29 votes

Rand Paul Just Made Another Political Masterstroke

First he goes Left (drones filibuster) and now he's going Right (abortion).

How's this for a one-two punch?

Rand Paul Introduces Life at Conception Act in U.S. Senate


WASHINGTON, D.C., March 19, 2013 (LifeSiteNews) – Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the “Life at Conception Act” on Thursday afternoon, then took to Twitter to tell the world, “the right to life is guaranteed to all Americans.”


“The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known — that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection,” Sen. Paul said in a statement.

-------- full article linked above...



Sanctity of Life

I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.

I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.

I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. I support a Human Life Amendment and have co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue.

In addition, I support a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement.

---------------- full article linked above.

Wow. So...

What's the difference between the Obama and the democrats vs. Paul and the republicans?

Rand Paul just drew a huge, thick red line between the DNC and the GOP.

Life does begin at conception...science has proven it just like science has proven that the earth is round, grass is green, and the sky is blue.

That's what I find so interesting about Rand's 2nd political masterstroke....it is rooted in science, not religion.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Does not compute. He does

"Does not compute. He does not fit into my Left vs. Right paradigm."


what is the fuss?

This is an established well known fact.



As a general surgeon, I could never have done this. I never would have been exposed to it, anyway. But, I see one problem.

By prohibiting it, like drugs, and like alcohol, in the past, it just creates more criminals! It will go underground. We will not stop it. It is the same problem we see, as before Roe vs Wade. It is forcing others to believe in the Judeo-Christian morals that most of us do. Even some atheists could see this as consistent with their thinking. But, this is a Republic that allows for the minority not being suppressed. I can only believe that the souls are with Jesus in Heaven. I cannot force others to practice as they believe, no more than I can be forced to believe the way they do! This, still, should be a Libertarian nightmare. The fetus has rights, as a human life, too! It is just such a mess, no matter how the thing (abortion) is dealt with.

One thing we could require...If the women were given a general anesthesia, the fetus' pain would be eliminated. We would get in trouble for doing the same to animals, right now! but, the fetus does not deserve to feel any pain through these awful procedures.

Anyway, it will, just, make life more difficult. At least the lawyers will get more work. As if, they are not getting rich enough off of all of us now! IMHO.

Only 3% of rapists are

Only 3% of rapists are actually caught and convicted by a court of law. That doesn't mean that we should legalize rape.

Well then...

"I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life."

Why not go further than that. Life begins at the production of sperm and the egg. Therefore masturbation for a man should be illegal because when he ejaculates outside of a vagina he is wasting the sperm, in fact the sperm dies destroying life.

A woman must have sex upon her first menstruation until she becomes pregnant and every menstruation there after and it should be illegal not to. Because if she menstruates without fertilizing the egg she is destroying life.

On the other hand we could come to a reasonable conclusion that life begins once the fetus has begun development of vital organs and a brain. At that point the fetus by nature is wanting to live. Where that point is I don't exactly know. But I do know that when the sperm fertilizes the egg that is not a person, it's a fertilized egg.

What about?

What about nocturnal emissions? It is the same thing as ovulation. There is no human control over such. Masturbation? It is not, much, different!? Are we going to condemn all the children that do such? Heck, my toddler daughter used to do it, laying, face down, on the couch! Life cannot begin if sperm and ova are placed in two petri dishes, side by side! The only time that life can start is when the two get together. There must be a full complement of matched chromosomes. We see what happens when, even, one is abnormal. The morning after pill prevents implantation. Often the woman's body, also does not allow implantation. Therein, lies the quandary, for many.

And, don't kid yourself. Women, who have an abortion, no matter how they might express it, still think about it, years afterward! I know!

Weak argument

Embyo's have their own genetic makeup and cells. The only thing different for an embryo is the dependancy on its environent.

We Don't Know Yet

We do not yet have the technology or spiritual adeptness to know when this growth receives the spark of humanity. Personally I would say when the Pineal Gland fully develops, as it is a gateway for the soul.

Point is, WE DON'T KNOW yet. That's why it should be left to the states until we do.

As for this helping Rand, that's just crazy talk... This is way too extreme for Independents, which is pretty much his base.

I do like Ron Paul's solution which mirrors current laws regarding fetuses in situations such as homicides.


This bill does leave it to the states

And scientifically a human zygote is in the process of becoming a fully functioning fetus, which is in the process of becoming a fully functioning baby, which is in the process of becoming a fully functioning toddler, which is in the process of becoming a fully functioning adolescent, which is in the process of becoming a fully functioning adult human.

