Paul’s Perilous Positioning

Rand Paul Is All About Personal Freedom From Government, Unless What You Do Directly Contradicts What He Thinks You Should Do

Recently Rand Paul spent thirteen hours of his and everyone’s lives filibustering the appointment of the new head of the CIA.  It wasn’t the appointment he was upset with – it was merely an opportunity for him to bring attention to what he believed to be the commander-in-chief’s ability and desire to drone-strike to death non-combatant US citizens on American soil.  A noble effort for anyone who fears the insidious hand of big government.  For a little while, it looked like Capitol Hill had a new protector of personal liberty.  Finally, someone who truly believed in limiting the powers of an all-reaching governing body in all sectors! Someone who didn’t want mysterious robots murdering people in the name of the citizenry, or encroaching interference from legislature into the realm of business, or laws that mandate what folks can and cannot do with their own bodies OH WAIT -

Rand Paul, clearly seen here calling the kettle black while under the influence of being a pot.

Yes, according to The Raw Story, Rand Paul introduced a bill Friday that would effectively outlaw abortions nationwide while somehow remaining constitutional and not contradicting the Roe v. Wade decision.  The “Life at Conception Act” would define fetal personhood, making it country-wide law that a creature is human the moment poppa’s luckiest swimmer collides with momma’s squishy egg.  According to Paul,
“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,”
a statement that contains so many logical leaps its astonishing Paul’s tongue doesn’t have huge, disgusting froggy legs.  Do most Americans believe this?  Is this truly “what science has long known?”  Isn’t a “fetus” at conception not even a fetus at all, but an infinitesimally small collection of cells staggeringly less complex than a common housefly?  Who out there is really defining clumps of cells as “human life?”  What is the definition of “human life?”  This doesn’t even get into the broader conversations of what it means to be conscious, and capable of suffering, fear, and pain!

I’ve been reading a lot of Kurzweil lately. Long story short – watch out for the big “Robot VS Fetus” Debate in 2029.

It’s startling for an ardent libertarian like myself to see at one moment someone speaking directly about defending personal liberty, and to have that same person trample on personal liberty the next.  I don’t care what Rand Paul personally believes about blastocysts and their eventual ability to maybe turn into Beethoven (OR HITLER, AMIRITE), but his personal feelings shouldn’t dictate country-wide legislature.  Right?

Right.

Oop! Wait a moment. It looks like Rand Paul is already flalloping and gibbering on his own proposed legislation: now there are “thousands of exceptions” to his No-More-Abortions law.  So much for Gotham’s white knight.

14 thoughts on “Paul’s Perilous Positioning

  1. Great post, Kyle. Rand Paul is in a tough place, and I think he can do more good works as a libertarian within the GOP than in a third party, but this creates the problem of having to offer an olive branch to the GOP at times. Surely as an MD (and son of an obstetrician) he’s aware of zygotes and blastocysts and fetal development. The fact that this law has many loopholes in it is a sign that it’s symbolism over substance. And although I disagree with his current stance on abortion, overall I see more hope with Paul than the Democrats or the entrenched Republican elite. We atheists are still a long way away from having a sizable representation in legislatures, and with 80-85% of the population as believers, that’s not going to happen soon, I’m afraid.

    • You say that, but remember, we’re talking about the guy who thinks that having a right to healthcare means breaking into a doctor’s house and forcing them to treat you against their will. I’m not even paraphrasing here, these are more or less the exact words he used. We already know this is untrue, as “a right to education” doesn’t mean breaking into teacher’s homes and forcing them to teach. He just seems unable to put 2 + 2 together to give 4.

  2. Actually that’s an interesting take on it. As an atheist I believe in equality for all, unlike some religious who believe in equality for all with some being more equal than others, and I believe in human survival. To me this includes unborn babies. In my eyes they are as human as me. I’m against murder in any form and that includes execution as I feel this reflects the primitive human, almost inhibiting our progress into a much more sophisticated organism. Surely as atheists we should be promoting tolerance and not intolerence.

    • But if someone was going to die without your kidney, should you be forced to give up your kidney? If you didn’t give them your kidney and they died, should that be murder? If they hooked up to your blood supply, should you be forced to continue sharing your blood because they need it to live?

      This is what we’re talking about. Forcing somebody to use their body to support a life which they often didn’t even have any choice in the decision of whether to put there.

      We don’t have a shortage of lives, and we don’t have a shortage of misery and suffering. Why force more of the latter for more of the former? It’s wrong to force somebody to donate their body, their blood, their mental state, a huge portion of their life, against their will.

    • Abortion isn’t murder nor is it execution. What you and Dr. Paul seem to miss is that I am not constitutionally required to allow another person, even my child, to use my body or a part of my body. An unborn person cannot have rights a born person doesn’t have. Defining life as beginning at conception doesn’t mean it will be constitutional to force women to allow someone else to use their bodies against their wills.

      • Yes you are you dumb bitch, if you have sex and you get pregnant it is your own doing, id stick a knife in your neck if you said that in my presence

        • We’d like to apologize on behalf of the management for one of the worst, most hurtful replies left on this blog. Defending your position is one thing, saying you’d stab someone in the neck for SAYING WORDS is quite another.

          It will be left up, within the permanence of cyberspace, so that when civilization has fallen and we are all but dust, alien civilizations can scan the logs and find that, indeed, “Lumaria” was and forever shall be a complete and utter douchebag with absolutely no human decency.

  3. Irritating when someone who refuses to take a stance on evolution appeals to science to support his completely arbitrary stance on when such a non-scientific attribute as “personhood” starts.

  4. Rand Paul has repeatedly stated that he is not a libertarian.
    In the March 17, 2010 issue of Time, the magazine published an interview with Rand, where he said: “They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian.”

    That being said, if you’re interested in learning about one libertarian position on abortion compatible with the Non-Aggression Axiom (the first proposition of libertarianism), please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

    Specifically, read Dr. Walter Block’s essay, “Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy.”

    http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf

    Keep in mind that the issue of abortion is not settled within the libertarian philosophical arena. There are libertarians who oppose and libertarians who support legal abortion. Generally, libertarians seek to justify their positions. However, there are some libertarians with religious leanings that rely on faith (i.e. nonsense) as well.

    Cheers

  5. He would have America in a war the first year! Don’t be fooled, this moron is not very bright! The main problem is Americans are not smart enough to vote in brains, Palin, Bachman, Cain? Never going to work until we get some educating going on!

  6. That’s fine, Máire, you go ahead and believe in the humanity of “unborn babies” – you’ll excuse the rest of us while we try to usefully define what an “unborn baby” is, and decide when something that is merely a fetus turns into an “unborn baby” more deserving of protection: and please don’t try to force your own definitions on the rest of us, because that, frankly, would make you no better than Rand “my parent forgot the ‘y’ on the end when they registered my name” Paul.

    • It doesn’t matter when you define life as beginning. If you grant it “personhood” from the time the sperm penetrates the egg, it still doesn’t give one person, in this case an unborn person, the right to use the body of an unwilling other person. Unborn people can’t have rights already born people do not have, and your already born children don’t have the right to the use of your body and it’s parts against your will. Abortion is about the rights of the woman and her bodily autonomy.

  7. Marie, I have no problem with your belief in equality for the unborn, what I have a problem with is the government legislating what I can and cannot do with my own body. If I cannot make a decision about the life of the child I’m carrying, I become no more than a host to an unwanted parasite who is valued more than I am. And if the government legislates what should be a personal moral decision, what’s to stop the government from legislating all sorts of other moral decisions, not to mention other things I can and cannot do with my body? If Libertarians want less government intevention in our lives, they need to quit supporting legistlation outlawing abortion.

    • That is exactly it! It’s not about the rights of the unborn person, since unborn people can’t have rights born people do not. Your born children do not have the right to the use of your body against your will; there is no reason unborn children should. Abortion is about the bodily autonomy of the woman involved, and HER rights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>