reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
- Thomas Jefferson
Regarding your link on the Planned Parenthood issue:
In a new statement about his pro-life views, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said he would sign a ban on taxpayer funding of the
Planned Parenthood abortion business if elected president.
I'm curious, what is the likelihood that such a bill would make it past Congress in the first place? The same issue applies to his Sanctity of Life
act, as well. As usual, I can understand the concern, but given the realistic doubt of Congress ever passing such legislation in the first place, I
have to continue to consider it a non-issue.
That said, consider the other options we have on the republican side, most pushing for a constitutional amendment at the federal level to ban
abortions nationwide. While I consider this equally unlikely - which unlikely option would abortion advocates prefer, in all honesty?
As usual, we have the fact that even in the unlikely event Paul's views somehow came to fruition on the Planned Parenthood issue, the states and the
people themselves would still be every bit as free to fund such programs directly, and Paul also has advocated use of the "morning after" pill to
address possible unintended pregnancies.
As far as claiming this reflects a willingness on Paul's part to stick his nose into or legislate regarding a woman's body, this is actually the
opposite - realizing that the federal government has no authority to decide on the matter one way or the other, which is consistent with Paul's views
on most other similar matters.
And the disconnect between this issue and all others of related kind always strikes me - I do understand how serious this matter is viewed by
advocates, but I wonder, where is the similar concern for all other existing federal violations of personal liberty and what one can do with their own
body? We're concerned about abortion, but not about a federal drug war that wastes billions of dollars annually, results in police state actions and
human rights violations in overcrowded prison systems, indiscriminately punishes minorities, and actually increases our society's drug problems?
What about the rights of people around the world to be secure in their own lives and property against oppression and invasion via US foreign
policy?
Are we trading undue concern over an unlikely possibility for an entire host of existing and ongoing violations of life and liberty here at home and
around the world, which no one other than Paul is realistically seeking to address? One issue most likely not to come to fruition should enable these
definite atrocities to continue happening to millions around the world?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
Take care, sister.
edit on 1/2/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)
