Rand Introduces the Life at Conception Act:

[Christopholes11]

The unborn fetus should not trump the rights of the living mother. The fetus is a guest of sorts living in the womb of the mother. If a woman decides she does not want to support the guest which relies totally on her for survival she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. I do agree that there needs to be a limit though. Perhaps to the point where the nervous system hasn't developed so the fetus can not feel pain, which is where the limit is now from what I understand.

Does a two year old have a right to be sheltered and cared for?May a parent put her out on the highway in winter to fend for herself if she breaks a favorite vase,say?How about a six year old?Serious question.

Yes a child must be cared for. If the mother doesn't want to care for it she should put it up for adoption. But by that point the child has left the womb of the mother. The mother has no right to abandon the child to die. Once the child is born she has a legal responsibility for it. The womb; however, is a part of the woman's body. The fetus is allowed to live there by her permission. The fetus has no right over the mother to live there.

 

[matt0611]

The unborn fetus should not trump the rights of the living mother. The fetus is a guest of sorts living in the womb of the mother. If a woman decides she does not want to support the guest which relies totally on her for survival she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. I do agree that there needs to be a limit though. Perhaps to the point where the nervous system hasn't developed so the fetus can not feel pain, which is where the limit is now from what I understand.



Yes a child must be cared for. If the mother doesn't want to care for it she should put it up for adoption. But by that point the child has left the womb of the mother. The mother has no right to abandon the child to die. Once the child is born she has a legal responsibility for it. The womb; however, is a part of the woman's body. The fetus is allowed to live there by her permission. The fetus has no right over the mother to live there.

That's just being arbitrary, you have responsibility to care for the child after birth but not before?

No, before and after birth the mother has responsibility for the baby.

Just because the baby lives inside the mother before being born does not change the fact that its under her care. She cannot kill it just because its inside her, that is just arbitrary.

 

[cheapseats]

That's just being arbitrary, you have responsibility to care for the child after birth but not before?

No, before and after birth the mother has responsibility for the baby.

You, too, are decider-ing "truth".

 

[matt0611]

You, too, are decider-ing "truth".

No, I'm being consistent. Life is life and just because a baby lives inside its mother does not give her the right to kill it.

Otherwise its just arbitrary.

 

[Christopholes11]

No, I'm being consistent. Life is life and just because a baby lives inside its mother does not give her the right to kill it.

Otherwise its just arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary to me, just consistent with my position. I don't believe I, or the government, can tell anyone what they can and can't do to their own body. The fetus is a part of the woman's body. Therefore I do not feel I have the right to tell her what to do with the unborn fetus, nor does the government. I understand both sides here are approaching this from two different prospectives of liberty. I will grant you this, this liberty argument against abortion presented by the Pauls and on this forum is far more convincing than any religious argument so often presented by other politicians. I just don't quite agree with it.

 

[MelissaWV]

Two threads with the same argument going at the same time...

 

[MaxPower]

To say that a woman could not evict a fetus from her body is to say that the fetus has the right to be sheltered and cared for. Only two logical outcomes can follow, if we are to remain in the libertarian realm:

1. The fetus is not a human
2. All individuals possess the right for another person to shelter and care for them

How about this:
"To say that the owner cannot electively evict passengers from his yacht and throw them into the open sea to drown is to say that the passengers have the right to be sheltered and cared for. Only two logical outcomes can follow, if we are to remain in the libertarian realm:
1. Yacht passengers are not human.
2. All individuals possess the right for another person to shelter and care for them."

Of course, it is a false dichotomy. "All individuals" do not possess the right to be sheltered and cared for, but in the special case that you temporarily take a person onto your premises who does not have the option of voluntarily leaving and preserving his or her own life, and who you cannot evict without killing them in the same act, then yes, you have absolutely no right to evict them.

Additionally, if we are to consider evicting - the mere removal of the fetus, not a chemical or instrumental act of aggression - a fetus murder, due to it not receiving the necessary conditions for life, then we must consider declining to feed a starving man murder.

No, it would be more analogous to forcibly tearing a disabled person from his oxygen tubes so that he suffocates to death; "declining to feed a starving man" is entirely inactive. If you removed a man from a healthful state and forcibly, knowingly, actively placed him in a situation where he had no option but to starve to death (for example, inviting him into your house and then locking him in your cellar with no food or water for a week), it would absolutely be murder.

 

[Brett85]

The fetus is a part of the woman's body.

No, it's inside the woman's body, not a part of it. If a car is parked in a garage, you don't say that the car is part of the garage.

 

[cheapseats]

Two threads with the same argument going at the same time...

Beating a Dead Horse

To bring up an issue that has already been concluded.

If an argument erupts, and it's one that has been previously settled in the past, then the idiom "beating a dead horse" might be said by someone who sees any further discussion on the topic as pointless.

That's what's so neat-o about wedge issues...they're NEVER settled. They are among life's IMPONDERABLES = CANNOT UNDERGO PRECISE EVALUATION.

No matter HOW many times ya go 'round this mulberry bush, THERE IT IS. The "other side" can't NOT reply with HIJKLMN when the opposing "side" sez ABCDEFG, lest newcomers are unduly influenced by only one "side" being presented/pimped.

Sadly, these hopelessly divided "opposing sides" (read that, differing BELIEFS) are actually on the SAME side . . . which is, for quite awhile now, getting CREAMED by Ruling Elite.

 

[matt0611]

It's not arbitrary to me, just consistent with my position. I don't believe I, or the government, can tell anyone what they can and can't do to their own body. The fetus is a part of the woman's body. Therefore I do not feel I have the right to tell her what to do with the unborn fetus, nor does the government. I understand both sides here are approaching this from two different prospectives of liberty. I will grant you this, this liberty argument against abortion presented by the Pauls and on this forum is far more convincing than any religious argument so often presented by other politicians. I just don't quite agree with it.

But I think the point where your argument falls apart is that: why are you saying its not right to tell someone what they can do in or with their own body but it is ok to tell them what they can do in their own house?

My house is my property and I don't believe anyone has the right to tell me what I can do inside of it until it comes to hurting another person.

I can't kill a person inside my body like I can't kill someone inside my house.

I agree someone can't tell you what to do with your own body except when it comes to killing an unborn baby inside of you.

 

[Christopholes11]

No, it's inside the woman's body, not a part of it. If a car is parked in a garage, you don't say that the car is part of the garage.

It's attached to the woman's body. It relies on the woman's body. Therefore it is a part of the woman's body in my opinion.

But I think the point where your argument falls apart is that: why are you saying its not right to tell someone what they can do in or with their own body but it is ok to tell them what they can do in their own house?

I think the key here is I don't believe your legal rights begin until after you are born, not before. If we are to argue that the unborn fetus has legal rights then I still would argue the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus, until birth.

 

[I<3Liberty]

Did not follow the link. But an artifical womb would destroy most of the philsophical arguement.

You're right. Basically any way to transfer a fetus or allow it to develop outside of another person's body until 24 weeks (at this point, it can survive outside the mother thanks to modern technology.)

The link I posted was to 100% effective contraceptives. Personally, I see the point where women have the choice of whether or not to get pregnant and a 100% effective contraceptive, this be the point of equality. Abortion isn't equality because (with all ethical argument about the unborn left aside) the mother has to endure great pain, discomfort, blood loss, and she always has a chance of infection, permanent damage, or death. Abortion doesn't establish equality for either the women or the unborn -- a safe 100% effective contraceptive will. The one featured in the link onyl costs $1 and is said to last 10 years (but, it can be reversed at any time with an additional injection.) This will end any dispute about the poor having access to contraceptives.

 

[familydog]

Huge mistake by Rand, politically speaking. He will be slaughtered with this if he makes it to the general election. What a let down after his filibuster and great speech at CPAC.

Besides, the 14th Amendment itself is unconstitutional. He ought to know this. These kinds of bills just reinforce the Amendment's existence.

 

[T.hill]

Huge mistake by Rand, politically speaking. He will be slaughtered with this if he makes it to the general election. What a let down after his filibuster and great speech at CPAC.

Besides, the 14th Amendment itself is unconstitutional. He ought to know this. These kinds of bills just reinforce the Amendment's existence.

How exactly is the entire 14th amendment unconstitutional?

 

[PaleoPaul]

Viability is one thing, but conception?

 

[Brett85]

Huge mistake by Rand, politically speaking. He will be slaughtered with this if he makes it to the general election. What a let down after his filibuster and great speech at CPAC.

Besides, the 14th Amendment itself is unconstitutional. He ought to know this. These kinds of bills just reinforce the Amendment's existence.

It won't make any difference at all. The Gallup poll shows that only 15% of pro choice voters would never vote for a pro life candidate. Most voters aren't going to vote against a candidate for President just because he or she is opposed to baby killing.

 

[Brett85]

Viability is one thing, but conception?

There's no difference.

 

[MaxPower]

It's attached to the woman's body. It relies on the woman's body. Therefore it is a part of the woman's body in my opinion.

If you had a conjoined twin who was attached to an dependent on your body (*a real situation which does occur*), would he or she be a "part of your body" fit for elective killing?

 

[Carlybee]

State's issue..federal law needs to stay out of it. It would also take the pressure off of people running for office at the national level to not have to address the issue in an official manner. As long as politicians keep pandering to the holy roller ultra right they can kiss goodbye any moderates and/or libertarian votes. Most people I know are sick of Santorum-like morality police and whether one thinks so or not that is what this bill smacks of to many. If the GOP is headed even further right I hope Rand and others aren't counting heavily on the libertarian vote and it doesn't sound like they are. You can't be against government intervention and for government intervention in the same sentence. Just my 2 cents.

 

[PaleoPaul]

There's no difference.

Yes, there is. Most times a woman can't even tell if she's pregnant for well over a month. And you honestly think there's no difference between a baby that's just been conceived and one that's developed in the womb for three months? Hell, even one month?