And...Then Rand Paul Did Something Foolish

[listopencil]

Rand Paul Introduces ‘Life at Conception Act’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...onception-act/
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul on Thursday introduced the “Life At Conception Act,” saying that the “right to life is guaranteed to all Americans.”

“I plan to ensure this is upheld,” the Republican senator added.

“Sen. Paul introduced S.583, a bill that would implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment for the right to life of each born and unborn human,” the senator’s office said, per a press release.

“This legislation does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions,” his office adds.

Here is what Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:

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.

The bill has 15 cosponsors (all Republican) including Sens. John Barrasso (Wyo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Daniel Coats (Ind.), Thomas Coburn (Okla.), Michael Enzi (Wyo.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Charles “Chuck” Grassley (Iowa), John Hoeven (N.D.), James “Jim” Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), James Risch (Idaho), John Thune (S.D.), and Roger Wicker (Miss.)

“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.

“The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress,” he added.





Senator Rand PaulVerified account ‏@SenRandPaul Introduced Life at Conception Act. The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans & I plan to ensure this is upheld.


http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/LCA.pdf

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

I'm anxiously awaiting Rand's support for the social services that will support the newborn children.

Those who are staunchly pro-life and anti-social services undermine the entirety of their agenda.

So if a woman creates a life and isn't allowed to kill it, it is the taxpayers' duty to take care of the child?

He didn't introduce the "life begins at conception and the birth parents cannot give it up for adoption act."

[Ace Gunner]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

Oh, Taco. Where for art thou, Taco? BEP? I've been a Paul supporter for a long time, but this is bullshit. Especially coming from the leader of the Tea Party. Help me understand this.

he's not Ron Paul. this guy is something different. smarmy.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

So if a woman creates a life and isn't allowed to kill it, it is the taxpayers' duty to take care of the child?

He didn't introduce the "life begins at conception and the birth parents cannot give it up for adoption act."

That ideology sounds more pro-fetus than pro-life.

And a large percentage of adoption agencies are publicly funded, btw.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

And the best way to ensure liberty is by passing massively restrictive laws to take away that liberty. Makes perfect sense.

The woman already has the right to choose if she wants to have sex or not. No one is taking away her right to choose. It's not like secondhand smoke.

We jail murderers all the time in this country because they have taken the life of someone else. Why is that? Because we recognize the most essential liberty IS life.

"Oh, but what about rape and incest?", people say. If you want to exclude ~5% of all abortions because of rape or incest, I'm sure that many pro-life groups would help sign that bill into law. As such, it is yet another case of an extreme stituation justifiying a law for all situations.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by donkhater

The woman already has the right to choose if she wants to have sex or not. No one is taking away her right to choose. It's not like secondhand smoke.

We jail murderers all the time in this country because they have taken the life of someone else. Why is that? Because we recognize the most essential liberty IS life.

"Oh, but what about rape and incest?", people say. If you want to exclude ~5% of all abortions because of rape or incest, I'm sure that many pro-life groups would help sign that bill into law. As such, it is yet another case of an extreme stituation justifiying a law for all situations.

I'd expect a hell of a spike in the number of reports of rape and incest.

[donkhater]

Abortion is an issue much larger than just a woman's right to choose. Look how abortion has impacted our society since it became legal. Look at the promiscuity, illigitimate birth rate and the gradual numbness to violence that has lead to other societal ills.

Now perhaps the abortion law isn't the cause and only another symptom, but when people start bitching about why we have a propensity for violence and a generation that doesn't respect their fellow man, perhaps they should sit back, take a moment and think about what has gotten us to this place.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

I'd expect a hell of a spike in the number of reports of rape and incest.

I suspect that's true, but then it would also encourage men to keep it in their pants as well. Not a bad outcome IMO.

[donkhater]

Watching "Children of Men" on Syfy. All the violence stops when both sides realize a baby is in their midst. Beautiful moment.

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

That ideology sounds more pro-fetus than pro-life.

And a large percentage of adoption agencies are publicly funded, btw.

There are more adoptions through private agencies each year than state run agencies. It is a very painful process to use a publically run adoption agency, and often the child is more than a year old before the adoption is actually complete.

You cannot deny that a fetus is a separate life than its mother. It has its own set of DNA and genes. It might require the mother to survive, but it is indeed a separate life. Science backs that up. I personally don't believe that a zygote is a human life, but at some point the unborn is a human life worthy of the same rights as any other human being. That point should not be chosen arbitrarily as it is now. The least arbitrary point you can pick is conception.

[Bowser]

Can we agree that if it were murder by definition, that it wouldn't be legal?

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by Bowser

Can we agree that if it were murder by definition, that it wouldn't be legal?

It's hard to agree on that when your own president supports infanticide.

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

There are more adoptions through private agencies each year than state run agencies. It is a very painful process to use a publically run adoption agency, and often the child is more than a year old before the adoption is actually complete.

You cannot deny that a fetus is a separate life than its mother. It has its own set of DNA and genes. It might require the mother to survive, but it is indeed a separate life. Science backs that up. I personally don't believe that a zygote is a human life, but at some point the unborn is a human life worthy of the same rights as any other human being. That point should not be chosen arbitrarily as it is now. The least arbitrary point you can pick is conception.

Would you support an increase in social services to assist the increase of children who would be born in poverty?

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

It's hard to agree on that when your own president supports infanticide.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Chiefspants

Would you support an increase in social services to assist the increase of children who would be born in poverty?

Private social services, absolutely. Government-provided social services, absolutely not.

[stevieray]

....a woman creates life? that's hilarious...by the time a woman FINDS out she's pregnant, there is already a heartbeat...and she definitely decides what the sex is, and when it will be born.

...a woman gets to choose what to do with her body? ..my favorite part of that is when she chooses for her breasts to start producing milk...ya she's in total charge of her body....