Would you vote for Dr. Paul?

[Traitorfish]

For not being pro-choice(many people make abortion a serious subject since it is, after all, a topic on whether the child is worthy of life). Not for being misogynist.

Being against abortion does not a mysoginist make. Honestly, that's a ridiculously sweeping generalisation.

But, as I've said, identification with the American "pro-life" movement in particular is in practice identification with anti-feminism and with misogyny. Perhaps Paul is to half-witted to see that, but that's only another mark against him.

Ownership of the fetus, yes, because without them, it wouldn't exist.

Rape isn't consensual. The woman relinquished any rights she had to full authority when she agreed to get pregnant.

Just mentally copy-paste my previous comments about "grotesqueness", if you could.

 

[RedRalph]

But, as I've said, identification with the American "pro-life" movement in particular is in practice identification with anti-feminism and with misogyny. Perhaps Paul is to half-witted to see that, but that's only another mark against him.

No, it isn't. A hell of a lot of them may well be mysoginist, but that isn't a reason to tar them all with the one brush. Abortion is a really, really complex issue. I think a lot of people may have nefarious reasons for opposing it, but i think a lot of people have very well-intentioned ones too.

It's not a topic I have a clear view on; for a few reasons I'm less inclined towards abortion than I used to be but there is a big difference between opposing it simply to control women and genuinely believing that life begins at conception, however misguided that view is.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, it isn't. A hell of a lot of them may well be mysoginist, but that isn't a reason to tar them all with the one brush. Abortion is a really, really complex issue. I think a lot of people may have nefarious reasons for opposing it, but i think a lot of people have very well-intentioned ones too.

It's not a topic I have a clear view on; for a few reasons I'm less inclined towards abortion than I used to be but there is a big difference between opposing it simply to control women and genuinely believing that life begins at conception, however misguided that view is.

I'm not just talking about anti-abortion positions in general, but about the American "Pro-Life" movement in particular, as a political movement. It's deeply embedded in the whole web of anti-feminist, anti-sex, deeply misogynist politics of the American religious right, and any politician who openly aligns himself with it, like Paul, is either committing himself to those politics, or demonstrating himself to be a half-wit. There may be well-meaning individuals who trail the movement, for want of a prominent anti-abortion movement without such a character, but they are neither its driving force nor its leadership, any more than people who are genuinely concerned the economic impact of mass unskilled immigration are the driving force or leadership of the American anti-immigration movement. If Paul was willing to set himself apart in some visible fashion, if he vigorously condemned those who use anti-choice politics as a platform for attacking women's reproductive health, access to contraception, etc, if he didn't simply lend some additional political weight to a movement committed to rolling women's rights back into the 19th century, then I might be more forgiving, but, as far as I know, he shows no such inclinations, so neither do I, nor do I imagine that many Americans to the left of centre would.

 

[RedRalph]

I agree with all of that, but if some kid who knowns no better and has always believed and been taight that a foetus is as human as you or me gets swept up in it, that doesn't make him or her a mysoginist. I suspect that's how they get a lot of them.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Yeah, for me and everyone else I know, Ralph, the issue is about the child, not the mother.

For me, the debate, while complex, can be simplified as: it's not life(pro-choice) vs it is life(pro-life). Women only seem to enter the debate when the pro-choice camp is talking about the other. It's a broad brush that is quite frankly, rather offensive.

I myself, don't care either way on abortion, since you know, we have a dozen other issues at minimum affecting people already alive.

 

[Kraznaya]

Why the hell do all of his cultists insist on calling him "Dr." Paul?

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, for me and everyone else I know, Ralph, the issue is about the child, not the mother.

For me, the debate, while complex, can be simplified as: it's not life(pro-choice) vs it is life(pro-life). Women only seem to enter the debate when the pro-choice camp is talking about the other. It's a broad brush that is quite frankly, rather offensive.

I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be ignoring every word that I said in my last post. That certain individuals oppose abortion on non-misogynistic grounds does not speak one way or the other as to the character of the American (and international) "Pro-Life" movement as a political movement. Paul may have non-misogynistic reasons for opposing abortion (although given his cruddy racial and sexual politics, I wouldn't hold my breath), but that's all just fluff if what it actually manifests itself as if support for a fundamentally reactionary, anti-feminist political movement.

Why the hell do all of his cultists insist on calling him "Dr." Paul?

