Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breaking: Pro-Life Rand Paul Wins by Landslide in Republican Primary in Kentucky
Catholic Online ^ | 5/19/10 | Deacon Keith Fournier

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS: 2010midterms; abortion; gop; ky2010; liberaltarians; prolife; prolifevote; randpaul; republican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-150 next last
To: Dead Corpse
Even the SCOTUS is limited by the Constitution. You would give them more power than is their due. How very liberal of you...

Well, I guess so if that means asking that they do the main thing they were placed on the bench to do, which is to protect and secure the God-given, unalienable rights of the people.

61 posted on 05/19/2010 12:37:54 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Back then, life back at birth. It's why they didn't fill out a "life" certificate, but a "birth" certificate.

Again, look up the legal definition of a person. Can a fetus sign a contract? Run a business? Buy property? Vote? All of those do into the legal definition of "person".

You'd need an AMENDMENT to extend legal protections to the unborn.

But no, you'd rather fight against a viable approach and continue to allow abortions on demand.

Nice going Ace...

62 posted on 05/19/2010 12:39:41 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
What if they rule dogs are people? Trees? Bacteria?

Don't be any more of a moron than you've already exhibited.

63 posted on 05/19/2010 12:40:47 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Back then, life back at birth. It's why they didn't fill out a "life" certificate, but a "birth" certificate.

You'd need an AMENDMENT to extend legal protections to the unborn.

You're laying out what is essentially a pro-choice position. Which is no surprise. That's where the Paul ideology ultimately leaves you if you try to defend it.

But no, you'd rather fight against a viable approach and continue to allow abortions on demand.

The Paul position is the Gerald R. Ford position, in detail. Over 37 years, that is the position that has proven not to be viable. No surprise, since it is not moral or constitutional, and it gives every politician political cover for inaction.

64 posted on 05/19/2010 12:51:10 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
What if they rule dogs are people? Trees? Bacteria?

They already treat dogs better than they treat certain classes of people. If you did to a dog what they do to little children every day in the abortuaries, or what they did to Terri Schindler Schiavo, you'd go to jail.

If you don't believe in protecting the God-given unalienable right to life of every single person in this country, how are you any different than them?

65 posted on 05/19/2010 12:54:47 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You're laying out what is essentially a pro-choice position.

By purposing a "life begins at conception" Amendment? Only in your bizzaro world. :-\

66 posted on 05/19/2010 1:21:34 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
If you don't believe in protecting the God-given unalienable right to life of every single person in this country, how are you any different than them?

I am for protecting the Right of all individuals. I also believe in following the process instead of shoe-horning in definitions willy-nilly.

It isn't a living document. Amend the language, don't change the meaning.

67 posted on 05/19/2010 1:23:28 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I am for protecting the Right of all individuals.

No, you're not. You're defending the Paul position, which is that states' "rights" are superior to individual unalienable rights.

Not very well, but you're trying.

68 posted on 05/19/2010 1:29:08 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
It isn't a living document. Amend the language, don't change the meaning.

Pray tell what is at all amorphous about this language:

"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."

69 posted on 05/19/2010 1:31:48 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
By purposing a "life begins at conception" Amendment? Only in your bizzaro world.

Only in "bizzaro world" would you accept something that doesn't require the States to do their sworn duty under the Fourteenth Amendment and protect all persons equally as being "pro-life."

70 posted on 05/19/2010 1:34:00 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You're defending the Paul position, which is that states' "rights" are superior to individual unalienable rights.

Which isn't Paul's position. Or mine.

71 posted on 05/19/2010 1:44:51 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You still haven’t looked up the legal definition of “person” yet have you.


72 posted on 05/19/2010 1:45:29 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
that doesn't require the States to do their sworn duty

Yer' just a big ol' ball of stupid aren't you.

73 posted on 05/19/2010 1:46:18 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Hey, you are who claims he is pro-life.

I only showed you that to him, there are exceptions and to him, partial borth abortion amounts to “letting nature take its course.”

Rand Paul’s words, not mine.


74 posted on 05/19/2010 1:50:09 PM PDT by DakotaRed (What happened to the country I fought for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: tcg

I salute this stand but cant go along with much else from th Paul gang. Glad he won because its a slap at McConnel/Cornyn


75 posted on 05/19/2010 1:52:14 PM PDT by rrrod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed
No. That's not the whole quote and you know it.

A non-viable fetus that is a serious health risk to the mother?

Hardly a blank check for abortion on demand.

But please feel free to continue to misrepresent the facts.

76 posted on 05/19/2010 1:55:39 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
You still haven’t looked up the legal definition of “person” yet have you.

I don't need a lawyer or a politician to tell me what a person is. It's self-evident.

But Blackmun, the author of the Roe majority opinion, said in the opinion that if the fetus is a person that they are "OF COURSE" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Is the fetus a person?

77 posted on 05/19/2010 1:58:24 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Yer' just a big ol' ball of stupid aren't you.

Your repeated personal attacks are nothing more than a clear indication to honest observers that you are losing the debate.

78 posted on 05/19/2010 2:00:00 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Which isn't Paul's position. Or mine.

Sure it is.

79 posted on 05/19/2010 2:00:56 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Like I said, his words are right there for all to see.

But, feel free to explain just what made these births a “non-viable fetus that is a serious health risk to the mother”

Isn’t that pretty much what has been said about the Zero’s position on partial birth abortion where the premature fetus was allowed to languish for some 45 minutes until it finally expired?

And, if you really wish to back up Paul’s stand, why not supply statistical evidence of just how many partial birth abortions fall into this category of “non-viable fetus that is a serious health risk to the mother?”


80 posted on 05/19/2010 2:01:18 PM PDT by DakotaRed (What happened to the country I fought for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-150 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson