# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Rand Introduces the Life at Conception Act:

## Matt Collins

From a press release - 




> *Sen. Paul Introduces the Life at Conception Act:*
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON, D.C.  On Thursday, Sen. Paul introduced S.583, a bill that would implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment for the right to life of each born and unborn human. This legislation 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.

----------


## Darguth

I'm pro-life, but if Rand wanted to push this then he needs to examine another amendment to change the 14th Amendment to make his proposal Constitutionally consistent.  As much as I may wish it were otherwise, the 14th clearly states you must be born (or naturalized) to be an American citizen.

----------


## Havax

Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.

----------


## BenIsForRon

Ok, so we close down abortion clinics, then women who want abortions have to go to shady blackmarket clinics to get abortions. Some get infected and die, the women we catch we throw in prison for life.

Sounds great Rand.

----------


## Havax

> Ok, so we close down abortion clinics, then women who want abortions have to go to shady blackmarket clinics to get abortions. Some get infected and die, the women we catch we throw in prison for life.
> 
> Sounds great Rand.


This is exactly what happens too. My girlfriend is from Brazil and this is what happens there. It's awful.

----------


## Lightweis

> Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.


Ok don't let the door hit you on the way out.

----------


## tsai3904

Rand talks about the bill here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Conception-Act

----------


## itshappening

It's not smart politics if you want to win a general election but might help in the primary.

it has no chance of passing either..

----------


## KingNothing

Morally, I agree with it.  Philosophically, I disagree with it.  Politically, I think it is very bad.

It will undoubtedly help him in the primary, though.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Morally, I agree with it.  Philosophically, I disagree with it.  Politically, I think it is very bad.
> 
> It will undoubtedly help him in the primary, though.


Sums it up quite well, sigh....

----------


## Carlybee

Guaranteed to get labeled as ultra right wing.  I hope he's not counting on getting a big support from libertarians because they split on this issue.  I think he is obviously going for the religious vote. He just drew a very big risky line in the sand.

----------


## Tod

> This is exactly what happens too. My girlfriend is from Brazil and this is what happens there. It's awful.



Are you saying there should be no justice for those who commit murder because the justice isn't warm and fuzzy?

----------


## itshappening

There's little point in winning he primary then getting buried with war on women stuff from the Democrats 24/7 and going down in flames

----------


## supermario21

I agree with it entirely. We're going to get slammed anyway on it. And if anyone can defend a pro-life position I'm sure Rand Paul can.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

> Ok, so we close down abortion clinics, then women who want abortions have to go to shady blackmarket clinics to get abortions. Some get infected and die, the women we catch we throw in prison for life.
> 
> Sounds great Rand.


Live by the sword, die by the sword.

----------


## itshappening

> I agree with it entirely. We're going to get slammed anyway on it. And if anyone can defend a pro-life position I'm sure Rand Paul can.


Yeah, banning abortions is sure going to win where Rand keeps telling us the GOP needs to win... not.  

What's the point?  It has no chance of passing, ever, in a million years.  Even if he wins the presidency after getting burried and demagogued non stopped by Democrats, congress will never, ever pass it.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

This might be targeted toward the Santorum crowd.

----------


## itshappening

The correct position is to "leave it to the states" and try and remove it from the perview of the Supreme Court.

If IA want to ban abortions that's up to them but don't force Maine too... He will lose the general election in a landslide running on this.  Change in strategy needed.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I agree with it entirely. We're going to get slammed anyway on it. And if anyone can defend a pro-life position I'm sure Rand Paul can.


Good point, there's really no winning in the abortion debate, but both sides are so incapable of understanding the other side's POV to where it is not a battle I would put at the forefront. It may actually be one of the lone issues where compromise like we have now is needed.

Though I still tip my hat to Rand for doing what Ron would have done, and say politics be damned, this is what I believe... I remember thinking the same thing in Ron's Liberty Defined book, like "really, you're going to bring people together by starting with the most divisive issue?".  Though you're correct that both of them explain positions like this very well to where voters should at least be able to see their reasoning, and hopefully be able to move past the "republicans hate women" smears (not holding my breath on that though)

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

> There's little point in winning he primary then getting buried with war on women stuff from the Democrats 24/7 and going down in flames


Given his vote on the Violence Against Women Act, that's bound to happen anyway. That being said, I don't really see this Act taking off. Not for moral or political reasons, I just don't see Paul being able to amass the votes for this to pass, as he has been unable to do previously with the plan to ban selling F-16s to Egypt.

----------


## supermario21

Also, there's a law in Arkansas which might make it's way to the supreme court soon depending on how legal battles go. There's a chance the court rules on abortion law before this comes into play. Besides, nobody is going to talk about this now, it's CPAC week. Think about all the legislation that gets introduced that nobody mentions.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Ok, so we close down abortion clinics, then women who want abortions have to go to shady blackmarket clinics to get abortions. Some get infected and die, the women we catch we throw in prison for life.
> 
> Sounds great Rand.


So murder should be allowed?

----------


## BenIsForRon

> I hope he's not counting on getting a big support from libertarians because they split on this issue.


Split is pushing it. I would say a large majority are pro-choice.




> Are you saying there should be no justice for those who commit murder because the justice isn't warm and fuzzy?


It's just not something I can in good conscience pay my local cops to do. There are ways to reduce abortions (education about contraception, etc.) outside of your inhumane scheme.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Also, there's a law in Arkansas which might make it's way to the supreme court soon depending on how legal battles go. There's a chance the court rules on abortion law before this comes into play. Besides, nobody is going to talk about this now, it's CPAC week. Think about all the legislation that gets introduced that nobody mentions.


Yes, but the media doesn't report those things, while they're looking for any dirt they can get on Rand.  TPTB will not just sit by quietly and let Rand waltz into the white house to end their gravy train, that much you can be sure of.

----------


## itshappening

> Given his vote on the Violence Against Women Act, that's bound to happen anyway. That being said, I don't really see this Act taking off. Not for moral or political reasons, I just don't see Paul being able to amass the votes for this to pass, as he has been unable to do previously with the plan to ban selling F-16s to Egypt.


A vote against VAWA is a lot more easier to defend than a federal ban on abortion. 

It's dumb politics and he needs to forget it or lose the general in a landslide to an outraged Democrat

----------


## supermario21

I'll also say this. The Facebook generation as Rand put it is increasingly pro-life and even the pro-choicers are less vociferous. 

See this:  http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...-stepping-down

and this: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/...m?storyid=8138




> “Part of my decision was that, at 40, you have the opportunity to engage a new generation, the Millennials, because they are so huge, and that the person at the helm of this organization could reflect that youth and a younger generation,” Keenan said in an interview. “Because now the responsibility lies with these next generations to be vigilant.”

----------


## TheGrinch

> So murder should be allowed?


And here is where I exit the thread, you really seem to want to alienate anyone who isn't lockstep with Rand.  You know good and well what that statement is going to lead to, hence why I wish Rand would soften his stance to make it a states issue. It's really the only winning argument, or else he looks hypocritical on civil liberties to the vast majority of women, and many libertarians/independents who see it differently.

----------


## itshappening

Rand should not get bogged down in wedge issues when he can just say "leave it to the states" and talk about important stuff like the economy.

Abortion is not going to ever be banned and this bill will never be passed, ever.  Even with a GOP supermajority they wouldn't pass it.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Morally, I agree with it.  Philosophically, I disagree with it.  Politically, I think it is very bad.
> 
> It will undoubtedly help him in the primary, though.


Perfectly said.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.


Well, Ron wrote about this years ago and said that the Constitution demands a republic(an) form of government for every state. In a republic, you can't take someone's life or liberty without due process. Ron's argument was that if state governments allow abortion, then the Constitution allows the federal government to intervene based on that clause.

To me it sounds like a slippery slope of potential federal power overreach, however I also understand the premise of the federal government saying that to be part of the union you have to do certain basic things.

Ron also made another argument later on discussing the idea that each state should make their own rules too. So it's interesting and of course there are many ways to slice it.

----------


## bunklocoempire

Easy does it, careful, careful...




Nice one Rand.

----------


## Matt Collins

> And here is where I exit the thread, you really seem to want to alienate anyone who isn't lockstep with Rand.


Many, if not most, libertarians understand that when you kill another individual you are taking their rights. There are some that have a dislogic of claiming that the rights of one are paramount to another, but that's a logical fallacy and is easily dismissed. 






> I wish Rand would soften his stance to make it a states issue. It's really the only winning argument, or else he looks hypocritical on civil liberties to the vast majority of women, and many libertarians/independents who see it differently.


They don't matter in a Republican primary.

----------


## itshappening

Matt, no point in winning the primary and losing the general 60/40

----------


## mrsat_98

> I'm pro-life, but if Rand wanted to push this then he needs to examine another amendment to change the 14th Amendment to make his proposal Constitutionally consistent.  As much as I may wish it were otherwise, the 14th clearly states you must be born (or naturalized) to be an American citizen.


There has been quit a controversy over of the 14th amendment. Here is a link to a mans website who I have followed for years. http://www.state-citizen.org/.

Lets see at first we had people and their posterity, then we got United States Citizens all prior to the 14th amendment. If your read the 14th very carefully you left out "subject to the jursidiction of the United States" which appears to be subject to the jurisdiction of the congress which is detailed in Article 1 Section 8. 

It appears this amendment gave freed slaves a political status of subject to the jurisdiction of congress and later they where reduced to the level of enemy. http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/enemy.html

Here Congress made military reservations or federal agencies with the same name as your state and devised a scheme to brainwash you that you are actually on it. 

In total it amounts to treason. Please feel free to educate your self on the 14th amendment and Citizenship in general it is the ROOT OF THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> So murder should be allowed?


Stupid, stupid non sequitur.  Obviously half the population is of the opinion that it isn't murder and will never be convinced otherwise, so framing it such does nothing to change the minds of anyone on the fringe. 

Beyond that, abortion is so much more clandestine than murder that the two cannot and never should be compared.  An abortion can occur without anyone other than the mother ever realizing the life existed.  This is not true of murder.  I'm very much morally opposed to abortion, but equating it to murder serves no purpose.

----------


## itshappening

Believe me, this will cost him in a general.  It might not matter in a primary but once the Dems focus on it game over.

He wants to do what? define life at conception under the 14th? is he serious? why yes, he is.  That means every abortion clinic in the land has to close.  There will be protests on the streets and the Democrat candidate will delight in reveling in the outrage and the bizarre nature of what he's trying to do. 

Then he loses in a landslide and is gone when the election should be about how much the economy sucks not about abortion and whether it should be legal in America. They will turn the whole election on a referendum on this bill.  It is stupid.

----------


## Tod

I'm not so sure that Rand isn't being smart about this by bringing it up so early.  By the time the serious campaigning rolls around, everyone will be worn out of talking about the topic and the social conservatives will have a stronger bond to Rand, giving him a larger base of support from which to springboard into the general.

It is better that he brings up the topic than his political enemies.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Many, if not most, libertarians understand that when you kill another individual you are taking their rights. There are some that have a dislogic of claiming that the rights of one are paramount to another, but that's a logical fallacy and is easily dismissed.


Not if they are already infringing on your rights, especially to life, and you are only responding with force, in kind.
Eviction theory is not uncommon among a large segment of libertarians and if you actually poll libertarians I think you would find that most are opposed to using the feds to prevent abortion.

----------


## supermario21

What if Rand is against Cuomo in a general? A radical-prochoicer.

----------


## itshappening

> What if Rand is against Cuomo in a general? A radical-prochoicer.


President Cuomo.  Rand cannot win what will be a referendum on this bill and that's what they will make it. 

Never mind the economy or obamacare... he wants to ban abortion.  It will be all about that and nothing else! And that will cost us dearly.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Matt, no point in winning the primary and losing the general 60/40


Incorrect. Goldwater lost the general but since he was the nominee he was able to exert a huge influence on the GOP for many decades to come.

----------


## itshappening

The facebook generation do not want to ban abortions, are you kidding?

totally inconsistent Rand.  Change strategy.  They will view what you're trying to do here as bizarre and will not look at anything else in your platform.  You make it a referendum on banning abortion and you lose. Maybe not in Iowa but virtually everywhere else.

----------


## supermario21

The country is far more polarized now than during the Goldwater era. 200 EV is a Republican minimum these days barring an extremely seismic shift. Other than Romney's win in North Carolina of 3% I think the next closest Romney state was an 8% win.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Incorrect. Goldwater lost the general but since he was the nominee he was able to exert a huge influence on the GOP for many decades to come.


Incorrect.  The next GOP nominee was statists big-gov drug-war-starting Nixon.  Then Ford...  He influenced Reagan long before he became the nominee and we saw what great impact that had.  

You trying to tell us that getting crushed in the general and losing our best advocate in the Senate would be worth it?  Put down the crack, son.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Obviously half the population is of the opinion that it isn't murder and will never be convinced otherwise, so framing it such does nothing to change the minds of anyone on the fringe.


We are not a democracy so it doesn't matter if the majority is ok with it or not. 




> Beyond that, abortion is so much more clandestine than murder that the two cannot and never should be compared.


No, you are intentionally and violently ending the life of another human being without provocation. It's the same thing.

----------


## twomp

> Matt, no point in winning the primary and losing the general 60/40


I wouldn't bother with Matt Collins. He is a paid employee. Rand Paul could burn children alive and Matt Collins would be here saying that they the kids worked for The Federal Reserve or something. He has only 1 agenda here and that is to promote his boss.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Incorrect.  The next GOP nominee was statists big-gov drug-war-starting Nixon.  Then Ford...  He influenced Reagan long before he became the nominee and we saw what great impact that had.  
> 
> You trying to tell us that getting crushed in the general and losing our best advocate in the Senate would be worth it?  Put down the crack, son.


You fail to understand the ramifications of Goldwater being the nominee actually had on the GOP long-term

----------


## Matt Collins

> I wouldn't bother with Matt Collins. He is a paid employee. Rand Paul could burn children alive and Matt Collins would be here saying that they the kids worked for The Federal Reserve or something. He has only 1 agenda here and that is to promote his boss.


No, I am not a "paid employee" for Rand or any of his organizations. Nice try though

----------


## July

This will likely cost Rand some of the new liberal/progressive fans he just made with the filibuster, or at least, given them serious pause.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> We are not a democracy so it doesn't matter if the majority is ok with it or not. 
> 
> No, you are intentionally and violently ending the life of another human being without provocation. It's the same thing.


Oh yeah, great point, Matt.  Why do we want majority support on issues.  All that matters is that we are a Republic so all rights will be protected regardless of majority opinion.

That's why drugs are legal, coerced taxation doesn't exist and... oh wait?  Oh, you need the majority to pass laws you say?  Whats that?  Congress votes on laws based on the opinions of their constituency (when there isn't too much lobbyist push back) to get reelected?  $#@! that nonsense.  If you don't think we need to grow our numbers, you are an idiot.

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

Flashback: Reid apparently did not allow this to come up for discussion.

http://thehill.com/video/senate/2347...-to-flood-bill




> An exasperated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that he would not allow a vote on an amendment clarifying that life begins at conception, which Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered to a flood insurance bill...Senators are working on an agreement on which amendments to the bill might come up. Paul's amendment, introduced on Monday, is called the Life at Conception Act, and would "ensure equal protection for right to life of each born and preborn human person."


Will there even be any foul if this bill fails to pass, anyway? I mean, again, I doubt it will garner enough support in the Senate.

----------


## itshappening

> You fail to understand the ramifications of Goldwater being the nominee actually had on the GOP long-term



So Rand wants to be the next Goldwater and lose in a landslide or does he want to be president? If the latter I suggest he drop this and adopt "leave it to the states" language while cleverly pivoting back to how crap the economy is, if the former then I suggest he absolutely run on banning abortions nationwide and make it a central theme of his campaign.

----------


## supermario21

Abortion is a messaging issue. Pro-life candidates have won national elections many times. As long as you don't sound like an ignorant moron talking about it people won't care.

----------


## tsai3904

> This will likely cost Rand some of the new liberal/progressive fans he just made with the filibuster, or at least, given them serious pause.


This isn't a new issue though.  I'm sure most people already assumed most Rs, including Rand, hold this position.

His Senate website has had his position on life posted for years:




> Sanctity of Life
> 
> I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
> 
> I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.
> 
> I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. I support a Human Life Amendment and have co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. In addition, I support a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement.
> 
> It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I strongly oppose any federal funding for abortion and will stop the flow of tax dollars to groups like Planned Parenthood, who perform or advocate abortions.
> ...


http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> You fail to understand the ramifications of Goldwater being the nominee actually had on the GOP long-term


Rolling your eyes really drives your point home, but how about elaborating instead.  Where do we see the incredible value.  In Bush 1 or 2?  McCain?  Romney?  Down ticket?  The GOP has slid massively backwards from the libertarian stances of Goldwater largely because he had his ass handed to him.  How about some legitimate arguments?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Would this bill effectively end Plan B?

----------


## Havax

People who say abortion is murder are making a religious statement. You are injecting your weird belief in a "soul" and that the second the sperm hits the egg, that thing has a soul.

----------


## itshappening

> Abortion is a messaging issue. Pro-life candidates have won national elections many times. As long as you don't sound like an ignorant moron talking about it people won't care.


No, it's not a messaging issue... even with a GOP supermajority in congress they will never ban abortions and will never touch it.   Whoever spouts this nonsense is doing it so to please evangelicals.  No pro-lifer has actually done anything in congress.

----------


## cheapseats

> I'm not so sure that Rand isn't being smart about this by bringing it up so early.  By the time the serious campaigning rolls around, everyone will be worn out of talking about the topic and the social conservatives will have a stronger bond to Rand...


Alas, people NEVER tire of pontificating about Abortion . . . so much SAFER than taking on the Military Industrial Complex.





> ...giving him a larger base of support from which to springboard into the general.


A more IMPASSIONED base, no doubt, but I think NOT larger.

Not least 'cuz he'll split with Santorum, or whichever Holy Roller is on deck.





> It is better that he brings up the topic than his political enemies.


It IS better for him to declare his positions, than to get GOTCHA'd into admitting them.

----------


## Darguth

> People who say abortion is murder are making a religious statement. You are injecting your weird belief in a "soul" and that the second the sperm hits the egg, that thing has a soul.


Not in the slightest.  Abortion can be argued as akin to murder without dealing with anything metaphysical (such as a "soul").

----------


## whoisjohngalt

Abortion clinics are going to be a thing of the past soon.  That's what adamant pro-lifers don't seem to understand.  It's one thing to be against abortion morally, but to effectively stop it or even realize its happening is going to become increasingly difficult.

I don't know if it will be in the form of a Plan C pill or a little magic wand you hold over your stomach, but in the very near future abortion will be DIY, at home and there won't be a damn bit of recourse even if you had massive support for anti-abortion measures.

So abortion pills already exist apparently: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/p...diy-abortions#

We can just make those illegal too!  Like meth and crack.  Shut it down.

----------


## Varin

> No, it's not a messaging issue... even with a GOP supermajority in congress they will never ban abortions and will never touch it.   Whoever spouts this nonsense is doing it so to please evangelicals.  No pro-lifer has actually done anything in congress.


Agreed you should pay lip service to pro life but do nothing, watch Rubio.

----------


## James Madison

> Ok, so we close down abortion clinics, then women who want abortions have to go to shady blackmarket clinics to get abortions. Some get infected and die, the women we catch we throw in prison for life.
> 
> Sounds great Rand.


And damn, all these gun owners shooting thieves who break into a stranger's house. Gun use should not be permitted for home defense because innocent criminals may get shot.

That's the same argument you're using.

Solicitation of murder is a crime. If paying someone to kill your kid outside of the womb is soliciting murder, then it is also soliciting murder when the child is inside the womb. The child isn't more alive, just at a different stage of its life cycle.

----------


## Matt Collins

> People who say abortion is murder are making a religious statement.


Highly incorrect. Notice I use words like "logic" in my discussion on the subject instead of "right and wrong"?





> You are injecting your weird belief in a "soul" and that the second the sperm hits the egg, that thing has a soul.


No, I never said that. Determining WHEN a clump of cells becomes a human being is however an honest and debatable challenge. Logically and reasonably, I cannot argue that abortions should be prohibited prior to the time when the child is deemed alive. To do so would require subjective and perhaps even faith based arguments. However if we know when someone is dead, then by the converse we must know when someone is alive. If we know that someone is alive by using those same metrics, then it is unjust to end their life. 


And it is very clear that humans have "souls" even to the most ardent secular atheist. That is an undeniable fact of nature.

----------


## itshappening

why even talk about this when the economy sucks and that's the winning issue?  not abortion? 

it's bad strategy.

Memo to Matt: Facebook generation do not want to ban abortion and this will turn them off and drive them away to Democrats.  It's that simple.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Rolling your eyes really drives your point home, but how about elaborating instead.  Where do we see the incredible value.  In Bush 1 or 2?  McCain?  Romney?  Down ticket?  The GOP has slid massively backwards from the libertarian stances of Goldwater largely because he had his ass handed to him.  How about some legitimate arguments?


In the hundreds of candidates for state, local, and other offices that were influenced by Goldwater. The GOP has generally been Goldwater vs Rockefeller for decades, that fight is still going on. At many levels though the Goldwater side has lost out, until very recently, and of course during Reagan.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> And damn, all these gun owners shooting thieves who break into a stranger's house. Gun use should not be permitted for home defense because innocent criminals may get shot.
> 
> That's the same argument you're using.
> 
> Solicitation of murder is a crime. If paying someone to kill your kid outside of the womb is soliciting murder, then it is also soliciting murder when the child is inside the womb. The child isn't more alive, just at a different stage of its life cycle.


That's not his argument and "innocent criminal" is an oxymoron.  His argument is that they will get it done one way or another regardless of the laws you make to try to stop it.  Like drug use.  It's the exact same thing.  Especially since abortion comes in pill form now.  There is a pill that is as cheap as $45 dollars that allows you to do it at home.  You think you can stop people from getting this drug?  

It's a type of life biologically speaking, but philosophically it doesn't mean that it has the right to life.

----------


## Matt Collins

> So Rand wants to be the next Goldwater and lose in a landslide or does he want to be president?


You will want to ask him that, but my guess is that he wants to change things for more liberty. Maybe he can do that better if he doesn't win the Presidency and instead build a national following like Ron? Maybe he does want to be the President so that he can get in there fighting the good fight but also accepting the limitations and baggage that comes along with that office? Who knows?

----------


## lakerssuck92

Things like this will kill Paul's chances of winning a general election. I am not so sure that I like it....

----------


## Matt Collins

> why even talk about this when the economy sucks and that's the winning issue?  not abortion?


He's not making a big deal out of it, he's just dropping the bill in. He is doing this to help shore up support from those in the Party who might be inclined to listen to the neocon wing of the GOP in their attempt to label him an "evil libertarian". 




> Memo to Matt: Facebook generation do not want to ban abortion and this will turn them off and drive them away to Democrats.  It's that simple.


Facebook generation by and large doesn't vote (in Republican primaries) anyway.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Highly incorrect. Notice I use words like "logic" in my discussion on the subject instead of "right and wrong"?
> 
> 
> No, I never said that. Determining WHEN a clump of cells becomes a human being is however an honest and debatable challenge. Logically and reasonably, I cannot argue that abortions should be prohibited prior to the time when the child is deemed alive. To do so would require subjective and perhaps even faith based arguments. However if we know when someone is dead, then by the converse we must know when someone is alive. If we know that someone is alive by using those same metrics, then it is unjust to end their life.


Death is the permanent cessation of all biological functions.  So life then, being the converse, is the permanent beginning of ALL biological functions.  So by your methodology, abortion would be allowed beyond viability.

----------


## James Madison

> why even talk about this when the economy sucks and that's the winning issue?  not abortion? 
> 
> it's bad strategy.
> 
> Memo to Matt: Facebook generation do not want to ban abortion and this will turn them off and drive them away to Democrats.  It's that simple.


It's a bad strategy because social conservatives always seem to go full-retard right before national elections.

A fetus is biologically living and genetically different from it's parents. It is just as much alive at one cell as it is at a trillion cells. That isn't my opinion or a religious statement. That is a fact. The religious people are those who accept murder outside of the womb as a crime while supporting murder in the womb; their arguments will always devolve into advocating for vitalism and the mysterious ether, the life force.

----------


## Brett85

Good.  I was having some concerns about Rand on some of these issues, but it's a relief that he supports this type of bill.  I won't ever vote for any candidate who supports the murder of innocent human beings and doesn't want to stop it.  I'm glad that Rand stands for both life and liberty.

----------


## cheapseats

> Things like this will kill Paul's chances of winning a general election. I am not so sure that I like it....



Back in the daze when it was announced that Ron Paul would stop campaigning, and when Rand Paul endorsed Romney...on Hannity, before the convention...Loyalists tols Skeptics to READ BETWEEN THE LINES.  

If between the lines of LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION means that Rand Paul will NOT seek the Presidency, rather, that he seeks to replace Mitch McConnell as THE Republican with whom to contend in the Senate, then this makes sense.

(I believe Rand Paul would be more successful/influential as a "ranking" Senator than he would ever be as President...IF he could get elected President, which I do NOT think he OR "the party" OR the media OR the public are on track to make happen.)

Signatories of the PERSONHOOD PLEDGE did not fare well with the Center . . . where the Swing Votes are.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> He's not making a big deal out of it, he's just dropping the bill in. He is doing this to help shore up support from those in the Party who might be inclined to listen to the neocon wing of the GOP in their attempt to label him an "evil libertarian". 
> 
> Facebook generation by and large doesn't vote (in Republican primaries) anyway.


I love Rand.  His image has been my Facebook profile pic for years.  I defend him in almost everything.  This is just dumb.  He needs to stay away from social issues where they isn't a clear sea change (like marijauna reform).  It can only hurt.  Population has been pretty evenly split on abortion since '96 and there is little to no change on the issue.  Doesn't make sense.

----------


## Brett85

> It's not smart politics if you want to win a general election but might help in the primary.
> 
> it has no chance of passing either..


It doesn't really seem like it's worth it to get elected if you have to support a mass slaughter that's five times worse than the Holocaust in order to get votes.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> It's a bad strategy because social conservatives always seem to go full-retard right before national elections.
> 
> A fetus is biologically living and genetically different from it's parents. It is just as much alive at one cell as it is at a trillion cells. That isn't my opinion or a religious statement. That is a fact. The religious people are those who accept murder outside of the womb as a crime while supporting murder in the womb; their arguments will always devolve into advocating for vitalism and the mysterious ether, the life force.


They don't accept murder outside of the womb or there would be pushback against all the innocent children being murdered in drone strikes.  Wrong again.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> It doesn't really seem like it's worth it to get elected if you have to support a mass slaughter that's five times worse than the Holocaust in order to get votes.


You don't have to support it.  You just need to not make it a spotlight issue.

----------


## Brett85

> Guaranteed to get labeled as ultra right wing.  I hope he's not counting on getting a big support from libertarians because they split on this issue.  I think he is obviously going for the religious vote. He just drew a very big risky line in the sand.


He's going for the libertarians who believe in protecting both life and liberty, not the libertarians who don't believe that people don't even have the right to be born.

----------


## itshappening

> He's not making a big deal out of it, he's just dropping the bill in. He is doing this to help shore up support from those in the Party who might be inclined to listen to the neocon wing of the GOP in their attempt to label him an "evil libertarian". 
> 
> Facebook generation by and large doesn't vote (in Republican primaries) anyway.


Au contraire.  The problem is if he makes it out of the primary (and he's one of the favorites with or without this anyway) the Dems will make it a huge issue whether he likes it or not.  This is his naivety showing again like when he went on MSNBC and engaged Maddow on the CRA, why did he do that?

He needs to plot this more carefully in order to succeed.

----------


## supermario21

I think we're all blowing up a bit too much over this guys. lol. Nobody is talking about this anywhere. I trust Rand to defend his position effectively like George Bush did. He didn't wage a war on women.

----------


## Brett85

> You don't have to support it.  You just need to not make it a spotlight issue.


It has to be a spotlight issue when defending life is essential to defending liberty.  Ron has said multiple times that it's not possible to defend liberty without first defending life.  Ron even said that the right to life is "the issue of our time."

----------


## James Madison

> They don't accept murder outside of the womb or there would be pushback against all the innocent children being murdered in drone strikes.  Wrong again.


No, what I posted was 100% correct. 

They support drone strikes because they're morons and incapable of logical thought processes.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Death is the permanent cessation of all biological functions.  So life then, being the converse, is the permanent beginning of ALL biological functions.  So by your methodology, abortion would be allowed beyond viability.


Being "alive" and being "viable" are not in and the same. And your definition of legal human "death" I don't believe is quite accurate. What qualifications need to be in place before a doc can pronounce someone "dead"?

----------


## Matt Collins

> He needs to stay away from social issues where they isn't a clear sea change (like marijauna reform).


Bad advice for winning a Republican nomination. If he doesn't at least give tacit nods to socialcon stuff, then he opens to door to be attacked, or worse challenged, for not having enough socialcon street cred.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

THERE IS NO UNEQUIVOCAL DEFINITION OF LIFE.  Doesn't anyone understand this?  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.  

You guys who think there is an unequivocal definition are committing a logical fallacy called begging the question.  I suggest you look into that and then form a proper argument.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Being "alive" and being "viable" are not in and the same. And your definition of legal human "death" I don't believe is quite accurate. What qualifications need to be in place before a doc can pronounce someone "dead"?


Cessation of all biological functions.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Bad advice for winning a Republican nomination. If he doesn't at least give tacit nods to socialcon stuff, then he opens to door to be attacked, or worse challenged, for not having enough socialcon street cred.


Tacit nods is not introducing a personhood bill.  A nod would be making it very clear he is undoubtedly pro life and leaving it at that.

----------


## braane

I'm not pro-life, but this issue is so unimportant to me that it's utterly irrelevant where any candidate stands. I feel like most college aged people feel similarly. I don't see the point in trying to push this bill though, it has no chance of passing and it's probably more damaging than helpful. At the same time I admire Rand for doing what he believes and not the politically expedient thing.

----------


## itshappening

> Good.  I was having some concerns about Rand on some of these issues, but it's a relief that he supports this type of bill.  I won't ever vote for any candidate who supports the murder of innocent human beings and doesn't want to stop it.  I'm glad that Rand stands for both life and liberty.


There are more than  218 GOP House members who do not support abortion - or say they don't - but they will not a pass anything to ban it or even remove it from the purview of the Supreme Court and they've had the opportunity at various times to do so over the last 40 years, including complete control of the House, Senate and Presidency between 2001-2006.

----------


## Brett85

> The correct position is to "leave it to the states" and try and remove it from the perview of the Supreme Court.
> 
> If IA want to ban abortions that's up to them but don't force Maine too... *He will lose the general election in a landslide running on this.*  Change in strategy needed.


I think you're going a little overboard on this.  The same people who disagree with Rand on this bill are also going to disagree with him when it comes to overturning Roe v. Wade and supporting state bans on abortion.  The only way Rand could get the vote of some of these radically pro choice people is if he actually came out in favor of abortion rights, and if he did that I and millions of pro life voters would simply stay home on election day.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> It has to be a spotlight issue when defending life is essential to defending liberty.  Ron has said multiple times that it's not possible to defend liberty without first defending life.  Ron even said that the right to life is "the issue of our time."


Begging the question.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Oh yeah, great point, Matt.  Why do we want majority support on issues.  All that matters is that we are a Republic so all rights will be protected regardless of majority opinion.


We do not need a majority to win, but a tireless minority. And while yes we need to be as appealing as possible, we don't need to make major compromises to principle to do it. Nor do we need to neglect core constituencies of the GOP if we are running for a GOP nod.




> Oh, you need the majority to pass laws you say?  Whats that?  Congress votes on laws based on the opinions of their constituency (when there isn't too much lobbyist push back) to get reelected?


