Rand Paul: New Personhood Law Will End Abortion ‘Once And For All’
Submitted by Allegory on Tue, 11/27/2012 - 13:58U.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.
»
- Login to post comments
Should abortion be treated like murder or not?
You keep calling it murder, but you don't seem to want to punish it like murder. Why not?
It is not currently against the law
It is not currently against the law. It is legal. I don't know what else to call it when a child is killed whether born or preborn.
If preborn human life is declared life then people, not me within each state, will decide how to treat or not to treat the murder of preborn children like they did prior to Roe v Wade. Here is a whole history of that stuff: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410...
All I am saying is that 50 MILLION preborn Humans have been slaughtered on American Soil without trial or representation because the supreme court could not say when life began and referred that fact to be determined by science resulting in the deaths of more than 10 MILLION preborn children each year for the last 40 years. Estimates prior to the 70's were 1 MILLION or less per year.
What is the reason with readily available contraceptives to go from 1 MILLION a year prior to Roe v Wade to 10 MILLION a year after Roe v Wade? Why can't the pendulum swing back to center?
And by the way, Roe v Wade took away the State's Right to criminalize or not criminalize abortion as the state saw fit.
I did more reading and it looks like the Rockerfeller Institute http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/Greenhouse_and_Re... (friend or foe to Liberty?) had some imput for legalization. I wonder if there were any money ties. Not saying, just wondering.
...
I gave a very cogent argument for "how to" pro-lifers can reduce
the number of abortions per year -- it got poo-poo'd and down voted.
Very Easy Free-Market (non-gov't fix).
If you CANNOT fix the problem via free-market tools and will ONLY seek Voting-Lobbying (corporatist) tools then you are NOT in favor of free-markets (non-intervention).
Free-Market = Non-Intervention = 100% Privacy Society
Not 99% Privacy wherein we leave just enough intervention to benefit the policy-desires of Pro-Lifers -- Voting and Lobbying create Perpetual War, it is the circumvention of consumer-will.
You can END abortion without intervention -- if you want to know how (well I can tell you how to reduce it by 40-60% under corporatism), you'll ask me -- if you do not want to know then you are likely in favor of ONLY gov't intervention means and thus not pro- free-market.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Why dont you just tell me? Of
Why dont you just tell me? Of course I'd like to know :)
The way to end abortion (read above)
Read Above
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
I am having trouble finding where you want me to read about
ending abortion. Could you give me a direct link? Or just copy and paste for me. I am interested in your thoughts.
but if that activity is
but if that activity is forbidden, they can't legally enter the contract.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFxvy9XyUtg
your original point ...
was in the context of legal abortion, and that the patient has the right to force the doctor to give her one... then you change the situation.
I agree that you don't have the right to force a doc to give you an abortion, of course!
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
"Science says"
Rand and many others proclaim that "science says" that life begins at conception. If "science" says this, then there would have been experiments and observations with results that would have been published in multiple medical journals that were peer reviewed.
Are there any references anywhere to these publications? If not, then it's being dishonest to infer that "science said it". Life beginning at conception sounds like more of philosophical opinion than a provable scientific fact.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
"Science Also Says"
Science also says, there is no god, as in, no old man with a long beard in the sky who watches everything everybody does.
So, why Rand Paul and so called pro-life people still believe in god?
No, not really...
Show me a known peer reviewed scientific journal that shows the research that there is no god. Maybe scientists that you know have that opinion, but I doubt that there has been any scientific evidence published that says that.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
DNA
The idea behind this is that at the moment of conception, a new individual with unique DNA is created. It is scientific, because it has to do with the cells, mitosis, and DNA. It's in every Biology textbook now, but the process wasn't fully understood in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was passed.
I'm pretty sure..
that in 1973 we fully understood the process of sperm and egg joining, going through division, etc. I was in high school, I'm old, but damn! That wasn't the dark ages, lol.
All that stuff IS scientific, but I don't agree that science says that "life begins at conception" in the context of this debate. That seems like a misleading statement to me.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
again
Life, outside of the womb, is defined by the existence of heartbeat and brainwaves. IMO, this is what should determine when there is "life" inside of the womb. Those things appear at about the 5 and 16 week mark respectively.
As the law currently stands now it just makes no sense whatsoever. If a pregnant mother is hit by a drunk driver and he kills the mother and unborn child the guy gets 2 counts of vehicular homicide. But if that mother were to have stayed home that night because she was headed off early the next morning to go pay a doctor to vacuum her baby out, everything is cool?? Just....no sense at all.
I know there are religious folk here and others that will vehemently disagree with me but that's how I see it. The existence of heartbeat and brainwaves define life outside of the womb and there is absolutely no reason those two things shouldn't be used as a metric. Just seems the most sane, rational, logical way at even attempting to begin the discussion with both sides of the argument.
so life is defined solely by
so life is defined solely by heart beat and brain waves? is that what you are claiming?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFxvy9XyUtg
IMO brain waves and heart
IMO brain waves and heart beats are used to determine WHETHER life is STILL PRESENT. Life has ALREADY BEEN determined to be present upon conception by science. There is no need to determine whether life is present by brain waves and a heart beat unless of course the child inside the womb is no longer living.
In otherwords, brain waves and heart beats are a death test, not a life test, since one is trying to determine whether life is still present.
Facinating
I find it fascinating all the talk of curtailing individual sovereignty for half the species. People argue for small or no government and in the same breath run to the government for force in protecting something which is not theirs to protect.
Pro Choice is NOT pro-abortion.
Abortion is clearly a societal issue, NOT a government one. Extend this power you thrust upon the government into the future. I see camps for pregnant women, to assure they give the fetus all chance at survival; after all, the pre natal period is the most critical. Perhaps the government should round up all women as soon as they get pregnant, it’s just good sense. I doubt anyone on this site can doubt that the government is capable of such a thing.
Ron Paul is defiantly a Pro Life guy. But he knew enough to keep this issue out of the government.
Free humans can only give each other choices, and remain free. Demands are the water that erodes Liberty.
Just open the box and see
Is not out of the government
Right now, it is a Federal policy of pro-choice. If a state who is a pro-life state wants to retain those rights and make it illegal in their own state to commit abortions, the Feds will eat them alive.
Absolutely NOT
you said: "Ron Paul is defiantly a Pro Life guy. But he knew enough to keep this issue out of the government."
Excuse me but Ron Paul sponsored Sanctity of Life Acts in 2005, 2007 2009 and 2011 which would have established life at conception at a Federal Level and would give the states the right to protect life.
Here is the 2011 link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1096:
Please, know what you are talking about before you try to place your words on Ron Paul. You might also be interested in knowing that Ron Paul said: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em...
What that means is that it is not a matter of protecting choice. It is a matter of protecting Liberty.
What right does anyone have to choose the preemption of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the pre-born who has not given concent?
“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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
your words: "I see camps for pregnant women, to assure they give the fetus all chance at survival; after all, the pre natal period is the most critical. Perhaps the government should round up all women as soon as they get pregnant, it’s just good sense. I doubt anyone on this site can doubt that the government is capable of such a thing."
are a rediculous straw man argument. In that case you are saying the government will need to round everyone living being up to ensure they are not murdered. Or how about the children who have already been born. Their lives are protected, maybe you are saying they need to be rounded up?
...
Thank you
I stand corrected, thanks for the links.
As to the "straw man" argument, you can look around at the state of the goverment and world right now and say that with a straight face?
Just open the box and see
You are welcome
Yes, with a straight face I am saying that I do not believe the federal government is going to round up pregnant women. I believe the federal government will round up those who they deem to be a threat to themselves. Those who support Liberty are at risk IMO and I say that with a straight face and a dagger in my gut.
Please seek liberty for the preborn. 50 Million already did not have the opportunity for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. This is about those lives without a voice.
I didn't believe they "could do that" either
Until I noticed that the government is killing thousands of innocent civilians (including fetuses) in the name of "protection". I fear government incursion into social issues to force morals on others. The rules work for most people (why many are asleep to the whims of the current government, and current social situations). It’s the ones that are on the fringe of the rules that need the most protection.
I will always be an advocate for life, but I will always stand for the rights of existing humans over "potential humans", the "when" debate notwithstanding.
I don't suppose that rounding up pregnant woman will be on a priority list, but, I absolutely see that government always tries to grow power. Give the government a power of life and death? That scares me more than losing a potential Einstein.
To be able to decide life implies the ability to decide death. Until a baby is able to live outside the womb, a mother has this power over her baby.
This power should be in the hands of government? It’s exactly the fringe cases where the cost of a law is seen. Why aren't the fringers due some protection? If it only affects 49%, is it negligible? 5%? 1%? If only one woman dies from an unwanted pregnancy, or is forced to have a rapist’s baby, is that acceptable?
The world I lived in doesn’t allow me to draw a hard line in this, and I would err on the side of freedom. Education and social support is the only way (IMO) to fix this issue.
Instead of laws limiting choices, why not laws that provide options?
And, I do recognize that abortion is abhorrent, and out of control in this country, but I stand my fear in the government, and belief in social answers. A couple years ago (when I was sleepin’), I may have felt differently.
Just open the box and see
Please wake up to this
Your words "potential humans" are exactly the words that you need to be aware of. The debate is now whether 2 year olds are fully human, or just "potential humans."
Ron Paul understood you cannot err on anyone's side but only the side of life.
RP says "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 are snuffed out, thus the snuffing of Liberty.
Horrifying Video (just the ideas, not graphic)
Thanks for the nightmares. lol.
And, I must say, I am NOT in favor of abortion, and certainly the situation described by Dr. Paul should have resulted in a wide range of targets for criminal charges, IMO.
There is an issue of "viability", the “when life begins” debate notwithstanding.
If a technology and the resources occur where a just fertilized egg can be removed, and made into a human from day one, becomes commonplace, I may change my stance. This reaffirms choice.
Obviously, a 2 year old is exempt from the "potential human" clause (despite being a pain sometimes). That seems to be the same "straw man" I used myself earlier. ;)
I simply believe that social issues require an effort of society to change and take care of itself. That is WAY harder than simply passing a law, but would have much better results. And, there would be no danger of an overreaching government to abuse it.
I’m not arguing for abortion, just what I see as a fundamental right of the subset woman, of the species of human. I also believe that lately, some, both men and women, have not taken the privilege of giving life as seriously as it warrants.
Just open the box and see
Do you not see...
society did change. In 1973 the Supreme Court said it could not determine when life began. That allowed for the murder of the preborn to the tune of 50 million. I am not sure how old you are, but they used to do saline abortions where children were litterly burned inside the mother before being aborted.
You said: "Obviously, a 2 year old is exempt from the "potential human" clause (despite being a pain sometimes). That seems to be the same "straw man" I used myself earlier. ;) "
I am not making that up look here: 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
Look at this conversation from 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
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...
I am telling you, the debate is no longer conception. The debate is who is actually human. If we don't protect life at the start, we will not protect life after it has started.
That is WHY Ron Paul said: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."
Can you see that society changes?
...
Correct
But Holder was a moron, and clearly has a NWO, population reduction agenda. The arguments they provide are patently ridiculous, and could even extend to some 40 year olds I know.
The arguments you provide are compelling, but I suggest they support exactly what I'm saying, that to legislate that invites the same tyranny in reverse.
I'm not in favor of abortion, so you don't have to argue to convince me it's bad. I don't argue in favor of it. My hypothesis is that, as a society, we do not need the governmental rules dictating behavior in that area.
I'm not for listening to the government about the issue in ANY way.
The links you provide indicate that they are monsters, bent on population control. I reject the arguments those are suggesting, as I think any moral person would. And an “after-birth” abortion is just ridiculous (and murder), as anyone can see (IMO).
Science can determine "viability" of the fetus outside the mother’s body, only. If the fetus cannot live outside the mother, it’s not viable. Yes, there are some, even 40 year olds, that arguably, aren't "viable", but, again, it’s a straw man. Even from the PTB.
To allow the government to have any say simply invites them to make arbitrary rules. What if a woman doesn’t take care of her body during the critical periods for the fetus? Doesn’t it deserve more protection than just the right to exist? If a moral person can’t see that, should there be morality laws? If society is so immoral that it must have laws to legislate its morality, is that society worth saving at all?
Don't blame the government for what’s going on now, its society. It’s becoming a non-moral society (some would argue this is DUE to the government interference). If the state of society IS the governments fault, people want to give them more power? hmmm...
Maybe it’s just the old human failing of wanting to pass and assign blame?
And, with an attempt to make this a LAW, from this corrupted government? They use whatever tools and concepts they have to control people, not protect them. This would not protect anyone; just add a level of control to the government tool box. How are they going to use it? Perhaps, the current administration will use it wisely, how about the next? And the next?
This is accepting moral leadership from the government. And they are a good moral leader why?
I don't get my definition of human from the government or governmental agents, and I suggest that no one should.
We are on the same side in this, in fact. I'm just arguing that the federal government has no place in the decision, period.
The issue is about control and power. A LAW ignores the fringe cases. If a woman is raped, under the LAW, she MUST carry the fetus to term, no choice. Having lots of experience being on the fringe, I know that they deserve protection too.
It would be far better if society could get control of this problem WITHOUT government interference.
Just open the box and see
"Society in every state is a
"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans...
"AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...
Ron Paul said "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."
The corrupt government IS WHY WE MUST PROTECT LIFE in order to protect liberty.
Romans 12:21 KJV
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
...
Couldn't agree more
I agree with everything you say but the actual tools that should be used. Thanks for the links. :)
Using a corrupt government for moral control will only ever be a temporary solution, and feeds power to a power hungry institution.
The corrupt government IS WHY WE MUST NOT give them power over life and death. The ultimate power must be reserved for the smallest unit of society, in my opinion.
Just open the box and see
I believe those Legal
I believe those Legal Criminals have already TAKEN power over death. That is why Ron Paul tried to protect life and said we must do so in order to protect Liberty. If we give our concent to continue the slaughter of the unborn we give our concent to the continual demise of liberty.
What kind of industry has been built around the death of the preborn?
"...each year in the U.S., the abortion industry brings in approximately $831 million through their abortion services alone. If you add in the $337 million (or more) that Planned Parenthood (America's largest abortion provider) receives annually in government grants and contracts for, the annual dollar amount moves well past 1 billion." http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_for_profit/
"Just over a decade ago, some doctors saw the potential profits that could be made from women like Simpson -- an untapped market of young, fertile mothers. These doctors trolled online forums, offering counseling and services. They coined the phrase “family balancing” to make sex selection more palatable. They marketed their clinics by giving away free promotional DVDs and setting up slick websites.
These fertility doctors have turned a procedure originally designed to prevent genetic diseases into a luxury purchase akin to plastic surgery. Gender selection now rakes in revenues of at least $100 million every year. The average cost of a gender selection procedure at high-profile clinics is about $18,000, and an estimated 4,000 to 6,000 procedures are performed every year. Fertility doctors foresee an explosion in sex-selection procedures on the horizon, as couples become accustomed to the idea that they can pay to beget children of the gender they prefer." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/gender-selection-_n...
More about Ron Paul:
"Paul has said that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue."[158] However, this has not stopped Paul from voting in favor of a federal ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000[159] and 2003.[160]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Pau...
How about Iceland! :)
...
They've taken it already,
So, what the heck, just give it to them. Might as well, they already took it.
Discounting the situation of a woman who feels her back is to the wall, and she feels an abortion is in her best interest, does NOTHING to cure the situation which caused her to think that way in the first place.
This law is an attempt to treat the symptom, that’s all. It born of a frustration that I also share.
But, I won’t be fooled into voluntarily giving the rights of all humans, current and future, to the government to “fix” some problem.
An analogy is for a human to sit in turpentine, develop a rash, and continue to sit in turpentine, complaining that the rash cream just isn’t working.
It’s abundantly clear that the government cannot solve problems. They aren’t protecting us, they are controlling us.
I protect freedom of speech, not because I agree with them, but because I don’t. When we don’t like what someone else does with a right, we think its ok to remove it. But, I disagree. That’s when it’s time to look at WHY that is, and see if it can be fixed from there.
There is a reason for abortion being what it has become today. If you can’t conceive of ANY reason a woman could justifiably have an abortion, then you do live in a dream world. The fringe cases are the very ones that MUST be protected.
I agree, and am horrified at what is happening, however I see the root of the problem as the education system, not the poor woman, stuck in an untenable situation.
A law forcing a woman to keep a life inside her says NOTHING about what she does with her body during that time. Crack is ok then? Marijuana? Cigarettes? Of course not. What about the unwanted child that was born. Say she does not give him to adoption, and instead, sells him into slavery.
Of course, these things sound ridiculous, but they are in keeping with that situation, maybe exaggerated. In a country with 300 million people, and a world with 6 billion people, I am not willing to say a situation involving a human is NOT possible. Outlawing abortion does not fix the problem in any way. The education, economic, and social situations are what cause this problem, not the lack of some law.
Have the drug laws stopped drug use in this country? Saudi Arabia beheads drug offenders, have their problems disappeared, or do they behead people every year?
You would give to a corrupt government that has already stolen the power of life and death, more power? I simply don’t legitimize the government’s input on this issue. They are NOT doing this to protect people; it’s about power and control. Pro-Lifers don’t see this because it’s the same power they want themselves.
I do agree that the fetus should be protected, but the education system is the root of EVERY issue we face today. Trace it all, every situation you can think of stems from our education, down to the very way kids are taught. Fixing this issue is paramount to every other problem. Without fixing this first, no other solution will be more than temporary. Except the freedom lost is permanent.
I do and have supported anti-abortion issues, vocally and financially. I will support any thing that gives people chooses, I can’t support anything which takes them away. Remember, a law like this is “your” choice, not everyone’s. What makes “you” the person to decide? What makes the government that person? (“you” = anyone, it’s not personal. ).
I can’t even hear the “abortion is murder” argument from an American until the illegal drone wars stop.
A government, on a campaign of murder, is to be trusted (now and forever) to protect unborn life? You don’t see something wrong with that? The main root of EVERYTHING is education. I’ve been trying for two days to come up with something that does not tie DIRECTLY to the education system of humans.
And, I can’t really think of many things Americans seem to care less about. That makes me wonder also.
Just open the box and see