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.


Half water and half poison is poison; half reason and half un-reason (religion) is evil.

I too believe life starts at

I too believe life starts at conception(obviously...cell mitosis shows life), and I believe abortion is murder...however, I am just not convinced the government has a right to interefere or make legislation to prevent it. Just like gun laws...an anti-abortion law wont stop people from having an abortion....maybe they will go back to coat hangers...or overdose on morning after pills, or fly to mexico to have it done. LEGISLATION WILL NOT STOP IT! This is a morality issue and no matter how you look at it, its between a woman and God, if anything the Federal government should leave it to the states, in fact the fact that Rand would introduce a law FOR WHICH HE HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY makes me think less of him....he needs to explain where he is drawing authority from on this one. If we agree gun legislation wont stop gun crimes then we need to agree that abortion legislation wont stop abortions....women have always found a way and always will. I wont get behind a bill that saves exactly zero babies, what will happen is some women will have illegal abortions....while others will have the baby only to throw it in a dumpster somewhere.

From the father of a 2 year old foetus

I understand that murder is a state issue and there is a misconception that laws on paper prevent crimes in life. But, would you argue for the repeal of all laws regarding all murders considering "people are always going to kill other people"? Abortion is a right in the same way 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder is a right. No, abortion bans won't stop abortion, but the society that condones and subsidizes it has chosen the path of societal suicide.

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.

In a free republic, one of

In a free republic, one of the few legitimate roles of government is to defend rights. Does a child have rights?

Legislation doesn't prevent crimes, but it gives the victim the ability to receive some sort of redress for loss of life, liberty, or property. That is how the rule of law works. Legislation doesn't prevent the crime of murder but it makes murder illegal which allows for prosecution for this crime.

Most of us here do not support the idea of a "victimless crime". In an abortion there is a victim therefore, according to the philosophy of freedom, a crime has occurred.

Just food for thought, not meant to be argumentative. Maybe you can help me build on this.

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.

Abortion Police

Ron Paul came out against the idea of abortion police. He is very wise.

This is a societal issue. Women and children, until recently, were the property of their men, and could and still can, in some places, be killed by them at will.

Trying to get women to give up their newly acquired self-ownership to give members of Congress jurisdiction over their wombs, is not going to happen any time soon. (It would be as ludicrous as giving them jurisdiction over the economy or healthful living or morality.) This is why the issue is stuck where it is.

Until women can stop defending themselves from this intimately invasive "attack" on their "rights," and connect, again, to their maternal instincts, many of them will not change sides on this issue. In other words, their resistance is a form of blowback.

It should happen, naturally, as the technology allows women to see and hear their unborn children and bond with them, as well as the technology that makes them viable.

Declare peace by making the sin, her sin, if you must, keep politicians out of it, and stop paying for abortions with mandates and taxes.

And get rid of the income tax so we can find homes for children.

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

if your neighbor is murdered in their home

would the FBI show up to investigate the crime? unless your neighbour is a "terrorist" (aka patriot apparently now) or affiliated with the feds in some way, the state appointed police would normally handle these cases.

If an abortion (murder) is committed in Ohio, then the Ohio police should investigate the crime.

Great post, I am in complete

Great post, I am in complete agreement. In my mind, the federalization of social issues is a big no no. It's time to stop ignoring the ninth and tenth amendments.

Reining in the base?

Introduce a feel-good piece of legislation with no chance of passing to stimulate the tyrannical tendencies of the right. Great move. So impressive.


More government control! That is exciting!

It's Wrong To Tell Companies To Label Food

because it's the GOVERNMENT doing it, but it's okay for that SAME government to tell a woman she HAS to have a baby if she accidently gets knocked up simply because SOME people say so? REALLY? I think politicians should stay out of this issue. It's better handled at a spiritual and medical level. NOT GOVERNMENT! I don't believe in aborting fully developed babies and I can't understand how it got so out of control but I don't think an egg is a baby anymore than a fertilized egg makes a chicken. This issue is none of RAND's business or ANY political figure.