You fail to understand the real nature of politics which explains why you don't need majorities to pass laws: http://training4liberty.org/facl2/info.htm#





> If you don't think we need to grow our numbers, you are an idiot.


Of course we need to grow our numbers, which is why Rand is reaching out to social conservatives on this sort of thing, and not to mention Rand Paul is also genuinely against abortion.

----------


## James Madison

> THERE IS NO UNEQUIVOCAL DEFINITION OF LIFE.  Doesn't anyone understand this?  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.  
> 
> You guys who think there is an unequivocal definition are committing a logical fallacy called begging the question.  I suggest you look into that and then form a proper argument.


Life: a self-replicating system that utilizes the formation and organization of complex macromolecules to produce inexact copies of itself

----------


## Brett85

> There are more than  218 GOP House members who do not support abortion - or say they don't - but they will not a pass anything to ban it or even remove it from the purview of the Supreme Court and they've had the opportunity at various times to do so over the last 40 years, including complete control of the House, Senate and Presidency between 2001-2006.


The purpose of Rand introducing this bill isn't because it actually has a chance of passing, but to convince conservative Republicans that he's pro life.

----------


## juleswin

> Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.


Same here, one can only take so much direction from Washington. Rand takes 10 steps forward and 20 steps backwards. WTF is wrong with him?

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'm not pro-life, but this issue is so unimportant to me that it's utterly irrelevant where any candidate stands. I feel like most college aged people feel similarly. I don't see the point in trying to push this bill though, it has no chance of passing and it's probably more damaging than helpful. At the same time I admire Rand for doing what he believes and not the politically expedient thing.


That's because you are not the average Republican voter.

----------


## itshappening

> I think you're going a little overboard on this.  The same people who disagree with Rand on this bill are also going to disagree with him when it comes to overturning Roe v. Wade and supporting state bans on abortion.  The only way Rand could get the vote of some of these radically pro choice people is if he actually came out in favor of abortion rights, and if he did that I and millions of pro life voters would simply stay home on election day.


No because saying "I will leave it to the states" and defending a personhood bill and therefore a federal, all out ban on abortion across America  - from New York to California - is completely different. 

 You can say when asked about abortion "i'm in favor of the 10th amendment and leaving these issues to the states" if you defend a personhood bill then you're making the election a referendum on that bill and giving a huge opening on an issue of little importance and which will never be passed.  They will hammer him on it day and night.  They can't hammer a states rights position so easily.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> We do not need a majority to win, but a tireless minority. And while yes we need to be as appealing as possible, we don't need to make major compromises to principle to do it. Nor do we need to neglect core constituencies of the GOP if we are running for a GOP nod.


Very cute, but you forgot the last part of the quote.  The keen on setting brushfires in the mind of men bit.  That's also known as winning other's to your side or opinion.  It's the irate, tireless minority that does the winning, but they do so by changing the minds of others.  Context hurts.

----------


## Matt Collins

> THERE IS NO UNEQUIVOCAL DEFINITION OF LIFE.


No, but there is a legal / medical definition, how else would docs be able to pronounce someone "dead"?

----------


## Christian Liberty

The only issue I personally see on this is that its a Federal law, and therefore unconstitutional.  I've seen at least one comment saying that Ron Paul supported this as well.  If so, I completely misunderstood him, I thought he wanted to leave it to the states.  Personally, if there were ever, hypothetically, enough votes to pass a constitutional amendment to ban abortion nationwide, I'd vote for it, but otherwise... seriously we don't need any more Federal power grabs.  Even though I understand why some libertarians disagree with me on the issue, I'm very loudly and very strongly pro-life.  I'd much rather a Federal ban than what we have now, which is Federal legalization.  The only issue I have with Rand's stance is not that he's wrong morally, but that he's wrong constitutionally.  

Ron tried to legislatively get rid of Roe v Wade with the Sanctity of Life Act.  That's the sort of thing Rand should be doing if he's going to try to change abortion law in this country.


Only commenting on everything I found interesting up to page 3 ATM...







> I'm pro-life, but if Rand wanted to push this then he needs to examine another amendment to change the 14th Amendment to make his proposal Constitutionally consistent.  As much as I may wish it were otherwise, the 14th clearly states you must be born (or naturalized) to be an American citizen.


I see nothing wrong with you having to be born here to be a CITIZEN.  I mean, should they really check where you were conceived?  Ideally, I'd like a new amendment saying you are a PERSON at conception, but not a citizen.... that's just silly.




> Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.


And why on earth is this one issue so important to you?  Its not going to pass.  I'm not even a huge Rand fanatic but my goodness he's the best option we've got right now, by far.  This isn't even Rand's biggest flaw either.



> Ok, so we close down abortion clinics, then women who want abortions have to go to shady blackmarket clinics to get abortions. Some get infected and die, the women we catch we throw in prison for life.
> 
> Sounds great Rand.


Yes, there would actually be justice.  I may disagree with the "Federal Level" aspect of this, but I would absolutely support a state law charging them with murder.... AND reinstating capital punishment in NYS...




> Morally, I agree with it.  Philosophically, I disagree with it.  Politically, I think it is very bad.
> 
> It will undoubtedly help him in the primary, though.


How can you agree with it morally but disagree philosophically?  I'm a little confused.

As for politically, I don't think it will hurt that much.  The kind of radical leftists that are single issue on abortion wouldn't ever vote for Rand anyway.  Honestly, I think Walter Block's "Evictionism" would be too much for them because it meant that eventually, in a century or two, abortion might be abolished.  I just don't see very many people saying "Well, I could vote for him if he's pro banning it at state level, but not Federal level."  The kind of moderates who would be OK with a state level, but not Federal ban (This doesn't include me, I'm radically pro-life, I just am also radically pro-constitution unless/until we switch back to the AoC) is probably not going to single-issue this.




> Guaranteed to get labeled as ultra right wing.  I hope he's not counting on getting a big support from libertarians because they split on this issue.  I think he is obviously going for the religious vote. He just drew a very big risky line in the sand.


Abortion has nothing to do with "Right wing."  No decent libertarian would ever single issue this.  




> And here is where I exit the thread, you really seem to want to alienate anyone who isn't lockstep with Rand.  You know good and well what that statement is going to lead to, hence why I wish Rand would soften his stance to make it a states issue. It's really the only winning argument, or else he looks hypocritical on civil liberties to the vast majority of women, and many libertarians/independents who see it differently.


I think anyone who votes solely based on abortion is crazy.  




> Rand should not get bogged down in wedge issues when he can just say "leave it to the states" and talk about important stuff like the economy.
> 
> Abortion is not going to ever be banned and this bill will never be passed, ever.  Even with a GOP supermajority they wouldn't pass it.


Because the rest of the GOP (Not Rand) needs Roe v Wade for votes from the gullible.



> Well, Ron wrote about this years ago and said that the Constitution demands a republic(an) form of government for every state. In a republic, you can't take someone's life or liberty without due process. Ron's argument was that if state governments allow abortion, then the Constitution allows the federal government to intervene based on that clause.
> 
> To me it sounds like a slippery slope of potential federal power overreach, however I also understand the premise of the federal government saying that to be part of the union you have to do certain basic things.
> 
> Ron also made another argument later on discussing the idea that each state should make their own rules too. So it's interesting and of course there are many ways to slice it.


Utimately, I'd actually like to just expel the states that won't start life at conception.  Just expel them and force them to start their own country.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Tacit nods is not introducing a personhood bill.  A nod would be making it very clear he is undoubtedly pro life and leaving it at that.


I assure you this bill will never see the light of day, that's pretty well understood. But it's a crowd pleaser to likely Republican voters.

----------


## Brett85

Arguing against a bill because it doesn't have any chance of passing is a pretty ridiculous argument.  There's no chance at all that a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve will ever be passed, but Ron Paul introduced that bill every single year he was in Congress, and he was always an advocate for ending the Federal Reserve.  Was it a mistake for Ron to push for a bill ending the Federal Reserve when it had absolutely no chance of ever passing?

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Life: a self-replicating system that utilizes the formation and organization of complex macromolecules to produce inexact copies of itself


Just because you throw out a definition doesn't make it so...

From wiki:

It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[20][21][22] This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a pure substance.[23][24] Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and must be sufficiently general to include life that may be fundamentally different from life on Earth.[25][26][27]
Biology
Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:[26][28]
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life

----------


## itshappening

> The purpose of Rand introducing this bill isn't because it actually has a chance of passing, but to convince conservative Republicans that he's pro life.


You can do that without this bill which damages him if he gets out of the primary.  Seriously.  Not good strategy.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I'm not pro-life, but this issue is so unimportant to me that it's utterly irrelevant where any candidate stands. I feel like most college aged people feel similarly. I don't see the point in trying to push this bill though, it has no chance of passing and it's probably more damaging than helpful. At the same time I admire Rand for doing what he believes and not the politically expedient thing.


Very well said. Now that he's gotten the exposure and credibility he needed, he's sounding more and more like his dad all the time, not afraid to stand for what he believes in, even if it's not popular. 

I just think his dad talked enough about the issue, that I agree he doesn't need to put forth a bill that's bound to fail for people to believe that he agrees with his father.  He has to know that the media smear-artists are just waiting for ammo to use against him, and it's a shame after he's done such a good job so far at picking his battles and not giving them anything to work with.

(Edit: But I don't think this will be such a game-changer like some think, he'll do fine at explaining his position without sounding liek a woman-hating loon).

----------


## itshappening

> Arguing against a bill because it doesn't have any chance of passing is a pretty ridiculous argument.  There's no chance at all that a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve will ever be passed, but Ron Paul introduced that bill every single year he was in Congress, and he was always an advocate for ending the Federal Reserve.  Was it a mistake for Ron to push for a bill ending the Federal Reserve when it had absolutely no chance of ever passing?


And you'll notice Ron never won the presidency and never even got close. 

Rand is a lot closer if he wants to but he's throwing it away with something like this as they will hammer him for months if he's the nominee.

----------


## Varin

> No, but there is a legal / medical definition, how else would docs be able to pronounce someone "dead"?


But the question is not about life but a separate, unique human life. Unless u are against picking flowers?

----------


## juleswin

> Bad advice for winning a Republican nomination. If he doesn't at least give tacit nods to socialcon stuff, then he opens to door to be attacked, or worse challenged, for not having enough socialcon street cred.


And what good is it do solidify your republican constituent just to lose the general elections. Social conservatism is pure poison. Your numbers are diminishing at a faster rate than you can image. A wise man will ind a way to talk the minority of the people out of it instead trying to convince the majority.

----------


## Brett85

> No because saying "I will leave it to the states" and defending a personhood bill and therefore a federal, all out ban on abortion across America  - from New York to California - is completely different. 
> 
>  You can say when asked about abortion "i'm in favor of the 10th amendment and leaving these issues to the states" if you defend a personhood bill then you're making the election a referendum on that bill and giving a huge opening on an issue of little importance and which will never be passed.  They will hammer him on it day and night.  They can't hammer a states rights position so easily.


What about a Constitutional amendment banning abortion?  Do you think Rand should be opposed to that as well?

----------


## Brett85

> And what good is it do solidify your republican constituent just to lose the general elections.


Because it's what Rand actually believes in.  And if people are going to base their vote for a political candidate solely on abortion and vote against any pro life candidate, I hope our entire country just goes down in flames.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> No, but there is a legal / medical definition, how else would docs be able to pronounce someone "dead"?


How many times do I have to say that.  There is an unequivocal definition of death.  The cessation of all biological functions.  No one disputes this.

----------


## itshappening

> I assure you this bill will never see the light of day, that's pretty well understood. But it's a crowd pleaser to likely Republican voters.


Yes it is but if he's the nominee he loses in a landslide spending 3 months defending it... so what's the point? If he wants to be sitting the White House he needs to plot it more carefully including this and engaging people like Maddow on the CRA.

How can you not see this?

----------


## TheGrinch

> What about a Constitutional amendment banning abortion?  Do you think Rand should be opposed to that as well?


I think he should focus on battles he can win, and leave things like abortion to his rhetoric to educate, not to put forth legislation that's bound to fail and only hurt more than help his cause.

That said, let's stop making a bigger deal of this than it is.

----------


## supermario21

I think Ron said and you noted earlier, that Sanctity of Life Act would instantly overturn Roe v Wade and leave abortion policy to the states. A constitutional amendment will NEVER pass, even less likely than this.

----------


## itshappening

> What about a Constitutional amendment banning abortion?  Do you think Rand should be opposed to that as well?


How many times do I have to say this to you? 

The correct position is to say "leave it to the states" then talk about the crappy economy. 

Abortion is a losing issue.  Forget about bills and constitutional amendments. There's no point.  No gain whatsoever.

----------


## James Madison

> Just because you throw out a definition doesn't make it so...
> 
> From wiki:
> 
> It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[20][21][22] This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a pure substance.[23][24] Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and must be sufficiently general to include life that may be fundamentally different from life on Earth.[25][26][27]
> Biology
> Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:[26][28]
> Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
> Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
> ...


The definition of life, if it ever changes, will only expand, not contract. Based on our current understanding of the universe, the definition I posted is accurate. A single cell inside the womb is alive. Under no circumstances will a single-celled organism cease to be considered living.

----------


## Brett85

> I think he should focus on battles he can win, and leave things like abortion to his rhetoric to educate, not to put forth legislation that's bound to fail and only hurt more than help his cause.


Then he would just get the "pro choice for states" label from Santorum and others.  That's what he had to face in the GOP primary back in 2010.  I don't think Rand would even be a U.S Senator right now if he didn't make it completely clear that he's 100% pro life.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> The definition of life, if it ever changes, will only expand, not contract. Based on our current understanding of the universe, the definition I posted is accurate. A single cell inside the womb is alive. Under no circumstances will a single-celled organism cease to be considered living.


Oh good.  So you do think picking flowers should be illegal?

----------


## Brett85

> How many times do I have to say this to you? 
> 
> The correct position is to say "leave it to the states" then talk about the crappy economy. 
> 
> Abortion is a losing issue.  Forget about bills and constitutional amendments. There's no point.  No gain whatsoever.


Then that would even be a different position than Ron Paul took on the issue, as he also introduced a Human Life amendment when he was in Congress.  Ron always used the rhetoric of saying abortion should be a state issue, but the bills that he introduced showed otherwise.

----------


## James Madison

> Oh good.  So you do think picking flowers should be illegal?


Do you take anti-biotics?

I can beg the question, too.

----------


## itshappening

> Because it's what Rand actually believes in.  And if people are going to base their vote for a political candidate solely on abortion and vote against any pro life candidate, I hope our entire country just goes down in flames.


8 years of Hillary Clinton after she's spent 3 months grandstanding on abortion and war on women will ensure America will be in flames, so is that what you want?

----------


## TheGrinch

> The definition of life, if it ever changes, will only expand, not contract. Based on our current understanding of the universe, the definition I posted is accurate. A single cell inside the womb is alive. Under no circumstances will a single-celled organism cease to be considered living.


Conception (when sperm and egg meet) is the criteria for human life. Trying to reduce it to a single cell will make you look like a hypocrite every time you masterbate and commit "infanticide".

Trying to stay out of this debate, but if you're going to argue the pro-life side, then please realize that sex or ejaculation are not conception (thus making the opposition to contraception a contradiction). Conception can occur as much as days later, when you could say "life begins at conception".

----------


## cheapseats

> * Ron always* used the rhetoric of saying abortion should be a state issue, but the bills that he introduced showed otherwise.


Ron always LOST his bids for the presidency.

----------


## Brett85

> You can do that without this bill which damages him if he gets out of the primary.  Seriously.  Not good strategy.


I really don't think Romney lost because of the abortion issue.  He was a go who was first pro choice, then pro life, then pro choice, then pro life with exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother, and everything else.  The exit polls showed that there was a steep drop in turnout among evangelical Christians from 2008 to 2012, so I'm not really buying into the idea that Romney lost the election because he was some type of radical pro lifer.

----------


## Brett85

> Ron always LOST his bids for the presidency.


Right, partly because he was viewed by Republican voters as not being socially conservative enough.

----------


## itshappening

> I really don't think Romney lost because of the abortion issue.  He was a go who was first pro choice, then pro life, then pro choice, then pro life with exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother, and everything else.  The exit polls showed that there was a steep drop in turnout among evangelical Christians from 2008 to 2012, so I'm not really buying into the idea that Romney lost the election because he was some type of radical pro lifer.


Romney never had a pro-life bill or ran on one

----------


## whoisjohngalt

When you can get abortion pills for $45 that are 95% effective, do you guys really think such legislation would have any positive effect?

DIY abortions are on the rise and in the not-too-distant future, contraceptives will render abortions a thing of the past.  

But what we are discussing is how advantageous this was politically for Rand.  That's what this entire argument is actually about.

----------


## cheapseats

> I assure you this bill will never see the light of day, that's pretty well understood.  But it's a crowd pleaser to likely Republican voters.



Insincere grandstanding on the Taxpayers' dime, is that it?

----------


## Brett85

> 8 years of Hillary Clinton after she's spent 3 months grandstanding on abortion and war on women will ensure America will be in flames, so is that what you want?


I don't agree that the majority of voters in America are one issue voters who won't ever vote for any pro life candidate.  I don't think most voters are as simple minded as you think they are.  Most voters look at all of the issues as a whole, not base their vote on one issue.

----------


## Brett85

> 8 years of Hillary Clinton after she's spent 3 months grandstanding on abortion and war on women will ensure America will be in flames, so is that what you want?


I don't agree that the majority of voters in America are one issue voters who won't ever vote for any pro life candidate.  I don't think most voters are as simple minded as you think they are.  Most voters look at all of the issues as a whole, not base their vote on one issue.

----------


## jbauer

Seems like a waste of time.  I doubt this does him anything good except maybe bring in some factions of the social conservatives while trying to convince them the little L's aren't that bad.

----------


## James Madison

> Conception (when sperm and egg meet) is the criteria for human life. Trying to reduce it to a single cell will make you look like a hypocrite every time you masterbate and commit "infanticide".


No. Sperm progenitor cells are genetic clones of every other cell line in the body. YOUR body. Self-owernship means I can do whatever I want with my body, including initiate violence against myself. What I can't do is initiate violence against another body.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Do you take anti-biotics?
> 
> I can beg the question, too.


Yes, because I understand that life isn't the only criteria necessary to have the Right to Life.  Of course, I do.

----------


## Brett85

> Romney never had a pro-life bill or ran on one


Exactly, and he still lost.  So how exactly did taking a passive and inconsistent position on abortion help Romney?

----------


## cheapseats

> ... Most voters look at all of the issues as a whole...



Wishful thinking.

----------


## supermario21

I think there are more single issue pro-life voters than single issue pro-choice candidates.

----------


## itshappening

> I don't agree that the majority of voters in America are one issue voters who won't ever vote for any pro life candidate.  I don't think most voters are as simple minded as you think they are.  Most voters look at all of the issues as a whole, not base their vote on one issue.


Has America ever voted for a president running on a personhood bill?

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I don't agree that the majority of voters in America are one issue voters who won't ever vote for any pro life candidate.  I don't think most voters are as simple minded as you think they are.  Most voters look at all of the issues as a whole, not base their vote on one issue.


Uhh.. we have data on this.  It's not a mystery.

20% of self defined pro choice millennials are single issue voters on the issue.  40% of pro-life from the same group are.

----------


## itshappening

> Exactly, and he still lost.  So how exactly did taking a passive and inconsistent position on abortion help Romney?


It would have been about 5 points worse for Romney if he was defending a personhood bill for 2 months

----------


## cheapseats

> Romney never had a pro-life bill or ran on one






> Exactly, and he still lost.  So how exactly did taking a passive and inconsistent position on abortion help Romney?



Romney's position EVOLVED to expressly Anti Abortion . . . when Republicans were trying to OUT-RIGHT each other.




> ...Former Fact Checker columnist Michael Dobbs created a detailed list back in 2007 that details Mitt Romney’s flip-flops on the abortion issue. There is no doubt that the Republican’s stance has evolved.
> 
> In terms of Romney supporting a ban on all abortions, we covered this issue in a previous column, noting that the candidate currently supports exceptions for victims of rape and incest, and that “the former governor has shown near perfect consistency on this issue, with one notable exception [the 2007 debate comment].”
> 
> *Romney’s campaign acknowledged for our previous column that the Republican candidate has unquestionably changed his position on abortion since running for U.S. Senate in 1994* — the year he said during a Planned Parenthood fundraiser that he supported abortion rights, and that he had felt that way since 1970.
> 
> Romney basically stuck to that position while running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, promising to uphold the status quo on abortion rights. He lived up to that promise but also declared an antiabortion stance midway through his term. Critics have suggested he was eyeing a presidential run at the time.
> 
> Romney has said time and again during his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns that he is “unapologetically pro-life” but does not oppose abortions in instances of rape and incest or when the procedure is necessary to protect the life of a mother. This is the same position he proclaims to this day and which his campaign reiterated in its ad last week.
> ...

----------


## James Madison

> Yes, because I understand that life isn't the only criteria necessary to have the Right to Life.  Of course, I do.


I don't believe that either. 

But under our legal system it is a crime to murder another human; spiders, insects, flowers, and wombats do not share the same protection.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Stupid, stupid non sequitur.  Obviously half the population is of the opinion that it isn't murder and will never be convinced otherwise, so framing it such does nothing to change the minds of anyone on the fringe. 
> 
> Beyond that, abortion is so much more clandestine than murder that the two cannot and never should be compared.  An abortion can occur without anyone other than the mother ever realizing the life existed.  This is not true of murder.  I'm very much morally opposed to abortion, but equating it to murder serves no purpose.


Who cares who knows the person that died, or who cares about them?  Completely irrelevant.  Its cold-blooded murder.




> Not if they are already infringing on your rights, especially to life, and you are only responding with force, in kind.
> Eviction theory is not uncommon among a large segment of libertarians and if you actually poll libertarians I think you would find that most are opposed to using the feds to prevent abortion.


Walter Block did a pretty good job intellectually creating and defending that theory but I still think its completely wrong.  I reject his assumption that you don't make an implied contract with the fetus when you have sex.  The assumption leads Block to accept a number of wacky conclusions, even to the point where abandoning a child after its birth would be acceptable if nobody was willing to take care of it.  Granted, Block is probably correct that this wouldn't often happen but it doesn't matter, the very conclusion is absurd.  Block, however, doesn't make this a "Litmus Test" issue like some radicals do.  In fact, Block tried to say that the "libertarians" who didn't vote for Ron Paul when they could were not really libertarians at all.  THAT he was correct about.




> What if Rand is against Cuomo in a general? A radical-prochoicer.


Ugh.  Do.  Not.  Make.  Me. Think. About.  Our.  Idiot.  Governor.  In. The.  Freaking.  White.  House.

I already hate this guy with a passion, and I haven't even seen him in charge of the US military yet...  I live in NYS as well, most totalitarian state in the US....



> Oh yeah, great point, Matt.  Why do we want majority support on issues.  All that matters is that we are a Republic so all rights will be protected regardless of majority opinion.
> 
> That's why drugs are legal, coerced taxation doesn't exist and... oh wait?  Oh, you need the majority to pass laws you say?  Whats that?  Congress votes on laws based on the opinions of their constituency (when there isn't too much lobbyist push back) to get reelected?  $#@! that nonsense.  If you don't think we need to grow our numbers, you are an idiot.


The majority can impose its opinion by force.  But that's all they have.  Brute force.  THey can sugarcoat it in euphamisms, but the strong liberty defender will not let them.  Tell them they are supporting murder, theft, exc. and that therefore they are despicable, disgusting people.

I don't always go that route but when I get ticked off online I do...




> No, it's not a messaging issue... even with a GOP supermajority in congress they will never ban abortions and will never touch it.   Whoever spouts this nonsense is doing it so to please evangelicals.  No pro-lifer has actually done anything in congress.


Because they don't care.  Rand is better than that.




> Abortion clinics are going to be a thing of the past soon.  That's what adamant pro-lifers don't seem to understand.  It's one thing to be against abortion morally, but to effectively stop it or even realize its happening is going to become increasingly difficult.
> 
> I don't know if it will be in the form of a Plan C pill or a little magic wand you hold over your stomach, but in the very near future abortion will be DIY, at home and there won't be a damn bit of recourse even if you had massive support for anti-abortion measures.
> 
> So abortion pills already exist apparently: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/p...diy-abortions#
> 
> We can just make those illegal too!  Like meth and crack.  Shut it down.


Unlike Meth and crack, abortion pills actually victimize somebody.  That said, I tend to agree that making it illegal won't do much.  That's why its not a litmus test for me.  I'll vote for a pro-choicer who wants to end murder BY Washington DC over a pro-lifer who wants to murder from DC in a heartbeat.  Even still, it should be illegal, and those that we happen to catch (Maybe they are reported?) should be imprisoned for life, or with enough evidence, sentenced to death.



> why even talk about this when the economy sucks and that's the winning issue?  not abortion? 
> 
> it's bad strategy.
> 
> Memo to Matt: Facebook generation do not want to ban abortion and this will turn them off and drive them away to Democrats.  It's that simple.


It ain't gonna matter.



> Good.  I was having some concerns about Rand on some of these issues, but it's a relief that he supports this type of bill.  I won't ever vote for any candidate who supports the murder of innocent human beings and doesn't want to stop it.  I'm glad that Rand stands for both life and liberty.


I don't think single issue on abortion is a good idea.  




> It doesn't really seem like it's worth it to get elected if you have to support a mass slaughter that's five times worse than the Holocaust in order to get votes.


Its not quite like that.  First of all, the Holocaust also featured mass torture.  Secondly, abortion is done by a bunch of different people; one mass murderer did the Holocaust.  Finally, its extremely hard to enforce anti-abortion laws.  Even if it doesn't stop a single abortion, if it ensures that one percent of people who do it are brought to justice, its worth it.  That said, ending murder by DC, if nothing else, is more immediately important.  The non-Paulian wing of the GOP needs to take the plank out of its own eye since all of them want to murder far more people than anyone who has an abortion.  Heck, even Rand does have a little plank to take out of his own eye considering he voted for sanctions which led to the death of thousands.  Granted, it was a political maneuver, but still.  Ron Paul would have never done that...




> I think we're all blowing up a bit too much over this guys. lol. Nobody is talking about this anywhere. I trust Rand to defend his position effectively like George Bush did. He didn't wage a war on women.


George Bush didn't give a crap.  Rand Paul is actually a decent human being (Last paragraph I wrote about sanctions aside... its so hard to be a good man in DC...)




> There are more than  218 GOP House members who do not support abortion - or say they don't - but they will not a pass anything to ban it or even remove it from the purview of the Supreme Court and they've had the opportunity at various times to do so over the last 40 years, including complete control of the House, Senate and Presidency between 2001-2006.


Yep.. its manipulation.




> I think you're going a little overboard on this.  The same people who disagree with Rand on this bill are also going to disagree with him when it comes to overturning Roe v. Wade and supporting state bans on abortion.  The only way Rand could get the vote of some of these radically pro choice people is if he actually came out in favor of abortion rights, and if he did that I and millions of pro life voters would simply stay home on election day.


I'd vote for him, but I'd be upset...

I don't know that "Millions" vote based on abortion alone.  I don't even... And I'm pretty radically pro-life at the state level.



> Arguing against a bill because it doesn't have any chance of passing is a pretty ridiculous argument.  There's no chance at all that a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve will ever be passed, but Ron Paul introduced that bill every single year he was in Congress, and he was always an advocate for ending the Federal Reserve.  Was it a mistake for Ron to push for a bill ending the Federal Reserve when it had absolutely no chance of ever passing?


Because Ron Paul is a hero.




> What about a Constitutional amendment banning abortion?  Do you think Rand should be opposed to that as well?



No, but why talk about the impossibility?  Its not a core point.  If asked, support it.




> Then he would just get the "pro choice for states" label from Santorum and others.  That's what he had to face in the GOP primary back in 2010.  I don't think Rand would even be a U.S Senator right now if he didn't make it completely clear that he's 100% pro life.


Santorum's an idiot.



> Then that would even be a different position than Ron Paul took on the issue, as he also introduced a Human Life amendment when he was in Congress.  Ron always used the rhetoric of saying abortion should be a state issue, but the bills that he introduced showed otherwise.


Can you prove this?  I thought almost for certain Ron wanted it left to the states.  That would be ironic considering Ron Paul was the one (Not personally, of course) that convinced me it wasn't smart to give the Federal government the power in the first place.

----------


## T.hill

Life doesn't necessarily have an unequivocal definition, but biologically a fetus at any stage can be said to be living. The harder question is whether or not the fetus is human, which is a subjective premise in itself. We get our rights from our humanity, so a fetus's right to life is dependent on whether it is human or not.

----------


## juleswin

> Because it's what Rand actually believes in.  And if people are going to base their vote for a political candidate solely on abortion and vote against any pro life candidate, I hope our entire country just goes down in flames.


I get it now, he can play politics with other issues which dont exactly conform with the freedom movement but on this one, he will risk everything by doing what he really believes. This is one of the most divisive issues in american politics, he knows he will get a lot of people very angry. Just look on this site and see what happens to abortion threads, nobody ever leaves with a different opinion and everybody has a strong opinion.

Sorry but whether or not he believes it, this is a really idiotic move on his part. He should stayed away from it

----------


## Brett85

> Romney's position EVOLVED to expressly Anti Abortion . . . when Republicans were trying to OUT-RIGHT each other.


Not hardly.  He was running commercials late in the campaign about how he was pro choice in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother.  Not hardly a hardcore pro life position.  The exit polls showed that there was a steep drop off in evangelical turn out in states like Virginia, probably partly due to Romney's weak stand on abortion and his Mormon faith.  (The latter being unfair.)  I don't see how Rand taking socially liberal positions is going to help evangelical turnout and help him get elected.  Keep in mind that George W. Bush won in 2004 because he turned out evangelical voters.  Elections are all about turning out your base to vote for you.  There's millions of evangelical Christians who just stay home on election day, perhaps because they don't believe that either major candidate is serious about ending abortion, or perhaps because today's "pro lifers" take an inconsistent position when they support defending life in the womb but support a foreign policy that leads to the deaths of millions of innocent people around the world.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I don't believe that either. 
> 
> But under our legal system it is a crime to murder another human; spiders, insects, flowers, and wombats do not share the same protection.


Our legal system has nothing to do with why murder is wrong.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I don't see how Rand taking socially liberal positions is going to help evengelical turnout and help him get elected.  Keep in mind that George W. Bush won in 2004 because he turned out evengelical voters.  Elections are all about turning out your base to vote for you.  There's millions of evengelical Christians who just stay home on election day, perhaps because they don't believe that either major candidate is serious about ending abortion, or perhaps because today's "pro lifers" take an inconsistent position when they support defending life in the womb but support a foreign policy that leads to the deaths of millions of innocent people around the world.


That was 2004.  This will be 2016.  Do you know how rapidly in decline evangelicals are in America?  Apparently you don't.

----------


## itshappening

The founders were never bothered about abortion, in fact they admired the practice in the native indian population and no one was prosecuted in the colonies for having abortions or carrying them out.  There was one early case in CT where it was botched leading to the mothers death and the doctor was charged but he was never convicted.

----------


## anaconda

> Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.


Rand knows it will fail. He's trying to brand himself as the new conservative and capture the base. He will spend the next three years coming to the center on this. He will say, "Well, I tried." Then get behind the issue as a states' rights issue. Or something like that.

Having said that, does Rand intend to introduce a bill to establish the "Federal Department of Abortion Police?"

----------


## Brett85

> That was 2004.  This will be 2016.  Do you know how rapidly in decline evangelicals are in America?  Apparently you don't.


There's not a decline in evangelicals, just a decline in people who attend church on a weekly basis.

