Rand Paul Cosponsors Life at Conception Act
Submitted by bobbyw24 on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 17:20WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, Senator Rand Paul will join Senator Roger Wicker as an original sponsor of the Life at Conception Act. This legislation declares that the unborn are persons, as prescribed in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
This legislation does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions.
From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
http://www.randpaul2010.com/2011/01/rand-paul-cosponsors-lif...
- Login to post comments
bump
for a healthy exchange of opinions.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
My website: http://www.libertypoet.com/
STAND WITH RAND 2016
Indeed...
I'm impressed with the relative civility of the posters here. DP has come a long way. Guess the threat of getting banned works?
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
What our Founding Fathers said about "life" is the key.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Definition of unalienable: Not to be separated, given away, or taken away.
Definition of life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
This is very clear to me. Ron and Rand Paul are also very clear in how this is to be interpreted.
Scott Peterson was convicted and sentenced to death in 2005 for TWO murders, Laci and her UNBORN child. If a woman "wants" her unborn baby, then it is life. If she does not, then it is not life. Does anyone else see the conditional and selective application of the law in this example?
"Definition of life:"
"manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."
An egg that has been fertilized for 1 minute has no metabolism, reproduction (in the context of this definition), response to stimuli, etc.... YET.
It's understandable that folks are adverse to abortions performed on fetuses that are quite developed, but to extend that same compassion to a 1 minute old egg is part of the rub here.
The War on Abortion is like the War on Drugs. It is impossible to win. The libertarian solution is to *persuade* others against abortion through compassion and education, not through force.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
I have a
grandma and several aunts and uncles that do not experience growth, reproduction, adaptation to the environment, are you saying that they should be aborted and their kids get their inheritance?
Lets get rid of all those useless eaters right.
yes, they do...
their hair, skin & fingernails grow. They react enormously to stimuli in their environment, they metabolize food, and there is a world of difference between them and a minute old egg.
This distinction is a BIG issue, and IMO hurts the pro-life movement. This movement would make much more headway if they recognized that an egg fertilized 1 minute before is not the same as a 3 month old baby.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
I will agree
that a minite old fetus is not the same as a three month old baby as it is far more fragile, and not quite as cute. I will point out that the minute old fetus is growing, and in a few weeks have its own fingernails, I am not sure how cell division at the level a day old is not considered growth please explain. By the time the woman finds out she is pregnant the little guy in her womb is metabolizing food also.
Also I have stated before since I am for the death penalty I do not consider myself pro life, I consider myself anti abortion, I have found out that a large chunk of abortions go against the wishes of the girl having the abortions but her parents, boyfriend, dss, molester make her have one and planned parent hood knowing this is against the girls wishes happily kills her baby. Hiding behind patient confidentiality I know of cases where nine year old girls have gone in to get abortions with no questions asked, and it was in one case her third one. But hey its her choice right.
"minite old fetus" - no such thing
don't mean to split hairs, but a fetus is: "an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal"
It's still just basically an egg (technically a zygote, I think) that goes through division for days. I maintain that this egg should not have the same compassion or protection or legal standing as the fetus, and that is a stumbling block for the anti-abortion folks.
I like your distinction, BTW, between prolife & anti-abortion, and wish all would adapt that outlook.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
ok when do you think the protection
should kick in?
Frankly by the time the woman finds out she is pregnant the heart is usually already beating. Is it alright to protect it then?
Pro life gives it a positive spin like pro choice. I disagree with both because their is a lot of pro life people for the death penalty and I disagree with the pro choice people because you practically have to keep your fingers in your ears to miss how many times girls have no choice in this. Every body wants to be pro something because pro is feel good although it is not always technically correct.
You are correct, language perverts concepts.
