26 votes

Rand Paul: New Personhood Law Will End Abortion ‘Once And For All’

U.S. Senator Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite, is advocating for Congress to make a new law, a “personhood” law, called the Life at Conception Act,” establishing that human life begins at conception, and extending the 14th Amendment to all fetuses.

Paul in the audio message calls law “legal mumbo jumbo,” yet tells supporters, “we in Congress have the right to legally define when life begins,” regardless of what the truth is.

http://youtu.be/9-0qPVwKRdc

http://thenewcivilrightsm...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The New Debate: Age & Health if we don't protect Life

Nah, lets do this instead?
http://www.dailypaul.com/264753/obamacare-preview-in-uk-sick...

IMO We need to quit talking about the fictitious women or circumstance and UNDERSTAND that we will never see Liberty if we do not protect life.

There is nothing that separates you or me from a sick infant except for age and health.

Do you not understand what Ron Paul meant when he said: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em...

Nice purple prose.....now

Nice purple prose.....now let's move to specifics: Why wouldn't you hold the woman accountable for her actions? Please elaborate.

Yes, I saw that. Of course,

Yes, I saw that. Of course, I'd leave it up completely the states. The main difference between (apparently) is that I believe that the federal government should not make a "declaration" about this one way or the other. The feds didn't do that before Roe v. Wade. They shouldn't do it now. Let's return to the status quo, in terms of states rights, pre-Roe. You apparently disagree.

The fed took the states

The fed took the states rights away with Roe v Wade. How are the states going to get back their right? I would like to understand how Rand's bill is differen't than Ron's. Do you understand the difference? If you have any words to share, I'm all ears.

States rights apply equally

States rights apply equally to states who want to legalize or prohibit bill right? The bill Rand supports would interfere with the states (probably a majority of them!) who continue to have it illegal. You can uphold states rights by violating the very concept. I don't know we get it back, except by a constitutional amendment repealing Roe and prohibiting federal intervention on either side.

But murder is not a federal

But murder is not a federal crime, it is handled by the states, so that is what I am trying to figure out in my mind. Ron Paul's act was not an amendment. It granted life at conception which I assume would have the same impact with the 14th amendment however that Amendment says BORN. Have you read it? Anyways, that is what I am trying to sort out in my mind. Ron Paul's act said to grant the states the right to PROTECT. Did you like Ron Paul's act? Have you read both Rand and Ron's?

I confess, I should have been asking alot more questions last week instead of saying what I think I know. I just stand for life, but the states are who should have jurisdiction either way.

Both Rand and Ron's legislation overturn R v W by granting life at conception. The only thing not in rands bill is the thing about the states. I wonder if that is a problem?

I'm trying to find an answer to that kind of question, too

And I'm not finding it. All I'm getting is "how could you support the murder of 50 million babies" and liberty speeches (which are great--I'm not discouraging that).

But no concrete answers on how to clamp down on abortion "once and for all." I have to assume that the prolife position is that women will have no legal access to abortion services, or will have access but it will be covert/illegal, and I'm assuming will risk prosecution and imprisonment if caught having or having had an abortion. And that anyone providing such a service will also risk imprisonment. What would the penalty be--a fine, some jail time, 6 months in prison, 10 years? Life imprisonment, or if not, why not? It's murder, right?

If that is what some on here are proposing, then I would appreciate it if someone just came out and said it.

It is not a justification

A crime is not justification for committing another crime. Also, the fetus is not the one who committed a crime - it is completely innocent.

I don't understand

Is this supposed to be a federal law? He really thinks this will end abortions?

As his father has taught us, the FED should never regulate anything and should only protect our rights. Also, it's unrealistic to think you can legislate morality.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like children being killed, but abortions will occur whether we like them or not and this is not the road Ron would have taken.

Rand is...

...trying to do just that; protect life. We do have the right to life.

The Declaration of Independence says "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It seems to me -- and please note I'm not speaking about you personally -- that a number of people who are so concerned, as they should be, regarding the right to liberty forget about the life part (except for their own). That's not freedom.

His Father, Dr. Ron Paul, Advocated Federal Sanctity of Life Act

which he sponsored in 2005, 2007, 2009 & 2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act :
"The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[7][8] "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."[9] By contrast, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 amended 1 U.S.C. § 8 to provide that legal personhood includes all Homo sapiens who are "born alive".[10]

Section 2(b)(2) of the Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.[11] Such legislative declarations are nonbinding statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges."

If it is treated as murder

Then it will likely go the way of murder, which does not happen too often (excluding the hand of our Federal Government overseas), compared to abortions.

Current statistics:

In 2008, ~1.2 Million (documented) abortions occurred in the US. Compare this to the number of (documented) US murders in 2008 (abortions excluded): ~16,400.

Then the states that think it should be

treated as murder can pass legislation for their own state.

Giving any power to the federal government is asking for them to give you a trickle-down system.

