Rand Introduces the Life at Conception Act:

[whoisjohngalt]

Umm....I didn't just say "Plan B". I said.... If a change in the law caused "Plan B" to be the primary form of "abortion" or even RU-486, that would be fine with me.

RU-486 = misoprostol. And, to my knowledge, it still has to be used quite early in the pregnancy.

The early it's used, the higher the effective rate. Abortion clinics will be the first to decline as it becomes more DIY. Then, abortions will rapidly decline on whole as technology and science relegate it to an evil of the past. Government is not the solution to this problem. The solution lies in the free market as always. I too strongly doubt the government's (especially federal) efficacy in preventing abortion.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Not true. There have been cases where high school girls have hid their pregnancy from others and no one ever knew about it, and then they gave birth to a baby in a bathroom stall at their prom night and threw the baby in a trash can. In the cases that we know of these girls got caught, but we know there has to be cases when they didn't get caught. These babies that are thrown in trash cans aren't any less human simply because no one ever knew they existed.

I'm not talking about their humanity. I'm talking about the fundamental difference in dealing with the government's ability to affect the situation. If we spent 1 trillion a year on abortion prevention and it resulted in a 1% decrease in abortion while simultaneously increasing infection and death by 5% from underground abortions, would it still be a good idea?

Murder laws act as a deterrent for murder to some extent, but they also keep people who are willing to murder off the streets. Someone who is willing to have an abortion is typically not willing to commit murder if it involves someone outside the womb, another reason it can't be equated. We don't fear the abortionists lack of concern for life, except that in her own womb, thus the punitive aspect (the main advantage to murder laws) is not necessary.

Spending a ton of money and seeing a net increase in the number of deaths doesn't sound good to me even if I were to accept that abortion is murder, which I'm not so sure about.

 

[Todd]

Ron did want to define life as beginning at conception, but I'm pretty sure he wanted the states to set the penalty... if any... I think Rand wants the procedure banned nationwide. Rand is also a compromise in other respects besides this one. Granted, I still support Rand. If I were going to oppose him on anything, it would be his iffy foreign policy. But he's still better than anyone else of any relevance so I'm behind him.

Here is what his father's bill did;

The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[7][8

I'm not sure about how Rand's bill is very different because what little details I've read are scarce. But how is his federal ban different than his fathers. It's not. A federal ban is a federal ban.

 

[Brett85]

I'm not talking about their humanity. I'm talking about the fundamental difference in dealing with the government's ability to affect the situation. If we spent 1 trillion a year on abortion prevention and it resulted in a 1% decrease in abortion while simultaneously increasing infection and death by 5% from underground abortions, would it still be a good idea?

It wouldn't involve spending any money, at least at the federal level. We're talking about a law that would define life as beginning at conception and would give the unborn the same legal rights as everyone else, but it would be up to the states to determine what the penalties are for abortion and to enforce laws against abortion. I'm not advocating creating a federal abortion police, and I don't think Rand is either.

 

[Christian Liberty]

People will just go to Mexico or some back alley and get unsafe abortions. It will not stop abortions, it will just fill up jails with those who get caught. I remember when they were illegal in Texas and girls went over the border to New Mexico to get them. Teenagers are more scared of telling their parents they are pregnant than the thought of a murder conviction. But lets ignore reality.

The doctor can sign a written note allowing an abortion whenever there's a significant chance the mother could die from giving birth. The things that you mentioned wouldn't put a dent in the abortion rate.

Here is the problem I have with any law such as this one: It is impossible to know exactly when "conception" occurs. Our science is just not there yet. At some point in a pregnancy, we can say that a woman is for sure pregnant, but that is days after "conception". If a woman has not had intercourse for, oh, say, 28 days or so, we can almost say for sure she is or is not pregnant. Anything in between, it is impossible to know with the technology we possess now. So laws that talk about "conception" as some sort of bench mark make no sense. Rand being a physician, I am surprised he would go down this road.