How does a woman get pregnant accidentally?

"I accidentally drove head on into a car full of kids when I was drunk, why should I be responsible for this accident?"

"I accidentally killed this guy when I pointed a gun at him and pulled the trigger."

"I accidentally got pregnant when I allowed a man to ejaculate inside of my vagina."

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.

I agree with jetguy

I too would like to get past this left/ right paradigm because it seems to be a machine designed to march us, left/right/left/right into a NWO.

I agree with you, Rand is making masterstrokes and I LOVE it!!!!

We need to see past the Left vs Right paradigm. It doesn't apply

to us.

When "Conservative" means spend every penny available and borrow much much more to produce a government program (incorrectly called DEFENSE). And THAT is considered "Right" the paradigm doesn't work anymore anyway. Because spending like that is NOT conservative in any way.

Since federal mandates are so good at solving social problems..

Do people honestly believe that gov mandates are going to stop abortions? Does gun prohibition keep guns out of the hands of criminals? A federal mandate will just make abortions popular in the back alleys and black market once again.

Everyone in favour of a federal mandate to fix the abortion problem needs to stop what they are doing and read "Liberty Defined" ASAP. Dr Paul has has written a whole chapter on this issue in this book. As everyone knows, he is against abortion. But he is wise enough to know Federal mandates will never fix this issue. Again I quote him. "The only thing that will fix a the abortion problem is moral and just society" Most abortions occur because women and or couples do not feel that they can afford a child, or they don't want to raise a child in poverty etc..Not saying all abortions, but most. I realize some people use abortion as contraception. But in most cases it is for economic reasons. Fixing the economy (which arguably could mean removing federal mandates) will save more babies then any federal level pro life legistlation could.

This abortion issue is a trap. It always has been. If anyone actually thinks the democrats in charge give a crap about women's rights is out of their mind. Abortion has been politized for no other reason then to pray on people for votes and to demonize others. Doesn't matter what "side" you are on

Not a mandate, it's a recognition.

I don't believe anyone believes this will stop abortions. What it does is stop legitimizing abortions. Big difference.

recognition?......that is an incredibly weak arguement

Since when does the fed's endorsement give recognition to anything?

The feds claim raw milk is bad and therefore has outlawed its sale. Does that mean the people recognize raw milk as being bad?...no, the exact opposite has been happening. More and more people are finding ways to get around it via farm coops etc.

give me a break....Not trying to bash you, but you will have to come up with better argument then for "recognition". I am not a "pro choicer". I believe the chain reaction of life begins when the sperm enters the egg etc....Think about it. People like us talk about nullification and reducing the size of gov. How hypocritical of us to give more power to the feds to decide when life begins and ends.


You are comparing the right to sell raw milk to the right to sell abortion services and you call my argument weak. I agree the federal government should not decide if raw milk can be sold, but this does not compare to the federal governments intervention into States right to determine how to regulate abortion services in their jurisdiction. As for the issue of life, the recognition of life is a basic right given to individuals in the constitution of the United states. All this bill does is to define who has those rights and has determined that everyone has this right. Therefore, I believe the bill goes in the right direction. It could have determined that individuals under 2 years old and above 65 do not have the right to life, meaning that medical treatment could be denied to these individuals.

if you really care about the abortion issue

stop looking to federal or even state government to resolve this problem as neither can. So what if the states have the power to convict people who have abortions or murder. It won't stop the abortions. Just as laws against murder don't stop all murders. They will still happen in back allies. Some states like cali will never criminalize it, abortions will still happen there. If you really want to stop abortions, then continue the fight for freedom and prosperity for all and most importantly understand the underlying problems. You are looking to a third party to resolve the side affect (abortion) of an even bigger issue instead of trying to understand the underlying problems that lead people to consider abortions. What is the number one reason abortions occur? Economic reasons. Dr Paul understood this and he is completely against abortion on any level. He is the reason I have the views I do on abortion. If we get this country back on track, reduce/eliminate poverty, re-instate moral values (religion, or strong families, or whatever means) and people start becoming prosperous, this will save more babies then any federal or state level legistalation ever could. Will is stop all abortions, not likely either. But will have much bigger impact then legistlation. Please read or re-read Liberty Defined By Dr Paul. He has an entire chapter on this topic. Trust me, it will make sense to you.

