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.

Nice

I don't feel patronized at all. Really.

I hope not,

because that was not my intent. My words are meant exactly as written, and they are directed to you with the intent of saying thank you.

Anyone else see Walter Block's talk on Evictionism?

I was one of the 10,000 RP fans in Tampa this year for his rally and Walter Block gave a great speech on the perfect libertarian solution to abortion. Google "Walter Block Evictionism". Basically, a woman has the right to evict a trespasser from her uterus much like I can evict a tenant from a property. His example was if you woke up one morning and found yourself attached to an innocent dialysis patient, both of you part of some twisted experiment, you would have the right to sever the cord between you and the dialysis patient who is currently living off of your kidneys, even though that will kill that innocent person.

Basically, if you separate the eviction from the death, you get to save millions of babies that are now viable, and as technology continues to improve, we keep pushing back that date earlier and earlier. This way, babies live, AND women still keep their rights of autonomy over their body.

Bottom line: this new push by Rand kinda creeps me out even though I'm morally drawn to the goal, I don't like the road to hell that he is currently paving with his good intentions.

The problem w/Block's argument is the baby's NOT a trespasser

Rather the baby was put there by the mother and father. As long as the act of sex that created the child was consensual then the woman basically consented to the pregnancy. The analogy of waking up attached to a dialysis patient would only apply if the woman was raped while she was passed out or something.

That tired old Rothbard

That tired old Rothbard argument was refuted decades ago by his good friend Fr. Jim Sadowsky.

Are you kidding?

That is about the most ridiculous argument I have heard so far.

I can see that happening under Obamacare, Not. Do you understand the cost of neonatal intensive care? How about if we leave the baby where it belongs until the mother's body naturally evicts it at which will most likely be the most opportune time when the child will not need extensive medical care and have to live a life with potential lung and developmental issues.

You said "... I don't like the road to hell that he is currently paving with his good intentions."

I find that hilarious! I would think the road to hell would be paved by the bodies of 50 MILLION slaughtered humans, not Rand's good intentions.

Dr. Ron Paul sponsored Federal Sanctity of Life acts in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011. He also 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

Walter Block…he is saying a woman has the right to evict. The womb is only the beginning. The current argument is whether a 2 year old is actually a person. From where is a 2 year old evicted?

...

If a person is pronounced dead

when their heart stops beating for a certain length of time, why can't an embryo be declared a person when a heart beat is visible on a monitor?
Personally, abortion for lifestyle choice is not my thing.

Is not the embryo alive

Is not the embryo alive before the heart beats? The issue is protecting human life, not just a beating heart.

Ron Paul: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc&feature=player_em...

Agreed

The heartbeat is not visible at conception.

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

No, but life is

The issue is protecting human life.

Life is visible

on the bottom of your shoe... and pretty much everywhere else you can look on this rock.

Yes, isn't that wonderful! A

Yes, isn't that wonderful! A planet full of life! But I am speaking specifically of a human life. Are you saying a human life is visible on the bottom of my shoe?

But is it a separate human

But is it a separate human life before it has the properties of a human life? If it is embryo dependent on the mother and by all accounts part of the mother then how it is it a separate human entity? Without a heart is cannot live outside of the womb. It is life, there is no doubt, but is it a human life...that remains to be seen. It is a form of life, but at conception it is the mothers biological system along with father's sperm creating a new cell, just as it creates new skin, hair, nails, etc cells daily. Is every cell a separate human life?

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

The heart begins beating at

The heart begins beating at 22 days.

A newborn cannot exist without care. It has a heart. Is it human? That is the new debate. When does human life qualify as a person? What we need to understand 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 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... .

That 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.

...

Right, so does life begin

Right, so does life begin when it has a beating heart or when a mother contains cells that can turn into a life?

I understand Ron Paul's position and respect it massively. I makes much sense, but it also makes sense to use science to determine when a life is a life and when it is a person and when it is not. I would agree to any unbiased research into it, but clearly most scientists hired to do such a study will be done so by biased individuals.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

A dividing cell is alive

"After the egg is released, it moves into the fallopian tube. It stay there for about 24 hours, waiting for a single sperm to fertilize it...At the instant of fertilization, your baby's genes and sex are set...within 24 hours of being fertilized it starts dividing very fast into many cells...Within three weeks, the cells begin to grow as clumps, and the baby's first nerve cells have already formed." http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/understanding-conception

"The fetal heartbeat starts beating during the embryonic stage of pregnancy at 22 days after conception" Read more: About the Fetal Heartbeat | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/about_5084268_fetal-heartbeat.html#ixzz2...

That 22 day heart beat is roughly 8 days after the missed menstrual cycle HCG Pregnancy hormone has detectable for 2 or 3 weeks.

Rand Paul, the champion of the Constitution; NOT

If I understood him correctly, for years Ron Paul made the point that mandating or prohibiting abortion was not an authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution. So why is Rand now beating the drums for the federal government to start another war on the American public that it cannot win.

When a significant portion of the population does not agree with another significant portion of the population on a morality issue, it never works for government to try to enforce morality. Such laws are widely violated, and create disrespect for the government and those in it who enforce these unpopular laws. The prohibition of alcohol did not work; the prohibition of drugs does not work; the prohibition on gambling did not work (when government saw the profit potential it went into the gambling business); the prohibition on prostitution does not work, and when there was widespread prohibition of abortion, it was still widely available in the back ally.

If Rand succeeds, he will create bigger government, the very thing he rails against. Those with the financial means will simply pay a visit to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal; those who are poor will either seek back ally abortions at great risk to themselves, or will have more babies for the welfare system to support, and those welfare babies will have a much greater chance of becoming criminals themselves.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Sorry man

No one has the liberty to take life. We have laws against that in our country. It should not be legal to take innocent lives.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

A preemptive strike you say?

I am quoting you: "or will have more babies for the welfare system to support, and those welfare babies will have a much greater chance of becoming criminals themselves"

You have become judge and jury of the unborn because they MAY be on welfare and MAY become criminals? Well gee, I guess that gives you the right to go pick up anyone on welfare or who MIGHT become a criminal or who might produce a criminal or a welfare baby and practice some eugenics.

Abortion should not have state sanction

I think the commission of any crime should entail great risk to the person perpetrating it. Abortion does not belong in state-sanctioned clinics. It doesn't belong anywhere, but if it must be somewhere, then it should be the back alleys. People will always steal, so why have it be illegal? Theft shouldn't be safe for thieves, should it? Should murder be safe for murderers?

Now, mind you I realize that often those who seek abortions are pressured by people around them (abusive boyfriends, parents, school counselors). I think the truly compassionate thing to do is to get women who have a troubled pregnancy to a crisis pregnancy center where they can get real and life-affirming help.

I'm just trying to make the point that just because people will go and do a thing, doesn't mean everyone should demand the state sanction it as 'right.'

BTW, I think there *is* significant agreement in the population that abortion should be *rare*, that it really shouldn't be used as birth control, and that parents should be notified before their child gets an abortion. Most disagreement is about the "hard cases" is it not? And those are what percent of how many abortions are done - 1 or 2 percent?

Finally, nobody is God. Nobody can tell for sure how a life will turn out, even if a baby is born to a poor person. Hmm, a little collectivism here? How unlibertarian. (You might also want to look into what Dr. Bernard Nathanson said about grossly inflating the stats on back-alley abortions back in the day when he used to promote abortion).

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

Abortion should not have state sanction

I think the commission of any crime should entail great risk to the person perpetrating it. Abortion does not belong in state-sanctioned clinics. It doesn't belong anywhere, but if it must be somewhere, then it should be the back alleys. People will always steal, so why have it be illegal? Theft shouldn't be safe for thieves, should it? Should murder be safe for murderers?

Now, mind you I realize that often those who seek abortions are pressured by people around them (abusive boyfriends, parents, school counselors). I think the truly compassionate thing to do is to get women who have a troubled pregnancy to a crisis pregnancy center where they can get real and life-affirming help.

I'm just trying to make the point that just because people will go and do a thing, doesn't mean everyone should demand the state sanction it as 'right.'

BTW, I think there *is* significant agreement in the population that abortion should be *rare*, that it really shouldn't be used as birth control, and that parents should be notified before their child gets an abortion. Most disagreement is about the "hard cases" is it not? And those are what percent of how many abortions are done - 1 or 2 percent?

Finally, nobody is God. Nobody can tell for sure how a life will turn out, even if a baby is born to a poor person. Hmm, a little collectivism here? How unlibertarian. (You might also want to look into what Dr. Bernard Nathanson said about grossly inflating the stats on back-alley abortions back in the day when he used to promote abortion).

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

Abortion should not have state sanction

sorry about the extra post - was trying to post but it kept saying it timed out

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

this is just not a morality

this is just not a morality issue. It is the taking of another persons life. Murder is murder.

If murder...

... is murder, the definition must include the death penalty. Why is it okay to kill in those instances? Isn't everyone who has a part in upholding, implementing, voting for, etc. the death penalty, guilty of murder? Can you support the death penalty and be against abortion? Can you support abortion and be against the death penalty? Is that hypocritical? Is it ever okay to kill another? Is it okay in cases of self-defense? What about the fact that women (& girls) would get illegal abortions if the U.S. decided to make abortion illegal? Should Congress protect the lives of the expectant mother by not criminalizing abortion?

I don't like abortion nor the death penalty. When it comes to abortion, like so many other issues, my preference is for the government at all levels to be hands-off. Do not fund it. Do not make laws regarding it.

It's an extremely complex issue. I do not mean to make light of it. I just want our Government to learn that we cannot control everything and everyone, everywhere. And they need to stop trying to do so.

These words: "We hold these

These words:

"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, "

come from the Declaration of Independence.

Governments are formed to secure or protect the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Are you saying murder should be legal?

Did you know

Ron Paul sponsored Federal Sanctity of Life Act legislation in 2005 2007 2009 and 2011

"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"

Cyril's picture

Yes.

Yes.

"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"

That each state would have authority.

"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

Yes, the authority to PROTECT lives of unborn children to the

state and give "legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception..." at the federal level.

Cyril's picture

On intent and outcomes justification

Question :

And when is life NOT worth to be protected a priori ... ?

Here's the catch. The question isn't actually finished :

"... and WITHOUT ANY expected, or desirable, social or economic outcome ?"

Now, of course, one may NOT want to answer the complete question with that "without" and defend, instead, the idea that SOME economic or social outcomes are SUFFICIENT to stop protecting life, a priori, again.

Fair enough.

But then :

I'd suggest to make sure THAT EVERYBODY agrees on these "expected" or "desirable" outcomes.

You know, it's about ... life.

Why stop at babies otherwise ?

Why not continue with "undesirable" skin colors ?

Why not continue with "undesirable" body sizes ?

Why not continue with "undesirable" ancestries ?

Etc, etc.

"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

Sorry, but I cannot

Sorry, but I cannot understand what you are talking about. Can you please clarify so I can engage your discussion.