Rand Introduces the Life at Conception Act:

[Matt Collins]

From a press release -


Sen. Paul Introduces the Life at Conception Act:


WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Thursday, Sen. Paul introduced S.583, a bill that would implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment for the right to life of each born and unborn human. This legislation does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known- that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward,” Sen. Paul said. “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress.”

[Darguth]

I'm pro-life, but if Rand wanted to push this then he needs to examine another amendment to change the 14th Amendment to make his proposal Constitutionally consistent. As much as I may wish it were otherwise, the 14th clearly states you must be born (or naturalized) to be an American citizen. :(

[Havax]

Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.

[BenIsForRon]

Ok, so we close down abortion clinics, then women who want abortions have to go to shady blackmarket clinics to get abortions. Some get infected and die, the women we catch we throw in prison for life.

Sounds great Rand.

[Havax]

Ok, so we close down abortion clinics, then women who want abortions have to go to shady blackmarket clinics to get abortions. Some get infected and die, the women we catch we throw in prison for life.

Sounds great Rand.

This is exactly what happens too. My girlfriend is from Brazil and this is what happens there. It's awful.

[Lightweis]

Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.

Ok don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[tsai3904]

Rand talks about the bill here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?396776-Rand-Paul-on-the-Life-at-Conception-Act

[itshappening]

It's not smart politics if you want to win a general election but might help in the primary.

it has no chance of passing either..

[KingNothing]

Morally, I agree with it. Philosophically, I disagree with it. Politically, I think it is very bad.

It will undoubtedly help him in the primary, though.

[TheGrinch]

Morally, I agree with it. Philosophically, I disagree with it. Politically, I think it is very bad.

It will undoubtedly help him in the primary, though.

Sums it up quite well, sigh....

[Carlybee]

Guaranteed to get labeled as ultra right wing. I hope he's not counting on getting a big support from libertarians because they split on this issue. I think he is obviously going for the religious vote. He just drew a very big risky line in the sand.

[Tod]

This is exactly what happens too. My girlfriend is from Brazil and this is what happens there. It's awful.


Are you saying there should be no justice for those who commit murder because the justice isn't warm and fuzzy?

[itshappening]

There's little point in winning he primary then getting buried with war on women stuff from the Democrats 24/7 and going down in flames

[supermario21]

I agree with it entirely. We're going to get slammed anyway on it. And if anyone can defend a pro-life position I'm sure Rand Paul can.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Ok, so we close down abortion clinics, then women who want abortions have to go to shady blackmarket clinics to get abortions. Some get infected and die, the women we catch we throw in prison for life.

Sounds great Rand.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[itshappening]

I agree with it entirely. We're going to get slammed anyway on it. And if anyone can defend a pro-life position I'm sure Rand Paul can.

Yeah, banning abortions is sure going to win where Rand keeps telling us the GOP needs to win... not.

What's the point? It has no chance of passing, ever, in a million years. Even if he wins the presidency after getting burried and demagogued non stopped by Democrats, congress will never, ever pass it.

[ronpaulfollower999]

This might be targeted toward the Santorum crowd.

[itshappening]

The correct position is to "leave it to the states" and try and remove it from the perview of the Supreme Court.

If IA want to ban abortions that's up to them but don't force Maine too... He will lose the general election in a landslide running on this. Change in strategy needed.

[TheGrinch]

I agree with it entirely. We're going to get slammed anyway on it. And if anyone can defend a pro-life position I'm sure Rand Paul can.

Good point, there's really no winning in the abortion debate, but both sides are so incapable of understanding the other side's POV to where it is not a battle I would put at the forefront. It may actually be one of the lone issues where compromise like we have now is needed.

Though I still tip my hat to Rand for doing what Ron would have done, and say politics be damned, this is what I believe... I remember thinking the same thing in Ron's Liberty Defined book, like "really, you're going to bring people together by starting with the most divisive issue?". Though you're correct that both of them explain positions like this very well to where voters should at least be able to see their reasoning, and hopefully be able to move past the "republicans hate women" smears (not holding my breath on that though)

[Mr.NoSmile]

There's little point in winning he primary then getting buried with war on women stuff from the Democrats 24/7 and going down in flames

Given his vote on the Violence Against Women Act, that's bound to happen anyway. That being said, I don't really see this Act taking off. Not for moral or political reasons, I just don't see Paul being able to amass the votes for this to pass, as he has been unable to do previously with the plan to ban selling F-16s to Egypt.

[supermario21]

Also, there's a law in Arkansas which might make it's way to the supreme court soon depending on how legal battles go. There's a chance the court rules on abortion law before this comes into play. Besides, nobody is going to talk about this now, it's CPAC week. Think about all the legislation that gets introduced that nobody mentions.

[Matt Collins]

Ok, so we close down abortion clinics, then women who want abortions have to go to shady blackmarket clinics to get abortions. Some get infected and die, the women we catch we throw in prison for life.

Sounds great Rand.

So murder should be allowed? :confused: :rolleyes:

[BenIsForRon]

I hope he's not counting on getting a big support from libertarians because they split on this issue.

Split is pushing it. I would say a large majority are pro-choice.


Are you saying there should be no justice for those who commit murder because the justice isn't warm and fuzzy?

It's just not something I can in good conscience pay my local cops to do. There are ways to reduce abortions (education about contraception, etc.) outside of your inhumane scheme.

[TheGrinch]

Also, there's a law in Arkansas which might make it's way to the supreme court soon depending on how legal battles go. There's a chance the court rules on abortion law before this comes into play. Besides, nobody is going to talk about this now, it's CPAC week. Think about all the legislation that gets introduced that nobody mentions.

Yes, but the media doesn't report those things, while they're looking for any dirt they can get on Rand. TPTB will not just sit by quietly and let Rand waltz into the white house to end their gravy train, that much you can be sure of.

[itshappening]

Given his vote on the Violence Against Women Act, that's bound to happen anyway. That being said, I don't really see this Act taking off. Not for moral or political reasons, I just don't see Paul being able to amass the votes for this to pass, as he has been unable to do previously with the plan to ban selling F-16s to Egypt.

A vote against VAWA is a lot more easier to defend than a federal ban on abortion.

It's dumb politics and he needs to forget it or lose the general in a landslide to an outraged Democrat

[supermario21]

I'll also say this. The Facebook generation as Rand put it is increasingly pro-life and even the pro-choicers are less vociferous.

See this: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/abortion/274597-pro-choice-champion-stepping-down

and this: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8138


“Part of my decision was that, at 40, you have the opportunity to engage a new generation, the Millennials, because they are so huge, and that the person at the helm of this organization could reflect that youth and a younger generation,” Keenan said in an interview. “Because now the responsibility lies with these next generations to be vigilant.”

[TheGrinch]

So murder should be allowed? :confused: :rolleyes:

And here is where I exit the thread, you really seem to want to alienate anyone who isn't lockstep with Rand. You know good and well what that statement is going to lead to, hence why I wish Rand would soften his stance to make it a states issue. It's really the only winning argument, or else he looks hypocritical on civil liberties to the vast majority of women, and many libertarians/independents who see it differently.

[itshappening]

Rand should not get bogged down in wedge issues when he can just say "leave it to the states" and talk about important stuff like the economy.

Abortion is not going to ever be banned and this bill will never be passed, ever. Even with a GOP supermajority they wouldn't pass it.

[whoisjohngalt]

Morally, I agree with it. Philosophically, I disagree with it. Politically, I think it is very bad.

It will undoubtedly help him in the primary, though.

Perfectly said.

[Matt Collins]

Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.

Well, Ron wrote about this years ago and said that the Constitution demands a republic(an) form of government for every state. In a republic, you can't take someone's life or liberty without due process. Ron's argument was that if state governments allow abortion, then the Constitution allows the federal government to intervene based on that clause.

To me it sounds like a slippery slope of potential federal power overreach, however I also understand the premise of the federal government saying that to be part of the union you have to do certain basic things.

Ron also made another argument later on discussing the idea that each state should make their own rules too. So it's interesting and of course there are many ways to slice it.

[bunklocoempire]

Easy does it, careful, careful...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dCsr3o75WU

Nice one Rand.:)

[Matt Collins]

And here is where I exit the thread, you really seem to want to alienate anyone who isn't lockstep with Rand. Many, if not most, libertarians understand that when you kill another individual you are taking their rights. There are some that have a dislogic of claiming that the rights of one are paramount to another, but that's a logical fallacy and is easily dismissed.




I wish Rand would soften his stance to make it a states issue. It's really the only winning argument, or else he looks hypocritical on civil liberties to the vast majority of women, and many libertarians/independents who see it differently.They don't matter in a Republican primary.

[itshappening]

Matt, no point in winning the primary and losing the general 60/40

[mrsat_98]

I'm pro-life, but if Rand wanted to push this then he needs to examine another amendment to change the 14th Amendment to make his proposal Constitutionally consistent. As much as I may wish it were otherwise, the 14th clearly states you must be born (or naturalized) to be an American citizen. :(

There has been quit a controversy over of the 14th amendment. Here is a link to a mans website who I have followed for years. http://www.state-citizen.org/.

Lets see at first we had people and their posterity, then we got United States Citizens all prior to the 14th amendment. If your read the 14th very carefully you left out "subject to the jursidiction of the United States" which appears to be subject to the jurisdiction of the congress which is detailed in Article 1 Section 8.

It appears this amendment gave freed slaves a political status of subject to the jurisdiction of congress and later they where reduced to the level of enemy. http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/enemy.html

Here (http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/buck.html) Congress made military reservations or federal agencies with the same name as your state and devised a scheme to brainwash you that you are actually on it.

In total it amounts to treason. Please feel free to educate your self on the 14th amendment and Citizenship in general it is the ROOT OF THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT.

[whoisjohngalt]

So murder should be allowed? :confused: :rolleyes:

Stupid, stupid non sequitur. Obviously half the population is of the opinion that it isn't murder and will never be convinced otherwise, so framing it such does nothing to change the minds of anyone on the fringe.

Beyond that, abortion is so much more clandestine than murder that the two cannot and never should be compared. An abortion can occur without anyone other than the mother ever realizing the life existed. This is not true of murder. I'm very much morally opposed to abortion, but equating it to murder serves no purpose.

[itshappening]

Believe me, this will cost him in a general. It might not matter in a primary but once the Dems focus on it game over.

He wants to do what? define life at conception under the 14th? is he serious? why yes, he is. That means every abortion clinic in the land has to close. There will be protests on the streets and the Democrat candidate will delight in reveling in the outrage and the bizarre nature of what he's trying to do.

Then he loses in a landslide and is gone when the election should be about how much the economy sucks not about abortion and whether it should be legal in America. They will turn the whole election on a referendum on this bill. It is stupid.

[Tod]

I'm not so sure that Rand isn't being smart about this by bringing it up so early. By the time the serious campaigning rolls around, everyone will be worn out of talking about the topic and the social conservatives will have a stronger bond to Rand, giving him a larger base of support from which to springboard into the general.

It is better that he brings up the topic than his political enemies.

[whoisjohngalt]

Many, if not most, libertarians understand that when you kill another individual you are taking their rights. There are some that have a dislogic of claiming that the rights of one are paramount to another, but that's a logical fallacy and is easily dismissed.

Not if they are already infringing on your rights, especially to life, and you are only responding with force, in kind.
Eviction theory is not uncommon among a large segment of libertarians and if you actually poll libertarians I think you would find that most are opposed to using the feds to prevent abortion.

[supermario21]

What if Rand is against Cuomo in a general? A radical-prochoicer.

[itshappening]

What if Rand is against Cuomo in a general? A radical-prochoicer.

President Cuomo. Rand cannot win what will be a referendum on this bill and that's what they will make it.

Never mind the economy or obamacare... he wants to ban abortion. It will be all about that and nothing else! And that will cost us dearly.

[Matt Collins]

Matt, no point in winning the primary and losing the general 60/40Incorrect. Goldwater lost the general but since he was the nominee he was able to exert a huge influence on the GOP for many decades to come.

[itshappening]

The facebook generation do not want to ban abortions, are you kidding?

totally inconsistent Rand. Change strategy. They will view what you're trying to do here as bizarre and will not look at anything else in your platform. You make it a referendum on banning abortion and you lose. Maybe not in Iowa but virtually everywhere else.

