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.

 

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

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Someone who wants to curtail responsibilities of having a child is arguing that a doctor who studied medicine and delivered babies is wrong. I am fighting myself here because I think it should be legal too, but people are fighting for all the wrong reasons. I do think some restrictions need to be put on it so people can't just go around getting pregnant with no care in the world about the baby.

I just don't see it or agree with that at all, my view on abortion is the same as yours(BH) on paper essentially, but the way you rationalize it is wrong. Though you are arguing for what you call "rights" and your reasoning is a spitefulness that is blinding you to the problem. Having a child is not something people should just do carelessly, the nation can potentially and/or partially collapse because of this.

Whether you like it or not, the availability of getting an abortion can drastically influence people to have unprotected sex with disregard for the consequences, or even disregard for their ability to take care of the kids. When they get pregnant under the assumption they can always have an abortion and then they don't follow through, who takes care of these people? Someone has to.

Well we keep asking the federal government to do that don't we? Welfare etc etc etc, all these programs draining and indebting the nation. People have no concern in the world for their own parental responsibility anymore, they think "someone will take of them" be it the government, our tax dollars, who ever. They can just get rid of it, this is bull#.

I'm not saying this irresponsible practice of "just getting an abortion whenever its convenient" is going to destroy us all, but it is a small problem in a pile with a bunch of other problems. Women will argue it to death because they think their rights are at stake, they are unwittingly causing a lot of problems and people to be born into unfortunate circumstances.

I would like to see a chart with the differences in crime, domestic abuse, drug use etc between children that were planned and children who were birthed accidentally, or their parents could not afford to take care of them because of lack of money or responsibility. What do you think it would look like?
edit on 2-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 
You're not answering my question, Darrin, considering the authority and responsibilities of the office of president, in light of legislation at all likely to make it through congress.

The Planned Parenthood bit would rely on legislation coming from Congress, which it's effectively assured never to do.

To the second point - again, not sure what it has to do with the office of the presidency, and just like I don't agree with all of your decisions, I'm not required to agree with all of Paul's. And I agree with his recent clarification, the federal legislation is not required to address such an issue anyway as I'm pretty sure all states already have appropriate laws in place regarding this.

Regarding your third point, congress passed on even voting on the amendment, so it's got absolutely nothing to do with the president anyway.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 
Well, then I certainly hope for your sake that Obama doesn't somehow manage to lose the election as a result of people's disgruntlement with what they see as his failures or an economy that very possibly gets much worse before the election, and that a republican candidate you find even more distasteful than Paul is not the only option in the general election.

And for clarity, there isn't much of the neo-conservative strain to Paul. He's more of an Old-Right or paleoconservative.


edit on 1/2/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by followtheevidence
If we don't give them the authority to sanction abortion on a national level, they will NEVER have the authority to ban it on a national level.


If it's banned, it doesn't MATTER what level it's on!

As I said before, there's a better chance that the federal government, who represents the states, will keep the options open.


Originally posted by RSF77
Someone who wants to curtail responsibilities of having a child is arguing that a doctor who studied medicine and delivered babies is wrong.


I'm not saying his personal opinion is wrong. I think it's wrong for him to legislate his personal morals with the Sanctity of Life Act.



Well we keep asking the federal government to do that don't we?


All I'm asking the federal government to do is to support the 4th Amendment. Do not allow the states to venture into my womb.



I would like to see a chart with the differences in crime, domestic abuse, drug use etc between children that were planned and children who were birthed accidentally, or their parents could not afford to take care of them because of lack of money or responsibility. What do you think it would look like?


I think it would show that unwanted children grow up to have more social, legal and emotional issues than planned children.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Annee
 
Well, then I certainly hope for your sake that Obama doesn't somehow manage to lose the election as a result of people's disgruntlement with what they see as his failures or an economy that very possibly gets much worse before the election, and that a republican candidate you find even more distasteful than Paul is not the only option in the general election.

And for clarity, there isn't much of the neo-conservative strain to Paul. He's more of an Old-Right or paleoconservative.


How is there any guarantee for any one? I am only one person. I have no say in what others think or support.

Ron Paul is going backwards. It would not matter to me what party he is affiliated with.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

All I'm asking the federal government to do is to support the 4th Amendment. Do not allow the states to venture into my womb.

The feds are growing much more hostile to 4th amendment protections over the last decade and beyond, it seems - hopefully they don't start allowing sneak & peek searches in-womb eventually, as well.

Ok, that MIGHT have been a little overboard, but I think you get my point. The 4th amendment has effectively been offered up on the altar of "security" already.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


We'll that's what I am trying to get at I suppose, since abortion is so easily available it creates a mass of neglected children, people are careless when it comes to having children and then don't follow through with abortion. Some of these women are the same ones who before getting pregnant argue woman's rights on this issue, then after they start the process they change their minds.

As far as the federal government staying out of your womb, if you are having an abortion you didn't seem to mind letting someone else in it. If women want the government out of their womb, stop having kids so recklessly that it puts our society at risk.

I think it should be legal, but I don't think it should be available to just anyone who wants one. You argue your rights with complete disregard for any baby's rights, even though it would be yours. That unsettles me a little and I'm not even religious.

I'll leave now, thanks for entertaining my point of view no matter if it was invited or not. I may be in the wrong, this isn't exactly any area of expertise of mine, I just believe strongly in personal responsibility.
edit on 2-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 
Hey, I'm just sharing my hopes based on your desires. And not all moves backwards are a bad thing, when a nation has been progressing further and further along the course towards being a closed and intrusive society that works against its own citizens and best interests overseas on such a regular basis.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Why Does the Media Persist in Calling Ron Paul a Libertarian?



Paul represents not a new libertarian age, but old-fashioned American federalism -- the belief that sovereign state governments should have free reign within their borders, free from pesky federal intervention and regulation. It hardly takes a Ph.D. in American history to realize that this has been tried before.
...
"Under a Ron Paul presidency," Kayser told TPM, "states would be freed up to not have political correctness imposed on them, but obviously some state would follow what's politically correct.
...
Not imposing "political correctness" on the states, of course, is not new policy. It was standard practice for the first 188 years of American history. It did not work.


This is kind of the point I'm making. I think I'm more libertarian in my thinking than Paul...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
And you're both much more libertarian than any of the other options, Obama included. It's a good thing Paul would be limited by the Constitution and what the president actually has authority over, and as far as I can tell make the right decisions there that he WOULD have the ability to make, which no one else seems to want to touch.

Their constant harping on his 'libertarianism' always drove me nuts too, just being used as a way to scare republicans off (as far as I can tell).


edit on 1/2/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
The 4th amendment has effectively been offered up on the altar of "security" already.


I know. And I'm not going to provide the match that burns it to a crisp.


reply to post by RSF77
 



Originally posted by RSF77
We'll that's what I am trying to get at I suppose, since abortion is so easily available it creates a mass of neglected children, people are careless when it comes to having children and then don't follow through with abortion.


So, people are having children because abortion is available and they don't follow through getting one? So abortion is the problem? That doesn't make sense to me.



As far as the federal government staying out of your womb, if you are having an abortion you didn't seem to mind letting someone else in it.


I have the keys. If I want to let someone in, I will. It's MY body. But the government FORCING its way in there is the same as anyone else forcing their way in there...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

If it's banned, it doesn't MATTER what level it's on!


Exhibit A) Abortion is banned on a national level. Said women has NO place to go for a safe, legal abortion. Guess she's moving to Canada, Europe?

Exhibit B) Abortion is banned on a statewide level in Montana. Said woman moves to a different state.

It absolutely DOES matter what level it's on. I'm confused. Wouldn't the option of translocating yourself to a different abortion-friendly state be significantly more manageable than leaving the country?



As I said before, there's a better chance that the federal government, who represents the states, will keep the options open.


Our bought-and-sold congress/POTUS don't represent the states; they represent special-interests/big industry. This is a big problem.

Of course, this problem would be easier to address and rectify if it were on a state level.

That's why central planning is so precarious. It's vaguely safe to extend lofty, pervasive powers to our Gov't as long as they are acting in our best interest. What happens when they STOP acting in our best interest? Like right now. History shows a disproportionate concentration of power in virtually any system is dangerous and is not slanted in the favor of the people, at least in the long run.

The Federal Gov't is no MORE inherently ethical than we are as a people on the state level.

If you can't/don't trust the states, how can you trust the Federal Gov't which is much more difficult to monitor and restrain than a local governing body?
edit on 2-1-2012 by followtheevidence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I know. And I'm not going to provide the match that burns it to a crisp.

Oh, you're so tricksy...

Well, I'll not keep butting my head against the wall here, but you know how I feel about the trade-off so many are making for what are practically-assured continued (and expanded) abuses as compared to what are entirely unlikely and limited possibilities.

Whatever happens, may we all be blessed and may the earth eventually see an end to these abuses and sadnesses. I'll leave you to it, barring any further direct responses.

Take care.


edit on 1/2/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

As far as the federal government staying out of your womb, if you are having an abortion you didn't seem to mind letting someone else in it. If women want the government out of their womb, stop having kids so recklessly that it puts our society at risk.


It is probably overall cheaper for the country
to fund abortions then to fund all the medical cost,
food, and caring for a child on the states bill..

Not to mention a way of population control
under the disguise of women's rights.

100 years ago you would probably be hard pressed
to find a women who would have an abortion
except under an extreme condition..

The problem lies in *extreme condition*
To one person it would be rape
another the ability to take care of.

What point does it make to have an abortion
illegal in say South Carolina when all you have to
do is drive to N. Carolina and have it.

It is like gun laws, why can I legally and lawfully
open carry in one city, but the city over it is illegal.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Annee
 
Hey, I'm just sharing my hopes based on your desires. And not all moves backwards are a bad thing, when a nation has been progressing further and further along the course towards being a closed and intrusive society that works against its own citizens and best interests overseas on such a regular basis.



That does depend on your perspective - doesn't it.

Progression is a natural course. Changes add things and take away things - - - very little remains the same.

A few Rights we've gained since I was a kid - say 1958.

access to school records
access to medical records
disability act
fair housing act
more freedom from religion
secular public schools (mostly)
women's rights
married women's rights
abortion rights
gay marriage rights
abolished DADT






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



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by followtheevidence
Exhibit A) Abortion is banned on a national level. Said women has NO place to go for a safe, legal abortion. Guess she's moving to Canada, Europe?


According to Ron Paul supporters, she can travel to Canada, Mexico, or find a Dr. that's willing to break the law. Simple! Yeah, go to Europe! If she's willing to spread her legs, she should be willing to pay the consequences, right? Go, Ron Paul!

I don't trust the federal government, but abortion has been legal on a federal level now for almost 40 years. Because the states cannot agree to ban it. That's a good sign. The likelihood of Congress banning it now is VERY low. Turning it over to the states at this point is insanity! And will bring back back alley abortions in some states.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by followtheevidence
 



Roe-v-Wade effectively bans it on a national level. The White House or The Congress have said to voice a firm opposition against it hence how public and direct mail sales are now possible all started traced back to "Roe-v-Wade.

Do you really want to go back to the era of Comstock laws of 1873 laws now do you?

edit on 2-1-2012 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 
Agreed. And yet, it seems the more things change, the more they stay the same...

I know one's going to like this statement, but that makes it no less true: Germany was fairly progressive in the '30s, also. And then they became a closed and militaristic country - and we're still following entirely too many of their examples.

I'd definitely feel better about it if we still had as much anger and speaking out about it as we did under the Bush administration, but it seems like war became cool, trampling of rights commonplace, "enabling acts" accepted. I hope I'm wrong in seeing the parallels, but how else can I read it? Obama was supposed to turn it all around - instead, he just made it easier to accept, somehow.

*sigh*

EDIT:
A few rights we've lost since Bush, and Obama has continued and expanded on:

edit on 1/2/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 





Or (and this actually is in the Body Worlds exhibit) a case where the baby and mother are both dying and you can't save the baby but might be able to save the mother?


This claim keeps coming up, so Id like to adress it.

In countries where abortion is banned/restricted, it DOES NOT apply to cases when abortion is required for medical reasons to protect the health or life of the mother. I believe you would be hard-pressed to find anyone among pro-life to advocate ban when there is medical need.
Many of them support right to abortion even in cases of rape.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
I'd definitely feel better about it if we still had as much anger and speaking out about it as we did under the Bush administration, but it seems like war became cool, trampling of rights commonplace, "enabling acts" accepted. I hope I'm wrong in seeing the parallels, but how else can I read it?


I'm not going to compare anything or anyone to the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney presidency.

They stand alone.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join