Rand Introduces the Life at Conception Act:

[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.
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

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.