Rand Paul on the Life at Conception Act

[Brian4Liberty]

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.

They also regularly spontaneously miscarry after implantation, with or without the knowledge of the mother.

 

[KingNothing]

Abortion is the most complicated, nuanced, political issue I've ever seen. If you are an absolutist in your rejection of violence, you must reject abortion in almost every instance or in every instance. It's an extremely difficult position to hold and argue on behalf-of, as Mr. Akin has learned. At the same time, a middle-ground on abortion seems really hard to attain --- I can't see how one can argue that killing a life is tolerable, sometimes, so long as one does so early enough. With that said, how could you ever prevent someone from doing this, and how arbitrary is the distinction between a viable fetus and a collection of cells? As technology improves, it may one day become possible to remove the collection of cells, and allow them to grow outside the uterus. Would everything be "abortion" at that point? Even if any destruction of a fertilized egg could be considered abortion, abortion prohibition is almost unenforceable. There are plenty of things a person could do to injure or kill a fetus if a person were so inclined. And if you allow all abortion, why not allow infanticide? And then, why not toddlericide, and little-kidicide, and teenagericide, and young-adulticide, and college-studenticide, etc.

In a funny twist of events, that idiot Herman Cain, in his rambling, incoherent answer to a question about abortion may have been on his way to expressing the most politically expedient -and libertarian- point of view: That he personally does not endorse abortion, but that it is ultimately a decision that falls on the shoulders of individual families and women. There is no law so enforceable that will entirely prevent people from perpetrating violence against one-another, or acting in a manner that harms themselves, those around them, or society. It will always boil down to each individual embracing virtue and excellence.

 

[KingNothing]

They also regularly spontaneously miscarry after implantation, with or without the knowledge of the mother.

And how could you prove that the miscarriage was accidental or intentional? An abortion law would be very complicated.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

So women and doctors are at the mercy of state prosecutors who could prosecute them for murder. That is not going to be acceptable to the public it's simple as that.

Do you just like putting words in my mouth or are you just having trouble understanding what I am writing?

Prosecutors don't write law, legislators do.

Prosecutors don't decide what parameters indicate justifiable homicide, accidental homicide, negligent homicide, 2nd Degree murder, 1st degree murder, the legislatures do.

You don't seem to know a whole lot about how government works for staking out a position so adamantly.

This is like the 2nd or third time I have pointed to State law and you have come back with prosecutors charging raped women with murder. It's starting to look like an intentional smear job.

How about trying integrity? Just give it a shot once and see how that works out for you eh?

Conjoined twins are extremely rare and a less sensitive issue than abortion where there are substantially more cases (and demand).

The frequency is irrelevant. The point I made, and made clearly (again, your duplicity is starting to look intentional) is that causing the death of one person to save another person is already settled law. Why do you think anything would change there?

Outlawing all abortion means what it means if that's what he wants, it means murder prosecutions for women who have been raped and seek a backstreet abortion or a doctor not being able to save the life of a woman under threat of a murder charge.

And again, you are completely mischaracterizing not only what the people in this thread are saying, you are mischaracterizing this bill also. The bill defines the beginning of life, full stop. It says (as far as I know - Ron Paul's surely didn't) nothing about outlawing abortion.

By defining the beginning of life, all abortions after that point become homicide by legal definition. The result of a homicide can be anywhere from "no crime was committed" to "minor felony" to "murder." That's not up to you, that's not up to me, that's not up to the President, that's not up to the prosecutors, that's up to the General Assemblies in each individual State to determine.

The public will not accept it in any circumstance and a candidate advocating that will not become president and even if they do they wouldnt get their bill through congress. i.e JM alleges Bush and Reagan had these positions but did precisely nothing about it once in power because they couldn't as the public will not accept it and even if they did manage to get something through congress the courts would probably throw it out anyway as no one wants to see prosecutions of women and doctors.

You are misrepresenting what HE is saying also. Which is not surprising since you are basically misrepresenting everything throughout the entire thread, both the OP and all the participants.

Reagan, Bush et al held strict pro-life stances, and sought to ban abortions nationwide.

As far as I know, ONLY RON PAUL invented the Constitutional course of defining the beginning of life, and then allowing the already pre-existing state justice systems to regulate homicide according to the methods they already use.

If you really want to debate this point, then it would be a good idea to stop misrepresenting what everyone is saying. It's frankly rude.

 

[July]

Abortion is the most complicated, nuanced, political issue I've ever seen. If you are an absolutist in your rejection of violence, you must reject abortion in almost every instance or in every instance. It's an extremely difficult position to hold and argue on behalf-of, as Mr. Akin has learned. At the same time, a middle-ground on abortion seems really hard to attain --- I can't see how one can argue that killing a life is tolerable, sometimes, so long as one does so early enough. With that said, how could you ever prevent someone from doing this, and how arbitrary is the distinction between a viable fetus and a collection of cells? As technology improves, it may one day become possible to remove the collection of cells, and allow them to grow outside the uterus. Would everything be "abortion" at that point? Even if any destruction of a fertilized egg could be considered abortion, abortion prohibition is almost unenforceable. There are plenty of things a person could do to injure or kill a fetus if a person were so inclined. And if you allow all abortion, why not allow infanticide? And then, why not toddlericide, and little-kidicide, and teenagericide, and young-adulticide, and college-studenticide, etc.

In a funny twist of events, that idiot Herman Cain, in his rambling, incoherent answer to a question about abortion may have been on his way to expressing the most politically expedient -and libertarian- point of view: That he personally does not endorse the abortion, but that it is ultimately a decision that falls on the shoulders of individual families and women. There is no law so enforceable that will entirely prevent people from perpetrating violence against one-another, or acting in a manner that harms themselves, those around them, and society. It just boils down to each individual embracing virtue and excellence.

Well put. I believe that is probably ultimately what it boils down to too (what was the reason Ron said the Consitution failed in his farewell address?). Though, that is very far off from where the national debate currently stands.

 

[carclinic]

I am pro-life, but abortion is a losing issue. It's something that politically you say "we'll work for a constitutional amendment!" It appeases the dummies and allows you not to look like an extremist.

What Rand and Ron are doing actually will save lives, however. If God wants to save America, he'll prosper Rand. Being that God didn't help Ron, who knows.

 

[KingNothing]

I am pro-life, but abortion is a losing issue. It's something that politically you say "we'll work for a constitutional amendment!" It appeases the dummies and allows you not to look like an extremist.

What Rand and Ron are doing actually will save lives, however. If God wants to save America, he'll prosper Rand. Being that God didn't help Ron, who knows.

I don't think god is a registered voter.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

And how could you prove that the miscarriage was accidental or intentional? An abortion law would be very complicated.

In medical terminology, a miscarriage is an abortion.

Miscarriage or spontaneous abortion is the spontaneous end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or fetus is incapable of surviving independently. Miscarriage is the most common complication of early pregnancy. Spontaneous abortion is a frequently used clarification to distinguish this natural process from an induced abortion.
...
In medical (and veterinary) contexts, the technical term "abortion" refers to any process by which a pregnancy ends with the death and removal or expulsion of the fetus, regardless of whether it is spontaneous or intentionally induced. Many women who have had miscarriages, however, object to the term "abortion" in connection with their experience, because in everyday English the word is strongly associated with induced abortions. In recent years there has been discussion in the medical community about avoiding the use of this term in favor of the term "miscarriage".

A miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. (Pregnancy losses after the 20th week are called preterm deliveries.)

A miscarriage may also be called a "spontaneous abortion." This refers to naturally occurring events, not medical abortions or surgical abortions.

Other terms for the early loss of pregnancy include:

Complete abortion: All of the products of conception exit the body

Incomplete abortion: Only some of the products of conception exit the body

Inevitable abortion: The symptoms cannot be stopped, and a miscarriage will happen

Infected (septic) abortion: The lining of the womb, or uterus, and any remaining products of conception become infected

Missed abortion: The pregnancy is lost and the products of conception do not exit the body

Miscarriage is the loss of a pregnancy in the first 20 weeks. (In medical articles, you may see the term "spontaneous abortion" used in place of miscarriage.) About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and more than 80 percent of these losses happen before 12 weeks.

