Rand Introduces the Life at Conception Act:

[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"?