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.

Well

I think we all need to work on it, no doubt. But you also don't respond to every post that says abortion is ok. That would be impossible. I did say in my post also that abortion is a horrid evil. Maybe I'm too calvinist! Ha. Take care sister.

The Sovereignty of God,

The Sovereignty of God, answers all, and yet we are still responsible per Proverbs when the innocent are lead away to slaughter and we say nothing. Thankfully though, God is The Sovereign.

Good call, Rand!

For those of you writing off abortion as a "wedge issue," that's a bit like a neocon writing off endless warfare as a "wedge issue," the difference being that more people have been killed by abortion than by all of America's wars combined.

Tens of millions of dead people is very often a major, even core, issue, believe it or not.

Cyril's picture

Abortion : perfect symptom of HOW BIG a SHAME our societies are

Guess what.

These girls abandoned pregnant, and who find abortion an acceptable way out, got so either because they have no values, or were conditioned, or they met A LOSER, SC*MBAG.

Guess what.

Who is supposed to raise them girls to be CAREFUL and RESPONSIBLE BEFORE CREATING a new LIFE, if not THEIR PARENTS or legal tutor ?

WHO ELSE ?

Public schools, instead ? Or educators who don't give A CRAP to the life in girls' wombs, for they're paid BY YOUR TAXES, ANYWAY ? Rent seeking. Sure job. That's the moral hazard of ABANDONING OUR RESPONSIBILITIES to ... STRANGERS.

Sex is GREAT. I love it. So does my wife. We really enjoy it together. But BIG RESPONSIBILITIES COME with it, TOO.

There is no free lunch, including in this activity. HUMANITY is the price, there.

How come parents don't spend enough time to raise their DAUGHTERS properly ?

Stop stealing their money and enslaving them in a RIGGED economy to begin with.

Everything is about Economics and the importance of restoring sound money. Mind you.

More welfarism or moral hazard or redefinition of what is wrong into "the new acceptable" will only lead to more eugenics. In 50 years, they will speak about killing old people or short people or ... what the hell I can imagine of other HORRORS.

Fight back. Denounce the evil of enslavement and conditioning.

And then one day hopefully everybody will AFFORD and will enjoy welcoming babies on this planet.

ANEW.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Women are Devalued

Widespread abortion is a symptom of how devalued women are in our society and how little they value themselves in so many instances. It's sad to think of how many women have committed this violent act against themselves. To me it's obvious that an abortion is ending the life of another human with unique DNA. Many are led to justify this action for various reasons of desperation, ignorance, or indifference. It must be disturbing to those post-abortive folks to hear some people on the conservative side talk about how evil they are and then people on the liberal side act like the right to kill your own child is some sacred ritual that must not be interfered with in any way. Neither of these positions are comforting to the person dealing with the guilt and confusion and pain of having "exercised their right to choose".

I basically agree Lysiandad

on your overall views as to teaching about the responsibility that goes with sex...
however, twice you seem to focus primarily on the "girls"...as though "girls" (not the boys) are the basic problem. I suggest that parents raise the males to be as responsible as the females. If the men were responsible - the girls wouldn't be getting pregnant, now would they?

All the men who like to "participate" in the activity, but throw all the responsibility (during and after) on the girls are going to have a rude awakening some day.
In my opinion, every male whose child is/was aborted is just as guilty (to the life that was taken AND to the taxpayers) as the female.

My mother was never a women's libber - but she did have a very quiet saying she would utter every once in a while...
"Gonna be a lot of men surprised come judgement day.......,

Cyril's picture

You should re-read my comment

You should re-read my comment especially how it started.

I have two sons. Kids, the oldest is 10.

I raise them in a certain way where I trust human intelligence AND moral values.

But if I'm unfortunate enough that one of them gets a girl pregnant and abandon her and HIS child, or push her to abort... I'm telling you :

I better NEVER discover or he better disappear, way out of my reach.

For his own safety.

Me, to become the father of A LOSER or A MONSTER ?

Yeah, right. I don't think so.

I'm cool usually. But just ask dear wife about my standards on certain topics.

You don't want to be around if you outrage me. And that will apply to MY sons more than to anybody else.

