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.

I am sorry for your loss, but

I am sorry for your loss, but I did not say there was no mourning, and it did not say it applies to every individual. Generally, I believe my point is still correct. You are not the only one in this conversation who has experience with miscarriage, though I have never been the pregnant one. I still wonder even with you if you could honestly compare your level of mourning with having lost a 2-year old. Not the same for me.

You are right, the more time

You are right, the more time invested, I would imagine increases the severity of the loss and mourning thereof. That is natural.

But what we need to understand here is that it is necessary to protect human life at all time intervals because the new debate is post birth abortion of newborns, two year olds and any child/adult unable to sustain itself. That is the new debate. The debate in the 70’s was…”When does life begin?” The debate in the 2000’s is when does someone actually have personhood.

I am attaching several links with varying degrees of thought concerning who is deserving of life:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/read-it-and-weep-how-obama%E2%80...

And here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/afte...

and here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-...

and here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2060118/posts

and here: http://www.blogicus.com/archives/post_birth_abortions.php

It is a disgusting proposition even more so now that those who have deemed themselves as persons are now wanting to determine who can join their “personhood club.” Origin of life has been moved from an objective argument to one which is subjective. Subject to a myriad of litmus tests: http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/DE/Ethics/Definitions-and-ap... .

This is WHY Ron Paul said: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em...

IMO What Ron Paul is saying is that any life not worth protecting will soon be yours. The abortion issue is an issue because it is meant to be an issue because it is another slippery slope whereby life and individualism is snuffed out, thus the snuffing of Liberty.

And this is WHY I am being vocal about the issue. Here is a positive post that Rand is doing someing to secure life and people are taking issue that preborn humans are not worth protecting. It reminds me of when people had a chance to let Jesus go, but the crowd yelled crucify him. Why would anyone want to support killing an innocent? Ignorance? Hatered? Inconvenience?

...

I really don't believe that

I really don't believe that post birth abortion is the new debate. It is ridiculous -- a red herring. It is obviously concocted to energize the pro-life base. It sounds like a push-poll in nature a la Rove. I know MANY pro-choice voters very well. They already find regular abortion to be a bad thing, but I would bet zero of them would support that. It will never happen. it is a political ploy. Also, post-birth abortion argument is invented by pro-lifers in the first place to try combat logic about organism not being able to support itself.

Believe what you want but you better look here:

After I hit save, I saw this right here on the DP: http://www.dailypaul.com/264753/obamacare-preview-in-uk-sick...

so this can be added to my reply below.

It is already occuring in the

It is already occuring in the Netherlands. DP ID Galtgulch is not a pro-lifer and is questioning the validity of human status for a newborn. What do you think happens in China, when the all wanted boy is not born? A post birth abortion is nothing but a child left to the elements for her demise or a medical procedure to make that demise quicker. We ae living in a sick world and we are becoming it. We already have a government who things that it should control our medical care AND is doing so at this very moment.

The Journal of Medical Ethics has articles advocating After Birth Abortion: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/04/12/medethics-2011-1...

Please know, I am not offering a red herring and neither was Ron Paul when he said that we must understand that to protect liberty we must protect life. What do you think he was talking about?

...

...

no it didnt

thats just what a bunch of liberals say to push their agenda. What cost them the election was always voting for big government while attacking the democrats for voting for big government.

Yes, their little scheme has

Yes, their little scheme has been uncovered at last...at least for those who are awake.

DOMA is a safeguard against

centralizers who want to erase the Tenth Amendment. If DOMA falls to public opinion, the Tenth Amendment falls with it.

Can you explain please. I

Can you explain please. I want to understand how DOMA and 10th amendment work together. Thanks!

DOMA guarantees that one state

won't be forced to recognize the same-sex marriage of another state. It keeps one state from making same-sex marriage recognition nationwide just because that one state decided to recognize it.

Thank You

I suppose that could be one of the reasons why the current administration is not upholding DOMA? Another slam against states rights?

Just as I was beginning to

Just as I was beginning to like him again....he does something like this. Not his father's son in so many ways.

This is ONE WAY Rand IS is Father's Son!

and I am glad to see it!

Ron Paul believes that this

Ron Paul believes that this is a matter for the states. Rand obviously doesn't. Despite his views on abortion, Ron puts non-interventionism in foreign policy and civil liberties at the very top of his agenda. By contrast, Rand, because of his counterproductive pandering to the Hannity type, tries to throw them raw meat on social issues as gay marriage and abortion. Ron doesn't play that pandering game and, for this reason, enjoys much greater respect from independents and people on the left.

