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...

Comment viewing options

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

Humans are humans...

...regardless of what stage of development they're at. A human life is scientifically a human life whether it's one day after conception or one day after birth or 12 years old or 21 or 100.

I'm not going to purport that

I'm not going to purport that you are a religious conservative or a creationist, but I just have to say that it is ironic when science is used as an argument by your average pro-lifer. Perhaps this does not describe you. Anyway, to your point, I don't think you would have much disagreement about it in that context, but when you put an unwilling mother into the equation and deal with stages of pregnancy, such as when the would-be baby is an amorphous collection of a few cells, you again have a problem with people agreeing about the rights of said cellular collection, especially compared to those of its host, whom just about everyone agrees is alive and fully human.

It is rather easy to trace some of the sticking points. Among people who do not believe abortion should be illegal, you will find a small percentage of those who are okay with third trimester abortion, slightly larger with second trimester, much larger with first, and the largest portion of the population if the abortion is completed within the first few weeks of pregnancy. Clearly there is some sort of graded scale of development that causes people to be less tolerant of it.

I may be especially...

...sensitive to this, having just gotten home from the hospital with baby #2 in tow; but just because one human life is a burden or inconvenience or seems small and insignificant to another human life doesn't give the latter the 'liberty' to snuff out the former.

What if 90% of society agreed with the Australian bioethicists that 'fourth trimester abortions' are legitimate, since in their estimation the newborns aren't developed enough to count as humans. Would that make it right? Natural law, or rights endowed by the Creator, is not subject to the whims or ideologies of other people; it is transcendent. Of course, you or others might say 'how dare you subject me to your religious/philosophical belief in natural law'. But our Declaration makes it clear our nation was founded on this religious/philosophical idea of transcendent rights from our Creator.

rabblerabblerabble

Walter Block explains evictionism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4VJ3JuJaig

that's undefendable!

that's undefendable!

hm

i imagine anything is "defend-able". you just disagree with his theory. so, why do you disagree?

he should add

something about rights are only bestowed on a person from start of heart beat to end.

that would cover fetuses as well as corporations.

That's like saying the 18th

That's like saying the 18th Amendment will end alcohol consumption.

The only thing that will end abortion is convincing the people that a fetus is equal to a post-birth human and providing other opportunities for women who become pregnant and did not desire to be.

You want to end abortion? You have lots of work to do, and going the legal route won't prevent it!

Abortion is Murder...no one

Abortion is Murder...no one is saying anyone can end all murder. However, that does not mean that murder should be legal.

Less than 50% of

Less than 50% of Americans define abortion as muder. Therein lies the problem.

It really doesn't matter what

It really doesn't matter what percentage of the population defines murder as murder. With that argument as soon as 51% say that a 2 year old is does not qualify for personhood that 2 year old can be murdered...legally.

Yeah, I think the rather

Yeah, I think the rather obvious problem is level of development of a pre birth fetus in the minds of those who don't agree with you. Among those, what percent do you think are okay will killing a 2 year old? Probably zero.

Among those that do not agree

Among those that do not agree with me what is the percent that things it is ok to kill a 2 year old? I guarantee it is more than zero.

I am telling you 2 year olds are the new argument. We have been arguing about the "fetus" since the 70's. At that time it was said the court could not determine when life began so they did not rule against termination of pregnancy. Now science has shown that life begins with conception.

The new argument is personhood: http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/DE/Ethics/Definitions-and-ap...

You might also note this conversation I already had on the DP back in Oct http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2804353 : “The question then is what is the defining characteristic of a human being. The answer which makes sense to me is a living organism which possesses a volitional, conceptual consciousness. It is arguable that even a newborn baby does not yet possess that!” –galtgulch

I guarantee there are more than zero, and if post-birth abortion should ever become legal, 40 years from now what do you think the percentage will be?

Well, technically...

a majority of the American people WILL have to be convinced that life begins at conception in order for this bill to pass. It's not comparable to alcohol prohibition since drinking alcohol harms only the willful participant, not an unwilling participant.

