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.

❣❣ Obi-Wan ❣❣

I appreciate that we can debate these topics without personal attacks and with mutual respect.

That said, let me offer a solution that I think woman everywhere would be into. I just came up with it while gardening.

I agree that there should be a point in time at which the baby is legally determined a life form (especially since that point is well defined when it comes to manslaughter or OBGY harm to a fetus). It breaks my heart to think that there is this conflict between rights of these two neat cool little (and big) creatures. So, why not, since DNA is available, convict the impregnating man of the crime of murder if a baby is found to be aborted? So, as I mentioned, the women always has her hands full, so at long last the man, who is the main opponent of aborting fetuses, will be the culprit of the crime of murder when an unwanted pregnancy and subsequent abortion occurs?!?!?

WOW! See what a little debate can manifest - solutions?. Or perhaps fair rebuttal. What think you? Maybe 50-50?

Sharing responsibility

I understand you are trying to point out that the woman has more responsibility than the man and you see an unfairness in that.

I'm not sure that you can convict the male of murder if he had no part in the act of abortion. If he contributes to the act of abortion, then he could be considered an accessory to murder. I suppose the woman who has the abortion may also be considered an accessory because it is presumably the doctor who commits the murder.

I'd like to know if you think the father of a child out of wedlock should be legally responsible to pay child support. The arguments for either side would be "he is responsible for the results of his actions" or "you can't tell a man what he has to do with his money". I'm sure there are more arguments than just these but I wanted to generalize the argument and I'm curious to know your thoughts.

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


As far as the "woman has more responsibility than the man and you (ME)see an unfairness in that." It is not just a thought I have, it is a fact. Please recall all of the sacrifices I named earlier:

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."

Now, as I disclaimed at the beginning, I hate abortion. But there are two sets of conflicting rights involved when it comes to defining life's commencement at conception. How in the world is this not a valid argument? You still have not agreed with that statement.

Another argument is the one of the fetus in a womb is in a small way like a person in a coma. Especially in the first trimester. It has no brain function. The women, as awful as you may think she might be for partaking in the dual 'crime' of having sex without the desire for a reproduction, is a complete and thinking, feeling human.

Now most of you hooting for Rand and his mastery have not once considered who will be declared a murderer for having a couple glasses of wine, befalling to a romantic environment and horny jerk who just wants to have his immediate needs met. Generally, I think we can all agree, the man is the one dominating the roles. The man is the one having more 'unwed' sex. The man is the one sowing his oats. And that is a generalization, of course it is not true across the board.

I can't believe that libertarians who are such great thinkers would think that a women should be a murderer if she makes an unconscious mistake like that.

You alluded to marriage as the single event that is the end all cure for this problem. You wondered if a man is responsible for child support if the women is not married. Say wha?! Some of us are not religious and do not believe the State has any business in our relationships. What does a piece of paper have to do with it? If there is an unwanted child born or not the man absolutely, MORALLY, as responsible as the women. More actually. Read all the sacrifices the women endures. So you really believe that a man should not think himself responsible if the State has not sanctioned the relationship? You should study why the State is involved in this institution in the first place. The State like to keep track of its livestock's offspring.

The current solution is a compromise. Life, until technology can overcome conflicting rights, begins at the end of the first trimester. Otherwise, the man is responsible for the murder. You have to have the man responsible. He will just lie to the women saying, "I want to marry you, let's have babies", then he will disappear after he gets it, leaving the women alone and destroyed. If the man is responsible, he can take responsibility for his own
'zyogotes' or whatever you called them. Unless you can come up with something better or at least debate on the conflicting rights argument. What say you on the list of sacrifices the women endures?


I am trying to apply the liberty philosophy to the issue.

I recognize you are opposed to abortion personally, but are arguing to support it for the "right" of others. I also understand that nature has made it so the woman endures the many physical aspects of pregnancy, but that is not under our control, that is how Nature and Nature's God made it to be. I personally think the physical changes are irrelevant. I don't think the changes that occur to a woman's body have anything to do with whether or not the baby has rights.

I also never said the father shouldn't be responsible to support the child. I was asking you what you thought. I think if anyone in the world is responsible for the baby, it is the father and mother who took part in the actions resulting in the creation of a life. So yes, I think the father should be responsible. I cannot think of a valid argument where the baby is either parent's sole responsibility, except for death of one parent, a parent being convicted of a felony which makes them unfit to be a parent, or a legal contractual agreement forfeiting parental rights.

Each parent is equally responsible for the life regardless of contractual agreement such as marriage.

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

I'm pro-life but I used to be

I'm pro-life but I used to be the opposite.

What made me change? Well, when my girlfriend (now my wife) got pregnant, she read a great book about a Japanese woman who started educating her babies in the womb. It was not backed by science, but it was backed by the fact that she had 3 successful and brilliant kids. So anyway, my wife told me she wanted me to read and talk to her womb every night--and that's what I did. I read books, I taught math, I sang songs, and had just ordinary conversations every night around the same time.

The amazing part of this story is all those nights I wasn't able to be there and do it for whatever reason... our daughter would kick like hell!!! It was the most eye opening experience.

Anyway, my daughter is almost 4 now, but she is way ahead of many kids her age. Sure we have taught her that education is fun and have taught her early--she speaks English, Japanese, Chinese and a little Spanish thanks to Dora the Explorer--so who knows what has worked so far, but the fact is, she obviously enjoyed my company when she was in her Mama's womb....

Try it!


This law is long overdue. The right to life is what this country is founded upon. Also this bill defines the definition of a State to include the District of Columbia, Porto Rico and all territories of the United States.

political materstroke?

No not really. Rand just proves he is no diff then democrats and pro choicers trying to use central authority to push his opinions. If abortion is murder then it's still state jurisdiction. Maybe rand should read his dads books. Dr Paul has written that the only thing that will solve the abortion issue is a true prosperous moral and just society and no amount of federal legistslation can fix it.

I'm against abortion personally...

but granting government the power to regulate what women can do with their bodies is a bit scary. Abortion is one of those issues that divide us. I really think we should stop discussing the issue for that reason.

Let's just STOP TALKING about the stuff that DIVIDES us... there's plenty of things we can work on that unite us.

Vinceable- First off I

Vinceable- First off I appreciate you on this site and your contributions, so this is not an attack on you but i do take issue with your post here.

The liberals have framed this argument as "you can't tell a woman what she can do to her body" which isn't the issue. The issue is what women or doctors or anyone can't do to the baby's body. The baby cannot be killed. If some a-hole punches a woman in her pregnant tummy and harms the baby, has he not committed a crime against not just the woman but the baby as well? When an act like this results in permanent disability to the baby, would you later explain to that child that the man who did this to him committed no crime against him?

Can the father of an unborn baby request an abortion or refuse to pay child support for a child? "You can't tell a man what he can do with his money".

If anyone is responsible for the child's life it is the parents.

The role of government in a free republic is to defend rights. In fact I'd argue it is one of the very few legitimate roles of government at all.

It is my opinion that American's have to eventually reject abortion if we are to move forward as a free society.

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

Ron Paul

Ron Paul submitted similar bills in the house for years.

I agree, that if this bill limits Birth Control or Morning After Pill then it goes to far.

That being said, as a new Dad, I can tell you when you hear the heartbeat at like 8 - 12 weeks, you know for sure there is life.

90% of abortions are 'birth control'

If this bill doesn't limit birth control abortions it doesn't go far enough...


so personal and difficult has no place being legislated at the federal level. This is for the states to decide. The people of the state vote for this, if it is banned in one state and legal in another, there is still choice. If it is banned in all states then women should be very careful with sex and protect themselves with arms as best they can. My personal oppinion is an exception for rape and incest, and that would be my vote if it came to the state level. Either way this is not something the feds should make a blanket decision on. Rand should know this.


This has already been

Legislated at the federal level by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Amendment V

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

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.

If these are going to be applied to the unborn child, it kind of opens a new can of worms about citizenship. Implies that it doesn't matter where a person is born that determines citizenship, but who the parents are.

This would throw serious question on Obama's citizenship claim. Parents themselves must be citizens for the children to be citizens.

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

John Adams

That seems to be a bit of a

That seems to be a bit of a stretch. What about original intent? What about the ninth and tenth amendments? Is it even possible to legislate morality? If a moral society could have been created by law, we would have had one a long time ago.

Granted that

Morality cannot be legislated.

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Quincy Adams

[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. Samuel Adams

"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."

The Constitution and the laws of the states, should be enacted to protect the rights of citizens, not to legislate morality.

If an unborn is child is considered a citizen of the United States, and is protected by the Bill of Rights, (and this is part of the argument presented by Rand Paul) then place of birth is not key to citizenship, but whether the parents are or where. (For how else can an unborn child be a citizen?)

I am of the opinion that a corrupt people cannot produce just laws.

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

John Adams

And where do we put

the illegal immigration amnesty leanings?

In the middle?

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

This was not a master stroke - it was giving himself a political

abortion. Nothing good can come from this.

For one, I absolutely disagree with him. I am against abortion - but at the time of conception - that is the type of ass backwards, over the top thinking that kills a presidential bid. So basically the morning after pill is murder???

There is only one way to win the abortion argument - you need to compromise - not that I am a fan of compromising - but in this case - you have no choice. The arguments on both sides are valid.
One cannot claim liberty - and at the same time deprive a woman of her own liberty(both physically and mentally - for it is an opinion of when life starts - not a fact. It is funny the Christian right argues FOR science in this one instance - pretty hypocritical). However, you simply cannot be a civilized society if you do not value ALL life.

The argument then should only be at what week does it stop being a woman's choice and become an issue of protecting life. For me, I am no doctor, but I do know that conception is lunatic talk - it is a sure way to NOT get people into the liberty movement. I also know that if that baby can survive outside the womb - then that is pretty damn clearly murder as well.

For me, let's just talk about a compromise -and no - the far left and far right will not agree - but they never will - so lets pull in as many as we can.

This is a no win topic and he should stay the hell away from it.

Reagan was pro life

and won two landslide alections. Did he not?

When is it meaningful to say an embryo has a right to life?

I agree with you that to be consistent in defense of liberty one should uphold the liberty of a woman to decide whether to terminate her being pregnant or to carry to full term and deliver a baby.

Rand Paul and his father are both willing to violate the right of a woman to make that decision for herself. They fail to distinguish between a potential human being, one which does not yet possess a "volitional, conceptual consciousness" and an actual human being.

The mere fact that a fertilized ovum is "alive" or that an embryo is "alive" does not mean that it has a right to life.

Ayn Rand wrote in favor of a woman's right to choose in an article entitled "Of living death" in response to a Pope's encyclical Humanae Vitae both of which can be found by googling.

Many things are simply "alive" including germs which we gladly have found ways to kill for good reason. There are pathogenic germs for which certain antibiotics works but millions of non pathogenic bacteria die in the process as collateral damage.

A fertillized ovum is alive but does not possess the "essential, distinguishing characteristic" which makes it an actual human being, namely, a volitional, conceptual consciousness.

It is the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being. If nurtured the fertilized ovum will become an embryo which will become a fetus and at birth an actual human being.

Rand Paul should leave his personal religiously based beliefs to himself and not try to impose them on the rest of us if he wants to restore a limited constitutional republic and not a totalitarian theocracy.

I hope he reads daily paul.

No Man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill that need.

A woman like everyone else

A woman like everyone else has the right to self defense. If carrying the child to term will kill the woman, then of course the child should be removed if no other means exists to save the life of the mother or child. For example an ectopic pregnancy is a case where a mother can die from internal bleeding and the child may have to be removed, which most likely will result in the death of the child. If the child however is protected under Right to Life legislation, then if removal is necessary then all possible means to protect the survival of the child should be exercised once the child is extracted from the mother.


So are you going to then prosecute mothers for not bringing their child to full term?

Are we going to have an abortion Czar to enforce new abortion laws?

Are we going to force mothers to have children even if it kills them?

Are we going to force crack addicts to have their babies?

How much are we going to have to ask the FED for $$ to build new facilities and pay for all the government services all these new destitute babies will need?

Is he going to rewrite the constitution to make this law constitutional?
Nothing about this is masterful IMO,

He just shot himself in the foot with this one and handed 2016 to Hillary

i agree

i always respected his father for saying abortion should be a states right issue.

rand continues to take one step forward then two steps back.

I call that hubris.

Overriding what his dad, the Gynecologist, had said for decades is arrogant. It reminds me of another son who just 10 years ago suddenly and unexpectedly found himself with more power than he knew what to do with.

Rand Paul is protecting Guns Rights

Okay so just throwing this out there for thought... This could have an effect of throwing the progressives off the trail of attacking Gun Rights. If they thing the right to choice is under attack they could loose focus on that goal which would be a big win.

Just a thought I had

Ron Paul - Intellectual hero

I would like too know...

Were in the US Constitution does Rand have the right to propose this. Rand says he stands for the constittion but his actions says otherwise! It dont matter if he is pro life or pro killing the unborn. It not in the US Constitution so that makes it a States rights issue!

By the way

I don't remember making an argument for its constitutionality. I was making an observation on the effect that it could have on the Gun Debate in Washington.

P.S. Does anybody else notice that its easy to come off as hostile - or at least ornery - on these forums? That is not my intent.

Ron Paul - Intellectual hero


Read it again

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.

That is the introduction to the US Constitution. Read the keyword posterity.

Additionally logically if our rights to life and liberty are truly natural and innate in every human being, which the bill of rights affirms, then indeed every human whether born or unborn is protected.

A libertarian who believes that protecting 'mothers rights' trumps protecting the rights of an unborn child is synonymous to a libertarian who believes white people have more right to liberty than black. Or that Americans have more right to liberty than Arabs.

Ron Paul - Intellectual hero

A free man

A free man procreates based on his own ability to feed his children. Idiots and weak-minded prefer multiplying the poor and the crippled, born with deformities, as the means for their personal entry into heaven - Utopia in the sky.

Darn. I was going for a 90%

Darn. I was going for a 90% kill ratio of black babies. We're only up to 52% right now. I'm glad it's not a states rights issue, the kill ratio might go down.

Abortion is a tricky one.

Let me just say that I'm personally against abortion and would uphold the sanctity of human life if I were in a position forcing me to make such a decision.

HOWEVER, I also realize that contraception is not always morally unjustified, and that the state restricting an individual's access to such services and monopolizing their distribution is an encroachment on Liberty and the free market.

All that being said, everyone concerned with the topic needs to watch Maafa 21: Black Genocide in the 21st Century. The evidence that contraceptives and abortion have been used by our corporatist government in America to eliminate the black race from the Earth is unprecedented. I understand that these statements may be shocking if this is your first time encountering them, but eugenics is alive and well in modern America.

Maafa 21 Documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02t3Wqg-4Iw

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
-Frederic Bastiat