Ron Paul Tells CNN’s Piers Morgan Only “Honest Rape” Warrants An Abortion. (Honest Rape?)

Hinterland Gazette ^

[mnehring]

During an appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan, GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul was asked whether as a man with daughters and granddaughters, Rep. Paul (R-TX) thinks that abortion is warranted if a woman has been impregnated by a rapist.

“If it’s an honest rape,” Paul replied, “that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.” He claimed, however, that if a woman is “seven months pregnant” and says that she was raped, “It’s a little bit of a different story.” Source

[rightwingintelligentsia]

South Dakota woman raped as a teen reunited with long lost daughter after 77 years

Turns out one of her grandchildren is Astronaut Mark Lee.

[SJackson]

“If it’s an honest rape,” Paul replied, “that individual should go immediately to the emergency room, I would give them a shot of estrogen.” He claimed, however, that if a woman is “seven months pregnant” and says that she was raped, “It’s a little bit of a different story

I presume she'll go before the new "Honest Rape Determination" panels to be installed at all hospitals. And Paul's more than a bit unclear about that timeframe between Day one and month 7. Not to suggest he's pandering, of course. We all know he's rabidly pro-life.

[SJackson]

It’s obvious what he mean’t. I can understand taking offense because well, it’s Wrong Paul....but I believe that the majority of American voters would agree with his sentiment.

Yes, in the absense of "Honest Rape" panels, abortion on demand is fine anyone willing to tell an MD or nurse she was raped. For somewhere between one day and seven months. Whether a majority of voters would agree would depend on where you put that outlying date, if first trimester or viability, you're probably right. And that's who Paul is appealing to, in a way that he or his supporters can describe him as pro-life. As always he's on both sides of the issue.

[SJackson]

muawiyah: “You can treat these as rhetorical questions, but I’d think you’d have to agree that the “rape exception” is a rather difficult exception to administer.”...Yes. I agree a “rape exception” is a difficult exception to administer. However, if that’s what it took to actually eliminate the other 99.9% of abortions, then that’s an exception I’d embrace. We could easily get a political majority to support restrictions on abortion in all but extreme cases, like rape and incest. I would not delay saving the 99.9% in order to save the 0.1%.

It's impossible to administer. Presuming you've got the perp identified, it's done in a court of law. He's not going to admit to rape so his victim can have an abortion, so you're dealing with a process longer than pregnancy. In the case of incest you've got the minor. But not all rapes are physically violent to the extent you've got overwhelming evidence of an assult. The essential evidence the medical community would have available isn't much different than for consensual sex. To deny any abortion the medical community would have to prove the woman a liar. I'm guessing planned parenthood wouldn't do that very often.

What Paul is proposing is essentially abortion on demand, up to some undetermined point. But with a wink of the eye like most of his policies. This simply isn't a pro-life position.

[muawiyah]

At the same time I am convinced Dr. Paul would think highly of the idea of executing rapists anyway.

Maybe his place is on the USSC for 3 to 5 years eh~

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[SJackson]

Let him practice as a Judge in Texas for a few years first.

[MrB]

When I’m arguing with a pro-abort, I choose the opposite tactic -

for every fringe case they bring up, I’ll rhetorically “allow” that exception,

leaving my “opponent” arguing for abortion on demand for convenience, and then I’ll make them defend that position.

If they’re the typical sheeperal who wants to think of themselves as a good person, instead of a radical feminist with a seared conscience, they are ashamed (but don’t change their mind - I’m just planting seeds).

[muawiyah]

Dude's in his 70s. I'd stick him on the USSC right off the bat. Let him get a full whiff of it.

He'll be out of there soon enough.

[wagglebee]

What Paul is proposing is essentially abortion on demand, up to some undetermined point. But with a wink of the eye like most of his policies. This simply isn't a pro-life position.

You nailed it right there.

Paul claims to be pro-life, but his position has ALWAYS been to allow abortion. He is no different than every Democrat who says, "I'm personally pro-life, but..."

[mnehring]

At the same time I am convinced Dr. Paul would think highly of the idea of executing rapists anyway.

Paul opposes the death penalty.

[Tribune7]

You don’t think that maybe sometimes women aren’t honest about claims of rape?

[Trailerpark Badass]

Ex post facto would prevent retroactive prosecutions.

Why would I hold family members to a different standard than anyone else? Would you?

What an inane post.

[wagglebee]

It figures you'd be one this thread supporting abortion.

Are you going to tell us that it's "slavery" to not allow a woman to murder babies? That IS your position right?:

Forcing a woman to bear an unwanted fetus is slavery and the government is the slave master.

[John Valentine]

Unless she has four witnesses to the rape.

Don't forget that those have to be MALE witnesses of good character. They must also be witnesses that can attest to witnessing the act of penetration, but must they not have participated in the rape themselves.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Wow.

And I'm quite sure the incident related in post 115 is completely made up.

In other words, a lie.

[wagglebee]

In the interest of full disclosure, it should be noted that Misterioso also believes that it's "moral" to kill "deficient" children after they've been born:

Hundreds of years ago deficient babies were terminated right and left. If it was moral then, what has changed?

[xzins]

Since there is no statute of limitation on the crime of murder, would all of you be willing to prosecute those women in your family who received abortions? Have you ever accused said family members of being murderesses? I know a devout Catholic woman who, in a discussion, related that her younger sister had an abortion when she was much younger. It came as a surprise to me. I asked her, point blank, do you consider her a murderer? She looked at me and said, “ I never thought about it.” It was shortly thereafter that I was not welcome in her house.

Let me answer your question directly. Every abortion is a homicide. There is possible discussion afterwards about the type of homicide, but it is a homicide.

There is no capital punishment that should take place without charges and trial. An aborted human being has had no trial and has not been charged.

Finally, even in extreme cases there is nothing that prevents an attempt to SAVE the life of the baby in utero rather than ripping it limb from limb. Who knows what processes could be developed if it became a priority to save rather than to kill?

[Sopater]

You can be pro life and still understand a woman not wanting to carry a child conceived through a violent rape.

I can understand a woman not wanting to carry a child for a number of reasons, none of which make abortion right.