----------


## RockEnds

> The correct position is to "leave it to the states" and try and remove it from the perview of the Supreme Court.
> 
> If IA want to ban abortions that's up to them but don't force Maine too... He will lose the general election in a landslide running on this.  Change in strategy needed.


Iowa doesn't want to ban abortions.  Iowa religious conservatives want to ban abortions.  Don't forget Obama first won here.  It's a purple state.  The religious conservatives are actually a small faction with a big voice.

----------


## cheapseats

> Not hardly.  He was running commercials late in the campaign about how he was pro choice in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother.  Not hardly a hardcore pro life position...


Not hardly a libertarian-leaning position, either.

Your impassioned belief makes you WANT "life begins at conception" to be a PLUS in electoral politics, but it isn't.

----------


## Brett85

> Having said that, does Rand intend to introduce a bill to establish the "Federal Department of Abortion Police?"


No.  I don't think people undertand that you can have a federal law that bans abortion that doesn't actually create a federal abortion police.  Ron and Rand both support personhood laws that ban abortion nationwide, but still allow the states to determine what the exact penalties are for abortion and allow them to enforce these laws.

----------


## Brett85

> Not hardly a libertarian-leaning position, either.
> 
> Your impassioned belief makes you WANT "life begins at conception" to be a PLUS in electoral politics, but it isn't.


It's a plus to take a consistent position and be seen as honest.  When George W. Bush was President, you would hear Americans from all over the country say, "you may not agree with him, but at least you know where he stands."

And the libertarian position is to ban abortion, as it isn't possible to defend liberty without defending life.  Ron Paul has stated that numerous times.  It's a wonder why the liberals here ever supported him.

----------


## supermario21

Also, something to consider. No matter how much Rand does here, Santorum will always be the evangelical golden boy. Rand could get this passed and they'd still like frothy more.

----------


## anaconda

> Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.


There is no federal ban on murder. Why should there be one for abortion? This is a states' issue. Shame on Rand.

----------


## Brett85

> The founders were never bothered about abortion, in fact they admired the practice in the native indian population and no one was prosecuted in the colonies for having abortions or carrying them out.  There was one early case in CT where it was botched leading to the mothers death and the doctor was charged but he was never convicted.


Do you have a link that proves that?

----------


## Brett85

> There is no federal ban on murder. Why should there be one for abortion? This is a states' issue. Shame on Rand.


If a state government ever tried to legalize murder, the federal government would prevent them from doing so.  There are federal protections for those who are already born.

----------


## anaconda

> No.  I don't think people undertand that you can have a federal law that bans abortion that doesn't actually create a federal abortion police.  Ron and Rand both support personhood laws that ban abortion nationwide, but still allow the states to determine what the exact penalties are for abortion and allow them to enforce these laws.


Interesting point you make.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> There is no federal ban on murder. Why should there be one for abortion? This is a states' issue. Shame on Rand.


Actually, there is a federal ban on murder.

----------


## cheapseats

> It's a plus to take a consistent position and be seen as honest.


It is much better to be viewed as honest than DISHONEST.






> When George W. Bush was President, you would hear Americans from all over the country say, "you may not agree with him, but at least you know where he stands."


OFTEN WRONG, BUT NEVER IN DOUBT.

George W. Bush is also held by many to be among the worst presidents in our history.





> And the libertarian position is to ban abortion...


Fiddle dee dee.

----------


## bunklocoempire

I am so glad Ron is PUSA and everyone in this country is up to speed on _consistent_ liberty so I don't have to worry about all this playing politics stuff anymore.

  Can you imagine if Ron would've had to been all things to all people at different times?  He might've not won...

Can you imagine if everyone wouldn't have suddenly come around to what the Feds are allowed to do?  It was getting sketchy there for a bit at the end but boobus came through.

And thank the stars that the msm finally turned around and backed Ron rather than establishment.



The "what Rand has to do/not do" part of this thread is kinda bizzaro.  What exactly has changed in the world that makes his LAC Act a poor move?     lol

You kids and your politics -ya crack me up.

----------


## Christopholes11

I'm worried this will alienate some of his supporters. As someone who is pro-choice I can tolerate pushing for the overturn of Roe vs. Wade so the states can vote on it themselves. But any sort of federal action to ban abortion nationwide can really turn some liberty minded folks off.

----------


## itshappening

> It's a plus to take a consistent position and be seen as honest.  When George W. Bush was President, you would hear Americans from all over the country say, "you may not agree with him, but at least you know where he stands."
> 
> And the libertarian position is to ban abortion, as it isn't possible to defend liberty without defending life.  Ron Paul has stated that numerous times.  It's a wonder why the liberals here ever supported him.


To be honest TC, we dont even want this coming up in a campaign.   Pushing a bill like this will ensure it does.  Yes, it's important in IA for GOPers there but I dont think Rand will lose much support without this.

I'd be delighted if the word "abortion" didn't even come up during a campaign along with the words "rape", "incest" and "civl rights act". 

It should all be about the economy and obamcare.  Simple as that.

Wedge issues are not going to do anything but provide fodder for the likes of Stephanopoulos.  They will be delighted to ask him questions about these issues every day and on the campaign trail and make the whole election about it while not even talking about the economy or the disastrous obamacare.

You need to understand this... more important, Rand does !!

----------


## anaconda

> Actually, there is a federal ban on murder.


If there is I don't think it's very explicit. Preamble? By inference from the 5th Amendment?

----------


## Brett85

Who says that Rand is going to talk about the issue during a general election campaign?  He simply introduced a bill in the Senate.  He introduces bills all the time.

----------


## anaconda

Hopefully the Republican base in "New England and the West Coast" are OK with this. I guess time will tell. But one must wonder about the "Reagan Democrats" in these areas that will be so essential for a general election.

----------


## Christopholes11

> Who says that Rand is going to talk about the issue during a general election campaign?  He simply introduced a bill in the Senate.  He introduces bills all the time.


He's very likely to be asked about it. Even though the issue is not near as important as the economy or endless wars you can bet it will come up in debates and what not.

----------


## itshappening

> Who says that Rand is going to talk about the issue during a general election campaign?  He simply introduced a bill in the Senate.  He introduces bills all the time.



He won't but the media will ensure it's talked about constantly, in the debates and on the campaign trail.  Rand doesn't get to set the narrative. Stephanopoulos does. 90% of the media are Democrat hacks and very skilled at what they do including using these wedge issues to full effect.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm worried this will alienate some of his supporters. As someone who is pro-choice I can tolerate pushing for the overturn of Roe vs. Wade so the states can vote on it themselves. But any sort of federal action to ban abortion nationwide can really turn some liberty minded folks off.


Well, he's not going to win the Republican primary if he takes the libertarian position on every single issue.  The Republican Party shouldn't be exactly the same as the Republican Party.  Rand needs to keep doing what he's been doing, which is to support a philosophy which is a blend of conservatism and libertarianism.  That's where I am and where I think more and more Republicans are going.

----------


## Varin

> I thought Rand wanted to win in "New England and the West Coast?"


 Doubt he was ever going to do that.

----------


## Brett85

> He won't but the media will ensure it's talked about constantly, in the debates and on the campaign trail.  Rand doesn't get to set the narrative. Stephanopoulos does. 90% of the media are Democrat hacks and very skilled at what they do..


Well, the last poll I saw showed that only 28% of the American people support overturning Roe v. Wade, so the position that you say Rand should take is still a minority position that won't help him.  Taking that position a little bit further isn't going to cause any more damage than advocating the repeal of Roe  v. Wade, in my opinion.

----------


## Brett85

> I thought Rand wanted to win in "New England and the West Coast?"


Yeah, I don't know why he has been saying that.  People in New England and on the West Coast aren't going to vote for a candidate who is opposed to baby killing.

----------


## T.hill

Isn't the right to life in essence a philosophical ban on murder?

----------


## cheapseats

> Who says that Rand is going to talk about the issue during a general election campaign?



He will be MADE to talk about it, or he will incessantly dodge questions.

How many times did Ron field the WHAT ABOUT A THIRD-PARTY RUN question?  He didn't' want to talk about that...OR the Newsletters.

----------


## Christopholes11

> Well, the last poll I saw showed that only 28% of the American people support overturning Roe v. Wade, so the position that you say Rand should take is still a minority position that won't help him.  Taking that position a little bit further isn't going to cause any more damage than advocating the repeal of Roe  v. Wade, in my opinion.


Then if all Rand cares about is winning the Primary this is a brilliant move. I just think this will really hurt him in the general if the media chooses to make it an issue.

----------


## Brett85

Ron Paul:  "I have previously sponsored a Human Life Amendment while in Congress, and though I ultimately do not believe this is how we will end abortion, achieving such an amendment is certainly a laudable goal. Of course, Presidents do not sign constitutional amendments – another reason I cannot guarantee what would happen on this issue."

http://stevedeace.com/news/national-...onhood-pledge/

----------


## T.hill

I don't think states have the option to legalize murder.

----------


## cheapseats

> Isn't the right to life in essence a philosophical ban on murder?



It opens a legal Pandora's Box for what constitutes HARM/ENDANGERMENT of the Unborn.

More billable hours, YAY!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Isn't the right to life in essence a philosophical ban on murder?


There is still debate on that. I don't think Plan B is akin to murder. Furthermore, people are going to do it anyways and there's no real way to stop it. [aside from changing the morality of the people] Ron Paul has a very good view on abortion and the problems surrounding it. Rand Paul should have said it was a state's issue. Not many people have seen a late stage aborted fetus so they can't really relate when you call it murder. I'm not sure exactly when the cutoff should be. Clearly no abortions should be taking place after the first trimester. 

Summary: We are a morally sick society and it isn't going to change.

----------


## Brett85

> Then if all Rand cares about is winning the Primary this is a brilliant move. I just think this will really hurt him in the general if the media chooses to make it an issue.


Right, but I don't think it will hurt him anymore than opposing Roe v. Wade when only 28% of Americans believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.  And obviously if Rand were to oppose overturning Roe v. Wade in a Republican Primary he would have absolutely no chance to win.

----------


## itshappening

> Then if all Rand cares about is winning the Primary this is a brilliant move. I just think this will really hurt him in the general if the media chooses to make it an issue.


Oh they will.  The Democrat Party are ruthless when it comes to issues like this. 

They won't want to be talking about the economy or obamacare will they?  So lets talk about abortion for 3 months and every hack, leftist journalist will get the memo

----------


## Brett85

Keep in mind that Rand has said that the morning after pill should be legal, and that's an alternative to abortion, particularly in cases of rape.  That's an issue Rand can mention in the general election that will make him look more "mainstream."

----------


## Brett85

> Oh they will.  The Democrat Party are ruthless when it comes to issues like this. 
> 
> They won't want to be talking about the economy or obamacare will they?  So lets talk about abortion for 3 months and every hack, leftist journalist will get the memo


They would be talking about abortion even if Rand didn't introduce this law.  This law doesn't make any difference.

----------


## T.hill

> It opens a legal Pandora's Box for what constitutes HARM/ENDANGERMENT of the Unborn.
> 
> More billable hours, YAY!


I meant in the conventional sense, not relative to the unborn. Somebody said there was no federal ban on murder and if the universally recognizable right to life isn't in essence a ban on murder, than can states actually legalize it?

----------


## itshappening

> Keep in mind that Rand has said that the morning after pill should be legal, and that's an alternative to abortion, particularly in cases of rape.  That's an issue Rand can mention in the general election that will make him look more "mainstream."


ideally, we dont even want abortion to come up let alone "rape". 

It should be economy, economy, economy.  

These issues sink candidates.  The Dems love it.

----------


## supermario21

As long as Santorum doesn't run, I don't think it'll come up much in the primaries.

----------


## Christopholes11

> As long as Santorum doesn't run, I don't think it'll come up much in the primaries.


I'm not so sure about that. It could easily become another contest to see who can out-right everyone else to win the primary, which will only lose them the general.

----------


## RockEnds

> Also, something to consider. No matter how much Rand does here, Santorum will always be the evangelical golden boy. Rand could get this passed and they'd still like frothy more.


I don't think so.  Huckabee is the GOP golden boy around here.  The evangelicals really bemoaned his decision not to run.  Evangelicals really _liked_ Huckabee.  Santorum was the evangelical candidate through the process of elimination.

----------


## eating_nachos

> ideally, we dont even want abortion to come up let alone "rape". 
> 
> It should be economy, economy, economy.  
> 
> These issues sink candidates.  The Dems love it.




The republicans already tried this and it didn't work. What makes you think it will in 2016?

----------


## T.hill

> There is still debate on that. I don't think Plan B is akin to murder. Furthermore, people are going to do it anyways and there's no real way to stop it. [aside from changing the morality of the people] Ron Paul has a very good view on abortion and the problems surrounding it. Rand Paul should have said it was a state's issue. Not many people have seen a late stage aborted fetus so they can't really relate when you call it murder. I'm not sure exactly when the cutoff should be. Clearly no abortions should be taking place after the first trimester. 
> 
> Summary: We are a morally sick society and it isn't going to change.


I'm just asking for clarification for how under our Republic what the right to life means and if in essence is also a right not to be killed? I always thought that technically there are no federal laws against murder, but because we have a right to life, it's inferred and states could not violate that principle?

----------


## supermario21

> I don't think so.  Huckabee is the GOP golden boy around here.  The evangelicals really bemoaned his decision not to run.  Evangelicals really _liked_ Huckabee.  Santorum was the evangelical candidate through the process of elimination.



I'd agree there. Rand will not be the evangelical candidate regardless.

----------


## RockEnds

> I'd agree there. Rand will not be the evangelical candidate regardless.


He could be, but not if he keeps his focus strictly on the issues.  Getting the evangelical nod is more complicated than that.  Bob Vander Plaats is the first name that comes to mind.  Any chance Rand can play _Free Bird_ at the Straw Poll?

----------


## T.hill

> I'd agree there. Rand will not be the evangelical candidate regardless.


He can still get support from them, even Ron had some evangelical/religious-right supporters.

----------


## supermario21

I think Pat Robertson will support Rand. They see eye to eye on marijuana after all, and Rand will likely be the only GOPer to have that position.

----------


## itshappening

Costa from National Review is tweeting about a discussion he had with Santorum at CPAC.  This might explain why Rand's doing what he's doing here as it will shore him up in IA and SC.

-
@robertcostaNRO

    fwiw, I think Santo & pals see 2016 as outside shot. But as party lders move ctr, they think they cld repeat 12 strategy of going rt of nom

@robertcostaNRO

    Sat down with Santo after his speech for awhile. Was respectful to Portmn, but clearly thinks his so-con views still have real power in GOP

----------


## anaconda

> I think Pat Robertson will support Rand. They see eye to eye on marijuana after all, and Rand will likely be the only GOPer to have that position.


For me Pat Robertson loses all credibility with his Charles Taylor blood diamond connection.

----------


## EBounding

Oh no, Rand might say he's a pro-life Republican and have legislation to back up the claim.  It's all over.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Insincere grandstanding on the Taxpayers' dime, is that it?


It's not insincere, it's not grandstanding, and submitting a bill doesn't really cost much money. Nice try, not.

----------


## itshappening

> I'd agree there. Rand will not be the evangelical candidate regardless.


Rand cannot win IA without evangelicals.  So he does want to be the evangelical candidate. 

The problem is he has to win NH as well.  So when he lands in NH he just has to talk liberty and freedom issues. When in Iowa he can point to things like this.  

This will be a fine balancing act and he needs to plot this carefully if he's to pull it off because being anti-abortion might hurt him in NH but I guess not if he doesn't talk much about it or doesn't communicate it widely.  He can only dodge it for so long though especially if gets out of the primary and becomes the nominee.

----------


## supermario21

Rand will have the best message overall for Iowa and New Hampshire. I think NH is an anti-war, libertarianish state which will help him as well, and Rand will do better with mainline conservatives than Ron. Of course, that state is Christie's to lose, but Christie will do awful in Iowa. Don't forget, Pat Buchanan won the NH primary in 1996 and got 40% of the vote against an incumbent president there in 2000. I think Rand will be the Buchananite in the field.

----------


## itshappening

It will help him in SC with the social-cons too. 

IA - NH - SC is a fine balancing act.  He may figure he can afford to lose NH if necessary but he cannot afford to lose IA and SC.

----------


## itshappening

> Rand will have the best message overall for Iowa and New Hampshire. I think NH is an anti-war, libertarianish state which will help him as well, and Rand will do better with mainline conservatives than Ron. Of course, that state is Christie's to lose, but Christie will do awful in Iowa. Don't forget, Pat Buchanan won the NH primary in 1996 and got 40% of the vote against an incumbent president there in 2000. I think Rand will be the Buchananite in the field.


Lamontage nearly beat Ayotte in the 2010 Senate primary with half the vote and I think he supported Ron.  If we can get his endorsement and help it will be a big deal in NH.

----------


## cheapseats

> It's not insincere...


Then he leans HARDRIGHT, not libertarian.





> ...it's not grandstanding...


Just PLAYING THE GAME?





> ...and submitting a bill doesn't really cost much money.


True, introducing legislation doesn't warrant MONEY BOMBS. 

But MALARKEY, bills don't cost money.  The oak of LAW comes from the acorn BILL.




> The Vast Majority of Bills Go Nowhere
> August 25, 2009 - by Donny Shaw
> 
> http://www.opencongress.org/articles...lls-Go-Nowhere



Then there is the matter of TIME being the scarcest of all resources.  Lawmakers ARE paid (well) for their time, which can only be divvied up so many ways.

----------


## cheapseats

I am not a Rand Fan, but I do not dismiss the possibility of his one day constituting the lesser of evils.

As such, I'm pretty good about staying out of his forum.  But I'm tellin' ya, hardright anti-abortion rhetoric HURT y'all in the last election and you have every reason to suppose it would do so again.

----------


## talkingpointes

The argument for courting voters is getting really $#@!ing stale. When do we get to see actual principles? This is actually the second time he has done this. He knew the first time it wouldn't pass, and this time is no different.

Another Randstanding, he won't do anything till we cede power to him. And I'm sorry but I don't trust him.

----------


## supermario21

Ovide lost the governor's race this year to Hassan, underperforming Romney's vote total by a little more than 30K.

----------


## talkingpointes

> I am not a Rand Fan, but do not dismiss the possibility of his one day constituting the lesser of evils.
> 
> As such, I'm pretty good about staying out of his forum.  But I'm tellin' ya, EITHER this is an unforced error OR he is signaling that he does NOT expect to be President.
> 
> "IMHO", LOL.


Bush jr. won on saying he was going to outlaw or partially ban abortion. (with socneocons)

http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm

----------


## itshappening

In NH if we can put together a coalition of Lamontage voters, Ron Paul voters (20%), FSP supporters and new Rand Paul supporters/momentum, that is pretty much 35-40% of the vote. 

In IA it would be Ron Paul voters and we'd probably need to find another 15% of the vote from somewhere (evangelicals) to give us a victory.

SC is probably our hardest state but with Davis and Bright working their base and Ron Paul votes (13%)... Hopefully Rand can land DeMint/Scott and the various congressmen (Mulvaney/whoever wins SC01).  Also by then if he's doing well there will be significant momentum going into the First in the South primary.

----------


## talkingpointes

> In NH if we can put together a coalition of Lamontage voters, Ron Paul voters (20%), FSP supporters and new Rand Paul supporters/momentum, that is pretty much 35-40% of the vote. 
> 
> In IA it would be Ron Paulvoters and we'd probably need to find another 15% of the vote from somewhere (evangelicals) to give us a victory.
> 
> SC is probably our hardest state but with Davis and Bright working their base and Ron Paul votes... Hopefully Rand can land DeMint/Scott and the various congressmen (Mulvaney/whoever wins SC01).  Also by then if he's doing well there will be significant momentum going into the First in the South primary.


 Do you not remember the new rules for the caucuses ? The chair picks the candidate not the caucus goers.

----------


## itshappening

> Ovide lost the governor's race this year to Hassan, underperforming Romney's vote total by a little more than 30K.


That doesn't matter, we want his primary voters

----------


## Matt Collins

> That said, let's stop making a bigger deal of this than it is.


Exactly.

----------


## itshappening

It is a big deal because some of us know what the Democrat Media complex will do when/if Rand emerges from a bloody primary. 

They will go after him on it and they will replay the Maddow interview a billion times a day.

for 3 months.

Fun .

----------


## Matt Collins

> The argument for courting voters is getting really $#@!ing stale. When do we get to see actual principles?


You must court voters to win, and this is a principle for Rand and most of the GOP.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Then he leans HARDRIGHT, not libertarian.


Your premise is false, most libertarians are anti-abortion.

----------


## talkingpointes

From the sounds of it Has the movement completely fallen and hit it's $#@!ing head and not remembered how the past two elections went????? 

We lost the first fair and square, the second however;
WE WON AND STILL LOST -- GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS. YOU'RE NOT IN THE CLUB, AND NEVER WILL BE.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Yes it is but if he's the nominee he loses in a landslide spending 3 months defending it


Nope, it's expected that Republican nominees are anti-abortion, and furthermore, it probably won't even be a campaign issue when 2016 rolls around.

----------


## Matt Collins

> How many times do I have to say that.  There is an unequivocal definition of death.  The cessation of all biological functions.  No one disputes this.


But that is not the legal definition of death used to pronounce someone "dead".

----------


## talkingpointes

I can see the country being in complete shambles in 3-4 more years. And just like the rest of the world, the poor are not going to say, "maybe I should just work". No, they will demand more bread and circus till the end. That's how it works. Rand is going to be attached to the republican anchor that will be part to blame for it.

----------


## Matt Collins

> And what good is it do solidify your republican constituent just to lose the general elections.


Because elections aren't always about getting elected. Ron Paul won the last two Presidential elections, even though he didn't get elected. Hopefully Rand wins AND gets elected, but even if he doesn't get elected, hopefully he'll at least still "win" the election.

----------


## cheapseats

> Bush jr. won on saying he was going to outlaw or partially ban abortion. (with socneocons)
> 
> http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm



George Bush's father is George Bush.

Rand Paul's father is Ron Paul.

Rand Paul will NOT have the same leeway (or deep pockets) as George the Younger.

George the Younger SUCKED, but Jeb Bush has a shot at it...go figure.

----------


## itshappening

> Nope, it's expected that Republican nominees are anti-abortion, and furthermore, it probably won't even be a campaign issue when 2016 rolls around.


it's one thing being against abortion, it's another having a specific bill to outlaw it through stretching the 14th amendment. 

No presidential nominee in history has tried to run with a personhood bill have they?

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'd agree there. Rand will not be the evangelical candidate regardless.


No, of course not, however he can out flank or block a rival that is by taking just enough voters who care about the abortion vote from them by actions such as this.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Well, he's not going to win the Republican primary if he takes the libertarian position on every single issue.


Being pro-abortion is NOT a "libertarian position"

----------


## talkingpointes

> Because elections aren't always about getting elected. Ron Paul won the last two Presidential elections, even though he didn't get elected. Hopefully Rand wins AND gets elected, but even if he doesn't get elected, hopefully he'll at least still "win" the election.


Wow, dude pull your head out of your ass. Winning is winning, not losing. The game is rigged and were focusing mass resources on running a guy that is basically doing spectacle politics. I know given how much you credit yourself with some successes don't let it blind you from reality. We just watched the biggest transfer of wealth in history and not a shot was fired. What are you going to do if you get another election stolen ? Cry?

----------


## itshappening

> Because elections aren't always about getting elected. Ron Paul won the last two Presidential elections, even though he didn't get elected. Hopefully Rand wins AND gets elected, but even if he doesn't get elected, hopefully he'll at least still "win" the election.


Come on now Matt, Rand has a superb shot at the White House if he plots it correctly.  He said he wants to run to win so if that's the case he will drop this since no one has ever run on it in history.

----------


## talkingpointes

> Come on now Matt, Rand has a superb shot at the White House if he plots it correctly.  He said he wants to run to win so if that's the case he will drop this since no one has ever run on it in history.


Ron was beating obama and mitt. Head, out of your ass !

----------


## cheapseats

> ...most libertarians are anti-abortion.



And most Republicans are anti-war.





> ...In an effort to explain what Rand Paul meant when he suggested that private businesses should be able to discriminate against black people, most writers have assumed that the Tea Party fave is no racist but instead a dogmatic, don't-tread-on-me libertarian. As TPM convincingly points out today, the GOP's Kentucky Senate candidate's (now recanted) statements about the 1964 Civil Rights Act fall well within the libertarian mainstream.
> 
> It would be a mistake, however, to assume that Paul's views are motivated by little more than a naive ideology. As I've noted, Paul and his father, GOP Congressman Ron Paul, have a long history of close associations with hard-core racists. And moreover, Paul is by no means a rigid libertarian. In reality, Paul and his father espouse a hybrid of libertarian and Republican political beliefs that skews far to the right of typical libertarians:
> 
> Abortion
> 
> *While most libertarians are pro-choice, both Rand and Ron Paul support government regulation of abortion.* Ron Paul would leave the issue up to states while Rand Paul favors a constitutional amendment banning the procedure...
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010...rian-rand-paul

----------


## talkingpointes

Hey guys, I got an idea lets run a candidate on a winning platform, so we can go fight liars, cheaters, thieves and hope they place nice. That would be swell.

----------


## Christopholes11

> Being pro-abortion is NOT a "libertarian position"


I don't know about that, it's not that simple. From what I've seen it's an issue that divides libertarians almost 50/50. It all depends on how much you weigh the liberties of an unborn fetus of less than 24 weeks to it's parents. Abortion really is the trickiest issue in politics at the moment. It's not as cut and dry as many other issues, especially from a libertarian prospective.

----------


## presence

> Abortion really is the trickiest issue in politics at the moment.
>  It's not as cut and dry as many other issues,
>  especially from a libertarian prospective.


*
Thread:                                                      2 States (AR, ND) Move Towards TEN GRAM RULE on Abortion*

----------


## Matt Collins

> There is no federal ban on murder. Why should there be one for abortion? This is a states' issue. Shame on Rand.


This is explained here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4925319

----------


## Matt Collins

> Our legal system has nothing to do with why murder is wrong.


Exactly. It is illegal because it violates the rights of another individual, not because it is "amoral".

----------


## Matt Collins

> Winning is winning, not losing.


And you don't have to get elected to win an election.

People run for office for all sorts of reasons besides getting elected. Some of which are - 

- building a network or organization 
- building name recognition for a future run
- compiling lists
- bringing issues to the forefront
- strategically blocking other candidates from winning
- getting candidates on the record for / against what they don't want to talk about





> What are you going to do if you get another election stolen?


huh?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Life doesn't necessarily have an unequivocal definition, but biologically a fetus at any stage can be said to be living. The harder question is whether or not the fetus is human, which is a subjective premise in itself. We get our rights from our humanity, so a fetus's right to life is dependent on whether it is human or not.



_I think this is the the thread winner right here!_

----------


## tttppp

> From a press release -




This is stupid, pointless legislation nomatter what side you are on. Rand should focus on our actual problems. This law does nothing for our economic situation.

----------


## Christopholes11

> This is stupid, pointless legislation nomatter what side you are on. Rand should focus on our actual problems. This law does nothing for our economic situation.


Agreed. There are so many more important things to worry about that can unite people from all over the political spectrum instead of pushing divisive legislation such as this.

----------


## James Madison

> Our legal system has nothing to do with why murder is wrong.


Our legal system is designed to protect the rights of its citizenry. Life is one of those rights.

----------


## AlexAmore

If I were a generic politician I would certainly court the pro-choicers or the pro-lifers because they are rabid much like Ron Paul supporters. They will go out, hit the pavements and spread your name. I would argue pro-lifers are a better choice simply because they have huge networks via churches.

Ron Paul is a staunch pro-lifer and we all know if there wasn't any bull$#@! with the media and voting booths he probably would have won back then, never mind a well spoken, young, Rand Paul today and especially in a few years WITH the foundation already set by his father. This is a snowball that's getting bigger and bigger.

----------


## TheTyke

How does this differ from the Sanctity of Life Act that Ron introduced every year as a congressman? It also defined life as beginning at conception. I gathered Rand was just keeping up the family defense of life and liberty.

Without life, there can be no liberty. My family and many of my friends would not support Ron & Rand if they weren't pro-life. For those who believe the unborn are human, it is the highest priority and a make-or-break issue. For those who don't, they may not like it, but many other issues seem more important and they can often overlook disagreement. Polls have been showing over 50% and an increasing trend of Americans toward being pro-life (probably because of technology and science revealing more details.) Therefore it's always better for liberty candidates to be pro-life.

----------


## dancjm

Quite a few people seem to be saying that Rand is not pandering enough. He is not obscuring his position enough. He is not telling people what they want to hear enough.

Think about that.

----------


## Slutter McGee

The only thing I can think politically is that he wins a lot of points with social conservatives. Which may be needed if he is going to start getting into his opinions on allowing gay marriage (not having a federal definition or the word) and scaling back on the war on drugs. He can point to this to argue he agrees with them fully on their most important issue. 

And by doing this early enough hopefully the blow back will not be huge. The only votes you absolutely lose are single issue pro-choicers which we were not going to get anyway. 

Either way, it could come back to bite us in the ass. But I have to believe we didn't get to where we are without some gambles.

Slutter McGee

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He can still get support from them, even Ron had some evangelical/religious-right supporters.


I'm one of them.  Granted, I'm not POLITICALLY "Right-wing" in the usual sense, I agree with Ron politically almost all of the time.  But I am definitely personally quite socially conservative.  And I agree with Ron/Rand on the right to life (Although not with Rand on the Federalization of it) as well.




> Rand cannot win IA without evangelicals.  So he does want to be the evangelical candidate. 
> 
> The problem is he has to win NH as well.  So when he lands in NH he just has to talk liberty and freedom issues. When in Iowa he can point to things like this.  
> 
> This will be a fine balancing act and he needs to plot this carefully if he's to pull it off because being anti-abortion might hurt him in NH but I guess not if he doesn't talk much about it or doesn't communicate it widely.  He can only dodge it for so long though especially if gets out of the primary and becomes the nominee.


Would NH really discount Rand just because of abortion?  I mean, who the heck else are they gonna vote for?  Maybe in the general election they might go Dem (Although not if they're serious about liberty) but in the primary Rand is the most libertarian they're going to have, clear cut, unless maybe if Gary Johnson runs, in which case it might be up in the air.




> Being pro-abortion is NOT a "libertarian position"


I personally think pro-life is the correct libertarian position, but this is hardly agreed upon.




> How does this differ from the Sanctity of Life Act that Ron introduced every year as a congressman? It also defined life as beginning at conception. I gathered Rand was just keeping up the family defense of life and liberty.
> 
> Without life, there can be no liberty. My family and many of my friends would not support Ron & Rand if they weren't pro-life. For those who believe the unborn are human, it is the highest priority and a make-or-break issue. For those who don't, they may not like it, but many other issues seem more important and they can often overlook disagreement. Polls have been showing over 50% and an increasing trend of Americans toward being pro-life (probably because of technology and science revealing more details.) Therefore it's always better for liberty candidates to be pro-life.


Would you support Rand if he was pro-choice?

Not everyone who is pro-life thinks that's the #1 issue.  As someone who thinks the abortion doctors rightfully ought to be Nuremberged and sentenced to death, foreign policy is STILL more important.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It should all be about the economy and obamcare.  Simple as that.


What about foreign policy and civil liberties?

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

"Pro-Choice, BUT"... would be the nice, realistic way.

Life begins when egg meets sperm.

Mother can have option to abort IF: raped and/or incest and/or life threatening for mother and/or genetic disorder.

No abortion for one night stand mistake.

----------


## supermario21

Gary Johnson will not run for president, and if he does, will achieve no support in the GOP. The liberty movement is solidly behind Rand. Maybe the pro-choicers would go with Gary but that's not going to be much either way.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> "Pro-Choice, BUT"... would be the nice, realistic way.
> 
> Life begins when egg meets sperm.
> 
> Mother can have option to abort IF: raped and/or incest and/or life threatening for mother and/or genetic disorder.
> 
> No abortion for one night stand mistake.



I  can agree with life of the mother. Otherwise, rape, incest, and genetic disorders do not justify murder.




> Gary Johnson will not run for president, and if he does, will achieve no support in the GOP. The liberty movement is solidly behind Rand. Maybe the pro-choicers would go with Gary but that's not going to be much either way.


There was a time when I would have preferred Gary over Rand, but I don't think that's the case anymore.  I liked that Gary didn't endorse Romney.  But Rand has really impressed me lately.  I'm behind him 100%.

Granted, he's not perfect on every issue, but he's the best we got and would almost certainly make our country a  better place.

Gary definitely has a more "Social liberal" spin when compared to Rand.  Rand also understands constituttional issues more, much like Ron did.

----------


## supermario21

Johnson was very murky on foreign policy and arguably worse than Rand. Issues aside, Johnson didn't seem confident or articulate when discussing the issues. Rand is much more confident and articulate, it shows especially when compared to Rubio. Gary should just run for NM Senate in 2014. As a Republican.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Johnson was very murky on foreign policy and arguably worse than Rand. Issues aside, Johnson didn't seem confident or articulate when discussing the issues. Rand is much more confident and articulate, it shows especially when compared to Rubio. Gary should just run for NM Senate in 2014. As a Republican.


Johnson wasn't good on foreign policy compared to Ron Paul, but then, neither is Rand.  Its hard to tell.  Johnson explained exactly when he would intervene, in a humanitarian crisis on the UN's request.  Rand won't exactly tell us other than "Somewhere, some of the time", a meaningless statement that could mean a lot of different things.

Ultimately though, Rand is Ron's son.  Ron Paul, of all people, is going to have influence on him.  And I do think most, though not all, of his "Edgy" foreign policy talk is indeed to sound better to neocons.  Johnson also doesn't have much of an understanding of what libertarianism is.  Just by being Ron Paul's son, I know Rand understands, whether or not he actually accepts all of it.

----------


## ronaldo23

so much for expanding the GOP base to all those youth in California and New England that Rand keeps talking about. Strong social conservatist opinions qualify as part of the "old GOP that has grown stale and moss-covered." He doesn't need to take strong social stances to win the primary either; his stock will be very high for a number of other reasons. 

Why doesn't Rand drop the whole moral argument and solely talk about state's rights on abortion? He could even frame it as "The federal government has no right to stop New York from legalizing abortion." That way he's being consistent with his pro-life ideology (overturning roe v wade) but appealing to independents and moderates

----------


## Christian Liberty

> so much for expanding the GOP base to all those youth in California and New England that Rand keeps talking about. Strong social conservatist opinions qualify as part of the "old GOP that has grown stale and moss-covered." He doesn't need to take strong social stances to win the primary either; his stock will be very high for a number of other reasons. 
> 
> Why doesn't Rand drop the whole moral argument and solely talk about state's rights on abortion? He could even frame it as "The federal government has no right to stop New York from legalizing abortion." That way he's being consistent with his pro-life ideology (overturning roe v wade) but appealing to independents and moderates


How could he possibly say "We need to repeal Roe v Wade so that New York could legalize abortion" when New York already has legal abortion.  That makes no sense...

----------


## TheTyke

> Would you support Rand if he was pro-choice?


No. If a candidate won't defend life, how could they reliably defend liberty? It'd be inconsistent or show flawed reasoning.

I marvel at people who say there are bigger issues. We've killed *55 million* of the unborn in the US alone since Roe vs. Wade. I oppose our foreign entanglements because I am consistently pro-life. Even for all our war machine, have we killed more than 2 million that way? 6 million is the number frequently cited for holocaust. Is the economy more important? Devalued money? I guess those of us who are allowed to live might see it as a more immediate problem, since we have to deal with it, and can forget those who are dead. Is legal due process or any civil liberty more important when swathes of us are being arbitrarily denied of every single liberty with no due process at all?

It all comes down to whether you see the unborn as human. If you do, and you really think about it, it looms far beyond any other issue. And that's why many pro-life people see it as a make or break issue.

----------


## ronaldo23

> How could he possibly say "We need to repeal Roe v Wade so that New York could legalize abortion" when New York already has legal abortion.  That makes no sense...


I meant it as him saying, that even if we overturn roe v wade, "the federal government has no right to interfere with abortion laws in NY". Period. And leave any/all abortion talk at the state's right level, without talking deeply about his own personal views. That is, if he plans to win national elections by appealing to those voters he keeps trying to court.

----------


## ronaldo23

> No. If a candidate won't defend life, how could they reliably defend liberty? It'd be inconsistent or show flawed reasoning.
> 
> I marvel at people who say there are bigger issues. We've killed *55 million* of the unborn in the US alone since Roe vs. Wade. I oppose our foreign entanglements because I am consistently pro-life. Even for all our war machine, have we killed more than 2 million that way? 6 million is the number frequently cited for holocaust. Is the economy more important? Devalued money? I guess those of us who are allowed to live might see it as a more immediate problem, since we have to deal with it, and can forget those who are dead. Is legal due process or any civil liberty more important when swathes of us are being arbitrarily denied of every single liberty with no due process at all?
> 
> It all comes down to whether you see the unborn as human. If you do, and you really think about it, it looms far beyond any other issue. And that's why many pro-life people see it as a make or break issue.


Rothbard did not see legalized abortion as incompatible with liberty, and he was arguably among the top 3 most important libertarians of all time.

----------


## Brett85

Is there actually some kind of poll people can point to that shows that a majority of Americans would never vote for a Presidential candidate who supports banning abortion?

----------


## brandon

I like to pretend this side of the Paul family doesn't exist. It's really the only thing I disagree with them on and it's not a major issue to me, but unfortunately it is a major issue to a lot of young people who will never give them the time of day because of this.

----------


## TheTyke

> Rothbard did not see legalized abortion as incompatible with liberty, and he was arguably the top 3 most important libertarians of all time.


That's why Ron had to refute his argument in The Revolution. With scientific advances, it would prove a serious flaw in our philosophical consistency.

----------


## Brett85

> Oh no, Rand might say he's a pro-life Republican and have legislation to back up the claim.  It's all over.


Yeah, it seems to me like a lot of members here don't mind politicians who say they are pro life as long as they don't actually back up their pro life rhetoric with legislation.

----------


## brandon

> Is there actually some kind of poll people can point to that shows that a majority of Americans would never vote for a Presidential candidate who supports banning abortion?


There's thousands of polls I'm sure, but I think most Americans take a moderate stance on this and the hardline "life at conception" is not widely popular.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

----------


## Brett85

> I like to pretend this side of the Paul family doesn't exist. It's really the only thing I disagree with them on and it's not a major issue to me, but unfortunately it is a major issue to a lot of young people who will never give them the time of day because of this.


I don't see any evidence that young voters are more pro choice than voters of other ages or view that issue as being extremely important.  On gay marriage yes, young voters are a lot more supportive of gay marriage than older voters.  But I haven't seen that same data on abortion.  Most of the polls I've seen show about the same level of support for abortion rights among all age groups.

----------


## supermario21

Here's another gallup poll. As I said, pro-lifers place a greater emphasis on the issue than those that are pro-choice.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157886/ab...ix-voters.aspx








One more, something very important if Rand is up against Andrew Cuomo, a guy making abortion laws much less strict in New York.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

> Johnson was very murky on foreign policy and arguably worse than Rand. Issues aside, Johnson didn't seem confident or articulate when discussing the issues. Rand is much more confident and articulate, it shows especially when compared to Rubio. Gary should just run for NM Senate in 2014. As a Republican.


Senator Johnson would be nice. We need him, if Rand is running for POTUS. Or maybe have Johnson on Rand's admin somewhere =s.

----------


## ronaldo23

> There's thousands of polls I'm sure, but I think most Americans take a moderate stance on this and the hardline "life at conception" is not widely popular.
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx


yep, a majority of americans consider themselves "pro-life" on a personal level, but yet the vast majority support legalized abortion. 

while I can respect the pro-life argument very much, it's hard to argue that it's a winning issue for a national politician...

----------


## Brett85

> There's thousands of polls I'm sure, but I think most Americans take a moderate stance on this and the hardline "life at conception" is not widely popular.
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx


1)  Yes, but that poll doesn't show that a majority of voters would never consider voting for a candidate who supports a ban on abortion.
2)  The way that question is phrased I would actually be part of the 52% who would say that abortion should "be legal only under certain circumstances," even though I'm about as hardcore pro life as you can possibly get.  I think there should be an exception for the life of the mother.  That doesn't seem like a very good poll question.
3)  Notice that the 2nd poll showed that 50% of voters identified themselves as "pro life" in 2012, which was close to a record.  The American people were moving in the pro life direction on that issue until the comments by Akin and Mourdock.  That's what really set back the pro life cause.

----------


## Brett85

So only 17% of voters will only vote for a candidate who shares their view on the abortion issue, including only 15% of pro choice voters?  Given this data, why exactly would Rand's stance on this issue make him unelectable in the general election again?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No. If a candidate won't defend life, how could they reliably defend liberty? It'd be inconsistent or show flawed reasoning.
> 
> I marvel at people who say there are bigger issues. We've killed *55 million* of the unborn in the US alone since Roe vs. Wade. I oppose our foreign entanglements because I am consistently pro-life. Even for all our war machine, have we killed more than 2 million that way? 6 million is the number frequently cited for holocaust. Is the economy more important? Devalued money? I guess those of us who are allowed to live might see it as a more immediate problem, since we have to deal with it, and can forget those who are dead. Is legal due process or any civil liberty more important when swathes of us are being arbitrarily denied of every single liberty with no due process at all?
> 
> It all comes down to whether you see the unborn as human. If you do, and you really think about it, it looms far beyond any other issue. And that's why many pro-life people see it as a make or break issue.


Firstly, there's the whole "We" thing.  There is no "We".  I haven't killed anyone.  The government has  killed a lot of people, but that through foreign wars, not abortion.  It is the women themselves, and their doctors, who murder those children in the womb.  

In foreign war, the government itself commits murder.

In addition, 55 million would hardly drop to 0 if it was banned.  I don't think it would matter much at all to the number killed.  Maybe a few get punished.   Good.  I'm all for that.  But the foreign wars affect everything.  They affect our liberty in every way.  Maybe I'm just selfish, but I want to be free...

I don't completely agree with this abortion article by Laurence Vance,  I think he underplays the issue a little bit, but I think he makes a compelling argument for the "Its not the most important thing" argument.  I'm somewhere in between you and Vance.  I think abortion (Pro-life) is more important than side-ish issues like weed, legalizing prostitution, or such.  But when it comes to the core of the movement, the foreign policy, constitututional liberty, exc. that's the most important.  I believe Ron and Rand are sincere, but most Republicans don't care about abortion, they advocate its ban so they can get votes.

http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance298.html




> Rothbard did not see legalized abortion as incompatible with liberty, and he was arguably among the top 3 most important libertarians of all time.


I believe Rothbard was wrong.  I respect him, but I still think he's wrong.  Just remember Rothbard was a huge fan of Ron Paul as well.

----------


## brandon

> 1)  Yes, but that poll doesn't show that a majority of voters would never consider voting for a candidate who supports a ban on abortion.
> 2)  The way that question is phrased I would actually be part of the 52% who would say that abortion should "be legal only under certain circumstances," even though I'm about as hardcore pro life as you can possibly get.  I think there should be an exception for the life of the mother.  That doesn't seem like a very good poll question.


I know, I understand what you're saying. That's why I said there are thousands of polls. I'm sure there are some that address your specific question, but I'm not going to search for them right now. Mostly because I'm a bit drunk. But if you spend 15 minutes googling I'm sure you'll find some. You might be right, I don't know.

----------


## brandon

And does Rand's interpretation of the 14th allow for abortion in the case of the mother being at risk? It doesn't seem like it from what I read, but granted I didn't read the actual text of the bill.

----------


## Brett85

> Agreed. There are so many more important things to worry about that can unite people from all over the political spectrum instead of pushing divisive legislation such as this.


If it were legal to murder those who are 10 years old and younger, and Rand introduced a bill to give legal protections to those who are 10 years old and younger, would you be saying the same thing as you are now?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If it were legal to murder those who are 10 years old and younger, and Rand introduced a bill to give legal protections to those who are 10 years old and younger, would you be saying the same thing as you are now?


Honest question here, would we be sitting here posting about why  government should change its view?   Or would we be shooting?

I get asked this rhetorically by liberals before and have ignored it because to be honest, I have no answer.

The reality right now is that abortion is extremely controversial.  It shouldn't be, but it is.  A lot of people believe that it is OK to commit murder in the womb.  Government can only do so much about this.  Not "Government should only do so much", they CAN'T do all that much.

----------


## ronaldo23

> If it were legal to murder those who are 10 years old and younger, and Rand introduced a bill to give legal protections to those who are 10 years old and younger, would you be saying the same thing as you are now?


Would you support Rand starting a 13 hour filibuster to protest legalized abortion and to introduce the life at conception act (assuming some bill related to abortion laws comes for a vote in the senate)? Why or why not?

----------


## Brett85

> The only thing I can think politically is that he wins a lot of points with social conservatives. Which may be needed if he is going to start getting into his opinions on allowing gay marriage (not having a federal definition or the word) and scaling back on the war on drugs. He can point to this to argue he agrees with them fully on their most important issue.


Exactly.  This is what those criticizing Rand for this need to understand.  Rand has already deviated from the Republican Party line on marriage and drugs.  To make up for that he at least needs to prove that he's 100% pro life.  That will reassure some people who may not agree with his position on marriage and drugs.

----------


## Brett85

> Would you support Rand starting a 13 hour filibuster to protest legalized abortion and to introduce the life at conception act (assuming some bill related to abortion laws comes for a vote in the senate)? Why or why not?


I think that would be counter productive when such a bill doesn't actually have a chance of passing.  There's a big difference between simply introducing a bill silently to reassure conservatives of your position and actually speaking about it for 13 hours.

----------


## ronaldo23

> The only thing I can think politically is that he wins a lot of points with social conservatives. Which may be needed if he is going to start getting into his opinions on allowing gay marriage (not having a federal definition or the word) and scaling back on the war on drugs. He can point to this to argue he agrees with them fully on their most important issue. 
> 
> And by doing this early enough hopefully the blow back will not be huge. The only votes you absolutely lose are single issue pro-choicers which we were not going to get anyway. 
> 
> Either way, it could come back to bite us in the ass. But I have to believe we didn't get to where we are without some gambles.
> 
> Slutter McGee


that is a good point, indeed. Like you, I have my worries though.

----------


## Brett85

> Honest question here, would we be sitting here posting about why  government should change its view?   Or would we be shooting?


I don't know, but I just bring that up to explain how I and others feel about this issue.  I believe that a man killing a 10 year old child on the street is no different at all from an abortionist killing a baby in the womb.  It's the exact same thing to me.  If you consider that's the way I view this issue, everyone should be able to understand why people like myself are so obsessed with this issue.  This isn't just a typical political issue to many of us.

----------


## muh_roads

I hate these stupid wedge issues.  Just when I was getting democrats on board this $#@! comes out.  lame.

The pendulum swings both ways...a state that makes abortion illegal can just as easily mandate abortion.  Government should not interfere with a family and their personal decisions.

----------


## TheTyke

Financial Times reports that China has killed *330 million* of the unborn just in the last four decades. 

That's *330,000,0000*. And that's not counting the 56+ million in the US, and others all over the world. This site puts the worldwide total at *1,288,310,883* since 1980. That's a death toll of over a *billion* lives destroyed.... more than all the wars in the history of the world put together. If you believe they are human... that's just... unfathomable.

Vance notes that many Republicans benefit politically from the situation and won't address it. That's true, but why we like Ron and Rand is they actually would. The strategic concepts of voting for lesser evils are up to each person's conscience. Slavery was the greatest blight against freedom at the founding of our country. The great blight of our generation is abortion, with people trying to define it away, or ignoring its overwhelming horror. If you believe these are human, to say this is not the most important issue is simply considering ourselves more important than any number of bones we crunch under foot.




> And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.

----------


## Brett85

> The pendulum swings both ways...a state that makes murder illegal can just as easily mandate murder.


Does your statement still make sense when I substitute the word "murder" for the word "abortion?"

----------


## supermario21

A liberty candidate like Ron/Rand Paul should have the easiest time defending pro-life positions. Without life, there is no liberty. And Democrats love pulling out the pro-life but pro-war line on Republicans, it wouldn't work on Rand.

----------


## Brett85

> A liberty candidate like Ron/Rand Paul should have the easiest time defending pro-life positions. Without life, there is no liberty. And Democrats love pulling out the pro-life but pro-war line on Republicans, it wouldn't work on Rand.


Yeah, I think that would make the pro life position more popular if Republicans were actually consistently pro life.

----------


## muh_roads

> Does your statement still make sense when I substitute the word "murder" for the word "abortion?"


If your sperm has the potential to create life at any chance it can get...then should we mandate that you are allowed to impregnate any woman against their will?

I feel life begins in the balls.  Therefore every time you masturbate you are killing entire civilizations.  Shame on you.

I think the government should outlaw pulling out.

----------


## Brett85

> If your sperm has the potential to create life at any chance it can get...then should we mandate that you are allowed to impregnate any woman against their will?
> 
> I feel life begins in the balls.  Therefore every time you masturbate you are killing entire civilizations.  Shame on you.


So I take it you don't have a problem with the government defending life, but you just don't believe that the unborn are actually human beings.  If that's the case, when does life actually begin?

----------


## Rudeman

> If your sperm has the potential to create life at any chance it can get...then should we mandate that you are allowed to impregnate any woman against their will?
> 
> I feel life begins in the balls.  Therefore every time you masturbate you are killing entire civilizations.  Shame on you.
> 
> I think the government should outlaw pulling out.


How does life begin from the balls? Do men just sprout children there (wow that would suck)? That's as dumb as saying unfertilized eggs is where life begins and if you remove them you are killing potential people. Scientifically as soon as it has it's own DNA it is a separate being.


If you mentioned something regarding this in this thread forgive me because I only read the 1st page and skipped to the end and saw your post.

----------


## muh_roads

> If that's the case, when does life actually begin?


Lets step it back a bit and use your comparison of a 10 year old with a few cells that just started dividing in the womb.

Should the government take away your right to eat meat?  Surely the cow has a higher IQ than the human cells that just started dividing.

----------


## Rudeman

BTW from what I've read this isn't an anti-abortion bill, the result may end up being anti-abortion but all it states is the protection of live and when it begins.

----------


## randfan7

I don't know why anybody is surprised by this.  Rand has said many times that his first politically related speech he made was on the subject of pro-life, it is clearly important to him.    If you don't want a kid, don't have sex; it really is as simple as that.  Even with our retarded educational system, everybody knows that if you don't have sex then you wont risk getting pregnant.  

People who's #1 issue is reserving the right to kill kids disgusts me.

----------


## Brett85

> BTW from what I've read this isn't an anti-abortion bill, the result may end up being anti-abortion but all it states is the protection of live and when it begins.


It's no different from the bills that Ron has proposed that define life as beginning at conception.

----------


## muh_roads

> How does life begin from the balls? Do men just sprout children there (wow that would suck)? That's as dumb as saying unfertilized eggs is where life begins and if you remove them you are killing potential people. Scientifically as soon as it has it's own DNA it is a separate being.
> 
> If you mentioned something regarding this in this thread forgive me because I only read the 1st page and skipped to the end and saw your post.


Sperm is its own being.  They know how to swim & maneuver their way to the egg.  And gnaw on it until it gets its way in.  If you deny this potential then I think pulling out should be outlawed.  Don't deny the potential for life to be created at every corner.

And who is to say only human DNA matters?  Life beginning at conception is a slippery slope.  Now Peta gets involved.

Government should just $#@! off.  The pro-life movement seems very anti-woman to me.  It treats women as if they are broodmares for the state and nothing more.

----------


## Brett85

> Lets step it back a bit and use your comparison of a 10 year old with a few cells that just started dividing in the womb.
> 
> Should the government take away your right to eat meat?  Surely the cow has a higher IQ than the human cells that just started dividing.


Ok, so the baby in the womb is just "a glob of cells" and not a real person.  Ok.

----------


## Brett85

> Sperm is its own being.  They know how to swim & maneuver their way to the egg.  And gnaw on it until it gets its way in.  If you deny this potential then I think pulling out should be outlawed.  Don't deny the potential for life to be created at every corner.
> 
> And who is to say only human DNA matters?  Life beginning at conception is a slippery slope.  *Government should just $#@! off.*  The pro-life movement seems very anti-woman.  It treats women as if they are broodmares for the state.


In that case all murder laws should be repealed.

----------


## muh_roads

> Ok, so the baby in the womb is just "a glob of cells" and not a real person.  Ok.


Your view is that it isn't.  What makes you right and another wrong?

----------


## Brett85

> Your view is that it isn't.  What makes you right and another wrong?


If I say that life doesn't begin until the age of three, what makes me wrong and someone else right?  Why should someone have the right to force their morality on me and tell me that I don't have the right to take the life of a two year old child?  The government should just stay out of it.

----------


## muh_roads

> If I say that life doesn't begin until the age of three, what makes me wrong and someone else right?  Why should someone have the right to force their morality on me and tell me that I don't have the right to take the life of a two year old child?  The government should just stay out of it.


Because a few cells in the womb is brain dead while a 3 year old isn't.  Same goes for the 3 year old that is brain dead connected to a machine like a vegetable.  Those paying the bills to keep things running should have the decision, not you or government.

I also feel people should have the right to take their own life whenever they want.

----------


## AuH20

> I don't know why anybody is surprised by this.  Rand has said many times that his first politically related speech he made was on the subject of pro-life, it is clearly important to him.    If you don't want a kid, don't have sex; it really is as simple as that.  Even with our retarded educational system, everybody knows that if you don't have sex then you wont risk getting pregnant.  
> 
> *People who's #1 issue is reserving the right to kill kids disgusts me.*


Killing for convenience and without provocation is BS. I agree.

----------


## Brett85

> Because a few cells in the womb is brain dead while a 3 year old isn't.  Same goes for the 3 year old that is brain dead connected to a machine like a vegetable.  Those paying the bills to keep things running should have the decision, not you or government.
> 
> I also feel people should have the right to take their own life whenever they want.


What about a 3 year old who's mentally retarded?  They obviously have a very low IQ.  Shouldn't it be legal to kill them since those children are apparently too dumb to exist?

----------


## randfan7

> In that case all murder laws should be repealed.


As long as you hire a doctor to kill somebody it should be legal cuz its "privacy" and all.

----------


## AuH20

> I am not a Rand Fan, but I do not dismiss the possibility of his one day constituting the lesser of evils.
> 
> As such, I'm pretty good about staying out of his forum.  *But I'm tellin' ya, hardright anti-abortion rhetoric HURT y'all in the last election and you have every reason to suppose it would do so again.*


Not if you explain it from the liberty prism as opposed to clumsily falling back on the Bible or "God." The democrats haven't seen anyone like Rand Paul. I welcome the coming hysterics when they cry for the right for infanticide.

----------


## Rudeman

> Sperm is its own being.  They know how to swim & maneuver their way to the egg.  And gnaw on it until it gets its way in.  If you deny this potential then I think pulling out should be outlawed.  Don't deny the potential for life to be created at every corner.
> 
> And who is to say only human DNA matters?  Life beginning at conception is a slippery slope.  Now Peta gets involved.
> 
> Government should just $#@! off.  The pro-life movement seems very anti-woman to me.  It treats women as if they are broodmares for the state and nothing more.


Cells move as well, yet I guess that isn't life? $#@! they can use cells to create life as well.

How is it anti-woman? If we're going to have laws lets be consistent, and Ron said it best, if he ever made a mistake and killed an unborn child he would have been responsible. Either it's a life or it's not, being a woman is irrelevant. 


Not sure how to respond to the Peta stuff. Is there some sort of animal abortion issue?

----------


## AuH20

> I hate these stupid wedge issues.  Just when I was getting democrats on board this $#@! comes out.  lame.
> 
> The pendulum swings both ways...a state that makes abortion illegal can just as easily mandate abortion. * Government should not interfere with a family and their personal decisions.*


Agreed. But the real problem is that abortion is no longer taboo, thanks to a concerted effort by various elements in our schools, media and society. We don't need laws. We need SHAME! The democrats and their surrogate organizations treat the process of abortion like it's pulling up to the drive thru at a fast food restaurant. Whatever happened to "safe, legal and rare" as championed by the Clintons????????? That train left the station long ago.

----------


## Brett85

> Not if you explain it from the liberty prism as opposed to clumsily falling back on the Bible or "God." The democrats haven't seen anyone like Rand Paul. I welcome the coming hysterics when they cry for the right for infanticide.


Exactly.  You can frame the abortion issue in a way that actually resonates with people, rather than saying "a woman who gets raped shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion because it's part of God's will."

----------


## muh_roads

> What about a 3 year old who's mentally retarded?  They obviously have a very low IQ.  Shouldn't it be legal to kill them since those children are apparently too dumb to exist?


When I brought up IQ you were supposed to detect I was playing devils advocate.

Lets say the mental retardation is so bad that it is beyond affordable for the parents.  Should the government be allowed to forcibly take from you to keep the child going?

----------


## AuH20

> Exactly.  You can frame the abortion issue in a way that actually resonates with people, rather than saying "a woman who gets raped shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion because it's part of God's will."


"Colored people are like human weeds." 

Margaret Sanger 

Rand Paul could just read Margaret Sanger's quote collection during one of the debates and he would be fine.

----------


## Brett85

> When I brought up IQ you were supposed to detect I was playing devils advocate.
> 
> Lets say the mental retardation is so bad that it is beyond affordable for the parents.  Should the government be allowed to forcibly take from you to keep the child going?


No, but the parents shouldn't have the right to kill the child.  The point you seemed to be making was that a baby in the womb isn't a real human being simply because it has low IQ.  That just doesn't seem to be a valid argument to justfify legal abortion when many people who have been born have brain problems and a low IQ.

----------


## muh_roads

> Not if you explain it from the liberty prism as opposed to clumsily falling back on the Bible or "God." The democrats haven't seen anyone like Rand Paul. I welcome the coming hysterics when they cry for the right for infanticide.


It isn't crying for infanticide.  Quit viewing things in black and white.

What if the family that planned to have the child suddenly created serious complications for the mother.  They have the choice of either the mother dying or the child?

It is a touchy subject for sure, but this family requires two bread winners to make ends meet and they already have many children that need their mother.

Should you or the government get to decide for the husband if he can do it alone or not?  If that is the case now all of the existing children will suffer a lower quality of life because he can't afford them all.  And since she is a broodmare for the state I guess she gets no say in the matter.

This is why it should be a family decision.  Not the heavy hand of government or a "democracy" of people that feel they know what is best for others.

----------


## FriedChicken

I just saw my second kid today via ultrasound. Even saw its hands moving and its heart beating.
Our first ultrasound (this was only our second, to make sure it was in the proper position for birth) was to make certain my wife was pregnant (it was standard procedure) so my wife was very very early into the pregnancy ... 

in that first ultrasound there was no doubt it was a child. We actually saw it "roll over" - I couldn't believe what a little person it was ... and it was the size of a small bean or something. 
I can't remember how far she was and the actual size of it or whatever but it was amazing.

I think on a legislative level it might be best [possible to enforce, but not morally ideal] to say life begins [should be protected against 'murder'] at 3 weeks after conception.
Any abortion that would be performed during that time would only be chemical (morning after pill, contraception, etc.) (yes, birth control pills often cause unintended and most times unknown 'abortions') and it would put an end to a lot of the arguments people have in favor of abortion.

At three weeks there is no disputing the fact that the baby can feel pain, has its own dna code, has a heart beat ... who knows what else, probably even a gender. A lot happens in three weeks but I'm not going to take the time to google it right now.

My wife and I act on the assumption/belief that life begins at conception. However, I don't like laws that aren't enforceable so I think I favor the legal definition being 3 weeks after conception.

----------


## AuH20

> It isn't crying for infanticide.  Quit viewing things in black and white.
> 
> *What if the family that planned to have the child suddenly created serious complications for the mother.  They have the choice of either the mother dying or the child?
> *
> It is a touchy subject for sure, but this family requires two bread winners to make ends meet and they already have many children that need their mother.
> 
> Should you or the government get to decide for the husband if he can do it alone or not?  If that is the case now all of the existing children will suffer a lower quality of life because he can't afford them all.
> 
> This is why it should be a family decision.  Not the heavy hand of government or a "democracy" of people that feel they know what is best for others.


What is the real percentage for abortions that would fall under that category??? Under 5%?? Based off empirical data, most abortions are made for personal and economic reasons. Erase the mistake or in this case, deny the individual their life as well as 5th amendment rights as well. The victims don't even have a say in their own sentence.

----------


## muh_roads

> What is the real percentage for abortions that would fall under that category??? Under 5%??


If it is...so?

Lets say the economy gets so bad that 95% of the population becomes the entitlement class.  In a democracy they get say on robbing from the other 5%.  Is this fair?

----------


## AuH20

> If it is...so?
> 
> Lets say the economy gets so bad that 95% of the population becomes the entitlement class.  In a democracy they get say on robbing from the other 5%.  Is this fair?


What I'm sayin is that the "health complication" argument isn't representative of the majority of abotions performed in this country. It's a red herring. Yes, you can make a logical, compelling argument for mothers who's health is placed in jeopardy by a high risk pregnancy, but we're talking about a very tiny percentage. Most abortions are nuisance removals, when you cut through the propaganda. That's all. Humans will rationalize anything, so it's not exactly surprising that we arrived at this disturbing stage where abortion isn't considered a big deal. The mentality is more frightening than the fact that abortions are performed.

----------


## FriedChicken

> It isn't crying for infanticide.  Quit viewing things in black and white.
> 
> What if the family that planned to have the child suddenly created serious complications for the mother.  They have the choice of either the mother dying or the child?
> 
> It is a touchy subject for sure, but this family requires two bread winners to make ends meet and they already have many children that need their mother.
> 
> Should you or the government get to decide for the husband if he can do it alone or not?  If that is the case now all of the existing children will suffer a lower quality of life because he can't afford them all.
> 
> This is why it should be a family decision.  Not the heavy hand of government or a "democracy" of people that feel they know what is best for others.


In reality / moral grounds [I have given this so much thought it depresses me - I thought it through during my wife's first pregnancy] I'm fully aware that nothing can change the fact that the unborn child is OUR child. If it came to a choice between them and her I would choose her though - and, since I believe in God, I will be accountable for whatever sin I committed. 
My wife would selflessly give her life for the child's, but we've already talked it through and she knows where I stand.

Legally speaking? I use the somewhat flimsy and begging for loopholes argument of self defense.

That said ... not much is done in America to save both. From what I've read, researched and heard we could get on a flight to another part of the country (or Canada for cheaper rates) to have procedures performed that would be aimed at saving both lives.
I'm not aware of ANY emergency procedures where an abortion must be performed asap (as in within the hour) - in those type scenarios it is far enough along that a c-section is done.
This is my worst nightmare so I've done a great deal of thinking through how I would react and have had very long discussions with my wife about it.

----------


## muh_roads

> What I'm sayin is that the "health complication" argument isn't representative of the majority of abotions performed in this country. It's a red herring. Yes, you can make a logical, compelling argument for mothers who's health is placed in jeopardy by a high risk pregnancy, but we're talking about a very tiny percentage. Most abortions are nuisance removals, when you cut through the propaganda. That's all. Humans will rationalize anything, so it's not exactly surprising that we arrived at this disturbing stage where abortion isn't considered a big deal. The mentality is more frightening than the fact that abortions are performed.


