Rand Introduces the Life at Conception Act:

[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/abortion/274597-pro-choice-champion-stepping-down

and this: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?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.