Rand Paul on the Life at Conception Act

[PierzStyx]

Leave it up to the states =S.

No one argues that me shooting a person in the face shouldn't be against federal law, nor that the states should be able to.authorize it. What makes innocent defenseless children an exception to this is beyond me.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No one argues that me shooting a person in the face shouldn't be against federal law, nor that the states should be able to.authorize it. What makes innocent defenseless children an exception to this is beyond me.

I will argue with you that shooting a person in the face shouldn't be against federal law. Where in the US Constitution does it authorize the federal government to make shooting a person in the face a federal crime? Show me the Article and Section of the US Constitution that authorizes it please.

 

[Tod]

Why is this video unlisted? It should be shouted from the rooftops...

 

[jmdrake]

Maybe Rand is looking to build a coalition with independent-minded Latinos that work hard, but are pro-life and pro-immigration.

Yep. http://rt.com/usa/news/rand-paul-2016-sen-168/ Note that he's taken a pro marijuana decriminalization stance. That will keep a lot of young people on board like what his dad did. And taking a position that fits the fastest growing demographic group in the nation just makes sense. Romney lost a of hardcore anti-Castro Cubans this time.

 

[jmdrake]

No GOP nominee has ever run on outlawing abortion and it's not going to happen because it's a losing issue and becomes the central issue of the campaign when we would rather have things like the economy, jobs, deficit and debt as the central issue.

1) Ronald Reagan ran on that and won....twice.

2) George H.W. Bush ran on it and won the first time. I'm old enough to remember the debate where he got temporarily stumped by the question of who to prosecute. He still beat Dukhakis.

3) George W. Bush ran on it and won twice.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

Further, did you even read the Huffington Post article I linked to on Ken Buck? Apparently you didn't. Ken Buck lost because he did exactly what you are now proposing that Rand do which is act like your pro-life during the primary then change your stance during the general. It's a recipe for disaster. Read the article this time before attempting to reply.

DENVER — A conservative Republican trying to unseat a rookie Democratic senator in Colorado is scrambling to explain his position on abortion in light of a ballot proposal to outlaw the procedure.

Ken Buck, a tea party favorite challenging Sen. Michael Bennet, leads the incumbent in several polls and has drawn the support of abortion opponents for saying it should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest.

Earlier this year, he endorsed a proposed amendment to the state constitution to set up a direct challenge to the federal government over rights for fetuses. The so-called "personhood" amendment would give constitutional rights to people from conception.

But Buck changed his position after doctors and lawyers pointed out that the amendment would also ban some types of fertility treatments and emergency contraception. Buck now says he's not taking a position on the abortion-blocking amendment because of those concerns.

"I am in favor of personhood as a concept," Buck said on CBS' "Face the Nation" last week. "I am not taking a position on any of the state amendments. And I have said over and over, and it's been reported over and over again, that I am not in favor of banning any common forms of birth control in Colorado or in the United States."

Buck's changing stance has conservative abortion opponents scratching their heads. He supports the concept, they ask, but not the actual amendment?

"Is he just trying to piss everybody off? I don't get it," said Diana Hseih of Sedalia, a registered Republican who supports abortion rights. Hseih wrote an argument against the "personhood" plan on her blog and says Buck's parsing of words on abortion is drawing opposition on both sides.

"This is a point on which Democrats can hammer him, and it's going to make the religious right angry, too," Hseih said.

The head of Personhood Colorado, a suburban Denver group of abortion opponents that petitioned the measure onto ballots, said he was surprised when Buck endorsed the idea in the first place, but then disappointed by the change.

 

[July]

It is not just the Independents. A lot of RP supporters are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This is an absolutely NO GO issue!

I'm fairly socially liberal...when it comes to things like pot legalization, gay marriage, religious choice, etc. I think most of these sorts of social issues should be handled at the state level, in any case. I'm pro life though, so I'm with Rand on this. Why, because I actually view prolife as the more "socially liberal" and less authoritarian stance. But if he is mixing this particular issue with his more moderate foreign policy, pro civil liberties, relaxed stances on marijuana, and especially if he emphasizes a more states rights position on gay marriage, then I think that would make a difference with socially liberal people. Except, obviously, for those single issue voters who view abortion as a deal breaker. But there are single issue abortion voters on both sides, and most liberal pro choice voters I have known prefer to vote Democrat anyway, given the choice, because even though abortion might trump all other issues, they still do care about other related things like subsidies for contraception, support for planned parenthood, etc....

