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

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

So what is to stop women from taking a pill to abort their pregnancy the day after?

State laws, for one (already happening.)

Women have also had to deal with pharmacies and with pharmacy techs that refused to honor the prescription because of their religious beliefs. If it takes you a week to get the "morning after" pill, then it's already too late. The "choice" is not a real choice in that case.



(The better choice would be condoms for men, but no one seems to be making that a popular option. At least, I don't see men who are against abortions educating other men that the best way to prevent them is use condoms regularly)

reply to post by Indellkoffer


They are currently at work on a regiment that can be taken up to a week afterwards.

Originally posted by jackieisinlove
A woman's right to "reproductive freedom"? Women will always have that right. It's called not having sex unless you understand that you might make a baby, and then you'll have to deal with that baby

I take it you haven't been raped and don't know anyone who was pressured into sex or who was raped. Although you're in the majority there, at least 1/4th of the women who read your post will have been raped or know someone who has been raped.

And it isn't a fun time, speaking from experience. If you're female, I hope most sincerely you never find out for yourself and never end up pregnant that way. I knew a girl who killed herself over rape and pregnancy -- many years ago, of course, but it still happens.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Currently. IF it gets approved. And IF you can find someone to prescribe it. And IF you can find a pharmacy.

In the late 1960's it was hard to find a pharmacy that would sell you birth control pills. Since some of the birth control pills also cause the fertilized egg to not implant, birth control pills are still controversial to some groups (and, of course, to these same groups, condoms seem to be unthinkable.)

Originally posted by jackieisinlove
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33

 

Ok, if people are so concerned about having to pay for babies who aren't adopted -- why aren't we demanding that the government kill people in hospice? How about people in prison? I mean all of them. If someone has a life sentence, why are we paying for them to live out the rest of their days there? What about people on welfare? If they can't prove that they contribute to society, why don't we kill them?

Seriously, the government funding foster care is the least of our problems. The government is funding tons of other stuff that we should complain about first.

Click here for what our taxes are funding.

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

I think you missed my point. I am under no delusions when it comes to where tax money goes. My statement was aimed at those crying against government sponsored abortions as if those abortions were bankrupting the country. When someone says, "I don't want to pay for someone else's mistake" it's funny cause your gonna pay later down the line anyway; for welfare, prison etc.

Sorry for getting you fired up over nothing.

reply to post by Indellkoffer


Read my legal definitions as depicted in this post from the bottom of pg 10 of this thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Is that a strawman in your pants or are you happy to see me?

That's just one position out of his entire platform. Basing who you want to be president not off of their monetary or foreign policy, or just overall ability to follow the Constitution, but instead their position on abortion is just stupid IMO.

You have to look at the entire spectrum, and consider whether all of the issues as a whole are better than the platform of another candidate. I'd rather have somebody who I don't agree with one one issue but agree with on 90% of other issues than somebody who I don't agree with 50% of the time, like basically every other candidate.

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by jackieisinlove
A woman's right to "reproductive freedom"? Women will always have that right. It's called not having sex unless you understand that you might make a baby, and then you'll have to deal with that baby

I take it you haven't been raped and don't know anyone who was pressured into sex or who was raped. Although you're in the majority there, at least 1/4th of the women who read your post will have been raped or know someone who has been raped.

And it isn't a fun time, speaking from experience. If you're female, I hope most sincerely you never find out for yourself and never end up pregnant that way. I knew a girl who killed herself over rape and pregnancy -- many years ago, of course, but it still happens.

Actually, I have been raped. I was raped by my father growing up, and then I was slipped a drug and raped at a party at the age of 16. After that, I had a pregnancy scare -- a false positive. I was homeless at the time and had taken about 19 pills as part of the hospital's "rape kit" -- one being a morning after pill. I was told that if I kept the baby, it would probably be deformed. Thankfully, it turned out that my hormones were just out of whack from all the pills they had me take at the hospital and my period returned weeks later. So, I have been faced with that situation. And I'm still pro-life.

The "reproductive freedom" the OP mentioned had little to do with rape. As stated in my first post, "“[W]omen who had an induced abortion were 76% more likely to die than women who had not been pregnant, 102% more likely to die than women who miscarried, and 252% more likely to die than women who had carried to term” (Reardon). These statistics were due to higher rates of “suicide, accidents, homicide, mental disease and cerebrovascular disease” and they state that previous history of mental illness does not explain the higher death rates (Reardon)." So why on earth would I support abortion in the case of rape?

I have an idea. Let's kill the rapists instead of the innocent children created by rape.

ETA: Again, 93% of abortions occur for social reasons -- not things like rape or incest. And this is still completely ignoring the scientific and medical implications behind the personhood of fetuses.

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

reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33


Ah, sorry I misunderstood you! I think, though, that the people who are upset about their tax dollars going to support abortion are more upset about the moral implications than the practical ones.

The more of our species dies the better...WE SUCK..WAKE UP

Originally posted by earthship35
The more of our species dies the better...WE SUCK..WAKE UP

I'm pretty sure we have enough deaths related to disease and poverty right now. If even more people need to die, perhaps we should start taking volunteers.

reply to post by jackieisinlove


I'm with you 100% on that one

reply to post by jackieisinlove


I think educating men and women about safe sex is a better option, don't you? And engineering and science to ensure that babies which are wanted don't die in the womb (happened just at Thanksgiving to a friend of mine, and they terminated the pregnancy. Very very difficult for her and her husband.)

But until we get everyone on board with that, certain sad realities have to be dealt with.

In either case, Paul's introducing that bill doesn't really solve the situation -- it does, however, take things back to the 1950's and 1960's when the statistics you quoted about self abortion were sad facts of life. His stance there is one reason some women and men won't vote for him -- and it really is such an emotional issue that it's a "deal breaker."


(edited... I looked up Reardon since what I had encountered seemed to not match what he said. The Wikipedia article did not give me any confidence in his facts.

That said -- you're free to accept them. But I don't think you should use his statistics if you're debating pro-life. There are actually better sources.

I strongly disagree with Ron Paul on this issue and the state's rights thing is likely the way it would go should he happen to be foolish enough to try to overturn R V W. However I hate war even more and am willing to take my chances, see, I happen to disagree with killing already born children in the name of MONEY and OIL.

I find it distressing that the xians, who are so pro life, have no problem with killing children who are already born...(as long as they're in other countries of course). We starved 1 million Iraqi children to death with our sanctions prior to the war in which we killed thousands more. So the nutbag xians who are so pro life that they think they have a right to legislate the wombs of other people, but think killing already born children (as long as they are not American,) or finding ways to justify it, are just insane.

YOU stay out of my womb. Trust me, the rest of us see how you people vote and we know that when it comes to that one commandment it is do as I say, not as I DO. This is not the middle ages where women (but oddly not men) suffered the ravages of men, and then the double insult of being forced to birth their spawn. We have the choice..you don't like abortion, do not have one.

I am not a xian, I do not believe life begins at conception, I believe potential life begins at conception and that that potential life does not and should not be more important than existing life. I am not a xian, I do not believe what you do. Why on earth should your personal beliefs dictate what I do. Would you like MY personal beliefs to dictate YOUR life? Fine, then all of you whom I deem unworthy of reproduction shall be lined up and given an abortion. HOW does it feel? (Goodness, if we started aborting xians as a matter of practice, and for that matter all other religious nutters, then perhaps the "race" would die out!!!!)

OMG how dare you talk like that you say? Well, it is exactly what the xian and other religious nutters say to people who do not believe as they do...they want to force YOU to carry a baby you do not wish to birth...why should they not also be forced to abort babies they DO wish to birth.

If people stayed the YOU KNOW WHAT out of the lives of other people this world might turn around in a good way.

Also the nutjobs who are so dull as to not realize that Planned Parenthood is not a single issue provider are just sad. PP provides gyno services for poor and low income women. Birth control (you know, so the poor leeches do not get pregnant) STD services (for the high and mighty xians who slink in after finding an unexpected sore), cancer testing and treatment, and many other services. PP is the only way I can afford gyno care. But pardon me while I wade through the idiot protestors who think every person going in there is getting a baby carved out them..sometimes it's cancer.

The insensitivity of the HAVES (health insurance) to the have nots is incredible, and I can only hope creator hands you all a dose of OMG I am sick and I don't have insurance.

Huh? hes all for the rights of women and remember,its a womans freedom and choice that gets her pregnant in the first place.

reply to post by Indellkoffer


"I think educating men and women about safe sex is a better option, don't you?"

A fantastic option, yes. A better option than a step toward making the killing of babies illegal? I don't think so.

"And engineering and science to ensure that babies which are wanted don't die in the womb (happened just at Thanksgiving to a friend of mine, and they terminated the pregnancy. Very very difficult for her and her husband.)

But until we get everyone on board with that, certain sad realities have to be dealt with."

Again, that would be great. So would an end to cancer, war, etc., etc. However, just because we can't seem to end those doesn't mean that we should give up on ending other atrocities. Just like the American Cancer Society shouldn't say, "Well, unborn children are still dying, so until we get that straightened out, I guess we'll just give up on this whole cancer thing."

"In either case, Paul's introducing that bill doesn't really solve the situation -- it does, however, take things back to the 1950's and 1960's when the statistics you quoted about self abortion were sad facts of life."

For legal reasons, a legal definition of death needed to be esablished. For legal reasons, a definition of life also needs to be established. Death has been defined as brain death. Brain waves have been recorded in 8-week-old fetuses. Until we can pinpoint when life begins, we should not be killing babies. So, I do believe that establishing personhood would be a step in solving the situation.

As for making something legal just so people won't do it illegally: I find that preposterous. Attaining coc aine illegally is dangerous too. Should we make that legal as well? Perhaps we can all fund free clinics where people can be injected with a somewhat safe amount of coc aine, heroin, etc. Where is the line? Illegal activities are usually dangerous. That doesn't mean we should make them all legal.

"(edited... I looked up Reardon since what I had encountered seemed to not match what he said. The Wikipedia article did not give me any confidence in his facts.

That said -- you're free to accept them. But I don't think you should use his statistics if you're debating pro-life. There are actually better sources."

Well, if you'd like me to find other sources that say exactly the same thing, I can. To start with, here's another source on the statistics behind reasons for abortion.

1% were due to rape or incest. 6% were due to health problems of the mother or potential health problems with the fetus. The rest were due to problems such as "unready for responsibility" (21%), "concerned about how having a baby would change her life" (16%), "too immature or young to have child" (11%), "has problems with relationship or wants to aboid single parenthood" (12%), "has all the children she wanted" (8%), etc. Selfish, self-serving reasons to kill what could potentially be a living, thinking, feeling baby.

If that source isn't good enough either, I can keep finding others for you.

He has explicity stated that he would leave it up to the people of the states to determine by state what to do. Abortion is immensely sad, but unfortunately somewhat reasonable these days. This argument against Paul is like many of the other weak arguments. Its just funny because many are flanking this man from all sides...too bad hes up in the clouds..

OP,

I realize and respect your great contributions to this site, but I think you're way off base here. I don't "like" the idea of an abortion but I respect the choice to do it. Judging by some of your responses, I get the attitude that you think that it's ok to sleaze about town with whoever.

I have no problem with being a harlot if that's your choice, but if your CHOICE brings unwanted pregnancies, why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for you to "deal with it". I'm not judging people because i've been a manwhore in my day, but the older i get the more i realize it's such a waste of energy and I think we are conditioned to be in this super sexually charged state all the time by tv, movies, porn, etc.... it's everywhere and it's not natural. There is more to life than just "getting off" all the time. I have made great strides in my life since i decided to stop being a slave to my sexual desires and transmuted the energy into more positive endeavors. Now, don't get me wrong, "I don't see nothin' wrong, with a little bump and griiiinnd" but you have to suffer the potential consequences.

Too many women nowadays idolizing those harlots from sex and the city and it's fashionable to be a big skank these days. Put an ad on craigslist looking for sex only... as long as you don't seem like a total douche and choose your words right, you'll get responses and you would be surprises at the types of women who respond... shocked even. It's all fine and dandy with me, but if your lifestyle backfires on you, I don't think it's the taxpayers responsibility. If you want to have sex with every guy that comes around that tickles your fancy, do it responsibly if you don't want a child. If you do get preggers, then that should be the responsibilty of YOU to take care of it, since you exercising your FREEDOM caused it.

I could be ok with a 1 chance type law, where you get one free pass, and after that it is your responsibility. Go after paychecks, take out a lil welfare every month till it's paid off, whatever. I think the whole "reproductive Freedom" term is a bit sensationalistic, it makes it out like Ron Paul wants total domination over your right to bear children or something... makes it more intense.

reply to post by scary


"I strongly disagree with Ron Paul on this issue and the state's rights thing is likely the way it would go should he happen to be foolish enough to try to overturn R V W. However I hate war even more and am willing to take my chances, see, I happen to disagree with killing already born children in the name of MONEY and OIL.

I find it distressing that the xians, who are so pro life, have no problem with killing children who are already born...(as long as they're in other countries of course). We starved 1 million Iraqi children to death with our sanctions prior to the war in which we killed thousands more. So the nutbag xians who are so pro life that they think they have a right to legislate the wombs of other people, but think killing already born children (as long as they are not American,) or finding ways to justify it, are just insane."

I happen to disagree with killing any living thing unless it's threatening the life of someone else (i.e., if someone had a gun to my head and I could kill that person, I would.) I am against this war. I also happen to be a Christian, but even if I weren't, I would have these beliefs. Christianity just happened to fit in with my existing beliefs. Christianity did not create all of my beliefs. So not all Christians are as you're stating -- in fact, the people who claim to be Christians but aren't actually following Jesus' example are the people you're angry with.

As far as legislating your womb... I think people in general feel they have the right to legislate the actions of others. Most people would agree that murder should be against the law. The murder of unborn children is no different. So it's not your womb I'm concerned about.

"YOU stay out of my womb. Trust me, the rest of us see how you people vote and we know that when it comes to that one commandment it is do as I say, not as I DO. This is not the middle ages where women (but oddly not men) suffered the ravages of men, and then the double insult of being forced to birth their spawn. We have the choice..you don't like abortion, do not have one."

That's like saying, "If you don't like murder, don't murder -- but don't you dare stand in the way when *I* decide to kill someone!"

"I am not a xian, I do not believe life begins at conception, I believe potential life begins at conception and that that potential life does not and should not be more important than existing life. I am not a xian, I do not believe what you do. Why on earth should your personal beliefs dictate what I do. Would you like MY personal beliefs to dictate YOUR life? Fine, then all of you whom I deem unworthy of reproduction shall be lined up and given an abortion. HOW does it feel? (Goodness, if we started aborting xians as a matter of practice, and for that matter all other religious nutters, then perhaps the "race" would die out!!!!)"

I don't really understand why this is even a religious debate. I've almost always been a Christian, but there was a time when I was undecided and thought being pro-choice was ok. I didn't become vehemently pro-life until I had a baby. I love my baby so much that now I just can't stand to think of people potentially killing babies. It has very little to do with my faith. My pro-life stance hinges mostly on science, statistics and love. The latter being something you seem sort of short on.

"OMG how dare you talk like that you say? Well, it is exactly what the xian and other religious nutters say to people who do not believe as they do...they want to force YOU to carry a baby you do not wish to birth...why should they not also be forced to abort babies they DO wish to birth."

No one would be forcing you to carry a baby you do not wish to birth. Perhaps you could try responsibility, birth control or abstinence?

"If people stayed the YOU KNOW WHAT out of the lives of other people this world might turn around in a good way."

If people stayed out of issues like this, there might not be any Jewish people left in Europe and black people might still be slaves here today. Additionally, I really wish people would get involved in the genocide going on in Africa.

"The insensitivity of the HAVES (health insurance) to the have nots is incredible, and I can only hope creator hands you all a dose of OMG I am sick and I don't have insurance."

I don't really know what this has to do with anything. I've never actually met anyone that doesn't realize that clinics like Planned Parenthood provide many services. And to wish people illness without medical insurance is almost as bad as wishing that everyone of a particular faith would be extinguished/aborted. ... Oh wait.

I guess all of my reasoning having to do with genocide will fall on deaf ears with you after all.

Originally posted by earthship35
The more of our species dies the better...WE SUCK..WAKE UP

I like that.

The framework of our government is sound.

Corruption isn't measured in size.