Ron Paul: 'Honest Rape' Makes Emergency Contraception OK

reply to post by MrSpad


Sticking with the Constitution is bad?
Cutting over seas Military Spending is bad?
Bringing back our troops is bad?
Reducing Government and it's Wall Street influences is bad?
Being Pro-choice for the good reasons is bad?


Wow, better vote for Romney then. At least he puts people out of their homes and into the streets for a profit.....sheesh?!?!?

Why should we care? Maybe it's different over here in European countries, but this is a reeeeally small issue compared to things like jobs, continual war, debt, etc. It's his personal opinion, and he is for state's rights to decide anyway. If this is the most important deciding factor in whether you vote for someone or not, maybe a lot of America needs to evolve socially and politically...I love how this thread is presented as some smoking gun lol

Originally posted by SaturnFX
He is very pro-life, but will keep the country pro-choice.

Then why does he try to pass the Sanctity of Life Act every session? A federal declaration that life begins at conception doesn't sound like he's interested in keeping the country pro-choice.

reply to post by AR154


That's exactly why they press the issue of abortion. To distract from the real problems like homelessness, over populated prisons because of nonsensical laws, War perpitrated for resource grabs and profit. Govenment corruption...you know small stuff.

Abortion is nobodies busines but their own. And it shouldn't even be much of an issue but people goble that up. They just love sticking their big noses in other peoples business.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by SaturnFX
He is very pro-life, but will keep the country pro-choice.

Then why does he try to pass the Sanctity of Life Act every session? A federal declaration that life begins at conception doesn't sound like he's interested in keeping the country pro-choice.

Didn't hear about that...did hear him however state that the law was already established and ultimately saying it can be repealed or something is nonsense.

Originally posted by DIRTYDONKEY
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

if thats the case my laundry basket is the holy grail!

You don't even want to take a black light into my room.

this is such a mute point it is so stupid it would be like me deciding if i trust you to babysit my children based on the color of your car

TOTALY IRRELEVANT

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who is going to end the FED and without the FED he will not be able to decide pro life or pro choice, it will no longer be in the presidents power to tell a state if they can or can not allow abortions, THAT is freedom, to remove a STATE's decision from the presidents hand, return that decision BACK to the states.

this is why it is POINTLESS what Rons personal opinion on the matter is, CAUSE HE IS THE ONE PRESIDENT WHO ISN'T GONNA FORCE HIS PERSONAL OPINION ON THE WHOLE NATION THROUGH FEDERAL LAW!!!!!!! WITHOUT DEMOCRATIC VOTE!!!!! all our other presidents have done that in the past with various laws through executive order, wouldnt it be nice for once to have a president who acts like a president instead of the king's we have had thus far.

all other candidates like the fed, its nice to them to have dictatorial power over the entire nation,

i vote for Ron Paul, the only one running who DOESNT outright confess to wanting dictatorial power

Ron Paul is the ONLY candadite that is going to allow the states to make this decision ON THEIR OWN,

so under Ron Paul,

we will have some states pro life and some states pro choice,

those with reflecting views will move and those states they move too will thrive since their citizenry agree with their laws,

thus states learn the hardway via loss of citizenry and taxation that they need to have democratic laws approved by the majority or they will loose the majority of their tax pool.

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by MrSpad

 

Sticking with the Constitution is bad?
Cutting over seas Military Spending is bad?
Bringing back our troops is bad?
Reducing Government and it's Wall Street influences is bad?
Being Pro-choice for the good reasons is bad?


Wow, better vote for Romney then. At least he puts people out of their homes and into the streets for a profit.....sheesh?!?!?

What you have stated is the standard line for any politician. However those ideas are then warped by whatever agenda each canidate has. So its his interpretation of the constitution. We spend money on overseas bases because we learned from two world wars that its better to deal with problems when they are small and not wait until its a global conflict. Everyone says they want to reduce gov and wall street and Pauls time in office has shown he has been just as ineffective at it as everyone else. How about $400 million in earmarks he added on bills he knew would pass but then voted against in 2007. Thats what you call a little razzle dazzle. Pro choice? He says he is "strongly pro-life".

Ron Paul does have some good ideas but, they are joined by bad ideas like selling off federal lands to developers and closing down the department of the interior, like letting states make it illegal to burn the American Flag, like cutting corporate taxes in half, like cutting all federal aid for education, like ending the election of senators and having them appointed by the state legistlature, like leaving NATO and the UN etc. Not that he could do any of this stuff anyway.

Wait...why are we discussing RP?

do some people still think he has a chance? Can someone inform me of how he can actually successfully get the republican nomination at this point in the game?