First it's "we control who gets to get rid of their baby"
Then it's "we control who gets to keep their baby"

And the reason why we see a difference in numbers between murders and abortions is because of the mindset people have. If I think marijuana is good, do you think the law is going to change my perception of it? No. You have to change people's opinion of abortion, changing the law won't do anything.

I agree

With everything you said here.

I think some people here are mistaken

He never said that it'd end abortion. He only said it'd end "abortion on demand," which I assume is some legal jargon which means that anyone can just enter any hospital or abortion clinic and get an abortion done, no questions asked.

He never said it'd stop black market abortions, or abortions done in alleyways. Nothing short of teaching children the sanctity of life, as well as accompanying teachings to reinforce having a low out-of-wedlock pregnancy (or, preferably, sexing) rate, and an increase of awareness and appreciation of adoption and increased personal responsibility, would stop that. In other words, a total cultural change. But drawing the line in the sand would demand people to really examine their own views on life and what's okay or not okay to do to another human being, and why.

example:

Why is it okay to agree with a bill in our own state that allows teenagers to end another person's life if they are too young to have a heartbeat yet?

I don't expect people to start becoming pro-lifers due to thinking things through (though some do). But this bill is good and okay.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

A check in favor of him

Hadn't Ron Paul been trying to put through a similar bill before, like every year of his congressional life? Yes, let the states deal with what is acceptable or not acceptable violence against another human being, but I do agree that it's all right for Rand Paul to be making this move. Irrationally supporting Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional: this move, which brings the Constitution back into play, would remind Congress that *they* are the law-makers, not the judges.

Birth is a right. The birth doesn't *have* to be a good birth, or to a good life, or an ideal one, but birth itself is an inalienable right. Scientifically, the unborn is a separate individual, whose cells are actively multiplying and consuming and producing and whatnot, and is therefore alive. And as a separate individual, is entitled to not be deliberately killed, just like any other individual.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

Just think how many

problems will go away if people procreate based on their ability to feed their own children.

Do not procreate on instinct, do not rely on a prayer for miracle help or government to steal for you.

Unhealthy obsession with fertilized eggs only helps to multiply the poor and makes a free society less achievable. Despite what religious fanatics would tell you, most states and most countries (including old USSR and old China) have restrictions on abortions in the third trimester.

Let the states decide

I'm not from the states but with what I know about how your country works, I would leave issues such as these to the states. I believe using a federal law to outlaw abortions after conception is very authoritarianism, let the states decide. Then again I'm for pro choice so my statement is biased haha

Won't end abortion

The only way to end abortion is to have humans lay eggs. Until then, when a women does not want to be pregnant, she will find a way to stop it. Are we going to start initiating force on women who don't want to be pregnant to stay pregnant, and pray tell, HOW would that be enforced? I have yet to hear how that could be done in any sensible way.

This is not to say that people shouldn't argue against it. I'm all for people making their pro-life stance clear. Women are in a vulnerable state when they are contemplating abortion, and if they have support and pro-life arguments that make sense for them, then that's great. I'm in no way slamming pro-lifers. They have a very big role to play. But this "ending abortion once and for all" is utter nonsense.

See? He's lying again to win votes.

Outlawing abortions does not stop them.
He can make them illegal, he cannot stop them.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

That is right...that part

That is right...that part about making them illegal wil not stop them. But I don't understand the part about him lying.

I don't know who thinks that there is any way at all possible to keep illegal activity from happening. However, that does not mean that such an activity should be made legal.

I suppose you are anti Rand?

More about money than votes

that's the sick part.

Give me fifty dollars and I'll save the 56 million dead babies

He's hit a new low. He knows full well this law has no chance but that pulling on the heartstrings of prolifers with emotional blackmail talk of 56 million babies being killed is money in the bank.

When a teenager's mind is

When a teenager's mind is made up, you cannot stop them. They will not listen. I know. Do it yourself abortions will only grow putting mother and child at risk. Unclean, unsafe back ally clinics will appear to exploit these poor, vulnerable teenagers.

"With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past." ~ Aaron Swartz

Lets See...A fictitious teenager MIGHT get a back alley abortion

Lets See...A fictitious teenager MIGHT get a back alley abortion putting herself at risk while she is murdering her baby so let’s make abortion legal and murder 50 MILLION babies to protect your fabricated murdering teenager.

A bank robber might get him/herself shot, so lets save the bank robber and make bank robbing legal?

Most abortions were not "back

Most abortions were not "back alley" before Roe but by competent doctors who were protected by politicians and police who needed "favors" for their families or others. The same will occur again if make abortion illegal again. The "back alley abortion" is pretty much a myth on both sides.

good for him!

I'll support it!!!

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Good for him...

...without respecting the unalienable right of Life for all human beings, endowed on them by their Creator (or natural law, if you like), our Liberty will only be a hollow shell, a house built on a foundation of sand.

The problem: define human

The problem: define human being. Lots of people don't agree with you. If people don't agree with you, they will also use the term "liberty," except in reference to the mother. Thus the impasse. Only solution is to convince the vast majority of Americans to see it as you do. Tough job.