Jennifer, you're not making sense.
That is what I thought too. But I was told today by a staffer, that he wants his bill to pass, and then refuse to give states any federal funding for anything (like roads, etc.) if they allow abortions in their state. So you may not call it a ban, but it will act like one.
I find this "report" suspicious. In fact, part of the point of this whole campaign is that the states should not be receiving
any "funding" from the feddle gummint for anything. Of course such "funding" has been used to dictate the behavior of the states. There is no provision in the Constitution for any such "funding", so I would assume that President Paul would simply veto any bill which provided federal "funding" to any state for anything. Which would completely take care of the problem of federal "funding" being used to dictate states' behavior.
We don't allow anyone to be subjugated to anyone in this society for any reason.
Except "we" (not I, but you)
do allow anyone who is not yet born to be subjugated to es mother, even to the point of being killed at whim.
Why is this pro-life argument always so anti a woman's life? Why does the zygote have more rights than the fully formed human woman?
Not so long ago, many were asking, why does a human male have more rights than a human female? Or a black human less rights than a white human? If you're going to start drawing lines between different types of humans, better be careful, 'cause it's going to come back and bite you.
And what about the 9 year old who gets raped.
9-year-old girls can become pregnant now? This whole hormones-in-everything fad has gotten way out of hand.
Where do the rights of the woman come in? How come we have none.
Under the Constitution, women have the same rights as men: no less
and no more. If a man cannot kill at whim with impunity, then a woman should not have that freedom; if a woman can kill at whim with impunity, then any man should be able to do the same. That is, if you want to live in a Constitutional Republic.
If you don't want to live in a Constitutional Republic, but instead in a "democracy" of endlessly competing victim groups, where "both sexes are equal, but one sex is more equal than the other" -- then you're right at home now. But you might not like it, I'm guessing, since you seem to be involved with the Ron Paul campaign.
Yup, wanting liberty for women is a huge problem. Women don't deserve any.
Anyone "deserves" liberty, who is able and willing to be responsible for its use. Anyone who is not willing to be responsible, does not deserve liberty. This is not necessarily an absolute, all or nothing. When I was a teenager, my father told me I could have as much freedom as I was prepared to be responsible for. It was understood that there were some things I was not free to do -- e.g. drive the family car -- because I simply was not ready to assume the associated responsibility. That's how children are reared. But "freedom" without responsibility is poison -- for an individual, or for a society.
This is why so many people are passionate about this issue: A society which slaughters wholesale its own children is a psychopathic society, which will behave accordingly in every other area as well.
My core belief is liberty. I will not throw any group under the bus to get it for a few.
On the contrary, that apparently is exactly what you want to do. You want special privileges for females, and no rights for anyone who has the ill luck to have accepted an invitation to conception from a female who later changes her mind.
If this campaign is not about liberty then what is it about? Freedom for men? Freedom for the unborn? But not freedom for women?
It is about
equal freedom for everyone, regardless of sex, race, religion, or other differences. Equal means equal: not more, not less. No special exemptions for this or that group.
I'm sorry, I know it's difficult. But that's life: nothing of consequence in life is easy. Two principles: (1) Freedom (or liberty) requires responsibility. (2) If you want freedom for yourself, you must be willing to allow equal freedom for others.
So many unborn out there just waiting to come into this overcrowded earth.
That is a separate issue. In fact I agree, and would prefer to see the human population maybe 1/10 what it is now. But killing is not the way to get there. The only way to get there without leaving a huge trail of karma -- and tens of millions of "souls" who have to come in again to complete their stories, again and again, every time they are aborted -- is by a fundamental change in human behavior, leading to a worldwide outbreak of self-restraint. Abortion as a solution for overpopulation is like heroin -- which was originally developed as a "cure" for morphine addiction (look it up).
I note that none of the abortion promoters ever seem to have been aborted themselves. There are, in fact, a small number of people who have been aborted and survived -- e.g.
Gianna Jessen -- none of whom, so far as I know, seem to be very enthusiastic about abortion.
All that said, again, I do not advocate making abortion illegal -- even on the state level -- because it will not work. If it would, that is if women were willing to handle their freedom -- their power (the greatest power in this world) to make new life -- responsibly, then it would not be necessary to make it illegal, because it wouldn't be happening anyway. So, since women do have the power to create life, and to destroy life, if they're not willing to restrain their use of the latter (which would not be necessary if they used the former responsibly), then the culture, to be sane, must return to treating them as what they are: human beings who cannot be expected to be responsible. That is, like children. It's the schizophrenic pretense that is most unhealthy.
And this goes double if it is true -- as many abortion proponents imply and some even state -- that women are not merely unwilling but actually
incapable of controlling their sexual impulses. "I couldn't help it!" tearfully she cried. If this is truly the case, then women as a class -- before menopause at least -- must, for their own good, like children, not be allowed out without supervision. Which brings us right back to the Bad Old Days of the Patriarchy. No, I don't like it; I'd prefer to live in a culture of responsible adults. But reality must be faced.
I have an idea: Wall off a certain section of every city; some inner-city neighborhoods are already good candidates. Make that section a free-fire zone, in which anyone and everyone, male or female, any age, any color, can kill at will with impunity. Every state must have at least one, or several, places where this could be done. Thus any woman who wanted to contract for an abortion would have some place nearby to do so, in an appropriate environment, where everyone's "rights" would be equal -- i.e. the same as the "rights" of the child she's decided to kill. Then the issue would be clear: either a society based on the rule of law, with equal rights for everyone, or a society based on complete lack of law, with equal lack of rights for everyone. Take your pick.