This doesn't include situations in which you lose a fertilized egg before a pregnancy becomes established. Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before or during the process of implantation – often so early that a woman goes on to get her period at about the expected time.

http://www.babycenter.com/0_understanding-miscarriage_252.bc

 

[itshappening]

Gunny, if you think i'm mischaracterizing the position what do you think the Democrats will do

As as I said under your preferred system, there will be some hardcore legislators who want to send women to prison for murder or ruin doctors lives. The mere hint of prosecutors bringing such cases will ensure doctors do not perform abortions even if the life of the woman is in danger (see Ireland case)

America will NOT accept that and this is why it's never been done and will never be done. Bush did a great job at stopping abortions nationwide?! HA. Ron's bill and those like it will never become law because of the reasons i've stated and even if it does by some miracle pass the House and Senate the federal courts will throw it out along with the laws and punishments passed by General assemblies so you're back to square one: Fighting a long protracted losing issue that would take many years to resolve.

There is zero appetite for such a long protracted war on abortion and compared to getting control of spending which means shutting down departments and large parts of the federal government is a non-issue. I'd rather fight that fight thank you.

 

[69360]

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??

With the country divided evenly between pro life and pro choice and popular opinion polls showing a move from a slight pro choice majority towards the pro life position, I would say it is not settled.

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..

I think fathers should have a say, but I think you're right one step at a time.

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.

Accidental death is not a crime unless you are negligent. Intentional death is a crime.

I am deeply grateful for this conversation because to be an advocate for the unborn is a vocation.

Ron Paul, Rand Paul and many of you here are incredibly articulate, knowledgable and forthright about protecting life in the womb, at life's earliest stage of development.

One would have to Google this - there are numerous stories of women who have been raped, who have given birth, kept their baby, and have the joy of a son or daughter to live with. Pregnancy due to rape can be dealt with by any Pregnancy Help Center.

It's personal for me. My ex wife wanted to abort my youngest daughter. I went through a lot, but I have a great 10 year old that I have had full custody of for 9 years.

3) Many of the voters that the Republican Party are not currently getting aren't necessarily pro choice and socially liberal. The polls actually show that hispanics and blacks are more pro life and more socially conservative than whites. They vote Democrat because of economic issues. If the Republican Party wants to win over these voters in the future, it doesn't make sense for them to become more liberal on the abortion issue.

Hispanics especially are generally socially conservative catholics and are the fastest growing voting block. This is not a losing position with them.

They also regularly spontaneously miscarry after implantation, with or without the knowledge of the mother.

Yes but that doesn't make intentionally ending a viable human life justifiable.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, if you think i'm mischaracterizing the position what do you think the Democrats will do

The Democrats generally mischaracterize in ways that have some foundation because being shown up as liars or losing libel or slander suits do not advance political careers.

As as I said under your preferred system, there will be some hardcore legislators who want to send women to prison for murder or ruin doctors lives. The mere hint of prosecutors bringing such cases will ensure doctors do not perform abortions even if the life of the woman is in danger (see Ireland case)

We live in America, not Ireland. This is not the first time I've said THAT either.

I won't even bother with the rest of the overly repetitive mischaracterizations above.

America will NOT accept that and this is why it's never been done and will never be done. Bush did a great job at stopping abortions nationwide?! HA. Ron's bill and those like it will never become law because of the reasons i've stated and even if it does the federal courts will throw it out along with the laws and punishments passed by General assemblies so you're back to square one: Fighting a long protracted losing issue that would take many years to resolve.

Actually the courts in Roe v Wade specifically put the ball into Congress's court to define life. Precedent, which SCOTUS views as all but holy, would demand that SCOTUS respect what SCOTUS asked Congress to do in the first place.

There is zero appetite for such a long protracted war on abortion and compared to getting control of spending which means shutting down departments and large parts of the federal government is a non-issue. I'd rather fight that fight thank you.

ONLY Rockefeller establishmentarians can make it past a GOP primary with a mushy stance on abortion. Abortion is relevant morally, but irrelevant politically because it will not be changed in the next 30 years. There is just no political will to do so. Nevertheless, it is used intentionally as a wedge issue to break off any Republican who is not a Rockefeller establishmentarian. Without a serious pro-life stance, a conservative will NEVER hold enough of a conservative coalition to make it past a GOP primary. That's just a fact.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Hispanics especially are generally socially conservative catholics and are the fastest growing voting block. This is not a losing position with them.

Spoken like a TV pundit. It's interesting, but not accurate to collectivize "Hispanics" as if they were all identical. I know quite a few Hispanic Catholics, and none of them view banning of abortion as an important issue (even among the conservatives). On the other hand, some of them (Democrats) are adamantly pro-choice.

 

[itshappening]

ONLY Rockefeller establishmentarians can make it past a GOP primary with a mushy stance on abortion. Abortion is relevant morally, but irrelevant politically because it will not be changed in the next 30 years. There is just no political will to do so. Nevertheless, it is used intentionally as a wedge issue to break off any Republican who is not a Rockefeller establishmentarian. Without a serious pro-life stance, a conservative will NEVER hold enough of a conservative coalition to make it past a GOP primary. That's just a fact.

Romney got out of the primary and won the nomination after flip flopping, he was pro-choice, then pro-life, then pro-choice to most pro-lifers because he supported exceptions in the General, so not just one flip-flop but two.

You can win a primary without being hardcore on pro-life, it just depends how you word it and you can also outright flip flop afterwards. That's not difficult, it's just politics and good politics since no one is going to elect someone wanting to wage war on abortion for years in congress and in the courts.

As for the Supreme Court, if a personhood law that somehow by miracle passed the House and Senate came to them, they would find a way to throw it out because that's what they do when an issue is settled and there is general support for it accompanied by the likely public outcry over the subsequent prosecutions of women, doctors and backstreet operators.

 

[July]

itshappening has a point, I think it's fair to point out that if abortion were somehow banned tomorrow, with the way things are right now, the federal gov would almost certainly be over zealous about it. There would be a new War on Abortion, which in the end would probably have little to do with abortion, but would make a good excuse for increased state control. A prolife stance should be argued in conjunction with a small government and pro civil liberties stance; it goes together.

 

[Brett85]

Rand is principled yes but this is a losing issue. Imagine being president and demanding congress pass the personhood bill, is he willing to spend years on this issue and expend political capital on it when it might not even pass the House or Senate and even if it does, the judge's will likely throw it out the minute it goes into effect?

Who says that Rand would actually spend time pushing for this bill if he were President? Just because you support a bill doesn't mean you consider it a top priority. Rand would never make a bill that has no chance of passing a top priority. I don't see how you can say that Rand cares more about this bill and about this issue than he cares about the other issues.

 

[thoughtomator]

It is wild to see how when abortion comes into the picture, some people lose all sight of the inevitable consequences of adding government to the mix.

 

[WilliamShrugged]

The left will have a field day with this if he runs in 2016 and lump Rand in with all the other republicans they call "right wing".

 

[itshappening]

Who says that Rand would actually spend time pushing for this bill if he were President? Just because you support a bill doesn't mean you consider it a top priority. Rand would never make a bill that has no chance of passing a top priority. I don't see how you can say that Rand cares more about this bill and about this issue than he cares about the other issues.

If he happened to be president he will know, like the others before him, that it's a losing battle and he would drop it.

But then he could opt to push it and make it a priority and depending if pro-lifers have a majority in the House and Senate (unlikely anyway) it will go to the Supreme court where his lawyers will have to defend it. This will necessitate a large public debate for about 2-3 years, his whole first term spent defending a law that will likely not pass and likely be thrown out by the judge's and that will polarize the country before his re-election bid, costing him tons of support and goodwill among key voters in swing states.

That's just stupid and why no president has or indeed will try it.

 

[anaconda]

That's just stupid, I'm sorry. people will figure out amazingly enough that having sex may result in a pregnancy and if they don't want to be responsible for their actions, then don't do the thing that causes it.

Making something illegal that there is a demand for creates black markets. It was probably inappropriate to resort to calling me "stupid."

 

[Sola_Fide]

The left will have a field day with this if he runs in 2016 and lump Rand in with all the other republicans they call "right wing".

They're going to do that anyway. The important thing is to solidify the social conservatives. Rand can't do that by being wishy-washy on abortion.