Rand Introduces the Life at Conception Act:

[Brett85]

I like to pretend this side of the Paul family doesn't exist. It's really the only thing I disagree with them on and it's not a major issue to me, but unfortunately it is a major issue to a lot of young people who will never give them the time of day because of this.

I don't see any evidence that young voters are more pro choice than voters of other ages or view that issue as being extremely important. On gay marriage yes, young voters are a lot more supportive of gay marriage than older voters. But I haven't seen that same data on abortion. Most of the polls I've seen show about the same level of support for abortion rights among all age groups.

 

[supermario21]

Here's another gallup poll. As I said, pro-lifers place a greater emphasis on the issue than those that are pro-choice.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157886/abortion-threshold-issue-one-six-voters.aspx

One more, something very important if Rand is up against Andrew Cuomo, a guy making abortion laws much less strict in New York.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

Johnson was very murky on foreign policy and arguably worse than Rand. Issues aside, Johnson didn't seem confident or articulate when discussing the issues. Rand is much more confident and articulate, it shows especially when compared to Rubio. Gary should just run for NM Senate in 2014. As a Republican.

Senator Johnson would be nice. We need him, if Rand is running for POTUS. Or maybe have Johnson on Rand's admin somewhere =s.

 

[ronaldo23]

There's thousands of polls I'm sure, but I think most Americans take a moderate stance on this and the hardline "life at conception" is not widely popular.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

yep, a majority of americans consider themselves "pro-life" on a personal level, but yet the vast majority support legalized abortion.

while I can respect the pro-life argument very much, it's hard to argue that it's a winning issue for a national politician...

 

[Brett85]

There's thousands of polls I'm sure, but I think most Americans take a moderate stance on this and the hardline "life at conception" is not widely popular.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

1) Yes, but that poll doesn't show that a majority of voters would never consider voting for a candidate who supports a ban on abortion.
2) The way that question is phrased I would actually be part of the 52% who would say that abortion should "be legal only under certain circumstances," even though I'm about as hardcore pro life as you can possibly get. I think there should be an exception for the life of the mother. That doesn't seem like a very good poll question.
3) Notice that the 2nd poll showed that 50% of voters identified themselves as "pro life" in 2012, which was close to a record. The American people were moving in the pro life direction on that issue until the comments by Akin and Mourdock. That's what really set back the pro life cause.

 

[Brett85]

So only 17% of voters will only vote for a candidate who shares their view on the abortion issue, including only 15% of pro choice voters? Given this data, why exactly would Rand's stance on this issue make him unelectable in the general election again?

 

[Christian Liberty]

No. If a candidate won't defend life, how could they reliably defend liberty? It'd be inconsistent or show flawed reasoning.

I marvel at people who say there are bigger issues. We've killed 55 million of the unborn in the US alone since Roe vs. Wade. I oppose our foreign entanglements because I am consistently pro-life. Even for all our war machine, have we killed more than 2 million that way? 6 million is the number frequently cited for holocaust. Is the economy more important? Devalued money? I guess those of us who are allowed to live might see it as a more immediate problem, since we have to deal with it, and can forget those who are dead. Is legal due process or any civil liberty more important when swathes of us are being arbitrarily denied of every single liberty with no due process at all?

It all comes down to whether you see the unborn as human. If you do, and you really think about it, it looms far beyond any other issue. And that's why many pro-life people see it as a make or break issue.

Firstly, there's the whole "We" thing. There is no "We". I haven't killed anyone. The government has killed a lot of people, but that through foreign wars, not abortion. It is the women themselves, and their doctors, who murder those children in the womb.

In foreign war, the government itself commits murder.

In addition, 55 million would hardly drop to 0 if it was banned. I don't think it would matter much at all to the number killed. Maybe a few get punished. Good. I'm all for that. But the foreign wars affect everything. They affect our liberty in every way. Maybe I'm just selfish, but I want to be free...

I don't completely agree with this abortion article by Laurence Vance, I think he underplays the issue a little bit, but I think he makes a compelling argument for the "Its not the most important thing" argument. I'm somewhere in between you and Vance. I think abortion (Pro-life) is more important than side-ish issues like weed, legalizing prostitution, or such. But when it comes to the core of the movement, the foreign policy, constitututional liberty, exc. that's the most important. I believe Ron and Rand are sincere, but most Republicans don't care about abortion, they advocate its ban so they can get votes.

http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance298.html

Rothbard did not see legalized abortion as incompatible with liberty, and he was arguably among the top 3 most important libertarians of all time.

I believe Rothbard was wrong. I respect him, but I still think he's wrong. Just remember Rothbard was a huge fan of Ron Paul as well.

 

[brandon]

1) Yes, but that poll doesn't show that a majority of voters would never consider voting for a candidate who supports a ban on abortion.
2) The way that question is phrased I would actually be part of the 52% who would say that abortion should "be legal only under certain circumstances," even though I'm about as hardcore pro life as you can possibly get. I think there should be an exception for the life of the mother. That doesn't seem like a very good poll question.

I know, I understand what you're saying. That's why I said there are thousands of polls. I'm sure there are some that address your specific question, but I'm not going to search for them right now. Mostly because I'm a bit drunk. But if you spend 15 minutes googling I'm sure you'll find some. You might be right, I don't know.

 

[brandon]

And does Rand's interpretation of the 14th allow for abortion in the case of the mother being at risk? It doesn't seem like it from what I read, but granted I didn't read the actual text of the bill.

 

[Brett85]

Agreed. There are so many more important things to worry about that can unite people from all over the political spectrum instead of pushing divisive legislation such as this.

If it were legal to murder those who are 10 years old and younger, and Rand introduced a bill to give legal protections to those who are 10 years old and younger, would you be saying the same thing as you are now?

 

[Christian Liberty]

If it were legal to murder those who are 10 years old and younger, and Rand introduced a bill to give legal protections to those who are 10 years old and younger, would you be saying the same thing as you are now?

Honest question here, would we be sitting here posting about why government should change its view? Or would we be shooting?

I get asked this rhetorically by liberals before and have ignored it because to be honest, I have no answer.

The reality right now is that abortion is extremely controversial. It shouldn't be, but it is. A lot of people believe that it is OK to commit murder in the womb. Government can only do so much about this. Not "Government should only do so much", they CAN'T do all that much.

 

[ronaldo23]

If it were legal to murder those who are 10 years old and younger, and Rand introduced a bill to give legal protections to those who are 10 years old and younger, would you be saying the same thing as you are now?

Would you support Rand starting a 13 hour filibuster to protest legalized abortion and to introduce the life at conception act (assuming some bill related to abortion laws comes for a vote in the senate)? Why or why not?

 

[Brett85]

The only thing I can think politically is that he wins a lot of points with social conservatives. Which may be needed if he is going to start getting into his opinions on allowing gay marriage (not having a federal definition or the word) and scaling back on the war on drugs. He can point to this to argue he agrees with them fully on their most important issue.

Exactly. This is what those criticizing Rand for this need to understand. Rand has already deviated from the Republican Party line on marriage and drugs. To make up for that he at least needs to prove that he's 100% pro life. That will reassure some people who may not agree with his position on marriage and drugs.

 

[Brett85]

Would you support Rand starting a 13 hour filibuster to protest legalized abortion and to introduce the life at conception act (assuming some bill related to abortion laws comes for a vote in the senate)? Why or why not?

I think that would be counter productive when such a bill doesn't actually have a chance of passing. There's a big difference between simply introducing a bill silently to reassure conservatives of your position and actually speaking about it for 13 hours.

 

[ronaldo23]

The only thing I can think politically is that he wins a lot of points with social conservatives. Which may be needed if he is going to start getting into his opinions on allowing gay marriage (not having a federal definition or the word) and scaling back on the war on drugs. He can point to this to argue he agrees with them fully on their most important issue.

And by doing this early enough hopefully the blow back will not be huge. The only votes you absolutely lose are single issue pro-choicers which we were not going to get anyway.

Either way, it could come back to bite us in the ass. But I have to believe we didn't get to where we are without some gambles.

Slutter McGee

that is a good point, indeed. Like you, I have my worries though.

 

[Brett85]

Honest question here, would we be sitting here posting about why government should change its view? Or would we be shooting?

I don't know, but I just bring that up to explain how I and others feel about this issue. I believe that a man killing a 10 year old child on the street is no different at all from an abortionist killing a baby in the womb. It's the exact same thing to me. If you consider that's the way I view this issue, everyone should be able to understand why people like myself are so obsessed with this issue. This isn't just a typical political issue to many of us.

 

[muh_roads]

I hate these stupid wedge issues. Just when I was getting democrats on board this shit comes out. lame.

The pendulum swings both ways...a state that makes abortion illegal can just as easily mandate abortion. Government should not interfere with a family and their personal decisions.

 

[TheTyke]

Financial Times reports that China has killed 330 million of the unborn just in the last four decades.

That's 330,000,0000. And that's not counting the 56+ million in the US, and others all over the world. This site puts the worldwide total at 1,288,310,883 since 1980. That's a death toll of over a billion lives destroyed.... more than all the wars in the history of the world put together. If you believe they are human... that's just... unfathomable.

Vance notes that many Republicans benefit politically from the situation and won't address it. That's true, but why we like Ron and Rand is they actually would. The strategic concepts of voting for lesser evils are up to each person's conscience. Slavery was the greatest blight against freedom at the founding of our country. The great blight of our generation is abortion, with people trying to define it away, or ignoring its overwhelming horror. If you believe these are human, to say this is not the most important issue is simply considering ourselves more important than any number of bones we crunch under foot.

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.

 

[Brett85]

The pendulum swings both ways...a state that makes murder illegal can just as easily mandate murder.

Does your statement still make sense when I substitute the word "murder" for the word "abortion?"

 

[supermario21]

A liberty candidate like Ron/Rand Paul should have the easiest time defending pro-life positions. Without life, there is no liberty. And Democrats love pulling out the pro-life but pro-war line on Republicans, it wouldn't work on Rand.