Rand Paul on the Life at Conception Act

[thoughtomator]

It is wild to see how when slavery comes into the picture, some people lose all sight of the inevitable consequence of adding government to the mix.

You may think that's amusing, but thanks to government, slavery is more widespread in the United States than ever. Prison labor, indentured servitude, debt slavery - even in the bad old days of the pre-Civil War outright chattel slavery, there were nowhere near as many affected, either in raw numbers or as a percentage of the population. Even folks not entwined in those forms of slavery are still treated as the property of the government.

The irony is that chattel slavery was already becoming obsolete and was being discarded by the western world (led by Britain) when Lincoln provoked his completely unnecessary war.

 

[jmdrake]

You may think that's amusing, but thanks to government, slavery is more widespread in the United States than ever. Prison labor, indentured servitude, debt slavery - even in the bad old days of the pre-Civil War outright chattel slavery, there were nowhere near as many affected, either in raw numbers or as a percentage of the population. Even folks not entwined in those forms of slavery are still treated as the property of the government.

If you believe that, feel free to sell yourself off as a slave in some third world country where it's still legal. If they let you on the Internet please post your experiences.

The irony is that chattel slavery was already becoming obsolete and was being discarded by the western world (led by Britain) when Lincoln provoked his completely unnecessary war.

A) It hadn't been discarded by the U.S. yet.
B) In case you failed world history class Britain was then and still is a government.

Even the Ron Paul "compensated emancipation" idea (which Lincoln actually attempted) still would government intervention. How would the fees be collected to buy the slaves from the south? Who would collect the fees and who would they be collected from?

 

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul also advocates getting rid of the Civil Rights Act but it isn't going to happen as much as abortion is going to be outlawed.

It's a losing battle like i've said and no nominee is going to spend an election obsessing about abortion and if they become president no president is going to spend their time trying to get a personhood bill in.

You will be very disappointed if Rand reaches higher office if you expect him to follow through on his rhetoric.

Welcome to politics.

Are you still trolling? Of course you are. I will be disappointed if Rand listens to your stupidity and starts waffling on abortion like Ken Buck and ends up losing support from the right without gaining any appreciable support from the left and thus gets creamed in Iowa in 2016 and we will have raised a bunch of money for absolutely nothing! Abortion isn't my number one issue. But if Rand doesn't get GOP primary then he will never get to any of my issues because he will never win the presidency. That's what you don't get. Or maybe you don't want to get it? I'm opposing your position because it's clearly stupid politics, especially with Rand already being on record against abortion.

 

[Brett85]

Let's be clear that Ken Buck lost his Senate seat for more reasons than simply his position on abortion. He also answered a question about homosexuality in an interview by comparing it to alcoholism. That was the main thing the media criticized Buck for. There was also the fact that the GOP had a dismal get out the vote effort in 2010, and also in the past election cycle as well. Ken Buck was ahead in the average of all the polls going into election day.

 

[jmdrake]

Fair point about there being no quotes around the words of the first part, my error. However, his own words in the OP make it very clear he wants the federal government involved in prohibiting abortions. And he'll never be able to make a federalism or 10th Amendment argument on an issue without being a hypocrite.

Let's see. Ron Paul voted for the partial birth abortion ban, so on some level he's already supported federal intervention in abortion on some level even though he was critical of that very vote. And the words in the OP....could have been Ron Paul's words. Rand is reintroducing his father's bill, and people like you are acting like this is a surprise. How is overturning Roe v Wade and getting the feds out of abortion somehow the equivalent of getting the feds into abortion? The federal government is already there. That's the problem.

 

[jmdrake]

Let's be clear that Ken Buck lost his Senate seat for more reasons than simply his position on abortion. He also answered a question about homosexuality in an interview by comparing it to alcoholism. That was the main thing the media criticized Buck for. There was also the fact that the GOP had a dismal get out the vote effort in 2010, and also in the past election cycle as well. Ken Buck was ahead in the average of all the polls going into election day.

You're being to generous to the other side of the argument. Ken Buck waffled on the abortion issue, saying one thing in the primary and another thing in the general. That's exactly what "itshappening" is saying Rand should do, even though he criticized Ken Buck for "waffling". It's a lose/lose proposition for Rand to follow such advice. What he needs to do is to stick to one position, but clarify it in a way that he doesn't leave stupid "sound bite" handles like Akins and Mourdock did. If he does anything else and it will be Rubio/Bush 2016.

 

[robert68]

Let's see. Ron Paul voted for the partial birth abortion ban, so on some level he's already supported federal intervention in abortion on some level even though he was critical of that very vote. And the words in the OP....could have been Ron Paul's words. Rand is reintroducing his father's bill, and people like you are acting like this is a surprise. How is overturning Roe v Wade and getting the feds out of abortion somehow the equivalent of getting the feds into abortion? The federal government is already there. That's the problem.

His entire message is about what can and should be done at the federal level, and he says "and ultimately outlaw abortion once and for all". That's well beyond overturning Roe v Wade. This isn't to suggest the goal is realistic; but as I previously said, it prevents him from arguing for the principle of federalism or the 10th Amendment on an issue, without being a hypocrite.

 

[jmdrake]

His entire message is about what can and should be done at the federal level, and he says "and ultimately outlaw abortion once and for all". That's well beyond overturning Roe v Wade. This isn't to suggest the goal is realistic; but as I previously said, it prevents him from arguing for the principle of federalism or the 10th Amendment on an issue, without being a hypocrite.

Obvious guy says "If Roe v. Wade is overturned that opens the way to outlawing abortion state by state. Once a supermajority of states have banned abortion a constitutional amendment is possible if that's the general sentiment". No different from Ron's position. The bills are identical.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

How many people are one issue pro life voters who won't vote for a pro choice candidate?

I'm one.

 

[PierzStyx]

I will argue with you that shooting a person in the face shouldn't be against federal law. Where in the US Constitution does it authorize the federal government to make shooting a person in the face a federal crime? Show me the Article and Section of the US Constitution that authorizes it please.

The point of The Constitution is to provide protection for everyone's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The Fifth Amendment reads in part, "No person shall be.... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This makes murder a federal crime, illegal not just state by state, but nationally at the Federal level.

 

[PierzStyx]

I'm one.

I am as well. I won't vote for someone who would murder children here just because he refuses to murder children abroad through drone bombings and unjust war. But, most people are not like us, I don't think.

 

[Eagles' Wings]

I am as well. I won't vote for someone who would murder children here just because he refuses to murder children abroad through drone bombings and unjust war. But, most people are not like us, I don't think.

Or, voting for a "prolifer" who is a war monger, most republicans. I have not heard a single prolifer who is angry about the drones. When I speak of it with family or friends, they do not even know it is happening. I must thank Ron Paul for opening my eyes to this.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The point of The Constitution is to provide protection for everyone's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The Fifth Amendment reads in part, "No person shall be.... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This makes murder a federal crime, illegal not just state by state, but nationally at the Federal level.

The 5th Amendment refers to the official actions of government, not individuals.

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 offense 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.

Which should be abundantly clear in actually reading it. "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" refers to the actions of the GOVERNMENT. Grand Juries, testifying in court, prosecution of crimes, double jeopardy, eminent domain. The entire 5th Amendment talks about the activities of government. You can't pull 'murder is a crime' from this without torturing the context and making it say something completely different than it actually says, and totally obliterating the original intent of the Amendment's authors.

 

[juleswin]

I am as well. I won't vote for someone who would murder children here just because he refuses to murder children abroad through drone bombings and unjust war. But, most people are not like us, I don't think.

But those are 2 diff things. Knowing that someone is going to die and not doing all you can to prevent it is very different from actually killing someone. You know that many children in the 3rd world countries will die of hunger and disease that could easily be treated with a few your charity dollars but I bet you dont feel an ouch of guilt or have no problem voting for someone that allows this to happen

We have to understand that there is a limit to what we can do in life as humans, I say we leave it to God

 

[robert68]

Obvious guy says "If Roe v. Wade is overturned that opens the way to outlawing abortion state by state. Once a supermajority of states have banned abortion a constitutional amendment is possible if that's the general sentiment". No different from Ron's position. The bills are identical.

I don't know where you get that quote; it's not from Rand's message in the OP, where he says nothing about such a constitutional amendment. The following is from the National Pro-Life Alliance website that he promotes in his message.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation's throat.
...

Life at Conception Act Follows the High Court's Instructions by Defining When Life Begins
...

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it.

A simple majority vote in both houses of Congress is all that is needed to pass a Life at Conception Act as opposed to the two-thirds required to add a Constitutional amendment.

When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" of "penumbrae" of the Constitution.

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster. But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right.

Instead the Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

So it’s ok to use “disastrous constitutional law” and federal activism in the anti-abortion rights cause. If so, then you (those who believe this) can’t credibly claim it’s wrong when others do the same on issues important to them.

I know Ron Paul supported the Life at Conception Act, and I pointed out once that the bill was federal intervention on the “pro-life” side, however I didn’t see or hear him go much farther than that (maybe I missed it), which is what I hear from Rand in the OP.

 

[jmdrake]

Obvious guy says "If Roe v. Wade is overturned that opens the way to outlawing abortion state by state. Once a supermajority of states have banned abortion a constitutional amendment is possible if that's the general sentiment". No different from Ron's position. The bills are identical.

I don't know where you get that quote; it's not from Rand's message in the OP, where he says nothing about such a constitutional amendment. The following is from the National Pro-Life Alliance website that he promotes in his message.

Do you seriously believe Rand Paul is named "obvious guy"? When I said "Obvious guy says" I meant "this should be obvious to anyone who takes the time to think about it".

Now, here's what you are not taking the time to understand. I'll spell it out for you once more.

1) Getting a constitutional amendment passed on abortion right now is a non started. Anyone with half a brain knows that.

2) Part of the reason we are "frozen" on the abortion issue is fearmongering from the left over what would happen if Roe v. Wade was no longer the law of the land.

3) Giving abortion back to the states will let people finally see what kind of legislation might emerge and what would be the effect of said legislation. If states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion and the world doesn't come to an end and women don't start dying in droves in "back alleys" and they aren't all magically removed from corporate management and public office then maybe the fearmongering will subside.

4) Once people see the results in some states, progress (or regress if you see it that way) may happen in other states.

5) Such nationwide consensus is the way national law should change if it's going to change as opposed to the opinions of 5 out of 9 men and women on the SCOTUS.

So it’s ok to use “disastrous constitutional law” and federal activism in the anti-abortion rights cause. If so, then you (those who believe this) can’t credibly claim it’s wrong when others do the same on issues important to them.

For a group of 9 men to invent a "right" that was never in the constitution and shove it down the rest of America's throat is disastrous constitutional law. For a national consensus to emerge that the constitution should be amended is the process put into the constitution for changing it. You sound like the liberal commentators who chide Ron Paul for saying he would support and amendment to the constitution to end birthright citizenship as if amending the constitution was somehow unconstitutional.

I know Ron Paul supported the Life at Conception Act, and I pointed out once that the bill was federal intervention on the “pro-life” side, however I didn’t see or hear him go much farther than that (maybe I missed it), which is what I hear from Rand in the OP.

It's the same freaking legislation! The commentary used to promote it is irrelevant.

 

[Neil Desmond]

The 5th Amendment refers to the official actions of government, not individuals.

Roe v Wade is an official action of government (specifically, by the US Supreme Court).
The government is a collection of agencies or entities (such as the US Supreme Court) that act on the behalf of "We the People" (i.e., "individuals").
Therefore, Roe v Wade is an official action of individuals.

Seems to me like the 5th amendment constitutional rights of every child that was killed or died as a result of an elective procedure, before or during birth, was infringed. Is there a flaw in my proposed logical argument?

 

[jmdrake]

The 5th Amendment refers to the official actions of government, not individuals.



Which should be abundantly clear in actually reading it. "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" refers to the actions of the GOVERNMENT. Grand Juries, testifying in court, prosecution of crimes, double jeopardy, eminent domain. The entire 5th Amendment talks about the activities of government. You can't pull 'murder is a crime' from this without torturing the context and making it say something completely different than it actually says, and totally obliterating the original intent of the Amendment's authors.

Well...there's the 14th amendment.

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 a state were to say "You can't kill someone without cause unless he is black" then that state would be denying equal protection of the law. But that doesn't mean a state must have a murder law. This is a federal murder law though. It applies if the murder takes place under the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the U.S." (See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111) And that jurisdiction includes among other places, the high seas, places where states do not have jurisdiction, federal lands (forts, arsenals etc.) and places containing key containing deposits of (bat) guano. (I kid you not. See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7)

 

[robert68]

...

I address you respectfully and get that, wow. You’re young, full of yourself, and not half as wise as you think you are. I can tell you haven’t observed the politics of abortion, or even politics itself, very long. You’re in for a surprise. We're done.

 

[Eric21ND]

It's simple folks. Allow the states to decide these matters and be done with it.