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.
Cyril's picture

Sure.

Sure.

What sort of counter-argument can anyone find to :

NOT PROTECT life, a priori ?

"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

I don't know what a priori is.

wiki says this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori :

A priori may refer to:
A priori knowledge, that is justified by arguments of a certain kind
A priori (languages), a type of constructed language
A priori estimate, an estimate for the size of a solution of a differential equation
A priori probability, that derived by deductive reasoning
Apriori algorithm, an algorithm for learning association rules

That still doesn't help me.

Cyril's picture

Clearer ?

Clearer ?

a priori = by default = obviously = without EVEN having to discuss it

I just find MIND BOGGLING that Ron Paul even had to propose AN ADDITIONAL TEXT to protect life, an unalienable right notion AS OBVIOUS AS what is ALREADY written in the 5th Amendment :

"No person shall [...] nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, [...]"

"What" is in a woman's womb before she gives birth ?

A DOG ? A CAT ? A SLUG ? AN AMOEBA ?

Or ... wait ... maybe (???) a human CHILD ?

"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

I think the problem stemmed from the fact that the Supreme Court

would not determine when life began and threw that discussion back to the scientific realm to determine. Now with technology it is scientifically determined that life begins at conception. However that court ruling has not been overturned, and if I remember correctly additional court rulings have been made to give choice up until viability. Rand says something to the effect in the video link that his legislation will bring the courts up to date with science.

Cyril's picture

Okay, I get your point, now.

Okay, I get your point, now. I confused myself with your initial remark.

Whether federally enforced or not, for what I care :

the people of the states better not count on me to fund killing babies "for [whatever] reason".

They'll have to fund their "family planning" projects with THEIR SWEAT AND MONEY. Not mine.

And can't expect me to approve/condone/applause. Either.

If a society that makes super computers, and sends and gets back stuff to/from planet Mars, has the arrogance to call itself "civilized" while also killing babies for "society's convenience", that WON'T BE with my vote to allow it.

If that passes ... and people continue to do that, because I'm in the minority ... I'll look elsewhere. They can kill THEIR babies.

THEIR free will.

"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

You said: "They'll have to

You said: "They'll have to fund their "family planning" projects with THEIR SWEAT AND MONEY. Not mine."

I wonder how that is going to work under Obamacare?

For me, it'll work just fine.

No doubt there will be a clause placed in for people who are below poverty no?

So I'll make sure I make less than that and I won't have to pay... In doing so, I'll also make sure I'm living way below those means so that I can pay for my own healthcare. I will not take their money or give them mine.

Where there is a strong enough will, they will have no way.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

That is an interesting

That is an interesting premise.

It is hard, I have 2 boys. It would be easier if it were just myself.

My husband went to the doc last week...the nurse asked him if he wore his seatbelt.

If they ask me, I'm going to say it is none of your business. I wonder if they will say then you will not see the doctor?

What if my son needs to see the doctor? He had pneumonia and missed 9 days of school this month. Me, I could lay down and die, but I could not do that to him.

They made me fill out the annual paperwork. I have them a hard time about all the questions and said it was a "conditioning." The gal at the front desk took the paper work from me and told me I didn't have to fill it out. I took it back and said, yes I do because if my son is in the hospital they will not give me any information if I am not on his HIPA list. She agreed. I said. see.

I could go on. But what I really want to know is about Rand.

Just wanted to say one more thing here.

If people lived way below their means and weren't so materialistic, they might be able to take care of their own medical bills. That might require living like the olden times but it can be done easily and there is a large movement to downsize. People will do it out of necessity either way to a degree.

Okay.. Here is Rands record..

Right off the bat this stands out.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=412492

Am I off or is that not authorizing an increase to debt?

Also he has sponsored "America pays it's bills act"

There are a few more issues the further you get down the list.. The purist in me kinda pukes when I say things like this.. "He's not all bad"

I can't however stomach a vote for him.. Maybe if he ramps up his actions Constitutionally, I will.