I think this is why Rand believes the Morning After Pill should be legal, because most likely conception hasn't actually occurred the morning after sex. But, there isn't any situation where a woman actually gets an abortion at an abortion clinic within 3-4 days of being pregnant. No one can find out they're pregnant that quickly and then get in that quickly to get an abortion. So passing a law that closes down every abortion clinic in the U.S would be a just law. Every single abortion that is performed at an abortion clinic kills an innocent human being.

Funny some of the responses in this thread about this subject. When Ron introduced the same legislation....crickets. Now Rand does and people threaten to bolt. LOL.

I'm not talking about their humanity. I'm talking about the fundamental difference in dealing with the government's ability to affect the situation. If we spent 1 trillion a year on abortion prevention and it resulted in a 1% decrease in abortion while simultaneously increasing infection and death by 5% from underground abortions, would it still be a good idea?

Murder laws act as a deterrent for murder to some extent, but they also keep people who are willing to murder off the streets. Someone who is willing to have an abortion is typically not willing to commit murder if it involves someone outside the womb, another reason it can't be equated. We don't fear the abortionists lack of concern for life, except that in her own womb, thus the punitive aspect (the main advantage to murder laws) is not necessary.

Spending a ton of money and seeing a net increase in the number of deaths doesn't sound good to me even if I were to accept that abortion is murder, which I'm not so sure about.

Except that they deserve to die since they commit murder...

I'm not saying "New Huge Federal Department." But in any case where abortion is actually caught, it should be punishable. At the very least, admitting to abortion publicly, or admitting to being an abortion doctor, should lead to serious consequences, preferably, death. Right now, you could talk about how you had an abortion in front of the whole world and still get away with it.

I don't anticipate the government actually solving the problem, but I think there should still be a law against it.

At the very least, people like Scott Roeder should be treated as heroes rather than sentenced for murder. Isn't that an injustice? Scott Roeder is literally in jail for killing George Tiller, a man who deserved death by any sane metric. (Technically he didn't have a trial, but since his actions were legal, admitted to, and protected, I don't care too much.)

I would pardon Roeder if I had the power to do so...

 

[FriedChicken]

One could conclude that an unfertilized egg is essentially a potential life. What happens when someone decides birth control is killing a potential life? Give them an inch and they will take a mile. You people are much more trusting with giving away your power to a government entity that has proven it doesn't have the sense God gave a goose, than I am.

With a thread with this many pages I'm acting under the assumption that no one participating has read them all - but this HAS been brought up before, as well as the sperm argument and "is masturbation murder?" argument.

The stage of life you've referred to in past statements is EXTREMELY early, and while I still consider that to be life, it can be "aborted" chemically with legal drugs often used to prevent pregnancy but can also be used to end it (chemically their is little difference between contraception and morning after pills, just ask Ron Paul).
No one here to my knowledge has made the argument that those chemicals should be made illegal - I consider it to be taking a life personally but as you've pointed out it would be near impossible to regulate without an all intrusive government. (I've said something similar to this a few times during this thread).

This is intended to be a discussion about an Abortion surgical procedure.

 

[Carlybee]

With a thread with this many pages I'm acting under the assumption that no one participating has read them all - but this HAS been brought up before, as well as the sperm argument and "is masturbation murder?" argument.

The stage of life you've referred to in past statements is EXTREMELY early, and while I still consider that to be life, it can be "aborted" chemically with legal drugs often used to prevent pregnancy but can also be used to end it (chemically their is little difference between contraception and morning after pills, just ask Ron Paul).
No one here to my knowledge has made the argument that those chemicals should be made illegal - I consider it to be taking a life personally but as you've pointed out it would be near impossible to regulate without an all intrusive government. (I've said something similar to this a few times during this thread).

This is intended to be a discussion about an Abortion surgical procedure.

I am playing devil's advocate and projecting a cautionary tale about what could happen when you start changing the constitution and give power over to an increasingly fascist or totaliarian regime...both parties would contain those factions with enough leeway.

