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

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I actually agree. I think people's bodies belong to THEM. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, they should have autonomy.

But according to pro-life, abortion does hurt someone else.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

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.

He wants to declare that "Personhood" begins at conception, as I stated in my OP. I believe he DOES want to make abortion illegal. What's it called when you "kill" a "person"? Murder. I believe he's enabling the states to violate women's rights.

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.

He wants it called a "person" in the legal sense... AT conception. Read the Sanctity of Life Act. It removes federal jurisdiction (Roe V Wade)

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.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Speak for yourself there! Animals ARE conscious, thinking beings. I can't imagine anyone saying they're not.

reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33


This is exactly what I'm saying. I agree completely. I'm old enough to remember hearing about women dying from botched abortions. Women WILL control their reproduction. It's just a matter of whether it's safe or not.

reply to post by SGTSECRET


No one is saying that. I don't care how Paul personally feels about abortion. If he's against it, he shouldn't have one. But it's his JOB to protect the Constitutional rights of people in this country. And he's turning them over to 50 different governments so they can decide which rights to give their people. He's giving the states power that they shouldn't have.

reply to post by Maslo


Yes, according to people I don't agree with. I have been over my specific beliefs on abortion and they don't matter any more than anyone else's beliefs around it. What matters is that people are FREE TO CHOOSE.

Ron Paul is Anti-Freedom when it comes to this issue.

If you don't want an abortion and think it's "killing someone" then DON'T DO IT! But stay out of other people's beliefs and lives! And insure that people have the choice. That's the government's job, not to dictate the choice I make!

Anyone who believes in freedom is pro-choice. Those who think government (federal or state) should make that choice for us is ANTI-choice and anti-freedom.

People don't really want to live in a free society, else they'd support the freedoms with which they disagree!

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.

I have not contradicted you. Each person has autonomy. At some point we need to come to the agreement that the debate is not about abortion. Abortion is the issue that extends from a definition of life and personhood. One's opinion on that matter generally dictates the avenue their minds will take on the issue of abortion.

Many people believe it begins at conception, and a case can be made in either camp. 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.

I am not likening the two situations, only illustrating that the government's job is to secure our rights and to curtail personal rights when they violate that of another.

Many disagree with the definition of life, saying it begins between brain activity, heart beat, or birth (and anywhere in between). In this case it obviously would not be permissible for government to intervene in a person's right to their own body before that threshold is breached.

Personally, I don't feel there is a "right" answer to the question of the beginning of life, so I err on the side of life. That is the foundation of my opposition to abortion, although the diminished rights of and asymmetrical nature of the system against men have a fair portion of it as well.

Peace
KJ

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.

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.

But it was not to be.

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 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

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.

reply to post by Annee


It seems clear neither of our minds are going to coalesce, Thanks for enlightening me as to the nature of the discussion, I've stated a clear concise view on abortion, someone farther down said it's impossible to be right and based on circumstances I agree( This means there is no black and white) however I'm expressing as a member of society my disdain for people who feel entitled to services like this from the government. There's something to be said for a human being capable of taking responsibility for his/her actions because unfortunately there aren't many. As for qualifications to have children that's absolutely ridiculous and certainly the business of no one but the people who bring the child into the world.

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.

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 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)

You keep making it sound like Ron Paul wants complete control over your body like some kind of weird psycho sick freak."Virtual Slavery"??? Sensationalism at it's finest. He just doesn't think it's the federal gubbermints business to get involved with. He's not against the state being allowed to legalize it. If your state doesn't offer abortions, you can go to the next state over. He's not against "womens rights", he just doesn't think the federal government should be responsible when you exercising your precious "rights" results in an unwanted pregnancy.

Look, I'm not 'against' abortion per say, i don't love the idea of it but it's better than having a slew of future criminals brought into the world. But then again, how many potential geniuses have been "offed" because of this practice? It's a very tricky subject for me and I'm sure a lot of other people, hence why it's such a heated debate/topic when it comes up.

They pass out birth control pills like hotcakes at these places as well, so between that and condoms pregnancy risk should be very low. They even have morning after pills, "plan b".

Personally, I think there should be a "3 strikes" rule. You get 3 freebies and then after that its out of your pocket. No excuse for getting preggers more than 3 times, even that is generous... You have people in and out of some of these clinics where they are on first name basis with the doctors. Totally taking advantage of the system, all in the name of "womens rights".

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.

I don't disagree. I have 4 children, and while I don't carry them, the process has made a serious impact on me as well.

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.

Incorrect. Your personal stance on issues is used to restrict the freedom or create repercussion for people. restricting freedoms for the betterment of society or to prevent infringing on the freedoms of another is the very thing we establish governments to do.

Murder or rape, objectively, are choices. If we disagree with them should we just not murder or rape? This idea is fallacious at it's core since it does not carry to any other equivalent situation.

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.

Perhaps, but it's the parameters that are in question, not the ability.

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.

You are giving your personal opinion on abortion. That is not what this is about.

I know many who are anti-abortion but Pro Choice - - - because they understand the right of the individual.

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.

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.

Not sure where that information comes from, but from a scientific perspective one could make a number of claims. Be it brain/heart activity, external viability, or other the conclusions are not uniformly agreed upon or even remotely so.

I don't quite know where you stack up on this debate, so it's hard to address any inferences you might have meant.

Peace
KJ

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.

Faith is based in belief. Science is not a belief or based in belief.

Please - let's not have the Faith vs Science debate here. There are other threads for that.

I only used it because it has been used to legally override a faith belief in this matter.

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.

The discussion here is about an individuals rights. Not a discussion on abortion.

The conclusion on Individuals Rights is not uniform? The right of abortion granted by the Federal Government is definitely uniform and not an opinion.

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.

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.

Search ATS for discussion on: Science vs Belief.

I'd do it - but there is a block on the system where I am right now - that prevents me from searching.

reply to post by Annee

Science overwhelmingly supports life begins after birth - - when there is a viable living being. Government would need to align with science not belief.

What? This is blatantly false. The definition of life in science is a fuzzy one, but it sure as hell does not requires birth for a human to be considered biologically alive. In fact, conception is a very good criterion for beginning of a human life in the biological sense, I can agree with that even tough I am pro-choice.

Science can give us many points to choose from, including conception, implantation, beginning of heartbeat, beginning of brainwaves in cortex, external viability and birth. But it cannot answer which of these is a right one as a limit for abortion, as that is a question for morality/ethics, not science.