Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.
I'd hope by now you know that I respect your opinions and that I disagree. So, a few points:
- You claim that by removing Federal Authority in this, it will restrict freedom. It seems to be a relatively even swap when you consider that states
may not do all the doom and gloom things you predict. A few might, but the outcry at this point would be deafening.
This would allow the people of any state to choose the level of permissibility that their own citizens choose. That State's Rights feature is the
very definition of freedom as opposed to the Federal blanket approach. Keeping it Federal only dilutes the discussion with millions of other voices
that have nothing to do with your particular state, it's needs, or the wants of it's citizens.
- When it comes to reproductive rights, I don't have a lot of sympathy for women. They have all the rights and can choose to give or deprive the
child of any of his rights as she sees fit, barring the extreme.
I know you are a staunch supporter of women's reproductive rights, and while pro-life, I agree with you in many respects when it comes to respecting
a woman's body. This, however, seems to gross contrast to the relative slavery or nonentity status of male reproductive rights. Our rights begin
and end with the choice to wear a condom or not.
There is no informed consent with men. We have debtors prisons again and we have no real ability to choose parenthood that is even remotely equitable
to a woman's.
- When comparing the rights between men and women in this topic, even a marked reduction in choice for a woman would still leave a vast imbalance on
the side of the women. I honestly don't know why men put up with the blatant and sexist attitudes of people in this topic (in general, not this
Anyway, many women are not pro-choice. My wife is pro-life as I am and she supports Paul. We have 4 children when it would have been "smarter" to
abort a few of them so our best interest was served. We did not and do not condemn those that do.
- I will say that I don't feel that legislative curtailment of abortion is the best avenue to anything but a black market of dangerous abortions in
the same realm of drugs, illegal guns, and prostitution. This is of no help to women or men.
Having it at the Federal Level (barring the religious nuts) really does seem to have a stymieing effect on getting anything done. It's too hot a
topic and there are too many well funded groups mucking up the works to have a rational conversation. I may be wrong, but I feel that moving to the
State level would give people greater access to and more control over this topic as it relates to their State.