There is ONLY one point along that line of development that can be know for certain and that is conception. A sperm and an egg do not grow into anything, a sperm combined with an egg grow into a unique being.

Regardless of your view on abortion, all sexually reproducing animals begin their lives as zygotes (the fused sperm and egg). This is scientifically proven.

Now as far as what makes someone human, we only have one thing to go off of, DNA. DNA is what makes you human, not functional capacity. Is a skin cell a human? No, it's part of a human. Is a Human zygote human? Yes, it is the complete body of the developing human. Is a human fetus human? Yes it is the complete body of a developing human.

That said, this bill would only reaffirm that the states may make laws based on the loss of human life. It does not declare federal penalties.

Nope. NOT a "political" masterstroke. Poor title.

May be the right position to take / philosophy to believe, but it's not politically expedient for our cause.

He just alienated Liberty-minded pro-choice moderates, independents, progressives, and the few non-fascist liberals whose votes he would need to win an election.

Oh, and legions of women voters, too, more importantly.

NOT politically masterful. Drones, yes, because he brought Liberty folk together; however, this will just drive them apart again.

I am sad.

"Rand Paul just drew a huge, thick red line between the DNC and the GOP." Yes, he sure did. The same line that will force a whole bunch of people, whom we need, to move across to its left side again.

What would the Founders do?


it's politically smart because before he can get to a general election, he has to run the gauntlet of the Republican Primary.

which means he needs to be able to point to strong pro-life legislative attempts. the pro-life litmus test remains extremely strong in the Republican Primary, that's why Romney had to pretend he was pro-life. hugely influential groups put out lists of pro-life candidates, putting them under windshields in church parking lots, in my state I probably won as a delegate because I somehow got my name on the top of one such list. like it or not, pro-life is an important issue in a Republican primary.

we'll just have to hope that the liberty folk don't hold it against him that he's pro-life (because unlike Romney, he's not just faking it I think). it's definitely a difficult issue in a general election though, but so long as the two party dictatorship reigns, he absolutely has to have some pro-life bona fides to have any hope at all of getting himself into the general election.

And just like Ron, this

And just like Ron, this legislation affirms Rand's belief in pro-life while allowing him the latitude of making it a state issue.

No, this bill bans abortion

No, this bill bans abortion at the federal level. Rand doesn't believe that the states should have the right to commit murder.

We'll just hafta play up the states' rights benefit....

to those teetering independents, progressives, etc.

(It's never easy, is it?) ; )

What would the Founders do?

No one said it would be

No one said it would be

Good point...

I was just trying to edit my response (and got 403'd) to add the idea that it isn't Rand's fault, obviously, that people react in typical knee-jerk fashion to this issue.... but they will.

Unfortunately, any attempt to define where "life begins" (if early enough in the biological process) by a politician gets him / her roasted by one side or the other. People seem unwilling to bend.

Yes, I think what you say about the primary makes sense, but it is where he will "come out" after that which has me concerned.

A whole bunch of people (mods, progs, and even some liberals) I have brought over to our side will we driven away potentially. (Not that I'm whining about my own situation... I'll keep talkin' that crazy liberty talk 'til the cows come home!) It's the long game that suffers here, I fear (That being the election; I agree that this should be a states' rights issue, of course.).

What would the Founders do?

and hes still young

badabangbadaboom were in business

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

This is EXACTLY in line with Ron Paul's beliefs

Apparently none of you read the statement.

Yes, it would declare on a federal level that life begins at conception. Which is a scientific fact. (Actually, both gametes are alive even before conception, but upon conception a unique combinations of human genes combine to create the very beginning of a unique human.)

BUT, this doesn't impose any federal penalties for murder or manslaughter for destroying a fetus.

It returns to the states the power to define their own laws on abortion. Because it defines what life is, states then become free to put their own penalties on the ending of a life.

This IS what Ron Paul was talking about. This returns the debate to the states. And as libertarians, constitutionalists, and republicans, we should all be for it.

Now tell me why I'm wrong.

i would agree that if abortion is murder it is a state issue

as the states already handle most murder cases.