Pro-life people for the death penalty? That is not true, there are perhaps anti-abortion people who are for the death penalty, but any attempt by someone to say they are Pro-life and for the death penalty is pure perversion.
grant
I agree with you totally on the monikers they give themselves...
and as to when to draw the line? That's the hard part and I don't have the answer. It's a very grey line, which may be why the anti-abortion crowd has to pick the "at conception" line, which IS a solid line.
I just think, again, that the simple egg is not the same as the developed fetus, and drawing the line at conception is counter-productive to the anti-abortion crowd, which means Rand Paul in this discussion.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
I think I understand your point
You think that the little zigot is not cute, does not have organs and is not implanted yet, so why put the line there, but that there should be a line somewhere you are just uncomfortable putting it somewhere? I can understand that and to some degree respect that, but the truth is that having a solid line would be nice but I will take what I can get. Honestly it is the "prochoice" crowd that makes me mad because of the reasons why I stated before. If they were just pro abortion I would not be as bothered, but calling it choice puts me in a bad mood.
Eh..I agree with you. Even
Eh..I agree with you. Even trees have "life" according to definition and fact. As for human life, I say, if it does not breathe, eat, and crap normally it is not alive. NOT saying I completely agree with abortion, BUT I do not want to see federal laws against it.
The metabolism part, I would not agree with.
The Activation of Gamete Metabolism
If calcium ion release is necessary for the activation of the oocyte, how does the sperm cause it to occur? We do not really know. As one investigator (Berridge 1993) stated, “Just how the sperm triggers the explosive release of calcium in the egg is still something of a mystery.” Recent data suggest that the production of inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate (IP3) is the primary mechanism for releasing calcium ions from their intracellular storage.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10029/
If every woman aborted their baby for the next hundred year, human life would be over in a generation. Ergo, something must be wrong with abortion.
"If every woman aborted their baby for the next...".
"If every woman aborted their baby for the next hundred year, human life would be over in a generation. Ergo, something must be wrong with abortion."
I don't think you can draw that conclusion. If every woman did that, then I would not conclude something was wrong with abortion, I'd say something was wrong with mankind, or maybe it's better to say 'womankind' here! :)
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
Steve... which is why I stipulated...
"in the context" of your definition of 'life'. That definition is intended to portray a larger body of life, but your response regarding metabolism is on a very microscopic level.
We usually think of metabolism as from eating food, digesting it, and using it for functions.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act"
Apparently, Ron Paul doesn't think it inappropriate to enact Federal legislation with regard to this issue (Thanks to theguy).
For those of you interested:
http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/034987.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act
If you want to understand pro-life "libertarians",
it is helpful to look at slavery.
Let's say "Jack" believes the slave is a "person" who should be recognized as such under law. Let's say "Joe" regards the slave as "property".
Here is what I am getting at. If Joe believes a slave is mere property, than he is likely to feel outrage at anyone attempting to legally interfere with his property rights. He very well may accuse them of immorally imposing their "belief system" upon him.
However, for Jack, who truly believes the slave to be a human being ("person"), it is impossible to ignore the abuse of the slave's natural rights. It's nothing personal toward Joe - in fact, it has nothing to do with Joe. It has everything to do with Slave.
On a side note, I wonder whether libertarians split over the issue of whether slavery should or should not have been outlawed at the Federal level with the 13th amendment.... I have never heard Ron Paul's position on this amendment. If anyone has access to it, I'd be very interested in reading it.
I think there are a multiplicity of motivations
on both sides of the argument. To speak only to your metaphor, not all pro-life libertarians approach the issue as one of slavery; and many who don't think the government should be involved do approach it as a slavery issue.
If women are forced to bear unwanted kids, you can't get much more enslaved than that. This is too personal an issue and far too complex for a one-size-fits-all political solution.
As with almost all personal issues, this is one that should be worked on at the community level, family level. The problem of unwanted kids will not be fixed by politicians. It is a deep cultural issue and there are no short cuts.
The loss of ethics and responsibility and community and family support are the main factors in this problem.
amen
good comment, Lao Tzua!
Mises.org
Know your stuff, learn real history and economics @LibertyClassroom.com
TenBob -
Thanks :) If you have some time, you would probably enjoy this lecture by Peter Kreeft, a pro-life philosopher.... it's dynamite. It's a very entertaining philosophical proof - if that's what you call it. There's a transcript too if you prefer to read:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/19_prolife-philosophy.htm
This issue generates so much heat - it's nice to hear someone tackle it with the coolness of logic.
Take care. :)
Thank you both.
Correct, it is good to have people with the talent of tackling this issue coolness of logic.
grant
Good point.
Perhaps stewardship is a better word. Ownership of a child implies superior rights.
grant
Here we go again with a new war on the already born public.
Have not those who seek to control our lives learned that certain things are popular and attempting to prohibit them leads to disrespect for the law and the government, corrupts government officials, and results in far more human suffering?
Drudge today had a link to an article that indicated that 35% of women have abortions by age 45. Does that sound like something that is a deviation from societal norms?
Rand Paul is demonstrating his indoctrination and lack of rationality. Who is going to pay for the war against those 35% of women just to enforce Rand's religious views? He may have some libertarian values, but clearly he has some sanity issues.
Even Ron says this is not a federal issue, so where does Rand come off trying to expand the power of the federal government?
Liberty isn't given to us; it is taken by us, and if not, we will not have it.
Rothbard on Abortion
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
the first peg of liberty is responsibility
If you make a baby you are responsible for the baby. We live in a society that says if you make a baby by accedent you do not have to be responsible for the baby (abortion). Has liberty increased or decreased since then? In any country with abortion has liberty increased or decreased since then. Fact cuba aborts seven out of every ten pregnancies, is that a place of liberty?
Fact is this guy says abortion promotes liberty give us a practical real world example where pro abortion laws were followed by pro liberty laws.
Liberty laws are always laws that demand responsibility first. If you have only laws establishing or promoting responsibility you will have very few laws. And you will have people figuring out how to get along because they will have no other choice.
So the unborn has no rights under the Constitution?
Rothbard's argument is rather narrow, ignoring the rights of the unborn entirely. Obviously, there is a conflict of rights on this issue. The Constitution does not delineate when life begins. To accept his argument, one would have to make the assumption the fetus is property, not life. One would also have to assume the mother's rights are superior to those of the unborn child.
Undo what Wilson did
Here is a Libertarian property rights critique
of Walter Block's abortion stance which is very similar to Rothbard's.
Link http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-16.pdf
Here is an excerpt
"Now, it seems to me that the conjunction of the premises that it is X who is responsible for bringing Y onto his property and that it is X who is responsible for then removing Y from his property, when it is known that the outside circumstances are lethal, implies that X is responsible for Y’s death and hence is a murderer (X is the crucial and indispensable element of every link of the causal chain in question). To bring up some additional analogies— it appears obvious to me that pushing someone out of one’s room into an area full of blazing flames, poisonous fumes, etc., would count as an instance of murder. But these types of situations are strictly parallel to the case of abortion (again, let us remember that we are talking about the scenarios in which there are no methods of removing the fetus from the womb without killing it). To the fetus, the outside world is a lethal place, and if it is the mother who is responsible for bringing it into the safe haven of the womb (analogous to the airplane from one of our previous examples) and it is the mother who now wants to expel it from that safe haven, it is also the mother who is taking upon herself the direct responsibility for the fetus’s death (the mother is the crucial and indispensable element of every link of the causal chain in question)."
Mises.org
Know your stuff, learn real history and economics @LibertyClassroom.com
.
.
My favorite people in the world: Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Peter Schiff, Judge Napolitano, Milton Friedman, Bob Barr, and John Stossel
Thanks!
For posting Rothbard! I love to see his theories in writing. For a new liberty opened my mind to a libertarian society. Audiobooks on www.Mises.org for anyone interested. It's a great piece of work
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution
"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT