Philosophical Detection: Rand Paul rewrites the constitution with religious legislation

Posted by ewv 8 years, 6 months ago to Politics
137 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Rand Paul has re-introduced his "Life at Conception Act" abolishing all abortion rights by decreeing that cells are "human persons" at conception.

The 'novel legal theory' on behalf of the anti-abortion rights agenda seeks to overthrow Roe v Wade and the lack of constitutional authority to prohibit abortions by arbitrarily asserting that cells are "persons" under 14th amendment "equal protection" of "the right to life of each born and unborn [sic] human".

He claims that his redefinition, which crushes the rights of actual human beings, "does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions".

Paul's legislation would impose what he claims "most Americans believe and what science has long known - that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore, is entitled to legal protection". He does not cite what "science" has endorsed the claim that a cell is "entitled to legal protection" or what "science" endorses his equivocation between human persons and cells with human genes in a package-deal labeled "human life", foisted in the name of "most Americans". (A current conservative fad is to change the subject to "giraffes" and laugh at their victims.)

Moral concepts, including 'rights', apply to rational beings, i.e., human persons who must make choices, which are the facts which give rise to morality. They do not apply to cells and embryos. The notion that they do is religious mysticism attributing intrinsic characteristics as reified floating abstractions to be taken on faith. But Paul doesn't need to justify it in a world of anti-concepts and statism in which the illogic is intended to be enforced by the power of Congress out of an alleged "duty" to follow down a verbal rabbit hole (a.k.a. theocracy). Faith and force are corollaries.

Having wiped out the rights of real human persons with this change that isn't a change, Paul claims that "the right to life is guaranteed to all Americans [now meaning cells and embryos displacing actual Americans] in the Declaration of Independence[!], and it is the constitutional duty [sic] of all members of Congress to ensure this belief is upheld.

Conservatives who persistently claim to be "originalists" on the meaning of the Constitution have no qualms over changing the Constitution to impose religious duties that are not in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, and which played no philosophical or historical role in the founding of the country and our form of government. Human cells and fetuses were not discussed, let alone included under the Enlightenment "reason and the rights of man" or any discussion of constitutional authority. Entitlements to 'life' of cells at "conception" are a 19th century dogma of the Catholic Church. Perhaps they will next try to read it into the 1st Amendment under "the right of the people peaceably to assemble".

The contorted "logic" of these arguments employed in slippery political demagoguery proclaiming "constitutional duties" to violate the rights of people in the name of "the rights of all Americans" and "science" is a prime example of rationalism: It illustrates how rationalism verbally manipulates words as floating abstractions without regard for the meaning of concepts in reality, shifting meanings in passing from one end of a sentence to the other. It counts on a lack of understanding of concepts and objectivity for cognition.

The sales pitch for the "Life at Conception Act" illustrates how the verbal game, however serious and "sincere" in intention, is exploited in political maneuvers carefully crafted to manipulate people through rationalizing contradictory, religious mysticism in the name of logic and science to buttress a preconceived, religious political agenda -- taking us back to the medieval subordination of reason as a handmaiden to faith.

Most people can see through the sophistry behind the "Life at Conception Act" even if they don't see all the conceptual fallacies and grasp only that "something is fishy". It illustrates how Rand Paul's quirky arguments based on the cultural anti-conceptual mentality undermine support for his otherwise good policies, and discredit anything called "tea party" or "libertarian" in any sense of that word through a religious package-deal-coming-home-to-roost. It's an inevitable consequence of the philosophical and intellectual bankruptcy of the modern conservative movement undermining civilization and destroying the originally secular "tea party", no matter how much conservatives appeal to the rhetoric of "constitutional scholarship" and "proven traditions".

Press release: https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/pres...

Bill: http://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/...


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 6 months ago
    I personally see both science arguments and religious arguments for life begins at conception. Either does not change this simple fact.

    The government should not force a doctor to perform murder or prevent a woman from getting a murder done. That should be between three people, the woman, the guy who is the dad and the doctor. If all three want to commit murder, its there choice to do so.

    I am also in favor of murder in the case of assisted suicide. Same thing Doctor and the target of the murder both want it to happen, its OK but it does not change the fact that its still murder.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 6 months ago
    You are absolutely right about conservatives and the constitution. Conservatives also ignore that the constitution was designed to limit the power of government. Conservative constitutionalists tend to be truly conservative and want decisions that don't deviate from the past decisions more than they want decisions that are consistent with the constitution or its framework.

    When I was in law school taking a course on constitutional law I finally ran into a string of supreme ct. decisions I agreed with. They were all written in the 1920 and 1930s before the court was packed by Roosevelt. My Professor explained that both Liberal and Conservative justices and scholars had repudiated these decisions and their approach to interpreted the constitution.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RobertFl 8 years, 6 months ago
    not worried about it, it will never happen
    2. I like Paul for a lot of other reasons, so, I still support him, because I don't see a better option.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Retfird 8 years, 6 months ago
    At what point does a group of cells become a "rational being, i.e, human person" with rights?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
      There is no point at which a group of cells is rational and has rights. Cells have to accumulate and grow into an entity with all the required components working together, and then be born as an entity, at which point the human person as that entity begins to deal with the external world and makes choices beginning with the basic choice to focus his mind and think. The evolution from cells to new born baby is continuous over time, with growing capabilities as a potential human being, which capabilities begin to be actualized at the discrete event of birth. His rights to choices and actions based on his right to life then continue to gradually accumulate in accordance with his growing capacities over time until adulthood.

      There are all kinds of interesting scientific questions about the nature of the growth (both before and after birth), but no grounds for ascribing moral rights to a potential just because cells have human genes, or by some even more mystical accounts a "soul". The "rights of the unborn beginning at conception" religionists have no concept of the objective nature of moral concepts and rights and cannot even begin to discuss the questions. They have a mystical notion of 'rights' arbitrarily assigned to cells, and not much better for real humans. Rights, like all concepts and principles, are based on objective assessment of relevant facts, not a decree of an intrinsic property apart from conceptual understanding.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 6 months ago
        Actually a person or group of cells never has a right to forced support by anyone. A fetus is not viable without the mother's support, which she can withdraw at anytime. (Note a mother can decide to cut off their arm or terminate their life. Being pregnant does not change that). The conservative argument boils down to the idea that some people are slaves to others, which is the exact argument for the welfare state. Not surprisingly conservatives always argue against the welfare state, but never get around to changing anything. This is because they agree with the philosophical basis of the welfare state. (this is part of why objectivists are not able to work with conservatives politically).

        A fetus does not have a right to support by another person and the fetus' right to life, which it does not have is not violated by an abortion.

        Rand's argument misunderstands rights and is not science.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 6 months ago
        So, at what point does this group of cells have the right to be protected from being forcibly killed? Obviously infants do not have the full rights of adults but can you just kill them? How about a month before being born?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
          This was all explained in the initial post. Discussion requires reading it first. "Groups of cells" do not have "rights". Why philosophically and historically illiterate religious conservative ant-abortion rights activists believe otherwise was also discussed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 6 months ago
            At one point you were a group of cells. At this point you are a person with the right to life. When did that change? What is the characteristic that makes the philosophical difference and at what point in your development did it take place.

            The closest you come to this is the use of the word "choices", but even white blood cells make "choices" on what to attack so there must be specific types of choices that count.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
              Cells are not conscious, they do not make 'choices' and Shipley did not read or comprehend either the initial post or Ayn Rand. Crackpot science and philosophy by a religious militant is incompatible with serious discussion.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 6 months ago
                What material, pray tell, do you think the human brain is made up of?

                The problem is, that there is a continuum in existence between a clump of cells and an adult human being. At some point, which you really are avoiding specifying, this 'thing' acquires the right to life.

                Rand makes the distinction between the rights of a child and those of an adult, with the child having the minimal right to life. Obviously at some point this right comes into existence. When is this?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 6 months ago
                  Not sure why this is so difficult to see. In addition to the initial post...

                  https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

                  https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 6 months ago
                    Well, the second one does bring into the discussion the word 'born' which wasn't in the original text. Since my son was born about two to three weeks early I am quite aware of the developmental level after 8 months but prior to being 'born' and I'm rather thinking that creature deserves some protection.

                    Our current legal situation is based roughly around the age when the organism can live independently but that's a hazy and moving target. I corresponded with a woman who had been born prior to the commonly used current date and while she had some health issues she was certainly a rational human being.

                    The other problem we face is that protecting this 'life' imposes a rather strong burden upon a woman who is most definitely a human being with rights. It's one thing to say you can't kill 'it' another to say you must carry it.

                    If we could imagine technology that would remove those 'cells' at whatever point they were and grow them independently with minimal inconvenience to the mother, I wonder how that would affect our philosophical decisions?

                    In other words are we talking philosophy or pragmatism.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
                      "The evolution from cells to new born baby is continuous over time, with growing capabilities as a potential human being, which capabilities begin to be actualized at the discrete event of birth. His rights to choices and actions based on his right to life then continue to gradually accumulate in accordance with his growing capacities over time until adulthood." https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... and similarly in many other discussions on this forum.

                      A baby born before expected does not mean that before anyone was born it had rights for a similar time frame, or the expectant mother loses her rights to her own body for some time period. Nor does it mean that the baby doesn't have rights until the time it was expected to be born.

                      Whatever new technologies imagined to avoid carrying to term have nothing to do with the rights of the woman to her own body and do not give rights to the unborn. It is still a potential, not an actual, human being, regardless of additional means to actualize the potential. Such technologies might or might not become routine recommended practice for all kinds of reasons. The woman has a right to decide what procedures to subject herself to and whether or not she does not want the child at all versus having an unknown child out there someplace who was adopted.

                      But those considerations can at least be discussed in rational terms. They are not relevant to the demands for the "Life at Conception Act" with it's mystical cell's rights (or the ongoing religious attacks on contraception).
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 6 months ago
                        Careful where you tread when defining what constitutes a human being. Birth is convenient, but abortionists take it a step further, with purposeful neglect of a born alive fetus, because the mother intended for that life to die. Was that "collection of cells" that had taken breath outside the womb not a person simply because another declared it so?

                        Human consciousness begins before birth, only limited by the environment. A fetus reacts, not always with simple reflex, to stimuli that it can detect, so a simplistic determination of what constitutes life by a declaration of departing the womb is as insufficient and lacking in intelligence as declaring a fertilized egg human.

                        The abortion without limits crowd includes such unsavory characters as the British feminist who declared a woman should have the right to terminate her child's life up to a year after birth. Her argument was that the mother had the right to decide if that child's quality of life was too degraded, and should be mercifully ended. Do you find that argument specious, or worthy of consideration?

                        We often hear that American child survival rates rank very low among industrialized countries. However, closer inspection reveals that countries like France do not count a child's death before a year of life, because they know that most serious birth problems happen in that first year. The U.S. counts the death of any born alive fetus in its statistics. Do we hold life more dear than our cohorts in other countries?

                        There have been rational attempts to reach a common understanding of the point at which a developing human life deserves the chance to survive. Limits on late term abortion, denial of abortion beyond the point that a fetus is likely to feel pain, abortion when the risk to the mother's life is at stake, are an effort to find a rational ground without a complete disregard for morality. I tend to think those who make these efforts at sanity over ideology are on the most credible ground.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
                          No one is advocating killing children. Rand Paul wants to criminalize women and their doctors as murderers based on a mystical notion of "rights" of cells at "conception".
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 6 months ago
                          I don't think it is sanity that points a gun to the head of a pregnant woman and takes her rights by force. Enacting law to deprive her of her rights does that.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 6 months ago
                            Are any of us free to make whatever choices we decide in life, without consequence? I don't have a problem with abortion "choice", but I don't see why I have to have gun pointed at my head demanding that I sanction and pay for that choice.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 6 months ago
                              There is no specific law that forces you to pay for another woman's abortion, and your question has nothing useful to say about my response. Paul's proposed law does point a gun.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 6 months ago
                        Your (and Ayn Rand's) focus on being "born" implies that the issue is not the nature of the baby, for the baby is virtually the same creature a week before being born as it is a week after. The issue seems to be balancing the rights of the mother and whatever rights this creature has - if any.

                        I will admit my own thoughts on this are somewhat confused. I clearly am uncomfortable with killing an infant a week before it is ready to be born. On the other side of the equation it seems to be absurd to be protecting the cluster of cells against the will of the woman.

                        Is it true that the creature has no right to life or is it simply that we believe that it does but that right is inferior to the right of an individual woman to control her own body? We do allow situations, such as self-defense, where one individual's rights supersede another's.

                        The current legal situation is based in pragmatism rather than philosophy
                        .
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
                          A new born baby is not "virtually the same" as its previous biological state, which is a literal parasite on the woman's body with no cognitive contact with the external world to even begin a conscious processing of it. The unborn is a potential human being and does not have "rights" as an entitlement to become one.

                          Being "uncomfortable" with any late abortion is a feeling based on non-essential similarities in the continuum of development. Feelings are not a basis for rights. Focusing on those similarities drops the context of the full conditions under which it is surviving at all. The abrupt change in environment is an essential difference.

