Posted on 03/20/2013 10:57:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Republican Senator Rand Paul boldly declared last week when he introduced the Life at Conception Act that “human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection.”
However, during an interview on Tuesday with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the Kentucky senator seemed to soften his tone when asked about abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk.
“Just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother. Is that right?” Blitzer asked.
“What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different,” Sen. Paul responded. “Everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what is going on that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.”
Paul continued:
"I would say that, after birth, we’ve decided that when life begins, we have decided that we don’t have exceptions for one-day-olds or a six-month-olds. We don’t ask where they came from or how they came into being. But it is more complicated, because the rest of it depends on the definition of when life comes in. So I don’t think it’s as simple as checking a box and saying, “Exceptions” or “No exceptions.”
I’ve been there at the beginning of life. I’ve held one pound babies in my hand that I examined their eyes. I’ve been there at the end of life. There are a lot of decisions made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t, the law won’t apply to. But I think it is important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeonhole and say, “Oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family.”
“I don’t know if there’s a simple way to put me in any category on any of that,” he concluded.
“Well, it sounds like you believe in some exceptions,” Blitzer pressed.
“Well, there is going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved,” the senator responded.
“I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law, let’s say people came more to my way of thinking,” he continued, “there would still be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.”
He concluded:
What I don’t believe that I can compromise on is that I think that there is something special about life and that all of the rights that we spend time up here discussing … all of these things stem from a sort of a primordial right to your life and how you use it. Watch the senator’s comments here:
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO
Sen. Paul announced the Life at Conception Act last Friday.
“The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans,” he said. “I plan to ensure this is upheld.”
The bill’s 15 Republican cosponsors include Sens. John Barrasso (Wyo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Daniel Coats (Ind.), Thomas Coburn (Okla.), Michael Enzi (Wyo.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Charles “Chuck” Grassley (Iowa), John Hoeven (N.D.), James “Jim” Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), James Risch (Idaho), John Thune (S.D.), and Roger Wicker (Miss.)
How in the world could anyone without a severe reading comprehension problem or an axe to grind derive that from anything Senator Paul said?
They have a sever case of Paul Derrangement Syndrome. He threatens some lovingly held bit of government power they have lusted over, so he must be destroyed.
Pure Alinsky tactics being used against one of our Countries best hopes for the future.
All because his Dad is a bit of a ‘tard.
Rand is not his Dad. They can’t get over that.
Yup. And I enjoy watching them wriggle into contortions so that Paul cannot pass their "ideologically pure conservative" litmus tests.
I like it that they are exposing themselves so completely.
I just wish they’d get over it before our entire Country implodes.
We have work to do and we aren’t going to get it done if people keep fighting against the very solutions we’ve been talking about for decades.
Actually, the ones who don’t pick up on that are the ones with the comprehension problem, since they can’t read between the lines. If every case is individual, and the judgement call is between the doctor and the woman, as Paul says, then there is no way to enforce any restrictions on abortions. You can’t leave it up to the doctor’s discretion, and then expect all the pro-choice doctors not to simply approve any abortion, just like the doctors in California who will give anyone a prescription for marijuana.
I don't know you from Adam, but from what I've read of you on this thread, I think it's safe to say that for you, "reading between the lines" involves a hell of a lot of seeing things you really want to see between those lines.
Then those doctors would be guilty of murder. Charge a few and they’ll stop doing it.
As you say, read between the lines.
“Therefore, of the millions of pregnancies seen in physicians’ offices each year, there are “thousands of exceptions” to a flat ban on abortion, and the circumstances of each case must be considered individually.”
Like I said, I’m not buying that interpretation of his words. An exception to a law, or rule, is not going to say: No abortions, except if Mary Miller has an ectopic pregnancy, or if Betty Jones has an ectopic pregnancy, or if Suzie Smith has an ectopic pregnancy, etc. If he is just talking about ectopic pregnancies, then that is one exception, not thousands. There really isn’t much to consider individually with an ectopic pregnancy either. It’s not as if some of them will carry it to term and others won’t, so it’s a pretty standard scenario.
So, it doesn’t seem reasonable to read Paul’s words as you do, and even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and read them that way, we are still left with a situation where any abortion can be performed by any doctor for any reason. After all, each case must be judged by the doctor individually, so we are placing the decision in the doctor’s hands, and trusting them to decide when it is appropriate. If the doctor is pro-abortion, and the woman just wants one for convenience, you WILL see such doctors approving them as a matter of course.
No, quite the contrary. I really want our elected Republican politicians to express consistently pro-life views, which is why I get upset when they get weasely and start equivocating in front of a liberal interviewer. If I was reading what I really wanted to see into his comments, then I’d say: “Look, Paul’s statement is totally pro-life, yay!”.
“If the doctor is pro-abortion, and the woman just wants one for convenience, you WILL see such doctors approving them as a matter of course.”
That is exactly right, and there is nothing to be done about it by the government. Although totalitarians may wish to have the state’s face in every personal decision, such close attention has not contributed to building healthier societies in nations that have tried it such as Mao’s China and the current regime in Iran.
Right, that is going to happen. Just like all the doctors who regularly perform illegal late term abortions get prosecuted, right?
Oh my God! You mean people break the LAW?
We need another law...
Rand’s Senate bill pins the protection for a persons life to CONCEPTION. No exceptions for rape. None for incest. None for immaculate deception.
Not sure what the hell else you want.
“That is exactly right, and there is nothing to be done about it by the government.”
Well, not with that attitude there isn’t. We might as well not even bother pushing any pro-life legislation, if we believed that, since none of it would actually accomplish the goal of preventing these murders.
“Although totalitarians may wish to have the state’s face in every personal decision,...”
Gee, that’s not a stretch at all, to compare someone trying to prevent doctors from murdering people to a totalitarian. Totally reasonable comparison.
I'm not sure how you could justify that. My "line of argumentation" is based on attacking the enemy from a principled stand. If you stand and are backed up by your principles, then any answer you give to an assault would be based on those principles, which would be unassailable if you truly believed them.
When politicians argue from an unprincipled position, they are arguing to save their own hides and to make them seem "moderate." What we really need is someone who is willing to argue from their principles and remain stalwart in their defense of those principles. Principles are unassailable, and if Rand Paul is truly arguing from his principles, as you seem to infer he is, then he is not a conservative from a pro-life, Christian standpoint.
“We might as well not even bother pushing any pro-life legislation, if we believed that, since none of it would actually accomplish the goal of preventing these murders.”
Legislation is not going to strengthen human society; social pressure, not legislation, is a better way to influence private behavior.
RE: Todd Aiken or Richard Mourdock he ain’t.
He wasn’t asked about rape yet. I’d like to see him answer that/
“Legislation is not going to strengthen human society; social pressure, not legislation, is a better way to influence private behavior.”
Ah, so we don’t need laws against homicide, because it would be more productive to just tell people not to kill each other? Give me a break.
A very lawyerly response, and I mean that in a bad way.
This is too long a road to travel.
If saying that social pressure is insufficient to stop people from committing murder is “lawyerly”, then I’ll take that as a compliment, because it’s better than the alternative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.