To make national policy, the nation needs to decide “when life begins,” he said, according to The Daily Caller. “I think we go down all kinds of rabbit holes talking about other stuff.”
In other words, Rand Paul is pro-choice-by-state just like his father. He believes that the states can define ANYONE as a "non-person" and then kill them.
This is simply the libertarian version of, "I'm personally opposed, but..." mantra. It is designed to insure that the American Holocaust continues unabated.
The GOP in general seems to want to kick the social issues to the curb in order to focus on economics. Not a winning strategy IMHO.
Rand Paul is also not interested in stopping the invasion/cheap labor importation/colonization of our country.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Money more important than murder.
Ping!
Can’t get the country’s fiscal life in order until its moral life is in order. Paul is a chip of the ol’ blockhead.
It is good to have a starting point. He is a doctor not an economist.
Consider the following:
A couple of years ago, on a FR forum related to current government abortion policy, "livius" posted: "This is worse than before. What we are now being forced to pay for is essentially a government funded and (as yet) indirectly government administered population control program." - liviusThat observation was and is pertinent to any discussion of the unbending coercive position "progressives" insist upon whenever the matter of "abortion" is discussed.
Writers have been exposing socialism's tyrannical principles and goals for a century now. Those who have understood it best declared that its policies lead to tyranny and oppression.
Yet, we have arrogant Americans, born in liberty, and viewing themselves as "intellectuals" and "progressives," who have embraced socialist ideas over the ideas of liberty and are determined to impose its deadly limitations on a once-free people.
As you read the following excerpt from the late-19th Century writer, note the writer's warning that the "scheme of socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes the power of restraining the increase of population."
The following excerpt has been posted on FR previously; however, its conclusions are pertinent to this discussion:
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), originally published in 1891, Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
He really has the heart of a libertarian. Combine that with what appears to me to be an overweening ambition, and you have a recipe for a RINO sellout.
that's a disqualifying comment.
Sorry Rand, you just lost any chance you ever had of getting my vote.
A “republic” by definition does not permit MURDER.
The Constitution mandates that each state shall have a “republican form of government.”
So abortion is FORBIDDEN by the U.S. Constitution.
Ron and Rand must have not read it.
If you are a single issue voter and this is your issue then I guess you will get what you have always gotten....nothing.
He’s a typical libertarian. Tight with his money but having no moral compass.
He entered politics because there’s money in it.
Great Rand. You care if they spend too much. You care if they snoop on people.
But you don’t care if they’re killing folks????
“Eyes, I just do eyes.”
One of my favorite quotes from “Bladerunner.”
Id never defend Rand Paul but some pro life folks, while good intentioned, wont take yes for an answer. If abortion isnt talked about CONSTANTLY by someone then they get labeled as anti pro life. These folks are there own worst enemies.
If hearts are right, then the correct policies will follow.