[supermario21]

The country is far more polarized now than during the Goldwater era. 200 EV is a Republican minimum these days barring an extremely seismic shift. Other than Romney's win in North Carolina of 3% I think the next closest Romney state was an 8% win.

[whoisjohngalt]

Incorrect. Goldwater lost the general but since he was the nominee he was able to exert a huge influence on the GOP for many decades to come.

Incorrect. The next GOP nominee was statists big-gov drug-war-starting Nixon. Then Ford... He influenced Reagan long before he became the nominee and we saw what great impact that had.

You trying to tell us that getting crushed in the general and losing our best advocate in the Senate would be worth it? Put down the crack, son.

[Matt Collins]

Obviously half the population is of the opinion that it isn't murder and will never be convinced otherwise, so framing it such does nothing to change the minds of anyone on the fringe. We are not a democracy so it doesn't matter if the majority is ok with it or not. :rolleyes:


Beyond that, abortion is so much more clandestine than murder that the two cannot and never should be compared. No, you are intentionally and violently ending the life of another human being without provocation. It's the same thing.

[twomp]

Matt, no point in winning the primary and losing the general 60/40

I wouldn't bother with Matt Collins. He is a paid employee. Rand Paul could burn children alive and Matt Collins would be here saying that they the kids worked for The Federal Reserve or something. He has only 1 agenda here and that is to promote his boss.

[Matt Collins]

Incorrect. The next GOP nominee was statists big-gov drug-war-starting Nixon. Then Ford... He influenced Reagan long before he became the nominee and we saw what great impact that had.

You trying to tell us that getting crushed in the general and losing our best advocate in the Senate would be worth it? Put down the crack, son.You fail to understand the ramifications of Goldwater being the nominee actually had on the GOP long-term :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

I wouldn't bother with Matt Collins. He is a paid employee. Rand Paul could burn children alive and Matt Collins would be here saying that they the kids worked for The Federal Reserve or something. He has only 1 agenda here and that is to promote his boss.No, I am not a "paid employee" for Rand or any of his organizations. Nice try though :rolleyes:

[July]

This will likely cost Rand some of the new liberal/progressive fans he just made with the filibuster, or at least, given them serious pause.

[whoisjohngalt]

We are not a democracy so it doesn't matter if the majority is ok with it or not. :rolleyes:

No, you are intentionally and violently ending the life of another human being without provocation. It's the same thing.

Oh yeah, great point, Matt. Why do we want majority support on issues. All that matters is that we are a Republic so all rights will be protected regardless of majority opinion.

That's why drugs are legal, coerced taxation doesn't exist and... oh wait? Oh, you need the majority to pass laws you say? Whats that? Congress votes on laws based on the opinions of their constituency (when there isn't too much lobbyist push back) to get reelected? Fuck that nonsense. If you don't think we need to grow our numbers, you are an idiot.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Flashback: Reid apparently did not allow this to come up for discussion.

http://thehill.com/video/senate/234747-reid-rejects-pauls-life-at-conception-amendment-to-flood-bill


An exasperated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that he would not allow a vote on an amendment clarifying that life begins at conception, which Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered to a flood insurance bill...Senators are working on an agreement on which amendments to the bill might come up. Paul's amendment, introduced on Monday, is called the Life at Conception Act, and would "ensure equal protection for right to life of each born and preborn human person."

Will there even be any foul if this bill fails to pass, anyway? I mean, again, I doubt it will garner enough support in the Senate.

[itshappening]

You fail to understand the ramifications of Goldwater being the nominee actually had on the GOP long-term :rolleyes:


So Rand wants to be the next Goldwater and lose in a landslide or does he want to be president? If the latter I suggest he drop this and adopt "leave it to the states" language while cleverly pivoting back to how crap the economy is, if the former then I suggest he absolutely run on banning abortions nationwide and make it a central theme of his campaign.

[supermario21]

Abortion is a messaging issue. Pro-life candidates have won national elections many times. As long as you don't sound like an ignorant moron talking about it people won't care.

[tsai3904]

This will likely cost Rand some of the new liberal/progressive fans he just made with the filibuster, or at least, given them serious pause.

This isn't a new issue though. I'm sure most people already assumed most Rs, including Rand, hold this position.

His Senate website has had his position on life posted for years:


Sanctity of Life

I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.

I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.

I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. I support a Human Life Amendment and have co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. In addition, I support a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement.

It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I strongly oppose any federal funding for abortion and will stop the flow of tax dollars to groups like Planned Parenthood, who perform or advocate abortions.

In January 2011, Representative Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) introduced the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R.3). This bill would prohibit any funds authorized or appropriated by federal law to pay for any abortion or health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. H.R. 3 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the House Ways and Means Committee where it awaits further consideration.

In January 2011, Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) introduced the Life at Conception Act (S. 91), which I co-sponsored. This legislation would declare the right to life is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization. S. 91 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member, where it awaits further consideration.

I have stated many times that I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us to in the direction of ending abortion. There are many ways we can work toward this ultimate goal and items we can hope to accomplish in the near term. I strongly oppose any federal funding of abortion and will attempt to stop the flow of tax dollars to groups who perform or advocate for abortion.

In addition, I believe we may be able to save millions of lives in the near future by allowing states to pass their own anti-abortion laws. If states were able to do so, I sincerely believe many -- including Kentucky -- would do so tomorrow, saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Before 1973, abortion was illegal in most states. Since Roe v. Wade, over 50 million children have died in abortion procedures.

I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment.

As your Senator, there are many ways I can help end abortion. I will fight for each and every one of them.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3

[whoisjohngalt]

You fail to understand the ramifications of Goldwater being the nominee actually had on the GOP long-term :rolleyes:

Rolling your eyes really drives your point home, but how about elaborating instead. Where do we see the incredible value. In Bush 1 or 2? McCain? Romney? Down ticket? The GOP has slid massively backwards from the libertarian stances of Goldwater largely because he had his ass handed to him. How about some legitimate arguments?

[kcchiefs6465]

Would this bill effectively end Plan B?

[Havax]

People who say abortion is murder are making a religious statement. You are injecting your weird belief in a "soul" and that the second the sperm hits the egg, that thing has a soul.

[itshappening]

Abortion is a messaging issue. Pro-life candidates have won national elections many times. As long as you don't sound like an ignorant moron talking about it people won't care.

No, it's not a messaging issue... even with a GOP supermajority in congress they will never ban abortions and will never touch it. Whoever spouts this nonsense is doing it so to please evangelicals. No pro-lifer has actually done anything in congress.

[cheapseats]

I'm not so sure that Rand isn't being smart about this by bringing it up so early. By the time the serious campaigning rolls around, everyone will be worn out of talking about the topic and the social conservatives will have a stronger bond to Rand...

Alas, people NEVER tire of pontificating about Abortion . . . so much SAFER than taking on the Military Industrial Complex.



...giving him a larger base of support from which to springboard into the general.

A more IMPASSIONED base, no doubt, but I think NOT larger.

Not least 'cuz he'll split with Santorum, or whichever Holy Roller is on deck.



It is better that he brings up the topic than his political enemies.

It IS better for him to declare his positions, than to get GOTCHA'd into admitting them.

[Darguth]

People who say abortion is murder are making a religious statement. You are injecting your weird belief in a "soul" and that the second the sperm hits the egg, that thing has a soul.

Not in the slightest. Abortion can be argued as akin to murder without dealing with anything metaphysical (such as a "soul").

[whoisjohngalt]

Abortion clinics are going to be a thing of the past soon. That's what adamant pro-lifers don't seem to understand. It's one thing to be against abortion morally, but to effectively stop it or even realize its happening is going to become increasingly difficult.

I don't know if it will be in the form of a Plan C pill or a little magic wand you hold over your stomach, but in the very near future abortion will be DIY, at home and there won't be a damn bit of recourse even if you had massive support for anti-abortion measures.

So abortion pills already exist apparently: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/111368/the-rise-diy-abortions#

We can just make those illegal too! Like meth and crack. Shut it down.

[Varin]

No, it's not a messaging issue... even with a GOP supermajority in congress they will never ban abortions and will never touch it. Whoever spouts this nonsense is doing it so to please evangelicals. No pro-lifer has actually done anything in congress.

Agreed you should pay lip service to pro life but do nothing, watch Rubio.

[James Madison]

Ok, so we close down abortion clinics, then women who want abortions have to go to shady blackmarket clinics to get abortions. Some get infected and die, the women we catch we throw in prison for life.

Sounds great Rand.

And damn, all these gun owners shooting thieves who break into a stranger's house. Gun use should not be permitted for home defense because innocent criminals may get shot.

That's the same argument you're using.

Solicitation of murder is a crime. If paying someone to kill your kid outside of the womb is soliciting murder, then it is also soliciting murder when the child is inside the womb. The child isn't more alive, just at a different stage of its life cycle.

[Matt Collins]

People who say abortion is murder are making a religious statement. Highly incorrect. Notice I use words like "logic" in my discussion on the subject instead of "right and wrong"?



You are injecting your weird belief in a "soul" and that the second the sperm hits the egg, that thing has a soul.No, I never said that. Determining WHEN a clump of cells becomes a human being is however an honest and debatable challenge. Logically and reasonably, I cannot argue that abortions should be prohibited prior to the time when the child is deemed alive. To do so would require subjective and perhaps even faith based arguments. However if we know when someone is dead, then by the converse we must know when someone is alive. If we know that someone is alive by using those same metrics, then it is unjust to end their life.


And it is very clear that humans have "souls" even to the most ardent secular atheist. That is an undeniable fact of nature.

[itshappening]

why even talk about this when the economy sucks and that's the winning issue? not abortion?

it's bad strategy.

Memo to Matt: Facebook generation do not want to ban abortion and this will turn them off and drive them away to Democrats. It's that simple.

[Matt Collins]

Rolling your eyes really drives your point home, but how about elaborating instead. Where do we see the incredible value. In Bush 1 or 2? McCain? Romney? Down ticket? The GOP has slid massively backwards from the libertarian stances of Goldwater largely because he had his ass handed to him. How about some legitimate arguments?In the hundreds of candidates for state, local, and other offices that were influenced by Goldwater. The GOP has generally been Goldwater vs Rockefeller for decades, that fight is still going on. At many levels though the Goldwater side has lost out, until very recently, and of course during Reagan.

[whoisjohngalt]

And damn, all these gun owners shooting thieves who break into a stranger's house. Gun use should not be permitted for home defense because innocent criminals may get shot.

That's the same argument you're using.

Solicitation of murder is a crime. If paying someone to kill your kid outside of the womb is soliciting murder, then it is also soliciting murder when the child is inside the womb. The child isn't more alive, just at a different stage of its life cycle.

That's not his argument and "innocent criminal" is an oxymoron. His argument is that they will get it done one way or another regardless of the laws you make to try to stop it. Like drug use. It's the exact same thing. Especially since abortion comes in pill form now. There is a pill that is as cheap as $45 dollars that allows you to do it at home. You think you can stop people from getting this drug?

It's a type of life biologically speaking, but philosophically it doesn't mean that it has the right to life.

[Matt Collins]

So Rand wants to be the next Goldwater and lose in a landslide or does he want to be president?You will want to ask him that, but my guess is that he wants to change things for more liberty. Maybe he can do that better if he doesn't win the Presidency and instead build a national following like Ron? Maybe he does want to be the President so that he can get in there fighting the good fight but also accepting the limitations and baggage that comes along with that office? Who knows?

[lakerssuck92]

Things like this will kill Paul's chances of winning a general election. I am not so sure that I like it....

[Matt Collins]

why even talk about this when the economy sucks and that's the winning issue? not abortion? He's not making a big deal out of it, he's just dropping the bill in. He is doing this to help shore up support from those in the Party who might be inclined to listen to the neocon wing of the GOP in their attempt to label him an "evil libertarian".


Memo to Matt: Facebook generation do not want to ban abortion and this will turn them off and drive them away to Democrats. It's that simple.Facebook generation by and large doesn't vote (in Republican primaries) anyway.

[whoisjohngalt]

Highly incorrect. Notice I use words like "logic" in my discussion on the subject instead of "right and wrong"?


