I'm not the one changing definitions. As that great philospher Dr. Suess said:
Some things are simply self-evident.
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 ...
You are slipping off on a tangent again.
His main point is still valid, though. The same point made by St. Augustine, that “an unjust law is no law at all.” And this point is certainly applicable to this debate.
The Left, abetted by unprincipled politicians on the Right, are destroying the very basis for our laws, for our republic, and for our liberty: the assertion of the self-evident truth that: “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
What is the basis of your political philosophy? On what is it founded? To what do you make reference to help determine the rightness of your public policy positions?
You'd change a definition to change a law rather than patch the hole in the law.
And I do not pretend to make public policy.
You are the one attempting to run a political party whose members will make policy.
That reveals more than you know.
The Founders of this free republic certainly didn't believe in "self-ownership." They believed in the sovereignty of the people, under the true sovereign, the One Who created them. {Hence their use of the word "unalienable" in regard to God-given rights. It was an explicit reference to European property law, in which ultimate ownership resided in, and remained with, the sovereign. While the property might be lent to you, you could not rightfully sell it, and no one could rightfully take it away from you.)
That's one of the reasons the battle cry of the American Revolution was "NO KING BUT JESUS!"
And I do not pretend to make public policy.
You're here advocating public policy, whether you will admit it or not, or whether you recognize it or not. And this exchange has received more than 1500 page views.
The rights to advocate for my beliefs and to organize to implement them in public policy are part of my inheritance as a free American. I don't understand why you might have any problem with that.
I'm not the one changing definitions. As that great philospher Dr. Suess said:
Some things are simply self-evident.
Another slogan popular during the time was "live free, or die". Not a very "Christian" sentiment. But then again, you digress the argument with yet another red herring.
Why do you insist on spitting on the Constitution to get your way? Seems pretty self evident. Use the process, don’t corrupt it.
Dr. Seuss had even less to do with the language in the USC than your Party does.
What are you talking about? You're the one who continues to pretend that the clear requirements of the Constitution, first and foremost the Fourteenth Amendment, do not exist. Just like your idols the Pauls.
And still, a person is a person. And the Constitution of the United States still demands that each and every person be protected.
Pass an Amendment. Respect the rule of law.
Just change the unconstitutional law. Duh.
Protecting the unborn is worth it isn't it?
Pass an Amendment if you want. But don’t pretend that the Constitution doesn’t already provide protection for every individual person’s unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property.
But make sure it’s an Amendment that protects all persons, and doesn’t create some lawless “right” for States to alienate what the Founders rightfully called unalienable.
An Amendment gives specific protection where changing a definition doesn't and can't.
It’s self-evident that the child in the womb is an individual human person. And so the law protects them. Lawless officers of government ignoring what is as plain as the nose on your face doesn’t change that fact.
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.