Rand Paul Flips the Script on Abortion
“It’s time for pro-lifers to go on the offense.”
Rand Paul has managed to do something no Republican before him has done. In a series of recent comments and media appearances, the Kentucky senator has turned the abortion debate around, calling on Democrats and their media allies to defend their position on late-term abortion.
Paul’s position is summarized perfectly in this clip from Katie Yoders of News Busters:
Rand Paul: Ask the Other Side ‘When Does Life Begin?’
It’s time for pro-lifers to go on the offense, or so Sen. Rand Paul suggests.
On April 16, Sen. Paul (R-Ky.) addressed the pro-life movement at the Susan B. Anthony Campaign for Life Summit in Washington, D.C. Referencing his back-and-forth with DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the 2016 presidential candidate stressed that the pro-life movement must ask the other side, “When does life begin?” That question, he suggested, will keep the media from placing pro-lifers “neatly” in a “box.”
Here’s the video:
Paul has repeatedly called on DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to respond. Her efforts have been clumsy and evasive at best.
Last week she appeared on Megyn Kelly’s show where she struggled to put Paul back on defense.
Schultz then went on CNN where Wolf Blitzer was unable to get a clear answer from her.
I find it fascinating that the chair of the DNC suddenly wants the government out of health care decisions.
Rand Paul has definitely touched a nerve here. Let’s hope he keeps it up.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I can easily answer Debbie Wasser-Name Schultz. It’s been done many, many times, but the Collective’s Coven Of Death wants to ignore it. She know this damn good and well, too.
My answer derives from reason and science. Members of the human race are human beings. You don’t need to twist yourself in knots about anything beyond that. An unborn human is a human, and needs only one thing to come into the world that nature has not provided (barring some abberation): time.
Were they provided recognition as humans, the questions Shultz asked have ready answers. Their right to live would be weighed by a court against the interests of the mother. (The father should have a say, as well, in ALMOST all cases.)
This isn’t hard or complex. But the Coven Of Death regards this one issue as their sacrement, and will not discuss it on any by dogmatic, demegogic terms.
It is imperative for femenist, but also trans, equality that the baby is extracted from the womb and the woman is returned to the taxable market at the earliest possibility. The Party/Cult exploits individual dignity and preys on intrinsic value with a barbaric righteousness. They describe the reconciliation of individual dignity and intrinsic value as a “wicked problem”, but that does not justify the normalization or promotion of a wicked solution.
Paul’s entire speech was excellent, not just the portion on pro-life issues. He spoke for ten minutes without notes or a teleprompter. Obama can’t speak to elementary school kids without a teleprompter. If he’s done nothing else, Paul has shown how to take control of the narrative.
I ask my pro-choice friends – “how many seconds before a baby is delivered do you think it is OK to kill it?”
The popular answer is viability or when the child can breath on its own, and preferable earns a value in the political, social, or financial market.
It is scientific fact, but, more so, self-evident, that human life begins at conception and evolves until a natural, accidental, or premeditated death.
The pro-choice or selective religious (i.e moral, or amoral, really) doctrine establishes that unwanted or inconvenient human lives are disposable from conception to around birth. The class diversity policy extends this commodity classification of human life to establish that men and women are interchangeable based on physiological characteristics.
Democrats are, in principle, and in practice, on the wrong side on both moral issues of individual dignity and intrinsic value. They actually prey on the latter through the State-established/protected abortion industry (Even the Chinese do not promote abortion. At least not until the second born.). Without a moral foundation, and a notably material motivation, the Party is actually a cult.
That said, as if it needs to be said, the acknowledgement of intrinsic value has implications that preclude certain standards of economy, immigration, etc. I wonder if it is possible to equitably reconcile individual dignity, intrinsic value, and natural constraints to mitigate progressive corruption. A pro-death/abortion policy cannot be reconciled with universal standards of human and national standards of civil (despite the Court’s pronouncements) rights.
“It is scientific fact…”
Generally speaking, when a person leads with this statement, one knows that what follows is just the opposite.
It is your opinion, not “scientific fact”. Given the order of development, one can make the case that “human” life begins at some other point post conception. My view is it begins at conception, but fact it is not, just my opinion.