You are WRONG about that! He is picking up where his father left

off:

Ron Paul sponsored Sanctity of Life Act at the Federal Level in 2005 2007 2009 and 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."

Are you saying Ron Paul was

Are you saying Ron Paul was pro-choice? Look at the Sanctity of Life Act..

Sure...he's anti-abortion but

Sure...he's anti-abortion but that particular federal act was a long time ago. For the past few years, Paul, unlike Rand, has emphasized repeatedly that he would turn it over to the states to decide. Rand, in his zeal to pander to the very same social conservatives who failed so miserably in the last election, continues to throw that group red meat on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. It is a fool's errand.

You're wishing Ron Paul's position were different than it is.

Ron Paul isn't just anti-abortion in the sense that he's anti-drug abuse. He's anti-abortion in the sense that he's anti-theft or anti-homicide. He's said repeatedly that he considers abortion an act of violence. He believes like we all do that the government has a responsibility to protect people from inititial acts of violence

No, the latest was in 2011...not that long ago

You either need to get educated or quit lying. I am hoping it is the first of the two. For education:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

"It was reintroduced with similar text by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2005 in the 109th United States Congress,[1] 110th United States Congress,[2][3] 111th United States Congress,[4] and the 112th United States Congress.[5] The repeatedly introduced bill sparked advocacy from pro-life activists and opposition from pro-choice activists."

For lying, well, I can't help you there...so I am hoping it is education you need :)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin

Ron Paul has made the same

Ron Paul has made the same case for how the federal government could intervene on behalf of the unborn, and I know he has submitted legislation that would do the same thing, as well as removing abortion from the jurisdiction of federal courts. All completely Constitutional strategies.

"You must be frank with the world; frankness is the child of honesty and courage...Never do anything wrong to make a friend or keep one...Above all do not appear to others what you are not" - Robert E. Lee, CSA

That's one strike against

That's one strike against Rand Paul for me.

Bye

(;

Life at Conception Petition Link

I hunted around for the petition link:
http://nationalprolifealliance.com/rlacaa_petition.aspx

NOTE: I tried the link from the newsbriefing given by OP and it took me to a dot org site which kept on giving me an error return when I signed the petition so I hunted around and found this link with a dot com site and it took my signature as well as gave me an opportunity to donate to the cause.

------------

Thank you Rand Paul. Please do everything you can to stand for Liberty in All areas!

forced birth

is not libertarian.

Murray Rothbard on Abortion
http://youtu.be/RoVR8gOSmvo

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

I'll stand with the OB-GYN on this one as well.

Life is precious. It's very difficult for me to accept the rationalization that a fetus is a "parasite". I know that Dr. Paul rejects that assertion as well. Using the logic that a fetus is/can be an unwelcome parasite in the woman's body, I could also conclude that any human child that can't survive without its parents is also being parasitic. I understand why some libertarians want abortion to be legal, but I can't understand why anyone would ever believe abortion is a positive. It's an absoluetly tragedy that is almost always avoidable by simple precautions. When not avoidable, it is still a tragedy, as it results in the termination of life, human life. One can defend the the legality or philosophical justification of it, but it's hard to ever get excited when a life is snuffed out due to fear, convenience, or the health concerns of another.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."-Samuel Adams
http://brushfiresinthemind.blogspot.com/

"Avoidable by simple precautions?"

What planet are you living on?

Exactly. Sometimes

Exactly. Sometimes unavoidable with extensive precautions.

Rothbard almost makes it sound as if

the baby has a choice in whether or not to invade his/her mother's innards. By that same token, a person could carry that kind of reasoning to its logical conclusion that a mother should not be required by law to feed to take care of her newborn baby. After all, a baby can't make a contract with the mother, stipulating that the mother must take care of him. Furthermore, the newborn baby was brought into the mother's home, most of the time by her own choice, therefore she should be allowed to expel the baby out of her home when she so chooses by whatever means she chooses. Rothbard didn't even attempt to discredit the claim that fetuses are live, human beings. He instead tried to make the ridiculous ASSumption that a baby has no right to invade the privacy of his mother's womb without her consent. Again that's like a mother being allowed to legally chop off her baby's head and throw the "parasite" into the dumpster under the pretext that the baby was invading the privacy of her home without her consent.