Rand Paul: Small Government Except When It Comes to Abortion

by Ben Hoffman

This from Paul’s website:

I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment.

I would support legislation, a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement.

As your Senator, there are many ways I can help end abortion. I will fight for each and every one of them.

Read more…

Not only does he favor a ban on abortion, he favors a ban on courts from hearing cases about abortion. People have a right to dissent, which usually entails going to court. That’s how our system works.

Our country was founded on dissent. Apparently Paul wants to outlaw dissent when it comes to issues of his choosing. And that’s un-American.

Advertisements
Tags:

42 Comments to “Rand Paul: Small Government Except When It Comes to Abortion”

  1. Yeah, I’m for smaller government too, except when murder is taking place. Then I’m for more government stepping in to protect the citizens. It’s called laws against murder and such.

    • Most people don’t believe that terminating an embryo is murder. Your argument is purely religious and we’re guaranteed freedom from religion here in the U.S.

    • Yeah, I’m for smaller government too, except when murder is taking place.

      Good thing no such action is happening. I would be worried if an actual person was involved.

      Since that is most definitely not the case, we are all good.

      🙂

      • Right. Except tell that to my 18 year old son who was born at 30 weeks. Had we chosen, we could have stopped his heart from beating.

        You pro-murder folks never cease to amaze for the lengths you will try to go to deny what everyone knows (yes, even you): that “fetus” with the beating heart is a person.

  2. An embryo. Hmmm how about a 28 week term pregnancy. Does that end a life?

    And on freedom from religion, you seriously misunderstand our constitution, interpreted by judges sitting in the shadow of religious phrases.

    • I don’t think those are questions for me do decide. It’s better left up to the pregnant woman.

      As far as freedom from religion, Christianity is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, so what religion does it require us to follow? Muslims worship the same god as Christianity. Do we have to follow the Koran?

      • From the US Treaty with Tripoli. Written under the Presidency of George Washington and signed during John Adams term. Not real ambiguous.

        Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

      • I don’t think those are questions for me do decide. It’s better left up to the pregnant woman.

        Absolutely! Good show Ben :>

      • Whenever the old ‘keep the guvmint out of our lives’ argument comes up, I hear the (silent) second half of that, which is “except in the bedroom. C’mon in to the bedroom!)

        Another thought: Terri Schiavo.

    • In 1797 President John Adams signed the Treaty with Tripoli after the Senate ratified it.

      The Senate’s ratification was only the third recorded unanimous vote of 339 votes taken.

      Article 11 of the treaty reads:
      Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

      FROM WIKIPEDIA: According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were “intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.”[17] Article 11 has also been cited by 21st-century church/state separatists as one of several documents — including the Federalist Papers papers and the Declaration of Independence — that demonstrated, according to Author Brooke Allen, that the Founding Fathers “… were not religious men”.[18]

      [edit] Translation

      • Hey – that last comment was from me! don’t know what happened, so I’m ‘signing in’ again.

        The comment was for FL who said
        “And on freedom from religion, you seriously misunderstand our constitution, interpreted by judges sitting in the shadow of religious phrases up anyway -”

        Am I to undersgtand that John Adams and the US Senate of 1797 ‘misunderstood’ the constitution?

      • Also – apologies to Rick for repeating his point from above. I appear NOT to be having a very good day.

    • Well, Adams is an interesting one to quote. He was Unitarian. Nevertheless, another quote from Adams:

      As no truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration, not any more fully demonstrated by the experience of all ages, than that a deep sense and a due acknowledgment of the growing providence of a Supreme Being and of the accountableness of men to Him as the searcher of hearts and righteous distributor of rewards and punishments are conducive equally to the happiness of individuals and to the well-being of communities….I have thought proper to recommend, and I hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the twenty-fifth of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that “righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34].
      John Adams, “National Fast Day,” A COMPILATION OF THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS, 1:284-86.

      In any case, we can probably trade quotes from various Fathers. My point is this: 1) the US was founded on the basis of Christianity. 2) The founders were very careful to NOT have a state forced or sponsored religion, Christianity or otherwise (they had had that in England and wanted no part of it) 3) They were also very careful to protect the religious convictions of all, Christianity included 4) to think that the Christian religion did not influence the laws of our nation is absurd 5) For my opinion, I do not want Christianity to be enforced as a religion of state 6) and last, laws on unjust killing, etc. have their basis in the Christian religion.

      • the US was founded on the basis of Christianity

        Huh, I always thought it was on the basis of oh well ya know… The Constitution. But hey, if you want to describe the Founding Fathers as religiously addled, by my guest.

        6) and last, laws on unjust killing, etc. have their basis in the Christian religion.

        Go go historical inaccuracy! ‘Christian virtues’ were built on previous religious outlooks, plagarism essentially. Christians did invent the atrocious concept of hell…hey way to go…scaring the ignorant for some 2000 years.

        I do not want Christianity to be enforced as a religion of state

        Tell that to Texas board of Education.

      • [6) and last, laws on unjust killing, etc. have their basis in the Christian religion.]

        “Thou shalt not kill” is from the Old Testament, otherwise known as the Jewish Bible or Torah. “Do not kill” is also the first precept of Buddhism, which was taught some 600 years before the invention of Christianity.

      • [Do not kill” is the first precept of Buddhism, which was taught some 600 years before the invention of Christianity.]

        Hey, that means American was founded on the foundations of Buddhism! 🙂

  3. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” People have a right to dissent, ”

    All people, except Tea Partyers!

    Or right wingers who go to court against Obama,,,right? Or how about “dissent” against Obama’s Supreme Court picks ? Can’t have that kind of ” dissent ‘?

  4. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” Right-wingers just make up crap to dissent against. That’s not real dissent. That’s just lying to defend your party. ”

    So right wingers who disagree with you should have no right to dissent ?

  5. Arbour and Ben,

    Why don’t you two get together and study up on Christianity and especially theology. Then we may be able to have a sensible debate. Until then you’re just not equipped for the discussion.

    BTW, God’s law predates ol’ Buddah by a bit don’t ya think? How about at creation. Oh wait, you don’t believe in creation I suppose.

    And Christianity didn’t begin in the first century. Again you need to read up a bit.

    • [Then we may be able to have a sensible debate.]

      A sensible debate about some made up supernatural being? Wouldn’t that be an oxymoron?

    • Why don’t you two get together and study up on Christianity and especially theology.

      Well that really depends on how deluded you actually are, because if you do the whole young earth creationist shtick, then I doubt you have the capacity to have a sensible debate.

      Until then you’re just not equipped for the discussion.

      I think Ben has Judaism covered and I can definitely hold my own when it comes to history. I would suggest that if you think we are not up to your standards you perhaps should illuminate us with your particular take on history and heck even theology if you’d like.

      Oh wait, you don’t believe in creation I suppose.
      Creation happened whether I ‘believe’ in it or not. I’m guessing you are not a proponent of cosmological theory and are going with ‘godidit’ which isn’t particularly relevant or interesting.

      • I may be deluded then. I do believe in a “young earth.” I am in the company of Isaac Newton (who discovered calculus, put together the laws of motion and gravity, invented the reflecting telescope, stuff like that).

        Yes a theological discussion would be fun, though time consuming.

      • [I am in the company of Isaac Newton]

        You’re living in the 17th century? That explains it! 🙂

  6. Your typical quippy non response response. You didn’t disappoint.

  7. And also BTW, are you libs slackers lately? No quippy response about my 18 year old “born at 30 weeks” son? You think I should just decide for myself who gets to keep his heart beating and who doesn’t?

    • Arbour, so you’re smarter and more enlightened than Newton? You’re hilarious.

      I said earlier,

      “And also BTW, are you libs slackers lately? No quippy response about my 18 year old “born at 30 weeks” son? You think I should just decide for myself who gets to keep his heart beating and who doesn’t?”

      still no response. Figures.

      • Arbour, so you’re smarter and more enlightened than Newton? You’re hilarious.

        If by stating verifiable fact that catapults me into the realm of hilarious, so be it.

        Newton published some of the seminal works in mathematics and physics. He was also sorely deluded by christian mythology and alchemy. No surprises there.

    • Oh and F&L is now Ed. I’ve taken F&L blog down to start another blog dedicated to different subject altogether.

      • Oh and F&L is now Ed. I’ve taken F&L blog down to start another blog dedicated to different subject altogether.

        I’m sure you are erecting another stern bastion of rationality. I look forward to reading it.

      • Actually it will be about caring for orphans and abandoned children in Haiti. I hope you’ll read it.

  8. It’s quite obvious why none of you will answer. You realize that whatever you say (in the way of a genuine attempt to answer) you’re trapped.

  9. Right. Except tell that to my 18 year old son who was born at 30 weeks. Had we chosen, we could have stopped his heart from beating.

    You pro-murder folks never cease to amaze for the lengths you will try to go to deny what everyone knows (yes, even you): that “fetus” with the beating heart is a person.

    Well as much as I’ve been avoiding taking the dangling troll bait, I shall just because I would hate to disappoint.