Because "His Holiness" was considered a bit to European for the American voting public.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be ignoring every word that I said in my last post. That certain individuals oppose abortion on non-misogynistic grounds does not speak one way or the other as to the character of the American (and international) "Pro-Life" movement as a political movement. Paul may have non-misogynistic reasons for opposing abortion (although given his cruddy racial and sexual politics, I wouldn't hold my breath), but that's all just fluff if what it actually manifests itself as if support for a fundamentally reactionary, anti-feminist political movement.

I didn't ignore it, I just don't see why movements can't change...

Sure, let's say pro-life sentiment was originally misoygnist. But could the movement as a whole be beyond change?

Like the Democrats, once staunch supporters of slavery, and Republicans, staunch advocates for its abolition... what each name represents has greatly changed, and I'd say the same could go for pro-life sentiment.

 

[Traitorfish]

I didn't ignore it, I just don't see why movements can't change...

Sure, let's say pro-life sentiment was originally misoygnist. But could the movement as a whole be beyond change?

It could, but I don't see any particular reason to believe that it has. If anything, the increasing acceptance of abortion, birth control, and so forth, in society at large has lead it to become even more entrenched in these politics, even more dominated by Religious Right and anti-feminist politics.

And, again, I'm not talking about mere "sentiment", but about the actual political movement which emerged as a roughly self-concious entity in the US in the wake of Roe vs Wade, and formed one of the cornerstones of the general anti-feminist backlash.

Like the Democrats, once staunch supporters of slavery, and Republicans, staunch advocates for its abolition... what each name represents has greatly changed, and I'd say the same could go for pro-life sentiment.

Political parties, especially of the loose American model- virtually a franchise- really don't constitute discrete, self-concious political movements.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action:

Too many god damn options, just make it yes or no.

No, I would not. I support sane politicians.

This is an RD thread. Please post as such. Elaborate on your point.

And I've left out the matter of race.

Face it, he's really not much of a libertarian.

And it's a good thing you did continue to leave that out, given the previous warning to do so. Perhaps, however, you should not have mentioned your exclusion of it from your post?

Hardly a sweeping condemnation, useless, given abortion's prominent status and thus being pro-life is by no means an extremist view.

For some, the fetus' status of eventually becoming a person makes it worthy of life. For others, the fetus' status of not being a person yet makes it unworthy of life. Simple as that.

It means he's a misogynist, though, and I don't like misogynists. Just because you have a country full of them doesn't exactly change my mind on that.

How is supporting the rights of the unborn a qualification for misogyny?

Pro-lifers believe the unborn child to be deserving of the right to life because it will eventually become a human being. Ergo, the female has no right to terminate its life any more than a mother could terminate the life of an infant outside the womb.

Also, the man created the baby too. So, following basic property theory, he has a voice in this matter as well.

Now, if the woman has a chance of dying herself, it's more analogous to a perverse self-defense, so she would have a right to terminate it for certain.

Using that logic, Useless, denying the man a voice is inherently misandristic because you are effectively denying men the control over their own unborn child.

Sure, the women bears it, but the child is half the male's as well.

What pro-lifers formally espouse and the actual substance of their ideology don't really meet up quite that evenly. To separate the movement from the general anti-feminist backlash of the last few decades, something which is intrinsically misogynistic, is to indulge in a serious sloppiness of an analysis. Dr. Paul is part of that backlash, however much he dresses himself up as a "social liberal".

That may be the origin of pro-life sentiment, but I strongly doubt most pro-lifers are anti-feminist...

Like my mother. Oh, what a woman hater, typical ma- wait a minute. She's a woman and pro-life. Does not compute!

Maybe there's something besides sexism in the decision to be pro-life, eh?



People own what they make. Since the unborn is not a person, theoretically, that means it is an object. An object made from a man and a woman combining genetic material.

So, it is as much his as the woman's, really.

Sure, she bears it... but the man likely helps her out a lot. So it should definitely be a split-even decision.

I'm sorry, how exactly did you make the jump from "woman" to "feminist"? I mean, presumably you're aware of Margaret Thatcher, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, etc? (And let's not bring up Sarah Palin's quaint little brand of anti-feminist feminism up, because if I don't want to end up rolling my eyes so hard they come out of my ears.)

And, yes, I'm sure that individually there may be. But a as a movement? I don't think it can be meaningfully separated from the conservative, anti-feminist milieu which spawned it.


Yeah, I'm just going to leave this as a testament to its own grotesqueness. There's really nothing I could add to it.

That may have been the origin of it, but I doubt most pro-life individuals are anti-feminists this day and age. I have repeatedly heard, "unborn child" and whatnot, but have never really heard "women belong to men" and whatnot.



What's grotesque about my wife having to consult me before killing my unborn son or daughter?