If each human being has unique DNA it seems to me that conception is the only answer that is entirely objective. The rest all rely on varying degrees of subjective criteria involving physical and cognitive abilities as well as that that unknowable answer of when we acquire a soul.
The question of when we acquire a soul is hardly unknowable; Jewish religious tradition in particular (even the most stringent streams of it) has plenty to say on the subject, and what it has to say informs the Jewish religio-legal position on abortion (which is different than the Christian one): Namely, the soul is acquired at birth (when the infant takes its first breath – as learned from the Biblical narrative of the creation of man: “And G-d blew into man’s nose the breath of life” — in fact, the Hebrew words for ‘soul’ and ‘breath’ are nearly identical). THAT DOES NOT MEAN that one may take the life of a fetus willy-nilly. There is another category called “potential life” which it is forbidden to take. It is, however, not AS forbidden as the taking of an actual life. That means that if a pregnancy threatens the life (or the health in a significant way) of the mother, it may be terminated.
This is part of why this issue is so complicated; contrary to what most people on either side of the issue think, there is lots of room (without running afoul of G-d) for a middle ground.
Now that a real two-sided conversation has begun, perhaps he can now quiz the Dims about Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, her views on eugenics, and the impact of abortion on the minority community. That conversation would likely get SO uncomfortable that the progs would be running for their Safe Spaces while blowing their Trigger Warning whistles.
He not only held his ground, he pushed back and put the ball in the Dems’ court by asking at what point they’re willing to defend life. That’s an important question nobody asks Dems. His original comments, when he called out DWS, were simply brilliant.
Yeah, a thing of beauty for sure. I’ve been waiting (not so patiently) for some conservative leaders who can do this. Is it too much to hope that he and Walker and Cruz can get on a roll and push the entire progressive bullshit narrative back under a rock where it belongs? Yeah, I know. But I can hope for change, right?
Finally, a candidate that puts the progs on their heels with a simple statement of moral truths.
See! That wasn’t so hard was it?
This can also be done with…
…our devalued currency with a call to return to sound money.
…our borders with a call to nationhood
All right. So Ron, er, Rand Paul is going to bring forth a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to end the legal practice of abortion. Oh, no, he’s just going to solicit money from busybodies that think THEIR VALUES trump everyone else’s. Don’t want an abortion, then DON’T HAVE ONE! And if you have a penis, you don’t qualify. And unless the woman getting the abortion is somehow RELATED TO YOU, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! If, according to your religious superstition, you HAVE to rail against the “evils of abortion”, then try to get real. The ONLY thing that is going to stand up is a constitutional amendment. Other than that, it is just some huckster trying to TAKE YOUR MONEY!
We’ve been around this barn before, hater. My views on abortion are not religious, and you can’t deal with them, as we’ve proven before.
And you are just lying, again. It won’t require a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT as you love to scream. There is no right to an abortion under the Constitution, and never was.
So much bullshit in one comment:
A constitutional amendment is not required to end legal abortion. And a president/congress can do a lot to curtail the practice. While I might allow abortion in the early stages, I would not force through taxation, others to pay for it.
Having a penis does not disqualify anyone from having an opinion on an act of murder, just more BS.
You do not have to be related to someone to hold the opinion, and act upon it, that abortion is a murder of the unborn. More BS.
Bullshit and bafflegab are always the lefts friends. It is all they have.
I agree to a considerable extent… your abortion is none of my business. So, I’ll thank you for returning the favor and not asking (demanding) for me to pay for it.
So many of our issues could be resolved best for most if we simply demanded personal responsibility for the consequences of actions taken at liberty.
Those of us who truly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ have been on the front lines to protect innocent life since Day One.
All I can say is, it’s about time that other’s saw the value of the unborn too.
Let’s see, Mz.Blabbermouth-Schultz: Heartbeats are now being monitored at 18-Days after conception. So, IS THAT LIFE OR JUST GARBAGE TO BE FLUSHED, HoneyBunny??
Push back on all their narratives. Keep at it, stop cowtowing to the looney left.
Check my privilege? How about you check your premise?
A decision left between a woman and her doctor? The VAST majority of doctors will not participate in abortion.