Senator Rand Paul takes on bureaucrat over consumer “choice”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELDHaeEsNF0&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
“I find it really appalling and hypocritical, and I think there should be some self-examination from the administration on the idea that you favor a woman’s right to an abortion, but you don’t favor a woman or a man’s right to choose what kind of light bulb, what kind of dishwasher, what kind of washing machine…. I really find it troubling this busybody nature that you want to come into my house, my bathroom, my bedroom, my kitchen, my laundry room.”
~Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in a Consumer Choice in Energy Committee hearing, via Hot Air, March 10 (fast forward to 2:15 for quote)
Mar.11, 2011 8:26 am |
Inconsistencies, Political anti-life bias |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I wish that politicians like Rand Paul who support unborn human rights would not use the language of the opponents of human rights. When he says “a woman’s right to an abortion”, he reinforces the public misperception that there is such a “right”.
The reality is that we have demonstrated conclusively that such a “right” does not, and by its nature, cannot exist. There can be no “right” to kill ALL human beings and take away everyone’s human lifespan. The abortionist mentality has been completely refuted and we need for our political leaders to start recognizing this.
I am happy that Rand Paul is pointing out the obvious hyprocrisy. Joe: If you were advising Rand Paul, how would you have him say it?
Joe, sometimes you have to use small words so small children can understand you.
Sometimes you have to use the language of the enemy to point out there inconsistencies. I think this is the case here as well.
Though generally I agree. I don’t like saying “pro-choice,” but if I only say “pro-death” and no one knows what I’m talking about, I think I lose something.
Im sorry about your toilet… Cracks me up!
All the toilet talk cracked me up! But Paul is absolutely right in what he said. I want my old lightbulbs back!!! I hate the new bulbs.
“a woman’s right to an abortion” is not a misperception, it exists.
“The reality is that we have demonstrated conclusively that such a “right” does not, and by its nature, cannot exist.” – no you haven’t! You just wish it were so.
“The abortionist mentality has been completely refuted and we need for our political leaders to start recognizing this” – no it hasn’t and they won’t because they know it’s extremely voter-unfriendly to try to take away a well established right. Like prohibition.
Power usage in the home, and elsewhere, impacts on factors such as pollution levels and the usage rate of non-renewable energy sources. These potentially affect everyone in a negative way. Terminating a fetus has virtually zero impact. As is so typical of a rethuglican, Rand Paul’s comparison is fatuous.
Reality, I want you to read very carefully:
There is no such thing as unicorns.
There is no such person as the tooth fairy.
The moon is NOT made of green cheese.
There is no such thing as abortion rights.
Terminating a child’s life can take various forms: it may use electricity, which has a negative impact. It may use drugs, which are flushed into sewage systems that cannot and do not neutralize said chemicals. And women are driven to these clinics, which of course adds to air pollution. So, zero impact? You are wrong, as usual.
Yep, I did that ninek, so what? You think putting something in verse renders it true?
There is no such thing as unicorns.
There is no such person as the tooth fairy.
The moon is NOT made of green cheese.
There is no such thing as a creator
but sometimes it’s true anyway.
Given that women can generally waltz into an abortion clinic and have their pregnancy terminated without being arrested, harassed or denigrated in any legal way, there is such a thing as abortion rights.
Did you have a reading fail again ninek?!? I said virtually zero impact, especially when compared with the electricity and drugs consumed by a full gestation and birth.
So I am right, as usual.
And before you take off on some little tangent, NO, I don’t mean all pregnancies shouldn’t go through gestation and birth, only the ones that the women involved choose not to proceeed with.
So wrong, so often, Reality. Sigh, but I will keep trying to help you since you need it so badly:
If PP’s and other clinics have zero impact, why are their utility bills so high? It ain’t zero if they stop paying. If all the abortion clinics stopped paying their utility bills, guess what? Do you think the companies would say, oh who needs that little money? NO SIR, they would cut them off just like they would with any other customer. Why? Because the impact is significant and costly.
If I were alive in 1811 instead of 2011, I would have the legal ability to own a slave. But would I really have the RIGHT to own a slave? Your answer is yes.
Reality, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but that was your mom putting coins under your pillow when you lost your baby teeth. I know, I know, it’s hard to accept. Mom lied to you to have a little fun. Don’t worry, you’ll be ok.
Was there meant to be a point to your little ramble about clinics paying or not paying their utilities bills?
The only point that matters on this particular topic is that a terminated pregnancy will consume less energy and drugs than a full gestation and birth.
If you were alive in 1811 you wouldn’t be allowed to vote, have a bank account or own property in your own name and numerous other things. We ended slavery, we gave women the vote, we gave women choice. Its all about advancement and moving forwards.
Yes, my mom also misled me about santa for a while there too! And some people try to tell me that god exists! Is there actually a point to your ‘advice’? At all? I mean, anything real.
It says a lot that Reality finds it to be more immoral, unethical, and righteously (potentially) unlawful to install an incandescent lightbulb in your own home than it is to kill your own unborn offspring. Don’t you think?
“If I were alive in 1811 instead of 2011, I would have the legal ability to own a slave. But would I really have the RIGHT to own a slave? Your answer is yes.”
Yes, you would (in certain states). What’s your point?
As for Rand Paul, I understand that he has a medical degree. In that case, he should stick to things he knows about, because clearly he has a poor grasp of the concept of legal rights (much like virtually everyone here). There’s no constitutional right to own a particular kind of lightbulb or dishwasher, or any at all.
There’s no constitutional right to own a particular kind of lightbulb or dishwasher, or any at all.
And there’s no constitutional right to abortion either. I read through the constitution just the other day. Do you know what’s in there? Right to LIFE. Know what’s not? Right to abortion. Unless it’s been amended very recently to remove the right to life and add the right to kill, then I guess you’re wrong, according to the surpreme law of the land anyways.
“The reality is that we have demonstrated conclusively that such a “right” does not, and by its nature, cannot exist.” – no you haven’t! You just wish it were so.
Let me see if I can put it as well as Joe did. His argument is based on the fact that abortion takes away the basic human right to life in favor to some imaginary right to have the lifestyle you want. But without the right to even be alive, how can we have any other rights? Therefore, any sort of abortion right is logically impossible. It’s what people call a paradox.
Terminating a fetus has virtually zero impact.
Well, if you count ending a life and often ruining a woman’s life in multiple ways “virtually no impact” then sure, killing a child has no impact. As for enviornmentally friendly electronics and appliances, I’m all for them, but it’s illogical for you to throw tantrums about “taking away a woman’s right to CHOOSE” a descision which causes at least one death every time, and then deny others the ability to choose houshold appliances, a decision which, last time I checked, hasn’t killed anybody.
The new lightbulbs are toxic to the environment. And I just think people ought to be able to buy the lightbulbs they want!
Rand Paul was pointing out the hypocrisy of the leftists. Reality wants us to butt out and let her and other women tear their young to shreds but she and her liberal cronies are going to dictate what light bulbs I can use in my house! Thats rich for ya!
I don’t think this comments section is supposed to be a shouting match. It seems plain to me that Reality and Joan believe in “abortion rights” but don’t believe in God. I believe God but don’t believe Reality and Joan, no matter how often they comment.
When Reality and Joan talk about “abortion rights,” I think they mean that every mother has the authorship to decide whether her unborn children should continue to live or should die. It’s a logical position to take because they don’t see any image of God in the child, only the mother’s.
One might ask about the father’s image, but eventually we’d find that their reason for denying a paternal claim is the same as their reason for denying the divine author’s claim: it limits them. It reduces them to both dependency and responsibility, extinguishing their self-potential. It cramps their style. However, if there is no God, then we are all gods. Survival of the fittest!
That reality is a partial realization of hell. The other reality is the one that starts with God. As some of the Greek poets used to say, “In Him we live and move and have our being.” We were made to depend on Him in the same way that a fetus depends on its mother. Separation is death.
If the majority is always right, then hell is the best reality. “Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Whether or not the United States degrades to mob rule or an oligarchy of elite judges (or both simultaneously), God helping me, I will still believe in Him. And, therefore, I will also believe in the unborn human child.
The only point that matters on this particular topic is that a terminated pregnancy will consume less energy and drugs than a full gestation and birth.
Would love to see those numbers on paper. What’s the ratio?
Sometimes I have a good humor toward abortion fans, but Reality and Joan are just sad. They have a complete inability even to argue their own points.
And, as is always the case, they resort to bashing religion (mentioning a creator) when no one has even brought it up on this thread. Sad for them.
In that case, he should stick to things he knows about, because clearly he has a poor grasp of the concept of legal rights (much like virtually everyone here).
You’re the one who has no concept of how investigations, grand juries, indictments, and prosecutions work, Joan. I’m getting a law degree in May, taking the bar exam in July, and when I get my passing results back, I think I’m going to make a toast to you.
And, as is always the case, they resort to bashing religion (mentioning a creator) when no one has even brought it up on this thread. Sad for them.
Yep. I think they bring it up because they don’t want to deal with the undeniable science and so try to make it all about religion instead.
Touche Marauder. Good points. As you can see the pro-abortion crew tries to paint every pro-lifer with the broad brush of “ignorant of legal rights”.
Touche Marauder. Good points. As you can see the pro-abortion crew tries to paint every pro-lifer with the broad brush of “ignorant of legal rights”.
Which is interesting, because any 7th grader cou8ld tell you that the right to life is one of the most basic human rights.
So true NAR.