Women Who Support Ron Paul: What About Your Reproductive Freedom?, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times

Topic started on 2-1-2012 @ 11:18 AM by Benevolent Heretic

I'm seeing a lot of women who support Ron Paul and I have to ask... How can you? I hope Kelly Clarkson never gets pregnant accidentally...

Ron Paul is Anti-Freedom (for Women).

His Sanctity of Life Act would overturn Roe V. Wade, state that life "begins at conception", removes federal jurisdiction (you can't take your case to the supreme court or use the privacy rights from the US Constitution) and give states the power to protect unborn persons.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(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

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Read the Bill Here

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.

If making birth control unavailable to poor women, then forcing them to choose between a back-alley abortion or having a child they cannot afford is Ron Paul's idea of Personal Liberty, it's A LOT different than mine. I am under the impression that part of the federal government's JOB is to protect the rights of ALL the people in this country, including WOMEN!

Just like every other politician, he supports the rights and freedoms that HE agrees with, but is willing to stick his nose INTO a woman's body and legislate in there! Forget that! This man has no business in my body or in the reproductive decisions of ANY woman. I'm done with him. He preaches freedom out of one side of his mouth, while being perfectly willing to create an atmosphere that promotes virtual slavery for women.

If you're a woman and you support Ron Paul, you may want to rethink this position...

edit on 1/2/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:19 AM by Jack Squat

He's pro-life but not against the States right to legalize abortion.

edit on 2-1-2012 by Jack Squat because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:25 AM by Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by Jack Squat

He's not against states rights to make it ILLEGAL, either. In fact, his Sanctity of Life Act gives states the method and means to make it illegal and to punish as they see fit.

Nice edit.

edit on 1/2/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:25 AM by Swills

Originally posted by Jack Squat
He's pro-life but not against the States right to legalize abortion.
edit on 2-1-2012 by Jack Squat because: (no reason given)

Couldn't have said it better myself, so I'll quote for truth. Way to go OP, you're beating a dead horse. This is neither new nor exciting, which you already know. RP feels the same way about drugs but he'll leave the decision making to the states on whether to legalize it or not. RP wants to remove federal govt from our lives & leave it up to the states. If your state says no to abortation than move.

Thread gets a

edit on 2-1-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:25 AM by TinkerHaus

I think Ron Pauls stance on this topic comes from his true libertarianism, and not some religious or political dogma. He's just saying let's stop paying into a federal system to act as mommy and daddy when the states are perfectly capable and the final say SHOULD come from the state. If abortion is going to be regulated, it should be done by the states and not by a federal law.

I say take away funding from Planned Parenthood too. I've never used their service, and I never plan to. Why should I have to pay for someone in NY to have an abortion when I don't believe in abortion and I don't live in NY? Now ask me to help people in my own neighborhood and see if you get a different response out of me.

Freedom isn't just being able to do what you please, but also not being required to support that which you do not agree with.

Same goes for foreign aid, "defense", welfare, etc. Take it all away. Communities are better suited to deal with these issues and can come up with means to do so that suit the community, not some 1 size fits all regulation from a central government.

edit on 2-1-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:28 AM by SunnyDee

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You are right, but I think you underestimate the states, and what they would do.

You can't have it all, you can't have the nation go back to a more constitutional way of life, with states rights superceding federal, but still keep this issue federal.

YOu will have to have faith in the new (old) system.

edit on 2-1-2012 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:28 AM by filosophia

You are assuming Ron Paul will personally stand in the way of abortions. Not true. He will merely withdraw the federal governments authority on abortion which they should not have in the first place. If the states then ban abortion you can at least travel to another state which is better than travelling to another country if you dont like a certain federal law.

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:31 AM by Destinyone

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Jack Squat

He's not against states rights to make it ILLEGAL, either. In fact, his Sanctity of life act gives states the method and means to make it illegal and to punish as they see fit.

It's the States right to decide should it come to that. Who is to stop you from living in the State, that most holds your beliefs. As to unfunding planned parenthood. I agree with that too. I'm pro-choice myself...bu too many girls, yes I said girls, use PP and abortion as birth control. States could implement their own form of PP that would include birth control such as IUDs, pills, condoms....but not repeated surgical procedures as a form of birth control. jmoho....

edit on 2-1-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:32 AM by ldyserenity

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

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?

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:32 AM by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
I think Ron Pauls stance on this topic comes from his true libertarianism, and not some religious or political dogma.

Really? Because that's what it sounds like to me:

" We must stand for life – not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval."

~Ron Paul

Source

Sounds EXACTLY like political dogma.

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:34 AM by Jack Squat

Click here for more information.

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:35 AM by BIGPoJo

Funny how leftwingers work, you cant kill a human being once its out of the body but if that thing still has an umbilical cord its fair game. People, we need to look at the real problem of unwanted pregnancy, people don't just magically get pregnant. They have to engage in sexual activities that can have far worse consequences than an unwanted pregnancy. The problem is that people are having sex for fun no matter the consequences, its a moral issue. The reason human beings have sex is to reproduce, sex being fun is a byproduct of this process. People need to take responsibility for their actions instead of taking the cowards way out. I do agree that in certain cases abortion has its uses but that should be within the first few weeks of conception, not several months down the line. The law should be, if the fetus has a heartbeat then its off limits regardless of circumstance barring a life threatening issue or confirmed major deformity. That's my two cents.

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:36 AM 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.

reply to post by filosophia

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???

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:36 AM by ldyserenity

reply to post by BIGPoJo

And you want to delegate Morality?

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:37 AM by filosophia

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You think not wanting the government to slaughter innocents is political dogma? Care to elaborate on that? I suppose you feel going to war to slaughter foreigners is grass roots libertarianism? Sorry to put words in your mouth but that is what it sounds like.

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:37 AM by TinkerHaus

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
I think Ron Pauls stance on this topic comes from his true libertarianism, and not some religious or political dogma.

Really? Because that's what it sounds like to me:

" We must stand for life – not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval."

~Ron Paul

Source

Sounds EXACTLY like political dogma.

In the context provided it is unclear whether or not he is talking about abortion or war.

I think he's talking about going to war with other countries, as there is no other mention of abortion near your quoted statement.

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:38 AM by TinkerHaus

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.

reply to post by filosophia

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???

What if the federal government is involved and rules that abortion is 100% illegal in all 50 states? Then what?

It is better to keep this law at the state level than the federal level for this very reason.

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:39 AM 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.

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:39 AM by Jack Squat

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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?

That's your problem. And if we're throwing out unreasonable theoretical situations, what if 46 of 50 states legalized it?

reply posted on 2-1-2012 @ 11:42 AM by BIGPoJo