Rand Introduces the Life at Conception Act:

[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/politics/magazine/111368/the-rise-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.