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

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes. The STATE would choose. And the people of my state have NO RIGHT to choose what happens in my body. The government should NOT have the choice. The individual should have the choice. The only way to insure that the individual has the choice is to insure that BOTH options are legal.

I didn't say the State, I said the people of the State. You seem to be under the notion that the only direction is worse and there's little to no chance things could get better (by either of our definitions). This is untrue as each State already regulates the permissibility of abortion and the operational elements of the business and it's practices.

I am a staunch supporter of male reproductive rights. I advocate for male abortion, too.

Poorly played joke or... I don't know, something else. Either way the condition of male reproductive rights needs to be addressed in a serious way by men and women. I'm not opposed to women having all the rights in the situation, however that would naturally entail all the responsibilities as well. Share the rights, share the responsibilities. Rights and responsibility are proportional rather than asymmetric as they are now.

The whole idea of being pro-choice or pro-life is ludicrous. Anyone who thinks they have the right to legally dictate what goes on in a woman's body is just pro-control. This decision should be made by individuals, not governments.

This is incorrect, and paints a large group with a single brush. I am Pro-Life, meaning I oppose abortion. The avenue to obtaining that goal, however, differs from person to person. I do not support legislative means to ending abortion, or regulatory restrictions so narrow that clinics and doctors can not afford or are not able to practice.

The back door approach demeans the entire reason society sought to end the amateur abortions of the past and for the safety of women. Any move back to that would be unsound and unworkable if it was even possible in today's current political environment.

I am a bit odd, in that I am a Pro-Life atheist so I don't hold to the dogmas that have taken over my side of the debate. Because of this I support adoptions by gay couples, capable single parents (men or women), and the opening of the adoption laws to allow this as a more reasonable solution to stemming the need for abortion.

This idea is not new and it's not the only way to accomplish a higher respect for life, but the conditions now are unbalanced between men and women. They are wrong especially when coupled with the draconian child support laws and the default of the courts towards women.

I agree that no one has the right to force motherhood on a women (despite having virtually all the control and informed consent in mutual sexual relationships), but to say that the same respect and consideration should not be given to the men is simple misandristic.

Peace
KJ

reply to post by Annee
I wish you were right about that, Annee. They should have been prosecuted thoroughly and held accountable. They should have been repudiated, renounced, and undone.

Instead their legacy lives on all too strongly, on entirely too many fronts.

Take care.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Annee

 

I wish you were right about that, Annee. They should have been prosecuted thoroughly and held accountable. They should have been repudiated, renounced, and undone.

Instead their legacy lives on all too strongly, on entirely too many fronts.

Take care.

Only with people that wear blinders by intention - - - don't care and don't investigate. Which unfortunately is probably the majority.

And I'm supposed to trust people of individual states to make Civil Rights Decisions? Not a chance.

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.

Habeas Corpus has been legal on a Federal Level now for over 230 years! 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 alley abortions in some states.

The states are made up of the people ... so turning it over to the people is ... insane? So much for solidarity. This demonstrates a devastatingly low level of confidence in your fellow citizens. To each their own I guess.

None of this changes the fact that you are extending a frighteningly large amount of control into the hands of a Gov't which does not fairly represent you and did not heistate in stripping you of your rights. I just don't get it.

"A government large enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have" - TJ

"True liberty must be divorced from any desired social/economic outcome. To believe in liberty is to trust in the spontaneous actions and circumstances that emerge when the government does not intervene in human volition and cooperation"

reply to post by Annee
No...I suppose it's more reasonable to keep electing presidents who continue to enable what we received from Bush and continue to give us more war and less autonomy on so many fronts...

I personally like to think that most people in the state governments are fairly common-thinking people like ourselves, that we in the states pay enough attention to keep them on track, and that our common protections under the 14th amendment will continue to mean something, but if things keep going the way they are I wonder if that one won't be repealed in all but name before long as well.

reply to post by Annee
I'll yield this one to you and step off-thread now, Annee. I don't want to continue the derailment and risk closure.

Thanks for your opinions and the good discussion, and take care. Hopefully we all end up where we want to be.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Annee

 

No...I suppose it's more reasonable to keep electing presidents who continue to enable what we received from Bush and continue to give us more war and less autonomy on so many fronts...

That's still your perception.

reply to post by Praetorius


The role of The Federal Government in this case is to make sure that a citzen's right to have an abortion is on technical "trial" here whereas The Federal here using it's power, arm, muscle and reach can in effect create and adopt a Federal minimum set of standards that guide the nation as a whole as it's supposed to do. It is also a watchdog on behalf of the States as they have one helluva bite and does hurt like a yipyap.

The role of the States is pretty well the same but as long as Roe is in force no State has the legal authourity to overturn it on a State level. County/Parish and Municipal Governments here are technically constrained. Native American Territory Nations are always free to adopt, modify, introduce and pass legislation on this as well as any other topic as they see fit in accordance to their traditions and customs! It does not apply to a Native American Nation.

Planned Parenthood even though financed heavily by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Yes, that Bill Gates from Microsoft) as they will ensure that it don't go nowhere.

In this nation everything starts and begins at The Office Of POTUS but that old thinking no longer applies and once we kick them to the curb the true rise of The United States Of America will begin!

Federal legislation is necessary because it sets a standard the rest of the nation follows. If we get attacked we need the military to defend us and at what level of Govt does that sit? Federal with heavy concentration on Executive and Legislative with Judicial authourized to intervene if needed.

You say you don't want the Gov't to have a say in what you do with your body ... that it's up to the individual.

But in expecting the Gov't to legalize abortion on a national level you are doing precisely that. You are ASKING them to have a say. Just because they agree with you (for the moment) doesn't mean it's any less of a say.

It just seems so diametrically opposed.

ETA: At any rate, an informative and respectful discussion I'll defer for now.

reply to post by followtheevidence


50 years ago (Yes, early 1960's as late as) it was illegal to have an abortion and some states tried and convicted more then one female for up to and including terms and sentences of 50 years plus. Some are still in prison to this day and due to some pretty foul outdated and defunct legislation they will NEVER get out, At times when the laws are updated those charged and convicted of the crimes under the old statue their sentences are rarely changed, commuted, or dismissed and are usually upheld and maintained.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by Praetorius

 

The role of The Federal Government in this case is to make sure that a citzen's right to have an abortion is on technical "trial" here whereas The Federal here using it's power, arm, muscle and reach can in effect create and adopt a Federal minimum set of standards that guide the nation as a whole as it's supposed to do. It is also a watchdog on behalf of the States as they have one helluva bite and does hurt like a yipyap.

The role of the States is pretty well the same but as long as Roe is in force no State has the legal authourity to overturn it on a State level. County/Parish and Municipal Governments here are technically constrained. Native American Territory Nations are always free to adopt, modify, introduce and pass legislation on this as well as any other topic as they see fit in accordance to their traditions and customs! It does not apply to a Native American Nation.

Planned Parenthood even though financed heavily by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Yes, that Bill Gates from Microsoft) as they will ensure that it don't go nowhere.

In this nation everything starts and begins at The Office Of POTUS but that old thinking no longer applies and once we kick them to the curb the true rise of The United States Of America will begin!

Federal legislation is necessary because it sets a standard the rest of the nation follows. If we get attacked we need the military to defend us and at what level of Govt does that sit? Federal with heavy concentration on Executive and Legislative with Judicial authourized to intervene if needed.

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

Then....based on your argument. American Indian Nations are well within their rights to open as many clinics they want.

Just as they have the right to open casinos is non-gaming States, they could do the same with Planned Parenthood clinics. So, even if a State should choose to ban abortions, it could still be available.

I don't ever see a situation such as this coming about....but, thank you for pointing out that there is always a way around federal laws.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by followtheevidence

 

50 years ago (Yes, early 1960's as late as) it was illegal to have an abortion and some states tried and convicted more then one female for up to and including terms and sentences of 50 years plus. Some are still in prison to this day and due to some pretty foul outdated and defunct legislation they will NEVER get out, At times when the laws are updated those charged and convicted of the crimes under the old statue their sentences are rarely changed, commuted, or dismissed and are usually upheld and maintained.

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

It's tempting of course when reading such an account to appeal to an entity, presumably equipped with a moral superiority and enough legal clout to intervene. It's not as if I'm unfeeling to this cause.

But it is foolhardy to lose sight of the greater narrative in an attempt to resolve an immediate issue. Unrestrained concentrated power is dangerous. Central planning results in failure, time and time again. We've gone from a capitalist Republic to a would-be corporatist oligarchy. And - still - people are not alarmed enough to revoke some of the sweeping powers our Gov't has since seized.

Giving the Federal Gov't authority over a woman's right to an abortion gives them just that - the authority over a woman's right to an abortion in either direction.

ETA: I think its safe to say that I've clarified my argument ad naseum. Enough cyber activity for one day, this girl has to go about the business of her analog duties

reply to post by Destinyone


Casino's require the involvement of The State Gaming Authority and none could open without one in place.

Not when The Federal has declared a ruling or verdict in the presence of new legislation and is not usurpable or ignorable as that in itself is a felony and the State can be charged in a case like that. SCOTUS would be the stage and venue for such cases if they were to ever arise.

The 10th and the States have no authourity to overturn a Federal law on a State level. That law applies to all 50 states and 7 territories and to all military bases abroad!

okay, so lets let the country burn to ashes because we don't want to force states to legalize a form of killing

reply to post by followtheevidence


SCOTUS ruling on "Roe-v-Wade" forbid both the Federal and State from ever denying an American woman her right in matters pertaining to her own body and based on a few things I'd presume you to be female right? This ruling gave YOU the right to have final say hence why a treasure trove of materials exist both for and against abortion because of this.

If some guy tore your clothes off and forced himself inside of you would you wish to be forced to keep the result?

This makes sure that you are afforded everything when it comes to matters like this. Hospital stay, rape kit tests (takes about 1 - 4 hours start to finish, getting better as time progresses), and prevents the bill for the lab processing fees, police transport fees, court transfer costs from being sent to you as that runs in the thousands!

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
okay, so lets let the country burn to ashes because we don't want to force states to legalize a form of killing

That is a personal opinion of abortion.

It has nothing to do with National Reproductive Freedom.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Poorly played joke or... I don't know, something else.

It wasn't a joke. See my posts in this thread.

This is incorrect, and paints a large group with a single brush. I am Pro-Life, meaning I oppose abortion.

Politically, the term pro-life means you advocate government involvement. Pro-choice means you don't.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It wasn't a joke. See my posts in this thread.

Fair enough, I didn't connect the term. You and I agree on this then if I read your post correctly. Women get 100% of the rights and 100% of the responsibility, yes?

Politically, the term pro-life means you advocate government involvement. Pro-choice means you don't.

That's the normal run of things, meaning perception. It's still not correct, but yes it is the default. I am working to change that as best I can.

I really do simply mean that I am for life. It's the same reason I am against the death penalty generally.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by followtheevidence

 

SCOTUS ruling on "Roe-v-Wade" forbid both the Federal and State from ever denying an American woman her right in matters pertaining to her own body and based on a few things I'd presume you to be female right? This ruling gave YOU the right to have final say hence why a treasure trove of materials exist both for and against abortion because of this.

If some guy tore your clothes off and forced himself inside of you would you wish to be forced to keep the result?

This makes sure that you are afforded everything when it comes to matters like this. Hospital stay, rape kit tests (takes about 1 - 4 hours start to finish, getting better as time progresses), and prevents the bill for the lab processing fees, police transport fees, court transfer costs from being sent to you as that runs in the thousands!

Day after pill?

You're assuming of course that the states would actually vote against state-sanctioned abortion in the event that this matter were turned back over to them. You're also assuming that there would be no exception clauses, even in a context as grievous as you described.

If this is the case, then by extension you have no MORE reason to entrust the Federal Government with this decision because what are they besides, people? Just like you and me, just like the people who make up the states that you distrust so very deeply - no more or less ethical by nature. Even worse, the system of checks and balances framed to correct and account for human bias is currently, totally defunct ... destroyed by design - almost beyond recognition. So much for that. No safeguards for us. Now we're simply appealing to the bastion of morality so brilliantly displayed by our incumbents.

You can present all of the harrowing situations you'd like for my consideration - it doesn't change my argument.

Giving the Federal Gov't the authority over a woman's right to an abortion gives them just that - the authority over a woman't right to an abortion in either direction. At any moment they could change their tune, just like they did with your right to a trial and due process of the law.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
okay, so lets let the country burn to ashes because we don't want to force states to legalize a form of killing

That is a personal opinion of abortion.

It has nothing to do with National Reproductive Freedom.

I really don't have an opinion. I only know me. If I were pregnant no amount of convience would prompt me to give up my child, not even the threat of my own life. I know myself from the superficial covering people refer to personality all the way down to the source. and the source of my being is no different than anyone elses. Opinions are of the mind. Simply seeing abortion for what it is is not an opinion.