Various Direct Links

16 January 2012

Repudiation: Rand Paul and Big Government

Senator Paul, like his father, is supposedly for smaller, libertarian government.  Also like his father, Dr. Paul really wants bigger and more intrusive government when it comes to particular religious issues, most notably abortion.  Today I received an e-mail from the Senator that directed me to a petition to overturn Roe v. Wade.  As a gay man, I do not have a direct interest in the questions of when life begins and the rights of a woman.  Abortion is distasteful at best.  But I do not believe that either I or the government have the right to come between a woman and her doctor in making such decisions.  Small government.

Nonetheless, having been presented with arguments that I believe to be flawed, let's look at the logic and reasoning on the page of the petition.
Because of Roe v. Wade, more than 56 million unborn children have died through abortion; and
No.  The premise is immediately flawed.  "unborn children" is an oxymoron.  A fetus is not yet a child.  A child has been born already.  The wording makes no sense.
In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it could not resolve "the difficult question of when life begins" – and on the basis of this unresolved question, declared a new "right to abortion" based on a "right of privacy"; and
The only quibble I have here is the phrasing "a new right".  A person's rights are either recognized or legislated against.  The concept of new does not make sense.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution 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 law"; and
Yes, but a fetus is not a person.  This is what the whole Personhood Amendment is about ... trying to declare a zygote and a fetus to be a person with the same rights as you and I have.  A "person", legally, is one who has standing in a court of law ... meaning that a young child is not a person so that she or he can have the protection of a parent to stand legally on the child's behalf.  Expanding full personhood not just to children but to include both fetus and zygote is completely absurd.
In Roe, the Supreme Court admitted: "If . . . personhood [for the unborn] is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment..." (Roe v. Wade [410 US 113 at 156-7]); and
That is a big if which has been assumed as having been established.  It is not.
Science is clear that human life begins at conception when a new human being is formed; and
No.  That is a point of debate, not an established scientific fact.  Yes, the cells of a zygote are living tissue, but that does not designate a new human being yet.
The American people oppose abortion-on-demand and want innocent human life to be protected especially when it is most defenseless; and
Some Americans do oppose any and all abortion.  But neither Dr. Paul nor the National Pro-Life Alliance speak for all American people.  They do not speak for me.
It belongs to Congress to resolve the question the Supreme Court said IT cannot resolve; and
No.  Government should not be intruding in medical decisions like this.
A Life at Conception Act, by declaring that unborn children are persons legally entitled to constitutional protection, will rescue millions of unborn children from dying by abortion-on-demand;
This is a big government intrusion into very personal matters.  I do not believe that a zygote is entitled to any protection other than that which the woman elects to provide.  Most zygotes are spontaneously aborted ... is that to be illegal?  How about a woman demanding abortion to terminate an ectopic pregnancy?  What of those forms of contraceptive that prevent implantation of the zygote?  This would remove many of the protections that couples and women in particular can now enjoy.

Needless to say, I am not signing the petition that Dr. Paul linked.  You will probably see more of this soon.  According to the e-mail from Dr. Paul signing the petition is key, then:
They are the key ingredient in the National Pro-Life Alliance's plan to pass a Life at Conception Act. They'll also organize:

... Hard-hitting TV, radio and newspaper ads to be run just before each vote, detailing the horrors of abortion and mobilizing the American people.
... Extensive personal lobbying of key members of Congress by rank and file National Pro-Life Alliance members and staff.
... A series of newspaper columns to be distributed free to all 1,437 daily newspapers now published in the United States.
... An extensive email, direct mail and telephone campaign to generate at least one million petitions to Congress like the one linked to in this letter.
Of course, to do all this will take a lot of money.

Just to email and mail the letters necessary to produce one million petitions will cost at least $460,000 .
Sorry Senator, but I want the government out of my bedroom, out of my doctor's office, and not interfering with personal decisions made by couples.  Please butt out!

1 comment:

  1. Excellent arguments to be made. I'm glad not to be the only one who understands that "unborn child" is an oxymoron and that zygotes and fetuses are not persons. Also, kudos for mentioning that the deciding justices on the Roe decision states that they could not resolve the age old question of when life begins.


No longer open for freely commenting.