                          This is not a matter of a "balance" of rights. There are no rights to balance against the woman's rights. Rights do not conflict. There is much more to this than framing it as "self defense" by the woman choosing not to give birth. It requires understanding the conceptual basis for morality and rights: the facts that give rise to them and what they apply to.

                          Comparisons in the latest stages of development before birth is at least something to discuss, but Rand Paul's "Life at Conception" bill and its promotion criminalizing doctors and women as murderers for interfering with cells, which is what this thread is about, doesn't even get that far. It is complete mysticism at the most primitive and barbaric level.

                          If the current legal situation is pragmatism rather then based objectively on philosophical principle it is because today everything is, which is why we have the constant pressure group warfare on this issue and everything else. The attempt to counter Pragmatism with religion and its mystical notion of 'intrinsic rights' is only bringing the whole controversy to a lower, more primitive level of irrationalism.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
                  The human brain is part of the nervous system, operating with electrical signal,s in ways that are not yet understood, to result in functionality that individual cells or groups of cells do not have. Consciousness, the faculty of awareness, is an axiomatic fact that cannot be reduced to signals or cells, just as the attribute of color, for example, is a property of an object made of atoms that do not have color. Cells are not conscious, do not make choices, and do not have "rights". That is entirely a mystical religious notion, not science.

                  A lack of understanding of why a newborn baby must be born to have a right to life, and why before that is only a potential human being literally parasitically dependent on an expectant mother with rights as a human being, is not an argument for "cell's rights". Arguing from "continuity" to the absurd conclusion of "cell rights" is just as logically fallacious as Zeno's paradoxes. It is a reductio ad absurdum refuting a false premise. The religionists want us to invert the logic and believe the absurdity instead of rejecting the rationalistic fallacious reasoning.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 6 months ago
                    The mechanism of the brain's capabilities are still quite mysterious. My suspicion is that individual neurons are actually quite complex decision making machines which would explain why mapping neurons to transistors doesn't work for comparing capabilities between brains and computers.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
                      No one one understands fully how the nervous system works, especially for states of conscious awareness. We do know the axiomatic fact of consciousness as awareness of existence through the selective focus of abstraction, discrimination and similarity, and that we as living entities are conscious and must choose to think and focus to live. Whatever the mechanisms of neurons and the role of electrical signals, cells are not moral creatures and do not have rights. The concepts do not apply to them, nor is the religious notion of 'intrinsic rights' of cells (and for that matter people) based on it.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -4
              Posted by Retfird 8 years, 6 months ago
              Is it ok to consider ewv to be a sorry sack of cells?
              Do you still have rights if you are capable of reason, but don't practice it?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
                This mentality is why "Retfird's" account was suspended. Note that militant religionists support it, at this writing with 5 votes of support. This is supposed to be a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Retfird 8 years, 6 months ago
        It doesn't surprise me that you were not able to answer my simple question directly. Try this one.
        Are you made up of a group of cells?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
          I did answer your question directly.

          Cells and groups of cells do not have rights. People do. Every entity is made of something. That does not mean that the pieces have rights, and it doesn't mean that the constituents of an entity or a different kind of entity with the same constituents have the same identity or character as the first kind of entity.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by Retfird 8 years, 6 months ago
            That was not an answer to either of my simple questions. You continue to evade the reality that human beings are made up of groups of cells. A Creationist might wrongly believe that something can can come from nothing, but not a rational person.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 6 months ago
              Ask a different question: As compelling a mother to 9 months slavery, and then 20 years slavery and financial burden for rearing, are we likewise compelled to use our resources to save all other lives? Get ready to open you wallet to all the needy in the world...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
                All other lives, those that do not yet and may never exist, and all "God's Creatures". The whole package is the history of Christianity, which dominated the Dark and Middle Ages.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
              I did answer your questions. You are ignoring it. I did not say that humans are not made of cells or anything remotely like that. Cells do not have rights.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Retfird 8 years, 6 months ago
                I did not ask you if cells had rights. I asked you at what point do cells form a human being that has rights?
                You now seem to admit that humans are made of cells, I think.
                WilliamShipley got it pretty quickly, what is so difficult to understand?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
                  No one said that humans are not ultimately made of cells. Drive-by, sloppy and false accusations are not discussion. The cells are the constituents that are structurally organized into human organs, including the brain.

                  Rand Paul thinks that cells have rights "from conception" and sees no difference between that and human rights as understood since the Enlightenment. That is why he is trying to legally redefine cells as "persons" to subvert hundreds of years of understanding with the stroke of a pen in a brief bill.

                  That human beings first have a right to life when born and why was explained in the initial post. You would have to read it to know that.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Retfird 8 years, 6 months ago
                    I read the initial post. I disagree with the premise. I disagree with you, and don't believe that you have rationally defended your position. You are incapable of it, that's how Liberal, Statists act when they get frustrated by questions.
                    Do you believe the Supreme Court is infallible? Do you believe the government should manage the healthcare system also? The Supreme Court decided it could and should.

                    Quit being so panicky and whiney, and start thinking for yourself. If you can't answer a question, just say so. If you are an authority on the subject, you shouldn't have any problem answering simple questions.

                    You assumed that I was defending Ron Paul, which I wasn't and you assumed that I was anti-abortion.
                    There are bans on abortion to some extent in every state. Are all of the states breaking the law?

                    Thanks
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
                      Please stop making things up about other people as a means of mud slinging. If you have comprehended the initial post there is no sign of it in your swaggering, loutish "comments". Take your nihilistic trolling somewhere else. This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason. The pattern of your posts repeatedly shows that you do not belong here and have nothing to contribute.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 6 months ago
      When it is capable of reasoning. That comes with the existence of the cerebrum, about the 12th-14th week. Thus I would be OK with abortion bans after the 15th week (except to save the mother's life), but not before that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 6 months ago
      What is your answer to your own question?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Retfird 8 years, 6 months ago
        I don't know. I was asking you. I've never heard an answer on the subject that satisfied me. Still pondering on this one.
        I have a few more questions on the subject that have me perplexed, but crawling comes before walking.
        If I had all of the answers, I wouldn't have to ask any questions, I could just sit back and pontificate on any subject.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years, 5 months ago
    Real ethics is based on the nature of the beings involved. In the case of humans it is based on our ability to reason and choose between alternatives and our thriving being utterly depended on being free to do so.

    A fetus, especially a 1st trimester fetus is not remotely capable of such. However there is no question of the rights of the woman carrying it. Thus the question would seem open and shut at least early in pregnancy.

    For a government to simply decree rights accrue to any all fertilized eggs is an affront to actual rights.

