Rand Paul on the Life at Conception Act

[erowe1]

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.

Yep. The only way to victory is with a coalition of the existing RP supporters and social conservatives against the GOP establishment.

 

[Pisces]

Yep. The only way to victory is with a coalition of the existing RP supporters and social conservatives against the GOP establishment.

And this is exactly how Ron Paul Republicans like Amash, Massie and Bentivolio were able to win this year by greater margins than typical Republicans. (Bentivolio didn't actually win by a big margin but he wouldn't have gotten out of the primary if he were pro-choice.) Can anyone name a single pro-choice Ron Paul style Republican that has actually won anything? I think some of these people that are so sure that Rand is making a huge mistake with this bill just want him to be a social liberal like they are.

 

[July]

Yep. The only way to victory is with a coalition of the existing RP supporters and social conservatives against the GOP establishment.

Agreed, social cons would do best to coalition with those who can present the argument from a more pro civil liberties standpoint. Those who are more authoritarian and favor big government cannot effectively counter the attacks from the left, and I think the Dems know this or they wouldn't have so much venom for Rand already.

 

[jmdrake]

so you're going to enable state prosecutors to bring these cases and possibly juries not accept why the women aborted her baby in some back street clinic and therefore send her to prison for life (or sentenced to death). This is not what America wants and deep down I dont think the pro-lifers would want that either.

Tell me why it is you support Ron Paul again? Or do you not really support him? Because returning the abortion question to the states is exactly what he's been pushing all along. It's exactly what Gary Johnson has been pushing all along. If you want to go with stupid fear mongering left wing talking points on abortion they there really isn't anything else to talk about because nothing resembling Ron Paul's position or Rand Paul's position or even Gary Johnson's position will ever satisfy you and you're just trolling.

 

[jmdrake]

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.

Admit it. You're just trolling.

 

[itshappening]

And this is exactly how Ron Paul Republicans like Amash, Massie and Bentivolio were able to win this year by greater margins than typical Republicans. (Bentivolio didn't actually win by a big margin but he wouldn't have gotten out of the primary if he were pro-choice.) Can anyone name a single pro-choice Ron Paul style Republican that has actually won anything? I think some of these people that are so sure that Rand is making a huge mistake with this bill just want him to be a social liberal like they are.

House republicans dont face the national onslaught and targeting on abortion. That is saved for senate and presidential candidates.

 

[jmdrake]

And "person pro choice" Gary Johnson wants to kill women by making sure Alabama can institute the same kind of laws that Ireland has. That's your argument. You're just trolling.

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.

 

[itshappening]

No i'm not trolling. GJ is in no danger of being elected president.

 

[James Madison]

Abortion won't even be an issue in a few election cycles. Most of the rabid pro-choice females I know are middle-aged and childless. Public opinion is changing on this issue. For the better, I might add.

 

[jmdrake]

No i'm not trolling. GJ is in no danger of being elected president.

Neither would Rand if he followed your advice.

 

[jmdrake]

But...but...but....John Huntsman won the primary in.....oh...nevermind.

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.

Yep. The only way to victory is with a coalition of the existing RP supporters and social conservatives against the GOP establishment.

And this is exactly how Ron Paul Republicans like Amash, Massie and Bentivolio were able to win this year by greater margins than typical Republicans. (Bentivolio didn't actually win by a big margin but he wouldn't have gotten out of the primary if he were pro-choice.) Can anyone name a single pro-choice Ron Paul style Republican that has actually won anything? I think some of these people that are so sure that Rand is making a huge mistake with this bill just want him to be a social liberal like they are.

 

[robert68]

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.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html#ixzz1yjNZ8V8Q
Wednesday, Mar. 17, 2010

Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security.

"They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian,"

 

[jmdrake]

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.

It is wild to see how when slavery comes into the picture, some people lose all sight of the inevitable consequence of adding government to the mix. The sad irony is that in this case attempts to roll back federal government intervention in the issue is met with scorn and derision by some. And it's especially ironic when you consider that this is the position Ron Paul advocated all along. Are some people thinking that now Ron is leaving the scene that can restructure the movement in their own image even when it makes no political sense? (You can't win a GOP nomination being pro choice).

 

[jmdrake]

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html#ixzz1yjNZ8V8Q
Wednesday, Mar. 17, 2010

Time magazine makes a statement without a quote (regarding Rand on abortion, legalizing drugs ect) and it must be true because they quote him saying he's not a libertarian.

 

[Sola_Fide]

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html#ixzz1yjNZ8V8Q
Wednesday, Mar. 17, 2010

Rand's not a libertarian, if we are going to use the Rothbardian definition. But...what is your point? All of us here know this.

 

[itshappening]

It is wild to see how when slavery comes into the picture, some people lose all sight of the inevitable consequence of adding government to the mix. The sad irony is that in this case attempts to roll back federal government intervention in the issue is met with scorn and derision by some. And it's especially ironic when you consider that this is the position Ron Paul advocated all along. Are some people thinking that now Ron is leaving the scene that can restructure the movement in their own image even when it makes no political sense? (You can't win a GOP nomination being pro choice).

Ron Paul also advocates getting rid of the Civil Rights Act but it isn't going to happen as much as abortion is going to be outlawed.

It's a losing battle like i've said and no nominee is going to spend an election obsessing about abortion and if they become president no president is going to spend their time trying to get a personhood bill in.

You will be very disappointed if Rand reaches higher office if you expect him to follow through on his rhetoric.

Welcome to politics.

 

[July]

Time magazine makes a statement without a quote (regarding Rand on abortion, legalizing drugs ect) and it must be true because they quote him saying he's not a libertarian.

Rand wrote an entire op-Ed about how he defines/labels himself. It shouldn't be a mystery at this point.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

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.

This is a very important post. If we're going to carry the limited government mantle, but attempt to legislate abortion by banning interstate travel by minors or sex selection bans or other regulations, we can't and shouldn't be taken seriously. Rand has already expressed support for an interstate travel ban, which is flatly ridiculous. The logical implication of travel bans are TSA checkpoints and interrogations between state borders, federal government checks of financial records on a whim, and chipped mandatory ID cards that track movement.

The proper course for liberty pro-life candidates is to remove government from the issue in every way possible, while putting forward philosophical arguments against abortion. Limiting freedom in an attempt a wrong is more harmful than the status quo - the result would be that abortions would continue, we'd all be poorer and less free, and the government more powerful than ever.

 

[robert68]

Time magazine makes a statement without a quote (regarding Rand on abortion, legalizing drugs ect) and it must be true because they quote him saying he's not a libertarian.

Fair point about there being no quotes around the words of the first part, my error. However, his own words in the OP make it very clear he wants the federal government involved in prohibiting abortions. And he'll never be able to make a federalism or 10th Amendment argument on an issue without being a hypocrite.

 

[Origanalist]

Ron Paul also advocates getting rid of the Civil Rights Act but it isn't going to happen as much as abortion is going to be outlawed.

It's a losing battle like i've said and no nominee is going to spend an election obsessing about abortion and if they become president no president is going to spend their time trying to get a personhood bill in.

You will be very disappointed if Rand reaches higher office if you expect him to follow through on his rhetoric.

Welcome to politics.

Ya, that's never happened before.