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
Hypocritical Rand...
And just where does he think Congress gets the power to define when life begins? This is just plain hypocrisy in my book. Is this the most pressing legislative issue he can come up with? Is this his plan to unify Americans around Liberty and Freedom? This is a COMPLETE turn-off for me regarding Rand.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
I am glad to see Rand Paul
continue to introduce legislation like his father did in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act
And yes, the murder of 50 MILLION United States babies is a very pressing issue.
Just stay out of it...
All the abortion issue does is divide us and make us focus on things that really could stand to be put on the back burner with all the other BS we are dealing with in this country...
Why not put more fight for the life that is already here in other countries. Let's create the Stop Killing Innocent People Around The World Act. Once we stop killing the living THEN we can move on to the un-born.
___________________________
The LibertyAvenger
http://LibertyAvengers.com
I'm sure many people felt the same way you do
about slavery at one point. Check out William Wilberforce who fought for decades to get people to see that slavery was wrong and should be ended.
"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul
We will never stop killing around the world as long as we are
killing in the womb.
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
here and abroad,
*
*
Here's another take on it...
This is a difficult and divisive issue... but here's another way to look at it. The woman's so called "right to choose" what she does with her own body needs to be examined under the light of the fact that with a fetus, it is NOT entirely her body anymore. Last time I checked, part of a man's body is required to create a fetus, so if she has a clump of cells in her uterus, half of those cells belong to the man!!!! Seriously, why are men such friggin wimps that they can't even stick up for THEIR body, their cells that are growing inside the woman.
Sorry, but when a woman lays with a man with unprotected sex, she knowingly accepts the man's property into her body, so at the VERY least the father's permission should be required for an abortion. That's at least a start...
You might die from exposure if I evicted you from my
property where you were squatting, but what right would you have to occupy the property of someone else against their will.
Even God does not give a fetus the ability to live on its own until the point of viability, so how is it that you conclude a nonviable fetus has a right to life. Does a sperm or an egg have a right to life; they certainly are not part of a man's or woman's body once they have been released. If a woman owns a house and a man is living with her, can't she evict him from her property, and isn't one of the definitions of a free person someone who owns himself (herself) instead of being a slave owned by someone else?
Liberty isn't given to us; it is taken by us, and if not, we will not have it.
"Even God does not give a
"Even God does not give a fetus the ability to live on its own until the point of viability, so how is it that you conclude a nonviable fetus has a right to life."
It is hard for me to fathom the idea that it is ok to kill a life because it is not "viable". I would have thought that it is a persons responsibility to take care of a non-viable life until it can live on it's own --- "on it's own" in this case meaning that the mother isn't required, but still needs help from a hospital. Isn't it true that a born child must be taken care of by it's parents until they are able to get someone else to take that responsibility? The point of viability of a born child at best would be something like six years old (but practically in our system, probably more like 16 years old).
The point that a life becomes viable should not be the point of life or death, but instead the point in which responsibility can be shifted.
then proper procedures should
then proper procedures should have been followed in the first place to prevent the baby from "squating" against the mothers will.. Come on..
A man's contribution is equal?
It’s like comparing a cup of water to the ocean.
A man can produce 500 million sperm per ejaculation. Each single sperm capable of combining with an egg.
A woman produces ONE egg a month, and has a limited quantity.
The female has the far greater investment in a fetus.
I have more biological investment in toenail clippings, than sperm.
Just open the box and see
So therefore the man has no say in what happens to the fetus?
Regardless of the percentage of ownership... still should the man not have a say in what obviously takes 2 to create!!!!??
True
But, if he gets this right on a collection of cells being his, does the man have the right to insist on an abortion? After all, those are his cells, and what if he doesn’t want a child?
One man could impregnate half the women on the planet in a busy month (just sperm count, not physical prowess).
I believe that the honor of giving life is bestowed on the female, and all the work and responsibility for the really important part (growing the human). She can and should be supported fully, but, ultimatly, it’s her body doing the work, and paying the price.
Just open the box and see
And contrary to the bias of a male dominated society,
a baby does not get any mitochondrial DNA from the male. It all comes from the woman, so at a very minimum, men should change their last names to the woman's since she has much more genetic control of the lineage of her offspring.
Liberty isn't given to us; it is taken by us, and if not, we will not have it.
