It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I actually agree. I think people's bodies belong to THEM. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, they should have autonomy.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
This is one of the only things I disagree with Paul about. Even so, it's not like he wants to make abortion absolutely illigal throughout the whole country, he just wants to give states the power to decide.
However, he does believe life begins at conception, as far as I can tell. But are we talking about any type of biological life, or actual conscious life? There's no easy way to tell when conscious life has developed.
We kill animals all the time. Are they not a form of life? They are living beings are they not? So why do we kill them without considering the moral implications so much? Because we assume they aren't conscious, thinking beings.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I understand this position because I share it. I would not choose an abortion and I am against the death penalty AND most war. My whole point is that it's fine for us to have our views on it, but it's no more OK for me to legally dictate what another woman chooses than it is for me to dictate how someone should raise their child, live their lives, practice their religion or the eat their food. It's a PERSONAL issue and no one's business. Not the federal government, not the state government and not the other people in my state! It's MY decision. MY choice.
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
However, for those that do believe it begins at conception (I am not one of them), to have an abortion is to violate the rights of a third party even if that party resides inside another.
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
However, for those that do believe it begins at conception (I am not one of them), to have an abortion is to violate the rights of a third party even if that party resides inside another. In that circumstance it would be permissible for the government to intervene on it's behalf much in the same way courts and government do now to protect children from abusive or neglectful homes.
KJ
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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)
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I disagree. I believe that life starts at conception. I have had a fetus in my body and I heard its heartbeat. It was ALIVE. There is no way anyone could convince that that I wasn't carrying a LIFE inside me. It was MY CHILD. It was MY BABY. I loved it.
This is my PERSONAL stance on the issue. But it's anti-freedom to use MY opinions to restrict other women from exercising THEIR right to choose. It's about Freedom, not abortion.
I wouldn't have an abortion, even if I was raped or a victim of incest. Only the threat to my life would compel me to abort my child, which I had to do (or die). I had a choice. Every woman should.
Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
I really hate the term "reproductive freedom" call it what it is: "the right to kill your unborn child" No wonder the difference between right and wrong is getting hard to define. This politically correct language makes murder a freedom.
I will be voting for Dr. Paul. I'm sure you've ascertained I am Pro-Life. Thought you might like to hear what this side of the fence is thinking. perhaps not.
Originally posted by Annee
Belief. Isn't that like religion?
I do not see a comparison between protecting a living child and a "belief",
Government protects your right to a belief - - but not the right to infringe it on others.
Science overwhelmingly supports life begins after birth - - when there is a viable living being. Government would need to align with science not belief.
Originally posted by barfboy01
reply to post by Annee
I'd like to point out that you need just as much faith to believe in God as you do to believe in a Scientist who simply tells you the "answer" without having investigated for ones self.
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Originally posted by Annee
Belief. Isn't that like religion?
I do not see a comparison between protecting a living child and a "belief",
I only say belief because it's is the common vernacular in the way we discuss these things. There are cases to be made, logically and factually, for a variety of different view points on the subject. My only point was that the conclusion is not uniform.
Originally posted by barfboy01
reply to post by Annee
Please explain to me how Science is NOT BASED IN BELIEF, Belief and Faith are the same. Trust Confidence in a truth try the dictionary. Either you enjoy being the devils advocate and/or you just love being wrong? I'm glad your so confident though, it's a great trait.
Science overwhelmingly supports life begins after birth - - when there is a viable living being. Government would need to align with science not belief.