Posted on 03/20/2013 8:32:36 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
Senator and CPAC straw poll winner Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the “Life at Conception Act” on Thursday afternoon. He then went to Twitter and tweeted the following:
According to Senator Paul, S 583 “does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions.
From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what 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 from that point forward,” Sen. Paul said. “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress.”
The substance of the bill reads,
“To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.”
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomoutpost.com ...
Excellent! Hopefully you will connect with the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution preventing Congress from establishing a definition of when life begins.
We’re having this discussion because flag-waving patriots actually didn’t know enough about the Constitution, particularly the Founding States’ division of federal and state powers evidenced by 10A, to remedy the situation when activist justices first legalized abortion. Justices needed to be impeached, imo, for ignoring Bingham’s clarification of how 14A was intended to work when the Supreme Court legalized abortion. But evidently everybody was asleep at the wheel.
Also, although I’m not really blaming Bingham, I regret that Bingham didn’t forsee major problems with respect to his inclusion of the word “born” in the language of Section 1 of 14A and the subsequent legalization of abortion in the next century. It arguably makes Sen. Paul’s proposed legislation look like a backdoor remedy for effectively overturning Roe v. Wade.
And I’m guessing that the prospects for a RINO-controlled HoR and liberal Senate and Oval Office actually passing his bill are next to nothing. But even if it predictably fails, it makes Sen. Paul look to good to conservatives in the long run.
It is a remedy for Roe v. Wade but I wouldn’t call it ‘backdoor.’ It’s a Constitutional solution to the lack of clarity about it in the Bill of Rights. As far as the chances of the Life At Conception Act passing now I agree. But in order to get any controversial legislation passed you have to put if forward over and over again. Rand Paul has been pushing this for quite a while now. No one else has.
With all due respect TigersEye, your statement brings to mind the liberal argument that Clause 5 of Section 1 of Article II, the natural born citizen clause, is not defined in the Constitution. But a little research reveals that nbc is a well-understood, well-documented legal term that the drafters of the Constitution were familiar with. This is why I don't put much faith into the side-door argument of claiming that "person" is undefined in Section 1 of 14A, particularly since Bingham also used the word born in that statute.
You sound more like the liberal arguing that a fetus does not deserve the legal status of ‘person’ accorded to all other human beings.
Noting that I have referenced evidence that corrupt, 10A-ignoring justices unconstitutionally legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade imo, I am skeptical of the approach that Sen. Paul is taking to resolve the issue, arguably a PC approach that appeals to conservatives.
Again, noting that I agree that life begins at conception, the post Civil War 14A was concerned primarily with protecting freed slaves, not addressing when life begins. And I think that past injustices concerning so-called abortion rights need to be resolved so that Constitution-ignorant patriots wise up to ongoing Supreme Court corruption.
Let me also note that the 14th Amendment was concerned with defining citizenship only not life or its Constitutional protections.
Whatever other conservatives think of the LACA, it appeals to me because I see it as the direct approach following the intent of the founding governing principles in the straightest possible line.
Purists on amnesty, but total sell outs on abortion.
Yes --- assuming, of course, that it was conceived from a human ovum and a human sperm. If canine gametes were used, it would be a dog. If feline, a cat. If equine, a horse. That's indisputable.
"If a nurse drops the test tube, is that manslaughter?"
If negligence or criminal intent are involved --- the same as if she dropped a preemie. That's by the way, one of the big reasons why babies should never be conceived in vitro. It exposes them to hugely magnified risk. Humans should be conceived only in vivo.
"If a mother has a fetus with no head, should she be forced to deliver it?"
If she has a fetus with no head, the fetus (actually, embryo) will perish very early (probably even before pregnancy is detected), and very naturally and probably very easily. No need to worry about "delivery" of headless babies; no need, either, to induce an abortion.
Do you think the infant should be killed?
Our Declaration of Independence --- in the light of which our Constitution is to be interpreted --- acknowledges that basic human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are given by God, innate, and neither awarded nor rescinded by Kings, Constitutions, Congresses, or Courts.
A fetus with no head or brain? I think that should be up to the parents. My friends had an abortion, even though they are themselves conservative and anti-abortion.
Do you believe that invitro fertilization ought to also be illegal?
This is a self-contradicting statement. They were certainly in a grievous, pitiable situation, the moreso because they discovered, under difficult circumstances, that they were actually pro-abortion.
Other mothers and fathers, in the same circumstances, decided not to slay the unfortunate child. They are the ones who are actually "anti-abortion."
An anencephalic child will shortly die. If he or she lives but briefly and breathes his last in his mother's arms, it is heartbreaking but it is not a crime. To kill him or her intentionally is something else. It's a denial of the child's humanity, a refusal of parental love and, frankly, homicide.
"Do you believe that in vitro fertilization ought to also be illegal?"
Yes. Thank you for asking. It makes the conceived child, first, a lab experiment and then, a kind of living property in a commercial transaction, subject to culling and disposal if not up to specifications, like a substandard lab rat.
This falls short of the respect which we owe to a human child.
Children have a right to be conceived in the marital embrace and accepted unconditionally. Anything short of that is wrongful from the point of view of the child's own dignity as a person, not a thing.
That says it all, with beauty.
Thank you.
Truth is usually quite simple and can be expressed in simple language.
There can be reams of details, but the basics can be said simply, so that everyone can clearly understand.
I’m afraid I’ll need a scripture to back that up. Not that you are necessarily wrong, but I’d like to hear God’s opinion on invitro fertilization.
You will not find in vitro fertilization in your Biblical concordance, for obvious reasons--- the same reasons you won't find BDSM, online porn addiction, party drugs, fisting, post-op transsexuals, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, artificial insemination, and Queer Studies Majors. These things are either technically or culturally unknown in Biblical times.
"You, Lord, created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you
because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together intricately
in the depths of the Eretz.
Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
How precious to me are your thoughts,
O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
Psalm 139
However there are Biblical principles which apply here, because although the Bible doesn't say anything explicitly about these perversions, it does say a lot about the wisdom of Divine Providence in the design of human nature.
In other words, God wrote both the "Book of Scripture" and the "Book of Nature." By this I mean, He is the Author of both: the Creation which He made, and the Scriptures He has given us to show forth His will.
Based on Genesis, we can see that God's original plan for us, "In the divine image He created him, male and female He created them" --- was very good. We know that our embodied maleness and femaleness, and the way we make love and make life, reflects His will and His wisdom.
Therefore when things go wrong for us bodily, for instance, the tragedy of infertility, the true ethical aim of medical practice, is simply to restore the original good natural design. We must aim to restore natural fertility, which means, the ability to conceive and bear children through natural marital intercourse.
Medical intervention is good when it heals injuries, cures diseases, strengthens functions that have been weakened or disabled. The whole key is to repair and restore back to normal.
Thee is nothing normal or natural about masturbating into a jar or a plastic baggie, handing your sperm over to a lab tech, meanwhile some woman's body (maybe your wife's) is forced into hyperovulation --- a pathological condition --- with injected hormones; then the ova are harvested, and the ova and sperm are mixed in a laboratory procedure which is not intimately personal and certainly not lovemaking; then the resulting offspring, in their vulnerable embryonic state, are scrutinized and any that are disfavored are culled and destroyed.
The whole procedure in intentionally the very opposite of normal physiological function; the results of procreation are treated like lab materials, not like nascent creations of God Who is the Lord and Giver of Life. There is no innate sense that human procreation is sacred, or that we are to "image" God --- the Creator God, Who made love and made life in the same sacred instant. Rather we force a technological process like the veterinary breeding of pedigreed dogs and race-horses, or the brewing of batches of bacteria.
In ther words, what was designed by Divine Wisdom to be intimate, veiled from public gaze, grounded in interpersonal love, beautiful in its intertwined meanings -- re-read Psalm 139 --- becomes instead a manufacturing process and a crass commercial transaction.
It confuses the categories of "person" and "product." Even legally, it degrades "child" into "property."
It does not restore natural fertility; in fact, it doesn't even try. It does not heal sexual intercourse as the natural source of life: it replaces it. It does not honor the conceived child: it treats the embryonic child as a thing to be bred or to be discarded, or even to be experimented on, sold, or flushed down the sewer as medical waste.
This fails to restore natural sexual health and disrespects sanctity of the beginnings of life.
Thank you, Mrs.Don-o. Poetic truth.
Stinker, the principles of truth are clear. It’s up to the clear mind, unfettered by envy, lust and greed, to apply the eternal principles to the changing times and circumstances.
They always apply, when viewed with a clear mind and heart.
Bhagavad Gita 5.16
When, however, one is enlightened with the knowledge by which nescience is destroyed, then his knowledge reveals everything, as the sun lights up everything in the daytime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.