Rand email - Roe v. Wade's Protection of Abortion-on-Demand

[thecoloredsky]

I just received an email from Rand about a new abortion law he's looking to push through. You can read the jist here: http://www.prolifealliance.com/end_roeVwade.html

I don't get it. As a liberty minded person, wouldn't the individual determine the fate of the unborn? Isn't the unborn the "property" so to speak of the bearer? At the point of conception the government does not own the unborn. How does to government play into this? Rand's law would call the unborn a "person." So does that mean "it" gets a social security number and is granted constitutional rights? If an abortion happened after this was passed, what is the remedy for the unborn (lawfully speaking)? I don't understand why this is a government issue at all, it should reside with the property owner, the woman/man/family etc. I like Rand on many points but he's missing the mark on this.

edit: Wow I killed the topic title with horrible spelling. Should be good now.

 

[Crashland]

I just received an email from Rand about a new abortion law he's looking to push through. You can read the jist here: http://www.prolifealliance.com/end_roeVwade.html

I don't get it. As a liberty minded person, wouldn't the individual determine the fate of the unborn? Isn't the unborn the "property" so to speak of the bearer? At the point of conception the government does not own the unborn. How does to government play into this? Rand's law would call the unborn a "person." So does that mean "it" gets a social security number and is granted constitutional rights? If an abortion happened after this was passed, what is the remedy for the unborn (lawfully speaking)? I don't understand why this is a government issue at all, it should reside with the property owner, the woman/man/family etc. I like Rand on many points but he's missing the mark on this.

edit: Wow I killed the topic title with horrible spelling. Should be good now.

Personally, I don't see it that way. An unborn child is not the "property" by the bearer any more than it is the "property" of the state. I frame it more in the question of whether anyone should be legally forced to allow someone else the usage of their organs to survive.

 

[nikcers]

I just received an email from Rand about a new abortion law he's looking to push through. I don't get it. As a liberty minded person, wouldn't the individual determine the fate of the unborn?



Another one of Rand Pauls bills that look like a duck but aren't a duck they are designed as a litmus test for congress. Its a win/win for him because he gets to tell the anti abortion people that he is on their side because technically he is. Plus if you look at the actual text of the legislation it is probably not even aimed at abortion. Its 2015, and how many more years do you think it will be before Women will be able to fully control their bodys, their eggs and not get them fertalized? I am not talking about rare instances of rape, but I can understand that the wording in the way the we see society in 20 years from now will have bigger impacts on the way that we define a human person.

Human person; human being.--The terms ``human person''
and ``human being'' include each and every member of the
species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the
moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an
individual member of the human species comes into being.

 

[Brett85]

Rand supports laws against murder, which isn't a position that's inconsistent for a libertarian to take. I frankly would never support any candidate who believes that murder should be legal.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Rand supports laws against murder, which isn't a position that's inconsistent for a libertarian to take. I frankly would never support any candidate who believes that murder should be legal.

Me either. And, I'm hesitant of most "pro-life" politicians that don't actually see abortion as murder...