Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

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.


I must confess, I never understood how "Right to Privacy" means that anyone can have an abortion, but it doesn't mean that the government can't tap your phones without a warrant. Being secure in your person means you can choose to have an abortion, but it doesn't mean your safe from a SWAT team breaking down you door and gunning you down. Oh well.

I guess if you honestly believe that Ron Paul seriously intends to overturn Roe v. Wade, and that will lead to states banning abortions, leading to back alley abortions with coat hangers, etc., then maybe Ron Paul isn't your guy. Other candidates will promise to insure that abortions are legal and free. Of course, they will also guarantee that banks will get bailed out, the endless wars continue, and they will work towards and America where the TSA sets up roadblocks to protect us against 8 year olds who may be carrying explosives in their underwear.

Maybe it's because I'm a male, but with all the rights and freedoms we're losing on a yearly basis, and all the problems facing our country, abortion doesn't rank in my top 10 issues I'd like to see addressed. When I'm sitting in a secret military prison for three years without a charge, trial, or contact with a lawyer, it won't make me feel any better to know that women can still have abortions.

But, hey, if abortions are your number one issue, you have options.




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Yes. And I think the control should be with the INDIVIDUAL, not the government. The federal government should protect our Constitutional rights, not turn them over to the states.

While I'm inclined to agree that the states themselves should stay out of this issue (it's too complex and too personal - I think it should be treated like the drug situation with preventative education and treatment options as I don't feel prohibition is ever an effective option), the abortion issue makes me sad for a few reasons.

You're probably familiar with Beethoven's example (and various others that have been thrown about), and how he very possibly wouldn't have been born under our current thoughts on this matter.

How many other geniuses, or outright saviors, have we prevented or will we prevent from coming into this world? It's a sad issue all the way around.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I don't agree with Ron Paul on this issue, I think abortion should be legal. The primary reason being that a child brought into the world as a "mistake" will live much worse life than one that was planned. A mother and/or father who would abort a baby, why should they even get a child if they aren't responsible enough to plan several months into the future?

However, you talk about women's rights as if it's okay to just have sex carelessly. If you get pregnant of your own accord, why shouldn't you be responsible for the results? You can't just have sex and then three months later decide you don't want the baby and have it killed, that's rather irresponsible.

This is not a woman's "right", this is carelessness. If you don't want a child, don't have sex, I assume any woman old enough to have sex is old enough to know that is what makes babies. So my response to the woman's right argument is to control your sexual drive instead of believing it's your right, if you have sex and get pregnant you've made your bed, now sleep in it and take responsibility for the child's welfare.

If a woman is raped that is a different ball game of course and the same responsibility applies to fathers, though they aren't lining up in the streets for what they falsely think is their right, for the most part.
edit on 2-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





Yes. And I think the control should be with the INDIVIDUAL, not the government. The federal government should protect our Constitutional rights, not turn them over to the states.


WOOOOWWWWW....Did you just actually SAY THAT? LMAO!!

Benevolent, I think your argument on this issue has been addressed up and down in the short time this thread has existed.....and by many women on ATS, it appears.

You posed a question to the female population on ATS in your thread title....and we have answered it....very thoroughly.

Now, vote for whomever you want.....you can do that....it's still America, you know. It won't be for long, however, if Ron Paul doesn't get a chance to try to steer things in the right direction again.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
edit on 2-1-2012 by NightGypsy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
OP,

Can you please address why you linked to a Bill in the OP that was 'cleared from the books', went to Committee, never became law, and was written 3 years ago?

www.govtrack.us...

Please state the basis for your 'concerns'.

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



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem
OKKKKK, well then how does he pass the sanctity of life act?


The same way the Patriot Act passed!


Originally posted by filosophia
... how does forcing someone to help through taxation going to help make society into a better place?


I never suggested forcing someone to help through taxation.


Originally posted by RSF77
However, you talk about women's rights as if it's okay to just have sex carelessly.


That's FREEDOM. If people want to have sex casually and carelessly, that's their FREEDOM. If there's a medical means to stop an unwanted pregnancy that results from safe sex OR careless sex, that's FREEDOM.

Legislating morality is NOT Freedom.



If a woman is raped that is a different ball game of course...


Not if the states don't think so. Rape? Danger to the Mother? Incest? If they want to make it ALL illegal, they can.

Whether or not the Sanctity Act passes is irrelevant.

Ron Paul WANTS to restrict our freedom to choose.




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Well this is frustrating. Why has the matter suddenly devolved into ~

"Well I think that abortion should be ... *insert personal opinion*


WHY isn't this discussion narrowing in on what is legal per the Constitution? I'll repeat a statement from my original post:

The authority to ban - or - sanction abortion on a national level is outside of the Govt's purvey ...

It really IS that simple, irrespective of our personal beliefs on the matter.

I mean has the state of things really degraded to such a degree that we expect the rule of law to be subject to our whims??



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 


He tries to pass it every session. It's on his website that he's going to pass it.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
OP, I've asked you TWICE now to address the Bill you started this thread about.

Are you NOT interested in the fact that the Bill is DOA and written in 2009, and went NOWHERE legislatively?

I really think it deserves an answer since my posts are very relevant to the OP.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 


He tries to pass it every session. It's on his website that he's going to pass it.


Yet he's not proposed anything since 2009, the page you linked to vaguely says "A sanctity of life act".

It really seems to me to be one of those things someone muddles around in their mind but not very Pro Active on.

With respect to the Bill, it's DEAD.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
In regards to the pro-freedom argument, how can we square our concern on the abortion issue with facts that the government continues to impose such limitations and intrusions like the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of '06, NDAA, and the like?

Indefinite detention, continued spying on citizens, and many other things that are indicative of a closing society - we have our presidents continuing to push for and sign such perversions into law, and I see no likely candidates opposing these things than Paul. How much are we willing to compromise on for our insistence on worrying about unlikely events coming to pass?

Historically, when a government has ceded excessive power and authority to itself, it is continuously unlikely to relinquish such powers, and tends to grasp further yet. When and how do we decide when enough is enough?

(EDIT for addition - you say the Sanctity of Life Act may be passed the same way the PATRIOT Act was, but that took a terrorist attack and constant scaremongering by the government and news outlets to terrify the people into letting the Congress get away with a perversion of America. I consider this a bad argument.)
edit on 1/2/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by satron
This is how I interpret his position: He is against any federal law governing that a life could be terminated.


What about the Sanctity of Life Act which defines life as occurring at conception AT A FEDERAL LEVEL and calls it a person??? It's a personhood move. Defining a fetus as a person...

What happens when you kill a "person" on a federal level?

Praetorius, thanks for showing up! Do you have a response for this concern.


BH I always enjoy your threads and contributions on this subject.
Isn't 'person' their term and all about the govt owned corporate entity that we all effectively agree to become when we file our birth certificate?
I believe there have been threads here on ATS about it (www.abovetopsecret.com...), and my freeman mate suggests it is worth being suspicious whenever we see the word person in an official document.
If RP is backing or promoting acts that use the term person, I think you may have a bigger problem with him than the pro-life aspect (which I have to admit is a bit of a shock to hear coming from RP!)
edit on 2/1/12 by RogerT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 



Originally posted by Praetorius
In regards to the pro-freedom argument, how can we square our concern on the abortion issue with facts that the government continues to impose such limitations and intrusions like the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of '06, NDAA, and the like?


I can't. I don't want ANY of it.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Meant to edit this, accidentally posted a new reply on the next page.
edit on 2-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Ron Paul WANTS to restrict our freedom to choose.



Actually ...

DENYING voters the right to vote on social policy at the state level as prescribed by the Constitution is the act which restricts our freedom to choose.

With all due respect, it seems you have inverted the process.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Does planned parenthood receive federal money? Is federal money not obtained through taxation?


   In 2010, Planned Parenthood revealed a total income of $1.1 billion. Taxpayers shelled out $363 million to pad the abortion provider's bottom line through federal and state grants and contracts (or 33% of its entire income).



www.prolifealliance.com...

Are you saying not one cent of taxes go to abortions?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
Isn't 'person' their term and all about the govt owned corporate entity that we all effectively agree to become when we file our birth certificate?


I think so, yes.



I believe there have been threads here on ATS about it, and my freeman mate suggests it is worth being suspicious whenever we see the word person in an official document.


Absolutely agree!




If RP is backing or promoting acts that use the term person, I think you may have a bigger problem with him than the pro-life aspect


I DO have a bigger problem with him. Many, in fact. He's not the savior his supporters think he is. He has an agenda just like every other presidential candidate. And I don't agree with much of it.


My point in making this thread is to show that Ron Paul isn't as all-fired freedom-loving as people think he is, when it comes to women, at least...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Praetorius
 



Originally posted by Praetorius
In regards to the pro-freedom argument, how can we square our concern on the abortion issue with facts that the government continues to impose such limitations and intrusions like the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of '06, NDAA, and the like?


I can't. I don't want ANY of it.

And which do you consider more likely - that the Congress will somehow go against all likely trends and implement Paul's legislation (which has never had any significant support) - or that they will continue to use the force of fear to impose further abuses and restrictive legislation, attack other countries, lock up the non-violent, restrict various other personal liberties, and generally drive us further away from the experiment in liberty this nation was founded to be?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Yeah, another longstanding issue I've had with abortion ...

You have a right to an abortion but I DON'T have a right not to fund it.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join