Okay...so then
if the woman is deemed to have full ownership of the fetus and whether it lives or dies, the man not having any ownership or say in the matter, think about this: the next time an unwed woman decides to keep a baby and subsequently collect child support from the man, what gives her the right to do so since obviously the man has no ownership or say in the matter. The pendulum should swing both ways... if women want total control over the abortion issue, then they must accept total control of raising their children if the man doesn't want marriage or children. (not what I would advocate, but it is only fair)
In fact, I agree
It would certainly be fair. Obviously, the entire situation is more complex, but, you are right, that would be fair. And, sadly, one of the things that currently cause rampant abortions on one side, and support for them on the other, in my view. :(
Highlighting my view on education as being key to the issue. Not education on the issue, but the education system for all Americans should be redesigned from the ground up. If we try to build better humans via education (real education, not indoctrination), I think there is a chance to eradicate abortion without the "guns of government".
Just open the box and see
Im thankful that rand, like
Im thankful that rand, like his dad, continues to stand for the correct ideas despite the political unpopularity of those ideas... im also thankful that our society is growing in basic understanding if the rights of the unborn.
"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
I hate to agree with Rand
but Politics needs to align itself with Science. When a Sperm meet with an egg there is all the biological information needed to create another human being. This whole idea that a woman can kill her child before birth is no different than when she kills her child after birth. who knows what the Globalist will do to a unborn child if current definition of Life remains unchanged.
Clone wars?
Ron Paul IS The Golden Standard
What is Capitalism?
http://youtu.be/yNF09pUPypw
hmmm
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.
I'll take it up
with my Church.. I'll get plenty of sponcers.
STAND WITH RAND 2016
Actually Granger,
I think the issue is proper to take up with the Declaration of Independence:
"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..."
If all are created equal and worthy of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be secured by a government with the concent of the governed why is it ok to fpr that government to sanction the murder 50 MILLION equally created humans?
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.
Do you not understand that personhood is now being defined and the debate is whether a 2 year old qualifies as a person? How about the mentally or physically challenged? How about those who have not reached a certain IQ?
That is the debate. It started with the unborn. It is the same debate targeting the already born.
Either all are created equal, or someone will need to play God. It is not a church issue. It is a human life issue.
...
I completely agree ((((((((((((bear)))))))))
Still, my Church is very pro-life and I believe they will appreciate what Rand is saying and support it.
Your argument and examples are perfect for those who have hang ups with Church. Thank you!!
STAND WITH RAND 2016
Oh Good!
I was thinking pre election we had this conversation and you felt that it was completely a church issue. I am glad you see otherwise. And by the way, I believe the church should in no way be relegated to the outside of the social arena. The church is an organization made up of people who have every right to enter into public debate and not to be shamed for it.
Yes, I see it bigger than a Church issue
It's an important issue to my Church because Obamacare will close ALL Catholic hospitals, who serve the public no matter if they have a religion or not.. we will not serve abortions.
STAND WITH RAND 2016
Which perhaps shows that right to life is
an attempt to impose your religious values on the rest of us.
Liberty isn't given to us; it is taken by us, and if not, we will not have it.
No
My Church values life, and is well aware, this is not what the world values. My Church has many hospitals that will not turn you away because you don't value all human life, but they will not work with the state or fed to give you an abortion, and this is what the fed is trying to do to us. If you don't like our hospitals and it's policy for life, by all means, go elsewhere, but do not force us to put a value on life at any age and force us to take life for those who don't value it. Rand's Personhood helps us protect ALL human life, the states still have the power to build institutions to destroy it in our name.
I also think this personhood is important for the battle with corporate personhood..that's what needs to be aborted.
STAND WITH RAND 2016
Can you clarify that further please?
Is the fact that our laws prosecute and charge people for theft or murder an "imposing of religious values" on the nation?
After all these two laws are listed in the 10 commandments. Or maybe its just right to protect life at all stages.
"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul
The right to life is
The right to life is here:
"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...
I thought you were for the GOP
Why are you, like Rand, working to hasten its demise?
Maybe he's pulling a Francisco d’Anconia number?
IMO The Demise
of the 2012 Libertarian Candidate was that he advocated choice of murder. 50 MILLION human lives have been slaughtered on American Soil without trial or representation.
No, if anything Rand is srengthening the GOP base by standing for life. If you want to vote for legal murder, try the libertarian party.