oh? And how exactly does the president decide that, again?

Darrin, I'm sorry, but you're got a terrible track record of backing up claims in Ron Paul discussions - at least. Can you offer up something solid on this one?

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Annee

 

Curious - OF THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES, how do you feel about him?

Would you rather - or not - have one of the other republicans as the possible replacement for Obama?

I like Obama. I think he is very intelligent and a methodical thinker.

I'm a progressive futurist globalist - - - I believe in moving forward - - not backward (Ron Paul).

I would vote for who best fit my political direction. I will not vote for anyone who promotes God in a strong way.

I hope Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination. It would be an interesting election! I wouldn't vote for any of the other GOP crew.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


Why are you talking about tax dollars? I'm not advocating for federal funds. Just safe abortion, protected on the federal level for women who live in this country.

To answer your question, I don't believe in the wars, but I still have to pay my taxes.

hmmm...........

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

So he would Ban Funding for Planned Parenthood, which would make birth control unavailable to poor women, then he would Overturn Roe V Wade, and make sure the state could arrest or punish a woman and/or her doctor for having or performing an abortion.

Is that Federal or State Monies used ??

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To answer your question, I don't believe in the wars, but I still have to pay my taxes.

Can you give me a Presidential candidate,that believes as strongly as you do,in your non-belief in Wars?
Can you give me a candidate that believes in doing away with the IRS?

Im not trying to push RP on anyone,just showing you that there are many different ways to look at it.

reply to post by Annee
That's all well and good. But consider the possibility that Obama might lose. Which one of the republicans would you rather see fill his spot?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I hope Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination. It would be an interesting election! I wouldn't vote for any of the other GOP crew.

There you go. I don't advocate anyone support the lesser of evils or someone they don't feel represents them when you have a choice, but I find it eminently sensible we work to ensure we have the best available options in place for the final decision, should our desired outcome not arrive.

reply to post by Praetorius


Banning Planned Parenthood from operating :
www.lifenews.com...

Ron Paul says victim of sex harassment bears some responsibility for resolution
www.freerepublic.com...

Senate refuses abortion rights for rape victims in the military (Something Paul supports)
rt.com...

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Annee

 

That's all well and good. But consider the possibility that Obama might lose. Which one of the republicans would you rather see fill his spot?

NONE

And I am actually still a registered Republican. These are not Republicans - - they are Neo-Cons.

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

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.

Anything that is subsidized through public taxation IS a social issue.

That aside - let's broaden our vantage point.

Let's say we elect a liberal democrat into office and have a democrat majority congress. Great, they endorse abortion on a national level. Great. They have given everyone the *right* to an abortion. We now have that right and it is absolutely contingent on our centralized Gov't to uphold. We have extended to them that power.

Fast forward ten, twenty years:

What happens when a radical right-wing president is elected and the congress has a republican majority? And what happens when the sanction on abortion is lifted and they impose a nation wide ban?

People usually don't consider the inverse of this process.

If we don't give them the authority to sanction abortion on a national level, they will NEVER have the authority to ban it on a national level.