Ron Paul on the Abortion issue

[Dharma]

Brutha: This thread contains post about abortion from Ron Paul is Going to Win. and Ron Paul 2008 - Opinions?
I think it's better when we discuss that issue in a single thread.

Originally Posted by Honeywith4bees

From what I have read, Ron Paul is not Pro-Choice, which rules him out for me, as a viable candidate. We've lost enough of our freedoms lately, I'm not ready to vote for losing this one as well.

Ron Paul is pro-life. In constitutional terms, your response should be, "so what". The federal government has no authority on abortion... (but we all think it does).

Roe v Wade is unconstitutional. There is no power set aside in the constitution for the government to approve or deny abortion. That choice is left up to the individual states. Ron Paul would get rid of the Federal ruling on abortion because the feds have no right telling you what to do in this arena.

The issue of abortion would go to the state-level where it belongs. You and your local legislators decide what is right for you. This was the idea way way back in the first place. The federal government was designed to safeguard your rights and only given limited powers. Ruling on abortion is not one of them.

[Honeywith4bees]

Originally Posted by Dharma

Ron Paul would get rid of the Federal ruling on abortion because the feds have no right telling you what to do in this arena.

Why, then, is it important when a Supreme Court Justice is appointed, what their political beliefs are towards reproductive rights?

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Honeywith4bees

Why, then, is it important when a Supreme Court Justice is appointed, what their political beliefs are towards reproductive rights?

It isn't important. But as long as we let the Supreme Court determine law (which is the legislature's job) instead of judging if the law has been followed, vague, etc., a justice's moral leanings will make a difference.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Honeywith4bees

From what I have read, Ron Paul is not Pro-Choice, which rules him out for me, as a viable candidate. We've lost enough of our freedoms lately, I'm not ready to vote for losing this one as well.

It's unfortunate that you'd let this one issue "rule him out" for you. You don't think there are issues more important than this? The corruption and scandals that surround most of the major candidates are what rule them out for me.

Anyhow, he opposes Roe v Wade on constitutional grounds rather than moral grounds.

If you want your freedoms back, you should definitely check out his platform.

[carenkh]

Originally Posted by Dharma

The issue of abortion would go to the state-level where it belongs. You and your local legislators decide what is right for you.

At least six states have legislation in place to make abortion illegal if Roe v Wade is overturned.

I cannot support him for this reason. It *is* that important to me.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by carenkh

At least six states have legislation in place to make abortion illegal if Roe v Wade is overturned.

I cannot support him for this reason. It *is* that important to me.

People are allowed to change laws. They are also allowed to move if they want. They are not victims of their government. Their goverment is a reflection of themselves.

So, that being said: 6/50ths of me is actually AGAINST abortion, while 44/50ths of me is ok with allowing abortion. I guess I'm for both sides, when I thought I was all for choice. Does it make me a bad person? No.

For me Roe v Wade is a bad precedent. I don't want one part of me (federal govt.) scuttling the voices of all of me (the states).

I know how you feel though. I can be a one-issue gun voter. If a candidate has ever voted for a restriction on firearms, I won't vote for him. So I guess I'm doing the same thing as people who have their key issues, though I don't follow that logic 100% of the time.

[schola]

Originally Posted by carenkh

At least six states have legislation in place to make abortion illegal if Roe v Wade is overturned.

I cannot support him for this reason. It *is* that important to me.

But you realize that this all encompassing legislation is how we ended up with this law you disagree with? Try to put yourself outside the issue and decide what would give people the most freedom in our country.

The solution is letting individual states decide.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by schola

The solution is letting individual states decide.

I strongly disagree. That's like letting individual states deciding whether or not to allow slavery. Indeed, opposition to a woman's right to freedom over her own reproductive functions is the same as being in favor of slavery.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Angela

I strongly disagree. That's like letting individual states deciding whether or not to allow slavery. Indeed, opposition to a woman's right to freedom over her own reproductive functions is the same as being in favor of slavery.