Stay on topic.  Do you believe in respecting that small statistic?

----------


## AuH20

> Stay on topic.  Do you believe in respecting that small statistic?


Yes, if it's proven to be so. But for the other 95%. Absolutely not. I think whoever gets an abortion needs be shamed as opposed to thrown into a cell.

----------


## Pisces

I think this will help Rand win the votes of Midwestern white Catholics. These are voters that voted for Bush but didn't show up for Romney. People forget that Bush got more votes in 2004 than McCain or Romney did in their elections. He was also seen as much more of a social conservative than either Romney or McCain. You can't really say that he never acted on his pro-life views either. It was under his presidency that the partial-birth abortion ban was passed. That is probably the only rollback of abortion that has ever passed Congress since Roe vs. Wade. I think Bush's pro-life record is why he won Ohio twice. Many evangelicals and faithful Catholics in the Midwest would vote Democrat if it weren't for social issues. A good portion of the Reagan Democrats were blue collar voters that felt alienated by the Democrats leftist social and cultural views.

I don't think Rand or any Republican has a chance at winning California or New England anytime soon. Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are winnable for him, though.

----------


## FriedChicken

> Stay on topic.  Do you believe in respecting that small statistic?


Answering for myself, yes.
Do you think 95% of abortions should be stopped by the government ideally speaking? Or should abortions be performed for anyone who wishes them regardless of motivation?

----------


## muh_roads

> Yes, if it's proven to be so. But for the other 95%. Absolutely not. I think whoever gets an abortion needs be shamed as opposed to thrown into a cell.


Why is the baby's life less important than the mothers for that 5%?

----------


## supermario21

> I think this will help Rand win the votes of Midwestern white Catholics. These are voters that voted for Bush but didn't show up for Romney. People forget that Bush got more votes in 2004 than McCain or Romney did in their elections. He was also seen as much more of a social conservative than either Romney or McCain. You can't really say that he never acted on his pro-life views either. It was under his presidency that the partial-birth abortion ban was passed. That is probably the only rollback of abortion that has ever passed Congress since Roe vs. Wade. I think Bush's pro-life record is why he won Ohio twice. Many evangelicals and faithful Catholics in the Midwest would vote Democrat if it weren't for social issues. Many of the Reagan Democrats were blue collar voters that felt alienated by the Democrats leftist social and cultural views.
> 
> I don't think Rand or any Republican has a chance at winning California or New England anytime soon. Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are winnable for him, though.


Rand has many Pat Buchanan like qualities, and he should appeal to the industrial midwest, especially if the Dems do not have Hillary. Without the auto bailout, Obama would have likely lost Ohio. Paul's genuine personality will help him in the region and he won't come off like some rich guy who can't relate to anyone, as he dealt with middle (and lower-class) America every day in his professional life, especially in Kentucky. 

As you said, Bush did really well in these states. Heck, he only lost by .4 in Wisconsin, was within 3.5 in Michigan, and 2.5 in Pennsylvania.

----------


## AuH20

edit

----------


## FriedChicken

> Why is the baby's life less important than the mothers for that 5%?


The only argument I have is self defense, which I'm not completely convinced of - which is why I said I'll be accountable for whatever sin I've committed against my own child.

----------


## AuH20

> Why is the baby's life less important than the mothers for that 5%?


It's not less important, but it's a King Solomon like proposal. There is no right answer in that type of rare scenario.

----------


## James Madison

Bush out-performed McCain and Romney for the very simple reason that social conservatives made up a large chunk of the voting block back in 2000. Those people just died off, and we replaced them with a generation of wannabe Marxists.

----------


## supermario21

> Bush out-performed McCain and Romney for the very simple reason that social conservatives made up a large chunk of the voting block back in 2000. Those people just died off, and we replaced them with a generation of wannabe Marxists.


I would agree with you to an extent but these states have been losing population in general, and it is mostly younger people leaving. Also, the above stats I posted were from 2004. McCain and Romney did not inspire the base and therefore turnout was hurt. Romney's worst part of the state was south-central Ohio, fertile Republican ground, but they just didn't show up.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Oh, one of the perennial debates has sprung back to life on the forums!    I'm of the pro-life camp, but I feel this position needs better defending than what i"ve seen on the forums so far.  Until there's proof that life starts at conception, there will always be controversy about this.  If either side has evidence for their opinion that is new (that is, at most 2 years old) I'd like to see it.  Otherwise, I predict this thread will spiral around going nowhere like all the other abortion debates, and I'll just stay out. :/  Thanks!  ~hugs~

----------


## FriedChicken

Knowing what I think I know of Rand ...
this bill is probably for the best [politically speaking]. Its hard for me to really reconcile that (it seems that it would really hurt him in a general election) but I don't see Rand doing something willingly (not backed into a corner) that would hurt his election chances.

Who knows ...
He seems to be the poster boy lately framing how repubs approach issues - maybe he'll finally make a credible pro-life case that doesn't require you to believe in God and belong to a specific philosophy or denomination to understand, respect and appreciate.

I'm obviously pro-life (if you read what I've posted tonight) but I do face palm on occasion when I hear republican politicians try to defend their position.

----------


## FriedChicken

> Oh, one of the perennial debates has sprung back to life on the forums!    I'm of the pro-life camp, but I feel this position needs better defending than what i"ve seen on the forums so far.  Until there's proof that life starts at conception, there will always be controversy about this.  If either side has evidence for their opinion that is new (that is, at most 2 years old) I'd like to see it.  Otherwise, I predict this thread will spiral around going nowhere like all the other abortion debates, and I'll just stay out. :/  Thanks!  ~hugs~


I think I understand and agree with what you're saying (hard to be sure when its 1am and my brain is foggy).
What do you think about my proposal for everyone to agree that life begins and should be protected 3 weeks after conception? Seems a lot of what gets argued about would be eliminated, would be much more enforceable and would eliminated essentially all abortions (since before that time most just use morning after pills and don't get a procedure).

----------


## Pisces

> Rand has many Pat Buchanan like qualities, and he should appeal to the industrial midwest, especially if the Dems do not have Hillary. Without the auto bailout, Obama would have likely lost Ohio. Paul's genuine personality will help him in the region and he won't come off like some rich guy who can't relate to anyone, as he dealt with middle (and lower-class) America every day in his professional life, especially in Kentucky. 
> 
> As you said, Bush did really well in these states. Heck, he only lost by .4 in Wisconsin, was within 3.5 in Michigan, and 2.5 in Pennsylvania.


I also noticed that in the latest PPP Pennsylvania GOP primary poll, Santorum was doing better with women than Rand. I think Rand coming out strongly pro-life will help him improve his numbers with female Republicans. It's just my experience, but women who are conservative seem to put a higher priority on voting pro-life than conservative men. Married women also tend to vote more Republican than single women. I think becoming a mother has a lot to do with that.

----------


## Slutter McGee

> If your sperm has the potential to create life at any chance it can get...then should we mandate that you are allowed to impregnate any woman against their will?
> 
> I feel life begins in the balls.  Therefore every time you masturbate you are killing entire civilizations.  Shame on you.
> 
> I think the government should outlaw pulling out.


This has to be the most stupid statement I have ever seen. Are you really serious?  Conception means the sperm gets to the egg. Not that you masturbate.

Dude, I am actually pro-choice, but I recognize that both sides have an argument. Stop acting like a liberal which means stop pulling $#@! out of your ass and pretending it is an insult.

Use your brain.

----------


## I<3Liberty

I hate it when people make this into a dilemma. The answer ought to be: find a way to give women freedom of choice without harming the unborn. The solution might look more like this... http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/

----------


## Slutter McGee

> I hate it when people make this into a dilemma. The answer ought to be: find a way to give women freedom of choice without harming the unborn. The solution might look more like this... http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/


Did not follow the link. But an artifical womb would destroy most of the philsophical arguement.

----------


## muh_roads

> It's not less important, but it's a King Solomon  like proposal. There is no right answer in that type of rare  scenario.


Exactly.  Which is why it is pointless to try and stop all murder.   What if it is deemed that we need a drone in every house equipped with  cameras to stop all murder?

Would you like that?  In this  "Minority Report" alternate universe lets say, statistics show it  protects the most amount of life in the new world order...what is  trading away your privacy worth?

People should just mind their own business and worry about themselves.  This is a huge slippery slope that begins government dictating your life...once facet at a time.

----------


## muh_roads

> Bush out-performed McCain and Romney for the very simple reason that social conservatives made up a large chunk of the voting block back in 2000. Those people just died off, and we replaced them with a generation of wannabe Marxists.


I'm a Marxist because I want to make the tough choices for myself than rather allowing Government to do it for me?

The pro-choice libertarian is more consistent IMO.

----------


## muh_roads

> This has to be the most stupid statement I have ever seen. Are you really serious?  Conception means the sperm gets to the egg. Not that you masturbate.
> 
> Dude, I am actually pro-choice, but I recognize that both sides have an argument. Stop acting like a liberal which means stop pulling $#@! out of your ass and pretending it is an insult.
> 
> Use your brain.




The anger is strong in this one...lol.

Follow the rest of my posts to see where I was going with it.  Legislating God's will, will be next.  Pulling out is a sin to many after all.  You don't want the religious conservatives legislating this issue.  It will end badly.

My point is mind your own business and take care of yourself.  All you are going to do is help those that feel they are entitled to your stuff since the 95% (we'll just keep using this number) mostly do have abortions for economic reasons, yes.  I think these people should be respected for wanting to be financially responsible to take care of their own.  But if you take away their right to make their own decision.  They will come after you, hand extended outward and taken by force with government pointing a gun in your face to help them.

----------


## muh_roads

> I hate it when people make this into a dilemma. The answer ought to be: find a way to give women freedom of choice without harming the unborn. The solution might look more like this... http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/


Anti-choice men will reject this...lol  Many seem to think "it is the woman's fault" after all.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

A baby's right to life does not trump self-ownership, lest we create rights based on group identity. To say that a woman could not evict a fetus from her body is to say that the fetus has the right to be sheltered and cared for. Only two logical outcomes can follow, if we are to remain in the libertarian realm:

1. The fetus is not a human
2. All individuals possess the right for another person to shelter and care for them

Additionally, if we are to consider evicting - the mere removal of the fetus, not a chemical or instrumental act of aggression - a fetus murder, due to it not receiving the necessary conditions for life, then we must consider declining to feed a starving man murder.

----------


## mad cow

Does a two year old have a right to be sheltered and cared for?May a parent put her out on the highway in winter to fend for herself if she breaks a favorite vase,say?How about a six year old?Serious question.

If the answer is yes,how far back in time does this mandatory sheltering and caring extend?

If the answer is no,I don't want to know the answer.

----------


## Brett85

> Bush out-performed McCain and Romney for the very simple reason that social conservatives made up a large chunk of the voting block back in 2000. Those people just died off, and we replaced them with a generation of wannabe Marxists.


Not necessarily.  A lot of these people just haven't showed up to vote since then because they were disappointed with George W. Bush's Presidency and didn't see McCain and Romney as decent candidates.  Keep in mind that half of eligible voters don't even vote.  You don't necessarily have to win an election by trying to shift the pie, you can make the pie bigger by bringing in new voters who became disillusioned with politics.

----------


## No Free Beer

woohoo!

Rand Paul: The Baby Saving Superhero!!!!!

----------


## No Free Beer

> Ok, so we close down abortion clinics, then women who want abortions have to go to shady blackmarket clinics to get abortions. Some get infected and die, the women we catch we throw in prison for life.
> 
> Sounds great Rand.


So we pass laws that make it illegal for a human to take the life of another human, then people who want to kill other humans do it anyway. Some people get thrown in prison for life.

Sounds great BenIsForRon

----------


## cheapseats

> Bush out-performed McCain and Romney for the very simple reason that social conservatives made up a large chunk of the voting block back in 2000. Those people just died off...



Those people did not all "die off".  But the MAJORITY part of Moral Majority was ALLITERATION, not reality, and the MORAL part turned out to be both hyper-selective and ill-practiced.

The (apparently IMMORAL) majority got SICK of the noisy, hypocritical Moral Majority about the same time they got sick of Warhawk Gee Dub's FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES.

----------


## Brett85

The bottom line is that Rand at least has to take a hardcore socially conservative stance on this issue since he's deviating from the Republican Party line on issues like marriage and drugs.  You just can't adopt the Libertarian Party's platform and be able to win a GOP primary.  Rand has to run as a libertarian conservative who wants more tolerance on social issues but still wants to defend life, who wants less intervention overseas but still wants a strong national defense here at home.

----------


## matt0611

> The anger is strong in this one...lol.
> 
> *Follow the rest of my posts to see where I was going with it.  Legislating God's will, will be next.  Pulling out is a sin to many after all.  You don't want the religious conservatives legislating this issue.  It will end badly.*
> 
> My point is mind your own business and take care of yourself.  All you are going to do is help those that feel they are entitled to your stuff since the 95% (we'll just keep using this number) mostly do have abortions for economic reasons, yes.  I think these people should be respected for wanting to be financially responsible to take care of their own.  But if you take away their right to make their own decision.  They will come after you, hand extended outward and taken by force with government pointing a gun in your face to help them.


How bout this, I don't want my infant baby anymore so I kill it, I suffocated it and dumped it in the trash. You gonna come after me? You gonna make this illegal? Why? Its NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!

Its my baby, its my house, you can't tell me what to do in my house, its my privacy! "Respect my decisions" please!

I don't share your religious views and/or morals so stop shoving your morality down my throat!

Next you'll be telling me that I can't beat my wife either.

----------


## Christopholes11

The unborn fetus should not trump the rights of the living mother. The fetus is a guest of sorts living in the womb of the mother. If a woman decides she does not want to support the guest which relies totally on her for survival she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. I do agree that there needs to be a limit though. Perhaps to the point where the nervous system hasn't developed so the fetus can not feel pain, which is where the limit is now from what I understand. 




> Does a two year old have a right to be sheltered and cared for?May a parent put her out on the highway in winter to fend for herself if she breaks a favorite vase,say?How about a six year old?Serious question.


Yes a child must be cared for. If the mother doesn't want to care for it she should put it up for adoption. But by that point the child has left the womb of the mother. The mother has no right to abandon the child to die. Once the child is born she has a legal responsibility for it. The womb; however, is a part of the woman's body. The fetus is allowed to live there by her permission. The fetus has no right over the mother to live there.

----------


## matt0611

> The unborn fetus should not trump the rights of the living mother. The fetus is a guest of sorts living in the womb of the mother. If a woman decides she does not want to support the guest which relies totally on her for survival she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. I do agree that there needs to be a limit though. Perhaps to the point where the nervous system hasn't developed so the fetus can not feel pain, which is where the limit is now from what I understand. 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes a child must be cared for. If the mother doesn't want to care for it she should put it up for adoption. But by that point the child has left the womb of the mother.* The mother has no right to abandon the child to die. Once the child is born she has a legal responsibility for it*. The womb; however, is a part of the woman's body. The fetus is allowed to live there by her permission. The fetus has no right over the mother to live there.


That's just being arbitrary, you have responsibility to care for the child after birth but not before? 

No, *before and after* birth the mother has responsibility for the baby.

Just because the baby lives inside the mother before being born does not change the fact that its under her care. She cannot kill it just because its inside her, that is just arbitrary.

----------


## cheapseats

> That's just being arbitrary, you have responsibility to care for the child after birth but not before? 
> 
> No, *before and after* birth the mother has responsibility for the baby.



You, too, are decider-ing "truth".

----------


## matt0611

> You, too, are decider-ing "truth".


No, I'm being consistent. Life is life and just because a baby lives inside its mother does not give her the right to kill it.

Otherwise its just arbitrary.

----------


## Christopholes11

> No, I'm being consistent. Life is life and just because a baby lives inside its mother does not give her the right to kill it.
> 
> Otherwise its just arbitrary.


It's not arbitrary to me, just consistent with my position. I don't believe I, or the government, can tell anyone what they can and can't do to their own body. The fetus is a part of the woman's body. Therefore I do not feel I have the right to tell her what to do with the unborn fetus, nor does the government. I understand both sides here are approaching this from two different prospectives of liberty. I will grant you this, this liberty argument against abortion presented by the Pauls and on this forum is far more convincing than any religious argument so often presented by other politicians. I just don't quite agree with it.

----------


## MelissaWV

Two threads with the same argument going at the same time...

----------


## MaxPower

> To say that a woman could not evict a fetus from her body is to say that the fetus has the right to be sheltered and cared for. Only two logical outcomes can follow, if we are to remain in the libertarian realm:
> 
> 1. The fetus is not a human
> 2. All individuals possess the right for another person to shelter and care for them


How about this:
*"To say that the owner cannot electively evict passengers from his yacht and throw them into the open sea to drown is to say that the passengers have the right to be sheltered and cared for. Only two logical outcomes can follow, if we are to remain in the libertarian realm:
1. Yacht passengers are not human.
2. All individuals possess the right for another person to shelter and care for them."*

Of course, it is a false dichotomy. "All individuals" do not possess the right to be sheltered and cared for, but in the special case that you temporarily take a person onto your premises who does not have the option of voluntarily leaving and preserving his or her own life, and who you cannot evict without killing them in the same act, then yes, you have absolutely no right to evict them. 




> Additionally, if we are to consider evicting - the mere removal of the fetus, not a chemical or instrumental act of aggression - a fetus murder, due to it not receiving the necessary conditions for life, then we must consider declining to feed a starving man murder.


No, it would be more analogous to forcibly tearing a disabled person from his oxygen tubes so that he suffocates to death; "declining to feed a starving man" is entirely inactive. If you removed a man from a healthful state and forcibly, knowingly, actively placed him in a situation where he had no option but to starve to death (for example, inviting him into your house and then locking him in your cellar with no food or water for a week), it would absolutely be murder.

----------


## Brett85

> The fetus is a part of the woman's body.


No, it's inside the woman's body, not a part of it.  If a car is parked in a garage, you don't say that the car is part of the garage.

----------


## cheapseats

> Two threads with the same argument going at the same time...







> *Beating a Dead Horse*
> 
> To bring up an issue that has already been concluded. 
> 
> If an argument erupts, and it's one that has been *previously settled* in the past, then the idiom "beating a dead horse" might be said by someone who sees any further discussion on the topic as pointless.



That's what's so neat-o about wedge issues...they're NEVER settled.  They are among life's IMPONDERABLES = CANNOT UNDERGO PRECISE EVALUATION. 

No matter HOW many times ya go 'round this mulberry bush, THERE IT IS.  The "other side" can't NOT reply with HIJKLMN when the opposing "side" sez ABCDEFG, lest newcomers are unduly influenced by only one "side" being presented/pimped.

Sadly, these hopelessly divided "opposing sides" (read that, differing BELIEFS) are actually on the SAME side . . . which is, for quite awhile now, getting CREAMED by Ruling Elite.

----------


## matt0611

> It's not arbitrary to me, just consistent with my position. I don't believe I, or the government, can tell anyone what they can and can't do to their own body. The fetus is a part of the woman's body. Therefore I do not feel I have the right to tell her what to do with the unborn fetus, nor does the government. I understand both sides here are approaching this from two different prospectives of liberty. I will grant you this, this liberty argument against abortion presented by the Pauls and on this forum is far more convincing than any religious argument so often presented by other politicians. I just don't quite agree with it.


But I think the point where your argument falls apart is that: why are you saying its not right to tell someone what they can do in or with their own body but it is ok to tell them what they can do in their own house?

My house is my property and I don't believe anyone has the right to tell me what I can do inside of it until it comes to hurting another person.

I can't kill a person inside my body like I can't kill someone inside my house.

I agree someone can't tell you what to do with your own body except when it comes to killing an unborn baby inside of you.

----------


## Christopholes11

> No, it's inside the woman's body, not a part of it.  If a car is parked in a garage, you don't say that the car is part of the garage.


It's attached to the woman's body. It relies on the woman's body. Therefore it is a part of the woman's body in my opinion.




> But I think the point where your argument falls apart is that: why are you saying its not right to tell someone what they can do in or with their own body but it is ok to tell them what they can do in their own house?


I think the key here is I don't believe your legal rights begin until after you are born, not before. If we are to argue that the unborn fetus has legal rights then I still would argue the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus, until birth.

----------


## I<3Liberty

> Did not follow the link. But an artifical womb would destroy most of the philsophical arguement.


You're right. Basically any way to transfer a fetus or allow it to develop outside of another person's body until 24 weeks (at this point, it can survive outside the mother thanks to modern technology.)

The link I posted was to 100% effective contraceptives. Personally, I see the point where women have the choice of whether or not to get pregnant and a 100% effective contraceptive, this be the point of equality. Abortion isn't equality because (with all ethical argument about the unborn left aside) the mother has to endure great pain, discomfort, blood loss, and she always has a chance of infection, permanent damage, or death. Abortion doesn't establish equality for either the women or the unborn -- a safe 100% effective contraceptive will. The one featured in the link onyl costs $1 and is said to last 10 years (but, it can be reversed at any time with an additional injection.) This will end any dispute about the poor having access to contraceptives.

----------


## familydog

Huge mistake by Rand, politically speaking. He will be slaughtered with this if he makes it to the general election. What a let down after his filibuster and great speech at CPAC. 

Besides, the 14th Amendment itself is unconstitutional. He ought to know this. These kinds of bills just reinforce the Amendment's existence.

----------


## T.hill

> Huge mistake by Rand, politically speaking. He will be slaughtered with this if he makes it to the general election. What a let down after his filibuster and great speech at CPAC. 
> 
> Besides, the 14th Amendment itself is unconstitutional. He ought to know this. These kinds of bills just reinforce the Amendment's existence.


How exactly is the entire 14th amendment unconstitutional?

----------


## PaleoPaul

Viability is one thing, but conception?

----------


## Brett85

> Huge mistake by Rand, politically speaking. He will be slaughtered with this if he makes it to the general election. What a let down after his filibuster and great speech at CPAC. 
> 
> Besides, the 14th Amendment itself is unconstitutional. He ought to know this. These kinds of bills just reinforce the Amendment's existence.


It won't make any difference at all.  The Gallup poll shows that only 15% of pro choice voters would never vote for a pro life candidate.  Most voters aren't going to vote against a candidate for President just because he or she is opposed to baby killing.

----------


## Brett85

> Viability is one thing, but conception?


There's no difference.

----------


## MaxPower

> It's attached to the woman's body. It relies on the woman's body. Therefore it is a part of the woman's body in my opinion.


If you had a conjoined twin who was attached to an dependent on your body (*a real situation which does occur*), would he or she be a "part of your body" fit for elective killing?

----------


## Carlybee

State's issue..federal law needs to stay out of it.  It would also take the pressure off of people running for office at the national level to not have to address the issue in an official manner.  As long as politicians keep pandering to the holy roller ultra right they can kiss goodbye any moderates and/or libertarian votes. Most people I know are sick of Santorum-like morality police and whether one thinks so or not that is what this bill smacks of to many. If the GOP is headed even further right I hope Rand and others aren't counting heavily on the libertarian vote and it doesn't sound like they are.  You can't be against government intervention and for government intervention in the same sentence. Just my 2 cents.

----------


## PaleoPaul

> There's no difference.


Yes, there is.  Most times a woman can't even tell if she's pregnant for well over a month.  And you honestly think there's no difference between a baby that's just been conceived and one that's developed in the womb for three months?  Hell, even one month?

----------


## PaleoPaul

My problem with defining life at conception is that you'd be effectively outlawing Plan B and a host of other birth control pills.  Leave it at viability.  That's a good compromise.

And one I agree with.  Once the baby in the womb can start sensing things, you have no business getting an abortion.

----------


## muh_roads

> How bout this, I don't want my infant baby anymore so I kill it, I suffocated it and dumped it in the trash. You gonna come after me? You gonna make this illegal? Why? Its NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!
> 
> Its my baby, its my house, you can't tell me what to do in my house, its my privacy! "Respect my decisions" please!
> 
> I don't share your religious views and/or morals so stop shoving your morality down my throat!
> 
> Next you'll be telling me that I can't beat my wife either.


You impose a danger to society and other people if you demonstrate you can kill something that is self-aware outside of the womb.  I'm not an anarchist.  If it can think for its own outside of the womb, it deserves protection in a constitutional republic.  Any other scenario is a drain on society.  And you can't have it both ways, you either help pay for it or you stop telling others what is best for them.

The most ideal scenario is that the income tax is abolished and charity is greatly increased...giving the poor somewhere to go whenever they need it.  But we don't live in that system.

Because it is tethered to vital systems in a woman before being born, it is property of the parents and not government or a gaggling democracy of retards that only think in black & white.  Sorry if you don't like this cold hard fact about the baby practically being a tumor in the womb, but it is true.  It is connected to the female vital systems and therefore the woman (and husband) should always have ultimate say.

----------


## Brett85

> My problem with defining life at conception is that you'd be effectively outlawing Plan B and a host of other birth control pills.  Leave it at viability.  That's a good compromise.
> 
> And one I agree with.  Once the baby in the womb can start sensing things, you have no business getting an abortion.


The Morning after pill simply prevents conception from happening, it doesn't cause an abortion.  Rand has said that he wants the morning after pill to be legal.

----------


## FriedChicken

> The Morning after pill simply prevents conception from happening, it doesn't cause an abortion.  Rand has said that he wants the morning after pill to be legal.


Not always the case, sometimes it does cause very early, most times even unknown to the parents, miscarriages. 
Same is actually true for contraception pills.

Which really is part of why I think its more pragmatic to set the law on the books at 3 weeks past conception. Because a lot of the people on the pill do no know if they have ended an early pregnancy or not and I can't imagine a way for government to enforce the law without becoming very intrusive.

----------


## matt0611

> You impose a danger to society and other people if you demonstrate you can kill something that is self-aware outside of the womb.  I'm not an anarchist.  If it can think for its own outside of the womb, it deserves protection in a constitutional republic.  Any other scenario is a drain on society.  And you can't have it both ways, you either help pay for it or you stop telling others what is best for them.
> 
> The most ideal scenario is that the income tax is abolished and charity is greatly increased...giving the poor somewhere to go whenever they need it.  But we don't live in that system.
> 
> Because it is tethered to vital systems in a woman before being born, it is property of the parents and not government or a gaggling democracy of retards that only think in black & white.  Sorry if you don't like this cold hard fact about the baby practically being a tumor in the womb, but it is true.  It is connected to the female vital systems and therefore the woman (and husband) should always have ultimate say.


Just because someone is relying on you for support does not give you the right to kill it. 

These argument are so weak and fall apart easily because you can apply them to an infant:

"you either help pay for it or you stop telling others what is best for them."

Well you either help pay for my infant or I'm going to kill it. I can use the same argument with an infant. 

An infant relies on its mother to take care of it, its *completely* dependent on the mother for years after its born but its still wrong to kill it. 

Yes, sorry, but I live in morals and I believe that murdering your unborn baby is wrong and is just as bad as murdering your infant.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not always the case, sometimes it does cause very early, most times even unknown to the parents, miscarriages. 
> Same is actually true for contraception pills.
> 
> Which really is part of why I think its more pragmatic to set the law on the books at 3 weeks past conception. Because a lot of the people on the pill do no know if they have ended an early pregnancy or not and I can't imagine a way for government to enforce the law without becoming very intrusive.


Is it intended to cause an abortion though?  Is that its primary effect?  Or is it intended to stop conception from happening, but occasionally causes an abortion by accident?

If the intent isn't to have an abortion, I'd say you can't have any rights until you are actually alive (Meaning "Concieved") so if the pill was designed to prevent the non-existant fetus from being created, than that should be legally acceptable.  The fetus doesn't have any rights until it exists.

----------


## familydog

> How exactly is the entire 14th amendment unconstitutional?


Article V of the Constitution explains how amendments can be added. The seceded states were excluded from representation in Congress, but were used to ratify the amendments. They were also threatened with more war had they not voted to ratify them. Both of these situations clearly violate Article V of the Constitution. The same can be said for the 13th Amendment.

----------


## familydog

> It won't make any difference at all.  The Gallup poll shows that only 15% of pro choice voters would never vote for a pro life candidate.  Most voters aren't going to vote against a candidate for President just because he or she is opposed to baby killing.


You are not factoring in the power of negative ads appealing to emotion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Article V of the Constitution explains how amendments can be added. The seceded states were excluded from representation in Congress, but were used to ratify the amendments. They were also threatened with more war had they not voted to ratify them. Both of these situations clearly violate Article V of the Constitution. The same can be said for the 13th Amendment.


In all seriousness though, do we really want to repeal them?  Why?

----------


## familydog

> In all seriousness though, do we really want to repeal them?  Why?


Did the you know that the formation of West Virginia, Kentucky, and even Maine was unconstitutional? The unconstitutional creation of certain states and the ratification of certain amendments is inconsequential at this point in history. However, _if_ "we" are to follow the Constitution, as Rand and Ron say, we ought to at least actually follow it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Did the you know that the formation of West Virginia, Kentucky, and even Maine was unconstitutional? The unconstitutional creation of certain states and the ratification of certain amendments is inconsequential at this point in history. However, _if_ "we" are to follow the Constitution, as Rand and Ron say, we ought to at least actually follow it.


I knew West Virginia was unconstitutional...  Philosophically I feel like WV had the right to secede from Virginia in exactly the same way that Virginia had a right to secede from the US.  The constitutiton didn't recognize this, however.  Didn't know about the others.

----------


## supermario21

> I knew West Virginia was unconstitutional...  Philosophically I feel like WV had the right to secede from Virginia in exactly the same way that Virginia had a right to secede from the US.  The constitutiton didn't recognize this, however.  Didn't know about the others.



Come to think of it, it would be electorally advantageous for Virginia to revert to 1 state.

----------


## Christian Liberty

As much as I despise Lincoln for all of what he really stood for, I'm really quite happy that slavery is illegal throughout the United States and that black people are allowed to vote everywhere in the United States.  We got a lot of awful stuff out of that as well, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

----------


## muh_roads

> Just because someone is relying on you for support does not give you the right to kill it. 
> 
> These argument are so weak and fall apart easily because you can apply them to an infant:
> 
> "you either help pay for it or you stop telling others what is best for them."
> 
> Well you either help pay for my infant or I'm going to kill it. I can use the same argument with an infant. 
> 
> An infant relies on its mother to take care of it, its *completely* dependent on the mother for years after its born but its still wrong to kill it. 
> ...


Already said outside of the womb it is murder.

Why is the mothers life any less important than the unborn?

Worry about yourself and less about others.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Already said outside of the womb it is murder.


Which is an arbitrary distinction.  The newborn still requires the support of his parents.

I understand why some people say "Viability."  Walter Block's eviction argument actually makes sense.  I don't agree with it, but at least it isn't completely arbitrary.  "Birth" is entirely arbitrary and therefore idiotic.



> Why is the mothers life any less important than the unborn?


Irrelevant.  95% of pro-lifers (Rough estimate, and including myself) would accept any actual case where the mother's life is in danger as a type of self-defense.  Not so for abortion for convenience or even because of rape or incest, none of which should be legal.




> Worry about yourself and less about others.


Indeed.  Hence why I think all drugs, prostitution, machine guns, polygamy, exc. should be legal.  None of them are crimes that have an actual victim (Owning a machine gun isn't a vice either, but I'm disgressing.)  None of them should be illegal because there's no victim.  Abortion has a victim, an innocent child that the abortionist murdered.  As such, the abortionist should be put to death, the woman AND the doctor.

----------


## robert68

My guess is Rand opposes Jury Nullification.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> My guess is Rand opposes Jury Nullification.


I still support it.  More good would come of it than bad.