    It is a shame. On many issues I like and support Rand Paul more than any other candidate in this season. But he keeps dynamiting my respect.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mspalding 8 years, 6 months ago
    Those who are upset by abortion at any stage should be all out for birth control. Yet oddly, many anti-abortion folks are not working to provide birth control to teens. The sex is going to happen regardless.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      Religion also has a long record of opposing birth control on the same mystical basis. Catholic dogma still does. It was only in the 1970s that the Supreme Court outlawed their bans in this country.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 6 months ago
      That is also true.and worse than that I here no outcry for 12 year old mothers from girls being used as gang initiation toys. It takes a very special kind of animal to do that to a child and a special kind animal mentality to condone it
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 6 months ago
    Oh, shit, I saw THAT one coming when his Dad was running.
    The key fallacy appears really soon...
    "most Americans believe and what science has long known - that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore, is entitled to legal protection". He does not cite what "science" has endorsed the claim that a cell is "entitled to legal protection" or what "science" endorses his equivocation between human persons and cells with human genes in a package-deal labeled "human life", ..."

    "When Life Begins" can NOT be 'rationally defined.' Paul, as a doctor/scientist, should ruminate on that for a while before taking pen in hand...

    It can ONLY be Agreed Upon by Consensus and neither Consensus nor Agreement should Ever be used to determine 'Truth.'
    That's exactly why I believe so many "libertarians".. so-called.. are just retreaded Conservatives, justifying their beliefs, actions and Laws based on Biblical "Teachings" at their root.
    But NOBODY ever calls them on that shit... they get into the fruitless and futile argument/"discussion" over WHEN Does "Life" Begin, rather than admit nobody can Prove It, they can only Agree On It.
    There is NO scientific way to measure or prove it.
    So, again, that's why I can't vote for Rand OR Ron Paul and why it's so hard for me to bring myself to vote for any Conservatives/Republicans, even in the face of Socialists like Bernie and Hillary.
    Although I Will Promise You... I will Never, Ever support or vote for Bernie or Hillary.

    Good luck to us all...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      Science does know when life begins, but he is equivocating on the meaning. Cells are "alive" and there is a distinct event at conception creating a potential for a new human person. The cells are "human" in the sense that they have human genes, but that is not what is meant by a human as a person, and has nothing to do with having "rights". The equivocation is an example of rationalism trying to promote a religious cause.

      Some libertarians are religious and some not, but the common thread is that the libertarian movement has always plunged into the middle of politics with no philosophical basis. It's not surprising that they so often indulge in such embarrassing spectacles based on being naively susceptible to religious arguments.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 6 months ago
    The dishonesty in this 100% religiously-motivated rule is appalling.

    I would argue that a little clump of cells is not self aware, has no experience and is not viable on its own. Therefore the sadness in its passing is less than my dog, a sparrow or a cow for food.

    Even assuming this little clump of cells is an actual human being. Then we are saying we would compel the mother (and maybe the father...the act is silent on this) to slavery for nine months, and then slavery for 20-ish more years to support and rear this human. Really? Ok, well then fellow socialists and communists, what then of all the other needy people in the world that we can "save" by just applying a little of our resources. We can save all those starving children and other people in Africa if we just compel a few people to pay. Of course there will then be another million or so in a flash. Are these lives any less valuable than a little clump of cells, and is compelling a mother to full-term and then caring for a child more or less of a burden than Sally Struthers "...just a few cents a day"?

    This is a ridiculous pile of religious (fantasy-inspired morals) communist crap. Thank goodness it will go nowhere, but as an indicator than Ron didn't raise his son to pick the right fights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 6 months ago
    Not really to worry, but here we go with fantasy-inspired morals instead of logic or science.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      Rand Paul's "Life at Conception" criminalization bill has gone nowhere for years. The significance is rather the spread of religious mysticism as taken seriously even in cognitively outrageous legal shell game forms as this one -- and the implications for future theocratic measures if this nonsense is not challenged philosophically.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by sfdi1947 8 years, 6 months ago
    The error of the conservatives is that abortion is not, and should not be a federal matter, that it is, a result of the unintended consequences of the liberally created Progressive Welfare State, should be addressed, but not in this fashion. Rather, it must be attacked by strictly limiting the Welfare State itself.
    While I find the destruction of a healthy baby abhorrent, it must be a personal-medical decision. It is not the purview of any governance.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      Limiting the welfare state is a political position and not enough to counter moral claims. Preventing murder is a proper government function, not welfare statism. The confusion caused by religious mysticism in attributing "intrinsic rights" to cells has to be answered on the philosophical level with proper concepts and principles. You can't count on common sense when atrocious anti-concepts spread through the population.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 8 years, 6 months ago
    Within the first few days after conception, the clump of cells begin specializing, forming the various parts of a human body. They do this naturally, without any outside influence, with the obvious end result of a healthy human being. So, if you left that clump of cells alone, a human being would be the natural result. Your argument says that, for one's convenience, one can kill that clump of cells that would otherwise become a human being. The underlying theme in that argument is that a woman can be irresponsible with that body that she worships, and kill anything that will be an inconvenience. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other, because I'll have nothing to do with a woman who thinks like that; the only thing I don't want happening is for her to reach for my wallet when she decides to abort her child. The fact is, the government has no business regulating her behavior, which includes subsidizing that behavior. If she wants to kill her child, that's her business in every way, including paying for it. I'm not going to argue about when life begins. That's like arguing about how existence began. All I'm going to say is, you have choices. You reap the reward or suffer the consequences based on those choices, and you reap them alone. Leave me out of it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 6 months ago
      First, a little clump of cells has less self awareness than my dog. It would be far sadder to kill my dog, a sparrow or a cow for food.

      A lovely, slippery, warm , 100% religiously inspired slope to complete socialism, even communism. So we can compel a woman to go through 9 months of pregnancy and then (presumably) raise a little pile of cells? Clearly, this is a law compelling one person to support another. What then about people who can not support themselves? Are we then compelled to take care of these people, even against our wishes? I mean these are real, actual people, not 2^n cells with no brain or experience. Clearly these walking, talking people have souls. Therefore, we must save them. It only takes a little of what you have...What about all the starving people in Africa? They have souls, right? Are we compelled to save all them too?
      "No" you say? Oh, yes, because we simply seek through fear or jealousy to punish people for engaging in carnal sin, not saving human beings. This is the worst 100% religiously motivated law for slavery in modern society.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mdant 8 years, 6 months ago
        There are so many problems in your argument I am not going to waste my time with all of them, but I will address a very simple one. Why does saving people's lives have to be about religion? I do not believe in God in the traditional sense, yet I absolutely believe unborn babies right's are to be protected just like any other persons rights. Born or not, or in any stage of human development, does not change your basic rights as a human being.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 6 months ago
          Ok, this with the "problem" you chose to raise, then explain why you chose to legislate to to compel the mother to save the unborn child, but not to compel us to save the rest. There are children among them, even many unborn ones that could be saved.

