Rand Paul on the right to life
“One thing I can promise you — I will always take a stand for life.”
Sen. Paul made headlines a few weeks ago when he lobbed the abortion gotcha questions back into the Democrat’s court.
This week, Paul released a video detailing his pro-life stance. On Facebook, Sen. Paul’s official campaign account included the following statement:
I strongly believe in the sanctity of life and that an abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. As a physician, one of the first things we learn is to ‘do no harm.’ Since the Roe v. Wade decision, over 50 million children have been killed in abortion procedures. This is a tragedy. We cannot have liberty if we do not first protect life. As President, I will champion an agenda that supports and defends all human life, no matter how defenseless.
“Can a country founded on God-given rights continue to thrive without understanding that life is a precious gift from our Creator?” asks Paul.
A bit theatric, but well done nonetheless:
Nefarious members of the press have repeatedly used abortion inquiries to trip up Republican candidates. Not only has Paul lead the offensive charge, he’s clearly detailed his position on the sanctity of life before the press can paint their own version of his view on Paul’s behalf. It’s a smart move.
Here’s hoping other Republican candidates will follow suit.
Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The Pauls have always been steadfast for life issues, you have to give them that.
– –
Of course, it is also evidence of Ron’s flip-flop on immigration because it proved he was willing to oppose the general Libertarian philosophy forthrightly. So we must assume he did support those basic planks of the platform he never mentioned.
One of those was open borders, which was also part of Paul’s belief until he returned to Congress after his 1988 LP run for President. His redrawn district was directly affected by illegal immigration, and he flipped faster than the winner of the pancake contest.
I have a hard time accepting open borders into a welfare state, open borders without medical and criminal background checks.
I would accept open borders if we had immigrants pass background checks and sign a contract promising not to accept any means tested benefits and not to contest deportation if they commit certain crimes or vote illegally. If a working immigrant falls on hard times then I would expect his sponsoring community to support him.
Here’s hoping other Republican candidates will follow suit.
If they all do, the 45th American President will be Hillary.
It’s very likely that the “good Germans” will vote to continue a progressive genocide with the wicked solution to a “wicked problem”… Assuming, of course, that they are administered the appropriate opiates (e.g. insurance, cell phones, cash) in order to suppress their conscience. Then the selective-child (i.e. pro-choice) policy will claim an additional million victims annually during her administration. This may happen anyway in the back alley (ergo “wicked problem”), but it seems insane to grant an exclusive right to terminate unwanted or inconvenient [wholly innocent, uniquely defenseless] human lives for casual and even trivial causes, including: convenience, desire.
There are Supreme Court rulings supporting the right to birth control, abortion and homosexual acts. These are not issues in a presidential election.
The fact that things are legal, for example smoking, should not preclude a president from using the bully pulpit to express an opinion that certain acts are wrong.
Consider the negative effect that abortion has had on the African-American community: almost 40% of abortions are preformed on black women and an unknown number performed on women of other races who carry the child of a black father. Politicians should speak up begging these women not to continue this genocide that has cost the lives of possibly 50 millions of African Americans children. The silence of DWS and Clinton on this issue is defeating.
Anybody else notice that the Democrats – The Party of Slavery – is also the Party of Abortion?
Party of slavery. Party of abortion. And most of all, party of entitlement slavery.
Of those 50 million children who were aborted how many were the result of rape and/or incest? How many had fatal abnormalities or would have resulted in the death of the mother if brought to term? How many were unwanted by the mother? How many did the father insist be aborted? If allowed to live how many of the unwanted 50 million would have been abused by their parents? How many would have been added to the welfare rolls? I would love to see the outpouring of love for these children be extended once they are out of the womb.
There are empirical answers to each of several of your questions.
Why don’t you know them?
There are logical questions to more of your stupid questions, like, “If momma didn’t what the child, why did she do so many things to invite that child into life?”
Or… If you’re advocating death as an alternative to possible abuse, you advocate killing many babies that are born to people who want them.
If people don’t care to be pregnant, they have many, many choices NOT to become pregnant. Abortion should never be “contraception”.
If you don’t know that there are whole populations of people who want a child and are prepared to love them, you’re an idiot.
Are you writing from Argentina under an assumed name?!?
Send every unwanted child to me. I will find a good life for them.
BTW: an engineer on my floor is going to China to adopt a baby girl.
I suggest you abandon the cult of nihilism.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/politics/2013/02/norma-mccorvey-roe-v-wade-abortion
She [Norma McCorvey] told the press that she had become pregnant after being raped, filing away the yellowing newspaper accounts of her interviews in the boxes she left with Connie. Then, in 1987, she acknowledged in a television interview with columnist Carl Rowan that the claim of rape had been completely untrue.
“How many would have been added to the welfare rolls?”
Whoops! Your inner progressive-fascist-eugenicist slipped out! Margaret? Margaret Sanger? Is that you? Why, I haven’t seen you since the last KKK rally, or was it the local Democratic Wives bake sale? How many black babies have you murdered since we last saw each other? But hey! How about that “conservatives hate minorities” meme? Ain’t it a peach?
I’m a conservative who, along with my wife, adopted two kids. Would you like to hear about our experience? It seems a complete mystery to you. They’ve both done very well, good citizens, salt of the earth types. Of course, they had advantages. No one murdered them, that was key.
How many were late term fully functional children who died in agnony? How many were partially born victims of infanticide?
“Of those 50 million children who were aborted how many were the result of rape and/or incest?”
That is an excellent question, one which should be addressed more often. The only time I recall seeing it answered was a long time ago, when the CDC estimated that about 1 in 1500 abortions were the result of rape or incest. A survey in 1987 said 1% (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html) If someone can find more recent figures, I would appreciate it if you could post them.
I think somerset figured that these questions were in the way of an argument which couldn’t be answered.
“how many….?” is supposed to imply something like “almost all, you hater”.
Stupid.
It’s my understanding that 2/3 to 3/4 of all aborted babies are black. It sure seems like that would be a wedge issue for the progs.
I’m more concerned that Rand won’t take a stand on enforcing immigration laws.
LOVE LETTER TO MWSOMERSET
“Of those 50 million children who were aborted how many were the result of rape and/or incest?”
Very, very few. Not enough to justify killing all the babies because some might be the product of rape or incest.
“How many had fatal abnormalities or would have resulted in the death of the mother if brought to term?”
Again, very, very few, a very small percentage of the total number of babies killed. But you’re right
“How many were unwanted by the mother?”
Are you serious? How many of the killed babies were unwanted by the mother? ALL OF THEM, you moron.
“How many did the father insist be aborted?”
The mother decides ultimately. She owns the responsibility for the kind of male she chooses to mate with.
“If allowed to live how many of the unwanted 50 million would have been abused by their parents?”
I have no idea and neither do you.
“How many would have been added to the welfare rolls?”
Tell you what. Let me ask you a few questions. These aren’t theatrically rhetorical – and totally peurile – like yours. They are hypothetical, however:
If I put a gun to your head and gave you the choice of going on welfare or instant death, which would you pick?
If I put a gun to your head and gave you the choice of going to prison or instant death, which would you pick?
If I put a gun to your head and gave the choice of bad parents or instant death, which would you pick?
This is what your black philosophy does, but you do it even worse. In your sick practices you don’t even give the babies a choice – you choose for them, and your choice is death. Their lives won’t all be rich and happy – kill them all.
Here’s a few more questions for you. I’ll employ your theatrically smarmy style so you’ll better understand:
How many of those 50 million dead babies would have become Nobel laureates?
How many of those 50 million dead babies would have invented something that would have benefited millions?
How many of those 50 million would have made the most of the life they were allowed, rose from poverty and turned into a Dr. Ben Carson or Norman Borlaug?
And then you say this:
“I would love to see the outpouring of love for these children be extended once they are out of the womb.”
How telling you don’t offer love, but would merely love to see it emit from others. If you can kill babies without so much as a wince of conscience, then you are incapable of love.
Beautifully said, Mr. Hawkins. Especially the last bit.
“How telling you don’t offer love, but would merely love to see it emit from others. If you can kill babies without so much as a wince of conscience, then you are incapable of love.”