Posted on 05/18/2010 5:57:46 PM PDT by tcg
The Major news sources have all called the Republican Primary in Kentucky and Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul, has soundly defeated Trey Grayson for the Republic Party nomination for a seat in the US Senate.
By the time the votes are all counted it could be a near landslide for the first time Senatorial candidate. Dr. Paul is a family man who has been married to his wife Kelley for 19 years. They have three sons. He is a doctor, and not a politician. That is part of the appeal he had for the voters of Kentucky.
There will be pundits parsing the meaning of this election all evening. They will discuss the meaning of this strong showing. Rand Paul certainly was not the preferred candidate of the Republican Party establishment. He had the backing of the broad coalition being called the "Tea Party" movement.
He has never run for public office. He all but eschewed the traditional fundraising model, opting instead to utilize the internet in the manner that his father used the internet in his outsider bid for the Presidency.
While the pundit class pontificates, those who recognize that the foundation of all human rights is the fundamental Right to life should take heart from Rand Paul's position in defense of the dignity of every human life from conception to natural death.
Here are his own words:
"I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
Wrong. He thinks that if states want to allow the killing of children they should be allowed to, just like his father.
Just like his father he destroys the Natural Law, Declaration of Independence principles that form the moral, constitutional, legal and political arguments against abortion.
Just like his father, he pretends that the explicit requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment do not exist.
I can't believe you are still pandering that blatant lie.
It’s no lie. They’ve both said it and never repudiated it. Ever. It’s the core problem with their false ideology.
Show us a “Right to Life Amendment” that the Pauls have ever supported that would actually require the States to protect the unalienable right to life.
And if you can find one, which I seriously doubt, it would fly in the face of their oft-repeated claim that the States should be able to allow abortion if they want.
Yes. It is.
"I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
Also...
I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue.
Yes. I know your tired old idiotic argument based on a "penumbra" of an "emanation". We've gone over why this is no better logic or use of the Constitution than the liberals pushing gun control. You don't have to agree, just stop pretending that you are doing this out of "principle". You have a political axe to grind. Just be honest about it.
I wonder if "Catholic Online" would label a politician "Pro-Religious Liberty" if they said that States could outlaw the Catholic faith if they wanted to, in the name of "States' Rights."
Doing so would make just as much sense as labeling a pro-choice for states politician like Rand Paul "Pro-Life."
Also not what they've said. But why bother stopping you when you've got your foot so badly jammed in your mouth?
Speaking of liars.
Is this a "penumbra" or an "emanation"?
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.
Either of the pieces of legislation put forward by the Pauls, as well as others, would do this.
So yes, you are using "living document" crap to push your agenda instead of doing it the principled way and just Amending the Constitution.
That's exactly what they've said. Rand Paul says that whether or not to allow abortion should be the "prerogative of the State." I'd give you the recording of him saying that, or the text of the article from his father saying exactly the same thing, again, but you would just ignore it and its obvious implications again.
Every honest person already knows exactly when human life begins.
Cherry picking again? You got smacked around on that one last time too.
And those same honest people know that there is a Right way to bring the law into compliance, and then there is the way you and the Democrats do things.
A brazen fabrication on your part.
Why do you continue, like the Pauls, to ignore the clear requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Which other individual God-given unalienable rights would you like to "leave up to the states" other than the supreme right, the right to live?
Well, it sure ain't by claiming that States have a right to alienate God-given unalienable rights.
Seems to me that you and Rand Paul disagree only on the method and not the goal. You want to use the 14 Amendment and he wants to use a new personhood Amendment.
I don’t think disagreement as to the method should necessarily mean that he is insincere about achieving the goal.
You’re completely wrong. Rand Paul wants nothing like what you say. He, like his father, says abortion should be left up to the States.
Look up the legal definition of Person.
Why do you continue, like the Pauls, to ignore the clear requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Because only in your fevered imaginings does it mean what you think it does. Your stance has no more bearing on reality than most tax dodging scams.
We have an Amendment process. Use it. It is the Right thing to do.
Under your logic a Mother spontaneously miscarrying would be guilty of murder. And yes, that statement is no more absurd than any other bit of illogical legal mumbo-jumbo floating around clogging up our Courts, but it WOULD happen.
And you know it.
You have a personal, and political, agenda. Fine. Just be honest about it.
Signing on to legislation like a Right to Life Amendment gives the lie to that little bit of idiocy of yours.
Yes, but only because at this current time the Federal Government is preventing individual states who would ban abortion from doing so. So removing that obstacle would allow at least some states to ban it, to me it seems a viable first step.
Even the abolitionists in the 19th century first tried to prevent slavery in only certain states, even though in principle the would be against it in every state. Sometime you have to achieve the goal on step at a time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.