However this is NOT exactly in line with Ron Paul's views. Yes Ron Paul is against abortion of any stage. And if he had to choose between state and federal jurisdiction on this issue, he would believe it less a waste of time at the state level. However if you read his book "Liberty defined" he has a whole chapter where he explains that the only thing that can truly stop abortions is a prosperous, moral and just society. That means re-education of the masses. This will take time. Legislation, on a state or federal level can never fix this problem. Back alley abortions will still occur. Some states will keep abortions legal or will have no penalty for it.Just as some states have outlawed guns, the criminals still get them. Abortions will still happen regardless of what the "law" is or what the arbitrary gov definitions are. This legistlation is no different then Rand's endorsement of romney or mcconnel. Its a political move to get on the radar of more evangelicals and neocons. I'm sure because people like buck feck are telling him that's what he needs to do.

oh, I see, so...

I guess that's why Ron never introduced the sanctity of Life Act in Congress himself.

oh wait, he did. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2533/text

One needs to take a close look

at the eyes of those 65-85yo parents who know they will die soon and leave behind a 30-45yo Dawn syndrome adult-child.

As Ayn Rand correctly pointed out, anti-abortion folks defend "common good" of potential life while disregard live, happiness and well-being of already living. Building a free society and multiplying the poor and crippled is not rational.

It is not a potential life, it is a life.

So what you are suggesting is at the death of the parents the adult Down syndrome child if a burden on society should be killed?

It is indeed a potential

It is indeed a potential life. It is cell division. A physical body does not mean there is life. That is something that shows up when breath is there and only then. If life comes at conception, created only by a man and a woman, then what is a miscarriage? A stillborn? In fact, what is a funeral?

the poor and crippled come from the environment

rational choice comes from individuals... there is a difference, and those who promote liberty first know individuals must accept responsibility for their own choices.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.


is to have a HAPPY life for yourself and children that you love. Moreover, a child should be able to grow into a normal ADULT, self functioning.

If technology is available to prevent severe deformity, each parent should use his/her OWN judgement. You may rely on God and charity to take care of your crippled child after you die. Normal people, however, want to be happy themselves, have happy children and be financially independent.


actually most normal people are much more altruistic and less rational. which I am wholly supportive of. pure reason without LOVE is an inhuman nightmare (note: love is not rational)

if you want a cold, rational society of "freedom", to me you want the flip-side of the communist nightmare. somewhere apart from all that, is the American ideal that believes not only in freedom, but also in life and humanity, and would not have any desire toward eugenics to get rid of deformed people. the non-aggression principle applies to the unborn child that the woman through her own actions has caused to be present within her and now she has to take responsibility for (leaving the issue of rape exemptions aside for the moment)... yes, you have more responsibilities than just "be as happy as you can", there can be no liberty without the non-aggression principle and personal responsibility towards those you cause to exist and be dependent upon you.

Downvote me all you want. No

Downvote me all you want. No man nor woman can create life. Just a potential for life. Yes, cell division is a form of life--but a human life is very special. Even when supposedly Adam was formed as an entire grown MAN, it took a breath, from God, to make him a living human. Many babies, are born "dead", and suddenly breath comes into them and they are alive. NO one can tell for sure if an embryo or a fetus will become a human being. It can only be a presumption. A potential. A probability. NO. Do not force your "life begins at conception" beliefs on me.

That said, and meant, as the hope and probability of life comes closer, and the fetus is quite viable--say at 5 months--I think abortion is wrong. However, there would not FOR CERTAIN, be a murder if a woman had one. I can not feel right about laws regarding this or other beliefs.

Americans are a Subset

I don't like this "guaranteed" language. "Granted" or "unalienable" are better words.

I assume he's talking about Constitutional restraints on government violation of these rights, and there, of course, the government is restrained from violating the rights of any person on the planet, not just citizens.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

drones are not left... they

drones are not left... they are tyrannical... neocons still rampant

Abortion is a personal issue.

Abortion is a personal issue. Time to get with it pro-life government activists! Liberty loses with your solutions.

This statement from Rand is simply not true.
“The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known — that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection,”

Here is why; Most Americans in my experience, especially those that support liberty,say just the opposite about "legal protection".
"Most Americans" actually say something more like this:
Believe what you want. Act on your beliefs in your own life but the above statement is dead wrong on the politics of abortion and the federal government. No matter what you might believe you can't force a woman the carry a fetus without using force you have no right to use. That decision is between her and her god and maybe her family if she chooses to include them only.

I will again remind those that believe they can impose their will on this abortion issue through government and claim to favor liberty, that their control must not reach into another person's body regardless of their noble intentions or their beliefs on life. That is a slope I care not to slide down and I believe most Americans agree.

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
- Thomas Jefferson

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.