          Separately, you really believe that killing 8, 64 even 10,000 cells is the murder of a human on a non-religious basis? This is technically absurd. More relevant human life is killed in during brain surgery.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
          The unborn is not a kind of "person" and not a "human being". Forcing woman to give birth is not about "saving people's lives", it is about imposing sacrifice for a mystical notion of rights. A clump of cells or a fetus is not a person and does not have rights. The concept of rights does not apply to it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 6 months ago
          Some want the whole loaf instead of the half loaf and are willing to risk that half loaf gained instead of ensuring it's success. The only difference between the two sides is the lives they are betting are not their own.

          It's not lives that are important it's your opinion that is important. Should those lives continue ....I'll put this a different way. At what age are these my way or the highway advocates willing to continue supporting the death of children. Same question for the victims of later term and partial birth abortions.

          At what age are their lives worth saving AFTER they are born?

          I used to go to a church that routinely collected for children related projects literally around the world except...for the three families that lived within two blocks of the church. Yet they were anti abortion at any point. They did not mind the child dying after they were born. They did not want to hear about it.

          For the record viability of fifty percent or greater by competent medical authority is where I draw the line. It's close to the line drawn by current laws. Partial Birth abortion an unspeakable form of butchery is now rare statistically and usually due to other medical complications. It's not just to fit in a prom dress.

          I'm raising four of the results of that which I support myself. I hate being hypocritical. But I also recognize myopic tunnel vision exists. I want to sure those who practice that particular unacceptable behavior understand they are no less reponsible and have nothing to celebrate.

          One should support their goals but not at the price of abandoning those who were saved to a different sort of death.

          Not directed at anyone in particular but a re-definition of the big picture the whole picture to include the full extent of the issue. At what age prior to birth and at what age after birth.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      The "clump of cells" is not a human being. It has the potential to eventually become a person under required conditions and the initial clump at "conception" usually does not even without being aborted. The concept of rights does not apply to cells. This is not an argument of "convenience" and no one is "killing children". Your post is conceptually incoherent.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 6 months ago
    Overthrowing, I prefer the word, overturning, a judicial decision by the Supreme Court is not rewriting the Constitution.
    I'm thinking of the enactment and the later cancellation of prohibition, for example.
    The hoped for dumping of Obamacare (Harry Reid's happily harped "It's the law of the land") would be another.
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 6 months ago
      It's rewriting the Constitution if the old decision was the one that complies with the Constitution. But it's restoring it if the new one is.

      The New Deal Supreme Court rewrote large parts of the Constitution. All that needs to be restored, and I don't consider anyone conservative who doesn't want that to happen.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 6 months ago
        I wish we could throw everything out save for The Constitution and the Bill of Rights written by our Founding Fathers and start all over.
        The black minority not be afraid.
        Jim Crow is history.
        "Do no harm" should be a motto for a national reboot.
        Oh, well, my dear departed dad called me a dreamer.
        And there's the national debt . . .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryHeart 8 years, 6 months ago
    According to Moses a fetus does not yet have full life until later in development therfore abortion due to physical or mental necessity is permitted. That supercedes Christian rewrite of morality. Therefore prohibiting abortion by government is against the free exercise of Religion, namely Judaism. Not to mention any other rights declared by the Supreme court.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 6 months ago
      You misread the law. The Levitical laws were centered around accidental loss of an unborn child - not intentional loss. There were many nations who practiced child sacrifice ("passing through the fires of Moloch") and Israel was told to utterly destroy such.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LarryHeart 8 years, 6 months ago
        Read medical ethics by Miamonides
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 6 months ago
          Can you provide a synopsis of the relevant points?

          While I wish I had time to read every book put out here by Gulchers, there simply isn't enough time.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LarryHeart 8 years, 5 months ago
            According to Israeli Law Abortion is permitted in the following cases
            (1) the woman is under legally marriageable age (17 years old) or over 40; (2) the pregnancy is the result of prohibited relations or relations outside the framework of marriage; (3) the child is likely to have a physical or a mental defect; (4) continuance of the pregnancy is likely to endanger the woman's life or cause her physical or mental harm;

            According to Halachic authority late term abortion may also be permitted in certain cases until the head emerges and even after if the woman does it herself.

            A mother who self inflicts an abortion is not liable. Hence the morning after pill is fine.

            An important factor in deciding whether or not an abortion should be permitted is the stage of the pregnancy: the shorter this period, the stronger are the considerations in favor of permitting abortion (Ḥavvat Ya'ir and She'elat Yaveẓ, loc. cit.; Beit Shelomo, ḤM 132).

            In the holocaust abortion was permitted for any pregnancy because the Nazis were going to kill the mother who became pregnant.

            Some strict sects of Judaism do not permit abortion but they are extremists and unreasonably masochistic in their interpretation of all Law. They should probably convert to Islam, which is more in line with their heresy. In fact some sects oppose Israel and work with the Iranians to end it.

            By their fruits you shall know them.

            Here is a link to all the salient points
            https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 5 months ago
              I didn't downvote you BTW. I am genuinely interested in the discussion.

              What I do find interesting, however, is how this differs significantly from Levitical proclamations. I guess they've changed things a bit in the last several millenia.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LarryHeart 8 years, 5 months ago
                Absolutely. Times change and the "Rules" are flexible enough to adapt. That's the beauty of the Hebrew it is written in (which has multiple meanings, both explicit, hieroglyphic, contextual and subtle) and and the careful crafting of every letter, word and phrase.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      Disputes among religious sects are irrelevant. If something actually is murder then no religious argument is an excuse under the law. The hypocrisy of "constitutional" conservatives embracing 19th century Catholic dogma that was nowhere in the founding of the country is worth noting, but the fundamental issue is the anti-conceptual, mystical notion of "rights" they employ, both in claiming to defend our rights, which they do not and cannot defend on such grounds, and in bizarrely ascribing "rights" to cells as they trample ours.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 6 months ago
    As a physician, one would think Rand has enough science background to understand “when life begins” has not yet been settled scientifically. Perhaps he introduced this to attract evangelicals. I say this because here at the Gulch is the only place I heard about it, Rand does not make it part of his campaign as he did “Audit the Fed.”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      Rand Paul has been promoting this religious legislation for years both as stand-alone bills and as an amendments to at least one unrelated bill. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 5 months ago
        I am sure he has. In the overall vieew, though, I think he is the best candidate. Even if an Objectivist ran, there would be a significant number of people opposed to the Objectivist just because he/she/it is running. Especially for bills that will never go anyplace, we need to move on.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
          Rand Paul's quirky bills don't go anywhere but as president he would have power that doesn't require new legislation Given the field of candidates He may still be the best of them overall, since all of them are either very religious or pander to it, but Rand Paul's
          quirky ideas leaves voters with an uneasiness that he lacks common sense, including in foreign policy.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 5 months ago
            I like Rand's foreign policy. After all these years of meddling in the affairs of others and the others launching attack after attack on us because of it, it seems the current policy has failed and it is time to try something new.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 8 years, 6 months ago
    Rand's proposal looks like a knee-jerk reaction to the Planned Parenthood marketing body parts.
    His premise is: When a "person" is declared to not have rights, then he/she becomes a commodity.

    I propose that "life" begins at being sentient which science has found to be about 12-weeks gestation. That is plenty of time for the potential mother to decide her future.

    Incidentally, the RU 486 pill is correct for such measures as it was designed for and all forms of contraception are morally correct.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      The woman has the entire 9 month period to decide her own future. "Sentience" of a fetus has nothing to do with it. We do not have rights because we are "sentient".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by teri-amborn 8 years, 5 months ago
        I respectfully disagree.
        Not only is the mind the important factor to determine the genesis of "life" but should also be the factor that determines when a person is done living.
        End of life issues should be both an individual choice of a thinking person AND the determining factor to pull the plug when brain activity has ended.
        Late term abortions are very difficult psychologically for the mother and should be approached with the utmost depth of thought. Unless the unborn is a sub-normal (!) I use Ayn's phrase)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
          Human beings have rights because of the kind of mind we have and its necessity for living. We have rights because we are rational beings who must think and choose in order to live, not because we are merely "sentient". The necessity of making choices that make a difference to our lives is the reason for morality and all moral concepts, including rights.

          What is psychologically difficult and its degree depend on one's underlying values and rationality. All important choices should be approached with "depth of thought", but whatever difficulty someone may have in choosing anything, it does not imply "rights" for a fetus, let alone cells, and does not justify coercive intervention by government responding to religious pressure groups.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 6 months ago
    Will their ever be a 'like' opinion on the subject? Sure when all citizens are n the collective reprogramining mode.

    This is the one single example that points up the need for 50 states 50 different majority viewpoints versus a choice of one forcibly applied. Personally I prefer the protection of an unborn citizen when the fetus is a 50% plus viable citizen. Some prefer murder of the infant as it's emerging from the birth canal. Some go to the other extremist view of conception.

    happily the murder on demand with no other life threatening issues of mother or child involved was the viewpoint of the Court. For the rest of the nine month conception to breathe on your own period of time consult the miracle of fifty states fifty chances for one that suits your personal peculiarities.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 6 months ago
      One addition he cannot rewrite the constitution anymore than Oblowme should be able to ignore it. One method is amendment one is, if rights hare granted under nine and ten an interpretation by the SCOTUS and even then they are subject to screw it up. But rewrite or re-interpret is not a right granted. Cruz cannot run with out judicial approval at the least and Obama on New Years Eve is clearly in violation this rewrite your own minority opinion and treat it as if it's valid is a good reason not to support people attempting such a manuever.

      The dividing line betwen viable citizen and fetus protoplasm has already been settled. I cannot imagine where Rand gets this from unless he's catering to a home town crowd for re-election to Congress votes. He is a very disappointing candidate.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
        MichaelAarethun : "I cannot imagine where Rand [Paul] gets this from unless he's catering to a home town crowd for re-election to Congress votes."

        Regardless of political strategy for re-election, he seems to sincerely believe it as a consequence of the combination of not understanding the nature and source of man's rights in accordance with his nature as a rational being, and his own uncritical acceptance of conservative 'narrative' based on religious intrinsicism (as described in the initial post above).

        Not understanding the nature and source of rights is dangerous in a country that depends on them. Many people have no idea where morality and rights come from, and they think in terms of "human rights" as a sloganized floating abstraction regardless of any overt religious beliefs they may hold. This makes them susceptible to the kinds of rationalistic equivocation and sophistry described in the initial post, as well as the lefts' demands for government entitlements and "protected classes" in the name of "rights".

        Religious conservative strategists and lawyers cook up campaign arguments and 'novel legal theories' like the one's in Paul's press release just like the left does for its own constant stream of propaganda and strategy to manipulate people for power. The antidote is proper conceptual understanding.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 6 months ago
        One change thanks to another poster. The issue of Cruz not being eligibile Finally. caused some cites and sources to be offered though for a while I despaired of anything more than hens teeth. The Harvard Law review study had links to the answer and the result is foreign soil born of at least one US Citizen - coupled with a minimum amount of time in the US and acceptance of US citizenship validated such a candidate. That means I have until what April to register and run. Any one up for voting for a Gulcher?

        Insofar as the main issue of the thread is concerned and after seeing the results which brought partial birth abortion done to less than double digits and then required other medical conditions to ensure the life of the mother I'll support the SCOTUS finding of viability brings citizen status and protections the approximate dividing line in the third trimester but it takes competent medical authority. This was covered half a year ago in great detail and is available in the archives. No one except those with the unprotected citizens rights viewpoint came away happy but half a loaf etc.... is all you are oging to get. The rest, on eith side, is for diehards and fanatics and the fifty separate jurisdictions.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Retfird 8 years, 6 months ago
        Where did you you find this settled dividing line between viable citizen and fetus protoplasm? Who is it settled with, and what is that line?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 6 months ago
          There isn't one. That's part of the problem with the abortion debate. New information keeps coming out to challenge the older notions.

          There's also the philosophical part: When is "personhood" obtained? Those who argue that life begins at conception take the safest course by saying that even though they aren't sure, they'd rather give the benefit of the doubt than risk engaging in murder. Those who argue that life isn't really life until it is "personhood" struggle to draw a line of objective measure. If one argues that it involves self-sufficiency, then personhood doesn't happen until late childhood at best. If it revolves around fitness for life, then one brings in eugenics and the subjectivity of the rulers.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
            Those who claim that a cell has "rights" out of a "benefit of the doubt" and "safety" over a claimed confusion and uncertainty over a later time completely omit the "safety" and rights of the women they dictate to and criminalize. The penalty for this subjectively imposed accusation of "murder" is execution. The rationalistic sophistry is the same willingness to accept an arbitrary mystical notion of 'intrinsic rights' with no basis in fact at someone else's sacrificial expense. Which is worse, the mystic who demands to sacrifice the innocent for a religious dogma, or the "agnostic" who claims it is "safer" to sacrifice the innocent for a religious dogma.