    Right. Except tell that to my 18 year old son who was born at 30 weeks. Had we chosen, we could have stopped his heart from beating.

    You should thank your local pro woman’s/pro-choice group for the rights to reproductive freedom you exercised. Fantastic work.

    you pro-murder folks never cease to amaze for the lengths you will try to go to deny what everyone knows (yes, even you): that “fetus” with the beating heart is a person.

    Here is a simple guide. In utero is not a person, ex utero is.

    A woman has the right over the entire contents of her body. It is a fundamental feature of bodily autonomy. So, if a woman wants to be rid of the fetus, which is not a person and therefore not eligible for any of the rights we grant to human beings, then she has the right to remove it from her uterus without any undue sanction.

    It’s quite obvious why none of you will answer. You realize that whatever you say (in the way of a genuine attempt to answer) you’re trapped.

    Thanks for making more inaccurate baseless assumptions. I see no ‘trap’ persay other than an authoritarian appeal by you to take ownership of female reproductive organs in a risible bid to enforce your own religiously misguided “moral” agenda on society.

  10. Arbour,

    Thanks for answering, though it would help if you just clarified something. I do not want to misunderstand your position.

    <blockquote"ere is a simple guide. In utero is not a person, ex utero is.

    So is it fair to say that you believe that the location of the fetus is the determinative factor as to whether or not it is a person? Is that, in your view, a scientific position or a legal/political position?

    I am truly asking, because in all my years I have never had a conversation with someone who believes this way. I’m not trying to have a gotcha debate.

    thanks

    • So is it fair to say that you believe that the location of the fetus is the determinative factor as to whether or not it is a person? Is that, in your view, a scientific position or a legal/political position?

      It is a simplification (perhaps even an oversimplification) of what I believe to be a reasonable standard of determining when we should be granting ‘personhood’ status.

      Determining when life we begins in the process of conception is as difficult as determining when we should reasonably say that when we reach “X” the fetus should be accorded the status and accompanying rights of a full human being.

      I understand your commitment to life Ed, and I respect that you want to preserve it wherever possible. One of the problems I encounter is that certain elements of the anti-choice crowd advocate measures that put the needs of the fetus well ahead of the mother. Not equal footing, but primacy in terms of medical and ethical standing.

      Women are still fighting to be free from our male dominated culture, the patriarchy still runs the show explicitly and implicitly (for example, how a woman dresses plays a large role on how likely you are to help her).

      Women’s struggle for freedom is directly tied to the ability to control our reproductive faculties.

      Judith Jarvis Thomson does a good job of defining how I see the the debate. You can see her essay here, and the wikipedia summary here.

      I will not take a step back when it comes to reproductive freedom Ed. It saves womens’ lives and lets those who are generally responsible for raising children determine when it is best for them to have a child, maximizing the chance for a positive outcome for both the child and the mother.

      So, when it comes to preserving Life, I think you’re doing it from the wrong angle. Let the focus stay on the woman and make sure she has every option available to her so she can decide when it is time to have children, because only she knows her circumstances and only she will be ultimately responsible for bringing a new life into the world.

      I know we disagree on this issue, but from your last response it genuinely looks like you are trying to understand my position. I hope I have given you a rough map of the hows and whys of my position and some of the reasoning behind it.

      • Arbourist,

        Thank you for your response. Yes we do disagree on this and it appears that you and I are very passionate about what we believe. But that doesn’t mean two people can’t have a civil discussion. Anyway, a brief response, realizing that neither you nor I are likely to be swayed.

        Determining when life we begins in the process of conception is as difficult as determining when we should reasonably say that when we reach “X” the fetus should be accorded the status and accompanying rights of a full human being.

        If I grant the premise of what you say, then it seems just logical to err on the side of caution and assume that life begins early. I would say conception, others might say viability. But surely we could agree that there is life a day before a term delivery.

        But if we say that it is a person somewhere along the way, it would seem to me that we can also say it is a human being. In fact, if it is not a human, what is it?

        As far as where women’s rights are in the matter, I am all for women being treated equally and with utter respect in all areas of life. I have a wife and daughters. I have a mother. So I know full well what it feels like to love and defend women. But, since I believe that the fetus is a human being, either a boy or a girl, and is defenseless in the womb. I believe he or she needs protection. I do not put him or her ABOVE the woman. They are equally valuable in my view. In the pro-choice view, the fetus is not on equal footing.

        You and I are not likely to agree. But thanks for sharing your views.

        Have a great holiday!

  11. I went over the link count again Ben, could you fish my response to ED out of the queue please? Sorry for the trouble.

    Thanks,
    Arb.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: