Rand Paul promotes bill to ‘end abortion on demand once and for all’


#1

[LIST]
[*]Fri Nov 30 11:52 EST
[/LIST]

**The Kentucky senator says a federal Life at Conception Act would overturn Roe v. Wade.

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 30, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) –Republican Senator Rand Paul says he wants to pass a Life at Conception Act to “end abortion on demand once and for all.”

Senator Paul, R-KY, recently recorded a message for the National Pro-Life Alliance (NPLA), talking about the legislation, which would declare unborn babies legal persons from the moment of conception and give them Constitutional protections.

The senator says Congress can legislatively overturn the Supreme Court‘s Roe v. Wade decision by passing a “personhood” law called the Life at Conception Act.

The law would establish that human life begins at conception, and extend 14th Amendment protection to babies in the womb.
Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the 1973 ruling that if a fetus can be defined as a person, the “right” to abortion “collapses, for the fetus’s right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

U.S. law does not currently define an unborn child as a legal person.

Senator Paul, who has a medical degree, says in the message that science and biology confirm that life begins at conception.
In the message, Paul slams Roe v. Wade, which he says, “played God with innocent human life” and “invented laws that condemned more than 56 million babies to painful deaths without trial.”

Full Story**


#2

Well I have to say at least he is doing something unlike his daddy


#3

Let’s not make this about Bush. It is Rand Paul who promoted this bill.


#4

Seriously, though, Sam, from one pro-life person to another, let’s not make this thread about differences some of us have on Ron Paul. The sanctity of life and what this country faces regarding abortion is far too important and the focus of this thread rather than differences we have on the Pauls or anyone else.


#5

The point is, it is about Rand/Ron Paul. You just can’t let go. Whenever he/they do/say something good, you treat it as if it is all they are about, as if, if we agree on one thing, it goes without saying that we agree on all things.


#6

As time goes on it appears Rand shares his daddy’s ideals but unlike his daddy, he looks like he is willing to try to work with people to get them implemented instead of drawing a paycheck and doing little except inserting pork to stay in office.


#7

Sanctity of Life Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


#8

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/12/122647/2334270-yawn_20smiley.jpg


#9

RW, my understanding of Article II, Section 3 is that unless Congress specifically makes abortion an exception to or limits (“regulates”) the USSC’s jurisdiction over abortion, Congress (assuming it’s passed and signed - a triple miracle) cannot override Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton through a law:

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

IOW my understanding of the USC is that, much as I might agree with his bill, with Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton in force what Rand Paul is attempting would have to be a Constitutional amendment to have any legal effect.


#10

Okay, Susana and Sam, thanks, we’ll take the importance of the fight for life and what this thread should stand for and put it on the back burner. Thanks. No, in fact, we’ll just throw it in the trash and turn this into a thread to argue about Ron Paul. You two have just shown me how important your views are on standing for life.

It is much more important for you to attack Ron Paul than to focus on life.


#11

Thanks, Pete, I’m not sure and will look into it further.


#12

So that’s the only thing the Pauls are promoting?


#13

You completely missed the point. Dick Cheney could have started a pac for a pro-life cause (if he were pro-life), for a hypothetical example, and although I don’t particularly care for Cheney, I would not make it about Cheney, but about the fact a pro-life pac was formed. This is the bigger picture. The movement and stand for life is much more important than the like or dislike for an individual. It is with most people anyway, just not with you and Sam. You guys claim to be pro-life, but this clearly takes a back seat to your disdain for a family or individual, if it is even in the vehicle at all.

With you, I believe you will get what I am saying. Sam is just too bitter and challenged to understand or care.


#14

I’m sorry, I do get what you are saying, but you also seem to be saying that Paul (either Rand or Ron) is the only way. That there is not another person in politics that will work to save the life of the unborn. And of course, it is a very critical issue, but when you toss everything else in, it will just get lost in the shuffle. We need total, complete, 100% honesty and integrity, and we won’t get that from anybody.


#15

No, again, I didn’t post this thread to promote Rand Paul, but to promote life and legislation which could stand for the sanctity of life. That is what I care about. It just so happens, yes I am a fan of Ron and Rand, but that is not my motivation for posting this. It could have been legislation by Bart Stupac and I would have posted it.

I am glad you understand. I have hope for Sam, but then I lose hope. The man is just too blind and bitter. Giving in to the bitterness must be much more important to him than the sanctity of life.


#16

[quote=“Susanna, post:12, topic:37327”]
So that’s the only thing the Pauls are promoting?
[/quote]Amazing I point out that Rand is working to get his bills implemented and rightwing goes off on a tiff


#17

It is amazing to me that one man or a group of men think that they are capable of making decisions for 300 million other people. It is zenith of hubris and only a politician’s psychopathy is capable of such a feat.


#18

[quote=“Bremen, post:17, topic:37327”]
It is amazing to me that one man or a group of men think that they are capable of making decisions for 300 million other people. It is zenith of hubris and only a politician’s psychopathy is capable of such a feat.
[/quote]But here you are trying to do the same thing


#19

System overload, does not compute… Systems check…equating opinon to legislation effecting 300 million people too preposterous to compute…rebooting…


#20

It is amazing to me that one man or a group of men think that they are capable of making decisions for 300 million other people. It is zenith of hubris and only a politician’s psychopathy is capable of such a feat.

Laws banning murder “(make) decisions for 300 million other people”. Should we get rid of laws against murder?

Laws banning theft and fraud “(make) decisions for 300 million other people”. Should we get rid of laws against theft and fraud?

Laws banning rape “(make) decisions for 300 million other people”. Should we get rid of laws against rape?

Need I post further examples?

But here you are trying to do the same thing

System overload, does not compute… Systems check…equating opinon to legislation effecting 300 million people too preposterous to compute…rebooting…

Bremen, you posed a relativist argument as an absolute. sam called out your argument’s intrinsic self-contradiction. I’m not sure a relativist argument can be made without that inherent self-contradiction, but that isn’t my problem.