Rand Introduces the Life at Conception Act:

[Brett85]

Not if you explain it from the liberty prism as opposed to clumsily falling back on the Bible or "God." The democrats haven't seen anyone like Rand Paul. I welcome the coming hysterics when they cry for the right for infanticide.

Exactly. You can frame the abortion issue in a way that actually resonates with people, rather than saying "a woman who gets raped shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion because it's part of God's will."

 

[muh_roads]

What about a 3 year old who's mentally retarded? They obviously have a very low IQ. Shouldn't it be legal to kill them since those children are apparently too dumb to exist?

When I brought up IQ you were supposed to detect I was playing devils advocate.

Lets say the mental retardation is so bad that it is beyond affordable for the parents. Should the government be allowed to forcibly take from you to keep the child going?

 

[AuH20]

Exactly. You can frame the abortion issue in a way that actually resonates with people, rather than saying "a woman who gets raped shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion because it's part of God's will."

"Colored people are like human weeds."

Margaret Sanger

Rand Paul could just read Margaret Sanger's quote collection during one of the debates and he would be fine.

 

[Brett85]

When I brought up IQ you were supposed to detect I was playing devils advocate.

Lets say the mental retardation is so bad that it is beyond affordable for the parents. Should the government be allowed to forcibly take from you to keep the child going?

No, but the parents shouldn't have the right to kill the child. The point you seemed to be making was that a baby in the womb isn't a real human being simply because it has low IQ. That just doesn't seem to be a valid argument to justfify legal abortion when many people who have been born have brain problems and a low IQ.

 

[muh_roads]

Not if you explain it from the liberty prism as opposed to clumsily falling back on the Bible or "God." The democrats haven't seen anyone like Rand Paul. I welcome the coming hysterics when they cry for the right for infanticide.

It isn't crying for infanticide. Quit viewing things in black and white.

What if the family that planned to have the child suddenly created serious complications for the mother. They have the choice of either the mother dying or the child?

It is a touchy subject for sure, but this family requires two bread winners to make ends meet and they already have many children that need their mother.

Should you or the government get to decide for the husband if he can do it alone or not? If that is the case now all of the existing children will suffer a lower quality of life because he can't afford them all. And since she is a broodmare for the state I guess she gets no say in the matter.

This is why it should be a family decision. Not the heavy hand of government or a "democracy" of people that feel they know what is best for others.

 

[FriedChicken]

I just saw my second kid today via ultrasound. Even saw its hands moving and its heart beating.
Our first ultrasound (this was only our second, to make sure it was in the proper position for birth) was to make certain my wife was pregnant (it was standard procedure) so my wife was very very early into the pregnancy ...

in that first ultrasound there was no doubt it was a child. We actually saw it "roll over" - I couldn't believe what a little person it was ... and it was the size of a small bean or something.
I can't remember how far she was and the actual size of it or whatever but it was amazing.

I think on a legislative level it might be best [possible to enforce, but not morally ideal] to say life begins [should be protected against 'murder'] at 3 weeks after conception.
Any abortion that would be performed during that time would only be chemical (morning after pill, contraception, etc.) (yes, birth control pills often cause unintended and most times unknown 'abortions') and it would put an end to a lot of the arguments people have in favor of abortion.

At three weeks there is no disputing the fact that the baby can feel pain, has its own dna code, has a heart beat ... who knows what else, probably even a gender. A lot happens in three weeks but I'm not going to take the time to google it right now.

My wife and I act on the assumption/belief that life begins at conception. However, I don't like laws that aren't enforceable so I think I favor the legal definition being 3 weeks after conception.

 

[AuH20]

It isn't crying for infanticide. Quit viewing things in black and white.

What if the family that planned to have the child suddenly created serious complications for the mother. They have the choice of either the mother dying or the child?

It is a touchy subject for sure, but this family requires two bread winners to make ends meet and they already have many children that need their mother.

Should you or the government get to decide for the husband if he can do it alone or not? If that is the case now all of the existing children will suffer a lower quality of life because he can't afford them all.

This is why it should be a family decision. Not the heavy hand of government or a "democracy" of people that feel they know what is best for others.

What is the real percentage for abortions that would fall under that category??? Under 5%?? Based off empirical data, most abortions are made for personal and economic reasons. Erase the mistake or in this case, deny the individual their life as well as 5th amendment rights as well. The victims don't even have a say in their own sentence.

 

[muh_roads]

What is the real percentage for abortions that would fall under that category??? Under 5%??

If it is...so?

Lets say the economy gets so bad that 95% of the population becomes the entitlement class. In a democracy they get say on robbing from the other 5%. Is this fair?

 

[AuH20]

If it is...so?

Lets say the economy gets so bad that 95% of the population becomes the entitlement class. In a democracy they get say on robbing from the other 5%. Is this fair?

What I'm sayin is that the "health complication" argument isn't representative of the majority of abotions performed in this country. It's a red herring. Yes, you can make a logical, compelling argument for mothers who's health is placed in jeopardy by a high risk pregnancy, but we're talking about a very tiny percentage. Most abortions are nuisance removals, when you cut through the propaganda. That's all. Humans will rationalize anything, so it's not exactly surprising that we arrived at this disturbing stage where abortion isn't considered a big deal. The mentality is more frightening than the fact that abortions are performed.

 

[FriedChicken]

It isn't crying for infanticide. Quit viewing things in black and white.

