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 ...
Again, you’re not stating the Paul position accurately. They don’t say that it needs to be done “step by step.” They say that this is the “prerogative of the States.”
Prerogative of the states is the first step.
It’s an improvement from the status quo. Win that first step and then go from there.
Show us a Right to Life Amendment that the Pauls support that asserts the sworn constitutional obligation of the States to protect the life of all innocent persons within their jurisdiction. You keep making the claim. Back it up. Again, I seriously doubt you can do it, but even if you could that would not be reconcilable with their oft-stated belief that whether or not to allow abortion is a state "prerogative."
No it isn't. It is the giving up of the moral, constitutional, legal, and political basis of the pro-life cause.
It’s an improvement from the status quo. Win that first step and then go from there.
The Pauls are hypocrites. They have no intention of doing anything to stop abortion. Those of us who believe in the right to life of all persons under our Constitution believe that it is the imperative duty of ALL officers of government, in ALL branches, and at ALL levels of governance to "secure the blessings of liberty to posterity." We are fighting to restore respect for what the Founders of this free republic called unalienable, and that they stated as the very reason for being of human government. And we're doing it not just at the national level but State by State by State. The Pauls and the others who hold to this immoral, illogical and unconstitutional pro-choice for states position are nowhere to be found on those State battlefields for life. They just plain don't show up.
Why? Because the only basis for the fight at the State level is on the basis of the Personhood of the child. And if they endorse that, it blows the cover off their claim that the whole country doesn't have an obligation to protect life under the Fourteenth Amendment.
One other thing: Even though the Paul position destroys the basis of the arguments against abortion, and therefore makes it impossible to stop it, even if through brute political force they were able to enforce their chosen policy, every single babe in the womb in America would still be in danger of being killed. The only thing standing between them and that fate would be their mother's "choice" and travel time.
http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2533/show Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Amendment.
Rand Paul’s copy of the questionnaire he was sent which doesn’t fit with what is being said in your version of things.
http://c0469351.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/KYRTLresponse.pdf
Now go away troll.
It doesn't acknowledge the States' obligations to protect innocent human life.
"The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution." -- Ron Paul
Actually... It does. Read the bill.
This is the part you are twisting to keep up your hatred. Let is go.
I have. Many times. It doesn’t require the states to protect innocent human life.
That's strange. How could there not be the power to do something that the Constitution explicitly requires them to do? Especially when it is the very thing that the Founders of this country said government exists to do?
He’s only half way there. The real contest comes in November. It should prove interesting.
He’s only half way there. The real contest comes in November. It should prove interesting.
Ah, so you and Ron Paul are going to exclude the Supreme Court from fulfilling their primary sworn duty, which is to protect the unalienable rights of all. That’s one of the most dangerously stupid ideas that ever came down the pike.
MDN: You also stated on Kentucky Tonight that: ‘I think that it’s a mistake to legislate morality and health from the state.’ We’ve talked about healthcare and privacy. You’re pro-life. Are there any exceptions to that?
RP: Yes, in the case of the mortality of the mother.
MDN: What about instances of rape or incest or where the outcome may not be death, but severe medical problems for the mother or child. Do you think that in these cases the decision should be left to the government rather than the families?
RP: In cases of rape, trying to prevent pregnancies is obviously the best thing. The morning-after pill works successfully most of the time. Ultimately we do better if we do have better education about family planning.
With partial-birth abortion, there were five women who testified that it threatened their life. It wasn’t completely true in all cases. They were non-viable babies. They were babies with awful genetic mutations that were not going to survive, and I tend to think we let nature take its course.
Pro-life, but partial birth abortion is acceptable?
Think of a Right to Life Amendment being enforced via Art 6 Para 2. The way freedom OF religion, the right to keep and bear arms, etc... are supposed to be applied to the States. It's the way the system was designed.
Trying it your way only gives credence to the same extra-Constitutional crap we're trying to get rid of.
How very liberal of you...
So no abortion at all? Even spontaneous? Should the Mother be tried for murder if she miscarries?
It clearly prohibits the killing of innocent persons in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
And the Fourteenth Amendment clearly enjoins upon the states not only the sworn obligation to protect all innocent persons in their jurisdiction but that each and every one of them be provided with the equal protection of the laws.
These Constitutional facts clearly expose your position to be the patent nonsense that it is.
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.