Stephendipitous: The Debate on Women

With the eve of election night just weeks away, the competition for the presidency is becoming increasingly heated as polls narrow and support for the candidates evens out. The women vote is more important than ever as important female issues are presented in each party's platform and are the topic of conversation at the Vice Presidential Debate.

Excerpt of the debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/biden-ryan-debate-abortion_n_1960078.html?ref=topbar

What you see here is two men, of the same faith of Catholicism, who have the same religious views that life begins at the moment of conception. The key difference, though, is that while Ryan is willing to govern with those beliefs and create laws based on his religious doctrine, Biden says that he is unwilling to impose his religion on those who do not hold the same beliefs.

This is a little something called "the separation of church and state." As Ryan cites that the government is taking away their First Amendment right to practice religion, if he and Romney took office they would also be denying that same right to Americans who support a women's right to choose.

It seems wrong that laws can be derived from the religious beliefs of those in power. The founders of this country felt similarly and it was because of this religious tyranny that caused them to flee England and seek freedom in America.

Isn't it odd that the conservative and traditionalist nature of the Republican Party fails to see this as a distinct infringement on both the religion and the bodies of American citizens, mainly women?

Like Biden said, he respects the Catholic doctrine that life begins at conception in his own PERSONAL life, but refuses to impose that belief on those who do not practice the same religion.

What about that is wrong? Doesn't it seem more politically correct to govern a country of such vast view points with and open mind? The ability to separate personal beliefs for the good of the nation is vital for any good leader who is capable of looking at a situation from many points of view.

The Romney-Ryan ticket promises to govern in such a way that would completely outlaw abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or for the safety of the mother.

I would like to know the plan these two have for the children who are born to mothers who are living in poverty, underage, or otherwise unfit to be a mother.

With Big Bird and food stamps under attack, I am interested to see who is going to teach and feed these children who are born into environments where they are unable to be cared for properly.

It also frightens me that Ryan cites "science" as a reason for him being pro-life. The science of the matter is that if birth control is covered by insurance and made more available to women, less abortions are needed. So if the Romney-Ryan campaign really wanted to tackle abortion, it would make more sense for them to promote universal coverage of birth control. That way, abortion levels would lower significantly without having to take away rights that were fought for and won 50 years ago.

Outlawing abortion completely would not stop abortion from being practiced. It will drive the operations underground and force women to undergo dangerous circumstances to receive them. As a country,we have been in this place before. If it didn't work then it won't work now, especially in a time when women are more politically active than ever.

So, will women recognize that their bodies are on the line in this election? And even if they are undecided, will they come to the polls to voice their final decision?

In the 2008 election 65.7% of women turned out at the polls as compared to 61.5% of men. It will be interesting to see what those numbers are this year and what kind of impact the women vote had on this landmark election.