Posted on 01/23/2016 5:29:46 PM PST by amorphous
Paul’s a kook!
Not too long ago, in this nation’s history, the unborn had the same rights as the born.
Oh how far we have fallen.
Cool, they can now buy guns?
Awesome!!!!!!!!!
He could be a raving lunatic, and a lesbian wiccan. He just done good.
He has Sarah Palin’s respect. She mentioned him while endorsing Trump.
Paul’s a kook for trying to save babies’ lives?
Now I’ve heard everything.
Good for Rand....now stay in the Senate, you are never going to be POTUS.
Who votes how is something I want to see.
Indeed. What was once a golden cup in the hand of the Almighty, is now almost completely unrecognizable. Furthermore, unless the hearts and minds of a nation's people change, and turn from their wicked ways, simply electing a new leader isn't going to save such a nation from its evil deeds.
IIRC, the authors of Roe v Wade (may their names be eternally cursed) even noted that if Congress and the President agreed to define the unborn as persons under the Constitution, then their whole house of cards came tumbling down.
Once they’re defined as persons, they have 4th and 5th amendment rights as well.
Small-l libertarians are obliged to speak on behalf nascent life. On the other hand, Big-L Libertarians are too often selfish idiots that support the right and choice to kill. Perhaps Paul’s bill will give the Big-Ls something to consider.
Abortions used to be prohibited under pain of law but it never was treated the same as murder.
We run into sticky territory here. I hate abortion as much as the next guy, but this is an attempt to move the matter onto the plane of human-given rights rather than God-given and human-acknowledged rights. The Constitution never quite rose to talking about God-given rights even though the Declaration of Independence did. Blame chattel slavery for that coy omission, I would probably reason. Sin has a cost. At any rate, now we deal with a man-given rights paradigm.
One sticky problem is, what kind of responsibility do we assess in the event of what might have been called an act of God? Like failure of a zygote to implant, or miscarriage? If the only rights they have are before men, then men are forced into ridiculous positions. If their rights are before God, then acts of God are not counted against men.
Yes, someone pointed that out to me. He has Potential. I would not mind seeing him as VP. Not my first choice, but not a bad choice, either.
>> At any rate, now we deal with a man-given rights paradigm.
And the situation where a woman’s “liberty” is defined by having the right to kill. Sick.
Been there, done that. The small l right to lifers are a feisty bunch. Unfortunately the useless LP hasn’t seen fit to adopt the overwhelming logic of the right to life position.
Here’s what I would recommend if such a tack is to be taken.
Make an explicit exception, NOT for abortion, but for acts of God. I mean this for a specific reason. That way we won’t get into wrangles over zygotes not implanting or miscarriages happening.
Now the inclusion of this language is going to draw the ire of secularists, but it’s commonly used in insurance policies so it probably would pass muster in court (IMHO).
My $0.02
Astute observation. With one goes the other. Satan can’t be hired to drive out Satan. Does not work.
Yes but he is right on this. And he is showing more initiative on the matter than any of the other republicans. Why didn't Cruz do this?
Yes but he is right on this. And he is showing more initiative on the matter than any of the other republicans. Why didn't Cruz do this?
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.