Paul bill gives unborn children constitutional rights

I hope it becomes law. The unborn have suffered long enough under the tyranny of "women's rights".
So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?
Why do you keep comparing our first world country to a third world country where corruption is rampant and civil rights are trampled on? Jeez....can you get any more desperate?
 
I hope it becomes law. The unborn have suffered long enough under the tyranny of "women's rights".
So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?
Why do you keep comparing our first world country to a third world country where corruption is rampant and civil rights are trampled on? Jeez....can you get any more desperate?
You must remember about liberals...

HH0tXhS.jpg
 
Surprised the "when are conservatives going to adopt a baby" argument hasn't popped up. I got 2 things to say about that
1. WHY should ANYONE have to take care of YOUR responsibility?
2. I would LOVE to adopt a baby,but my god is it expensive and LONG drawn out process.
 
I hope it becomes law. The unborn have suffered long enough under the tyranny of "women's rights".
So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?
Why do you keep comparing our first world country to a third world country where corruption is rampant and civil rights are trampled on? Jeez....can you get any more desperate?

Paul sounds desperate. Will his law take effect at the moment of conception or at some later point in the pregnancy? How will this legislation be enforced?
 
I'm waiting for Amanda Berry's daughter and Jaycee Dugard's children to be executed. After all, they were all the result of violent rape and unwanted.
 
I remember when there were pro-life liberals. It's sad that that isn't true anymore.
 
Human life is human life.
This fails as a red herring fallacy - the issue concerns when one becomes a person entitled to Constitutional protections according to the law:

'The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally."
[...]
In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.'
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

If Paul is going to introduce such legislation with the intent of it becoming law, it must conform with the Constitution and settled accepted law, which this proposed 'legislation' does not do.

Citizens are at liberty to decide for themselves when life begins, consistent with their own good faith and good conscience, absent unwarranted interference from the state, their right to do so safeguarded by the Constitution.

Likewise, a woman's right to privacy is immune from attack by the state, where government cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

Saying it is not so does not make it so, and there is no such thing as settled law.
 
That would certainly have the SCOTUS going crazy, if passed...Perhaps with a President Trump?

WND ^ | 22 Jan 2016 | Jordain Carney
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is adding new fuel to the battle over abortion rights. The presidential candidate has introduced legislation that would give unborn children equal protection under the law as part of the 14th Amendment, giving them the same rights as "born" individuals. Paul said the legislation "declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known — that human life begins at the moment of conception." "Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way," he said. Paul's legislation is expected to be placed...
What will America to do with no more Native American Indians to kil, oh yeah, move over seas and kill their inhabitants....And don't forget the Vagasil rule book on character assassination...
 
I hope it becomes law. The unborn have suffered long enough under the tyranny of "women's rights".
So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?

Apparently what happens NATURALLY, WITHOUT man's KILLING HAND involved is imprisonment material to your low IQ!
Then you can move on to inspecting every home to make sure these kids have the proper surroundings to be raised in....and then you can move on to more tyranny and centralization...Damn that free will God gave humans, you know better....
 
I hope it becomes law. The unborn have suffered long enough under the tyranny of "women's rights".
So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?
Why do you keep comparing our first world country to a third world country where corruption is rampant and civil rights are trampled on? Jeez....can you get any more desperate?

Paul sounds desperate. Will his law take effect at the moment of conception or at some later point in the pregnancy? How will this legislation be enforced?
Every sperm will have a scannable codex..
 
Human life is human life.

So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?

Miscarriages and stillborns are not willful acts. How stupid are you, anyway?
Shall we make a law condemning God for creating a human that destroys their own eggs monthly?

You mean a natural occurrence vs. a man made one called abortion.
 
Human life is human life.

So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?

Miscarriages and stillborns are not willful acts. How stupid are you, anyway?
Shall we make a law condemning God for creating a human that destroys their own eggs monthly?

You mean a natural occurrence vs. a man made one called abortion.
Abortion on demand is not a man made device, if you know your Bible..
 
Human life is human life.

So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?

Miscarriages and stillborns are not willful acts. How stupid are you, anyway?
Shall we make a law condemning God for creating a human that destroys their own eggs monthly?

You mean a natural occurrence vs. a man made one called abortion.
Abortion on demand is not a man made device, if you know your Bible..

Abortion to rid someone of the responsibility of their choice to spread their legs is a Liberal concept, if you know your Liberals.
 
Human life is human life.

So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?

Miscarriages and stillborns are not willful acts. How stupid are you, anyway?
Shall we make a law condemning God for creating a human that destroys their own eggs monthly?

No, but there should be a law against fifth-grade level logic outside of fifth grade.
 
Human life is human life.

So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?

Miscarriages and stillborns are not willful acts. How stupid are you, anyway?
Shall we make a law condemning God for creating a human that destroys their own eggs monthly?

No, but there should be a law against fifth-grade level logic outside of fifth grade.
Not when you have a TV game show based on it..
 

Forum List

Back
Top