Rand Introduces the Life at Conception Act:

[PaleoPaul]

My problem with defining life at conception is that you'd be effectively outlawing Plan B and a host of other birth control pills. Leave it at viability. That's a good compromise.

And one I agree with. Once the baby in the womb can start sensing things, you have no business getting an abortion.

 

[muh_roads]

How bout this, I don't want my infant baby anymore so I kill it, I suffocated it and dumped it in the trash. You gonna come after me? You gonna make this illegal? Why? Its NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!

Its my baby, its my house, you can't tell me what to do in my house, its my privacy! "Respect my decisions" please!

I don't share your religious views and/or morals so stop shoving your morality down my throat!

Next you'll be telling me that I can't beat my wife either.

You impose a danger to society and other people if you demonstrate you can kill something that is self-aware outside of the womb. I'm not an anarchist. If it can think for its own outside of the womb, it deserves protection in a constitutional republic. Any other scenario is a drain on society. And you can't have it both ways, you either help pay for it or you stop telling others what is best for them.

The most ideal scenario is that the income tax is abolished and charity is greatly increased...giving the poor somewhere to go whenever they need it. But we don't live in that system.

Because it is tethered to vital systems in a woman before being born, it is property of the parents and not government or a gaggling democracy of retards that only think in black & white. Sorry if you don't like this cold hard fact about the baby practically being a tumor in the womb, but it is true. It is connected to the female vital systems and therefore the woman (and husband) should always have ultimate say.

 

[Brett85]

My problem with defining life at conception is that you'd be effectively outlawing Plan B and a host of other birth control pills. Leave it at viability. That's a good compromise.

And one I agree with. Once the baby in the womb can start sensing things, you have no business getting an abortion.

The Morning after pill simply prevents conception from happening, it doesn't cause an abortion. Rand has said that he wants the morning after pill to be legal.

 

[FriedChicken]

The Morning after pill simply prevents conception from happening, it doesn't cause an abortion. Rand has said that he wants the morning after pill to be legal.

Not always the case, sometimes it does cause very early, most times even unknown to the parents, miscarriages.
Same is actually true for contraception pills.

Which really is part of why I think its more pragmatic to set the law on the books at 3 weeks past conception. Because a lot of the people on the pill do no know if they have ended an early pregnancy or not and I can't imagine a way for government to enforce the law without becoming very intrusive.

 

[matt0611]

You impose a danger to society and other people if you demonstrate you can kill something that is self-aware outside of the womb. I'm not an anarchist. If it can think for its own outside of the womb, it deserves protection in a constitutional republic. Any other scenario is a drain on society. And you can't have it both ways, you either help pay for it or you stop telling others what is best for them.

The most ideal scenario is that the income tax is abolished and charity is greatly increased...giving the poor somewhere to go whenever they need it. But we don't live in that system.

Because it is tethered to vital systems in a woman before being born, it is property of the parents and not government or a gaggling democracy of retards that only think in black & white. Sorry if you don't like this cold hard fact about the baby practically being a tumor in the womb, but it is true. It is connected to the female vital systems and therefore the woman (and husband) should always have ultimate say.

Just because someone is relying on you for support does not give you the right to kill it.

These argument are so weak and fall apart easily because you can apply them to an infant:

"you either help pay for it or you stop telling others what is best for them."

Well you either help pay for my infant or I'm going to kill it. I can use the same argument with an infant.

An infant relies on its mother to take care of it, its *completely* dependent on the mother for years after its born but its still wrong to kill it.

Yes, sorry, but I live in morals and I believe that murdering your unborn baby is wrong and is just as bad as murdering your infant.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Not always the case, sometimes it does cause very early, most times even unknown to the parents, miscarriages.
Same is actually true for contraception pills.

Which really is part of why I think its more pragmatic to set the law on the books at 3 weeks past conception. Because a lot of the people on the pill do no know if they have ended an early pregnancy or not and I can't imagine a way for government to enforce the law without becoming very intrusive.

Is it intended to cause an abortion though? Is that its primary effect? Or is it intended to stop conception from happening, but occasionally causes an abortion by accident?

If the intent isn't to have an abortion, I'd say you can't have any rights until you are actually alive (Meaning "Concieved") so if the pill was designed to prevent the non-existant fetus from being created, than that should be legally acceptable. The fetus doesn't have any rights until it exists.

 

[familydog]

How exactly is the entire 14th amendment unconstitutional?

Article V of the Constitution explains how amendments can be added. The seceded states were excluded from representation in Congress, but were used to ratify the amendments. They were also threatened with more war had they not voted to ratify them. Both of these situations clearly violate Article V of the Constitution. The same can be said for the 13th Amendment.

 

[familydog]

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.

You are not factoring in the power of negative ads appealing to emotion.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Article V of the Constitution explains how amendments can be added. The seceded states were excluded from representation in Congress, but were used to ratify the amendments. They were also threatened with more war had they not voted to ratify them. Both of these situations clearly violate Article V of the Constitution. The same can be said for the 13th Amendment.

In all seriousness though, do we really want to repeal them? Why?

 

[familydog]

In all seriousness though, do we really want to repeal them? Why?

Did the you know that the formation of West Virginia, Kentucky, and even Maine was unconstitutional? The unconstitutional creation of certain states and the ratification of certain amendments is inconsequential at this point in history. However, if "we" are to follow the Constitution, as Rand and Ron say, we ought to at least actually follow it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Did the you know that the formation of West Virginia, Kentucky, and even Maine was unconstitutional? The unconstitutional creation of certain states and the ratification of certain amendments is inconsequential at this point in history. However, if "we" are to follow the Constitution, as Rand and Ron say, we ought to at least actually follow it.

I knew West Virginia was unconstitutional... Philosophically I feel like WV had the right to secede from Virginia in exactly the same way that Virginia had a right to secede from the US. The constitutiton didn't recognize this, however. Didn't know about the others.

 

[supermario21]

I knew West Virginia was unconstitutional... Philosophically I feel like WV had the right to secede from Virginia in exactly the same way that Virginia had a right to secede from the US. The constitutiton didn't recognize this, however. Didn't know about the others.

Come to think of it, it would be electorally advantageous for Virginia to revert to 1 state.

 

[Christian Liberty]

As much as I despise Lincoln for all of what he really stood for, I'm really quite happy that slavery is illegal throughout the United States and that black people are allowed to vote everywhere in the United States. We got a lot of awful stuff out of that as well, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[muh_roads]

Just because someone is relying on you for support does not give you the right to kill it.

These argument are so weak and fall apart easily because you can apply them to an infant:

"you either help pay for it or you stop telling others what is best for them."

Well you either help pay for my infant or I'm going to kill it. I can use the same argument with an infant.

An infant relies on its mother to take care of it, its *completely* dependent on the mother for years after its born but its still wrong to kill it.

Yes, sorry, but I live in morals and I believe that murdering your unborn baby is wrong and is just as bad as murdering your infant.

Already said outside of the womb it is murder.

Why is the mothers life any less important than the unborn?

Worry about yourself and less about others.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Already said outside of the womb it is murder.

Which is an arbitrary distinction. The newborn still requires the support of his parents.

I understand why some people say "Viability." Walter Block's eviction argument actually makes sense. I don't agree with it, but at least it isn't completely arbitrary. "Birth" is entirely arbitrary and therefore idiotic.

Why is the mothers life any less important than the unborn?

Irrelevant. 95% of pro-lifers (Rough estimate, and including myself) would accept any actual case where the mother's life is in danger as a type of self-defense. Not so for abortion for convenience or even because of rape or incest, none of which should be legal.

Worry about yourself and less about others.

Indeed. Hence why I think all drugs, prostitution, machine guns, polygamy, exc. should be legal. None of them are crimes that have an actual victim (Owning a machine gun isn't a vice either, but I'm disgressing.) None of them should be illegal because there's no victim. Abortion has a victim, an innocent child that the abortionist murdered. As such, the abortionist should be put to death, the woman AND the doctor.

 

[robert68]

My guess is Rand opposes Jury Nullification.

 

[Christian Liberty]

My guess is Rand opposes Jury Nullification.

I still support it. More good would come of it than bad.

If I were President I'd just pardon anti-abortion vigilantes. That's something the President can actually do unilaterally and it would place abortionists in absolute terror. It would be a far stronger assault on abortion in this country than any traditional political technique. I'll never be President though, for that reason and many others.

Long run, however, AuH20 is correct. SHAME will do far more to kill abortion than any law.

 

[tttppp]

Which is an arbitrary distinction. The newborn still requires the support of his parents.

I understand why some people say "Viability." Walter Block's eviction argument actually makes sense. I don't agree with it, but at least it isn't completely arbitrary. "Birth" is entirely arbitrary and therefore idiotic.


Irrelevant. 95% of pro-lifers (Rough estimate, and including myself) would accept any actual case where the mother's life is in danger as a type of self-defense. Not so for abortion for convenience or even because of rape or incest, none of which should be legal.


Indeed. Hence why I think all drugs, prostitution, machine guns, polygamy, exc. should be legal. None of them are crimes that have an actual victim (Owning a machine gun isn't a vice either, but I'm disgressing.) None of them should be illegal because there's no victim. Abortion has a victim, an innocent child that the abortionist murdered. As such, the abortionist should be put to death, the woman AND the doctor.

How do you determine if a mother's life is in danger? You have to get a doctor to sign off on that. Well there are tons of cases doctors cant diagnose, so you would be subjecting many mothers to danger.

 

[anaconda]

One reader's comment seemed compelling:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/...ces-fetal-personhood-bill-to-outlaw-abortion/

"Rand Paul has obviously never actually read the U.S. Constitution, and specifically the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

A "fetal personhood (sic) bill" would not change the fact that the 14th Amendment defines citizens as only those who are "born or naturalized in the United States". Fetuses do not qualify, since they are not born at all, much less "born in the U.S.A." Fetuses cannot be naturalized, as the naturalization process requires not only a test of English and U.S. civics but an Oath of Citizenship, and requires the candidate to be 18 years old or older.

Due process of law obviously refers to the rulings on the SCOTUS in cases such as Roe v. Wade. Abortion is a legal process, pregnant women are (typically) citizens and their rights are protected whereas the "rights" of a blastocyst or a fetus are non-existent.

This is not only the case in civil law in the U.S., but in "God's Law" for alleged Believers.

Exodus Chapter 21 clearly describes God's "Judgement" (KJV), "Law" (NIV), "Ordinance" (Tanach & Catholic Standard), "Legal Decision" (GW) or "Statute" (Septuagint) in the only place in the Bible that defines the legal status of an unborn child. God says an unborn child is Not a Life. God says killing an unborn child is Not Murder. For a Believer to claim otherwise (i.e. that an unborn child is a Life or that killing an unborn child is Murder) is an act of Blasphemy and of placing themselves as a higher judge than God."

 

[Christian Liberty]

One reader's comment seemed compelling:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/...ces-fetal-personhood-bill-to-outlaw-abortion/

"Rand Paul has obviously never actually read the U.S. Constitution, and specifically the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

A "fetal personhood (sic) bill" would not change the fact that the 14th Amendment defines citizens as only those who are "born or naturalized in the United States". Fetuses do not qualify, since they are not born at all, much less "born in the U.S.A." Fetuses cannot be naturalized, as the naturalization process requires not only a test of English and U.S. civics but an Oath of Citizenship, and requires the candidate to be 18 years old or older.

Due process of law obviously refers to the rulings on the SCOTUS in cases such as Roe v. Wade. Abortion is a legal process, pregnant women are (typically) citizens and their rights are protected whereas the "rights" of a blastocyst or a fetus are non-existent.

This is not only the case in civil law in the U.S., but in "God's Law" for alleged Believers.

Exodus Chapter 21 clearly describes God's "Judgement" (KJV), "Law" (NIV), "Ordinance" (Tanach & Catholic Standard), "Legal Decision" (GW) or "Statute" (Septuagint) in the only place in the Bible that defines the legal status of an unborn child. God says an unborn child is Not a Life. God says killing an unborn child is Not Murder. For a Believer to claim otherwise (i.e. that an unborn child is a Life or that killing an unborn child is Murder) is an act of Blasphemy and of placing themselves as a higher judge than God."

Not sure where you're finding that in Exodus 21, but you're correct that a Federal law isn't constitutional. Hence why barring an amendment it should be state-level.