Actually, one of the biggest

Actually, one of the biggest pushes behind prohibition was because of the abuse of women and children by drunk men, so your theory doesn't hold water. My analogy is sound in that you are talking about passing a law that a large percentage of the population disagrees with. Abortions will happen whether they are legal or not, and i would bet its illegality will scarcely reduce the numbers. You will, however, empower and enrich the worst kinds of criminals.

Oh, but, it does hold water - tons of gallons!

Drinking alcohol can cause a man to get drunk if he overdoes it and beat his wife. However, the mere act of guzzling whiskey does not produce bruises, broken bones, or death on anybody. Abortion on the other hand produces all three and never indirectly as with alcohol.
As far as the argument against outlawing abortion because it will produce a black market? So, should we allow hitmen to do their "work" legally since it's going to happen anyway whether we have laws against murder or not? Do you really believe that laws against theft do not decrease the numbers of thefts that would happen if stealing was left up to each person's conscience and not a criminal offense?

The indirectness didn't

The indirectness didn't matter to temperance society.

You list hit men and stealing as examples, but they do not meet criteria for the crux of the problem. The criteria with abortion is that about 60% of Americans don't agree with you. That number does not apply to stealing and hit men. See the difference I am getting at. Laws are worthless when a large percentage of the population does not respect them. Stealing and hit men do not apply. The large percentage means a powerful black market.

That's true.

But, most Americans didn't see anything wrong with slavery at the founding of this nation. Most saw it like most pro-choice people see abortion - "a necessary evil." It's going to take some serious poll-changing before we can get legislation like this passed. Personhood legislation using the 14th amendment will have to be refined and clarified before being attempted though. Mississippi voters rejected such language 2-1 because there were fess that such vague language would criminalize miscarriages and invitro fertilization. I also believe abortion should remain an option throughout the entire pregnancy if the mother's health is at risk. This personhood stuff I don't think addresses that.

Yes - same with ending tyranny

As Ron Paul said -

"The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government. The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community. The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change."

This could help a bit:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/11/27/pediatricians...

But I was on the National Platform Cmte & most of the people in that room would not go for this. The Republican Party wants no mention of birth control methods or its availability without parental control. That is dreaming. Until the Republican Party wakes up & lives in the real world, they will be merely fabricating a "Leave It To Beaver" fantasy world when it comes to sexuality.

If Rand wants to be elected POTUS,

he should not go down this road. Ending abortion, DOMA, and anti-gay rhetoric drove millions away from the party. Just sayin'.....

If someone wants to be part

If someone wants to be part of a murdering party, IMO they can go find another one.

I am glad Rand went down this road.

How many Americans would

How many Americans would consider you(and me) to be part of a murdering party because you support gun rights? Too many. Easy to call someone a murderer, tough to get a large majority to see it that way.

Guns don't murder. People

Guns don't murder. People do.

We understand that. Lots of

We understand that. Lots of people don't.

That is why I am speaking up.

That is why I am speaking up.

Speaking up is one thing.

Speaking up is one thing. Convincing people is another. You've got the first part down. You'll never get the second part if you go around calling people that don't agree with you murderers.

Shall we call them "Pro-Choice?"

Really, I don't think I am calling people who do not understand that abortion is murder a murderer. But I do believe it is necessary to use accurate language to get the point across. It is very serious. Maybe I am just the “bad cop.”

There will be some who will never change their opinions. I am not trying to change those, but I am answering some of those in hopes that there are others who are unclear and perhaps I can provide some clarity to what abortion actually is…now that we “know" life begins at conception.

The opposite of pro-life is pro-death. I could use that term I suppose. What do you advocate?

...

I think they're both overly

I think they're both overly simplistic terms.

We also know that natural rates of abortion within the first several weeks after conception are very high, yet those losses are typically not mourned in the same way as the loss of a third trimester fetus, and definitely not as much as, say, a one month old baby (not even by the pro-life crowd). Why not? There must be something in our psyches that causes us to differentiate.

Really

I had a miscarriage at 5-6 weeks. It was traumatic, painful and I mourned. It was private though between me, my husband and the ER Doc, now it is not. Oh, and my SS Teacher knew because she went with us to the ER to comfort us. She also sent me flowers and cards. It is stil asked about on medical form s I fill out. I will remember the loss my whole life. That child would be 25 now.