Personally, I don't have a problem with abortion, I'm pro-choice. However, I'd much rather the power to choose be in the power of states then in the power of the federal government. At least, with the states, even if 49 states choose to make abortions illegal and one state is pro-choice, then you can always travel to that one pro-choice state. On the other hand, once the federal government makes abortion illegal, then damn, you're screwed. I feel more comfortable having my eggs spread in 50 baskets, then put in one basket.

[Angela]

Again, to me, seeker5, that would be like having slavery legal in one state but not the other 49. So the people in that one state are SOL. Women who need abortions often cannot afford to travel to another state. I'm not willing to be complacent about even a small pocket in this country, which claims freedom as its highest value, keeping its women in a state of slavery.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Dharma

They are also allowed to move if they want.

Originally Posted by seeker5

At least, with the states, even if 49 states choose to make abortions illegal and one state is pro-choice, then you can always travel to that one pro-choice state.

That's easy to say as a man of presumably decent means.

Not so much if you are a poor 15 year old girl with no money, no transportation and no one in your life willing to help you.

We need to protect certain rights that may never pertain to us for those who have no voice or means.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Angela

I strongly disagree. That's like letting individual states deciding whether or not to allow slavery. Indeed, opposition to a woman's right to freedom over her own reproductive functions is the same as being in favor of slavery.

As strongly against it as you might feel, as a free thinking individual, you have to respect others' rights to a different opinion.

You are advocating enforcing your morals onto others while turning around and complaining about them doing it to you.

[CeciL]

I'm pro-choice... However, basing your opinion on whether your allowed to kill an irresponsible fertilized baby over all the other reasons seems a bit morbid. Doesn't it?

[BeyondBewildered]

I'm sorry, why do I have to choose between ending the war on drugs and having reproductive freedom? These issues do not appear to be mutually exclusive.

I'm all for ending the war on drugs. But I'm young, fertile, and I NEVER want to have children. I'm married and financially secure. But I'd have an abortion in a heartbeat. I find the decision more moral than having a child and turning it over to religious nutters for adoption and contributing to overpopulation, but my morality doesn't really flipping count, certainly not as much as Ron Paul's.

Ron Paul doesn't have the support to end the war on drugs. He sure has the support to turn me into a baby factory.

[Barcs]

I don't mean any offense by this at all, but have you considered getting the tubal ligation surgery? I mean if you never want children, wouldn't that be the best option, provided you can afford it? I'm totally with you on not having kids, and I may consider getting a vasectomy in the future.

[BeyondBewildered]

Yes, never wanting children, of course we've considered sterilization. Should that be my only choice because abortion makes old Christian Republican men uncomfortable?

It's not that big of an issue because I really don't think Ron Paul has a good shot at winning. And I think the man himself is more concerned with ending the fed and the war on drugs. Which I don't think has a good chance of happening, sad to say.

It seems he'd have a much better chance at stamping "Property of the US Government" on my cervix. And most Ron Paul supporters totally skirt that issue.

[Dan.Linehan]

I'll try to ask this as straightforwardly as possible...

What if life really does begin at conception? Wouldn't the abortion issue then be more complex than just one person's decision?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Dan, I actually do believe that life begins at conception and I personally would not ever have an abortion.

Having said that, I believe that outlawing abortion would have disasterous concequences, particularly when you consider that many of the people who would see it done do not support public assistance once the child is born, do not support increasing the availability of birth control options or sex education and actually would make it harder to get birth control if given the opportunity while teaching kids to "just say no" to sex.

The best scenario in my own view is to thoroughly provide education to ALL children throughout the school years as well as provide access to birth control. However the same people who would outlaw abortion would not support this plan. As much as I personally hate to think of killing a baby, I am much more disturbed by the idea of millions of unwanted children being born into poverty, neglect and violence without access to good education, healthcare or love.

That's what it comes down to for me.

[BeyondBewildered]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I'll try to ask this as straightforwardly as possible...

What if life really does begin at conception? Wouldn't the abortion issue then be more complex than just one person's decision?

Ooo, finally, you sort of said it. You'd like to eliminate my reproductive rights. Thanks. And that is all the change that Ron Paul has a snow ball's chance in hell of accomplishing. To answer your question, in short, NO!!! At length... see below.

Um, life does begin at conception. Most pro-choicers realize that embryos are actually alive. Cells are dividing, it's alive. THAT is NOT the issue. The issue is what rights does it have. And what rights do I have over what grows inside MY uterus. Currently, abortion is the only issue that I can think of where people actually justify forcing a person to give up a part of their body and risk their life to provide life to another. THAT is the slippery slope. If we outlawed abortion, what door does that open.

Look at it in a way that actually might effect you. Let's say you have a child and your child needs your kidney to survive, or maybe just a liver chunk, or bone marrow. Of course you'd give your kidney to your kid, but should the goverment be able to force you? Sedate you, kicking and screaming. I don't think so. We currently don't give actual verifiable human beings rights over another person's body, even when their death is impending, even when it is their parents. Why is the embryo so much more important?

What it really boils down to is that you want to feel special and holy for being a human. And you'd like to prove it by forcing me to have children. How convenient.

Granting human rights at conception also opens up a different can of worms that tends to turn me into a baby factory. Most people don't get it, but there aren't really any forms of birth control that prevent conception 100% of the time. Spare me a link to how "the pill" works. That is not the only form of birth control, and it thins the uterine lining to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, which happens even though the pill can and does frequently prevent ovulation. IUD's, the only form of birth control suitable for me, do jack for ovulation and just plain kick those embryos right outta the womb. I got flack for "having an abortion every month" from relatives when I first got mine.

So, for the zillionth time (not to you DL) when you outlaw abortion on the basis of granting rights at conception (extra rights actually) you are in practice eliminating ALL REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM AND BIRTH CONTROL. Not that any prolifers will admit that, but that is what you are actually trying to do. Really, you are. The Pope gets it, I really don't see why it is that hard for everyone to see that it is an all or nothing decision. You either have a choice, or you don't. Baby Factory or Body Sovereignty, cut and dry. There is NO MIDDLE GROUND where you can "just get on birth control."

Additionally, it has been proven time after time, study after study, regardless of culture or country that outlawing abortion does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO STOP ABORTION. The rate of abortion stays EXACTLY the same. The ONLY difference is the safety of said abortions. Many people are unaware of this, but abortion has been around for thousands of years. There were medically performed abortions in ancient Rome. There are countless herbal remedies available to primitive peoples, and most are significantly more dangerous that traditional medically supervised abortions. Then there are the back alley, knitting needle up the cervix kinds of abortions. It is not the government's job to legislate morality based on hypotheticals and "what if's." They are supposed to do what best for the people, and safe legal abortion is in the best interest of the public health. That is what should matter.

So no, I don't think that the fact that you feel special for being a human life form should affect my rights to medical care and reproductive freedom. I cannot believe intelligent people actually want to take away the sovereignty I have over my own body based on completely unverifiable "well, what ifs." I swear, it's like I wake up every morning in the Twilight Zone.

But again, go Ron Paul. C'mon, shout the whole agenda from the rooftops, not just the fluffy stuff that will bring liberal votes. "Save the Snowflake Babies!"

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I'll try to ask this as straightforwardly as possible...

What if life really does begin at conception? Wouldn't the abortion issue then be more complex than just one person's decision?

Yes,
and having been forced to witness a dozen abortions,
every last one of them, for the woman's 'convenience' ,
I can tell you that each pre-born baby suffers the worst agonies as each is carelessly killed.

[Dannyboy1]

Please don't get angry. Try and step outside of your emotions right now, and realize I don't hate anyone, I'm not going to tell anyone what to do, I'm not trying to force you to change. Let me show you something I wrote to someone considering abortion and the people who were trying to give her advice.

I don't believe anyone who has not had a child themselves has any right to offer you advice. I was pro choice until I had my child and now I thank God every day we never seriously considered abortion even though we had only been dating a year. It's easy to be pro choice when you haven't met your child yet, but make no mistake, you are stopping a life. This baby will never be born again. You will find a way if you have this baby. If you don't want the baby, there are many people who can't have children who will love you forever for having it. You created this being, you owe it to them to at least give them nine months of your life to give them a chance.

To anyone who's never had a child, I ask you to consider the fact that you do not have the experience to make this decision for someone else. Think about times when an experience transformed you into a totally opposite way of thinking. So much so, that when you try and change your friends minds, they cannot and even refuse to believe you. You've become enlightened in a way that they cannot possibly understand until they go through it. I cannot possibly explain the experience of having a child to you, but I can ask you to realize that if you did have the experience of having a child, you would definitely not take this decision as lightly as you are right now. I have never met a person who would ever consider having an abortion once they've had a child.

One more thing. When we found out we were having a baby, I was expressing my nervousness to an aquaintence I had know for a couple of years. I told him we were broke and I had no work and I wasn't sure I was ready, but we were going to have the baby anyway. He looked into my eyes with tears in his and he said, "We have been trying to have a child for years and we can't seem to make it happen. Please, give him to us. If you don't feel you can take care of him, give him to us." he then turned and walked away crying.

Originally Posted by Dharma

Brutha: This thread contains post about abortion from Ron Paul is Going to Win. and Ron Paul 2008 - Opinions?
I think it's better when we discuss that issue in a single thread.


Ron Paul is pro-life. In constitutional terms, your response should be, "so what". The federal government has no authority on abortion... (but we all think it does).

Roe v Wade is unconstitutional. There is no power set aside in the constitution for the government to approve or deny abortion. That choice is left up to the individual states. Ron Paul would get rid of the Federal ruling on abortion because the feds have no right telling you what to do in this arena.

The issue of abortion would go to the state-level where it belongs. You and your local legislators decide what is right for you. This was the idea way way back in the first place. The federal government was designed to safeguard your rights and only given limited powers. Ruling on abortion is not one of them.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

Please don't get angry.

Dannyboy, I'm not angry that you're expressing your opinion, one that you feel passionately about. But posting it once is plenty -- you don't need to post the same message three times for us to be able to get it. Thanks.

[Dannyboy1]

There is no excuse for abortion when two people have consentual sex. The excuse used to be (and they still try and use this one), "I don't want to screw up my life and the baby's." You cannot use that excuse anymore because there are waiting lists of people begging for a baby, good, caring people. People who break the law aren't given a do-over. Neither should people who "accidently" get pregnant. They should have to serve their nine months of community service.

[Michael45]

I get the impression only one person in this thread has read the Roe V Wade summery......... Besides me........
Now on the other hand........ Where are the rights of the Father? As two people have consentual sex, they have in fact, formed a contract. The byproduct of this contract sometimes results in conception. Scientific study says that conception begins the minute the egg is fertilized. That is when cell division begins. Since this is a contract, both parties are responsible for the fetus. So how can you say only the mother has a say so in abortion. She is just the vessel to incubate the fetus. Feesibly you can change vessels if you can catch the egg before it enters the womb, but then again, who goes to the doctor every time they have sex and asks to be checked for sterilized eggs? lol

As far as Rove V Wade...... it only defines that every person has the right, and say so, over their own bodies. It protects their individual rights, and states that the state level has no right to say who gets an abortion or not basically. Has nothing to do with it being legal or illegal............

[Michael45]

hahahaha I'd love to argue this one in court....... lol I bet I could win.......... lol

[oberlee]

Originally Posted by Michael45

Where are the rights of the Father? As two people have consentual sex, they have in fact, formed a contract. The byproduct of this contract sometimes results in conception. Scientific study says that conception begins the minute the egg is fertilized. That is when cell division begins. Since this is a contract, both parties are responsible for the fetus. So how can you say only the mother has a say so in abortion. She is just the vessel to incubate the fetus. Feesibly you can change vessels if you can catch the egg before it enters the womb, but then again, who goes to the doctor every time they have sex and asks to be checked for sterilized eggs? lol

You're right; however, you're not carrying another human being in your body for nine months. Even just being pregnant SUCKS. It SUCKS. It's HORRIBLE. You're constantly both nauseous AND hungry, always tired, and never at ease. That's the first 3 months. The next three, supposedly, are ok. Then the last trimester's the worst--the sickness comes back PLUS you have an almost full grown baby to carry around. Oh yeah--then you have to push it through your vagina. Fun.

Now that's the physical side of things. If you WANT the baby, you'll put up with it, and it will be tempered with the anticipation of having the baby. If you DON'T want it, well, then that's nine months of shoot me in the head.

It's not that the father doesn't have a right, but the fact he's not carrying the baby seems...a little unfair if you're giving him 50% of the ruling. So, it just weighs into the situation.

But in a VAST majority of cases, the men will not be sympathetic. They won't give a [bleep] and will leave the woman to go through the pregnancy and raising the child all on her own. That's the worst case scenario, but it's a reality.

That just seems sexist to me.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

There is no excuse for abortion when two people have consentual sex.

You invent contraception that is 100.00% effective, and I might agree with your statement.

Also be sure to make your contraception affordable and accessible to all women without a prescription.

The excuse used to be (and they still try and use this one), "I don't want to screw up my life and the baby's." You cannot use that excuse anymore because there are waiting lists of people begging for a baby, good, caring people.

Please tell me where all these people are? If you get pregnant and try to deal with it alone, there is almost no support for you. Maybe are few food stamps to buy junk-food and crappy formula with... the rest you're on your own for. Where are all the anti-choice people when the baby is born and needs so many things? Where are the churches and protesters when mom can't even afford diapers or a proper crib?

If you're pregnant and a (1) minority or (2) appear to have developmental delays of your own, good luck trying get *anyone* to consider adopting it. If the baby is born with defects or alcohol/drug fetal syndrome, also forget it. The few who can afford the big $$$ to go through the expensive legal maze of adoption want healthy, robust kids. The unwanted babies end up stuck with the mom who resents it or stuck in the foster-care system.

I encourage you to look into the process of adoption. It's extremely hard to find an affordable, healthy baby to adopt in the US; the system is broken. It's also expensive and not too accessible.

People who break the law aren't given a do-over. Neither should people who "accidently" get pregnant. They should have to serve their nine months of community service.

9 months of community service? you make it sound like spending a few hours each Saturday picking up trash in the park?

Do you understand that women DIE in childbirth? I have a good friend who literally did almost that. She desperately wanted the baby, and she was taking excellent care of her self. She was young and in great health. Why does it seem to be taboo to warn women about the big dangers of pregnancy?

They never tell you that pregnancy comes with a risk of gestational diabetes and gestational hypertension. The latter is what nearly killed my friend when her blood pressure when out of control.

Do you understand that bearing a child leaves permanent damage to the woman's body? It's more than a mere inconvenience.

Do you also understand some women don't have health insurance. If you're forced to carry the unwanted baby to term, who pays if there are complications? Who pays when you're sick each morning and miss some work? Who pays for the birth? Who pays if the birth goes badly, as it did for another friend, who ended up going into labor 4 months early? Are you ok with being in debt to a hospital $10,000 for something you didn't want in the first place. $10,000 to a low-income woman is enough to bankrupt her. She could have her wages garnished, putting her behind on her rent and now she's homeless.

And this is something most guys probably don't understand: women can lose their jobs if they get pregnant. It may not be legal or right, but it does happen. Employers don't want to deal with the mandatory maternity leave, the countless days off work for doc visits, and dealing with the horomonal roller-coaster. They don't want to deal with a worker whose first priority is the pregnancy, not doing the job. I've seen firsthand pregnant women not be hired.