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 CNNs 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. Im 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, weve decided that when life begins, we have decided that we dont have exceptions for one-day-olds or a six-month-olds. We dont 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 dont think its as simple as checking a box and saying, Exceptions or No exceptions.
Ive been there at the beginning of life. Ive held one pound babies in my hand that I examined their eyes. Ive been there at the end of life. There are a lot of decisions made privately by families and their doctors that really wont, the law wont 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 doesnt believe in any sort of discussion between family.
I dont know if theres 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, lets 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 dont 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 senators 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 bills 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.)
Changing the subject is lawyerly.
Oh sweet Jesus just shut the hell up.
"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."
Copied form here...
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3
That’s not what I meant. What I meant is the we lose elections because we have too may people searching for any thing they can find that wil disqualify a good candidate. There is no perfect person and there was nothing wrong with Rand Paul’s answers.
Would you two go back to each one of my posts and point out where I explicitly said that I supported the principle I dictated? I didn’t, so stop quoting me or purporting that I did.
I do not believe it is in the government’s interest nor any business of the public to legislate abortion one way or the other. Having worked in the health care industry, I understand that it is a medical procedure that, when done by an experienced surgeon, can save the life of the mother and/or the baby.
I have a very close friend from college with endometriosis who conceived and was forced to decide to have an abortion to save her own life or carry the child to term. She carried that baby boy until her 35th week and was admitted to the hospital due to complications. Her baby, despite being born premature, was healthy and is now a very happy and active 8 year old. She chose to carry that child despite overwhelming odds against her and physical pain and against the advice of doctors. She chose life.
I also know a woman from a battered women’s sheltered many years back who was raped in an alleyway on the way home from class. She decided to have an abortion after 5 weeks. To this day, the question of, “Who would that child have been?” haunts her. She’s haunted by her choice, but I do not hold her in any lesser regard than my friend who is now a mother. Her sin is for her to repent.
Just as Sen. Paul said, ...”there are thousands of exceptions...” The only thing I’ve definitively come out to say on this surrounding my own beliefs is in post 44 I said, “Abortion for the sake of ‘correcting a mistake’ is grotesque and in violation of tenets in every Christian faith,” and I stand behind that.
This CNN interviewer had Rand Paul pigeonholed and wanted him on the record saying he supported abortion in some way, shape, or form, and they succeeded. Paul discussed the issue from a medical perspective, and for that, I applaud him. He made it as non-political and non-religious as he could considering the circumstances.
I stand behind his legislation, but that doesn’t mean it’s appropriate insomuch as we shouldn’t be having this discussion to begin with. The Liberals opened this can of worms back in the 70s, and now it’s hanging like a stone around the necks of every American based on their position on the subject.
Just because a Catholic like myself believes that abortion is morally objectionable and against the tenets of my faith does not mean I’m going to stand up for an amendment to a law that should not have been affirmed in the first place. These should be private medical decisions made by competent adults. There should not be advertisements for subsidization of these procedures because some ghetto whore can’t stop sleeping around with every man in the neighborhood. Defending the indefensible is no different than affirming the act itself.
Now, you’re even misquoting yourself!
Before you cast judgment on Rand Paul, why don't you wait until the MSM starts asking members of the Democrat party the same questions.
I'm not so certain that all of the Dems support abortion but then they're NEVER asked.
In virtually every election the MSM attempts to divide and conquer the GOP on this issue and the GOP falls for it every time.
We currently have the most conservative Supreme Court since around 1945, every one of our Republican presidents in the past 35+ years have been pro-life, so why hasn't R v. W been overturned and why does the abortion issue remain front and center for GOP candidates when there is not a damn thing they can do about it if elected?
Where? Stop making unvalidated claims. I quoted myself directly from the post. I copy/pasted the quote straight from it. Of what are you accusing me now?
IOW... you had no clue what Rand’s position was and just decided to pile on.
Ok then...
>> He is a LIBERTARIAN = LIBERTINE = ANARCHIST.
A libertarian is opposed to statism. Your moral grievances are with liberalism.
What’s his position then, Corpse? It’s not clear by the article. What information do you have to add? I’m all ears.
Ok... One more time... Read it this time please...
“I do not support amnesty, I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves. However, millions of illegal immigrants are crossing our border without our knowledge and causing a clear threat to our national security. I want to work in the Senate to secure our border immediately. In addition, I support the creation of a border fence and increased border patrol capabilities.
Immigrants should meet the current requirements, which should be enforced and updated. I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common.
I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.
Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation’s security. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.”
Directly from here:
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=12
“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.”
Copied form here...
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3
In fact...
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issues
Just read. Anything from the above link.
I know you won’t. You don’t care. It doesn’t fit the “All Paul’s are libertine kook” template y’all are passing around.
I’m going to just ignore post 132, because we never discussed immigration nor was anything I’ve posted intended to be a commentary on immigration or Paul’s stance on it.
His pro-life stance is admirable and akin to my own. You are, however, quoting from his Senate webpage and not exactly commenting on what he said during this interview with CNN. What are you impressions on his commentary therein?
Dude, stop wallowing in your doubt and discuss. I’ve read everything you’ve written. My initial comment was a response to what was written in the article. You immediately dismiss me as an anti-Rand-Paul FReeper, and you couldn’t be further from the truth.
Stop dismissing everyone who doesn’t believe exactly what you do and understand that some of us base our arguments and discussions from different perspectives than you. Just because I posted my beliefs on abortion from my personal principle standpoint doesn’t mean I don’t agree with Paul. Hell, I voted for his father in the primaries in 2004 and 2008 and 2012.
That if he would have taken a hard line stance the media would be crucifying him right now.
Like all politicians... Don’t judge by what they say, but by what they do.
What did Paul do? He penned a Senate Bill that pins the protection for life to conception. Completely guts prophylactic abortion and even extends to protecting the life of a child started under rape and incest without having to step in the tar pit the liberal media has used to torpedo other conservative politicians. The “exceptions” he mentions are the case-by-case “Mother will die” type medical procedures that no one in their right mind would rule out.
Pure. Genius.
And yet he still takes a double ration of crap here because of who his DAD is. My Dad and I disagree on a large number of things. Why would the Paul’s be any different?
I don’t equate Ron to Rand. They are certainly different beasts. My father and I are similarly different in many ways: he likes cars, I prefer computers; I like to hunt, he likes to fish.
I do not fundamentally disagree with Paul’s stance. I was making the case that someone who stands by their principles will have no problem defending them. I don’t disagree that Paul had to make the best of a bad situation, and I believe he navigated the CNN minefield quite well.
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.