If I were President I'd just pardon anti-abortion vigilantes.  That's something the President can actually do unilaterally and it would place abortionists in absolute terror.  It would be a far stronger assault on abortion in this country than any traditional political technique.  I'll never be President though, for that reason and many others.

Long run, however, AuH20 is correct.  SHAME will do far more to kill abortion than any law.

----------


## tttppp

> Which is an arbitrary distinction.  The newborn still requires the support of his parents.
> 
> I understand why some people say "Viability."  Walter Block's eviction argument actually makes sense.  I don't agree with it, but at least it isn't completely arbitrary.  "Birth" is entirely arbitrary and therefore idiotic.
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  95% of pro-lifers (Rough estimate, and including myself) would accept any actual case where the mother's life is in danger as a type of self-defense.  Not so for abortion for convenience or even because of rape or incest, none of which should be legal.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Hence why I think all drugs, prostitution, machine guns, polygamy, exc. should be legal.  None of them are crimes that have an actual victim (Owning a machine gun isn't a vice either, but I'm disgressing.)  None of them should be illegal because there's no victim.  Abortion has a victim, an innocent child that the abortionist murdered.  As such, the abortionist should be put to death, the woman AND the doctor.




How do you determine if a mother's life is in danger? You have to get a doctor to sign off on that. Well there are tons of cases doctors cant diagnose, so you would be subjecting many mothers to danger.

----------


## anaconda

One reader's comment seemed compelling:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/1...tlaw-abortion/

_"Rand Paul has obviously never actually read the U.S. Constitution, and specifically the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

A "fetal personhood (sic) bill" would not change the fact that the 14th Amendment defines citizens as only those who are "born or naturalized in the United States". Fetuses do not qualify, since they are not born at all, much less "born in the U.S.A." Fetuses cannot be naturalized, as the naturalization process requires not only a test of English and U.S. civics but an Oath of Citizenship, and requires the candidate to be 18 years old or older.

Due process of law obviously refers to the rulings on the SCOTUS in cases such as Roe v. Wade. Abortion is a legal process, pregnant women are (typically) citizens and their rights are protected whereas the "rights" of a blastocyst or a fetus are non-existent.

This is not only the case in civil law in the U.S., but in "God's Law" for alleged Believers.

Exodus Chapter 21 clearly describes God's "Judgement" (KJV), "Law" (NIV), "Ordinance" (Tanach & Catholic Standard), "Legal Decision" (GW) or "Statute" (Septuagint) in the only place in the Bible that defines the legal status of an unborn child. God says an unborn child is Not a Life. God says killing an unborn child is Not Murder. For a Believer to claim otherwise (i.e. that an unborn child is a Life or that killing an unborn child is Murder) is an act of Blasphemy and of placing themselves as a higher judge than God."
_

----------


## Christian Liberty

> One reader's comment seemed compelling:
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/1...tlaw-abortion/
> 
> _"Rand Paul has obviously never actually read the U.S. Constitution, and specifically the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."
> 
> A "fetal personhood (sic) bill" would not change the fact that the 14th Amendment defines citizens as only those who are "born or naturalized in the United States". Fetuses do not qualify, since they are not born at all, much less "born in the U.S.A." Fetuses cannot be naturalized, as the naturalization process requires not only a test of English and U.S. civics but an Oath of Citizenship, and requires the candidate to be 18 years old or older.
> ...


Not sure where you're finding that in Exodus 21, but you're correct that a Federal law isn't constitutional.  Hence why barring an amendment it should be state-level.

----------


## MrGoose

I feel like arguing for Rand on this issue would be the same as democrats trying to justify Obama's stance on drones, gay marriage (before he changed his mind), and NDAA indefinite detention.

----------


## Brett85

> How do you determine if a mother's life is in danger? You have to get a doctor to sign off on that. Well there are tons of cases doctors cant diagnose, so you would be subjecting many mothers to danger.


There is no perfect solution, but banning abortion would still be better than allowing over 1 million babies to be murdered every single year.

----------


## Brett85

> I feel like arguing for Rand on this issue would be the same as democrats trying to justify Obama's stance on drones, gay marriage (before he changed his mind), and NDAA indefinite detention.


Why?  Libertarians have always been divided on the abortion issue.  Many libertarians believe in defending both life and liberty.  Indeed, the government exists to defend life, liberty, and property.

----------


## MrGoose

> Why?  Libertarians have always been divided on the abortion issue.  Many libertarians believe in defending both life and liberty.  Indeed, the government exists to defend life, liberty, and property.


I suppose. I guess it's not as bad as I originally thought. Millions really believe that abortion is murder. My only beef is that it would most certainly lead women to back ally abortions and whatnot. Like what is said before, it'll reel in social conservatives.

----------


## Brett85

> My only beef is that it would most certainly lead women to back ally abortions and whatnot.


That's what the abortion rights advocates always claim, but what actual proof is there that there was widespread illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade?  I've never seen anyone actually present any evidence that proves that claim.

----------


## osan

> From a press release -



Not only boo-hiss - this is career suicide if he has oval office aspirations.

NOT smart.

That aside, need I point out that compared with the great raft of real issues we have standing before us, that this is such a non-issue?  This indicates to me that Rand Paul is not adept at prioritizing at the very least.  It could indicate something far darker and more threatening as well.

How about we get this out of control "government" mob on a very tight leash first?

How about dismantling the Fed and returning us to actual money?

How about extricating ourselves from all formal foreign entanglements?

How about putting this nation on a REAL free market footing?

How about putting our foreign trade agreements in their graves, in perpetuity?

How about we slam the living hell out of Chinese imports with countervailing tariffs until such time as China abandons their slave labor economy?

How about putting ends to our wars of foreign aggression?

How about deballing the military industrial complex?

How about ending the taxation state?

How about dismantling the defacto fascist state?

How about limiting ALL elected and appointed terms to ONE, from president on down to dog catcher?

How about establishing actual, real-deal private property protections?

How about ending the drug war?

How about eliminating all crimes mala prohibita?

How about eliminating all forcibly funded social programs?

How about instituting restrictions, regulations, accountability, and grave punishments for all "government" employees who violate human rights in the course of their official duties?

How about eliminating all governmental immunities?

How about dismantling every police force in the nation and getting back to sheriffs as the only peace officers?

We could go on down the list for a ways yet, but perhaps the point is made?

Abortion is a BULL$#@! non-issue when compared with even the least of the real issues I have listed above and the fact that Rand Paul has chosen to focus on this utter nonsense is one of the reasons I do not trust him and do not esteem him even 10% as highly as I do his father.

Is this nonsense bill the result of an astounding lack of common sense?  Is it pandering, in which case he can go scratch in my book?  Has he been bought off as a controlled opposition element?

Anybody not finding this worrisome is missing something important... like maybe brains.

----------


## anaconda

> Not sure where you're finding that in Exodus 21, but you're correct that a Federal law isn't constitutional.  Hence why barring an amendment it should be state-level.


1) I don't know about the biblical quote. I just copy-and-pasted the commenter's comment. I also included the link.

2) If a federal law isn't constitutional, how can the states enact such a law?

Thanks.

----------


## osan

> Ok, so we close down abortion clinics, then women who want abortions have to go to shady blackmarket clinics to get abortions. Some get infected and die, the women we catch we throw in prison for life.


No, they will go to MX and Canada... or Europe.  Then what?  Enact the "Check The $#@! Of Every American Woman Leaving The USA Act" to make sure every pregger returns that way or with a child who will then be DNA tested to ensure it is a match to the mother?

The more one peels this onion the more immeasurably stupid it becomes.




> Sounds great Rand.


You surely got that part right.  It is this brand of idiocy and the fact that it arises EVERY TIME at just the right moment that leaves me wondering about just how it is that the world actually works.  That wonderment also leaves me with this terribly uneasy feeling about the prospects for humanity's future.

Until I see something substantially more impressive from Rand Paul than his little filibuster gag, he is nothing to me.  Now, if perchance he wants to call me for lunch - I will buy - and explain to me in great detail a long term strategy that makes sense and wherein stunts like this idiotic bill actually make some rational sense, I may be moved to change my opinion.  I won't be holding my breath for that call.  And he can get my number any time he wants it.  All he has to do is ask Thomas Massie for it.  Until then, I remain skeptical with a bent toward dismissal, but I will do what I can to retain an open mind.  I do, after all, have a fair to middling understanding of the subtleties of strategy.

----------


## Brett85

> That aside, need I point out that compared with the great raft of real issues we have standing before us, that this is such a non-issue?  This indicates to me that Rand Paul is not adept at prioritizing at the very least.  It could indicate something far darker and more threatening as well.


If you're someone who believes that abortion is murder, then there can't be any issue more important than this.

Ending this is pretty important.

http://www.wrtl.org/abortion/pictures.aspx#abortionpics

----------


## tttppp

> There is no perfect solution, but banning abortion would still be better than allowing over 1 million babies to be murdered every single year.



So its ok for the mother to die? Why not focus on things that would actually reduce abortion, like reducing years in school and getting kids to support themselves earlier in life? It does not help the abortion rate when college graduates cant even support themselves. You can reduce abortion without any regulations.

----------


## Brett85

> So its ok for the mother to die? Why not focus on things that would actually reduce abortion, like reducing years in school and getting kids to support themselves earlier in life? It does not help the abortion rate when college graduates cant even support themselves. You can reduce abortion without any regulations.


The doctor can sign a written note allowing an abortion whenever there's a significant chance the mother could die from giving birth.  The things that you mentioned wouldn't put a dent in the abortion rate.

----------


## muzzled dogg

What a waste

----------


## Brett85

> What a waste


Yeah, I know.  All of those wasted lives of people who could've grown up and cured cancer, could've become the next President of the United States, could've become a leader of a charity that helps millions of poor people, and so much more.  What a waste of human life.

----------


## CMoore

Here is the problem I have with any law such as this one:  It is impossible to know exactly when "conception" occurs.  Our science is just not there yet.  At some point in a pregnancy, we can say that a woman is for sure pregnant, but that is days after "conception".  If a woman has not had intercourse for, oh, say, 28 days or so, we can almost say for sure she is or is not pregnant.  Anything in between, it is impossible to know with the technology we possess now.  So laws that talk about "conception" as some sort of bench mark make no sense.  Rand being a physician, I am surprised he would go down this road.

----------


## Brett85

> Here is the problem I have with any law such as this one:  It is impossible to know exactly when "conception" occurs.  Our science is just not there yet.  At some point in a pregnancy, we can say that a woman is for sure pregnant, but that is days after "conception".  If a woman has not had intercourse for, oh, say, 28 days or so, we can almost say for sure she is or is not pregnant.  Anything in between, it is impossible to know with the technology we possess now.  So laws that talk about "conception" as some sort of bench mark make no sense.  Rand being a physician, I am surprised he would go down this road.


I think this is why Rand believes the Morning After Pill should be legal, because most likely conception hasn't actually occurred the morning after sex.  But, there isn't any situation where a woman actually gets an abortion at an abortion clinic within 3-4 days of being pregnant.  No one can find out they're pregnant that quickly and then get in that quickly to get an abortion.  So passing a law that closes down every abortion clinic in the U.S would be a just law.  Every single abortion that is performed at an abortion clinic kills an innocent human being.

----------


## FriedChicken

> I think this is why Rand believes the Morning After Pill should be legal, because most likely conception hasn't actually occurred the morning after sex.  But, there isn't any situation where a woman actually gets an abortion at an abortion clinic within 3-4 days of being pregnant.  No one can find out they're pregnant that quickly and then get in that quickly to get an abortion.  So passing a law that closes down every abortion clinic in the U.S would be a just law.  Every single abortion that is performed at an abortion clinic kills an innocent human being.



I think that argument needs to be made more, it is close but slightly different than the conception basis for a law and it would eliminate most of the scenarios people use to justify keeping it legal. Just seems more effective and easy to explain I guess.

----------


## FriedChicken

> I suppose. I guess it's not as bad as I originally thought. Millions really believe that abortion is murder. My only beef is that it would most certainly lead women to back ally abortions and whatnot. Like what is said before, it'll reel in social conservatives.


I agree with you about back ally abortions and Ron has actually said several times that many abortions were actually carried out in hospitals by professionals who just changed around some of the paperwork to claim the operation to be something else. So I think regardless of law the act will continue.

However I still think it should be illegal just because I'm one of those that sees the unborn as its own individual person and should be protected from violent attacks and that those who would "attack" it should be punished. 

The morality of society needs to change in order for abortions to be reduced/eliminated. 
Honestly ... I think a more free society would lead to being a much more responsible, informed and charitable society and that in and of itself would probably decrease abortions.

----------


## tttppp

> The doctor can sign a written note allowing an abortion whenever there's a significant chance the mother could die from giving birth.  The things that you mentioned wouldn't put a dent in the abortion rate.




The things I mentioned would make a biggrr dent in the abortion rate than banning it. Additionally, you have never been to a doctor before. There are tons of conditions that patients notice that doctors cant diagnose. That we will allow abortions incase of harm to the mother is bull$#@!. If a doctor doesnt see something, the mother is $#@!ed.

----------


## Todd

Funny some of the responses in this thread about this subject.  When Ron introduced the same legislation....crickets.  Now Rand does and people threaten to bolt.  LOL.

----------


## jmdrake

> This is exactly what happens too. My girlfriend is from Brazil and this is what happens there. It's awful.


Women in America die at the clinics as far higher rates than you would imagine.

----------


## Carlybee

People will just go to Mexico or some back alley and get unsafe abortions. It will not stop abortions, it will just fill up jails with those who get caught. I remember when they were illegal in Texas and girls went over the border to New Mexico to get them.  Teenagers are more scared of telling their parents they are pregnant than the thought of a murder conviction. But lets ignore reality.

----------


## CMoore

I would be interested in knowing how many of the people responding to this thread are young women of child bearing years and who are capable of becoming pregnant at this time.

----------


## ProvincialPeasant

It's funny how libertarians are so purist except on certain inconvenient topics, especially abortion. Who'd imagine that libertarians would become pragmatists when it comes to abortion (and pretty much only abortion)? Come on, just admit it, you'd prefer to hold a popular view rather than apply libertarian principles consistently (i.e. murder is a crime). Be consistent and at least say you want to decriminalise homicide because all it does it fill up jails.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> People will just go to Mexico or some back alley and get unsafe abortions. It will not stop abortions, it will just fill up jails with those who get caught. I remember when they were illegal in Texas and girls went over the border to New Mexico to get them.  Teenagers are more scared of telling their parents they are pregnant than the thought of a murder conviction. But lets ignore reality.


First of all, I, personally, do not support imprisonment for abortion, or virtually anything other than solely to keep the public safe from someone who is likely to reoffend*.  I support the death penalty for murder if the evidence is clear-cut.  While this is unlikely to happen to anyone after abortion is made illegal, there are tons of abortion doctors in this country who have already admitted to what they do, and clearly under no threat of duress.  If I became dictator tomorrow** I'd have them all tried and executed.  

If the  evidence is less clear cut, but still enough to get a conviction exile is probably a better option than prison.  Prison makes sense for those who murder outside the womb because they are a danger to the public.  The reality right now, however, is that an abortionist is not a danger to people outside the womb in most cases, and there are plenty of jurisdictions where abortion is legalized.  So exile them.  If these are state level laws, send them to a pro-choice state, or if the entire nation became pro-life, send them to a pro-choice country.  Tell them that if they return, the law will not protect them and killing them no longer carries a penalty.

I don't want to waste a ton of money on prisons either.

*I understand those who say "Public safety" isn't really a thing.  I get that argument.  Even still, if somebody commits an armed robbery, and is tried and convicted of it, I think its OK to lock him up for a period of time so he can't hurt anyone else.  However, the true punishment for his actions should still be working to compensate the victim.  In non-violent theft cases, that work could be probably done outside prison, while in violent crime cases it would probably be done in prison, but it should still be done.

** Note that I am not condoning dictatorship here in any way.  I couldn't say "President" here becasue political reality shows that I could not do this as President.  So basically it was a way of saying "If it was up to me..."  Congress would not allow it. I could, however, pardon vigilante attacks on abortion doctors, and I would pardon all such people.






> The doctor can sign a written note allowing an abortion whenever there's a significant chance the mother could die from giving birth.  The things that you mentioned wouldn't put a dent in the abortion rate.


I don't know if that's entirely true.  Granted, low incomes and having a child while in school are no excuse for abortion, but there is a corrolation between them and abortion.  Granted, I still think abortion should be illegal but there might be something to be said for shortening school and so forth (I personally think gov. schools waste a ton and should all be privatized.  If the government wants to ensure everyone gets an education, use vouchers or some other way of doing it.)



> Here is the problem I have with any law such as this one:  It is impossible to know exactly when "conception" occurs.  Our science is just not there yet.  At some point in a pregnancy, we can say that a woman is for sure pregnant, but that is days after "conception".  If a woman has not had intercourse for, oh, say, 28 days or so, we can almost say for sure she is or is not pregnant.  Anything in between, it is impossible to know with the technology we possess now.  So laws that talk about "conception" as some sort of bench mark make no sense.  Rand being a physician, I am surprised he would go down this road.


It may be that you cannot prove conception at the moment of conception, but that doesn't mean there's no life.



> I think this is why Rand believes the Morning After Pill should be legal, because most likely conception hasn't actually occurred the morning after sex.  But, there isn't any situation where a woman actually gets an abortion at an abortion clinic within 3-4 days of being pregnant.  No one can find out they're pregnant that quickly and then get in that quickly to get an abortion.  So passing a law that closes down every abortion clinic in the U.S would be a just law.  Every single abortion that is performed at an abortion clinic kills an innocent human being.


Yeah, this.




> Funny some of the responses in this thread about this subject.  When Ron introduced the same legislation....crickets.  Now Rand does and people threaten to bolt.  LOL.


Ron did want to define life as beginning at conception, but I'm pretty sure he wanted the states to set the penalty... if any...  I think Rand wants the procedure banned nationwide.  Rand is also a compromise in other respects besides this one.  Granted, I still support Rand.  If I were going to oppose him on anything, it would be his iffy foreign policy.  But he's still better than anyone else of any relevance so I'm behind him.

----------


## FriedChicken

> People will just go to Mexico or some back alley and get unsafe abortions. It will not stop abortions, it will just fill up jails with those who get caught. I remember when they were illegal in Texas and girls went over the border to New Mexico to get them.  Teenagers are more scared of telling their parents they are pregnant than the thought of a murder conviction. But lets ignore reality.


I don't think anyone has ignored that, in fact more than one poster, including myself, specifically pointed that out.
However ... it isn't a justification for a violent act against an individual. In my opinion an unborn child is an individual same as a 1hr old[after birth] child is an individual.

You're correct in your point that more needs to change in society to actually stop abortions (not just criminalize them), but you're not the first to say so. So you're incorrect in suggesting that the pro-lifers in the thread are ignoring reality.

----------


## Carlybee

> It's funny how libertarians are so purist except on certain inconvenient topics, especially abortion. Who'd imagine that libertarians would become pragmatists when it comes to abortion (and pretty much only abortion)? Come on, just admit it, you'd prefer to hold a popular view rather than apply libertarian principles consistently (i.e. murder is a crime). Be consistent and at least say you want to decriminalise homicide because all it does it fill up jails.


My beef is making it a federal crime and putting a definition of the beginning of life in the Constitution. I'm sure there were abortions in the founders days but they felt no reason to give the federal government the power to determine when life begins or when it doesn't.  The introduction of this bill is basically legislating morality. Even Ron's similar bill had language leaving it to the states.

----------


## Brett85

> The things I mentioned would make a biggrr dent in the abortion rate than banning it. Additionally, you have never been to a doctor before. There are tons of conditions that patients notice that doctors cant diagnose. That we will allow abortions incase of harm to the mother is bull$#@!. If a doctor doesnt see something, the mother is $#@!ed.


Ron said that in all his years in medical practice, he never saw a case where the woman needed to get an abortion in order to save her own life.  95% of abortions occur for convenience reasons only; they have nothing to do with any medical problem the woman has.  Let's at least start there and end those 95% of abortions.

----------


## Brett85

> I would be interested in knowing how many of the people responding to this thread are young women of child bearing years and who are capable of becoming pregnant at this time.


I'd like to know why that makes any difference.

----------


## Carlybee

It won't end abortions. It will only criminalize them. Therefore it's stupid.

----------


## FriedChicken

Abortions probably kill just as many men as they do women. I don't see that the argument should only take place amongst one of either genders.

----------


## Brett85

> It won't end abortions. It will only criminalize them. Therefore it's stupid.


Laws against murder don't end murder.  It just criminalizes it.  Therefore we should repeal all laws against murder.

----------


## FriedChicken

> It won't end abortions. It will only criminalize them. Therefore it's stupid.


I disagree. 
I consider it more stupid to say that laws against murder won't end murder, only criminalize it and then use that as justification to make murder a legal act.

Unless you can prove that an unborn individual some how belongs to another species or that it is guilty of some type of crime deserving capital punishment (and in this case needs to have due process) than it should be considered a degree of murder to end its life intentionally outside of self defense.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> It's funny how libertarians are so purist except on certain inconvenient topics, especially abortion. Who'd imagine that libertarians would become pragmatists when it comes to abortion (and pretty much only abortion)? Come on, just admit it, you'd prefer to hold a popular view rather than apply libertarian principles consistently (i.e. murder is a crime). Be consistent and at least say you want to decriminalise homicide because all it does it fill up jails.


Begging the question.  Your premise presupposes that the unborn fetus has the right to life.  A point of great philosophical contention.  Just admit you are constantly begging the question by asserting something as fact that is not.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I disagree. 
> I consider it more stupid to say that laws against murder won't end murder, only criminalize it and then use that as justification to make murder a legal act.
> 
> Unless you can prove that an unborn individual some how belongs to another species or that it is guilty of some type of crime deserving capital punishment (and in this case needs to have due process) than it should be considered a degree of murder to end its life intentionally outside of self defense.


Stop comparing murder and abortion.  They are not the same.  Abortion can be done without anyone outside of the mother ever becoming aware that the potential life existed.  This is never true of murder.  You might view it as a type of murder, but its a non sequitur to act like its no different than murder that is universally accepted as such.

There are abortion pills that cost $45 bucks.  And you think laws will stop it?  Just like they stopped people from consuming other drugs?

----------


## jmdrake

> Stop comparing murder and abortion.  They are not the same.  Abortion can be done without anyone outside of the mother ever becoming aware that the potential life existed.  This is never true of murder.  You might view it as a type of murder, but its a non sequitur to act like its no different than murder that is universally accepted as such.


So if mother who's hidden her pregnancy, delivers a baby, kills it and stuffs it in a trashcan has not committed murder because no-one else knew about it?   How long does the "It's only a life if someone else knows about it" exception extend?  Days?  Weeks?  Months?  Years?




> There are abortion pills that cost $45 bucks.  And you think laws will stop it?  Just like they stopped people from consuming other drugs?


As explained earlier, arguably those pills can work prior to conception.  And Rand has previously stated support for the morning after pill.  Personally I think the sooner the "choice" is made not to have a baby the better (the ultimate choice of course is made before having sex).  If a change in the law caused "Plan B" to be the primary form of "abortion" or even RU-486, that would be fine with me.  That early you don't have a heartbeat or brainwaves etc.

----------


## Carlybee

> Laws against murder don't end murder.  It just criminalizes it.  Therefore we should repeal all laws against murder.



Depends on your definition of murder and a lot of people do not and will not ever consider the aborting of a barely fertilized embryo as murder whether you like it or not.  This bill is little more than pandering.  I agree with all of Rand's stances on most liberty issues, but giving the federal government the power to determine when life is viable is an overreach.  What happens when a Dem majority is in and they decide that old people do NOT deserve life saving medical care?  If they have the power to determine who lives and who dies, what is to say something like this couldn't be expanded to include people whose "useful life" is over.  Nyet, nay, no.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> So if mother who's hidden her pregnancy, delivers a baby, kills it and stuffs it in a trashcan has not committed murder because no-one else knew about it?   How long does the "It's only a life if someone else knows about it" exception extend?  Days?  Weeks?  Months?  Years?
> 
> As explained earlier, arguably those pills can work prior to conception.  And Rand has previously stated support for the morning after pill.  Personally I think the sooner the "choice" is made not to have a baby the better (the ultimate choice of course is made before having sex).  If a change in the law caused "Plan B" to be the primary form of "abortion" or even RU-486, that would be fine with me.  That early you don't have a heartbeat or brainwaves etc.


This isn't Plan B.  I'm talking about Cytotec (Misoprostol) and Mifeprex.  You might call them a Plan C pill.  The fact of the matter is, abortions are becoming cheaper and progressively more DIY so that the roll abortion clinics play will continue to diminish.  

I'm not arguing that it's not murder.  I'm just saying that it's fundamentally different than murder of someone that is not unborn because it is so clandestine and it is much much tougher to prevent.  I said nothing of the morality of the situation.

----------


## Carlybee

> I disagree. 
> I consider it more stupid to say that laws against murder won't end murder, only criminalize it and then use that as justification to make murder a legal act.
> 
> Unless you can prove that an unborn individual some how belongs to another species or that it is guilty of some type of crime deserving capital punishment (and in this case needs to have due process) than it should be considered a degree of murder to end its life intentionally outside of self defense.


One could conclude that an unfertilized egg is essentially a potential life.  What happens when someone decides birth control is killing a potential life?  Give them an inch and they will take a mile.  You people are much more trusting with giving away your power to a government entity that has proven it doesn't have the sense God gave a goose, than I am.

----------


## jmdrake

> This isn't Plan B.  I'm talking about Cytotec (Misoprostol) and Mifeprex.  You might call them a Plan C pill.  The fact of the matter is, abortions are becoming cheaper and progressively more DIY so that the roll abortion clinics play will continue to diminish.  
> 
> I'm not arguing that it's not murder.  I'm just saying that it's fundamentally different than murder of someone that is not unborn because it is so clandestine and it is much much tougher to prevent.  I said nothing of the morality of the situation.


Umm....I didn't just say "Plan B".  I said...._ If a change in the law caused "Plan B" to be the primary form of "abortion" or even RU-486, that would be fine with me._

RU-486 = misoprostol.  And, to my knowledge, it still has to be used quite early in the pregnancy.

----------


## Brett85

> Stop comparing murder and abortion.  They are not the same.  Abortion can be done without anyone outside of the mother ever becoming aware that the potential life existed.  This is never true of murder.


Not true.  There have been cases where high school girls have hid their pregnancy from others and no one ever knew about it, and then they gave birth to a baby in a bathroom stall at their prom night and threw the baby in a trash can.  In the cases that we know of these girls got caught, but we know there has to be cases when they didn't get caught.  These babies that are thrown in trash cans aren't any less human simply because no one ever knew they existed.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Umm....I didn't just say "Plan B".  I said...._ If a change in the law caused "Plan B" to be the primary form of "abortion" or even RU-486, that would be fine with me._
> 
> RU-486 = misoprostol.  And, to my knowledge, it still has to be used quite early in the pregnancy.


The early it's used, the higher the effective rate.  Abortion clinics will be the first to decline as it becomes more DIY.  Then, abortions will rapidly decline on whole as technology and science relegate it to an evil of the past.  Government is not the solution to this problem.  The solution lies in the free market as always.  I too strongly doubt the government's (especially federal) efficacy in preventing abortion.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Not true.  There have been cases where high school girls have hid their pregnancy from others and no one ever knew about it, and then they gave birth to a baby in a bathroom stall at their prom night and threw the baby in a trash can.  In the cases that we know of these girls got caught, but we know there has to be cases when they didn't get caught.  These babies that are thrown in trash cans aren't any less human simply because no one ever knew they existed.


I'm not talking about their humanity.  I'm talking about the fundamental difference in dealing with the government's ability to affect the situation.  If we spent 1 trillion a year on abortion prevention and it resulted in a 1% decrease in abortion while simultaneously increasing infection and death by 5% from underground abortions, would it still be a good idea?  

Murder laws act as a deterrent for murder to some extent, but they also keep people who are willing to murder off the streets.  Someone who is willing to have an abortion is typically not willing to commit murder if it involves someone outside the womb, another reason it can't be equated.  We don't fear the abortionists lack of concern for life, except that in her own womb, thus the punitive aspect (the main advantage to murder laws) is not necessary.  

Spending a ton of money and seeing a net increase in the number of deaths doesn't sound good to me even if I were to accept that abortion is murder, which I'm not so sure about.

----------


## Todd

> Ron did want to define life as beginning at conception, but I'm pretty sure he wanted the states to set the penalty... if any...  I think Rand wants the procedure banned nationwide.  Rand is also a compromise in other respects besides this one.  Granted, I still support Rand.  If I were going to oppose him on anything, it would be his iffy foreign policy.  But he's still better than anyone else of any relevance so I'm behind him.


Here is what his father's bill did;




> The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[7][8


I'm not sure about how Rand's bill is very different because what little details I've read are scarce.  But how is his federal ban different than his fathers.  It's not.  A federal ban is a federal ban.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm not talking about their humanity.  I'm talking about the fundamental difference in dealing with the government's ability to affect the situation.  If we spent 1 trillion a year on abortion prevention and it resulted in a 1% decrease in abortion while simultaneously increasing infection and death by 5% from underground abortions, would it still be a good idea?


It wouldn't involve spending any money, at least at the federal level.  We're talking about a law that would define life as beginning at conception and would give the unborn the same legal rights as everyone else, but it would be up to the states to determine what the penalties are for abortion and to enforce laws against abortion.  I'm not advocating creating a federal abortion police, and I don't think Rand is either.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> People will just go to Mexico or some back alley and get unsafe abortions. It will not stop abortions, it will just fill up jails with those who get caught. I remember when they were illegal in Texas and girls went over the border to New Mexico to get them.  Teenagers are more scared of telling their parents they are pregnant than the thought of a murder conviction. But lets ignore reality.





> The doctor can sign a written note allowing an abortion whenever there's a significant chance the mother could die from giving birth.  The things that you mentioned wouldn't put a dent in the abortion rate.





> Here is the problem I have with any law such as this one:  It is impossible to know exactly when "conception" occurs.  Our science is just not there yet.  At some point in a pregnancy, we can say that a woman is for sure pregnant, but that is days after "conception".  If a woman has not had intercourse for, oh, say, 28 days or so, we can almost say for sure she is or is not pregnant.  Anything in between, it is impossible to know with the technology we possess now.  So laws that talk about "conception" as some sort of bench mark make no sense.  Rand being a physician, I am surprised he would go down this road.





> I think this is why Rand believes the Morning After Pill should be legal, because most likely conception hasn't actually occurred the morning after sex.  But, there isn't any situation where a woman actually gets an abortion at an abortion clinic within 3-4 days of being pregnant.  No one can find out they're pregnant that quickly and then get in that quickly to get an abortion.  So passing a law that closes down every abortion clinic in the U.S would be a just law.  Every single abortion that is performed at an abortion clinic kills an innocent human being.





> Funny some of the responses in this thread about this subject.  When Ron introduced the same legislation....crickets.  Now Rand does and people threaten to bolt.  LOL.





> I'm not talking about their humanity.  I'm talking about the fundamental difference in dealing with the government's ability to affect the situation.  If we spent 1 trillion a year on abortion prevention and it resulted in a 1% decrease in abortion while simultaneously increasing infection and death by 5% from underground abortions, would it still be a good idea?  
> 
> Murder laws act as a deterrent for murder to some extent, but they also keep people who are willing to murder off the streets.  Someone who is willing to have an abortion is typically not willing to commit murder if it involves someone outside the womb, another reason it can't be equated.  We don't fear the abortionists lack of concern for life, except that in her own womb, thus the punitive aspect (the main advantage to murder laws) is not necessary.  
> 
> Spending a ton of money and seeing a net increase in the number of deaths doesn't sound good to me even if I were to accept that abortion is murder, which I'm not so sure about.


Except that they deserve to die since they commit murder...

I'm not saying "New Huge Federal Department."  But in any  case where abortion is actually caught, it should be punishable.  At the very least, admitting to abortion publicly, or admitting to being an abortion doctor, should lead to serious consequences, preferably, death.  Right now, you could talk about how you had an abortion in front of the whole world and still get away with it.

I don't anticipate the government actually solving the problem, but I think there should still be a law against it.

At the very least, people like Scott Roeder should be treated as heroes rather than sentenced for murder.  Isn't that an injustice?  Scott Roeder is literally in jail for killing George Tiller, a man who deserved death by any sane metric.  (Technically he didn't have a trial, but since his actions were legal, admitted to, and protected, I don't care too much.)

I would pardon Roeder if I had the power to do so...

----------


## FriedChicken

> One could conclude that an unfertilized egg is essentially a potential life.  What happens when someone decides birth control is killing a potential life?  Give them an inch and they will take a mile.  You people are much more trusting with giving away your power to a government entity that has proven it doesn't have the sense God gave a goose, than I am.


With a thread with this many pages I'm acting under the assumption that no one participating has read them all - but this HAS been brought up before, as well as the sperm argument and "is masturbation murder?" argument.

The stage of life you've referred to in past statements is EXTREMELY early, and while I still consider that to be life, it can be "aborted" chemically with legal drugs often used to prevent pregnancy but can also be used to end it (chemically their is little difference between contraception and morning after pills, just ask Ron Paul).
No one here to my knowledge has made the argument that those chemicals should be made illegal - I consider it to be taking a life personally but as you've pointed out it would be near impossible to regulate without an all intrusive government. (I've said something similar to this a few times during this thread).

This is intended to be a discussion about an Abortion surgical procedure.

----------


## Carlybee

> With a thread with this many pages I'm acting under the assumption that no one participating has read them all - but this HAS been brought up before, as well as the sperm argument and "is masturbation murder?" argument.
> 
> The stage of life you've referred to in past statements is EXTREMELY early, and while I still consider that to be life, it can be "aborted" chemically with legal drugs often used to prevent pregnancy but can also be used to end it (chemically their is little difference between contraception and morning after pills, just ask Ron Paul).
> No one here to my knowledge has made the argument that those chemicals should be made illegal - I consider it to be taking a life personally but as you've pointed out it would be near impossible to regulate without an all intrusive government. (I've said something similar to this a few times during this thread).
> 
> This is intended to be a discussion about an Abortion surgical procedure.


I am playing devil's advocate and projecting a cautionary tale about what could happen when you start changing the constitution and give power over to an increasingly fascist or totaliarian regime...both parties would contain those factions with enough leeway.

----------


## FriedChicken

> Depends on your definition of murder and a lot of people do not and will not ever consider the aborting of a barely fertilized embryo as murder whether you like it or not.  This bill is little more than pandering.  I agree with all of Rand's stances on most liberty issues, but giving the federal government the power to determine when life is viable is an overreach.  What happens when a Dem majority is in and they decide that old people do NOT deserve life saving medical care?  If they have the power to determine who lives and who dies, what is to say something like this couldn't be expanded to include people whose "useful life" is over.  Nyet, nay, no.


Umm... I'm not following you. You think that if we conclude that a pregnant woman is indeed carrying another human inside her womb that has its own life than we're another step closer to saying that senior citizens are dead before they're dead? 

Also, a barely fertilized embryo is so early in development a doctor wouldn't perform an abortion. The mother would just take a pill. Regardless of how immoral that would be, it would be impossible to enforce and no one here to my knowledge is suggesting that the federal government should be involved in that particular matter.

What is on the table is if a woman has the right to hire a doctor to actually purposely end the life of a fetus and remove it from her body, which is what an abortion actually is.
In Ron's book (can't remember which one) he reflects back on seeing an aborted fetus laying on a tray still alive, moving and trying to breathe completely discarded by the doctors.
Is it really that easy to belief that isn't some kind of murder?

----------


## affa

> Except that they deserve to die since they commit murder...
> 
> I'm not saying "New Huge Federal Department." But in any case where abortion is actually caught, it should be punishable. At the very least, admitting to abortion publicly, or admitting to being an abortion doctor, should lead to serious consequences, preferably, death. Right now, you could talk about how you had an abortion in front of the whole world and still get away with it.


wow. 
um. 
that's disgusting.

and that's pretty much why we're always going to have legal abortions.  because people like you claiming women who have abortions 'deserve to die' scare the living bejesus out of everyone else, who then (rightfully, imo) resist any and every change to current law.   (just as we, for example, fear any touch of gun control can be a slippery slope, so do abortion activists).

I'm not saying abortion is moral, or not murder... i understand it's a complex topic.  i know some women do abuse the procedure.  i'm sure plenty of others do not.   but not one of them 'deserves to die'.  

that's a disgusting concept, on par with abortions themselves.   that you'd try to defend life on one hand, while being so quick to blanketly take it on the other hand, is... just beyond the pale.

----------


## FriedChicken

> I am playing devil's advocate and projecting a cautionary tale about what could happen when you start changing the constitution and give power over to an increasingly fascist or totaliarian regime...both parties would contain those factions with enough leeway.


fair enough.
But usually totalitarian regimes don't care too much about what the constitution says one way or the other and they aren't going to be empowered nor restrained by an amendment to the constitution so I myself don't really see that as being a show stopper.

I'd be more concerned with the precedent being set that the unborn are not living/people.
Currently if a pregnant woman is murdered the criminal is convicted for a double homicide - I completely agree with that. Right now my wife is pregnant and if someone harmed her and caused her to lose the baby I would see that as killing my child and I would want to see justice.

I think its more fearful to become a society where life is taken lightly.

edit: I'm trying to portray the flip side of things. I'm not suggesting that you would or are making an argument saying that a criminal who causes harm to a pregnant woman shouldn't be charged with a homicide. 
Most of this post was a statement rather than an argument.

Just wanted to clarify.

----------


## Carlybee

> Except that they deserve to die since they commit murder...
> 
> I'm not saying "New Huge Federal Department."  But in any  case where abortion is actually caught, it should be punishable.  At the very least, admitting to abortion publicly, or admitting to being an abortion doctor, should lead to serious consequences, preferably, death.  Right now, you could talk about how you had an abortion in front of the whole world and still get away with it.
> 
> I don't anticipate the government actually solving the problem, but I think there should still be a law against it.
> 
> At the very least, people like Scott Roeder should be treated as heroes rather than sentenced for murder.  Isn't that an injustice?  Scott Roeder is literally in jail for killing George Tiller, a man who deserved death by any sane metric.  (Technically he didn't have a trial, but since his actions were legal, admitted to, and protected, I don't care too much.)
> 
> I would pardon Roeder if I had the power to do so...



Really? A 14 yr old who gets an abortion deserves to die?

----------


## Carlybee

> Except that they deserve to die since they commit murder...
> 
> I'm not saying "New Huge Federal Department."  But in any  case where abortion is actually caught, it should be punishable.  At the very least, admitting to abortion publicly, or admitting to being an abortion doctor, should lead to serious consequences, preferably, death.  Right now, you could talk about how you had an abortion in front of the whole world and still get away with it.
> 
> I don't anticipate the government actually solving the problem, but I think there should still be a law against it.
> 
> At the very least, people like Scott Roeder should be treated as heroes rather than sentenced for murder.  Isn't that an injustice?  Scott Roeder is literally in jail for killing George Tiller, a man who deserved death by any sane metric.  (Technically he didn't have a trial, but since his actions were legal, admitted to, and protected, I don't care too much.)
> 
> I would pardon Roeder if I had the power to do so...



Really? A 14 yr old who gets an abortion deserves to die?

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> With a thread with this many pages I'm acting under the assumption that no one participating has read them all - but this HAS been brought up before, as well as the sperm argument and "is masturbation murder?" argument.
> 
> The stage of life you've referred to in past statements is EXTREMELY early, and while I still consider that to be life, it can be "aborted" chemically with legal drugs often used to prevent pregnancy but can also be used to end it (chemically their is little difference between contraception and morning after pills, just ask Ron Paul).
> No one here to my knowledge has made the argument that those chemicals should be made illegal - I consider it to be taking a life personally but as you've pointed out it would be near impossible to regulate without an all intrusive government. (I've said something similar to this a few times during this thread).
> 
> This is intended to be a discussion about an Abortion surgical procedure.


Those pills are now 99% effective through the first trimester and still highly effective into the second trimester.  That's what I was talking about with abortions becoming increasingly DIY, especially for the poorest among us.  That's why this argument isn't even worth having; because we can't stop it effectively if it's early term.  That is also why Rand taking a stand on this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Really? A 14 yr old who gets an abortion deserves to die?


I find it unlikely that a 14 year old is completely culpable in this case.  Assuming she was, yes, but that's not very likely.

----------


## Carlybee

> I find it unlikely that a 14 year old is completely culpable in this case.  Assuming she was, yes, but that's not very likely.



Thanks for the neg rep for me posting an opinion. Perhaps you should lose the Freedom part of your username.

----------


## TheGrinch

> With a thread with this many pages I'm acting under the assumption that no one participating has read them all - but this HAS been brought up before, as well as the sperm argument and "is masturbation murder?" argument.
> 
> The stage of life you've referred to in past statements is EXTREMELY early, and while I still consider that to be life, it can be "aborted" chemically with legal drugs often used to prevent pregnancy but can also be used to end it (chemically their is little difference between contraception and morning after pills, just ask Ron Paul).
> 
> No one here to my knowledge has made the argument that those chemicals should be made illegal - I consider it to be taking a life personally but as you've pointed out it would be near impossible to regulate without an all intrusive government. (I've said something similar to this a few times during this thread).
> 
> This is intended to be a discussion about an Abortion surgical procedure.


Yes, I brought this up earlier that "masterbation is murder" is a horrible misconception of the pro-life argument. Sperm and sex do not equate with conception, that's when the sperm and egg meet and can be days later (or not at all, and so to defend the sperm that don't fertilize an egg as human life is a flawed argument).

I agree, this also makes the socon argument against contraception hypocritical and naive, as these are ways that we can prevent a conception from occuring, as frequently happens naturally when sex does not lead to unwanted pregnancy (or of course even wanted pregnancy).

----------


## TheTyke

The idea that over a billion abortions would still have taken place in back alleys with no reduction, even after the profiteers, pushers and paid propagandists were broken up, is conjecture beyond the realm of reality. It's just an old talking point.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Thanks for the neg rep for me posting an opinion. Perhaps you should lose the Freedom part of your username.


You're right that that wasn't really fair.  I positive repped this one to make up for it so it wouldn't actually hurt your reputation.

That said.... neg repping an opinion isn't the same thing as saying it should be illegal... so that really doesn't have anything to do with freedom as such.

There's a possibility of mitigating factors to almost everything.  There's also the extreme unlikelihood that anyone would actually leave enough evidence after having an abortion to face the death penalty.  I don't think many people would be prosecuted, and I would never support breaking civil rights, whether through Patriot Act type provisions or any other type of unconstitutional searches, or by accepting unreasonably low standards of guilt, in order to punish abortionists.  Most of them will slip through the cracks because its a crime that's very easy to get away with.  I accept the reality of that, but that doesn't mean I think that its any less bad just because its easy to get away with.  I still believe that, absent any mitigating factors, abortion is every bit as evil as murderer and should be punishable accordingly.  Even if only one in a million would actually get caught, it doesn't matter.  

Now, in general, I would say if a 14 year old goes out and shoots someone, that's not really a mitigating factor of any kind.  I disagree with the majority of the population on this, and think this person should absolutely be tried as an adult.  Why not, then, with abortion?  Frankly, I think in a 14 year olds case, the parent would almost certainly have had some role in it, whether by shaming her into getting an abortion (The absolute opposite of what should actually happen), or some other role.  Emotionally, having a kid at 14 is also somewhat traumatic. Doubly so if it was a product of rape (Itself a mitigating factor.)  To be clear, for the death penalty to apply there would have to be, in addition to near-absolute evidence (My desire not to kill innocent people is much, much stronger than  my desire to see those guilty of murder be executed) would require near-absolute lack of mitigating factors.  In a laboratory you could probably construct a case where that wouldn't apply to a 14 year old, but that case probably wouldn't exist and even more unlikely would that case actually be proven to exist.

----------


## jmdrake

> The idea that over a billion abortions would still have taken place in back alleys with no reduction, even after the profiteers, pushers and paid propagandists were broken up, is conjecture beyond the realm of reality. It's just an old talking point.


Yep.  The overall number would go down without Planned Parenthood and other abortion recruiters.  And considering abortion pills, it's unlikely that most clandestine abortions would be the "coat hanger" version anyway.

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

No matter where you stand on the abortion issue, there are 2 fundamental differences between prosecuting murder and abortion. Therefore the "abortion is murder and should be illegal" argument put forth by Collins & others is deeply flawed.

One is that approximately half of the public believes that abortion is OK in some circumstances, and have much more well-reasoned arguments on their side than anyone who would condone murder of independent human beings. THAT DOES NOT IN ITSELF MAKE ABORTION OKAY. Human rights are not based on majority opinion, but what if 50% of the public thought murder (of other adults or children not in the womb) was okay, and had sound (if not valid) arguments and literature to base it on? At that point, a government would become completely overwhelmed trying to prosecute all murders that take place, unless they became a police state with surveillance in every household and public place. Since 50% of the people would be likely to commit homicide at any time, the only solution would be a fascist government that followed everyone around at every moment. 

Second, as has been pointed out by Justin Raimondo and a few others, abortion involves an adult or teenager and another living being which is inside of them and completely dependent on them. Women can, albeit dangerously, give themselves miscarriages and easily lie about it, or find a dozen other ways to dangerously & illegally abort a pregnancy. It is impossible to follow every pregnant woman around for 8 full months with government surveillance to keep her from throwing herself off a flight of stairs or sticking metal objects up her vagina, without becoming a surveillance state. Didn't Ron Paul write in Liberty Defined that prosecuting or policing early-term abortions would be futile for these reasons?

It is very comparable to trying to prosecute suicide. A person can do it to themselves so you would need an incredible amount of surveillance and intervention in everyone's daily lives to try to prevent all suicides. Another parallel exists in the War on Terror, as men, women or children blow themselves up in order to kill Americans. The neoconservative/statist solution is to bankrupt your country in order to spy on & frisk every possible man, woman or child around the world who may have a bomb strapped to them. The libertarian (& I would argue Christian) solution is to peacefully persuade those people that there's a better way of life than sacrificing themselves for radical and violent sect of Islam. As Ron Paul said once in an interview where he compared the two issues (abortion/terrorism,) "force never works." 

I am very disappointed in Rand Paul's views on this issue and I hope Gunny is right when he says the LACA is just states rights in disguise. I also feel that Rand will have to moderate his rhetoric & undo the damage already done in order to win the Presidency while taking questions about abortion. That's just a personal opinion, I can't prove it but it seems impossible to contradict yourself that much and not receive terrible PR from an already hostile media.

----------


## kathy88

> At that point, a government would become completely overwhelmed trying to prosecute all murders that take place, unless they became a police state with surveillance in every household and public place.


We're almost there, what's your point?

----------


## TheGrinch

> No matter where you stand on the abortion issue, there are 2 fundamental differences between prosecuting murder and abortion. Therefore the "abortion is murder and should be illegal" argument put forth by Collins & others is deeply flawed.
> 
> One is that approximately half of the public believes that abortion is OK in some circumstances, and have much more well-reasoned arguments on their side than anyone who would condone murder of independent human beings. THAT DOES NOT IN ITSELF MAKE ABORTION OKAY. Human rights are not based on majority opinion, but what if 50% of the public thought murder (of other adults or children not in the womb) was okay, and had sound (if not valid) arguments and literature to base it on? At that point, a government would become completely overwhelmed trying to prosecute all murders that take place, unless they became a police state with surveillance in every household and public place. Since 50% of the people would be likely to commit homicide at any time, the only solution would be a fascist government that followed everyone around at every moment. 
> 
> Second, as has been pointed out by Justin Raimondo and a few others, abortion involves an adult or teenager and another living being which is inside of them and completely dependent on them. Women can, albeit dangerously, give themselves miscarriages and easily lie about it, or find a dozen other ways to dangerously & illegally abort a pregnancy. It is impossible to follow every pregnant woman around for 8 full months with government surveillance to keep her from throwing herself off a flight of stairs or sticking metal objects up her vagina, without becoming a surveillance state. Didn't Ron Paul write in Liberty Defined that prosecuting or policing early-term abortions would be futile for these reasons?
> 
> It is very comparable to trying to prosecute suicide. A person can do it to themselves so you would need an incredible amount of surveillance and intervention in everyone's daily lives to try to prevent all suicides. Another parallel exists in the War on Terror, as men, women or children blow themselves up in order to kill Americans. The neoconservative/statist solution is to bankrupt your country in order to spy on & frisk every possible man, woman or child around the world who may have a bomb strapped to them. The libertarian (& I would argue Christian) solution is to peacefully persuade those people that there's a better way of life than sacrificing themselves for radical and violent sect of Islam. As Ron Paul said once in an interview where he compared the two issues (abortion/terrorism,) "force never works." 
> 
> I am very disappointed in Rand Paul's views on this issue and I hope Gunny is right when he says the LACA is just states rights in disguise. I also feel that Rand will have to moderate his rhetoric & undo the damage already done in order to win the Presidency while taking questions about abortion. That's just a personal opinion, I can't prove it but it seems impossible to contradict yourself that much and not receive terrible PR from an already hostile media.


Good post, there is no doubt that the smear artists will use it against him, it's really a no win issue, but hopefully you can still applaud Rand for doing what he feels is right, even if philosophically I agree with you, as Dr. Paul has said on other issues, "you have to change the morality of the people, not the laws". Prohibition has never brought forth the desired effects, just the opposite of creating dangerous balk markets with little recourse for those who are wronged, as they too become criminals.

However, let's remember that Rand was raised by the man who had to personally witness gruesome abortions, which strengthened his worldview that he cannot accept it.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> The idea that over a billion abortions would still have taken place in back alleys with no reduction, even after the profiteers, pushers and paid propagandists were broken up, is conjecture beyond the realm of reality. It's just an old talking point.


Yeah because we don't have any real world evidence of the ample black market for abortion   Look at El Salvador, India, or our own pre-1973 history.  This is exactly what they said about the war on drugs before they started waging it.  Most of us aren't willing to bear that cost for a 1 to 3% reduction and a major increase in the risk associated with each abortion.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah because we don't have any real world evidence of the ample black market for abortion   Look at El Salvador, India, or our own pre-1973 history.  This is exactly what they said about the war on drugs before they started waging it.  Most of us aren't willing to bear that cost for a 1 to 3% reduction and a major increase in the risk associated with each abortion.


What did they say about the war on drugs?

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> What did they say about the war on drugs?


That the idea that the war on drugs would have no discernible effect on drug usage was conjecture beyond the realm of reality.  Surely, if we make laws and pump in a bunch of money, we will see a reduction in this immoral evil.  

I'm not equating the two issues.  Just pointing out that claiming the idea that laws and enforcement effort will have little to no effect is a more sound conjecture than the opposite.  Look at the war on terror, poverty, drugs.  They all become money pits that see no change or net increases in the very thing they are trying to combat.

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

> Good post, there is no doubt that the smear artists will use it against him, it's really a no win issue, but hopefully you can still applaud Rand for doing what he feels is right, even if philosophically I agree with you, as Dr. Paul has said on other issues, "you have to change the morality of the people, not the laws". Prohibition has never brought forth the desired effects, just the opposite of creating dangerous balk markets with little recourse for those who are wronged, as they too become criminals.
> 
> However, let's remember that Rand was raised by the man who had to personally witness gruesome abortions, which strengthened his worldview that he cannot accept it.


Absolutely. It doesn't cause me to not respect Rand. I still think his views on the subject are more or less religious in origin. "Life at conception" ignores the concept of WHY human life is so valued, namely because we are sentient & conscious beings. A "life at sentience" standard would lead to a law code which allows early-trimester "mass of tissue" abortions but not abortions of a developed fetus. That's why the "heartbeat law" recently introduced in Arkansas may in fact be a major step forward. Pro-choice folks hate it but at least it separates the valuing of actual developed, sentient human life from the religious valuing of the *exact* moment of conception (it is interesting that so many Christians think premarital sex is evil, but think that the orgasm involved is often holy enough to create a human soul right between "want" and "a cigarette?" Why don't more Evangelicals argue FOR abortion of these evilly-created fetuses but against all abortions by married women?).

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

> Yeah because we don't have any real world evidence of the ample black market for abortion   Look at El Salvador, India, or our own pre-1973 history.  This is exactly what they said about the war on drugs before they started waging it.  Most of us aren't willing to bear that cost for a 1 to 3% reduction and a major increase in the risk associated with each abortion.


This is why anti-abortion and pro-abortion liberty folk can & should favor less government intervention in abortions.

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

> Yeah because we don't have any real world evidence of the ample black market for abortion   Look at El Salvador, India, or our own pre-1973 history.  This is exactly what they said about the war on drugs before they started waging it.  Most of us aren't willing to bear that cost for a 1 to 3% reduction and a major increase in the risk associated with each abortion.


PS I tried to rep you on this but it won't let me. Fascist RPF! j/k

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

> What did they say about the war on drugs?


"They" said that prohibition of certain dangerous or unethical actions by the individual only leads to more danger & harm on a grand scale. They were right.

Wait, I misunderstood. JGalt was saying that people who argued that the War on Drugs was winnable were wrong. And they were.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No matter where you stand on the abortion issue, there are 2 fundamental differences between prosecuting murder and abortion. Therefore the "abortion is murder and should be illegal" argument put forth by Collins & others is deeply flawed.
> 
> One is that approximately half of the public believes that abortion is OK in some circumstances, and have much more well-reasoned arguments on their side than anyone who would condone murder of independent human beings. THAT DOES NOT IN ITSELF MAKE ABORTION OKAY. Human rights are not based on majority opinion, but what if 50% of the public thought murder (of other adults or children not in the womb) was okay, and had sound (if not valid) arguments and literature to base it on? At that point, a government would become completely overwhelmed trying to prosecute all murders that take place, unless they became a police state with surveillance in every household and public place. Since 50% of the people would be likely to commit homicide at any time, the only solution would be a fascist government that followed everyone around at every moment. 
> 
> Second, as has been pointed out by Justin Raimondo and a few others, abortion involves an adult or teenager and another living being which is inside of them and completely dependent on them. Women can, albeit dangerously, give themselves miscarriages and easily lie about it, or find a dozen other ways to dangerously & illegally abort a pregnancy. It is impossible to follow every pregnant woman around for 8 full months with government surveillance to keep her from throwing herself off a flight of stairs or sticking metal objects up her vagina, without becoming a surveillance state. Didn't Ron Paul write in Liberty Defined that prosecuting or policing early-term abortions would be futile for these reasons?
> 
> It is very comparable to trying to prosecute suicide. A person can do it to themselves so you would need an incredible amount of surveillance and intervention in everyone's daily lives to try to prevent all suicides. Another parallel exists in the War on Terror, as men, women or children blow themselves up in order to kill Americans. The neoconservative/statist solution is to bankrupt your country in order to spy on & frisk every possible man, woman or child around the world who may have a bomb strapped to them. The libertarian (& I would argue Christian) solution is to peacefully persuade those people that there's a better way of life than sacrificing themselves for radical and violent sect of Islam. As Ron Paul said once in an interview where he compared the two issues (abortion/terrorism,) "force never works." 
> 
> I am very disappointed in Rand Paul's views on this issue and I hope Gunny is right when he says the LACA is just states rights in disguise. I also feel that Rand will have to moderate his rhetoric & undo the damage already done in order to win the Presidency while taking questions about abortion. That's just a personal opinion, I can't prove it but it seems impossible to contradict yourself that much and not receive terrible PR from an already hostile media.


A few things here...

First of all, most abortionists are going to get away with it.  I have conceded this.  I'm also not a utilitarian.  So even if a surveilance state would reduce abortion frequency, its still evil and still should be opposed.  In the same way, abortion should still be punishable, even if ineffective.  This doesn't mean that we have to set up an entirely new department of police in order to prosecute abortionists, stealing more of the taxpayer money is also an evil.  It does mean that vigilantes who kill abortion doctors should be considered heroes, or at the very least providing a valuable service, rather than killers.  Simply pardoning Scott Roeder would send a huge message to the murderers that their actions are not welcome in this country.  It does mean that anytime evidence does in fact happen to come up that someone is guilty of abortion, if there is probable cause, you arrest them and have them placed on trial for murder.

I agree with you that a lot of hearts and minds have to change for that to actually happen.  And the change of hearts and minds in and of itself would end a lot of these problems.  AuH20 was right, what is really necessary to slow the epidemic is not more laws, but SHAME.  That said, I will still continue to advocate that abortion be treated as first degree murder as that is what I believe it is.  I don't think that's ever going to happen.  I also don't think we'll ever get any kind of a freedom candidate in the White House, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop advocating for it and stop telling the opposition how wrong they are.  Same thing with abortion.

As for Raimondo's argument, he does have a point.  As strongly as I feel about this issue, I'm willing to admit that the libertarian position on it is far from "Settled."  To me, the humane, justifiied position is "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" is not, but I acknowledge that libertarian theory has failed to conclusively solve it at this point.  That said, the "Inside her body" argument fails for a few reasons.  Firstly, eviction theory (The only pro-choice argument with any bit of credibility, every other pro-choice argument is just deiberate but well-hidden support for the right to murder, I can prove this but I won't do so in this post, if anyone asks I'll address hat next time as its already getting long) doesn't make much sense because the infant is really just as dependent on his mother after birth as before.  The only difference is that somebody else can theoretically take responsibility after birth.  Even still, for someone else to agree to do so takes time, and you can't just leave a newborn baby on a table to die.  Even Walter Block, the founder of eviction theory, would argue that in order for your obligation to a child to end, you must first notify the world that you are abandoning the raising of that child.  Walter Block would, I believe, say that if nobody was willing to raise the child (Admittedly fairly unlikely scenario) that it would be legally acceptable to leave that baby to die.  I reject this as absurd and inhumane, and I think 90+% of the population also realizes that this is wrong.  But then... this proves eviction theory wrong in its entirety.  If you have an obligation to your child outside the womb, surely you also have an obligation to it before birth?  If not, why not?  The only possibility is to prove the absurdity that  a fetus in the womb is not a human person.  DNA proves this wrong.

Secondly, you are correct that a ban wouldn't "Work".  But then, who cares?  Why does it matter?  Utilitarianism is the argument for all kinds of statism, and while they likely do not come to the utilitarian answers very often, it wouldn't matter if they did.  Its still wrong.  So is abortion.  No matter how many people support it, its legality is still WRONG.

As for suicide, I'd say suicide is immoral but should not be illegal.  You have a right to kill yourself.  The only exception is in the case where you have a child that nobody else has as of yet agreed to care for, in which case you are breaking an implied contract with your child.

As for Terror, while I certainly disagree with mass surveilance, wars against all kinds of foreign  nations, exc.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with going after those who organize these attacks and putting them to death for conspiracy to commit murder.

----------


## CMoore

> Ron said that in all his years in medical practice, he never saw a case where the woman needed to get an abortion in order to save her own life.  95% of abortions occur for convenience reasons only; they have nothing to do with any medical problem the woman has.  Let's at least start there and end those 95% of abortions.


I have heard him say that before.  In 4000 pregnancies I wonder how many ectopic pregnancies he saw.  Surely a few.  I wonder how he treated them without terminating the pregnancy.

----------


## tttppp

> Ron said that in all his years in medical practice, he never saw a case where the woman needed to get an abortion in order to save her own life.  95% of abortions occur for convenience reasons only; they have nothing to do with any medical problem the woman has.  Let's at least start there and end those 95% of abortions.



Yeah and I pointed out ways to reduce abortions through convienience, which you denied. Also there are plenty of casss where women get abortions for health reasons. Just because Ron Paul said it, doesnt make it true.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah and I pointed out ways to reduce abortions through convienience, which you denied. Also there are plenty of casss where women get abortions for health reasons. Just because Ron Paul said it, doesnt make it true.


Knowing Ron Paul, he was telling the truth.  I've never heard him lie.  He probably did never see an abortion performed to save the mothers life.  That doesn't mean they don't happen, merely that he himself never saw one.  He also said "Over 4000."  That doesn't mean that there isn't one occasionally.  What it does mean is that those rarities are no excuse for on-demand abortion.

----------


## Brett85

> I agree, this also makes the socon argument against contraception hypocritical and naive, as these are ways that we can prevent a conception from occuring, as frequently happens naturally when sex does not lead to unwanted pregnancy (or of course even wanted pregnancy).


What social conservative wants to ban contraception?

----------


## erowe1

There's a big difference between "health reasons" and saving a mothers life. When Roe v. Wade included health reasons as a legitimate cause for abortion all the way through the third trimester, that included mental health, which essentially means there's no limit at all.

----------


## osan

> If you're someone who believes that abortion is murder, then there can't be any issue more important than this.
> 
> Ending this is pretty important.
> 
> http://www.wrtl.org/abortion/pictures.aspx#abortionpics


I respectfully disagree with vigor.  The problems I listed outstrip the abortion question by worlds.  Unless we address those other issues, the question of abortion will by necessity disappear from the immediate concerns of virtually everyone in the nation.

You and people who reason as you do need to the step back from the emotions of the issue and take a close and hard look at the looming problems.  When there is no work and therefore no food because the money is not money and the economy has been nuked,  your stomach will be dictating your immediate concern with greater and more forceful eloquence than your sense of moral outrage.  If things go far enough, your fear will almost certainly give you cause to no longer give a damn whether your neighbor's daughter is looking for a coat hanger to take care of her little "problem".

Seriously folks, the failure of perspective to which I here bear witness is pretty disturbing.  Do as you please, but when you one day find the barbarians are at your gates you will have no basis for complaint because now is the time to prioritize with some application of your brains.  If you willfully fail to do that much, you will deserve the rotten fate that awaits you.  But don't listen to me, do what you think is right.

----------


## CMoore

> Knowing Ron Paul, he was telling the truth.  I've never heard him lie.  He probably did never see an abortion performed to save the mothers life.  That doesn't mean they don't happen, merely that he himself never saw one.  He also said "Over 4000."  That doesn't mean that there isn't one occasionally.  What it does mean is that those rarities are no excuse for on-demand abortion.


But that is not what he said.  He said he had never seen one to save the life of a mother.  I suppose that since he did obstetrics that he never saw an ectopic pregnancy.  Maybe the local gynecologist spotted them before an obstetrician got involved in the pregnancy.  But I still wonder how he managed to avoid having to deal with at least a few.

----------


## CMoore

> I respectfully disagree with vigor.  The problems I listed outstrip the abortion question by worlds.  Unless we address those other issues, the question of abortion will by necessity disappear from the immediate concerns of virtually everyone in the nation.
> 
> You and people who reason as you do need to the step back from the emotions of the issue and take a close and hard look at the looming problems.  When there is no work and therefore no food because the money is not money and the economy has been nuked,  your stomach will be dictating your immediate concern with greater and more forceful eloquence than your sense of moral outrage.  If things go far enough, your fear will almost certainly give you cause to no longer give a damn whether your neighbor's daughter is looking for a coat hanger to take care of her little "problem".
> 
> Seriously folks, the failure of perspective to which I here bear witness is pretty disturbing.  Do as you please, but when you one day find the barbarians are at your gates you will have no basis for complaint because now is the time to prioritize with some application of your brains.  If you willfully fail to do that much, you will deserve the rotten fate that awaits you.  But don't listen to me, do what you think is right.


That!