No, I never said that. Determining WHEN a clump of cells becomes a human being is however an honest and debatable challenge. Logically and reasonably, I cannot argue that abortions should be prohibited prior to the time when the child is deemed alive. To do so would require subjective and perhaps even faith based arguments. However if we know when someone is dead, then by the converse we must know when someone is alive. If we know that someone is alive by using those same metrics, then it is unjust to end their life.

Death is the permanent cessation of all biological functions. So life then, being the converse, is the permanent beginning of ALL biological functions. So by your methodology, abortion would be allowed beyond viability.

[James Madison]

why even talk about this when the economy sucks and that's the winning issue? not abortion?

it's bad strategy.

Memo to Matt: Facebook generation do not want to ban abortion and this will turn them off and drive them away to Democrats. It's that simple.

It's a bad strategy because social conservatives always seem to go full-retard right before national elections.

A fetus is biologically living and genetically different from it's parents. It is just as much alive at one cell as it is at a trillion cells. That isn't my opinion or a religious statement. That is a fact. The religious people are those who accept murder outside of the womb as a crime while supporting murder in the womb; their arguments will always devolve into advocating for vitalism and the mysterious ether, the life force.

[Brett85]

Good. I was having some concerns about Rand on some of these issues, but it's a relief that he supports this type of bill. I won't ever vote for any candidate who supports the murder of innocent human beings and doesn't want to stop it. I'm glad that Rand stands for both life and liberty.

[cheapseats]

Things like this will kill Paul's chances of winning a general election. I am not so sure that I like it....


Back in the daze when it was announced that Ron Paul would stop campaigning, and when Rand Paul endorsed Romney...on Hannity, before the convention...Loyalists tols Skeptics to READ BETWEEN THE LINES.

If between the lines of LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION means that Rand Paul will NOT seek the Presidency, rather, that he seeks to replace Mitch McConnell as THE Republican with whom to contend in the Senate, then this makes sense.

(I believe Rand Paul would be more successful/influential as a "ranking" Senator than he would ever be as President...IF he could get elected President, which I do NOT think he OR "the party" OR the media OR the public are on track to make happen.)

Signatories of the PERSONHOOD PLEDGE did not fare well with the Center . . . where the Swing Votes are.

[whoisjohngalt]

He's not making a big deal out of it, he's just dropping the bill in. He is doing this to help shore up support from those in the Party who might be inclined to listen to the neocon wing of the GOP in their attempt to label him an "evil libertarian".

Facebook generation by and large doesn't vote (in Republican primaries) anyway.

I love Rand. His image has been my Facebook profile pic for years. I defend him in almost everything. This is just dumb. He needs to stay away from social issues where they isn't a clear sea change (like marijauna reform). It can only hurt. Population has been pretty evenly split on abortion since '96 and there is little to no change on the issue. Doesn't make sense.

[Brett85]

It's not smart politics if you want to win a general election but might help in the primary.

it has no chance of passing either..

It doesn't really seem like it's worth it to get elected if you have to support a mass slaughter that's five times worse than the Holocaust in order to get votes.

[whoisjohngalt]

It's a bad strategy because social conservatives always seem to go full-retard right before national elections.

A fetus is biologically living and genetically different from it's parents. It is just as much alive at one cell as it is at a trillion cells. That isn't my opinion or a religious statement. That is a fact. The religious people are those who accept murder outside of the womb as a crime while supporting murder in the womb; their arguments will always devolve into advocating for vitalism and the mysterious ether, the life force.

They don't accept murder outside of the womb or there would be pushback against all the innocent children being murdered in drone strikes. Wrong again.

[whoisjohngalt]

It doesn't really seem like it's worth it to get elected if you have to support a mass slaughter that's five times worse than the Holocaust in order to get votes.

You don't have to support it. You just need to not make it a spotlight issue.

[Brett85]

Guaranteed to get labeled as ultra right wing. I hope he's not counting on getting a big support from libertarians because they split on this issue. I think he is obviously going for the religious vote. He just drew a very big risky line in the sand.

He's going for the libertarians who believe in protecting both life and liberty, not the libertarians who don't believe that people don't even have the right to be born.

[itshappening]

He's not making a big deal out of it, he's just dropping the bill in. He is doing this to help shore up support from those in the Party who might be inclined to listen to the neocon wing of the GOP in their attempt to label him an "evil libertarian".

Facebook generation by and large doesn't vote (in Republican primaries) anyway.

Au contraire. The problem is if he makes it out of the primary (and he's one of the favorites with or without this anyway) the Dems will make it a huge issue whether he likes it or not. This is his naivety showing again like when he went on MSNBC and engaged Maddow on the CRA, why did he do that?

He needs to plot this more carefully in order to succeed.

[supermario21]

I think we're all blowing up a bit too much over this guys. lol. Nobody is talking about this anywhere. I trust Rand to defend his position effectively like George Bush did. He didn't wage a war on women.

[Brett85]

You don't have to support it. You just need to not make it a spotlight issue.

It has to be a spotlight issue when defending life is essential to defending liberty. Ron has said multiple times that it's not possible to defend liberty without first defending life. Ron even said that the right to life is "the issue of our time."

[James Madison]

They don't accept murder outside of the womb or there would be pushback against all the innocent children being murdered in drone strikes. Wrong again.

No, what I posted was 100% correct.

They support drone strikes because they're morons and incapable of logical thought processes.

[Matt Collins]

Death is the permanent cessation of all biological functions. So life then, being the converse, is the permanent beginning of ALL biological functions. So by your methodology, abortion would be allowed beyond viability.Being "alive" and being "viable" are not in and the same. And your definition of legal human "death" I don't believe is quite accurate. What qualifications need to be in place before a doc can pronounce someone "dead"?

[Matt Collins]

He needs to stay away from social issues where they isn't a clear sea change (like marijauna reform).Bad advice for winning a Republican nomination. If he doesn't at least give tacit nods to socialcon stuff, then he opens to door to be attacked, or worse challenged, for not having enough socialcon street cred.

[whoisjohngalt]

THERE IS NO UNEQUIVOCAL DEFINITION OF LIFE. Doesn't anyone understand this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

You guys who think there is an unequivocal definition are committing a logical fallacy called begging the question. I suggest you look into that and then form a proper argument.

[whoisjohngalt]

Being "alive" and being "viable" are not in and the same. And your definition of legal human "death" I don't believe is quite accurate. What qualifications need to be in place before a doc can pronounce someone "dead"?

Cessation of all biological functions.

[whoisjohngalt]

Bad advice for winning a Republican nomination. If he doesn't at least give tacit nods to socialcon stuff, then he opens to door to be attacked, or worse challenged, for not having enough socialcon street cred.

Tacit nods is not introducing a personhood bill. A nod would be making it very clear he is undoubtedly pro life and leaving it at that.

[braane]

I'm not pro-life, but this issue is so unimportant to me that it's utterly irrelevant where any candidate stands. I feel like most college aged people feel similarly. I don't see the point in trying to push this bill though, it has no chance of passing and it's probably more damaging than helpful. At the same time I admire Rand for doing what he believes and not the politically expedient thing.

[itshappening]

Good. I was having some concerns about Rand on some of these issues, but it's a relief that he supports this type of bill. I won't ever vote for any candidate who supports the murder of innocent human beings and doesn't want to stop it. I'm glad that Rand stands for both life and liberty.

There are more than 218 GOP House members who do not support abortion - or say they don't - but they will not a pass anything to ban it or even remove it from the purview of the Supreme Court and they've had the opportunity at various times to do so over the last 40 years, including complete control of the House, Senate and Presidency between 2001-2006.

[Brett85]

The correct position is to "leave it to the states" and try and remove it from the perview of the Supreme Court.

If IA want to ban abortions that's up to them but don't force Maine too... He will lose the general election in a landslide running on this. Change in strategy needed.

I think you're going a little overboard on this. The same people who disagree with Rand on this bill are also going to disagree with him when it comes to overturning Roe v. Wade and supporting state bans on abortion. The only way Rand could get the vote of some of these radically pro choice people is if he actually came out in favor of abortion rights, and if he did that I and millions of pro life voters would simply stay home on election day.

[whoisjohngalt]

It has to be a spotlight issue when defending life is essential to defending liberty. Ron has said multiple times that it's not possible to defend liberty without first defending life. Ron even said that the right to life is "the issue of our time."

Begging the question.

[Matt Collins]

Oh yeah, great point, Matt. Why do we want majority support on issues. All that matters is that we are a Republic so all rights will be protected regardless of majority opinion.We do not need a majority to win, but a tireless minority. And while yes we need to be as appealing as possible, we don't need to make major compromises to principle to do it. Nor do we need to neglect core constituencies of the GOP if we are running for a GOP nod.


Oh, you need the majority to pass laws you say? Whats that? Congress votes on laws based on the opinions of their constituency (when there isn't too much lobbyist push back) to get reelected? You fail to understand the real nature of politics which explains why you don't need majorities to pass laws: http://training4liberty.org/facl2/info.htm#



If you don't think we need to grow our numbers, you are an idiot.Of course we need to grow our numbers, which is why Rand is reaching out to social conservatives on this sort of thing, and not to mention Rand Paul is also genuinely against abortion.

[James Madison]

THERE IS NO UNEQUIVOCAL DEFINITION OF LIFE. Doesn't anyone understand this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

You guys who think there is an unequivocal definition are committing a logical fallacy called begging the question. I suggest you look into that and then form a proper argument.

Life: a self-replicating system that utilizes the formation and organization of complex macromolecules to produce inexact copies of itself

[Brett85]

There are more than 218 GOP House members who do not support abortion - or say they don't - but they will not a pass anything to ban it or even remove it from the purview of the Supreme Court and they've had the opportunity at various times to do so over the last 40 years, including complete control of the House, Senate and Presidency between 2001-2006.

The purpose of Rand introducing this bill isn't because it actually has a chance of passing, but to convince conservative Republicans that he's pro life.

[juleswin]

Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.

Same here, one can only take so much direction from Washington. Rand takes 10 steps forward and 20 steps backwards. WTF is wrong with him?

[Matt Collins]

I'm not pro-life, but this issue is so unimportant to me that it's utterly irrelevant where any candidate stands. I feel like most college aged people feel similarly. I don't see the point in trying to push this bill though, it has no chance of passing and it's probably more damaging than helpful. At the same time I admire Rand for doing what he believes and not the politically expedient thing.That's because you are not the average Republican voter.

[itshappening]

I think you're going a little overboard on this. The same people who disagree with Rand on this bill are also going to disagree with him when it comes to overturning Roe v. Wade and supporting state bans on abortion. The only way Rand could get the vote of some of these radically pro choice people is if he actually came out in favor of abortion rights, and if he did that I and millions of pro life voters would simply stay home on election day.

No because saying "I will leave it to the states" and defending a personhood bill and therefore a federal, all out ban on abortion across America - from New York to California - is completely different.

You can say when asked about abortion "i'm in favor of the 10th amendment and leaving these issues to the states" if you defend a personhood bill then you're making the election a referendum on that bill and giving a huge opening on an issue of little importance and which will never be passed. They will hammer him on it day and night. They can't hammer a states rights position so easily.

[whoisjohngalt]

We do not need a majority to win, but a tireless minority. And while yes we need to be as appealing as possible, we don't need to make major compromises to principle to do it. Nor do we need to neglect core constituencies of the GOP if we are running for a GOP nod.

Very cute, but you forgot the last part of the quote. The keen on setting brushfires in the mind of men bit. That's also known as winning other's to your side or opinion. It's the irate, tireless minority that does the winning, but they do so by changing the minds of others. Context hurts.

[Matt Collins]

THERE IS NO UNEQUIVOCAL DEFINITION OF LIFE. No, but there is a legal / medical definition, how else would docs be able to pronounce someone "dead"?

[Christian Liberty]

The only issue I personally see on this is that its a Federal law, and therefore unconstitutional. I've seen at least one comment saying that Ron Paul supported this as well. If so, I completely misunderstood him, I thought he wanted to leave it to the states. Personally, if there were ever, hypothetically, enough votes to pass a constitutional amendment to ban abortion nationwide, I'd vote for it, but otherwise... seriously we don't need any more Federal power grabs. Even though I understand why some libertarians disagree with me on the issue, I'm very loudly and very strongly pro-life. I'd much rather a Federal ban than what we have now, which is Federal legalization. The only issue I have with Rand's stance is not that he's wrong morally, but that he's wrong constitutionally.