Oh and this thread about Rand going after the NDAA language for 2013 just isn't enough. He's attempting to rewrite it so Americans won't lose their right to a trial but the Constitution was written for all "men". It's not a cherry-pick document.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

In the last 10 years I have

In the last 10 years I have had 2 complicated pregnancies, multiple hospital stays,5 surgeries, cancer and chemo. My husband is a Baptist Pastor in a small, rural and poor community. We are not materialistic. My van is 12 years old with 205,000 miles on it and I am content to drive it till it dies. I hate insurance. It costs us out of our own pockets over $1200 a month, that being said, without it I'd either be dead or we would be in debt more than the $5K interest free to the local hospital. It is not a pretty site. IMO if everyone got rid of insurance we might have a fighting chance. That way costs would not be padded as if a person is not paying for them.

I am helping an Amish couple in their late 70's. She has cancer so I drive her to town for treatment. He still works. They wonder if they will ever be able to pay their medical debt while they are living. They don't have insurance and live like it is the olden times.
------------------
OK, so I am looking at S. 1326: A bill to implement the President’s request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt. It looks like that bill, sponsored by Rand, is the Senate compliment to the House bill H.R. 2663, The America Pays Its Bills Act of 2011 http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/112_HR_2663.html.
That link says it does not increase the tax payer’s debt. I am not sure how all of that works. How does on raise the statutory debt and not increase debt to the tax payer?

You said: “He's attempting to rewrite it so Americans won't lose their right to a trial but the Constitution was written for all "men". It's not a cherry-pick document.”

I read this “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.”

And the bill of rights refers to “the People” I am assuming that is the same “we the people” group. But am I wrong? Who is “we the people?” Is it not just citizens?

Yes, I am inquisitive, that is the way I learn. Thank you for your time. If you have any words to offer, at your convenience, they are appreciated.

...

You don't have to keep thanking me bear.. lol

I enjoy talking to you, it's not a bother or anything. :)

Yes it refers to the "citizens". That they were coming together but you left out an important part to your puzzle.

"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 ties everything together. The immortal declaration... to me, one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard spoken allowed or read.

They came together to form a country with the recognition that all humans on this planet were born with every right that the next had.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Opps

I almost said "Thank you."

Here I have been quoting that passage from the Declaration left and right here in this abortion post and failed to apply it to the NDAA discussion. Thanks...or something like that! :)

Right, it sets the standard from

which all things flow.

No, thank YOU Big Girl!! The thank you's aren't an annoyance BG, just pointing out that you don't have to do it. If it's part of your personality then by all means feel free. :)

Some people are more polite than others. Others are the mark by which we can tell others are more polite. That would be me lol

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Well, Big Boy,

When someone hands me the piece to the puzzle that I am missing it most definitely inspires a "Thank You" within me! It really was the first thing that welled up in my mind when I read your reply!

However, the reply before that the Thank You was intentional. Not so much automatic, but more of a way to let you know that I am appreciative of your time on my behalf. I was asking you for help, me a stranger, which would cost you your time and effort, and a Thank You was all I had to give in return, so I gave it.

That is probably more than you wanted to know this morning.
---------------------
I have received alot of help from ID Josf this year. It seems the Constitution may have been a ploy for centralized government. Me being patriotic and all, it was hard to swallow. i.e., the Declaration of Independence was a Liberating document and the Constitution was a Constraining document. One of the first readings Josf offered me was Patrick Henry. It seems that great patriot was alarmed. http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html And that Hamilton was pushing it as well as working towards a central bank.

The deception runs deep?
------------------
Yes, beautiful words in that Declaration, and beautiful words here as well: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that who so ever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

The world...all men...who are created equal...not just some of certain degree.

That came to mind after I had already replied, so I have included it for you this morning.
-----------------
I have a purist question for you: It seems that some of the contention here in this post towards Rand’s amendment is that it is targeted federally while Ron’s Sanctity of Life Act was targeted towards State’s rights.

Do you know anything about the difference between the 2, if there really is a difference. If not I am not asking you to find out. I am just asking if you know and if you do know, can you tell me what you think. Thanks (natural response lol)!
------------------------
I am going to quote some info here for your food for thought about it incase you should want to explore.

Rand’s: http://paul.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=330735
“From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
“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.”
By following the powers offered to Congress in the Constitution, passage of the Life at Conception Act would reverse Roe v. Wade without the need for a constitutional amendment.
In a statement today, Sen. Paul shared his thoughts on today’s March for Life and on co-sponsoring this important piece of legislation.
“The right to life is prescribed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence. Ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress. I am doing my part by joining my fellow pro-life colleagues in sponsoring the Life at Conception Act, which will protect the sanctity of human life.
Protecting Americans – whether it’s balancing the budget or ensuring no child will be denied the right to life – is my priority now – as it has always been. As a medical student, I was one of a small group of students who opted out of learning abortion procedures. My regard for the sanctity of life has carried me throughout my career as a physician and I am proud to join my new colleagues to continue this fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans, born and unborn.”

(However I might note here the 14th amendment specifically says “BORN” so I am not sure how Rand’s bill falls under the 14th amendment’s words: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...
“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.”
-----------------
Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096/text declares life at conception however his Act specifically talks about the states:
“(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.”
-----------------
OK Big Boy, you must tell me if this is too much information to be shoving at you and I will cease and desist! I have a tendency to get carried away with my lengthy words and documentation thereof.

...

"The deception runs deep?"

I don't look at it as a deception, I just think they were wrong. There has been an argument since the inception of this country for the idea of centralization over decentralization and the rights of the states as is a compact versus.

This video somewhat confirms that the states were in fact a compact of free association. It touches on a few other areas as well but if you like history or you want to learn, this guy is the go to. You can easily take what he says and check it, I have never seen him make a mistake on history. If I'm looking for answers, I usually search him first.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxP1irQFdto

"I have a purist question for you: It seems that some of the contention here in this post towards Rand’s amendment is that it is targeted federally while Ron’s Sanctity of Life Act was targeted towards State’s rights."

I'll be honest here.. I'm a states rights person.. I believe the states have a right to nullify and act in the best interest of the people in their borders. I would lean towards Dr.Paul's push for this issue..

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Thank you for the Wood's Link

I was going to sign up for Liberty Classroom once summer was over but here it is December and I didn't do it. I had wondered if he was a good source. Thank you for the recommendation. Have a great weekend. I like states rights too :)

You're welcome.

You're like a sponge, it's good to see. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

It is during work hours lol

I'll answer all of that to the best of my ability later tonight. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Thanks!

I'll study tomorrow. I don't even think I am going to be able to answer all the abortion wars I've started. I'm just too tired. :)

LOL

Why do you think I didn't want to open up on Rand!! I didn't have the time for what I know would likely come from it. :)

Rest well.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

"I could go on. But what I really want to know is about Rand."

Okay, give me a little bit. I just wanted to make sure I had enough time to fully consider the question and properly respond with links and all.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Hey Big Boy, No Hurry, No Rush

just fill me in when you have the time and inclination. I feel it will be good for my education. Only as your time and desire to do so allows. Thanks :)

I definitely want to. :)

I'll have a little more time when my shop closes for what will be a longer conversation, I'm sure. lol

(Not making fun.. it's great that you're picking up things like you are and that you're inquisitive.)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Cyril's picture

Yes, I know I'm SCREWED.

Yes, I know I'm SCREWED.

Think I'm not furious ? That won't last forever, though.

"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

Cyril's picture

Ditto

"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."

This was my understanding, too.

"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

My understanding

is that Ron Paul sponsored Federal Sanctity of Life Legislation in 2005, 2007, 2009 & 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

"The Act would have amended the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions."

well worth 33 minutes of your life

it might just change it.

www.180movie.com

yuk!

Oh look, it's yet another man trying to tell women what is best for them.

Now women will be criminals for curtailing a pregnancy? NOT GOOD.

Besides, a woman can curtail a pregnancy by inducing menstruation.
Red wine, a teaspoon of turmeric or saffron, for several days in a row.
Pretty much any food or drink that thins the blood will induce irregular menstruation.
Not to be overdone, because blood thinning will affect circulation which affects the heart.

If this fails, try a coat hanger little girl.

Curtailing pregnancy?

Its sad that you don't value human life more.

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

And here is his Father doing the same thing:

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

Why would you ever tell a little girl to murder a baby using a coat hanger?