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.)
I do not understand your extreme negative reaction to Paul recognizing the unhappy but necessary need for medical abortion "where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved".
Its ok, of course if you dislike Rand Paul, but attacking him for this statement looks a lot like the manufactured outrage that liberals enjoy concocting so much. I like RP and I'm sick of libs recycling this War on Women line of questioning ad nauseum. :p
Rand has proudly said he is pro-life again and again and again and....
Abortion is unacceptable under any and all circumstances. Prevention should be through abstinence. A properly raised society, one in which God has supremacy and respect for one's self is paramount to all other concerns, will have no need for abortion. Women would respect themselves enough to not be whores. Men would be respectful of themselves and of the rights of women and would not deign to seek sexual encounters over enriching relationships. Both sexes would be well-armed and properly trained to protect themselves from rape, incest, and unwelcome sexual advances.
A Republican says:
Well, there should obviously be some exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Women are going to get themselves into trouble, and they need to have this as a last resort, nuclear option.
It's politically expedient for Republicans to be wishy-washy on this subject. Telling it like it is and EMPOWERING the population to be responsible for themselves is anathema to everything we've been taught over the course of the last 40 years. Truly principled leaders would stand up against the ghastly practice of abortion, stand on their principles, and offer solutions to the problem. Republicans are loose on principles and are not willing to offer any solutions outside of "some exceptions."
“Seems there is nothing I can trust him on.”
He is a LIBERTARIAN = LIBERTINE = ANARCHIST. No self respecting Social Conservative can trust his ilk at all. I hope he gets his political career destroyed before he can screw with the 2016 primaries the way his wackjob father did in 2012.
I consider his ilk to be just a microgram less evil/bad/dangerous than Obama. I would NOT have voted for his father in 2012...and I would not vote for him in 2016.
How many births are optometrists involved with in his state?
I guess you missed this part:
"I’ve been there at the beginning of life. I’ve held one pound babies in my hand that I examined their eyes."
“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.This is not just about the life of the mother, which is used by the left to mean a lot of instances that really are not about the life of the mother, but about incest, and rape, and as Rand Paul states: "thousands" of other situations.
“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.”
Purist? No. You are falsely trying to make Rand out to be pro-abortion when he’s trying to put forth the most pro-life bill we’ve seen in a long time.
You are trolling. Period.
It seems you have comprehension issues.
I grow tired of people chewing up our side. Rand Paul is one of the strongest pro-life Senators in office and you are ready to throw him out.
Liberals love people like you.
I like the law in Germany. There, a right of privacy prohibits state intrusion during the first several weeks. After that, a pregnancy can be terminated only for a grave reason and ... this is the important thing ... the life of the child is to be protected if this doesn’t jeopardize the life of the mother. In other words, terminating a problematic pregnancy doesn’t mean killing the not yet born child.
wow. i’m thankful that paul is there in the senate causing the leftists in both parties some measure of grief, but that bumbling, dissembling answer confirms he’s no conservative. the use of the word “extraneous” in that context is incoherent.
the answer is simple. the morally justifiable exception occurs when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy. and that must logically be determined by the mother and her family privately in consultation with her licensed physician(s). even then, the decision to seek abortion is still voluntary by the mother. in my view, any other circumstance where abortion is performed is morally equivalent to murder. no matter what the current fashion or law. that being said, the state cannot prosecute as the current law is practically determined by roe v. wade. period. end of answer.
for example, rape—no. the life of the mother is not threatened. adoption is the best alternative for a mother who doesn’t desire or can’t raise the baby. simple, easy answer for someone who is not morally conflicted.
Rand is a medical doctor and knows more about exceptions than you could imagine.
What about the case in Ireland where they couldn’t perform an abortion and the mother died? These cases happen and it does the pro-life cause no good to be arguing for the death of mothers.
>Abortion is unacceptable under any and all circumstances...
Anyone making such a proclamation and trying to get or stay elected would be finished politically long before they finished their speech. There will always be exceptions.
I have zero medical knowledge, but it does not seem unreasonable to me that things like heart conditions, bleeding disorders, liver ailments, diabetes, physical injury are just a small fraction of dangerous pregnancies that a doctor would be aware of.
Again, I think you are conveniently ignoring Paul's dedication to pro-life beliefs. But it is ok that you do like Rand Paul. :)
What about it?
Maybe that you don't know as much about that case as you think you do?
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.