Ron tried to legislatively get rid of Roe v Wade with the Sanctity of Life Act. That's the sort of thing Rand should be doing if he's going to try to change abortion law in this country.


Only commenting on everything I found interesting up to page 3 ATM...





I'm pro-life, but if Rand wanted to push this then he needs to examine another amendment to change the 14th Amendment to make his proposal Constitutionally consistent. As much as I may wish it were otherwise, the 14th clearly states you must be born (or naturalized) to be an American citizen. :(

I see nothing wrong with you having to be born here to be a CITIZEN. I mean, should they really check where you were conceived? Ideally, I'd like a new amendment saying you are a PERSON at conception, but not a citizen.... that's just silly.


Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.

And why on earth is this one issue so important to you? Its not going to pass. I'm not even a huge Rand fanatic but my goodness he's the best option we've got right now, by far. This isn't even Rand's biggest flaw either.

Ok, so we close down abortion clinics, then women who want abortions have to go to shady blackmarket clinics to get abortions. Some get infected and die, the women we catch we throw in prison for life.

Sounds great Rand.

Yes, there would actually be justice. I may disagree with the "Federal Level" aspect of this, but I would absolutely support a state law charging them with murder.... AND reinstating capital punishment in NYS...


Morally, I agree with it. Philosophically, I disagree with it. Politically, I think it is very bad.

It will undoubtedly help him in the primary, though.

How can you agree with it morally but disagree philosophically? I'm a little confused.

As for politically, I don't think it will hurt that much. The kind of radical leftists that are single issue on abortion wouldn't ever vote for Rand anyway. Honestly, I think Walter Block's "Evictionism" would be too much for them because it meant that eventually, in a century or two, abortion might be abolished. I just don't see very many people saying "Well, I could vote for him if he's pro banning it at state level, but not Federal level." The kind of moderates who would be OK with a state level, but not Federal ban (This doesn't include me, I'm radically pro-life, I just am also radically pro-constitution unless/until we switch back to the AoC) is probably not going to single-issue this.


Guaranteed to get labeled as ultra right wing. I hope he's not counting on getting a big support from libertarians because they split on this issue. I think he is obviously going for the religious vote. He just drew a very big risky line in the sand.
Abortion has nothing to do with "Right wing." No decent libertarian would ever single issue this.


And here is where I exit the thread, you really seem to want to alienate anyone who isn't lockstep with Rand. You know good and well what that statement is going to lead to, hence why I wish Rand would soften his stance to make it a states issue. It's really the only winning argument, or else he looks hypocritical on civil liberties to the vast majority of women, and many libertarians/independents who see it differently.

I think anyone who votes solely based on abortion is crazy.


Rand should not get bogged down in wedge issues when he can just say "leave it to the states" and talk about important stuff like the economy.

Abortion is not going to ever be banned and this bill will never be passed, ever. Even with a GOP supermajority they wouldn't pass it.

Because the rest of the GOP (Not Rand) needs Roe v Wade for votes from the gullible.

Well, Ron wrote about this years ago and said that the Constitution demands a republic(an) form of government for every state. In a republic, you can't take someone's life or liberty without due process. Ron's argument was that if state governments allow abortion, then the Constitution allows the federal government to intervene based on that clause.

To me it sounds like a slippery slope of potential federal power overreach, however I also understand the premise of the federal government saying that to be part of the union you have to do certain basic things.

Ron also made another argument later on discussing the idea that each state should make their own rules too. So it's interesting and of course there are many ways to slice it.

Utimately, I'd actually like to just expel the states that won't start life at conception. Just expel them and force them to start their own country.

[Matt Collins]

Tacit nods is not introducing a personhood bill. A nod would be making it very clear he is undoubtedly pro life and leaving it at that.I assure you this bill will never see the light of day, that's pretty well understood. But it's a crowd pleaser to likely Republican voters.

[Brett85]

Arguing against a bill because it doesn't have any chance of passing is a pretty ridiculous argument. There's no chance at all that a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve will ever be passed, but Ron Paul introduced that bill every single year he was in Congress, and he was always an advocate for ending the Federal Reserve. Was it a mistake for Ron to push for a bill ending the Federal Reserve when it had absolutely no chance of ever passing?

[whoisjohngalt]

Life: a self-replicating system that utilizes the formation and organization of complex macromolecules to produce inexact copies of itself

Just because you throw out a definition doesn't make it so...

From wiki:

It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[20][21][22] This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a pure substance.[23][24] Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and must be sufficiently general to include life that may be fundamentally different from life on Earth.[25][26][27]
Biology
Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:[26][28]
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life

[itshappening]

The purpose of Rand introducing this bill isn't because it actually has a chance of passing, but to convince conservative Republicans that he's pro life.

You can do that without this bill which damages him if he gets out of the primary. Seriously. Not good strategy.

[TheGrinch]

I'm not pro-life, but this issue is so unimportant to me that it's utterly irrelevant where any candidate stands. I feel like most college aged people feel similarly. I don't see the point in trying to push this bill though, it has no chance of passing and it's probably more damaging than helpful. At the same time I admire Rand for doing what he believes and not the politically expedient thing.

Very well said. Now that he's gotten the exposure and credibility he needed, he's sounding more and more like his dad all the time, not afraid to stand for what he believes in, even if it's not popular.

I just think his dad talked enough about the issue, that I agree he doesn't need to put forth a bill that's bound to fail for people to believe that he agrees with his father. He has to know that the media smear-artists are just waiting for ammo to use against him, and it's a shame after he's done such a good job so far at picking his battles and not giving them anything to work with.

(Edit: But I don't think this will be such a game-changer like some think, he'll do fine at explaining his position without sounding liek a woman-hating loon).

[itshappening]

Arguing against a bill because it doesn't have any chance of passing is a pretty ridiculous argument. There's no chance at all that a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve will ever be passed, but Ron Paul introduced that bill every single year he was in Congress, and he was always an advocate for ending the Federal Reserve. Was it a mistake for Ron to push for a bill ending the Federal Reserve when it had absolutely no chance of ever passing?

And you'll notice Ron never won the presidency and never even got close.

Rand is a lot closer if he wants to but he's throwing it away with something like this as they will hammer him for months if he's the nominee.

[Varin]

No, but there is a legal / medical definition, how else would docs be able to pronounce someone "dead"?

But the question is not about life but a separate, unique human life. Unless u are against picking flowers?

[juleswin]

Bad advice for winning a Republican nomination. If he doesn't at least give tacit nods to socialcon stuff, then he opens to door to be attacked, or worse challenged, for not having enough socialcon street cred.

And what good is it do solidify your republican constituent just to lose the general elections. Social conservatism is pure poison. Your numbers are diminishing at a faster rate than you can image. A wise man will ind a way to talk the minority of the people out of it instead trying to convince the majority.

[Brett85]

No because saying "I will leave it to the states" and defending a personhood bill and therefore a federal, all out ban on abortion across America - from New York to California - is completely different.

You can say when asked about abortion "i'm in favor of the 10th amendment and leaving these issues to the states" if you defend a personhood bill then you're making the election a referendum on that bill and giving a huge opening on an issue of little importance and which will never be passed. They will hammer him on it day and night. They can't hammer a states rights position so easily.

What about a Constitutional amendment banning abortion? Do you think Rand should be opposed to that as well?

[Brett85]

And what good is it do solidify your republican constituent just to lose the general elections.

Because it's what Rand actually believes in. And if people are going to base their vote for a political candidate solely on abortion and vote against any pro life candidate, I hope our entire country just goes down in flames.

[whoisjohngalt]

No, but there is a legal / medical definition, how else would docs be able to pronounce someone "dead"?

How many times do I have to say that. There is an unequivocal definition of death. The cessation of all biological functions. No one disputes this.

[itshappening]

I assure you this bill will never see the light of day, that's pretty well understood. But it's a crowd pleaser to likely Republican voters.

Yes it is but if he's the nominee he loses in a landslide spending 3 months defending it... so what's the point? If he wants to be sitting the White House he needs to plot it more carefully including this and engaging people like Maddow on the CRA.

How can you not see this?

[TheGrinch]

What about a Constitutional amendment banning abortion? Do you think Rand should be opposed to that as well?

I think he should focus on battles he can win, and leave things like abortion to his rhetoric to educate, not to put forth legislation that's bound to fail and only hurt more than help his cause.

That said, let's stop making a bigger deal of this than it is.

[supermario21]

I think Ron said and you noted earlier, that Sanctity of Life Act would instantly overturn Roe v Wade and leave abortion policy to the states. A constitutional amendment will NEVER pass, even less likely than this.

[itshappening]

What about a Constitutional amendment banning abortion? Do you think Rand should be opposed to that as well?

How many times do I have to say this to you?

The correct position is to say "leave it to the states" then talk about the crappy economy.

Abortion is a losing issue. Forget about bills and constitutional amendments. There's no point. No gain whatsoever.

[James Madison]

Just because you throw out a definition doesn't make it so...

From wiki:

It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[20][21][22] This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a pure substance.[23][24] Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and must be sufficiently general to include life that may be fundamentally different from life on Earth.[25][26][27]
Biology
Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:[26][28]
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life

The definition of life, if it ever changes, will only expand, not contract. Based on our current understanding of the universe, the definition I posted is accurate. A single cell inside the womb is alive. Under no circumstances will a single-celled organism cease to be considered living.

[Brett85]

I think he should focus on battles he can win, and leave things like abortion to his rhetoric to educate, not to put forth legislation that's bound to fail and only hurt more than help his cause.

Then he would just get the "pro choice for states" label from Santorum and others. That's what he had to face in the GOP primary back in 2010. I don't think Rand would even be a U.S Senator right now if he didn't make it completely clear that he's 100% pro life.

[whoisjohngalt]

The definition of life, if it ever changes, will only expand, not contract. Based on our current understanding of the universe, the definition I posted is accurate. A single cell inside the womb is alive. Under no circumstances will a single-celled organism cease to be considered living.

Oh good. So you do think picking flowers should be illegal?

[Brett85]

How many times do I have to say this to you?

The correct position is to say "leave it to the states" then talk about the crappy economy.

Abortion is a losing issue. Forget about bills and constitutional amendments. There's no point. No gain whatsoever.

Then that would even be a different position than Ron Paul took on the issue, as he also introduced a Human Life amendment when he was in Congress. Ron always used the rhetoric of saying abortion should be a state issue, but the bills that he introduced showed otherwise.

[James Madison]

Oh good. So you do think picking flowers should be illegal?

Do you take anti-biotics?

I can beg the question, too.

[itshappening]

Because it's what Rand actually believes in. And if people are going to base their vote for a political candidate solely on abortion and vote against any pro life candidate, I hope our entire country just goes down in flames.

8 years of Hillary Clinton after she's spent 3 months grandstanding on abortion and war on women will ensure America will be in flames, so is that what you want?

[TheGrinch]

The definition of life, if it ever changes, will only expand, not contract. Based on our current understanding of the universe, the definition I posted is accurate. A single cell inside the womb is alive. Under no circumstances will a single-celled organism cease to be considered living.

Conception (when sperm and egg meet) is the criteria for human life. Trying to reduce it to a single cell will make you look like a hypocrite every time you masterbate and commit "infanticide".

Trying to stay out of this debate, but if you're going to argue the pro-life side, then please realize that sex or ejaculation are not conception (thus making the opposition to contraception a contradiction). Conception can occur as much as days later, when you could say "life begins at conception".

[cheapseats]

Ron always used the rhetoric of saying abortion should be a state issue, but the bills that he introduced showed otherwise.

Ron always LOST his bids for the presidency.

[Brett85]

You can do that without this bill which damages him if he gets out of the primary. Seriously. Not good strategy.

I really don't think Romney lost because of the abortion issue. He was a go who was first pro choice, then pro life, then pro choice, then pro life with exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother, and everything else. The exit polls showed that there was a steep drop in turnout among evangelical Christians from 2008 to 2012, so I'm not really buying into the idea that Romney lost the election because he was some type of radical pro lifer.

[Brett85]

Ron always LOST his bids for the presidency.

Right, partly because he was viewed by Republican voters as not being socially conservative enough.

[itshappening]

I really don't think Romney lost because of the abortion issue. He was a go who was first pro choice, then pro life, then pro choice, then pro life with exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother, and everything else. The exit polls showed that there was a steep drop in turnout among evangelical Christians from 2008 to 2012, so I'm not really buying into the idea that Romney lost the election because he was some type of radical pro lifer.