Rape, incest or the woman's life being in danger is not going to cut it. Our best demographic is the youth vote, and they are generally pro-choice.

I'm curious what the polling data was for this issue for 2012. I remember back in 2010, the pro life stance among youth was actually on the rise. I'm not sure if it has leveled off or stayed the same. The left will undoubtably demagogue the hell out of it though, no matter what he says, so Rand can expect that.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/128036/N...&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_term=Politics#1

No, no, no... whoulda, shoulda, coulda don't count. Rand is coming out as a religious statist and plainly saying he wants to shove his beliefs down the throats of the American people on a federal level. Take off your blinders!

He didn't mention religion at all in that ad. In fact, now that I think of it, it looks like he made a point to mention medical science instead of the religious argument... it's very unusual to hear that argument from a pro life Republican, so it could be interesting to see where Rand goes with it. But I agree, the religious argument turns a lot of people off, since people don't view that as a being objective at all.

 

[HigherVision]

Does conception mean implantation of a fertilized egg or just fertilization? Cause if it's the latter then birth control could be outlawed which seems extreme to me.

 

[69360]

Rand Paul supports allowing rape victims to have access to the morning after pill, so any claim that Rand wants to "force rape victims to give birth" is completely untrue.

I believe this is going to be the correct answer to those claims. The morning after pill or even the injection of estrogen given to rape victims is nothing more than a heavy dose of birth control. Victims of rape should have easy and immediate access to it with no social stigma.

This is a good middle ground position to take really as long as you are firm and don't waffle or get into convoluted answers.

 

[KingNothing]

No it's not. Legitimate life of the mother abortions are EXTREMELY rare. Ron has said that in all his years of practice he never saw a case where it was medically necessary to abort to save the life of the mother.

I'm not entirely sure I believe Ron. Maybe if he added the caveat "....of a viable fetus" to his "never saw an abortion to save a mother's life" line, but as it stands, the statistics fly in the face of his assertion.

 

[69360]

Does conception mean implantation of a fertilized egg or just fertilization? Cause if it's the latter then birth control could be outlawed which seems extreme to me.

Conception means fertilization, but it's not viable until implantation. A large percentage of fertilized embryos never implant naturally.

Birth control can work several ways, blocking egg release, preventing fertilization or preventing implantation. Every case and every individual can be different. There is no medical testing available to show how it worked in each case.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm not entirely sure I believe Ron. Maybe if he added the caveat "....of a viable fetus" to his "never saw an abortion to save a mother's life" line, but as it stands, the statistics fly in the face of his assertion.

My first impulse was to ask 'what statistics,' but I think the bigger question is if the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over State policies, then what business exactly does FedGov even have examining these details in the first place?


ETA - keep in mind that Ron Paul's bill explicitly denied SCOTUS from jurisdiction over state policies when dealing with this specific type of homicide.

 

[69360]

I'm not entirely sure I believe Ron. Maybe if he added the caveat "....of a viable fetus" to his "never saw an abortion to save a mother's life" line, but as it stands, the statistics fly in the face of his assertion.

I do. Most of the statistics about "saving the life of the mother" are made up BS like "the mother threatened to kill herself" or similar. The term is used very broadly.

 

[HigherVision]

Conception means fertilization, but it's not viable until implantation. A large percentage of fertilized embryos never implant naturally.

Birth control can work several ways, blocking egg release, preventing fertilization or preventing implantation. Every case and every individual can be different. There is no medical testing available to show how it worked in each case.

That's why I think the more reasonable anti-abortion position is that life begins at implantation rather than conception. Because fertilized eggs regularly don't implant naturally as you say. Implantation is when pregnancy actually begins.

 

[presence]

TEN GRAM RULE!

This isn't a good way to win in a place like NH. The exit poll showed that only 7% of exit poll answers wanted to ban all abortions. 41% wanted all abortions legal.

Agreed Rand is marginalizing everything else he stands for by digging in his heels on abortion.

He is absolutetly on point about congress' ability to define when life begins. He's just out there in religious fundamentalist land and that's not going to win elections, does not form coalitions, and does not represent the country as a whole.