What if the family that planned to have the child suddenly created serious complications for the mother. They have the choice of either the mother dying or the child?

It is a touchy subject for sure, but this family requires two bread winners to make ends meet and they already have many children that need their mother.

Should you or the government get to decide for the husband if he can do it alone or not? If that is the case now all of the existing children will suffer a lower quality of life because he can't afford them all.

This is why it should be a family decision. Not the heavy hand of government or a "democracy" of people that feel they know what is best for others.

In reality / moral grounds [I have given this so much thought it depresses me - I thought it through during my wife's first pregnancy] I'm fully aware that nothing can change the fact that the unborn child is OUR child. If it came to a choice between them and her I would choose her though - and, since I believe in God, I will be accountable for whatever sin I committed.
My wife would selflessly give her life for the child's, but we've already talked it through and she knows where I stand.

Legally speaking? I use the somewhat flimsy and begging for loopholes argument of self defense.

That said ... not much is done in America to save both. From what I've read, researched and heard we could get on a flight to another part of the country (or Canada for cheaper rates) to have procedures performed that would be aimed at saving both lives.
I'm not aware of ANY emergency procedures where an abortion must be performed asap (as in within the hour) - in those type scenarios it is far enough along that a c-section is done.
This is my worst nightmare so I've done a great deal of thinking through how I would react and have had very long discussions with my wife about it.

 

[muh_roads]

What I'm sayin is that the "health complication" argument isn't representative of the majority of abotions performed in this country. It's a red herring. Yes, you can make a logical, compelling argument for mothers who's health is placed in jeopardy by a high risk pregnancy, but we're talking about a very tiny percentage. Most abortions are nuisance removals, when you cut through the propaganda. That's all. Humans will rationalize anything, so it's not exactly surprising that we arrived at this disturbing stage where abortion isn't considered a big deal. The mentality is more frightening than the fact that abortions are performed.

Stay on topic. Do you believe in respecting that small statistic?

 

[AuH20]

Stay on topic. Do you believe in respecting that small statistic?

Yes, if it's proven to be so. But for the other 95%. Absolutely not. I think whoever gets an abortion needs be shamed as opposed to thrown into a cell.

 

[Pisces]

I think this will help Rand win the votes of Midwestern white Catholics. These are voters that voted for Bush but didn't show up for Romney. People forget that Bush got more votes in 2004 than McCain or Romney did in their elections. He was also seen as much more of a social conservative than either Romney or McCain. You can't really say that he never acted on his pro-life views either. It was under his presidency that the partial-birth abortion ban was passed. That is probably the only rollback of abortion that has ever passed Congress since Roe vs. Wade. I think Bush's pro-life record is why he won Ohio twice. Many evangelicals and faithful Catholics in the Midwest would vote Democrat if it weren't for social issues. A good portion of the Reagan Democrats were blue collar voters that felt alienated by the Democrats leftist social and cultural views.

I don't think Rand or any Republican has a chance at winning California or New England anytime soon. Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are winnable for him, though.

 

[FriedChicken]

Stay on topic. Do you believe in respecting that small statistic?

Answering for myself, yes.
Do you think 95% of abortions should be stopped by the government ideally speaking? Or should abortions be performed for anyone who wishes them regardless of motivation?

 

[muh_roads]

Yes, if it's proven to be so. But for the other 95%. Absolutely not. I think whoever gets an abortion needs be shamed as opposed to thrown into a cell.

Why is the baby's life less important than the mothers for that 5%?

 

[supermario21]

I think this will help Rand win the votes of Midwestern white Catholics. These are voters that voted for Bush but didn't show up for Romney. People forget that Bush got more votes in 2004 than McCain or Romney did in their elections. He was also seen as much more of a social conservative than either Romney or McCain. You can't really say that he never acted on his pro-life views either. It was under his presidency that the partial-birth abortion ban was passed. That is probably the only rollback of abortion that has ever passed Congress since Roe vs. Wade. I think Bush's pro-life record is why he won Ohio twice. Many evangelicals and faithful Catholics in the Midwest would vote Democrat if it weren't for social issues. Many of the Reagan Democrats were blue collar voters that felt alienated by the Democrats leftist social and cultural views.

I don't think Rand or any Republican has a chance at winning California or New England anytime soon. Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are winnable for him, though.

Rand has many Pat Buchanan like qualities, and he should appeal to the industrial midwest, especially if the Dems do not have Hillary. Without the auto bailout, Obama would have likely lost Ohio. Paul's genuine personality will help him in the region and he won't come off like some rich guy who can't relate to anyone, as he dealt with middle (and lower-class) America every day in his professional life, especially in Kentucky.

As you said, Bush did really well in these states. Heck, he only lost by .4 in Wisconsin, was within 3.5 in Michigan, and 2.5 in Pennsylvania.

 

[AuH20]

edit

 

[FriedChicken]

Why is the baby's life less important than the mothers for that 5%?

The only argument I have is self defense, which I'm not completely convinced of - which is why I said I'll be accountable for whatever sin I've committed against my own child.

 

[AuH20]

Why is the baby's life less important than the mothers for that 5%?

It's not less important, but it's a King Solomon like proposal. There is no right answer in that type of rare scenario.

 

[James Madison]

Bush out-performed McCain and Romney for the very simple reason that social conservatives made up a large chunk of the voting block back in 2000. Those people just died off, and we replaced them with a generation of wannabe Marxists.