Rand Introduces the Life at Conception Act:

[TheTyke]

Many contraceptives aren't abortifacient but some are.

Modern technology also tells us that a "baby in the womb" takes time to develop. Show me a sentient, intelligent reaction by a one-week-old fertilized egg and we'll talk. Actually, we won't, because I frighten you with my crazy idea that a fertilized egg doesn't achieve sentience and human intelligence 9 minutes after being fertilized.

"Fertilized egg" is itself a scientifically inaccurate term. Scientific info available here.

 

[osan]

The idea that you can leave religion out of this is rot.

If you think anything at all is wrong, that's religious.

If you think morality is legislated by the Creator, that's religious.

If you think morality is not legislated by the Creator, that's religious.

If you think there's no such thing as wrong, that's religious.

If you think sentience or suffering or empathy have anything to do with whether or not something is wrong, that's religious.

If you think humans are special, that's religious.

I would have to assess this as misuse of language. The inference to be drawn here is that everything is religion. If so, then "religion" as a term holds precious little to zero meaning. I would have to assess this as FAIL, no offense.

I do get your point, but it is fairly off the rails. To wit, let us take the definition from the Oxford etymological dictionary of the English language:

religion (n.) c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-French religiun (11c.), Old French religion "religious community," from Latin religionem (nominative religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in Late Latin "monastic life" (5c.).

According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]​

Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300. Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s.​

Your mini-diatribe holds perhaps the right intention but your grammar was not, in this case, up to the task so far as I am able to discern.

 

[TheGrinch]

I know a lot of Catholics who are personally opposed to contraception, but I've never heard them say that it should be illegal. Perhaps there are some who think it should be, but I've never met anyone who believes that.

Your anecdotal personal experience aside, it has most definitely been pushed for by some socons, and even if not called to be banned is still naive to say "well, we don't want abortions, we don't want contraception, you hormone-crazed kids just need to keep it in your pants". It does nothing to solve the problem, and in my view, confuses conception with sex, when the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Brett85]

Your anecdotal personal experience aside, it has most definitely been pushed for by some socons, and even if not called to be banned is still naive to say "well, we don't want abortions, we don't want contraception, you hormone-crazed kids just need to keep it in your pants". It does nothing to solve the problem, and in my view, confuses conception with sex, when the two are not mutually exclusive.

If a parent wants to teach their own kid about contraception and talk them into using it, that's fine. But, public schools shouldn't be in the business of left wing social engineering. If we're going to have public schools, they shouldn't be involved in pushing a left wing social agenda. They shouldn't teach sex education except for simply teaching in a science class what the different body parts are and what happens during sex. But they shouldn't advocate either abstinence or contraception. It should be up to churches and families to discuss that.

 

[jmdrake]

Millennials aren't happy with Rand's abortion law:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3...-life-at-conception-act-would-outlaw-abortion

So Jmdrake do you still think you can tell these young voters to shut up and accept it? or will they just vote for the Democrat?

itshappening: Rand is being crucified by the left and the right for "flip flopping" on the abortion issue. So do you still think that's a good idea?

 

[itshappening]

itshappening: Rand is being crucified by the left and the right for "flip flopping" on the abortion issue. So do you still think that's a good idea?

Actually... I had a quick look on the reliably hysterical FreeRepublic and there people defending him saying his law is the most pro-life law in decades and that there's nothing wrong with what he said.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Your anecdotal personal experience aside, it has most definitely been pushed for by some socons, and even if not called to be banned is still naive to say "well, we don't want abortions, we don't want contraception, you hormone-crazed kids just need to keep it in your pants". It does nothing to solve the problem, and in my view, confuses conception with sex, when the two are not mutually exclusive.

I've talked to a Catholic on another messaging board that opposed legality of conception and ANY abortion, even to save the mother's life. So they exist. Not sure how common, but they do exist.

If a parent wants to teach their own kid about contraception and talk them into using it, that's fine. But, public schools shouldn't be in the business of left wing social engineering. If we're going to have public schools, they shouldn't be involved in pushing a left wing social agenda. They shouldn't teach sex education except for simply teaching in a science class what the different body parts are and what happens during sex. But they shouldn't advocate either abstinence or contraception. It should be up to churches and families to discuss that.

This just shows me why public schools should be abolished. I'm pretty hardcore as a libertarian but even I don't necessarily have a huge issue with giving poor kids money to go to school. I could probably be talked into either side of that issue. But public schools are a horrible idea. There's just too much potential for... well, I'm not a politician so I'm just going to say "Hitler Youth." I'm not saying all public schools are the Hitler Youth of course, I attend one and its not like that at all, but there's just too much potential for it in the future... Just no. Don't use my tax dollars to propagandize anyone into anything.

Actually... I had a quick look on the reliably hysterical FreeRepublic and there people defending him saying his law is the most pro-life law in decades and that there's nothing wrong with what he said.

Most Republicans aren't serious about banning abortion anyway, its the carrot just out of reach... always.... They need it for the neocon agenda. I'm not going to stop supporting Rand over this one issue but I'm annoyed about the deliberate ambiguity. Ron Paul was never, EVER vague. EVER.

 

[erowe1]

I would have to assess this as misuse of language. The inference to be drawn here is that everything is religion.

Not that everything is religion, but that all of the things I mentioned are religious, which they are. If you disagree, which of them aren't religious?

To wit, let us take the definition from the Oxford etymological dictionary of the English language:

It's an etymological dictionary. It doesn't give the definition, it gives the etymology. But let's look at the definitions given in the Oxford English Dictionary, which is actually for this purpose.

1. A state of life bound by religious vows; the condition of belonging to a religious order. Also fig. Cf. to enter into religion at enter v. 8b.
Chiefly in Christian contexts, esp. with reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

a1225—1998(Show quotations)

2. Christian Church.

a. A particular religious order or denomination; †a religious house. Also fig. Now rare.

?c1225—1902(Show quotations)

†b. A member of a religious order, spec. a member of the clergy. Obs.

a1250—a1500(Show quotations)

†c. Collectively: people devoted to a religious life. Obs.

1487—1568(Show quotations)

3.

a. Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power; the performance of religious rites or observances. Also in pl.: religious rites. Now rare except as merged with sense 5a.

?c1225—1913(Show quotations)

†b. A religious duty or obligation. Obs.

1537—1659(Show quotations)

4.

a. A particular system of faith and worship.
class, mystery, natural religion, etc.: see first element.

c1325—1991(Show quotations)


b. fig. A pursuit, interest, or movement, followed with great devotion.

1576—2003(Show quotations)

†c. With the and capital initial. Chiefly in French contexts: Protestantism. Obs. (hist. in later use).

1577—1883(Show quotations)

5.

a. Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement.
organized religion: see the first element.

?a1439—2004(Show quotations)

Categories »

b. Chiefly poet. and literary. Religion personified.

a1522—1931(Show quotations)

†c. Awe, dread. Obs. rare.

a1642—a1642(Show quotations)

†6. The religious sanction or obligation of an oath or similar bond. Obs.

1578—1880(Show quotations)

Thesaurus »

†7. fig. Strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; devotion to some principle. Also: an instance of this. Obs.

1597—1691(Show quotations)

And for "religious," without copying the whole definition, one of its meanings is: "Of, relating to, or concerned with religion." All of the things I listed are relating to or concerning religion.

Incidentally, your belief that not everything is religion is also religious for the same reason.

 

[erowe1]

Your anecdotal personal experience aside, it has most definitely been pushed for by some socons,

Which socons?