Romney never had a pro-life bill or ran on one

[whoisjohngalt]

When you can get abortion pills for $45 that are 95% effective, do you guys really think such legislation would have any positive effect?

DIY abortions are on the rise and in the not-too-distant future, contraceptives will render abortions a thing of the past.

But what we are discussing is how advantageous this was politically for Rand. That's what this entire argument is actually about.

[cheapseats]

I assure you this bill will never see the light of day, that's pretty well understood. But it's a crowd pleaser to likely Republican voters.


Insincere grandstanding on the Taxpayers' dime, is that it?

[Brett85]

8 years of Hillary Clinton after she's spent 3 months grandstanding on abortion and war on women will ensure America will be in flames, so is that what you want?

I don't agree that the majority of voters in America are one issue voters who won't ever vote for any pro life candidate. I don't think most voters are as simple minded as you think they are. Most voters look at all of the issues as a whole, not base their vote on one issue.

[Brett85]

8 years of Hillary Clinton after she's spent 3 months grandstanding on abortion and war on women will ensure America will be in flames, so is that what you want?

I don't agree that the majority of voters in America are one issue voters who won't ever vote for any pro life candidate. I don't think most voters are as simple minded as you think they are. Most voters look at all of the issues as a whole, not base their vote on one issue.

[jbauer]

Seems like a waste of time. I doubt this does him anything good except maybe bring in some factions of the social conservatives while trying to convince them the little L's aren't that bad.

[James Madison]

Conception (when sperm and egg meet) is the criteria for human life. Trying to reduce it to a single cell will make you look like a hypocrite every time you masterbate and commit "infanticide".


No. Sperm progenitor cells are genetic clones of every other cell line in the body. YOUR body. Self-owernship means I can do whatever I want with my body, including initiate violence against myself. What I can't do is initiate violence against another body.

[whoisjohngalt]

Do you take anti-biotics?

I can beg the question, too.

Yes, because I understand that life isn't the only criteria necessary to have the Right to Life. Of course, I do.

[Brett85]

Romney never had a pro-life bill or ran on one

Exactly, and he still lost. So how exactly did taking a passive and inconsistent position on abortion help Romney?

[cheapseats]

... Most voters look at all of the issues as a whole...


Wishful thinking.

[supermario21]

I think there are more single issue pro-life voters than single issue pro-choice candidates.

[itshappening]

I don't agree that the majority of voters in America are one issue voters who won't ever vote for any pro life candidate. I don't think most voters are as simple minded as you think they are. Most voters look at all of the issues as a whole, not base their vote on one issue.

Has America ever voted for a president running on a personhood bill?

[whoisjohngalt]

I don't agree that the majority of voters in America are one issue voters who won't ever vote for any pro life candidate. I don't think most voters are as simple minded as you think they are. Most voters look at all of the issues as a whole, not base their vote on one issue.

Uhh.. we have data on this. It's not a mystery.

20% of self defined pro choice millennials are single issue voters on the issue. 40% of pro-life from the same group are.

[itshappening]

Exactly, and he still lost. So how exactly did taking a passive and inconsistent position on abortion help Romney?

It would have been about 5 points worse for Romney if he was defending a personhood bill for 2 months

[cheapseats]

Romney never had a pro-life bill or ran on one



Exactly, and he still lost. So how exactly did taking a passive and inconsistent position on abortion help Romney?


Romney's position EVOLVED to expressly Anti Abortion . . . when Republicans were trying to OUT-RIGHT each other.



...Former Fact Checker columnist Michael Dobbs created a detailed list back in 2007 that details Mitt Romney’s flip-flops on the abortion issue. There is no doubt that the Republican’s stance has evolved.

In terms of Romney supporting a ban on all abortions, we covered this issue in a previous column, noting that the candidate currently supports exceptions for victims of rape and incest, and that “the former governor has shown near perfect consistency on this issue, with one notable exception [the 2007 debate comment].”

Romney’s campaign acknowledged for our previous column that the Republican candidate has unquestionably changed his position on abortion since running for U.S. Senate in 1994 — the year he said during a Planned Parenthood fundraiser that he supported abortion rights, and that he had felt that way since 1970.

Romney basically stuck to that position while running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, promising to uphold the status quo on abortion rights. He lived up to that promise but also declared an antiabortion stance midway through his term. Critics have suggested he was eyeing a presidential run at the time.

Romney has said time and again during his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns that he is “unapologetically pro-life” but does not oppose abortions in instances of rape and incest or when the procedure is necessary to protect the life of a mother. This is the same position he proclaims to this day and which his campaign reiterated in its ad last week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romneys-official-stance-on-abortion/2012/10/22/f7bd00dc-1a3d-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_blog.html

[James Madison]

Yes, because I understand that life isn't the only criteria necessary to have the Right to Life. Of course, I do.

I don't believe that either.

But under our legal system it is a crime to murder another human; spiders, insects, flowers, and wombats do not share the same protection.

[Christian Liberty]

Stupid, stupid non sequitur. Obviously half the population is of the opinion that it isn't murder and will never be convinced otherwise, so framing it such does nothing to change the minds of anyone on the fringe.

Beyond that, abortion is so much more clandestine than murder that the two cannot and never should be compared. An abortion can occur without anyone other than the mother ever realizing the life existed. This is not true of murder. I'm very much morally opposed to abortion, but equating it to murder serves no purpose.

Who cares who knows the person that died, or who cares about them? Completely irrelevant. Its cold-blooded murder.


Not if they are already infringing on your rights, especially to life, and you are only responding with force, in kind.
Eviction theory is not uncommon among a large segment of libertarians and if you actually poll libertarians I think you would find that most are opposed to using the feds to prevent abortion.

Walter Block did a pretty good job intellectually creating and defending that theory but I still think its completely wrong. I reject his assumption that you don't make an implied contract with the fetus when you have sex. The assumption leads Block to accept a number of wacky conclusions, even to the point where abandoning a child after its birth would be acceptable if nobody was willing to take care of it. Granted, Block is probably correct that this wouldn't often happen but it doesn't matter, the very conclusion is absurd. Block, however, doesn't make this a "Litmus Test" issue like some radicals do. In fact, Block tried to say that the "libertarians" who didn't vote for Ron Paul when they could were not really libertarians at all. THAT he was correct about.


What if Rand is against Cuomo in a general? A radical-prochoicer.

Ugh. Do. Not. Make. Me. Think. About. Our. Idiot. Governor. In. The. Freaking. White. House.

I already hate this guy with a passion, and I haven't even seen him in charge of the US military yet... I live in NYS as well, most totalitarian state in the US....

Oh yeah, great point, Matt. Why do we want majority support on issues. All that matters is that we are a Republic so all rights will be protected regardless of majority opinion.

That's why drugs are legal, coerced taxation doesn't exist and... oh wait? Oh, you need the majority to pass laws you say? Whats that? Congress votes on laws based on the opinions of their constituency (when there isn't too much lobbyist push back) to get reelected? Fuck that nonsense. If you don't think we need to grow our numbers, you are an idiot.

The majority can impose its opinion by force. But that's all they have. Brute force. THey can sugarcoat it in euphamisms, but the strong liberty defender will not let them. Tell them they are supporting murder, theft, exc. and that therefore they are despicable, disgusting people.

I don't always go that route but when I get ticked off online I do...


No, it's not a messaging issue... even with a GOP supermajority in congress they will never ban abortions and will never touch it. Whoever spouts this nonsense is doing it so to please evangelicals. No pro-lifer has actually done anything in congress.
Because they don't care. Rand is better than that.


Abortion clinics are going to be a thing of the past soon. That's what adamant pro-lifers don't seem to understand. It's one thing to be against abortion morally, but to effectively stop it or even realize its happening is going to become increasingly difficult.

I don't know if it will be in the form of a Plan C pill or a little magic wand you hold over your stomach, but in the very near future abortion will be DIY, at home and there won't be a damn bit of recourse even if you had massive support for anti-abortion measures.

So abortion pills already exist apparently: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/111368/the-rise-diy-abortions#

We can just make those illegal too! Like meth and crack. Shut it down.

Unlike Meth and crack, abortion pills actually victimize somebody. That said, I tend to agree that making it illegal won't do much. That's why its not a litmus test for me. I'll vote for a pro-choicer who wants to end murder BY Washington DC over a pro-lifer who wants to murder from DC in a heartbeat. Even still, it should be illegal, and those that we happen to catch (Maybe they are reported?) should be imprisoned for life, or with enough evidence, sentenced to death.

why even talk about this when the economy sucks and that's the winning issue? not abortion?

it's bad strategy.

Memo to Matt: Facebook generation do not want to ban abortion and this will turn them off and drive them away to Democrats. It's that simple.

It ain't gonna matter.

Good. I was having some concerns about Rand on some of these issues, but it's a relief that he supports this type of bill. I won't ever vote for any candidate who supports the murder of innocent human beings and doesn't want to stop it. I'm glad that Rand stands for both life and liberty.

I don't think single issue on abortion is a good idea.


It doesn't really seem like it's worth it to get elected if you have to support a mass slaughter that's five times worse than the Holocaust in order to get votes.

Its not quite like that. First of all, the Holocaust also featured mass torture. Secondly, abortion is done by a bunch of different people; one mass murderer did the Holocaust. Finally, its extremely hard to enforce anti-abortion laws. Even if it doesn't stop a single abortion, if it ensures that one percent of people who do it are brought to justice, its worth it. That said, ending murder by DC, if nothing else, is more immediately important. The non-Paulian wing of the GOP needs to take the plank out of its own eye since all of them want to murder far more people than anyone who has an abortion. Heck, even Rand does have a little plank to take out of his own eye considering he voted for sanctions which led to the death of thousands. Granted, it was a political maneuver, but still. Ron Paul would have never done that...


I think we're all blowing up a bit too much over this guys. lol. Nobody is talking about this anywhere. I trust Rand to defend his position effectively like George Bush did. He didn't wage a war on women.

George Bush didn't give a crap. Rand Paul is actually a decent human being (Last paragraph I wrote about sanctions aside... its so hard to be a good man in DC...)


There are more than 218 GOP House members who do not support abortion - or say they don't - but they will not a pass anything to ban it or even remove it from the purview of the Supreme Court and they've had the opportunity at various times to do so over the last 40 years, including complete control of the House, Senate and Presidency between 2001-2006.

Yep.. its manipulation.


I think you're going a little overboard on this. The same people who disagree with Rand on this bill are also going to disagree with him when it comes to overturning Roe v. Wade and supporting state bans on abortion. The only way Rand could get the vote of some of these radically pro choice people is if he actually came out in favor of abortion rights, and if he did that I and millions of pro life voters would simply stay home on election day.

I'd vote for him, but I'd be upset...

I don't know that "Millions" vote based on abortion alone. I don't even... And I'm pretty radically pro-life at the state level.

Arguing against a bill because it doesn't have any chance of passing is a pretty ridiculous argument. There's no chance at all that a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve will ever be passed, but Ron Paul introduced that bill every single year he was in Congress, and he was always an advocate for ending the Federal Reserve. Was it a mistake for Ron to push for a bill ending the Federal Reserve when it had absolutely no chance of ever passing?

Because Ron Paul is a hero.


What about a Constitutional amendment banning abortion? Do you think Rand should be opposed to that as well?


No, but why talk about the impossibility? Its not a core point. If asked, support it.


Then he would just get the "pro choice for states" label from Santorum and others. That's what he had to face in the GOP primary back in 2010. I don't think Rand would even be a U.S Senator right now if he didn't make it completely clear that he's 100% pro life.
Santorum's an idiot.

Then that would even be a different position than Ron Paul took on the issue, as he also introduced a Human Life amendment when he was in Congress. Ron always used the rhetoric of saying abortion should be a state issue, but the bills that he introduced showed otherwise.

Can you prove this? I thought almost for certain Ron wanted it left to the states. That would be ironic considering Ron Paul was the one (Not personally, of course) that convinced me it wasn't smart to give the Federal government the power in the first place.

[T.hill]

Life doesn't necessarily have an unequivocal definition, but biologically a fetus at any stage can be said to be living. The harder question is whether or not the fetus is human, which is a subjective premise in itself. We get our rights from our humanity, so a fetus's right to life is dependent on whether it is human or not.

