Libertarian darling Rand Paul plans to introduce a Life At Conception act. I wonder if that will require government monitoring of all potential conception acts? After all you can’t be too careful when it comes to preventing a potential murder. I must say though that such monitoring is way too kinky even for my libertine tastes. I wouldn’t care to be monitored. My guess is that it will be a very effective method of birth control for most people. OTOH porn stars might revel in such observation.

You probably think I’m nuts. But I watched the Drug War evolve. The more it failed the more the effort in it increased. Until the government was monitoring bodily fluids for purity of essence.

Without any significant effort the abortion rate has been declining. Admittedly not by much.

For all you “there ought to be a law” abortion foes, if you leave a comment please write up ways in which such a law could fail or be counter productive or raise the cost and intrusiveness of government.

Me? It might be fun to monitor potential conceptions. If the pay was good enough I might sign on. As long as free Kleenex was a job perk.

Update: 27 March 2013 0640z

Eric reminds me he has looked into this and Rand Paul before at this post: An issue as ahead of its time as counting chickens before they hatch. Which prompted this response from me: Are these Republicans serious?.

Which prompts me to ask: Why are there so many “there ought to be a law” people? In America. The used to be Land of Liberty. Why isn’t changing the culture good enough?