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

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by go bowe

the law has determined that the prospective father has no more rights with regard to an abortion than the state does; that is, until viability or thereabouts the fetus has no legal status and the state can't prohibit the abortion nor can a father stop it...

given my preference for the woman and her doctor making the decision it should be no surprise that this arrangement is fine with me...

You are fine with just giving up your own rights? WTF is wrong with people in this country today? I could delve deeper into this but, I am just too frustrated with this idea of not only submitting to your individual rights being taken away but, actually ok with it. I am completely dumbfounded and in major despair of the human race right now.

half a fetus does not a child make?

sure it sucks for the father, but [B]there is no practical alternative that wouldn't force the woman to endure the pregnancy and delivery against her will...[B]

I honestly do not give a baker's ****. It takes two people to create a life, it should take two to decide its future. And if the father decides he wants to raise the kid well.... The woman knew the risks when she let the guy enter her. There is a little something called taking responsibility for your actions that people seem to think they shouldn't have to oblige. And literally makes no sense to me. I understand the not wanting to, that is just human nature. But I do not understand the not actually doing it.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by go bowe

the viability argument is not necessarily a losing one unless you define it in such a way as to be a surefire loser...

viability has nothing to do with the need for care in order to survive; crying feeding etc. doesn't determine viability, the ability to live is viability...

breathing, having a heart beat and appropriate neurological function determine viability in the sense that if these things can be done outside the womb, the fetus would be alive, that's viability...

whether the fetus can live outside the womb has nothing to do with the fetus' ability to sustain itself and inconvenience is totally irrelevant...

Many a "living" humans in hospitals across the world are not able to live right now save for a machine and other humans tending to both. Remove the machines and the care and the patients do not have the ability to live. Viability is thus rendered non-existen (by your logic).

Viability most certainly is a losing argument for your side.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by mcan

There are so many many things I want to say about this post...

Again, prenatal development/pregnancy is the PROCESS of creating a human being from a fertilized egg. We ALL want to protect the lives of human beings, but to say that a fertilized egg is a human being is shear lunacy. Can we at least agree on that?

We most certainly cannot. An I fertilized egg yes. A fertilized egg, growing and developing, with its very own DNA structure separate from the mother's is a separate LIFE form. The process of development does not end at birth, you do know that right? There fore, if that is the bar, then we should allow retro-active abortions, because hey, the kid still ain't fully developed yet.

And please don't come back with "it's life." Nobody is debating that a zygote is alive, but we don't give basic "human" rights to everything that is alive. We only give basic human rights to humans.

Uh, it ain't growing and developing into a dog or tree there, sport. It is a HUMAN life form, not an animal life form, or a botanical life form but a HUMAN life form. No two ways about it, no matter how you want to try to argue around it, it is life of the human variety. Period.

And a fertilized egg is NOT a human being... YET. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any reason for a pregnancy.

I can only assume by that you are bringing up the viability issue. If so, please reference my discussion with go bowe on that matter. If not, I have no idea WTF that means.

This is the most common sense thing I've ever said in my whole life, and if we can't agree here, then it is clear that you are shelving your common sense for reasons other than an honest attempt at arriving at the truth. Maybe you just really want your church to be right, or maybe your wife lost a pregnancy and that really hurt you, or whatever the case may be, but if you can't at least admit that a fertilized egg is NOT a human being, then you are bringing baggage to the table that need not be there.

Sorry to disappoint ya, bud but, no baggage. Just a firm principled belief grounded in scientific fact.



The thought of many of you at that last comment makes me .

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by Brock

When you have the ability to poop out a baby, you'll get to decide that.

So, guys get the responsibility (child support) with out the right to have a say in the matter? Sorry but, that is nothing short of pure, unadulterated buuuuuullllllll shiiiiiiittttt.

If the guys don't get to share in the decision making process, they should be immune from any kind of mandatory child support. What is fair is fair after all.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

So, guys get the responsibility (child support) with out the right to have a say in the matter? Sorry but, that is nothing short of pure, unadulterated buuuuuullllllll shiiiiiiittttt.

If the guys don't get to share in the decision making process, they should be immune from any kind of mandatory child support. What is fair is fair after all.

They don't. Men can give up their rights to the child if they don't want to pay child support. Women can do the same thing for that matter.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

They don't. Men can give up their rights to the child if they don't want to pay child support. Women can do the same thing for that matter.

That's pretty disgusting for the reason you stated, if you ask me. ( exception is a teenager who is unable but that's not just mere "wanting" to)

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

They don't. Men can give up their rights to the child if they don't want to pay child support. Women can do the same thing for that matter.

Pretty sure if a woman gets a court ordered paternatity test and the guy is the father she can sue for child support.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

They don't. Men can give up their rights to the child if they don't want to pay child support. Women can do the same thing for that matter.

That only happens if the woman agrees to it and as a man you better get it in a contract because she can change her mind at any time. Otherwise the man is SOL.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

That only happens if the woman agrees to it and as a man you better get it in a contract because she can change her mind at any time. Otherwise the man is SOL.

Yeah, in reading about it, it seems like a state by state thing. Many say you can't sign away rights to avoid paying support, but some say you can as long as a court will allow it, and they typically only allow it if another guy is willing to adopt the child.

What a lame ass thing to search. First answer, "Stop being a deadbeat!" Next answer, "Yes, you still have to pay." Next answer, "No, you don't have to pay."

Anyways, the moral of the story, if you have enough money to pay a good chunk of child support, you'll find someone that's willing have a baby with you.

[go bo]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

Many a "living" humans in hospitals across the world are not able to live right now save for a machine and other humans tending to both. Remove the machines and the care and the patients do not have the ability to live. Viability is thus rendered non-existen (by your logic).

Viability most certainly is a losing argument for your side.

living humans, i presume, are already living outside the womb...

a non-viable fetus cannot survive outside the womb, even with the aid of technology...

i'm not sure how this applies to my "logic", but the concept of viability is hardly rendered non-existent by a poorly fitting analogy...

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

So, guys get the responsibility (child support) with out the right to have a say in the matter? Sorry but, that is nothing short of pure, unadulterated buuuuuullllllll shiiiiiiittttt.

If the guys don't get to share in the decision making process, they should be immune from any kind of mandatory child support. What is fair is fair after all.

So you are saying men should be able to compel a woman to get an abortion if they don't want the responsibility, it obviously cuts both ways.

[Exoter175]

I see threads like these on forums, and pray to god for the separation of Religion and Politics from office.


Just kidding, I'm not religious, but I wish every day, that these idiotic religious folks would stop pressing their matters of religion upon political views and ideals. The two are not synonymous.

My only wish in life is to live long enough to see the separation of church and government, so that I can die a peaceful man.

[go bo]

Originally Posted by Brock

So you are saying men should be able to compel a woman to get an abortion if they don't want the responsibility, it obviously cuts both ways.

yeah, that did seem to be an argument for abortion at the behest of the father didn't it?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Exoter175

I see threads like these on forums, and pray to god for the separation of Religion and Politics from office.


Just kidding, I'm not religious, but I wish every day, that these idiotic religious folks would stop pressing their matters of religion upon political views and ideals. The two are not synonymous.

My only wish in life is to live long enough to see the separation of church and government, so that I can die a peaceful man.

Is it OK for non-religious people to press their matters of non-religion on the religious?

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by go bowe

yeah, that did seem to be an argument for abortion at the behest of the father didn't it?

no, pretty sure RH was saying that if you are going strip a mans right to decide if a baby is aborted, you can't hold him FINANCIALLY responsible when he has no say in the matter.


..and that's what abortion boils down to.. a woman can't get herself pregnant, yet give her total control so men/women can get laid without being responsible.