[juleswin]

Because it's what Rand actually believes in. And if people are going to base their vote for a political candidate solely on abortion and vote against any pro life candidate, I hope our entire country just goes down in flames.

I get it now, he can play politics with other issues which dont exactly conform with the freedom movement but on this one, he will risk everything by doing what he really believes. This is one of the most divisive issues in american politics, he knows he will get a lot of people very angry. Just look on this site and see what happens to abortion threads, nobody ever leaves with a different opinion and everybody has a strong opinion.

Sorry but whether or not he believes it, this is a really idiotic move on his part. He should stayed away from it

[Brett85]

Romney's position EVOLVED to expressly Anti Abortion . . . when Republicans were trying to OUT-RIGHT each other.

Not hardly. He was running commercials late in the campaign about how he was pro choice in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Not hardly a hardcore pro life position. The exit polls showed that there was a steep drop off in evangelical turn out in states like Virginia, probably partly due to Romney's weak stand on abortion and his Mormon faith. (The latter being unfair.) I don't see how Rand taking socially liberal positions is going to help evangelical turnout and help him get elected. Keep in mind that George W. Bush won in 2004 because he turned out evangelical voters. Elections are all about turning out your base to vote for you. There's millions of evangelical Christians who just stay home on election day, perhaps because they don't believe that either major candidate is serious about ending abortion, or perhaps because today's "pro lifers" take an inconsistent position when they support defending life in the womb but support a foreign policy that leads to the deaths of millions of innocent people around the world.

[whoisjohngalt]

I don't believe that either.

But under our legal system it is a crime to murder another human; spiders, insects, flowers, and wombats do not share the same protection.

Our legal system has nothing to do with why murder is wrong.

[whoisjohngalt]

I don't see how Rand taking socially liberal positions is going to help evengelical turnout and help him get elected. Keep in mind that George W. Bush won in 2004 because he turned out evengelical voters. Elections are all about turning out your base to vote for you. There's millions of evengelical Christians who just stay home on election day, perhaps because they don't believe that either major candidate is serious about ending abortion, or perhaps because today's "pro lifers" take an inconsistent position when they support defending life in the womb but support a foreign policy that leads to the deaths of millions of innocent people around the world.

That was 2004. This will be 2016. Do you know how rapidly in decline evangelicals are in America? Apparently you don't.

[anaconda]

Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.

Rand knows it will fail. He's trying to brand himself as the new conservative and capture the base. He will spend the next three years coming to the center on this. He will say, "Well, I tried." Then get behind the issue as a states' rights issue. Or something like that.

Having said that, does Rand intend to introduce a bill to establish the "Federal Department of Abortion Police?"

[itshappening]

The founders were never bothered about abortion, in fact they admired the practice in the native indian population and no one was prosecuted in the colonies for having abortions or carrying them out. There was one early case in CT where it was botched leading to the mothers death and the doctor was charged but he was never convicted.

[Brett85]

That was 2004. This will be 2016. Do you know how rapidly in decline evangelicals are in America? Apparently you don't.

There's not a decline in evangelicals, just a decline in people who attend church on a weekly basis.

[RockEnds]

The correct position is to "leave it to the states" and try and remove it from the perview of the Supreme Court.

If IA want to ban abortions that's up to them but don't force Maine too... He will lose the general election in a landslide running on this. Change in strategy needed.

Iowa doesn't want to ban abortions. Iowa religious conservatives want to ban abortions. Don't forget Obama first won here. It's a purple state. The religious conservatives are actually a small faction with a big voice.

[cheapseats]

Not hardly. He was running commercials late in the campaign about how he was pro choice in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Not hardly a hardcore pro life position...

Not hardly a libertarian-leaning position, either.

Your impassioned belief makes you WANT "life begins at conception" to be a PLUS in electoral politics, but it isn't.

[Brett85]

Having said that, does Rand intend to introduce a bill to establish the "Federal Department of Abortion Police?"

No. I don't think people undertand that you can have a federal law that bans abortion that doesn't actually create a federal abortion police. Ron and Rand both support personhood laws that ban abortion nationwide, but still allow the states to determine what the exact penalties are for abortion and allow them to enforce these laws.

[Brett85]

Not hardly a libertarian-leaning position, either.

Your impassioned belief makes you WANT "life begins at conception" to be a PLUS in electoral politics, but it isn't.

It's a plus to take a consistent position and be seen as honest. When George W. Bush was President, you would hear Americans from all over the country say, "you may not agree with him, but at least you know where he stands."

And the libertarian position is to ban abortion, as it isn't possible to defend liberty without defending life. Ron Paul has stated that numerous times. It's a wonder why the liberals here ever supported him.

[supermario21]

Also, something to consider. No matter how much Rand does here, Santorum will always be the evangelical golden boy. Rand could get this passed and they'd still like frothy more.

[anaconda]

Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.

There is no federal ban on murder. Why should there be one for abortion? This is a states' issue. Shame on Rand.

[Brett85]

The founders were never bothered about abortion, in fact they admired the practice in the native indian population and no one was prosecuted in the colonies for having abortions or carrying them out. There was one early case in CT where it was botched leading to the mothers death and the doctor was charged but he was never convicted.

Do you have a link that proves that?

[Brett85]

There is no federal ban on murder. Why should there be one for abortion? This is a states' issue. Shame on Rand.

If a state government ever tried to legalize murder, the federal government would prevent them from doing so. There are federal protections for those who are already born.

[anaconda]

No. I don't think people undertand that you can have a federal law that bans abortion that doesn't actually create a federal abortion police. Ron and Rand both support personhood laws that ban abortion nationwide, but still allow the states to determine what the exact penalties are for abortion and allow them to enforce these laws.

Interesting point you make.

[whoisjohngalt]

There is no federal ban on murder. Why should there be one for abortion? This is a states' issue. Shame on Rand.

Actually, there is a federal ban on murder.

[cheapseats]

It's a plus to take a consistent position and be seen as honest.

It is much better to be viewed as honest than DISHONEST.




When George W. Bush was President, you would hear Americans from all over the country say, "you may not agree with him, but at least you know where he stands."

OFTEN WRONG, BUT NEVER IN DOUBT.

George W. Bush is also held by many to be among the worst presidents in our history.



And the libertarian position is to ban abortion...

Fiddle dee dee.

[bunklocoempire]

I am so glad Ron is PUSA and everyone in this country is up to speed on consistent liberty so I don't have to worry about all this playing politics stuff anymore.

Can you imagine if Ron would've had to been all things to all people at different times? He might've not won...

Can you imagine if everyone wouldn't have suddenly come around to what the Feds are allowed to do? It was getting sketchy there for a bit at the end but boobus came through.

And thank the stars that the msm finally turned around and backed Ron rather than establishment.

http://s6.postimage.org/46h1c4lf5/Glenn_beck.jpg

The "what Rand has to do/not do" part of this thread is kinda bizzaro. What exactly has changed in the world that makes his LAC Act a poor move? lol

You kids and your politics -ya crack me up. :D;)

[Christopholes11]

I'm worried this will alienate some of his supporters. As someone who is pro-choice I can tolerate pushing for the overturn of Roe vs. Wade so the states can vote on it themselves. But any sort of federal action to ban abortion nationwide can really turn some liberty minded folks off.

[itshappening]

It's a plus to take a consistent position and be seen as honest. When George W. Bush was President, you would hear Americans from all over the country say, "you may not agree with him, but at least you know where he stands."

And the libertarian position is to ban abortion, as it isn't possible to defend liberty without defending life. Ron Paul has stated that numerous times. It's a wonder why the liberals here ever supported him.

To be honest TC, we dont even want this coming up in a campaign. Pushing a bill like this will ensure it does. Yes, it's important in IA for GOPers there but I dont think Rand will lose much support without this.

I'd be delighted if the word "abortion" didn't even come up during a campaign along with the words "rape", "incest" and "civl rights act".

It should all be about the economy and obamcare. Simple as that.

Wedge issues are not going to do anything but provide fodder for the likes of Stephanopoulos. They will be delighted to ask him questions about these issues every day and on the campaign trail and make the whole election about it while not even talking about the economy or the disastrous obamacare.

You need to understand this... more important, Rand does !!

[anaconda]

Actually, there is a federal ban on murder.

If there is I don't think it's very explicit. Preamble? By inference from the 5th Amendment?

[Brett85]

Who says that Rand is going to talk about the issue during a general election campaign? He simply introduced a bill in the Senate. He introduces bills all the time.

[anaconda]

Hopefully the Republican base in "New England and the West Coast" are OK with this. I guess time will tell. But one must wonder about the "Reagan Democrats" in these areas that will be so essential for a general election.

[Christopholes11]

Who says that Rand is going to talk about the issue during a general election campaign? He simply introduced a bill in the Senate. He introduces bills all the time.

He's very likely to be asked about it. Even though the issue is not near as important as the economy or endless wars you can bet it will come up in debates and what not.

[itshappening]

Who says that Rand is going to talk about the issue during a general election campaign? He simply introduced a bill in the Senate. He introduces bills all the time.


He won't but the media will ensure it's talked about constantly, in the debates and on the campaign trail. Rand doesn't get to set the narrative. Stephanopoulos does. 90% of the media are Democrat hacks and very skilled at what they do including using these wedge issues to full effect.

[Brett85]

I'm worried this will alienate some of his supporters. As someone who is pro-choice I can tolerate pushing for the overturn of Roe vs. Wade so the states can vote on it themselves. But any sort of federal action to ban abortion nationwide can really turn some liberty minded folks off.

Well, he's not going to win the Republican primary if he takes the libertarian position on every single issue. The Republican Party shouldn't be exactly the same as the Republican Party. Rand needs to keep doing what he's been doing, which is to support a philosophy which is a blend of conservatism and libertarianism. That's where I am and where I think more and more Republicans are going.

[Varin]

I thought Rand wanted to win in "New England and the West Coast?"
Doubt he was ever going to do that.

[Brett85]

He won't but the media will ensure it's talked about constantly, in the debates and on the campaign trail. Rand doesn't get to set the narrative. Stephanopoulos does. 90% of the media are Democrat hacks and very skilled at what they do..

Well, the last poll I saw showed that only 28% of the American people support overturning Roe v. Wade, so the position that you say Rand should take is still a minority position that won't help him. Taking that position a little bit further isn't going to cause any more damage than advocating the repeal of Roe v. Wade, in my opinion.

[Brett85]

I thought Rand wanted to win in "New England and the West Coast?"

Yeah, I don't know why he has been saying that. People in New England and on the West Coast aren't going to vote for a candidate who is opposed to baby killing.

[T.hill]

Isn't the right to life in essence a philosophical ban on murder?

[cheapseats]

Who says that Rand is going to talk about the issue during a general election campaign?


He will be MADE to talk about it, or he will incessantly dodge questions.

How many times did Ron field the WHAT ABOUT A THIRD-PARTY RUN question? He didn't' want to talk about that...OR the Newsletters.

[Christopholes11]

Well, the last poll I saw showed that only 28% of the American people support overturning Roe v. Wade, so the position that you say Rand should take is still a minority position that won't help him. Taking that position a little bit further isn't going to cause any more damage than advocating the repeal of Roe v. Wade, in my opinion.

Then if all Rand cares about is winning the Primary this is a brilliant move. I just think this will really hurt him in the general if the media chooses to make it an issue.

[Brett85]

Ron Paul: "I have previously sponsored a Human Life Amendment while in Congress, and though I ultimately do not believe this is how we will end abortion, achieving such an amendment is certainly a laudable goal. Of course, Presidents do not sign constitutional amendments – another reason I cannot guarantee what would happen on this issue."

http://stevedeace.com/news/national-politics/ron-paul-5th-to-sign-personhood-pledge/

[T.hill]

I don't think states have the option to legalize murder.

[cheapseats]

Isn't the right to life in essence a philosophical ban on murder?


It opens a legal Pandora's Box for what constitutes HARM/ENDANGERMENT of the Unborn.

More billable hours, YAY!

[kcchiefs6465]

Isn't the right to life in essence a philosophical ban on murder?
There is still debate on that. I don't think Plan B is akin to murder. Furthermore, people are going to do it anyways and there's no real way to stop it. [aside from changing the morality of the people] Ron Paul has a very good view on abortion and the problems surrounding it. Rand Paul should have said it was a state's issue. Not many people have seen a late stage aborted fetus so they can't really relate when you call it murder. I'm not sure exactly when the cutoff should be. Clearly no abortions should be taking place after the first trimester.