A wise liberty candidate would stick to amending (as Rand suggests) Roe v Wade. 88% of all abortions occur before week 12 (the fetus / embyro transistion when the brain develops). The embryo weighs 10g at this point. I think the liberty movement should look to be the rational voice, instead of falling into the Black or White politicization of the issue. Rather than seeking to overturning RVW I suggest we should seek to push the cutoff from 7th month "viability" to 3 months; no more than 10 grams; 3 abortions over 15g = loss of license, any aborted fetus over 20g = homicide (which States can choose how to prosecute). Fetus weight is calculatable within 10-15% error at this age with modern technology. 88% of all abortions would still be legal and there would never be another bloody poster of an "aborted baby". You set the standard there and the state wouldn't need to require vaginal ultrasounds; chances are they'd happen anyway. Let the doctor/patient make the decision with the doctor's license to practice on the line. Allow exemption for imminent threat to the woman's life.

10 GRAMS
it saves babies
it preserves rights
its politically plausible

that's my stance and I'm sticking to it,

presence


Please see my thread here for a more detailed explaination:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?396831-My-stance-on-abortion-THE-10-GRAM-RULE

 

[FrankRep]

Agreed Rand is marginalizing everything else he stands for by digging in his heels on abortion.

Rand Paul has always been pro-life and pro-state sovereignty.

Rand Paul made a brilliant move.

 

[69360]

That's why I think the more reasonable anti-abortion position is that life begins at implantation rather than conception. Because fertilized eggs regularly don't implant naturally as you say. Implantation is when pregnancy actually begins.

That's fine and I have no argument with somebody who holds that position. We are close enough to agree.

I believe that human life begins at conception, but it is not viable human life until implantation. After the egg is ferilized, it has unique human DNA and the cells are living. So it is human life, but it is not viable human life until it implants and gains the support system of the mother. So I have no problems with birth control or using the morning after pill for rape. But once the egg is implanted I do not support exceptions for rape an incest. It's a viable human life, I think it is afforded the same legal protections as you and I and it is also morally wrong to kill it. The child is just as much a victim as mother, it did not choose to be a product of rape. The very small numbers of children that are a product of rape where the mother could not or did not use the morning after pill can easily be handled by private charity with no government funding.

 

[itshappening]

That's fine and I have no argument with somebody who holds that position. We are close enough to agree.

I believe that human life begins at conception, but it is not viable human life until implantation. After the egg is ferilized, it has unique human DNA and the cells are living. So it is human life, but it is not viable human life until it implants and gains the support system of the mother. So I have no problems with birth control or using the morning after pill for rape. But once the egg is implanted I do not support exceptions for rape an incest. It's a viable human life, I think it is afforded the same legal protections as you and I and it is also morally wrong to kill it. The child is just as much a victim as mother, it did not choose to be a product of rape. The very small numbers of children that are a product of rape where the mother could not or did not use the morning after pill can easily be handled by private charity with no government funding.

I'm not a principled person on this. I care about winning only and you just know that the Democrats will hammer him on this issue to scare independent women who do not want their choice restricted , that is an important voting block.

As for JM saying Reagan, Bush and W. ran on outlawing abortion and won I never saw them publish a personhood bill or try and push one through congress despite the fact that they also controlled the congress at some point in time. JM, I must have missed that? could it because they knew it was a losing issue and that abortion is settled and has been for nearly five decades? hmm??

 

[tod evans]

I'm really disappointed that there's no mention of fathers in his bill..

Oh well one point at a time is best discussed in order not to muddy the waters..

 

[GunnyFreedom]

That's why I think the more reasonable anti-abortion position is that life begins at implantation rather than conception. Because fertilized eggs regularly don't implant naturally as you say. Implantation is when pregnancy actually begins.

I actually go one step further and state that life begins (and the fetus becomes a baby) when there is the presence of blood. That is 12-14 days after conception. I don't make the argument very often, however, because it's based on Jewish and Christian scripture. "Life begins at conception" is easier to argue scientifically while "life begins with the onset of blood" is easier to argue biblically. Which is why I am bemused at how the hard-core Christians who say they base everything they believe from scripture, cling to the conception argument so strongly.

 

[juleswin]

How does Rand's act affect such medical decisions?

Do doctors get arrested for committing murder when separating conjoined twins where it is known that one of them will die?

Murder is settled law. Why aren't these doctors being prosecuted for murder?

Exactly, if they are really living, independent human beings, why kill one to spare the life of the other? this is the reason why you dont prosecute a pregnant woman for taking the wrong pill and causing the accidental death of the infant.