3 votes

USNews: Rand Paul Is No Libertarian

DENVER – These days, it's very Washington-chic to debate Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul's viability as a presidential candidate. But despite what Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says – and despite the near-constant use of the word by the media – Rand Paul isn't a libertarian.

Rand Paul is against my civil liberties, and those of every woman in America. He believes big government should be making our most private, personal decisions for us. Rand Paul is not only anti-choice, he embraces "personhood," the far end of the extremist spectrum on opposing reproductive rights.

I'm tired of (mostly male) reporters and pundits calling Paul a libertarian because women's civil rights are somehow a second tier issue. If you believe that, perhaps you can have a chat with Ken Buck – or the guy who beat him, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, who's now head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Read the rest: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/laura-chapin/2013/07/29/...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Really? This is the worste

Really? This is the worste debate ever. Why would it not be considered life when it is conceived? Why?

Because it's an inconvenience

Because it's an inconvenience and everyone is forced by society to bump peepees.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

You said killing "babies"

You said killing "babies" which is why I asked about "babies" not life. Theoretically, since life is required to create life, are not sperm and eggs also "life" under your definition? If so, is masterbating considered abortion?

"Life" and "a life" are two

"Life" and "a life" are two completely different things. Plants are alive, but only the insane think they are "a life." Sperm are created and die regardless of being ejaculated. Eggs are created all at once and are discarded monthly if not fertilized. Even so, neither are lives. They must come together and fertilize for there to be a life.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

This is also a silly

This is also a silly argument. A baby is created when the sperm meets the egg. They teach this in grade school.

Actually they called that a

Actually they called that a fetus not a baby at my Catholic School. No doubt public school teaches the same.

Its still "a life" and what

Its still "a life" and what it all boils down to is how we as a society value human life.

Define "Life"

It all comes down to the definition of life. People who are pro-choice aren't murderers, and people who are pro-life aren't tyrants. It simply comes down to different definitions of "life".

Personally, I'm not religious, so I take a secular approach to the matter. To me, what makes you, "you", and me, "me", is not our arms or legs or heartbeat, but our minds. Without our consciousness, we are not alive.

So if I extend this logic, then a fetus doesn't become alive until it acquires consciousness. Now, it's very difficult to say when this actually happens, but it's definitely not at conception. The absolute earliest this can occur is when brain wave activity starts, which is about 2 months in. So prior to 2 months, no brain wave activity = definitely not alive.

After 2 months, it becomes fuzzy, as brain waves aren't a definite indication of consciousness, they're just a requirement. So at that point, it's a judgement call.

Anyway, that's my take on when life starts. Like I said, everyone has their own opinion, and there's no "logical" right or wrong answers, which is why this issue is so difficult for libertarians.

How about this... if its not life before 2 months why do you

have to kill it?

The fact is nobody knows for sure when consciousness occurs, hell a real level of consciousness may not even happen until after birth. After all how many people remember being born or even their first year of life? Perhaps with that logic we should allow the murder of babies within the first year because no one remembers their first year anyway.

Just remember, if you have to kill it, its a life and deserves its chance to live.

Don't understand your question

What do you mean by "why do you have to kill it?" Do you mean "why do people have abortions?" Cause there's dozens of different reasons, but usually cause they don't want to raise a child at that stage in their lives.

You're right that we can't really know when consciousness occurs, but it does appear to occur before long term memory formation, which would explain why no one remembers being born.

You're also right that following this logic could be dangerous, since we could end up saying that newborn babies don't technically have consciousness. My personal belief is that we should err on the safe side and assume that fetuses which have had brain activity for a couple of months have at least some level of consciousness.

So from my secular morality point of view, abortions in the first trimester are ok, but after that it gets dicey.

A friend of mine had an

A friend of mine had an abortion because they were not ready and it was not planned. She later planned a pregnancy when they were ready and went on to nurture and love a healthy baby.

So when the child is not planned...it is not considered life and it is discarded. When it is planned...that "life" is then protected, cared for, and loved.

I don't get this kind of logic.


Federal Government shouldn't be making the choices for women, leave it to the states.

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?

MSM realizes some are easily confused by labels.

By speaking authoritatively, announcers and writers sway people's thinking.

Too many people don't stand for anything, so they fall for everything.

Free includes debt-free!