The fetus is not a person, so it is clearly property(read: object). And as such, the debate for who owns the property can be initiated.

Well, I'm not really interest in an extended debate about this, so just I'll just go back to the start and say that for the reasons I have given, Paul's anti-choice politics are more likely to turn away liberal voters than you seem to believe. They ten not to approach the issue with such credulity as to believe that Paul, unlike all the other anti-choice rightists, really does just care about unborn children.


A foetus is, in practice, part of a woman's body until it is born. You are suggesting that men can gain partial ownership of women by impregnating them. (Even if the pregnancy resulted from rape, I wonder? It would be the logical conclusion of your argument.) That is what I would call "grotesque".

etc.

It would be preferred if you didn't stray into tangents like this. You're welcomed (and encouraged) to start another thread on the issue, but you should be keeping the discussion here fairly focused on Ron Paul. Both Tanicius' and Traitorfish's original comments in this exchange are perfectly on-topic, but from there it starts to develop a life of its own.

Why the hell do all of his cultists insist on calling him "Dr." Paul?

Please make sure your posts are more contributive in RD threads. 'Cultists' isn't a very nice label.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Considering that he is a libertarian, that generally means bad news to the rest of us. The current financial mess is a result of libertarian nonsense and I would not want to see that go any further. Thankfully most of the world rejects this nonsense of a political philosophy.

The economic ignorance on this forum is astounding, perhaps I overrated how well-read Civs fans truly are. The good news is that we can remedy this. Start your economics education here: Thomas Woods speaks about his book Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=541bajR4k8g

 

[IglooDame]

The economic ignorance on this forum is astounding, perhaps I overrated how well-read Civs fans truly are. The good news is that we can remedy this. Start your economics education here: Thomas Woods speaks about his book Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse

Way to make a first impression. But anyway, welcome to OT.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Way to make a first impression. But anyway, welcome to OT.

Gotta dust off the old screen name once in a while

 

[Cutlass]

The economic ignorance on this forum is astounding, perhaps I overrated how well-read Civs fans truly are. The good news is that we can remedy this. Start your economics education here: Thomas Woods speaks about his book Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=541bajR4k8g

Welcome. But the "free market" did it. There's really no doubt about that. This is what happens when finance can do any damned thing it pleases. It takes reckless risks.

 

[amadeus]

But the "free market" did it.

Blame the free market that doesn't actually exist, gin up some outrage, and push the state to control even more of our lives and make the problem worse. When it gets worse, repeat the process.

 

[Traitorfish]

Blame the free market that doesn't actually exist, gin up some outrage, and push the state to control even more of our lives and make the problem worse. When it gets worse, repeat the process.

And yet you still kick and scream and hiss in defence of giving that class exorbitant tax breaks. Weird, huh?

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Welcome. But the "free market" did it. There's really no doubt about that. This is what happens when finance can do any damned thing it pleases. It takes reckless risks.

There really is no "free market" when the Federal Reserve manipulates the market, interest rates, and the entire system with their loose monetary policy.

Did you watch the video? Answer: No

 

[Cutlass]

Blame the free market that doesn't actually exist, gin up some outrage, and push the state to control even more of our lives and make the problem worse. When it gets worse, repeat the process.

There really is no "free market" when the Federal Reserve manipulates the market, interest rates, and the entire system with their loose monetary policy.

Did you watch the video? Answer: No

You're both just making excuses so that people don't have to be responsible for their actions. But if you actually look at what was going on, the market actors fought to get regulations removed. Once they were removed, they took reckless actions. To say anything compelled the private sector to take any of the actions which caused the problem is ridiculous. They fought to take those actions.

 

[amadeus]

You're both just making excuses so that people don't have to be responsible for their actions.

Prime-pumper Cutlass comes back to save the day and lecture us all on "responsibility," like bailing out bad banks, bad car companies, bad mortgages. Throw the good money at the bad, make all of us poorer, wag your finger and talk down to us, and repeat The Big Lie about how "deregulation" caused the crisis.

All I can do is hope the electorate is smarter than to buy that!

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Blame the free market that doesn't actually exist, gin up some outrage, and push the state to control even more of our lives and make the problem worse. When it gets worse, repeat the process.

Don't forget going to those people that were completely blindsided by the economic meltdown for advice. People like Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner...is it any wonder that they bailed out their friends at Goldman Sachs?

Remember it was the true free market economists(libertarians) that were shouting from the rooftops not to proceed with TARP and the bailouts. Both McCain and Obama rushed back to Washington to handover everything the rich bankers wanted on a silver platter. Obama to this day is still a puppet of Wall Street.