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Wait...why are we discussing RP?

do some people still think he has a chance? Can someone inform me of how he can actually successfully get the republican nomination at this point in the game?

That's the point. This is more of a movement than simply a campaign. Ron knows he is old, and while in good health, may not last very long (just to put it plainly). However, hopefully his messages will continue in the next generation. To stop discussing freedom, sound money and foreign policy just because winning may or may not be a possibility is the worst mistake. Ron Paul is the figurehead of these things at the moment, so that's what we'll push behind.

Originally posted by Starchild23
Ah...here we go....

Someone has finally called bull. Unfortunately, someone called bull on a bulls**t point.

Seriously. Could you pick a weaker point to call it on? You give a very weak argument for your point...

Try harder, "Soccer Mom".

Actually, I'm just reporting on a news item that I found ironic and amusing. The Ron Paul supporters tout that he never turns back and that he always supports the Constitution. So I found it ironic that he keeps putting in laws that he feels are Constitutional ("life begins at conception") and then steps down when he's confronted with it as a personal situation.

Originally posted by Sirconspire
Trying to steamroll Ron?

Nope. The article quoted him directly. You can see links to the Youtube interview somewhere around here, it was nationally broadcast, and so forth. The statement is his.

Conception happens several days after the act, honest or dishonest.

Hours to days. There's actually no set timetable on this.

Men and Women need to be more responsible as there are many types of contraception available to prevent dishonest pregnancies.

Err.. there's a difference between an honest pregnancy and a dishonest one? I find this a tad confusing, because I think that once I'm pregnant, that's it. I'm honestly pregnant.

Women base their decision to get pregnant by their suitor's financial means these days, (rich guy lottery syndrome) . Then they break the news to their lover and if it doesn't sit well with their partner, they can always opt to abort. That's my take on this.

That's sort of like saying that "guys only like hot babes with blonde hair." I think you'll find lots of ATS readers here married the love of their life when he was poor and didn't show much promise, but loved him anyway. And I think that if you check on women who have had abortions, you'll find a significant number of them don't match your concept, there.

A woman's ungovernable biological need to have their xerox copy of themselves is not overshadowed by common sense and sound judgement so therefore they don't feel as bad when they abort their unborn children.

I'm sure the rest of the women here will have some feedback for you on that comment. My own reaction is that you probably pick all the wrong women to attempt relationships with and your view is biased by all the rejection you've had.

It's not about rape because the potential consequence is easily dealt with by the morning after pill.

I take it you've never been raped and have no idea how traumatic it is. Nor are the consequences "easily dealt with" since many areas have outlawed the "morning after pill."

It's about a murderous choice without feeling guilt... that somehow gets tied into politics as a defining factor to not vote for a strong presidential candidate, like Paul.

He's voted against morning after pills. He is apparently changing his mind.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Actually, that is exactly what my nun teacher told us in catholic school
every sperm is sacred

Bud .. those are the words to the song that is sang in 'History of the World, Part I'

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
when a sperm is wasted
Got gets quite irate.

Full lyrics here

reply to post by Starchild23


So what exactly is your intent on calling the poster soccer mom as if its a derogatory term?

What does a "soccer mom' have to do with the thread?

Please enlighten me on why that comment was necessary?

Because I certainly hope you wouldn't take a endearing term, such as a devoted mother who takes her kids to soccer practise, and try to slant it so it becomes a derogatory term implying ignorance, would you??

reply to post by Indellkoffer


I have an idea.. how about instead of reading some text and quotes. You actually watch the interview for yourself and see the words in context.

It was the Peirs Morgan interview done just a few days ago.

The comment was made as he was describing what he would do in cases of rape. When he said, "honest rape" he was not saying rape is an honest action, it was said as an honest rape in the traditional sense of the word. His first suggestion was to report it and go straight to the hospital and that he would suggest a shot of estrogen which would prevent pregnancy in a case of rape.

As I am sure you know, many rapes go unreported. Which is why you see cases of pregnancy due to rape. If women would go to a hospital and report these rapes, there are steps that would ensure the victim would not become pregnant.

If you want to find things to complain about when it comes to Ron Paul, I would suggest watching the interview. I actually hated the way he discussed the abortion issue, but the "honest rape" comment is not one of those things to hate.

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by Sirconspire
Trying to steamroll Ron?

Nope. The article quoted him directly. You can see links to the Youtube interview somewhere around here, it was nationally broadcast, and so forth. The statement is his.

Conception happens several days after the act, honest or dishonest.

Hours to days. There's actually no set timetable on this.

Men and Women need to be more responsible as there are many types of contraception available to prevent dishonest pregnancies.