            The concept of rights does not apply to cells and fetuses. This has nothing to do with "self sufficiency" and "eugenics". Those with no understanding of the nature and source of rights and their status as objective principles, not mystic 'intrinsic' essences and confused and arbitrary rationalism, have no business pretending to defend human rights and freedom at all.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 6 months ago
            When the argument for "life" beginning at conception is based on religious premises of having a "soul," perhaps intention is an even better point (of departure from reality...)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
              The religious "soul" rhetoric is one historically prevalent form of Platonic intrinsic essences commonly used today as glib reified floating abstractions without even the sophistication of a Plato.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
          See the initial post on this page.

          The "settled" legal implementation is Roe v Wade preventing bans on women's rights of abortion when they choose to not have child.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 6 months ago
            Roe v Wade only forbids abortion bans in the first trimester. After that point the issue is still up to each state (for now).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
              The original court reasoning was the usual Pragmatism "balancing" notion pitting a right to privacy against state interests in regulation. It claimed that state interests are stronger as the pregnancy evolves, tying the progressively intensifying regulatory "interest" to within the third trimester. In 1992 it further spedified the right of abortion up to "viability".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by Retfird 8 years, 6 months ago
      Ok, you seem to be giving this bull a good ride.
      Please define 50%+ viable citizen.
      If the father is married to the mother, should he have any say in the matter? And is he responsible for for support if the little bundle of cells survives?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 6 months ago
        It's morally imperative that those two answers be the same. If father doesn't have the right to forbid the birth, then he shouldn't be liable if it happens.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 6 months ago
    He is not his father's son philosophically.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
      His father also wants to ban abortion rights. As for their 'philosophies', they seem to be much the same but Rand Paul seems to ordinarily keep much of it to himself to avoid unnecessary controversy politically.

      Rand Paul is much stronger than most of them on property rights, but doesn't seem to have the practical knowledge of Washington politics to do much as a leader. It's always disappointing and discouraging to see someone like that mess up with quirky arguments like the cells' rights theme.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 6 months ago
        While his father may agree, he didn't propose it in congress when he could have and based on his consistent support for individual liberty I don't think he would if in power (but that's a moot point at this time.)
        Agreed that its frustrating to see side issues distract attention from much more critical concerns (often for political reasons.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
          I don't think the distractions are invoked just for political reasons (though the timing may be, such as 'here now appeal to evangelicals in Iowa caucuses'). They believe them ideologically, and in this case with religious emotions driving them.

          I don't recall Ron Paul ever introducing anti-abortion bills in Congress either, and he may not have. But in his presidential campaign appearances and interviews over several years he certainly emphasized opposition to abortion in a confused notion of 'human rights'. If he didn't intend to do something about it politically if he could, why bring it up and emphasize it in a political campaign for high office with real powers? He may not have ever expected to be elected president at all, but he was advocating it as an issue of government policy for someone to impose. Rand Paul may not expect his latest bill to go anywhere either, just like it hasn't in the past. But he's obviously arguing for it.

          This is related to Mark Levin's attempt to convince people to vote for religious conservative Ken Cuccinelli for governor of Virginia. Levin claimed that political opposition to abortion doesn't make any difference because Cuccinelli wouldn't have the power to impose it under Roe v Wade. But they obviously want to impose it and would do everything they could, incrementally or not, to do so.

          With that kind of thinking you have to ask what else would they do to impose religion under the extraordinary powers of high office, just like Bush did. Overall, Cuccinelli probably would have been less destructive than the current progressive who was elected, and may have done some relative good in some other areas. But it's no argument on behalf of a candidate to demand that we ignore his goals and anti-constitutional advocacy on the grounds that he couldn't yet get away with the worst of it. It's deceptive package-dealing to promote a very bad agenda and expecting people who know better to pretend it doesn't matter. They want us to ignore it while they make inroads.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 6 months ago
            Agreed and well stated. They are proposing powers that were outside those allowed the United States government by the constitution (including Bill of Rights) and more properly stated in the 10th amendment.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 8 years, 6 months ago
              And in the 9th amendment and in the principled formulations of the natural rights of the individual. It isn't just about which level of government should have jurisdiction. The rights of the individual should not be violated by state assumption of improper powers either.

              Conservative demands for "state's rights" are just as bad as unlimited national government. Only individuals have rights. No government official or agency at any level under a proper system of limited government can act by "right" in choosing to inflict power.

              The attempts by some conservatives to oppose Roe v Wade by claiming "state's rights" is a corrupt power struggle and a religious statist side show. And in fact, religion in government has no bounds once unleashed and would not stop at state authority; they currently invoke the anti-concept of 'state's rights' because they are currently on the defensive and trying to regroup their statism in certain states.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 6 months ago
        Ron Paul was indeed pro-life, but his federalism trumped that -- he did not want the federal government dictating the subject in either direction.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JoleneMartens1982 8 years, 6 months ago
    I think this is brilliant! He's doing what he can to both raise awareness of himself as a political threat, and showing his ability to play the game. And it was great timing. At this point it is being seen as a race between Cruz and Trump, if you are a candidate and you want attention, you must raise awareness, use your wits to get ahead, Politics 101.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      Rand Paul is getting attention for his "Life at Conception" bill all right. He has made a spectacle of himself that is an embarrassment to him and to the entire 'tea party' movement he has packaged it with. He was even called on it in the most recent, Jan 28, 2016, Fox debate where he tried to circumvent his own anti-libertarian Federal coercion in own his bill with double talk http://fusion.net/story/261884/rand-p....

      The timing with the Iowa evangelicals is probably no coincidence, but he has done this before, including trying to include it in an irrelevant 2012 flood insurance bill, where he managed to make even Harry Reid seem plausible in comparison. http://thehill.com/video/senate/23474...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JoleneMartens1982 8 years, 5 months ago
        I reckon it's a damn good thing I ain't running for any offices then. I can still have my own opinion based on moral beliefs and what is right and wrong. I don't really have to give a shit about popularity or what you think of my opinion, but thanks for playing along anyway.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 8 years, 6 months ago
    Just imagine...if abortions were totally outlawed, the discussion of when life begins would simply go away and none of this would even be necessary.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 6 months ago
      Just imagine if abortions were classified as a normal medical procedure . The discussion would simply go away and one of this would even be necessary.

      Which is not my stance but just as ridiculous a statement isntead

      Just imagine a world where impregnating 12 year old are considered an acceptable rite of passage and one where the notion of women having any rights at all as to the use of their bodies is foreign concept. That would be no more acceptable but it is accepted

      The dividing line is and remains protection of a citizen unable to protect themselves against being murdered. That happens when viability is reached. It's strictly a civil rights question since treating it any other way, as morals or as a medical issue have been set aside

      The only question is when a viable citizen is murdered without benefit of judge, jury, defense attorney and murdered by one of it's own family members how are we any deifferent than an Islamic.

      We aren't but we adopt a holier than though attitude as if we weren't EXACTLY the same and just as barbaric as if we were invoking Allah instead of Jesus.

      Hypocritical sanctimonious clap trap mean nothing to a murdered child and nothing to a government who has set aside the concept of civil rights and protection from violence for a special class of it's own culture.

      We treat our dogs better than we treat our children and have the guts to point fingers at Islamics? Viability means the ability to live and survive outside the womb. There is no question murder is wrong at that point. the only question in which direction and to what extent we are willing to extend that special right. After all if you wish to kill the child why not the mother? Why not the father?

      And if you wish to ban the practice while it is lump of protoplasm and demand full gestation are willing to help pay for the all that folows? Even uinto age 21 an full adulthood or 23 if in a school?

      Shame on you.

      Who appointed you judge, jury, and executioner and what makes you difference that any other run of the mill sex deviate? Or who appointed you the giver of life and sentenced society to pay for your beliefs?

      A pox on both of your extremist selfish, goTistical views.

      And you bitch about soldiers learining to break things and kill. Killing is state sanctioned. Minus that sanction it is not killing but murder. There is a six month window even for legitimate pregnancies. Where a 12 or so year old child is involved shoot onsight is fine with me. That involves only animal control
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 8 years, 5 months ago
        I wasn't taking a position, merely stating a fact.

        My position on abortion is much more complex, from the fact of knowing women who've done it for mere convenience, to experiencing the difficulty in obtaining simple sterilization procedures because of church mandates.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 5 months ago
          Simple plus complex = the same conclusion. At some point the child is a citizen when the child is aborted as it is being born and in absence of a trial and all the trimmings it is murder. I had to endure the taunts that passed for a welcome home from Vietnam and the cries of Baby Killer. Then I look at those who support partial birth abortion and ask the question? Who are the real baby murderers?

          Thankfully, this time, my stance and that of SCOTUS coincide. I was taking a position and I was stating facts.

          I was also indicting a good portion of the population. It went like this...

          "A pox on both of your extremist selfish, egotistical views."

          That should have been a major tip off it wasn't personal. Apparently it was too subtle.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 6 months ago
    Paul is pretty much out of the presidential race by now, but this blows him out of the water. I had some respect for him even though he has the personality of a lobster, but now, I can cease my consideration of him -- if I ever truly had any.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      He has a lot of good insights and policy ideas, along with good votes, but is plagued by quirkyness due to his naive libertarian lack of understanding of principles and how politics works. That quirkyness, whether called that or not, is sensed by a lot of people and that alone is enough to make him not a serious presidential candidate.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 5 months ago
        Quirkiness?
        Good description.When Libertarianism corresponds to Objectivism it seems like it might be a good political arm of the Objectivist philosophy until it goes off on those "quirkiness" tangents, which makes it sort of an impractical utopian theory.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by samrigel 8 years, 6 months ago
    At present the current “rational and reasoned” individual contains approximately 50 trillion cells. So it has always been amusing to me that the current “rational and reasoned” individual puts so much less importance on a “future rational and reasoned” individual simply because they have fewer cells. We have laws in the World that punish a “rational and reasoned” individual for murdering another “rational and reasoned” individual. But there are no laws for the murder of a “future rational and reasoned” individual by another “rational and reasoned” individual because they have a “reason”. Regardless of that reason. IMHO this is how I see the issue and that is with a total disregard of anything “supernatural”.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      No one argues for rights based on the number of cells in a body.

      Whether or not any particular advocate of the 'rights of cells' nonsense adheres to any specific religious dogma or variation on a supernatural god, the general approach of ascribing intrinsic essences, in place of objective principles based on relevant facts, is religious thinking. It is mystical by nature and dates back to Plato's systematic formulations of such thinking.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gaiagal 8 years, 6 months ago
    Life begins at conception. Mitosis begins, life begins.

    No matter what terminology is used, abortion and abortifacients stop life. That is their sole purpose. If a woman does not have an abortion (assuming all else goes well,) she has a baby. Abortions are performed to stop this event.

    This, to me, has nothing to do with faith or the constitution. It just is.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      That is the Mark Levin anti-intellectual "defense" of rights as "just is" with no logical analysis possible or necessary. It's a profoundly religious mystical approach to inculcating dogma. For every "just is" someone else has a "just is not", which is how faith as a means of thought leads to force as the only means to resolve disputes. The concept of rights of the individual person is a moral concept based on the facts of our nature as rational beings. Life as a human person does not begin at conception. The concept of rights does not apply to cells. "Life" does not have "rights" just because it is some form of "life" and someone says "it just is".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by gaiagal 8 years, 5 months ago
        When does life begin?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 5 months ago
          And that is the crux of the conversation right there. Define when life begins and when sentience begins and the debate over abortion is decided. The problem with the pro-abortion stance lies in the creation of a slippery-slope condition. If one declares that life and right to life begins at some point after conception, one must define that point or cede the argument. Life is a binary condition - not an analog one. Sentience is a binary condition: present or not.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Butched 8 years, 6 months ago
    Although his rewrite goes a bit far, there is no inherent right to abortion. That is s myth and life does begin at conception. If a microbe is discovered on another plant all scientists would be yelling that there is life in space. Why do humans have such trouble with this. Pregnancy and therefore abortion is a result. It is the result and a consequence of having sex. The decision is made at intercourse that pregnancy may or may not result. Only abstinence insures no pregnancy. The only issue should be about the right to decide at intercourse time being deprived through forced relations. Then and only then should the discussion of abortion happen.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      The right of abortion is the right of a woman to her own life and body. You have no business telling anyone to abstain from sex, which is also a right not subject to religious decrees.

      Rights are a moral concept pertaining to human persons in recognition of our nature as rational beings who must think, choose and act in order to live. Rights are principles, not mystic intrinsic essences. The concept of "rights" does not pertain to cells or anything else on any planet just because it is some form of "life" without regard to what it is.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 6 months ago
      When the decision is made voluntarily. when it isn't all your arguments disappear. As you ended and rightly ended. Voluntary sex is not just a natural right it involved responsibility and refusing one while taking the other is a morally reprehensible act

      but then we live in a country that treats dogs better than it treats children. One of Heinleins great moral truths and never been proved wrong.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo