Discussion in 'What's On Your Mind?' started by Lisa Simeone, Feb 8, 2012.
Ron Paul's offensive and the War on Women
I watched the segment excerpt. Piers Morgan is rightfully panned for interrupting and trying to provoke some soundbite to create just this OUTRAGE from the expected quarters. Late breaking news: Ron Paul doesn't support abortion, especially as birth control. Does that mean millions of women will be subjected to...[fill in the blank]? No, it doesn't.
There is all sorts of fear-mongering out there. And the pro-abortion (and I will call it that) crowd is absolutely as guilty of using fear as the fascists at the airports.
Ron Paul does not hate women and he is not evil, as thoroughly implied by the rant. In the interview he was challenging Piers Morgan, and the abortion favorers to go to the logical conclusion the other way, at what point in a term is an abortion a murder? HIS point was that there is a good deal more honesty needed on BOTH sides of the debate. He acknowledged before he even answered that he was not going to make people happy with his answer. That to me sounds like an HONEST and reasonable person.
If women are going to be the ones to condemn this country to more years of the abuses of the police state because the fear is so great of some other eventuality--which does not happen by Presidential fiat--then own it, women. Proudly support your choice for President and support the TSA. Own it. It's yours.
You can leave comments at her site.
Being opposed to abortion is a legitmate point of view and does not equate to a "war on women" by any stretch of the imagination.
Killing unborn children is not a "right".
A discussion was started here -- no need to go elsewhere.
I can't, but if I could I would like what Anon' wrote:
The War on Women hyperbole, and interview pushing the issue, appear to me as thinly veiled pro-Obama propaganda. No thanks, no police state for me.
At least half of the victims of abortion are female, more than half in China and the Middle East, where male children are preferred.
Victims of sexual assault should seek treatment immediately. Pregnant children should be interviewed and treated as statutory rape/incest victims, and genetic material from the aborted fetus should be gathered and stored. We're not doing enough to protect women and girls when we offer abortion as a panacea for unwanted pregnancy.
There are aspects of our current abortion policies that are very, very bad for women, particularly unborn women and women who are still in childhood. We need new policies that protect children from sexual exploitation followed by abortions to conceal the evidence. We also need policies that decrease the number of women seeking abortions.
There is an incredible amount of disinformation about abortion out there, and much of it is promulgated by the pro-choice side. The trouble is, misinformed women and girls can't make informed choices, which are the only kind of choices that really count.
Ron Paul isn't making either side of the abortion debate happy, and for this I'm overjoyed. Between these two warring factions countless human beings are trapped in mortal danger. Both the Pro-life and Pro-choice ideologues are dead wrong, and together they reign over a growing pile of rotting corpses. Real people need humane, ethical solutions to crisis pregnancies. Their genuine need is ignored while the ideologues war on.
If the states were left to their own devices, some of them would do better than others, and the better models would become standard for all as the relative merits of the states' policies became evident. This is one of the many aspects of our Republic that needs to be restored. The current usurpation of states' rights by our run-away-authoritarian federal government is preventing our government from working as it was designed.
When we complain about the federal assault on our individual rights, we're correct to complain but we're missing part of the picture. The federal government's usurpation of states' rights and responsibilities is causing us to become dysfunctional in much the same way the old Soviet Union was. We need our entire Constitution restored in order to reclaim our collective birthright, and Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who understands this.
This debate doesn't end with abortion. It ends with birth control. If Roe goes, so potentially does Griswold. Then we end up with a patchwork across the nation - some states protect abortion and birth control rights and some don't. And then as politicians are voted in and out of office the rules in each state change.
It boggles my brain that this 'war' extends to birth control. If you're against abortion, support the use of birth control.
It ends with the first amendment -- you cannot dictate beliefs to the Catholic Church nor to anyone else.
Yawn. What a surprise.
Ron Paul is way more of a threat to the Dem's (and corporations') place at the trough than he is to women's health. There is a reason he's targeted versus the rabid GOP candidates: he takes away votes from Obama.
So, use fear to keep those women voters in their place. Snap to, stay in line! Be afraid of Ron Paul!
This patchwork, as you call it, is what the founders intended. The federal government wasn't established to force every state into the same mold. It was founded to provide for the common defense and the other few activities that were enumerated. The states retained the freedom to determine nearly everything else of importance. The positive aspect of this is that if one found things in Massachussetts onerous, one could move. Now, because of federal usurpations, there is no escape from bad laws.
Also, the issue wrt catholic church is not of availability of birth control. It is forcing the church to pay for something it considers abhorrent and immoral. If someone wants that, why should they not pay for it themselves? Follow the money. Who do you think benefits from having birth control paid for by insurance premiums? big pharma.
This move to force everyone to purchase a decreed product will not end well; it will extend far beyond this. I personally think this move is great at this time; SCOTUS will see what the stakes are here when it deliberates on this issue this year.
Yeah, just up and move. Easy as pie!
I can hear echoes of the same argument during the civil rights movement. "Don't like our laws in the South? Tough (expletive deleted). Then move."
Furthermore, when people are forced to use birth control, it spikes the estrogen in the entire population.
We are already seeing the effects of an estrogen-dominant society:
Men with breast tissue
Increased incidence of breast cancer in men and women
These are not tenuous links. There is estrogen in the water supply, the plastics we use,the food chain, and the conventional meat we eat. This is scientific fact. It is no accident we see these other things on the rise.
This is primarily because of the excessive use of hormones (and antibiotics) in factory farming.
Many of which are estrogen based. That was my point.
At the end of the day, big pharma gets their paycheck. Hooray!
And who is being "forced to use birth control"??
Exactly. If you don't believe in birth control don't use it. If you don't believe in abortion don't have one. Catholic institutions who employ people have to follow the same labor laws as every other employer has to follow which includes minimum wage, workman's comp etc. If they offer health insurance to their employees then they have to follow what the law says regarding that also. Lisa is correct - nobody is forced to use birth control. If you don't believe in birth control then you would not take advantage of that benefit offered by your health insurance - similar to if you didn't have a skin problem you wouldn't use the benefit of seeing a dermatologist.
that the church "has to follow that law" is disingenuous. You are assuming precisely what is being disputed here. Mandating the provision of something immoral is bad law in itself, and if the matter is grave enough, such a bad law cannot be complied with. The catholics reject that law, unlike minimum wage laws etc that you quote, which are valid laws, so your argument loses its force.
Medical practitioners who will follow orders to provide "services" they consider to be unethical cannot be trusted. Such a person has no business in medicine.
That's one of the many things authoritarians don't understand. They are so sure the world would be perfect if no one else's scruples, desires or needs had to be respected. The authoritarians are wrong. All of them. They're not just wrong, they're mentally ill and morally bankrupt.
In some parts of the world medical practitioners have been forced to perform late term abortions on unwilling patients. We're on a slippery slope here, and the time will come when there's no turning back. Contrary to what some here believe, there are Americans who have been forced to use birth control, even in recent years. Many more have been coerced or tricked. In the not too distant past many were involuntarily sterilized, even in childhood.
Likewise, if you want birth control or abortion, you should also avoid the dermatologist and probably Catholic medical providers as well.
If you can force a doctor to violate his conscience, the next step will be to round up conscientious objectors & send them off to the front anyway. After all, it's only what the government wants that matters. If they get in way, they can always be shot as deserters.
Separate names with a comma.