----------


## CMoore

> Depends on your definition of murder and a lot of people do not and will not ever consider the aborting of a barely fertilized embryo as murder whether you like it or not.  This bill is little more than pandering.  I agree with all of Rand's stances on most liberty issues, but giving the federal government the power to determine when life is viable is an overreach.  What happens when a Dem majority is in and they decide that old people do NOT deserve life saving medical care?  If they have the power to determine who lives and who dies, what is to say something like this couldn't be expanded to include people whose "useful life" is over.  Nyet, nay, no.


Yes it is pandering.  And I do not understand why  he is having to do it at this time.  The timing is very curious.

----------


## CMoore

> I'd like to know why that makes any difference.


It does not make any difference at all.  I am simply curious.

----------


## itshappening

Millennials aren't happy with Rand's abortion law:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/30...utlaw-abortion

So Jmdrake do you still think you can tell these young voters to shut up and accept it? or will they just vote for the Democrat?

----------


## erowe1

Young voters don't matter.

----------


## supermario21

Couple things, the writer appears to be left-wing. What premise is she using to determine that most millenials are pro-choice and will consequently avoid at all costs a pro-life candidate?

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

> It does mean that vigilantes who kill abortion doctors should be considered heroes, or at the very least providing a valuable service, rather than killers.  Simply pardoning Scott Roeder would send a huge message to the murderers that their actions are not welcome in this country.


This is an unsound argument. Vigilantes who murder for moral or emotional reasons are still murderers. Even if abortion = murder, when people commit murder they should get a trial and a sentence. So should people who murder those who they believe have done wrong. It's called the Bill of Rights. 




> As for Raimondo's argument, he does have a point.  As strongly as I feel about this issue, I'm willing to admit that the libertarian position on it is far from "Settled."  To me, the humane, justifiied position is "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" is not, but I acknowledge that libertarian theory has failed to conclusively solve it at this point.  That said, the "Inside her body" argument fails for a few reasons.  Firstly, eviction theory (The only pro-choice argument with any bit of credibility, every other pro-choice argument is just deiberate but well-hidden support for the right to murder, I can prove this but I won't do so in this post, if anyone asks I'll address hat next time as its already getting long) doesn't make much sense because the infant is really just as dependent on his mother after birth as before.  The only difference is that somebody else can theoretically take responsibility after birth.  Even still, for someone else to agree to do so takes time, and you can't just leave a newborn baby on a table to die.  Even Walter Block, the founder of eviction theory, would argue that in order for your obligation to a child to end, you must first notify the world that you are abandoning the raising of that child.  Walter Block would, I believe, say that if nobody was willing to raise the child (Admittedly fairly unlikely scenario) that it would be legally acceptable to leave that baby to die.  I reject this as absurd and inhumane, and I think 90+% of the population also realizes that this is wrong.  But then... this proves eviction theory wrong in its entirety.  If you have an obligation to your child outside the womb, surely you also have an obligation to it before birth?  If not, why not?  The only possibility is to prove the absurdity that a fetus in the womb is not a human person.  DNA proves this wrong.


So, my pro-abortion argument is that in the early term of pregnancy, a fetus has not developed the #1 component that gives human life its value -- sentience. One week after conception, a fertilized egg does not know it is alive, does not possess intelligence and does not possess feelings, just like the sperm and egg which were separate one week prior did not possess intelligence, sentience or feelings. To me, a baby that knows it is alive is a very different item than a lifeform that does not know it is alive. A late-trimester fetus may be sentient but we can all agree there are no *scientific* grounds to demonstrate that a week-old fertilized egg is sentient. "Conception" is the bedrock of the anti-abortion argument, "sentience" is the bedrock of my (early term) pro-abortion argument. How exactly do you think I'm just thinly disguising a pro-murder POV through my reasoning here? I'm curious. 

I don't usually talk about my views on this, but I also think the "slippery slope/infanticide" argument is pretty artificial. This is not to say that infanticide isn't cruel, merciless and stupid. I think late-term abortions are cruel and stupid. But the "would you let a crying baby die?" tack is in large part an emotional argument based on the fact that most people think babies are cute and heartwarming. I really don't feel as much sadness over an infant dying as I feel over an intelligent and emotional being having died. The greater the sentience, the greater the capacity for suffering. If a baby is left to die its thought process is "hungry...hungry...hungry...I'm dead." It does not experience the torture and great sadness that an intelligent person would endure under the same circumstances.

This does not mean that infanticide should be legal, or ever morally condoned. But it does mean that infanticide should be condemned for *other* reasons, like the cruelty and stupidity of it, the *potential* of the (quasi?)sentient life being destroyed, etc. It means that there are *intelligent* reasons why infanticide (and late-term abortion) is wrong, as opposed to them being _automatically_ wrong due to the emotional & religious sentimentality toward babies. 

I recently watched a horror film, "Seed." Honestly, it was a crappy and poorly-produced movie, but there were thought-provoking issues in some of the scenes and the audience reaction to them. In "Seed," an evil guy kidnaps a dog, a baby, a teenager, and a woman and leaves them in a room to starve and die by themselves on camera. The dog and baby feel physical pain & hunger and bark/cry until they are dead. I won't go into the disturbing details of the other two scenes, but you can imagine. 

I found those scenes pretty horrifying and sad, and I read about 100 critic & fan reviews of it to get perspective on how other people viewed them. I was shocked. All 100 reviews mentioned the dog and/or baby and how horrible the guy was for starving them to death. Lots of idle death threats against the director (Uwe Boll) for filming such cruel scenes that killed a fictional dog and baby. But zero...ZERO!...reviews even mentioned the teenager. One or two of them mentioned the woman while listing the scenes, but elucidated no such strong emotions on her character's death.

To me, these reactions are more disturbing than the scenes themselves. It makes me think of what Ayn Rand wrote about the hatred for intelligence and the worship of non-intelligence. The two intelligent, emotional characters suffered much, much worse than the dog or the baby (we can even say that the dog suffered more emotionally than the baby, since the dog had more developed emotions & relationships as a grown dog) because they KNEW what was happening to them. The greater the sentience, the greater the capacity for suffering, yet audiences seemed to care only about the suffering of the two unintelligent beings. 

It made me think that if we put our "gaa gaa goo goo" sentimentality toward infants aside, Americans have some serious issues when it comes to feeling intelligent sympathy and making rational judgements about violence and harm. We seem to be trapped in aesthetics & superstition to the point where rational love & empathy take a back seat. And I think your pro-fertilized-egg-killer-revenge-vigilante opinions fall into this deluded category.

----------


## Christian Liberty

[QUOTE]


> This is an unsound argument. Vigilantes who murder for moral or emotional reasons are still murderers. Even if abortion = murder, when people commit murder they should get a trial and a sentence. So should people who murder those who they believe have done wrong. It's called the Bill of Rights.


My point had nothing to do with emotion...  As for the Bill of Rights, I agree with you.  However, that requires a government that does its job.  If abortion were made illegal I'd be more inclined to agree with you.  Right now, when abortion is legal, if an abortion doctor is openly practicing the killing of the innocents in the womb (I'm not talking about killing random people who may or may not have had abortions here) I see nothing wrong with ending their lives because they are killers.  Granted, I'm not going to do it.  I don't want to go to jail, and even more importantly, vigilantism is incompatible with my Christian ethics.  In much the same vein, if a Nazi were torturing Jews (This is WORSE than abortion but it still does partially show why I feel the way I do) and you killed that Nazi official, even if he were not torturing people at the moment of his death, it would be justified.  Why?  The government isn't even trying to do its job.  Killing this evil person is an act of justice.  The reality is, whether proven in an official court setting or not, he's a murderer.  Now, you'd better know for sure the person is a murderer before you do something like that.  I'd prefer a real trial to vigilantism.  But that requires government doing its job.  Which it isn't.





> So, my pro-abortion argument is that in the early term of pregnancy, a fetus has not developed the #1 component that gives human life its value -- sentience. One week after conception, a fertilized egg does not know it is alive, does not possess intelligence and does not possess feelings, just like the sperm and egg which were separate one week prior did not possess intelligence, sentience or feelings. To me, a baby that knows it is alive is a very different item than a lifeform that does not know it is alive. A late-trimester fetus may be sentient but we can all agree there is no *scientific* grounds to demonstrate that a week-old fertilized egg is sentient. "Conception" is the bedrock of the anti-abortion argument, "sentience" is the bedrock of my (early term) pro-abortion argument. How exactly do you think I'm just thinly disguising a pro-murder POV through my reasoning here? I'm curious.


I honestly don't know that a week old fetus is sentient.  I think  that its completely irrelevant.  Your point about the dog does partially touch on why.  But I'll get to that in a sec.  As for my reason why...  The reason evictionism works better than typical "Pro-choice" arguments, even if I disagree with it, is that it actually is a "Women's rights argument" rather than a right to kill, it does not allow you to kill if there is a more peaceful way to evict the fetus.  Would you allow abortion if it was possible to put the fetus in an artificial womb instead?  If you answer "Yes" than your argument has nothing to do with the mother's rights at all...




> I don't usually talk about my views on this, but I also think the "slippery slope/infanticide" argument is pretty artificial. This is not to say that infanticide isn't cruel, merciless and stupid. I think late-term abortions are cruel and stupid. But the "would you let a crying baby die?" tack is in large part an emotional argument based on the fact that most people think babies are cute and heartwarming


And human beings with rights... 



> I really don't feel as much sadness over an infant dying as I feel over an intelligent and emotional being having died. The greater the sentience, the greater the capacity for suffering. If a baby is left to die its thought process is "hungry...hungry...hungry...I'm dead." It does not experience the torture and great sadness that an intelligent person would endure under the same circumstances.


So what?  I don't see how taking someone's life is any better just because of how much they appreciate it.  is it more wrong to kill a happy person than to kill a depressed person?



> This does not mean that infanticide should be legal, or ever morally condoned. But it does mean that infanticide should be condemned for *other* reasons, like the cruelty and stupidity of it, the *potential* of the (quasi?)sentient life being destroyed, etc. It means that there are *intelligent* reasons why infanticide (and late-term abortion) is wrong, as opposed to them being _automatically_ wrong due to the emotional & religious sentimentality toward babies.


My argument is more from the core of libertarian theory than it is explicitly religious.  Libertarianism accepts that you can be forced not to use violence against other people or their property.  The unborn are still people.  Therefore... (Yeah.)




> I recently watched a horror film, "Seed." Honestly, it was a crappy and poorly-produced movie, but there were thought-provoking issues in some of the scenes and the audience reaction to them. In "Seed," an evil guy kidnaps a dog, a baby, a teenager, and a woman and leaves them in a room to starve and die by themselves on camera. The dog and baby feel physical pain & hunger and bark/cry until they are dead. I won't go into the disturbing details of the other two scenes, but you can imagine. 
> 
> I found those scenes pretty horrifying and sad, and I read about 100 critic & fan reviews of it to get perspective on how other people viewed them. I was shocked. All 100 reviews mentioned the dog and/or baby and how horrible the guy was for starving them to death. Lots of idle death threats against the director (Uwe Boll) for filming such cruel scenes that killed a fictional dog and baby. But zero...ZERO!...reviews even mentioned the teenager. One or two of them mentioned the woman while listing the scenes, but elucidated no such strong emotions on her character's death.


Yeah, I don't put the dog and the baby in the same category here.  Animals don't really have rights.  I do think that society should enforce some bare privleges for them, and that we should punish those who torture animals or such.  However, they don't really have absolutely inalienable rights.  And humans should ALWAYS come first. If torturing an animal would save a human life, I'd be for it.  I would not say the same about torturing a human to save a human life.  Why?  We don't torture animals because there is no benefit to humans in most cases, and its wrong to unnecessarily create suffering.  However, the animal still doesn't have rights.  Thee human does.  I don't think you think killing an eating a newborn should be legal, yet it should obviously be legal to do so to a cow, and I think it should be legal to do so to a dog.  Maybe that's "Speciesism" or something, but I don't really care.  Libertarianism is only directly concerned with human rights, and so it should be.

While starving a dog to death is wrong and should be punishable, I don't think it should be punishable by death.  Its cruel, and its inhumane, but a dog =/= a human.  I haven't really considered what the  exact punishment should be for this cruelty, but it doesn't matter.  I'll just say, I definitely think the dog is the least important here.

Some may value the teenager's intelligence more, while others may value the babies "Fragileness" or something, more.  But the reality is that both are a human life.  Killing either one is deeply immoral, and does warrant (Again with my "Given enough evidence" disclaimer) death.  It doesn't matter which one dies.  They're both innocent and so both do not deserve death (Well, unless the teenager is a murderer, but I assume he isn't.)


> To me, these reactions are more disturbing than the scenes themselves. It makes me think of what Ayn Rand wrote about the hatred for intelligence and the worship of non-intelligence. The two intelligent, emotional characters suffered much, much worse than the dog or the baby (we can even say that the dog suffered more emotionally than the baby, since the dog had more developed emotions & relationships as a grown dog) because they KNEW what was happening to them. The greater the sentience, the greater the capacity for suffering, yet audiences seemed to care more about the suffering of the two unintelligent beings.


As stated, my reaction to the dog dying is "Animal cruelty" while my reaction to any of the other three is "Murder."  It doesn't matter how intelligent.  Is Albert Einstein more valuable than the rest of us?  Well, to science, sure, to "Society" maybe, but to kill me would be just as much murder as killing Einstein.




> It made me think that if we put our "gaa gaa goo goo" sentimentality toward infants aside, Americans have some serious issues when it comes to feeling intelligent sympathy and making rational judgements about violence and harm. We seem to be trapped in aesthetics & superstition to the point where rational love & empathy take a back seat. And I think your pro-fertilized-egg-killer-revenge-vigilante opinions fall into this deluded category.


I won't deny possibly feeling more emotion for the child (I don't really know if I would or not) but from a purely rationalistic point of view, killing a fertilized egg, killing an infant, and killing a grown man are all murder of an innocent human life and are all equally wrong.  Perhaps you could argue, I might not even disagree, that the suffering caused by that murder should be an ADDITIONAL CHARGE in and of itself, but it doesn't matter because murder by itself warrants death anyway.  So what would be the point?

I guess at the end of the day I just disagree with your values.  I believe in human exceptionalism.  That isn't to say that animals have no value whatsoever, but they simply aren't human and simply do not matter beyond pure convenience, and their suffering only matters to the extent that it is unnecessary.  I'm honestly surprised you don't support banning of meat eating with that system of ethics, since the animal has to suffer, or something.

----------


## erowe1

The idea that you can leave religion out of this is rot.

If you think anything at all is wrong, that's religious.

If you think morality is legislated by the Creator, that's religious.

If you think morality is not legislated by the Creator, that's religious.

If you think there's no such thing as wrong, that's religious.

If you think sentience or suffering or empathy have anything to do with whether or not something is wrong, that's religious.

If you think humans are special, that's religious.

----------


## Carlybee

> You're right that that wasn't really fair.  I positive repped this one to make up for it so it wouldn't actually hurt your reputation.
> 
> That said.... neg repping an opinion isn't the same thing as saying it should be illegal... so that really doesn't have anything to do with freedom as such.
> 
> There's a possibility of mitigating factors to almost everything.  There's also the extreme unlikelihood that anyone would actually leave enough evidence after having an abortion to face the death penalty.  I don't think many people would be prosecuted, and I would never support breaking civil rights, whether through Patriot Act type provisions or any other type of unconstitutional searches, or by accepting unreasonably low standards of guilt, in order to punish abortionists.  Most of them will slip through the cracks because its a crime that's very easy to get away with.  I accept the reality of that, but that doesn't mean I think that its any less bad just because its easy to get away with.  I still believe that, absent any mitigating factors, abortion is every bit as evil as murderer and should be punishable accordingly.  Even if only one in a million would actually get caught, it doesn't matter.  
> 
> Now, in general, I would say if a 14 year old goes out and shoots someone, that's not really a mitigating factor of any kind.  I disagree with the majority of the population on this, and think this person should absolutely be tried as an adult.  Why not, then, with abortion?  Frankly, I think in a 14 year olds case, the parent would almost certainly have had some role in it, whether by shaming her into getting an abortion (The absolute opposite of what should actually happen), or some other role.  Emotionally, having a kid at 14 is also somewhat traumatic. Doubly so if it was a product of rape (Itself a mitigating factor.)  To be clear, for the death penalty to apply there would have to be, in addition to near-absolute evidence (My desire not to kill innocent people is much, much stronger than  my desire to see those guilty of murder be executed) would require near-absolute lack of mitigating factors.  In a laboratory you could probably construct a case where that wouldn't apply to a 14 year old, but that case probably wouldn't exist and even more unlikely would that case actually be proven to exist.


I didn't realize I was debating with an 18 yr old. Call me in a few years when you learn there are indeed shades of gray.  While we all are entitled to our convictions, sometimes life experience makes all the difference in perception.  Absolutism is frightening and I can't discuss this with someone who winces at the thought of an aborted embryo yet holds a vigilante murderer who attacked an entire clinic full of people up as some sort of hero. Personally I wish no one would ever have an abortion..by the same token who would want to give birth to the offspring of an HIV infected crackhead who raped her?  It's those shades of gray.

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

[QUOTE=FreedomFanatic;4931119]


> I'm honestly surprised you don't support banning of meat eating with that system of ethics, since the animal has to suffer, or something.


The condescension is palpable here, and "or something" is not an argument, just a sophistic device intended to make my arguments look vague or incomprehensible. 

I am not a vegetarian or an animal-rights activist, just making points about how arguments are not automatically right because of emotional reactions to them. For instance, anti-abortionists say the word "infanticide" without defining why it is wrong or relating it directly to the issue of killing a nonsentient mass of human tissue. A word, or an emotional reaction, is not an argument by itself. NEOOO-CONFEDERATTTTE!

You fail to understand the crux of my argument, that since sentience is the #1 component that makes human life what it is, a non-sentient fertilized egg should not be classified as a human life. Science has shown that our brains are either the generators of our self-awareness, or receivers that mold consciousness into self-awareness. A week-old fertilized egg cannot be self-aware because it hasn't developed a brain yet. You claim I'm thinly disguising murder, I think you're thinly disguising the religious belief in a soul that is incarnated immediately during sexual intercourse. _Or something._

----------


## affa

> A few things here...
> SNIP
> It does mean that anytime evidence does in fact happen to come up that someone is guilty of abortion, if there is probable cause, you arrest them and have them placed on trial for murder.
> SNIP
> That said, I will still continue to advocate that abortion be treated as first degree murder as that is what I believe it is.  
> SNIP


But as you say, it's what you personally believe.  And there's the problem - a great number of Americans don't believe it's murder.  There is no way around that.  It's an issue of philosophy for some, faith for others... and different people come to different conclusions.

I don't smoke weed, but i don't think it's immoral, nor do i think it should be a crime.   Yet it's criminalized by those that do, which is a load of bullocks. 

You seeking to enact law (punishable by death in your opinion!) on acts that a good portion of the populace don't even think is a crime is tyranny of the greatest order, not freedom as your name suggests.    




> As for suicide, I'd say suicide is immoral but should not be illegal.  You have a right to kill yourself.  The only exception is in the case where you have a child that nobody else has as of yet agreed to care for, in which case you are breaking an implied contract with your child.


Seriously?  Let's see:
The person commits suicide... and you can't penalize them.
Or, they fail for some reason, so you prosecute them and put them in jail, which effectively removes that person's ability to care for the "child that nobody else has as of yet agreed to care for" that made their suicide attempt criminal (in your mind) in the first place.   

In which case does this make even a modicum of sense?

How about the penalty for attempted suicide is the death penalty... that makes about just as much sense.




> As for Terror, while I certainly disagree with mass surveilance, wars against all kinds of foreign  nations, exc.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with going after those who organize these attacks and putting them to death for conspiracy to commit murder.


You're quite death happy for one who claims to want to protect life.

----------


## affa

> The idea that you can leave religion out of this is rot.
> 
> If you think anything at all is wrong, that's religious.
> 
> If you think morality is legislated by the Creator, that's religious.
> 
> If you think morality is not legislated by the Creator, that's religious.
> 
> If you think there's no such thing as wrong, that's religious.
> ...


i am an atheist that lives by a strict code of ethics.  I can tell you quite truthfully that nothing is 'religious' to me in any way, shape, or form... unless you feel like twisting words around to a degree that's just silly.   

I avoid acts that I think will harm others not because I think they're 'wrong' in the way I think you mean it, but because I chose to.  I'm vegan too, by the way.  I prefer the world around me when I act in this way.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't smoke weed, but i don't think it's immoral, nor do i think it should be a crime.   Yet it's criminalized by those that do, which is a load of bullocks.


I do think its immoral but I think it should be legal because there's no victim.  My problem with anti-weed laws, or anti-crack laws, or exc. is that there's no victim, not that its "Enforcing morality (Generic.)

As for suicide, it should be illegal to abandon your kid, you can put your kid up for adoption but you can't just abandon him/her.  I never said that you should go to jail for attemptingsuicide under those circumstances.

As for being "Death happy" I don't claim to be anti-killing in all cases.  I'm against killing the innocent.  I'm against war, which leads to the killing of the innocent.   I'm not against killing people who have stolen the right to life from another human being.

----------


## TheTyke

Maybe there are anarchists mixing in this discussion, but several of these arguments boil down to the same as "There shouldn't be laws against murder, they don't work." Can you really argue there would be less murder if murder clinics were allowed on street corners and you could hire a hit, instead of resorting to dangerous meetings in back alleys to transaction "business"? Even if that didn't go against the fundamental purpose of government stated by our founders (to secure the rights to life, liberty and property/the pursuit of happiness,) and even if it wasn't politically untenable, it's even worse because the unborn have no way to defend themselves like most people do.

Protecting life, liberty and property from attack is different than outlawing drugs. Murder is violent and a violation of the non-aggression principle. As osan touches on, there is also an economic aspect. Abortion is generally decided for economic or convenience reasons - people are sometimes pressured into abortion as "the responsible thing to do" by relatives or significant others who don't want the expense or bother involved. Not to mention the paid propagandists who profit from suggesting death as the solution, instead of adoption or other alternatives. This is never an acceptable reason to kill someone. Removing the advertising, profiteering and availability will reduce the economic motivation. Other reasons include concealment - which is also not a justification to kill. Medical reasons could be handled differently, but are less than 1% of cases and are an emotional argument used by the abortion industry.

Drugs by comparison are not violent by their nature, especially to the extent of taking life. If they develop into a violent situation, there are already laws dealing with violence. Pleasure or addiction are also different motives than the economic/convenience ones behind abortion. Ultimately, our best solution is changing hearts and minds, but these two things have been established:

*1) Comparisons between prohibition of murder and drugs have been demonstrated to be erroneous
2) Prohibition of murder is in accord with limited purpose of government envisioned by our founders*

----------


## Christian Liberty

Exactly. Government should exist (Assuming it should exist, but even for the anarchists, a group which I am not a part of, you would still have some kind of private police system enforcing laws) in order to protect men from their fellow men.  I think this principle is a little more complex when it comes to kids than adults (There are laws against child neglect, not for "Beggar neglect" and I think its completely justified that the law recognizes the former and not the latter due to implied contract).  But even still, that's what it exists for.  It doesn't exist to protect us from ourselves.

----------


## TheTyke

KurtBoyer - Modern technology keeps revealing more about the reactions of babies in the womb that we didn't know before. The assertion that you only respect life based on what you define as sentience is frightening. The same logic could be extended to justify the initiation of force and killing other people in medical statuses we don't yet fully understand, or even go down the same road to kill people defined as sub-human as certain countries have done. I believe in the non-aggression principle and will NOT go down that road with you. It is contrary, not supporting, to liberty.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Yeah, that's kind of my point.  The NAP and property rights ARE a moral system.  Granted, its only part of mine, the part that I think should be enforced.  I do believe there are other moral dictates that are outside this system and that the law should not enforce.  But the law should enforce the NAP and property rights, even if a lot of people disagree with it.

If we criminalize high taxes, will people just steal more?  Should we care?

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

> KurtBoyer - Modern technology keeps revealing more about the reactions of babies in the womb that we didn't know before. The assertion that you only respect life based on what you define as sentience is frightening. The same logic could be extended to justify the initiation of force and killing other people in medical statuses we don't yet fully understand, or even go down the same road to kill people defined as sub-human as certain countries have done. I believe in the non-aggression principle and will NOT go down that road with you. It is contrary, not supporting, to liberty.


Modern technology also tells us that a "baby in the womb" takes time to develop. Show me a sentient, intelligent reaction by a one-week-old fertilized egg and we'll talk. Actually, we won't, because I frighten you with my crazy idea that a fertilized egg doesn't achieve sentience and human intelligence 9 minutes after being fertilized.

----------


## TheGrinch

> What social conservative wants to ban contraception?


Perhaps less than you would be led to believe, but let's not pretend that there aren't socons who are against contraception.

----------


## Brett85

> Perhaps less than you would be led to believe, but let's not pretend that there aren't socons who are against contraception.


I know a lot of Catholics who are personally opposed to contraception, but I've never heard them say that it should be illegal.  Perhaps there are some who think it should be, but I've never met anyone who believes that.

----------


## spladle

> I know a lot of Catholics who are personally opposed to contraception, but I've never heard them say that it should be illegal.  Perhaps there are some who think it should be, but I've never met anyone who believes that.

----------


## osan

> Young voters don't matter.



We could as validly assert the same about all voters.  The 2010 and 2012 elections alone pretty well confirm it.

----------


## TheTyke

Many contraceptives aren't abortifacient but some are.




> Modern technology also tells us that a "baby in the womb" takes time to develop. Show me a sentient, intelligent reaction by a one-week-old fertilized egg and we'll talk. Actually, we won't, because I frighten you with my crazy idea that a fertilized egg doesn't achieve sentience and human intelligence 9 minutes after being fertilized.


"Fertilized egg" is itself a scientifically inaccurate term. Scientific info available here.

----------


## osan

> The idea that you can leave religion out of this is rot.
> 
> If you think anything at all is wrong, that's religious.
> 
> If you think morality is legislated by the Creator, that's religious.
> 
> If you think morality is not legislated by the Creator, that's religious.
> 
> If you think there's no such thing as wrong, that's religious.
> ...


I would have to assess this as misuse of language.  The inference to be drawn here is that everything is religion.  If so, then "religion" as a term holds precious little to zero meaning.  I would have to assess this as FAIL, no offense.

I do get your point, but it is fairly off the rails.  To wit, let us take the definition from the Oxford etymological dictionary of the English language:

 religion (n.)c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-French _religiun_ (11c.), Old French _religion_ "religious community," from Latin _religionem_ (nominative _religio_) "_respect for what is sacred_, reverence for the gods," in Late Latin "monastic life" (5c.). 

According to Cicero derived from _relegere_ "go through again, read again," from _re-_ "again" + _legere_ "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with _religare_ "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is _religiens_ "careful," opposite of _negligens_. 

_To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name._ [Pope Leo XIII, _Immortale Dei_, 1885]Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300. Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s.
Your mini-diatribe holds perhaps the right intention but your grammar was not, in this case, up to the task so far as I am able to discern.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I know a lot of Catholics who are personally opposed to contraception, but I've never heard them say that it should be illegal.  Perhaps there are some who think it should be, but I've never met anyone who believes that.


Your anecdotal personal experience aside, it has most definitely been pushed for by some socons, and even if not called to be banned is still naive to say "well, we don't want abortions, we don't want contraception, you hormone-crazed kids just need to keep it in your pants". It does nothing to solve the problem, and in my view, confuses conception with sex, when the two are not mutually exclusive.

----------


## Brett85

> Your anecdotal personal experience aside, it has most definitely been pushed for by some socons, and even if not called to be banned is still naive to say "well, we don't want abortions, we don't want contraception, you hormone-crazed kids just need to keep it in your pants". It does nothing to solve the problem, and in my view, confuses conception with sex, when the two are not mutually exclusive.


If a parent wants to teach their own kid about contraception and talk them into using it, that's fine.  But, public schools shouldn't be in the business of left wing social engineering.  If we're going to have public schools, they shouldn't be involved in pushing a left wing social agenda.  They shouldn't teach sex education except for simply teaching in a science class what the different body parts are and what happens during sex.  But they shouldn't advocate either abstinence or contraception.  It should be up to churches and families to discuss that.

----------


## jmdrake

> Millennials aren't happy with Rand's abortion law:
> 
> http://www.policymic.com/articles/30...utlaw-abortion
> 
> So Jmdrake do you still think you can tell these young voters to shut up and accept it? or will they just vote for the Democrat?


itshappening: Rand is being crucified by the left *and* the right for "flip flopping" on the abortion issue.  So do you still think that's a good idea?

----------


## itshappening

> itshappening: Rand is being crucified by the left *and* the right for "flip flopping" on the abortion issue.  So do you still think that's a good idea?


Actually... I had a quick look on the reliably hysterical FreeRepublic and there people defending him saying his law is the most pro-life law in decades and that there's nothing wrong with what he said.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Your anecdotal personal experience aside, it has most definitely been pushed for by some socons, and even if not called to be banned is still naive to say "well, we don't want abortions, we don't want contraception, you hormone-crazed kids just need to keep it in your pants". It does nothing to solve the problem, and in my view, confuses conception with sex, when the two are not mutually exclusive.


I've talked to a Catholic on another messaging board that opposed legality of conception and ANY abortion, even to save the mother's life.  So they exist.  Not sure how common, but they do exist.  




> If a parent wants to teach their own kid about contraception and talk them into using it, that's fine.  But, public schools shouldn't be in the business of left wing social engineering.  If we're going to have public schools, they shouldn't be involved in pushing a left wing social agenda.  They shouldn't teach sex education except for simply teaching in a science class what the different body parts are and what happens during sex.  But they shouldn't advocate either abstinence or contraception.  It should be up to churches and families to discuss that.


This just shows me why public schools should be abolished.  I'm pretty hardcore as a libertarian but even I don't necessarily have a huge issue with giving poor kids money to go to school.  I could probably be talked into either side of that issue.  But public schools are a horrible idea.  There's just too much potential for... well, I'm not a politician so I'm just going to say "Hitler Youth."  I'm not saying all public schools are the Hitler Youth of course, I attend one and its not like that at all, but there's just too much potential for it in the future...  Just no.  Don't use my tax dollars to propagandize anyone into anything.  




> Actually... I had a quick look on the reliably hysterical FreeRepublic and there people defending him saying his law is the most pro-life law in decades and that there's nothing wrong with what he said.


Most Republicans aren't serious about banning abortion anyway, its the carrot just out of reach... always....  They need it for the neocon agenda.  I'm not going to stop supporting Rand over this one issue but I'm annoyed about the deliberate ambiguity.  Ron Paul was never, EVER vague.  EVER.

----------


## erowe1

> I would have to assess this as misuse of language.  The inference to be drawn here is that everything is religion.


Not that everything is religion, but that all of the things I mentioned are religious, which they are. If you disagree, which of them aren't religious?




> To wit, let us take the definition from the Oxford etymological dictionary of the English language:


It's an etymological dictionary. It doesn't give the definition, it gives the etymology. But let's look at the definitions given in the Oxford English Dictionary, which is actually for this purpose.



> 1. A state of life bound by religious vows; the condition of belonging to a religious order. Also fig. Cf. to enter into religion at enter v. 8b.
> Chiefly in Christian contexts, esp. with reference to the Roman Catholic Church.
> 
> a1225—1998(Show quotations)
> 
>  2. Christian Church.
> 
>  a. A particular religious order or denomination; †a religious house. Also fig. Now rare.
> 
> ...


And for "religious," without copying the whole definition, one of its meanings is: "Of, relating to, or concerned with religion." All of the things I listed are relating to or concerning religion.

Incidentally, your belief that not everything is religion is also religious for the same reason.

----------


## erowe1

> Your anecdotal personal experience aside, it has most definitely been pushed for by some socons,


Which socons?

----------

