Health Care: Responding to the "republican war on women"

[arsenius]

This issue has got people pissed off right now! With all this stuff in the news about insurance, abortion, birth control, and women's health care, can someone help me formulate a good, reasonably complete, explanation of how Ron Paul is not "at war against women"? Something that would really differentiate him from those who are the worst offenders in the "war". Obviously I don't believe Dr. Paul is trying to hurt women's rights, and put women back in the kitchen, barefoot, but I don't know how to clearly articulate why I have such trust.

For example, the "honest rape" comment really hurt us, but it was (perhaps willfully) taken way out of context. The rape argument for abortion is a big straw man in my opinion, since it accounts for a relatively small percentage of abortions. But it is effectively used to make opponents look insensitive.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Show people the Jay Leno interview from Tuesday, or the CBS interview from a couple of weeks ago when he outright endorsed hormonal birth control.

 

[wistfulthinker]

The abortion-okay-for-rape argument is anti-woman in the extreme. It takes as its premise that abortion is either morally right or morally wrong depending on the circumstances of conception. Anyone who is pro-life and includes an okay-for-rape exception has built his or her pro-life position upon the foundational belief that the fetus' life is worth protecting based on the circumstance of its conception.

For Paul and other pro-life folks who do not accept a rape exception, the moral premise is entirely different. As Paul has said many times, his stance against abortion is based on his believe that the life forming in the womb is covered under the Constitutional obligation to protect life.

I haven't attempted a formal logic proof of either position, but I'm hard pressed to see how the focus who follow the first premise would have any solid ground to stand on. When someone says their pro-life but support a rape exception, I'm pretty sure they're telegraphing their lack of a solid foundation for their belief system. I suspect they just feel bad about the whole situation. The poor woman being traumatized twice. It is so easy to duck looking at the foundations of a belief when you just feel so bad for someone.

Hope that helps. Maybe I'll try a formal proof later tonight.

 

[Danke]

The abortion-okay-for-rape argument is anti-woman in the extreme. It takes as its premise that abortion is either morally right or morally wrong depending on the circumstances of conception. Anyone who is pro-life and includes an okay-for-rape exception has built his or her pro-life position upon the foundational belief that the fetus' life is worth protecting based on the circumstance of its conception.

For Paul and other pro-life folks who do not accept a rape exception, the moral premise is entirely different. As Paul has said many times, his stance against abortion is based on his believe that the life forming in the womb is covered under the Constitutional obligation to protect life.

I haven't attempted a formal logic proof of either position, but I'm hard pressed to see how the focus who follow the first premise would have any solid ground to stand on. When someone says their pro-life but support a rape exception, I'm pretty sure they're telegraphing their lack of a solid foundation for their belief system. I suspect they just feel bad about the whole situation. The poor woman being traumatized twice. It is so easy to duck looking at the foundations of a belief when you just feel so bad for someone.

Hope that helps. Maybe I'll try a formal proof later tonight.

The children's lives in Dresden and Hiroshima aren't worth as much as the children's in Dallas and Salt lake City.

 

[arsenius]

The abortion-okay-for-rape argument is anti-woman in the extreme. It takes as its premise that abortion is either morally right or morally wrong depending on the circumstances of conception. Anyone who is pro-life and includes an okay-for-rape exception has built his or her pro-life position upon the foundational belief that the fetus' life is worth protecting based on the circumstance of its conception.

For Paul and other pro-life folks who do not accept a rape exception, the moral premise is entirely different. As Paul has said many times, his stance against abortion is based on his believe that the life forming in the womb is covered under the Constitutional obligation to protect life.

I haven't attempted a formal logic proof of either position, but I'm hard pressed to see how the focus who follow the first premise would have any solid ground to stand on. When someone says their pro-life but support a rape exception, I'm pretty sure they're telegraphing their lack of a solid foundation for their belief system. I suspect they just feel bad about the whole situation. The poor woman being traumatized twice. It is so easy to duck looking at the foundations of a belief when you just feel so bad for someone.

Hope that helps. Maybe I'll try a formal proof later tonight.

Thanks, and I agree with you on this. However, for people who are pro-choice, it seems like the rape argument is used to discount everything you have to say. "You don't agree with abortion even in the case of rape?! I don't care what you say about all the other abortions, you ####." And it goes downhill from there.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is the fear right now that birth control may be outlawed by the states. Obviously Paul has come out in favor of hormonal birth control in recent interviews, but he is also a big proponent of states' rights (did you know that about him? ;-) ). How can we assuage people's fears that he will allow states to outlaw the pill. It seems like that would be an incredibly difficult thing to actually get passed, but these conversations don't usually have much basis in reality.

 

[nobody]

The much more harmfull RAPE is being done to my pocketbook. I always believed men and woman are equal under our Constitution. There should be no such neccessity for dividing our citizenry on such an issue. In fact the issue of healthcare provision by our government is not as they claim, a REGULATION of commerce clause, but is rather the forced participation in the use of commerce. I am being forced to use commerce at the governments discretion, regulation has nothing to do with the purchase. Therefore I could be made to purchase anything or not purchase anything mandated by the will and health of our American economy. Sounds like prophesy fullfillment, to me. The numbers are clear.

 

[rag-time4]

This issue has got people pissed off right now! With all this stuff in the news about insurance, abortion, birth control, and women's health care, can someone help me formulate a good, reasonably complete, explanation of how Ron Paul is not "at war against women"? Something that would really differentiate him from those who are the worst offenders in the "war". Obviously I don't believe Dr. Paul is trying to hurt women's rights, and put women back in the kitchen, barefoot, but I don't know how to clearly articulate why I have such trust.

For example, the "honest rape" comment really hurt us, but it was (perhaps willfully) taken way out of context. The rape argument for abortion is a big straw man in my opinion, since it accounts for a relatively small percentage of abortions. But it is effectively used to make opponents look insensitive.

Ron Paul is not at war with women because A) He believes women should have access to birth control, but he is generally against federally funded social programs B) His belief that abortion is wrong is based on his belief that life begins at conception, and that after conception, the new life also has rights that must be protected.

You can support point A by pointing out that federal deficits and national debt based on borrowing and printing of money is inflationary, which causes the poor to become poorer and the rich to become richer. You can support point B by pointing out that as an OB Dr, Dr. Paul would be liable if something he did caused harm to an unborn baby still in its mother's womb.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

How is it anti-woman to say that she doesn't have to carry a child she didn't want, that was created against her will, that is the product of an act as horrible as rape? I wouldn't ask anyone to endure that. I'm one of the people you're talking about I guess. Ron himself has said that women who have been raped should be allowed to do the very thing you are railing against.

 

[Lishy]

How long after a rape do people even need to wait for an abortion? To my knowledge, you can simply get an estrogen shot a day or two after a rape, and be completely fine without abortion in the first place!

I'm sorry, but 6 months is a little late for a rape victim, don't you think?

 

[Aldanga]

How long after a rape do people even need to wait for an abortion? To my knowledge, you can simply get an estrogen shot a day or two after a rape, and be completely fine without abortion in the first place!

I'm sorry, but 6 months is a little late for a rape victim, don't you think?

And that's exactly what Ron said they should do. Obviously, there are extenuating circumstances where that's not possible, but those are not very common.

 

[otherone]

It's not the FEDERAL government's job to even be INVOLVED. It's not a FEDERAL issue.