Summary: We are a morally sick society and it isn't going to change.

[Brett85]

Then if all Rand cares about is winning the Primary this is a brilliant move. I just think this will really hurt him in the general if the media chooses to make it an issue.

Right, but I don't think it will hurt him anymore than opposing Roe v. Wade when only 28% of Americans believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. And obviously if Rand were to oppose overturning Roe v. Wade in a Republican Primary he would have absolutely no chance to win.

[itshappening]

Then if all Rand cares about is winning the Primary this is a brilliant move. I just think this will really hurt him in the general if the media chooses to make it an issue.

Oh they will. The Democrat Party are ruthless when it comes to issues like this.

They won't want to be talking about the economy or obamacare will they? So lets talk about abortion for 3 months and every hack, leftist journalist will get the memo

[Brett85]

Keep in mind that Rand has said that the morning after pill should be legal, and that's an alternative to abortion, particularly in cases of rape. That's an issue Rand can mention in the general election that will make him look more "mainstream."

[Brett85]

Oh they will. The Democrat Party are ruthless when it comes to issues like this.

They won't want to be talking about the economy or obamacare will they? So lets talk about abortion for 3 months and every hack, leftist journalist will get the memo

They would be talking about abortion even if Rand didn't introduce this law. This law doesn't make any difference.

[T.hill]

It opens a legal Pandora's Box for what constitutes HARM/ENDANGERMENT of the Unborn.

More billable hours, YAY!

I meant in the conventional sense, not relative to the unborn. Somebody said there was no federal ban on murder and if the universally recognizable right to life isn't in essence a ban on murder, than can states actually legalize it?

[itshappening]

Keep in mind that Rand has said that the morning after pill should be legal, and that's an alternative to abortion, particularly in cases of rape. That's an issue Rand can mention in the general election that will make him look more "mainstream."

ideally, we dont even want abortion to come up let alone "rape".

It should be economy, economy, economy.

These issues sink candidates. The Dems love it.

[supermario21]

As long as Santorum doesn't run, I don't think it'll come up much in the primaries.

[Christopholes11]

As long as Santorum doesn't run, I don't think it'll come up much in the primaries.

I'm not so sure about that. It could easily become another contest to see who can out-right everyone else to win the primary, which will only lose them the general.

[RockEnds]

Also, something to consider. No matter how much Rand does here, Santorum will always be the evangelical golden boy. Rand could get this passed and they'd still like frothy more.

I don't think so. Huckabee is the GOP golden boy around here. The evangelicals really bemoaned his decision not to run. Evangelicals really liked Huckabee. Santorum was the evangelical candidate through the process of elimination.

[eating_nachos]

ideally, we dont even want abortion to come up let alone "rape".

It should be economy, economy, economy.

These issues sink candidates. The Dems love it.



The republicans already tried this and it didn't work. What makes you think it will in 2016?

[T.hill]

There is still debate on that. I don't think Plan B is akin to murder. Furthermore, people are going to do it anyways and there's no real way to stop it. [aside from changing the morality of the people] Ron Paul has a very good view on abortion and the problems surrounding it. Rand Paul should have said it was a state's issue. Not many people have seen a late stage aborted fetus so they can't really relate when you call it murder. I'm not sure exactly when the cutoff should be. Clearly no abortions should be taking place after the first trimester.

Summary: We are a morally sick society and it isn't going to change.

I'm just asking for clarification for how under our Republic what the right to life means and if in essence is also a right not to be killed? I always thought that technically there are no federal laws against murder, but because we have a right to life, it's inferred and states could not violate that principle?

[supermario21]

I don't think so. Huckabee is the GOP golden boy around here. The evangelicals really bemoaned his decision not to run. Evangelicals really liked Huckabee. Santorum was the evangelical candidate through the process of elimination.


I'd agree there. Rand will not be the evangelical candidate regardless.

[RockEnds]

I'd agree there. Rand will not be the evangelical candidate regardless.

He could be, but not if he keeps his focus strictly on the issues. Getting the evangelical nod is more complicated than that. Bob Vander Plaats is the first name that comes to mind. Any chance Rand can play Free Bird at the Straw Poll?

[T.hill]

I'd agree there. Rand will not be the evangelical candidate regardless.

He can still get support from them, even Ron had some evangelical/religious-right supporters.

[supermario21]

I think Pat Robertson will support Rand. They see eye to eye on marijuana after all, and Rand will likely be the only GOPer to have that position.

[itshappening]

Costa from National Review is tweeting about a discussion he had with Santorum at CPAC. This might explain why Rand's doing what he's doing here as it will shore him up in IA and SC.

-
@robertcostaNRO

fwiw, I think Santo & pals see 2016 as outside shot. But as party lders move ctr, they think they cld repeat 12 strategy of going rt of nom

@robertcostaNRO

Sat down with Santo after his speech for awhile. Was respectful to Portmn, but clearly thinks his so-con views still have real power in GOP

[anaconda]

I think Pat Robertson will support Rand. They see eye to eye on marijuana after all, and Rand will likely be the only GOPer to have that position.

For me Pat Robertson loses all credibility with his Charles Taylor blood diamond connection.

[EBounding]

Oh no, Rand might say he's a pro-life Republican and have legislation to back up the claim. It's all over.

[Matt Collins]

Insincere grandstanding on the Taxpayers' dime, is that it?
It's not insincere, it's not grandstanding, and submitting a bill doesn't really cost much money. Nice try, not.

[itshappening]

I'd agree there. Rand will not be the evangelical candidate regardless.

Rand cannot win IA without evangelicals. So he does want to be the evangelical candidate.

The problem is he has to win NH as well. So when he lands in NH he just has to talk liberty and freedom issues. When in Iowa he can point to things like this.

This will be a fine balancing act and he needs to plot this carefully if he's to pull it off because being anti-abortion might hurt him in NH but I guess not if he doesn't talk much about it or doesn't communicate it widely. He can only dodge it for so long though especially if gets out of the primary and becomes the nominee.

[supermario21]

Rand will have the best message overall for Iowa and New Hampshire. I think NH is an anti-war, libertarianish state which will help him as well, and Rand will do better with mainline conservatives than Ron. Of course, that state is Christie's to lose, but Christie will do awful in Iowa. Don't forget, Pat Buchanan won the NH primary in 1996 and got 40% of the vote against an incumbent president there in 2000. I think Rand will be the Buchananite in the field.

[itshappening]

It will help him in SC with the social-cons too.

IA - NH - SC is a fine balancing act. He may figure he can afford to lose NH if necessary but he cannot afford to lose IA and SC.

[itshappening]

Rand will have the best message overall for Iowa and New Hampshire. I think NH is an anti-war, libertarianish state which will help him as well, and Rand will do better with mainline conservatives than Ron. Of course, that state is Christie's to lose, but Christie will do awful in Iowa. Don't forget, Pat Buchanan won the NH primary in 1996 and got 40% of the vote against an incumbent president there in 2000. I think Rand will be the Buchananite in the field.

Lamontage nearly beat Ayotte in the 2010 Senate primary with half the vote and I think he supported Ron. If we can get his endorsement and help it will be a big deal in NH.

[cheapseats]

It's not insincere...

Then he leans HARDRIGHT, not libertarian.



...it's not grandstanding...

Just PLAYING THE GAME?



...and submitting a bill doesn't really cost much money.

True, introducing legislation doesn't warrant MONEY BOMBS.

But MALARKEY, bills don't cost money. The oak of LAW comes from the acorn BILL.


The Vast Majority of Bills Go Nowhere
August 25, 2009 - by Donny Shaw

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1180-The-Vast-Majority-of-Bills-Go-Nowhere


Then there is the matter of TIME being the scarcest of all resources. Lawmakers ARE paid (well) for their time, which can only be divvied up so many ways.

[cheapseats]

I am not a Rand Fan, but I do not dismiss the possibility of his one day constituting the lesser of evils.

As such, I'm pretty good about staying out of his forum. But I'm tellin' ya, hardright anti-abortion rhetoric HURT y'all in the last election and you have every reason to suppose it would do so again.

[talkingpointes]

The argument for courting voters is getting really fucking stale. When do we get to see actual principles? This is actually the second time he has done this. He knew the first time it wouldn't pass, and this time is no different.

Another Randstanding, he won't do anything till we cede power to him. And I'm sorry but I don't trust him.

[supermario21]

Ovide lost the governor's race this year to Hassan, underperforming Romney's vote total by a little more than 30K.

[talkingpointes]

I am not a Rand Fan, but do not dismiss the possibility of his one day constituting the lesser of evils.

As such, I'm pretty good about staying out of his forum. But I'm tellin' ya, EITHER this is an unforced error OR he is signaling that he does NOT expect to be President.

"IMHO", LOL.

Bush jr. won on saying he was going to outlaw or partially ban abortion. (with socneocons)

http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm

[itshappening]

In NH if we can put together a coalition of Lamontage voters, Ron Paul voters (20%), FSP supporters and new Rand Paul supporters/momentum, that is pretty much 35-40% of the vote.

In IA it would be Ron Paul voters and we'd probably need to find another 15% of the vote from somewhere (evangelicals) to give us a victory.

SC is probably our hardest state but with Davis and Bright working their base and Ron Paul votes (13%)... Hopefully Rand can land DeMint/Scott and the various congressmen (Mulvaney/whoever wins SC01). Also by then if he's doing well there will be significant momentum going into the First in the South primary.

[talkingpointes]

In NH if we can put together a coalition of Lamontage voters, Ron Paul voters (20%), FSP supporters and new Rand Paul supporters/momentum, that is pretty much 35-40% of the vote.

In IA it would be Ron Paulvoters and we'd probably need to find another 15% of the vote from somewhere (evangelicals) to give us a victory.

SC is probably our hardest state but with Davis and Bright working their base and Ron Paul votes... Hopefully Rand can land DeMint/Scott and the various congressmen (Mulvaney/whoever wins SC01). Also by then if he's doing well there will be significant momentum going into the First in the South primary.

Do you not remember the new rules for the caucuses ? The chair picks the candidate not the caucus goers.

[itshappening]

Ovide lost the governor's race this year to Hassan, underperforming Romney's vote total by a little more than 30K.

That doesn't matter, we want his primary voters :)

[Matt Collins]

That said, let's stop making a bigger deal of this than it is.Exactly.

[itshappening]

It is a big deal because some of us know what the Democrat Media complex will do when/if Rand emerges from a bloody primary.

They will go after him on it and they will replay the Maddow interview a billion times a day.

for 3 months.

Fun .

[Matt Collins]

The argument for courting voters is getting really fucking stale. When do we get to see actual principles? You must court voters to win, and this is a principle for Rand and most of the GOP.

[Matt Collins]

Then he leans HARDRIGHT, not libertarian.Your premise is false, most libertarians are anti-abortion.

[talkingpointes]

From the sounds of it Has the movement completely fallen and hit it's fucking head and not remembered how the past two elections went?????

We lost the first fair and square, the second however;
WE WON AND STILL LOST -- GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS. YOU'RE NOT IN THE CLUB, AND NEVER WILL BE.

[Matt Collins]

Yes it is but if he's the nominee he loses in a landslide spending 3 months defending itNope, it's expected that Republican nominees are anti-abortion, and furthermore, it probably won't even be a campaign issue when 2016 rolls around.

[Matt Collins]

How many times do I have to say that. There is an unequivocal definition of death. The cessation of all biological functions. No one disputes this.But that is not the legal definition of death used to pronounce someone "dead".

[talkingpointes]

I can see the country being in complete shambles in 3-4 more years. And just like the rest of the world, the poor are not going to say, "maybe I should just work". No, they will demand more bread and circus till the end. That's how it works. Rand is going to be attached to the republican anchor that will be part to blame for it.

[Matt Collins]

And what good is it do solidify your republican constituent just to lose the general elections.Because elections aren't always about getting elected. Ron Paul won the last two Presidential elections, even though he didn't get elected. Hopefully Rand wins AND gets elected, but even if he doesn't get elected, hopefully he'll at least still "win" the election.

