Shane Writes

Mitt Romney, at Wednesday’s CNN debate in Arizona. 

Hey, you know what prevents unwanted pregnancy? This.

Love the insinuation that poverty IS child abuse. And the racism. That throwaway remark is quite possibly one of the worst things to come out of last night’s debate.

I could say more, but Elon James White said it much better than I ever could:

I salute you, sir.

(via cognitivedissonance)

Yep, the most racist Mitt comment from last night’s debate. The worst.

(via sophiabiabia)

____________________

Birth control I have zero issues with (condoms, birth control pills and even plan B). I think you’d have to be an idiot to oppose those (or the Pope) so I won’t even touch up on those here. As for abortions, I’m not a big fan of abortion. 

In fact, I can probably claim that I’m Pro Life. But that doesn’t mean I’m not Pro Choice, which I’ll explain later.

I 100% understand the statistics and facts behind it. Abortions prevent unwanted children which in turn lowers the poverty rates, crime rates and other daunting statistics in society. 

But why can’t we work from both sides?

Why can’t we allow these services to continue (it doesn’t HAVE to be gov’t funded, there’s clearly a lot of public support and private funding for it) while at the same time educate the youth on the adverse effects of having children in broken homes or at a young age? We don’t have to be black or white about it because we don’t live in a black or white world. There are options and choices and an infinite number of ways to approach a situation and solve it. Let’s exercise that ability.

One thing I want to say about having such easy access to the abortion option is that many people become reliant on it and I totally understand that side of the argument. But there is a compromise. We can satisfy both extremes without eliminating one of them. 

Perhaps Chris Rock’s (great example, I know) idea about guns and bullets can be applied here. He once said that if bullets cost thousands of dollars each than people would be less willing to just shoot up a club or use the bullet for violence. And yet, at the same time, you wouldn’t have to outlaw guns and take away peoples ability and access to them. 

Maybe the same mentality can be applied to abortions and then both sides can shut the hell up. 

This is the one reason I like Ron Paul’s stance on abortions. He’s personally Pro Life. He’s against them as he values human life and spent decades delivering babies as an OBGYN. He thinks what we need to do is help the people correct their morality. Not to create laws or regulations to force people one way or the other. 

But at the same time, he doesn’t think that his morality or stance should be forced on to you. He doesn’t think the federal gov’t should regulate such a topic. And this is where many people misunderstand him. They think that his motion to repeal Roe vs Wade is the same as outlawing abortions.

It’s not. 

He actually wants to give the people the choice and that’s exactly what the constitution does, or was supposed to do. This should be a law that is decided on the state and/or local level. If people in California want to kill unborn children, that’s their choice. They should be able to vote for it through their own state level legislature. And if it passes and there are those that don’t like the law, they can simply move to a state where it is outlawed. 

That is or was the beauty of this country. A federal gov’t is only supposed to imposes the laws that are written in the Constitution and that’s it. Everything else is to be decided on a state level that way these small differences in ideals and morality don’t become epic battles that might ultimately determine who runs this country. 

See, you can be Pro Life yet Pro Choice at the same time. I guess you can just call me Pro Liberties.  

@Suga_Shane

(via sophiabiabia)