There are things I can't forgive.

Bear.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

How far should government go to protect the life of the unborn?

Should we have mandatory pregnancy testing? Should prenatal care be regulated by the government? Should "miscarriages" be investigated as possible homocides? Should women be prevented by force to not engage in behaviors that could put their pregnancy at risk? Just how far should we go?

Yes, and let's all get chipped so we can check in each day to

report that we haven't been knocked off / sarc

You are really pushing the envelop here. Let's just go far enough to say human life begins at conception since the court was unable to do that back in the 70's. Rand's legislation is only bringing the court in line with science. Afterall the Supreme Court tossed the life ball into the science arena for determination. Well science has determined now when life begins. That is all. Just because it is 40 years late does not mean that we should ignore the fact that life begins at conception.

Why is this so important? In the words of Ron Paul: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em...

It is important because Liberty Depends on It. Is there any wonder we have seen an erosion of Liberty when life is so poorly regarded?

Also check out the Declaration of Independence and ask what government has the right to terminate the life, liberty and persuit of happiness of any individual since all are created equal.

“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, “

The current debate is post-birth abortion of 2 year olds because people are now questioning whether a 2 year old has obtained personhood. Who gets to play God? 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- Yours, Mine and His…along with the 50 MILLION human lives that have been slaughtered without trial or representation.

...

That's just a straw man

That's just a straw man argument used by the pro choice crowd. Nobody supports doing any of those things. The pro life argument is simply that a law should be passed closing down abortion clinics and prosecuting doctors who perform abortions. That would solve 95% of the problem.

If that is the pro-life

If that is the pro-life argument it makes no sense. Why should the person who initiated the cold-blooded murder (the woman) not be punished? If that is your proposal, you obviously don't think that abortion is "murder" in the normal sense of the world but something less.

So you are okay with the negligent homicide of the unborn?

Will the government's prohibition on abortion be any more effective than it's prohibition on drugs? How is pushing abortions to the black market going to solve the abortion problem?

Prohibition

Laws against abortion are more analagous to laws against murder than to drug laws. A second human with unique DNA is involved, which is why murders of pregnant women can be prosecuted as double homicides. I have heard the argument that legislation against murder should be left to the states. So then I am not sure why Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act. I imagine it has to do with the Constitution protecting Life. The Founding Fathers would not have imagined the kind of barbaric baby slaughter for profit that goes on today. I was just listening to an interview with Abby Johnson (former Planned Parenthood clinic director) about how each day they would have $20,000 or more in cash fromt the cash abortion payments that they would have to take to the bank. They would sell abortion to the girls like a used car salesman would see a car.

I mean it is so obviously a scam just like the pharmeceutical companies. I am surprised more liberty-minded folks don't see this monetary angle. A pregnant woman could put an ad in any newspaper in the country looking for adoptive parents for a baby and get hundreds of responses in a day. Taking care of the baby is not the issue. It's a matter of avoiding embarassment and inconvenience. Plus the girl can keep putting on a fake virginal face to her relatives and maybe even wear a white dress at her wedding. And of course the guy who often coerces her into it gets off scot free with no burdensome child support. Best thing that ever happned to irresponsible caddish men everywhere happened on January 22, 1973.

I have an idea, lets just

I have an idea, lets just make all crime legal. /sarc

With your "legalize drug" argument, are you saying violent drug offenders should not stand before a court, innocent until proven guilty by a peer of jurors?

the current state of health care

is a complete disaster. To argue for more regulation in health care only continues to compound the problem and is no different than other liberal type approaches of solving government induced problems with more regulation.

Bum Alcohol 2 Party,

Are you advocating bumming abortions as well with Obamacare?

It seems to me that calling murder murder is not a regulation. It is sanity. 50 MILLION human lives have been slaughtered on American soil without trial or representation.

The original Supreme Court split decision ruling said that since the court could not determine when life began that they were throwing the ball into the science arena. Science has now proven that life begins at conception. This is nothing but a shell game.

Rand Paul's legislation is bringing courts into line with science.

"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..." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...

It is self evident that all are created equal and that all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that those rights are to be secured by the government at the concent of the governed.

What right does anyone have to govern the lives of 50 million humans by terminating their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness without concent of those being terminated?

...

Regulating Murder

People break the Ten Commandments every day, and abortion clearly breaks the Fifth Commandment. If people are going to be against defining humans in a scientific way, then I hope they are also ready to throw out all laws against other crimes against persons, like exisiting murder and theft laws. The police don't do a good job of protecting us against these crimes anyway. A return to the Wild West is fine with me, as long as all of us are allowed to be armed to the teeth in our own homes and walking down the street. But let's not pretend that ending a human life is some wonderful celebration of womanhood.

Agreed

"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." Thomas Paine http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
-----

Day 22: heart begins to beat

Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers'.

Leviticus 17:14
For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said to the children of Israel, You shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whoever eats it shall be cut off.
Deuteronomy 12:23
Only be sure that you eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and you may not eat the life with the flesh
Genesis 9:4
But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat.

"and the truth shall make you free"
John 8:32

such a divisive issue

cannot be dealt with by force.

It's annoying to see Rand meddeling around like this in congress.

Does Ron Paul annoy you as well?

Four times Ron Paul sponsored Federal Sanctity of Life Acts: 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011.

How is it that you can have such low regard for innocent human life that when someone does something to try to save those lives you are annoyed?

How is it that you feel that it is OK to deprive the voiceless, all 50 MILLION of them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

How is it that you can conceive of being annoyed in the face of 50 Million slaughtered children?

What force are you referring to? Which of those children volunteered to be slaughtered? Or were they forced to die unable to hide or protect themselves?

It annoys me that you are unable to conceive true Liberty as the Champion of Liberty explains so well:

"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 by force.

Which force are you behind?
...

Ron paul supports states rights

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

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Yes to give the states the authority to PROTECT the unborn

Why is it that the states need to be granted the right to have the authority to protect the unborn?

Is it because of the supreme court ruling that gives a woman choice up until viability?

Did that court ruling overturn a states right to protect life? Why do you think it is necessary to have a Federal ruling that states life begins at conception? Is it because the earlier ruling, Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that the court could not determine when life begins and sent the ball into the Science arena? Science has now proven life to begin at conception. Thus the need to bring the court into line with science instead of allowing the "shell game" to continue.

More on Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act from 2011 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1096: :

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

continued at the site linked

rons Sanctity of Life Act leaves it to the states

the "personhood law" will end all abortion from what rand has said. it does not respect states rights and is totally different philosophically from what ron purposed. trying to equate the two is dishonest and you should stop.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Really?

Ron Paul's sanctity of life Act stated life begins at conception and gave the states THE RIGHT to PROTECT the preborn.

Explain why the states need the right to protect the unborn granted to them.

stop spreading misinformation

i don't know what your problem is but here is the facts you don't seem to get....
ron pauls "sanctity of life Act" respects states rights and leaves it to the states to decide.
rand claimed that the "personhood law" would end all abortion by making it a federal crime and take away states rights to choose.
-------------------------

to answer your unrelated question about..."Explain why the states need the right to protect the unborn granted to them."

because the supreme court decision called roe v wade took the right of states to outlaw abortion away until viability.

i'm not sure what you don't get or if you are just playing dumb or trying to change the topic or what.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

I guess Rand needs to update his wiki page

Paul is opposed to abortion and supports a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act.[123][124][125] He also opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest,[126] but supports use of the morning-after pill.[127] He opposes federal funding for abortion.[124] He takes a states' rights position, favoring the overturn of Roe v. Wade and allowing states to decide on the legality of abortions without federal involvement.[128]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul

Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act was to give the States BACK the right to protect preborn children as some had done prior.

I see what you are saying about Rand's Bill. Since he is seeking constitutional protection of the preborn according the 14th amendment. However the 14th amendment specifically says "born" so I don't know how that will work out.

I have to be honest, today is the first time I read Rand's Bill. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s91/text Thanks to your challenge. I am good with it though. I am good with preborn human life being given the protection of the constitution just like you and I enjoy. However the constitution specifically says BORN:

"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.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html

...

murder

Murder is not divisive, only evil.

what's evil is sticking your nose where it doesn't belong

This is not even a state issue, it's a family issue.