Err.. there's a difference between an honest pregnancy and a dishonest one? I find this a tad confusing, because I think that once I'm pregnant, that's it. I'm honestly pregnant.

Women base their decision to get pregnant by their suitor's financial means these days, (rich guy lottery syndrome) . Then they break the news to their lover and if it doesn't sit well with their partner, they can always opt to abort. That's my take on this.

That's sort of like saying that "guys only like hot babes with blonde hair." I think you'll find lots of ATS readers here married the love of their life when he was poor and didn't show much promise, but loved him anyway. And I think that if you check on women who have had abortions, you'll find a significant number of them don't match your concept, there.

A woman's ungovernable biological need to have their xerox copy of themselves is not overshadowed by common sense and sound judgement so therefore they don't feel as bad when they abort their unborn children.

I'm sure the rest of the women here will have some feedback for you on that comment. My own reaction is that you probably pick all the wrong women to attempt relationships with and your view is biased by all the rejection you've had.

It's not about rape because the potential consequence is easily dealt with by the morning after pill.

I take it you've never been raped and have no idea how traumatic it is. Nor are the consequences "easily dealt with" since many areas have outlawed the "morning after pill."

It's about a murderous choice without feeling guilt... that somehow gets tied into politics as a defining factor to not vote for a strong presidential candidate, like Paul.

He's voted against morning after pills. He is apparently changing his mind.

Wow, I must have struck a nerve. I can understand how a soccer mom who is way past her prime (if there ever was one) can be so bitter. Face it lady, you post is irrelevant. Who cares what Ron's policy is on the morning after pill. This goes to show your limited scope on the important matters and issues at hand. I don't know why ATS allows threads like these to survive.

reply to post by MrSpad


The difference is between him and them is that Dr. Paul has been saying all along his career. Not just when it's popular to say so.

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by Indellkoffer

 

I have an idea.. how about instead of reading some text and quotes. You actually watch the interview for yourself and see the words in context.

It was the Peirs Morgan interview done just a few days ago.

The comment was made as he was describing what he would do in cases of rape. When he said, "honest rape" he was not saying rape is an honest action, it was said as an honest rape in the traditional sense of the word. His first suggestion was to report it and go straight to the hospital and that he would suggest a shot of estrogen which would prevent pregnancy in a case of rape.

As I am sure you know, many rapes go unreported. Which is why you see cases of pregnancy due to rape. If women would go to a hospital and report these rapes, there are steps that would ensure the victim would not become pregnant.

If you want to find things to complain about when it comes to Ron Paul, I would suggest watching the interview. I actually hated the way he discussed the abortion issue, but the "honest rape" comment is not one of those things to hate.

He did stumble a bit, but it's a touchy subject. I think he misused words a few times. Doesn't change my opinion of him or make me think he's any less pro-life. Anyone who watched the interview in full wouldn't suggest otherwise. He had difficulty with he question, because he tells the truth and not just what people want to hear.

How anyone could question the Dr's pro life record, but not question the war mongers is beyond me. They are only pro life at birth? Once a few years pass life is no longer important? Yeah ok, Newt/Mitt/Santorum/Obama are pro-life alright, their own life.

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
He did stumble a bit, but it's a touchy subject. I think he misused words a few times. Doesn't change my opinion of him or make me think he's any less pro-life. Anyone who watched the interview in full wouldn't suggest otherwise. He had difficulty with he question, because he tells the truth and not just what people want to hear.

How anyone could question the Dr's pro life record, but not question the war mongers is beyond me. They are only pro life at birth? Once a few years pass life is no longer important? Yeah ok, Newt/Mitt/Santorum/Obama are pro-life alright, their own life.

edit on 7-2-2012 by macaronicaesar because: (no reason given)

He didn't stumble a bit, he tripped all over himself and did his best to avoid the question. When continued to debate abortion from a perspective that a baby was being aborted at 7,8,9 months into term. He did not address it from a perspective of 3,4,6,8 weeks into term. I thought he answered the question like a typical politician in this interview, I would have preferred he just answered it more honestly about what his policy would be.

I do not question Ron Paul's pro life record at all. The thing is, on this issue I am pro choice and I disagree with Ron Paul, but I am also a Ron Paul supporter. His policy is that he would rather it be left to the States. Even though I am pro choice, I have no problem leaving it to the States and allowing the States to make the laws and regulations at the State level. Where I agree with Ron Paul on this issue is that it never should have been dealt with on a Federal Level. Just the fact that people still debate this issue is evidence enough that the Federal Government making these "one size fits all" laws do not work and it is not the job of Government.