This bill prevents the government's subsidizing abortions.

I don't expect the federal government or state to stop anything, but I also don't want them promoting it either. With the legalized market of abortion services, there are still babies born and dropped in the garbage. But because people throw their babies in the garbage doesn't mean the federal government or states should legalize baby disposal services. What people do with their bodies in the privacy of their own home will happen regardless of what laws are in place. Everyone realizes this as true by simply looking at the drug war. This doesn't mean I want to see licensed marketing of all drugs either. As Dr. Paul has said on many occasion, when the government makes something legal, then it usually means that the government is going to provide the legalized product to someone with someone else paying for it, as is the case of abortion services.

it's not about stopping

it's not about stopping abortion, it's about not legitimizing the act under law. murder is illegal, but there are still laws that punish it because our society deems murder to be unacceptable.

when a murder is committed in your town or city

who handles the case? The FBI, DHS or some other federal branch?

NO, 9/10 murders are handled by the STATE appointed police for that city town etc...

We don't need an arbitrary group like the feds to tell us what murder is. We already know...Why would we want an entity that commits the most murder, handling cases of murder....

C'mon people, use your noggins. Your position on how the feds should handle abortions is making all your other arguments for smaller gov weaker. Stop being hypocrites. Stop being like the statist neocons and democrats.

I am against abortion.

But what about the women's right to not have a parasite growing in her? She loses her freedom to partake in risky behavior for nine months. She may lose her ability to work while pregnant. Her body is permanently altered as a result of her pregnancy. She must eat an unusually large amount of food ($), and then suffer the woes of dieting afterwards. If she is a teen she will endure ostracism by her peers. She must suffer a most dreadful pain when giving birth, run the risk of medical complications (even death) or requiring a c-section. These are just some the consequences she may undure during the pregnancy.

After she gives birth she either has to go through the heartbreak of adoption or be responsible for 18 years of child rearing. She will lose a lot of sleep. The estimated cost of rearing a child is $236,000. She may have to forego university or job promotions that do not fit her schedule. Her opportunities to travel will be limited. She will be required to act responsibly and forego risky, potentially harmful, or adventurous activities. She will experience ostracism for being a single parent. Her ability to find a mate will be hindered because of the 'illegitimate' child. She runs the risk of bearing a child with special needs.

These are just some of the downsides consequences for the women of being forced to bear a child that was not planned or wanted. I am sure there are more that I have not thought of. Surely there will be upside rewards as well but I am just pointing out that a child is basically a parasite. Most women love children and have an innate need for these little parasites but all of these things need to be part of the conversation when some draconian centralized State power grab is introduced.

Sooooo, the entire human race is parasitic...

...and must be exterminated the moment it has "infected" a woman?

I sure hope this post was a weak attempt at satire.

Y'all can take offense to language all you want.

but that will not change the definition of words.

an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
(in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

A baby, wanted or unwanted, is a parasite. That is not some evil statement. I did not make it up. It is a fact by using the English language.

The only rebuttal I read of my argument is classifying a women as 'sinful' or 'slutty' for refusing to suppress her most natural and innate desire of all creatures - sex. That is no argument to the complicated issue of the two sets of conflicting rights between a women who does not desire to have a baby and the baby.

You can bring me into the debate as some evil cold-hearted troll but I see no argument addressing the conflict I described. I began the argument that 'I' do not like it. But I do not agree that the point of conception should be universally forced as the very point at which the women loses all her rights. I am not a doctor or scientist but a libertarian putting forth an argument about self ownership and property rights. I do not have an answer but the situation is so complicated that none before us have pointedly arrived at an answer either, or we would not be discussing it.


"an organism that lives on or in an organism of ANOTHER species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."

An unborn child IS of the same species as the mother.

So an unborn child is not a parasite by that definition. 2 and 3 are after birth so do not fit either.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Great points!

The word had really nothing to do with the argument though. It just pissed everybody off. One way or the other, the mother has rights that are in conflict with that of the baby (it is natural for a women to give up her rights but in an affluent society, as was ancient Roman life, reproduction no longer has the 'life-or-death' connotation as it would have in more dire situations - the Romans quit procreating too). I believe this is the reason that human life has not been defined as beginning at the point of conception up until now.

An innocent, unborn baby

is not a parasite. I find what you said truly offensive and as far as I'm concerned shows an utter contempt for the right to life.
But since you insist on your babble, the answer is: if you don't want to do the time, don't commit the crime.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

According to the parasite

According to the parasite argument, is not the child even more parasitic after it is born? Really, according to the parasitic argument, aren't children parasitic until they get a job and fend for themselves?

The argument holds no water. Does sex result in pregnancy? What causes pregnancy besides sex? Why would a woman allow male zygotes into her reproductive system if she doesn't want to become pregnant? And then pregnancy results in a child being born. Should it be a woman's right to starve her child? You can't tell a woman she has to feed her kids right? Those pesky parasites...

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.


If a child is completely dependent on its parents by definition it is a parasite. I only used the word to help the argument that the women has rights too. I love babies and children as much as the next person.

Why would a woman allow male zygotes into her reproductive system if she doesn't want to become pregnant?

Really? Do I have to answer that?

And then pregnancy results in a child being born. Should it be a woman's right to starve her child?

Is that what my argument suggested to you? C'mon. I merely pointed out that there are many down-sides for a women even is she planned on having the child. I did not give any answers to the complicated issue of conflicting rights. I just pointed out why this issue is not as cut and dry as 'life begins at conception or a women is guilty of federal murder'.

It would have been nice if one of the scathing replies to my argument even touched upon the point I made. Perhaps they should pass a law that says the women is responsible through pregnancy and through DNA evidence the man is responsible from there out. Not one reply addressed the man's responsibility either. I do not have the answer. Ron Paul was not so arrogant to make the claim that the Feds should mandate this and he is a baby scientist.

my point

My point is that actions have consequences. In a free society, individuals must accept the consequences of their own decisions, whether the consequences are positive or negative, whether we are reaping benefits or dealing with losses.

There are ways to deter pregnancy, like abstinence to vaginal intercourse or using birth control methods. If a woman allows male zygotes into her reproductive system, is it not reasonable to believe that pregnancy could result? I am getting at the fact that her decisions have consequences and if a life results from intercourse, then killing the resulting unwanted child is a violation of that child's natural right to life and liberty. She may not have wanted to get pregnant, but that is not the baby's fault. Why should the baby be forced to suffer the consequence of death? I think this is a legitimate point. This isn't about telling the woman what to do with her body, it's about telling a woman or a doctor what they cannot do with the baby's body.

May I then ask you- if a man gets a woman pregnant outside of a contractual agreement like marriage, should the male be legally responsible to pay a child support payment to the mother? What right does the State have to tell the man what he must do with his money?

As far as my comment about a woman starving her child- if the child is a parasite, then it is a parasite until it gets a job and holds it's own. What right then does the State have to tell the woman she must take care of the child? This is inherent as the child is her responsibility. She chose the actions which led to the creation of a life. She must accept the consequence of her actions. There are no bailouts in a free society.

I want to reiterate this is not an attack, I like you dducks and I appreciate your contributions to this site. I am trying to solidify a philosophical matter which is not easy to deal with.

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.