 

[FriedChicken]

Depends on your definition of murder and a lot of people do not and will not ever consider the aborting of a barely fertilized embryo as murder whether you like it or not. This bill is little more than pandering. I agree with all of Rand's stances on most liberty issues, but giving the federal government the power to determine when life is viable is an overreach. What happens when a Dem majority is in and they decide that old people do NOT deserve life saving medical care? If they have the power to determine who lives and who dies, what is to say something like this couldn't be expanded to include people whose "useful life" is over. Nyet, nay, no.

Umm... I'm not following you. You think that if we conclude that a pregnant woman is indeed carrying another human inside her womb that has its own life than we're another step closer to saying that senior citizens are dead before they're dead?

Also, a barely fertilized embryo is so early in development a doctor wouldn't perform an abortion. The mother would just take a pill. Regardless of how immoral that would be, it would be impossible to enforce and no one here to my knowledge is suggesting that the federal government should be involved in that particular matter.

What is on the table is if a woman has the right to hire a doctor to actually purposely end the life of a fetus and remove it from her body, which is what an abortion actually is.
In Ron's book (can't remember which one) he reflects back on seeing an aborted fetus laying on a tray still alive, moving and trying to breathe completely discarded by the doctors.
Is it really that easy to belief that isn't some kind of murder?

 

[affa]

Except that they deserve to die since they commit murder...

I'm not saying "New Huge Federal Department." But in any case where abortion is actually caught, it should be punishable. At the very least, admitting to abortion publicly, or admitting to being an abortion doctor, should lead to serious consequences, preferably, death. Right now, you could talk about how you had an abortion in front of the whole world and still get away with it.

wow.
um.
that's disgusting.

and that's pretty much why we're always going to have legal abortions. because people like you claiming women who have abortions 'deserve to die' scare the living bejesus out of everyone else, who then (rightfully, imo) resist any and every change to current law. (just as we, for example, fear any touch of gun control can be a slippery slope, so do abortion activists).

I'm not saying abortion is moral, or not murder... i understand it's a complex topic. i know some women do abuse the procedure. i'm sure plenty of others do not. but not one of them 'deserves to die'.

that's a disgusting concept, on par with abortions themselves. that you'd try to defend life on one hand, while being so quick to blanketly take it on the other hand, is... just beyond the pale.

 

[FriedChicken]

I am playing devil's advocate and projecting a cautionary tale about what could happen when you start changing the constitution and give power over to an increasingly fascist or totaliarian regime...both parties would contain those factions with enough leeway.

fair enough.
But usually totalitarian regimes don't care too much about what the constitution says one way or the other and they aren't going to be empowered nor restrained by an amendment to the constitution so I myself don't really see that as being a show stopper.

I'd be more concerned with the precedent being set that the unborn are not living/people.
Currently if a pregnant woman is murdered the criminal is convicted for a double homicide - I completely agree with that. Right now my wife is pregnant and if someone harmed her and caused her to lose the baby I would see that as killing my child and I would want to see justice.

I think its more fearful to become a society where life is taken lightly.

edit: I'm trying to portray the flip side of things. I'm not suggesting that you would or are making an argument saying that a criminal who causes harm to a pregnant woman shouldn't be charged with a homicide.
Most of this post was a statement rather than an argument.

Just wanted to clarify.

 

[Carlybee]

Except that they deserve to die since they commit murder...

I'm not saying "New Huge Federal Department." But in any case where abortion is actually caught, it should be punishable. At the very least, admitting to abortion publicly, or admitting to being an abortion doctor, should lead to serious consequences, preferably, death. Right now, you could talk about how you had an abortion in front of the whole world and still get away with it.

I don't anticipate the government actually solving the problem, but I think there should still be a law against it.

At the very least, people like Scott Roeder should be treated as heroes rather than sentenced for murder. Isn't that an injustice? Scott Roeder is literally in jail for killing George Tiller, a man who deserved death by any sane metric. (Technically he didn't have a trial, but since his actions were legal, admitted to, and protected, I don't care too much.)

I would pardon Roeder if I had the power to do so...

Really? A 14 yr old who gets an abortion deserves to die?

 

[Carlybee]

Except that they deserve to die since they commit murder...

I'm not saying "New Huge Federal Department." But in any case where abortion is actually caught, it should be punishable. At the very least, admitting to abortion publicly, or admitting to being an abortion doctor, should lead to serious consequences, preferably, death. Right now, you could talk about how you had an abortion in front of the whole world and still get away with it.

I don't anticipate the government actually solving the problem, but I think there should still be a law against it.

At the very least, people like Scott Roeder should be treated as heroes rather than sentenced for murder. Isn't that an injustice? Scott Roeder is literally in jail for killing George Tiller, a man who deserved death by any sane metric. (Technically he didn't have a trial, but since his actions were legal, admitted to, and protected, I don't care too much.)

I would pardon Roeder if I had the power to do so...

Really? A 14 yr old who gets an abortion deserves to die?

 

[whoisjohngalt]

With a thread with this many pages I'm acting under the assumption that no one participating has read them all - but this HAS been brought up before, as well as the sperm argument and "is masturbation murder?" argument.

The stage of life you've referred to in past statements is EXTREMELY early, and while I still consider that to be life, it can be "aborted" chemically with legal drugs often used to prevent pregnancy but can also be used to end it (chemically their is little difference between contraception and morning after pills, just ask Ron Paul).
No one here to my knowledge has made the argument that those chemicals should be made illegal - I consider it to be taking a life personally but as you've pointed out it would be near impossible to regulate without an all intrusive government. (I've said something similar to this a few times during this thread).

This is intended to be a discussion about an Abortion surgical procedure.

Those pills are now 99% effective through the first trimester and still highly effective into the second trimester. That's what I was talking about with abortions becoming increasingly DIY, especially for the poorest among us. That's why this argument isn't even worth having; because we can't stop it effectively if it's early term. That is also why Rand taking a stand on this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Really? A 14 yr old who gets an abortion deserves to die?

I find it unlikely that a 14 year old is completely culpable in this case. Assuming she was, yes, but that's not very likely.

 

[Carlybee]

I find it unlikely that a 14 year old is completely culpable in this case. Assuming she was, yes, but that's not very likely.

Thanks for the neg rep for me posting an opinion. Perhaps you should lose the Freedom part of your username.

 

[TheGrinch]

With a thread with this many pages I'm acting under the assumption that no one participating has read them all - but this HAS been brought up before, as well as the sperm argument and "is masturbation murder?" argument.

The stage of life you've referred to in past statements is EXTREMELY early, and while I still consider that to be life, it can be "aborted" chemically with legal drugs often used to prevent pregnancy but can also be used to end it (chemically their is little difference between contraception and morning after pills, just ask Ron Paul).

No one here to my knowledge has made the argument that those chemicals should be made illegal - I consider it to be taking a life personally but as you've pointed out it would be near impossible to regulate without an all intrusive government. (I've said something similar to this a few times during this thread).

This is intended to be a discussion about an Abortion surgical procedure.

Yes, I brought this up earlier that "masterbation is murder" is a horrible misconception of the pro-life argument. Sperm and sex do not equate with conception, that's when the sperm and egg meet and can be days later (or not at all, and so to defend the sperm that don't fertilize an egg as human life is a flawed argument).

I agree, this also makes the socon argument against contraception hypocritical and naive, as these are ways that we can prevent a conception from occuring, as frequently happens naturally when sex does not lead to unwanted pregnancy (or of course even wanted pregnancy).

 

[TheTyke]

The idea that over a billion abortions would still have taken place in back alleys with no reduction, even after the profiteers, pushers and paid propagandists were broken up, is conjecture beyond the realm of reality. It's just an old talking point.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Thanks for the neg rep for me posting an opinion. Perhaps you should lose the Freedom part of your username.

You're right that that wasn't really fair. I positive repped this one to make up for it so it wouldn't actually hurt your reputation.

That said.... neg repping an opinion isn't the same thing as saying it should be illegal... so that really doesn't have anything to do with freedom as such.

There's a possibility of mitigating factors to almost everything. There's also the extreme unlikelihood that anyone would actually leave enough evidence after having an abortion to face the death penalty. I don't think many people would be prosecuted, and I would never support breaking civil rights, whether through Patriot Act type provisions or any other type of unconstitutional searches, or by accepting unreasonably low standards of guilt, in order to punish abortionists. Most of them will slip through the cracks because its a crime that's very easy to get away with. I accept the reality of that, but that doesn't mean I think that its any less bad just because its easy to get away with. I still believe that, absent any mitigating factors, abortion is every bit as evil as murderer and should be punishable accordingly. Even if only one in a million would actually get caught, it doesn't matter.

Now, in general, I would say if a 14 year old goes out and shoots someone, that's not really a mitigating factor of any kind. I disagree with the majority of the population on this, and think this person should absolutely be tried as an adult. Why not, then, with abortion? Frankly, I think in a 14 year olds case, the parent would almost certainly have had some role in it, whether by shaming her into getting an abortion (The absolute opposite of what should actually happen), or some other role. Emotionally, having a kid at 14 is also somewhat traumatic. Doubly so if it was a product of rape (Itself a mitigating factor.) To be clear, for the death penalty to apply there would have to be, in addition to near-absolute evidence (My desire not to kill innocent people is much, much stronger than my desire to see those guilty of murder be executed) would require near-absolute lack of mitigating factors. In a laboratory you could probably construct a case where that wouldn't apply to a 14 year old, but that case probably wouldn't exist and even more unlikely would that case actually be proven to exist.

 

[jmdrake]

The idea that over a billion abortions would still have taken place in back alleys with no reduction, even after the profiteers, pushers and paid propagandists were broken up, is conjecture beyond the realm of reality. It's just an old talking point.

Yep. The overall number would go down without Planned Parenthood and other abortion recruiters. And considering abortion pills, it's unlikely that most clandestine abortions would be the "coat hanger" version anyway.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

No matter where you stand on the abortion issue, there are 2 fundamental differences between prosecuting murder and abortion. Therefore the "abortion is murder and should be illegal" argument put forth by Collins & others is deeply flawed.

One is that approximately half of the public believes that abortion is OK in some circumstances, and have much more well-reasoned arguments on their side than anyone who would condone murder of independent human beings. THAT DOES NOT IN ITSELF MAKE ABORTION OKAY. Human rights are not based on majority opinion, but what if 50% of the public thought murder (of other adults or children not in the womb) was okay, and had sound (if not valid) arguments and literature to base it on? At that point, a government would become completely overwhelmed trying to prosecute all murders that take place, unless they became a police state with surveillance in every household and public place. Since 50% of the people would be likely to commit homicide at any time, the only solution would be a fascist government that followed everyone around at every moment.

Second, as has been pointed out by Justin Raimondo and a few others, abortion involves an adult or teenager and another living being which is inside of them and completely dependent on them. Women can, albeit dangerously, give themselves miscarriages and easily lie about it, or find a dozen other ways to dangerously & illegally abort a pregnancy. It is impossible to follow every pregnant woman around for 8 full months with government surveillance to keep her from throwing herself off a flight of stairs or sticking metal objects up her vagina, without becoming a surveillance state. Didn't Ron Paul write in Liberty Defined that prosecuting or policing early-term abortions would be futile for these reasons?

It is very comparable to trying to prosecute suicide. A person can do it to themselves so you would need an incredible amount of surveillance and intervention in everyone's daily lives to try to prevent all suicides. Another parallel exists in the War on Terror, as men, women or children blow themselves up in order to kill Americans. The neoconservative/statist solution is to bankrupt your country in order to spy on & frisk every possible man, woman or child around the world who may have a bomb strapped to them. The libertarian (& I would argue Christian) solution is to peacefully persuade those people that there's a better way of life than sacrificing themselves for radical and violent sect of Islam. As Ron Paul said once in an interview where he compared the two issues (abortion/terrorism,) "force never works."

I am very disappointed in Rand Paul's views on this issue and I hope Gunny is right when he says the LACA is just states rights in disguise. I also feel that Rand will have to moderate his rhetoric & undo the damage already done in order to win the Presidency while taking questions about abortion. That's just a personal opinion, I can't prove it but it seems impossible to contradict yourself that much and not receive terrible PR from an already hostile media.