[cheapseats]

Bush jr. won on saying he was going to outlaw or partially ban abortion. (with socneocons)

http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm


George Bush's father is George Bush.

Rand Paul's father is Ron Paul.

Rand Paul will NOT have the same leeway (or deep pockets) as George the Younger.

George the Younger SUCKED, but Jeb Bush has a shot at it...go figure.

[itshappening]

Nope, it's expected that Republican nominees are anti-abortion, and furthermore, it probably won't even be a campaign issue when 2016 rolls around.

it's one thing being against abortion, it's another having a specific bill to outlaw it through stretching the 14th amendment.

No presidential nominee in history has tried to run with a personhood bill have they?

[Matt Collins]

I'd agree there. Rand will not be the evangelical candidate regardless.No, of course not, however he can out flank or block a rival that is by taking just enough voters who care about the abortion vote from them by actions such as this.

[Matt Collins]

Well, he's not going to win the Republican primary if he takes the libertarian position on every single issue. Being pro-abortion is NOT a "libertarian position"

[talkingpointes]

Because elections aren't always about getting elected. Ron Paul won the last two Presidential elections, even though he didn't get elected. Hopefully Rand wins AND gets elected, but even if he doesn't get elected, hopefully he'll at least still "win" the election.

Wow, dude pull your head out of your ass. Winning is winning, not losing. The game is rigged and were focusing mass resources on running a guy that is basically doing spectacle politics. I know given how much you credit yourself with some successes don't let it blind you from reality. We just watched the biggest transfer of wealth in history and not a shot was fired. What are you going to do if you get another election stolen ? Cry?

[itshappening]

Because elections aren't always about getting elected. Ron Paul won the last two Presidential elections, even though he didn't get elected. Hopefully Rand wins AND gets elected, but even if he doesn't get elected, hopefully he'll at least still "win" the election.

Come on now Matt, Rand has a superb shot at the White House if he plots it correctly. He said he wants to run to win so if that's the case he will drop this since no one has ever run on it in history.

[talkingpointes]

Come on now Matt, Rand has a superb shot at the White House if he plots it correctly. He said he wants to run to win so if that's the case he will drop this since no one has ever run on it in history.

Ron was beating obama and mitt. Head, out of your ass !

[cheapseats]

...most libertarians are anti-abortion.


And most Republicans are anti-war.



...In an effort to explain what Rand Paul meant when he suggested that private businesses should be able to discriminate against black people, most writers have assumed that the Tea Party fave is no racist but instead a dogmatic, don't-tread-on-me libertarian. As TPM convincingly points out today, the GOP's Kentucky Senate candidate's (now recanted) statements about the 1964 Civil Rights Act fall well within the libertarian mainstream.

It would be a mistake, however, to assume that Paul's views are motivated by little more than a naive ideology. As I've noted, Paul and his father, GOP Congressman Ron Paul, have a long history of close associations with hard-core racists. And moreover, Paul is by no means a rigid libertarian. In reality, Paul and his father espouse a hybrid of libertarian and Republican political beliefs that skews far to the right of typical libertarians:

Abortion

While most libertarians are pro-choice, both Rand and Ron Paul support government regulation of abortion. Ron Paul would leave the issue up to states while Rand Paul favors a constitutional amendment banning the procedure...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/how-libertarian-rand-paul

[talkingpointes]

Hey guys, I got an idea lets run a candidate on a winning platform, so we can go fight liars, cheaters, thieves and hope they place nice. That would be swell.

[Christopholes11]

Being pro-abortion is NOT a "libertarian position"

I don't know about that, it's not that simple. From what I've seen it's an issue that divides libertarians almost 50/50. It all depends on how much you weigh the liberties of an unborn fetus of less than 24 weeks to it's parents. Abortion really is the trickiest issue in politics at the moment. It's not as cut and dry as many other issues, especially from a libertarian prospective.

[presence]

Abortion really is the trickiest issue in politics at the moment.
It's not as cut and dry as many other issues,
especially from a libertarian prospective.

Thread: 2 States (AR, ND) Move Towards TEN GRAM RULE on Abortion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?407813-2-States-%28AR-ND%29-Move-Towards-TEN-GRAM-RULE-on-Abortion&p=4925623#post4925623)

[Matt Collins]

There is no federal ban on murder. Why should there be one for abortion? This is a states' issue. Shame on Rand.

This is explained here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?407794-Rand-Introduces-the-Life-at-Conception-Act&p=4925319&viewfull=1#post4925319

[Matt Collins]

Our legal system has nothing to do with why murder is wrong.Exactly. It is illegal because it violates the rights of another individual, not because it is "amoral".

[Matt Collins]

Winning is winning, not losing.And you don't have to get elected to win an election.

People run for office for all sorts of reasons besides getting elected. Some of which are -

- building a network or organization
- building name recognition for a future run
- compiling lists
- bringing issues to the forefront
- strategically blocking other candidates from winning
- getting candidates on the record for / against what they don't want to talk about



What are you going to do if you get another election stolen?huh? :confused:

[Matt Collins]

Life doesn't necessarily have an unequivocal definition, but biologically a fetus at any stage can be said to be living. The harder question is whether or not the fetus is human, which is a subjective premise in itself. We get our rights from our humanity, so a fetus's right to life is dependent on whether it is human or not.


I think this is the the thread winner right here!

[tttppp]

From a press release -



This is stupid, pointless legislation nomatter what side you are on. Rand should focus on our actual problems. This law does nothing for our economic situation.

[Christopholes11]

This is stupid, pointless legislation nomatter what side you are on. Rand should focus on our actual problems. This law does nothing for our economic situation.

Agreed. There are so many more important things to worry about that can unite people from all over the political spectrum instead of pushing divisive legislation such as this.

[James Madison]

Our legal system has nothing to do with why murder is wrong.

Our legal system is designed to protect the rights of its citizenry. Life is one of those rights.

[AlexAmore]

If I were a generic politician I would certainly court the pro-choicers or the pro-lifers because they are rabid much like Ron Paul supporters. They will go out, hit the pavements and spread your name. I would argue pro-lifers are a better choice simply because they have huge networks via churches.

Ron Paul is a staunch pro-lifer and we all know if there wasn't any bullshit with the media and voting booths he probably would have won back then, never mind a well spoken, young, Rand Paul today and especially in a few years WITH the foundation already set by his father. This is a snowball that's getting bigger and bigger.

[TheTyke]

How does this differ from the Sanctity of Life Act that Ron introduced every year as a congressman? It also defined life as beginning at conception. I gathered Rand was just keeping up the family defense of life and liberty.

Without life, there can be no liberty. My family and many of my friends would not support Ron & Rand if they weren't pro-life. For those who believe the unborn are human, it is the highest priority and a make-or-break issue. For those who don't, they may not like it, but many other issues seem more important and they can often overlook disagreement. Polls have been showing over 50% and an increasing trend of Americans toward being pro-life (probably because of technology and science revealing more details.) Therefore it's always better for liberty candidates to be pro-life.

[dancjm]

Quite a few people seem to be saying that Rand is not pandering enough. He is not obscuring his position enough. He is not telling people what they want to hear enough.

Think about that.

[Slutter McGee]

The only thing I can think politically is that he wins a lot of points with social conservatives. Which may be needed if he is going to start getting into his opinions on allowing gay marriage (not having a federal definition or the word) and scaling back on the war on drugs. He can point to this to argue he agrees with them fully on their most important issue.

And by doing this early enough hopefully the blow back will not be huge. The only votes you absolutely lose are single issue pro-choicers which we were not going to get anyway.

Either way, it could come back to bite us in the ass. But I have to believe we didn't get to where we are without some gambles.

Slutter McGee

[Christian Liberty]

He can still get support from them, even Ron had some evangelical/religious-right supporters.

I'm one of them. Granted, I'm not POLITICALLY "Right-wing" in the usual sense, I agree with Ron politically almost all of the time. But I am definitely personally quite socially conservative. And I agree with Ron/Rand on the right to life (Although not with Rand on the Federalization of it) as well.


Rand cannot win IA without evangelicals. So he does want to be the evangelical candidate.

The problem is he has to win NH as well. So when he lands in NH he just has to talk liberty and freedom issues. When in Iowa he can point to things like this.

This will be a fine balancing act and he needs to plot this carefully if he's to pull it off because being anti-abortion might hurt him in NH but I guess not if he doesn't talk much about it or doesn't communicate it widely. He can only dodge it for so long though especially if gets out of the primary and becomes the nominee.

Would NH really discount Rand just because of abortion? I mean, who the heck else are they gonna vote for? Maybe in the general election they might go Dem (Although not if they're serious about liberty) but in the primary Rand is the most libertarian they're going to have, clear cut, unless maybe if Gary Johnson runs, in which case it might be up in the air.


Being pro-abortion is NOT a "libertarian position"

I personally think pro-life is the correct libertarian position, but this is hardly agreed upon.


How does this differ from the Sanctity of Life Act that Ron introduced every year as a congressman? It also defined life as beginning at conception. I gathered Rand was just keeping up the family defense of life and liberty.

Without life, there can be no liberty. My family and many of my friends would not support Ron & Rand if they weren't pro-life. For those who believe the unborn are human, it is the highest priority and a make-or-break issue. For those who don't, they may not like it, but many other issues seem more important and they can often overlook disagreement. Polls have been showing over 50% and an increasing trend of Americans toward being pro-life (probably because of technology and science revealing more details.) Therefore it's always better for liberty candidates to be pro-life.

Would you support Rand if he was pro-choice?

Not everyone who is pro-life thinks that's the #1 issue. As someone who thinks the abortion doctors rightfully ought to be Nuremberged and sentenced to death, foreign policy is STILL more important.

[Christian Liberty]

It should all be about the economy and obamcare. Simple as that.

What about foreign policy and civil liberties?

[alucard13mmfmj]

"Pro-Choice, BUT"... would be the nice, realistic way.

Life begins when egg meets sperm.

Mother can have option to abort IF: raped and/or incest and/or life threatening for mother and/or genetic disorder.

No abortion for one night stand mistake.

[supermario21]

Gary Johnson will not run for president, and if he does, will achieve no support in the GOP. The liberty movement is solidly behind Rand. Maybe the pro-choicers would go with Gary but that's not going to be much either way.

[Christian Liberty]

"Pro-Choice, BUT"... would be the nice, realistic way.

Life begins when egg meets sperm.

Mother can have option to abort IF: raped and/or incest and/or life threatening for mother and/or genetic disorder.

No abortion for one night stand mistake.


I can agree with life of the mother. Otherwise, rape, incest, and genetic disorders do not justify murder.


Gary Johnson will not run for president, and if he does, will achieve no support in the GOP. The liberty movement is solidly behind Rand. Maybe the pro-choicers would go with Gary but that's not going to be much either way.

There was a time when I would have preferred Gary over Rand, but I don't think that's the case anymore. I liked that Gary didn't endorse Romney. But Rand has really impressed me lately. I'm behind him 100%.

Granted, he's not perfect on every issue, but he's the best we got and would almost certainly make our country a better place.

Gary definitely has a more "Social liberal" spin when compared to Rand. Rand also understands constituttional issues more, much like Ron did.

[supermario21]

Johnson was very murky on foreign policy and arguably worse than Rand. Issues aside, Johnson didn't seem confident or articulate when discussing the issues. Rand is much more confident and articulate, it shows especially when compared to Rubio. Gary should just run for NM Senate in 2014. As a Republican.

[Christian Liberty]

Johnson was very murky on foreign policy and arguably worse than Rand. Issues aside, Johnson didn't seem confident or articulate when discussing the issues. Rand is much more confident and articulate, it shows especially when compared to Rubio. Gary should just run for NM Senate in 2014. As a Republican.

Johnson wasn't good on foreign policy compared to Ron Paul, but then, neither is Rand. Its hard to tell. Johnson explained exactly when he would intervene, in a humanitarian crisis on the UN's request. Rand won't exactly tell us other than "Somewhere, some of the time", a meaningless statement that could mean a lot of different things.

Ultimately though, Rand is Ron's son. Ron Paul, of all people, is going to have influence on him. And I do think most, though not all, of his "Edgy" foreign policy talk is indeed to sound better to neocons. Johnson also doesn't have much of an understanding of what libertarianism is. Just by being Ron Paul's son, I know Rand understands, whether or not he actually accepts all of it.