http://cincinnati.com/blogs/nkypolitics/files/2010/04/KYRTL2.pdf
As I said, PDS on display.
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.)
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/nkypolitics/files/2010/04/KYRTL2.pdf
As I said, PDS on display.
Your thoughts, sir.
Nothing? Really?
Yes, Rand Paul will have faults. Guess what. No politician is going to be everything you want him/her to be because they are fallible...just like us.
There's too many people around here looking for a white shining knight. Purist thinking will NEVER work.
There have been myriad stories of mothers literally deciding to sacrifice their own lives for their child’s. It is truly the ultimate sacrifice and one not likely to be easy on any woman. Women have done it throughout the ages and are guided by a spiritual understanding that I could never personally claim.
Abortion for the sake of “correcting a mistake” is grotesque and in violation of tenets in every Christian faith. We could argue about life of the mother/baby all day long, but if you’re being honest, you know damn well that liberals are specifically talking about the destruction of life due to promiscuity and a lack of self-respect or morality. BIG difference.
he didn’t say that
in fact he made the point that once life begins (as is universally accepted after birth) no one treatng babies distinguishes among babies based on where they came from (ie, whether they were conceived by rape or incest)
that is a pretty good argument for protecting innocent life
"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.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now you're lying. Even this liberal rag out to slime Paul admits this truth:
Find the “rape and incest” exemption in S.583 that you insist is there.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php
It isn’t.
You are lying.
>for example, rape—no.
Then perhaps someone needs to design a non-intrusive method of extracting the fertilized egg before the rape victim ingests the after-rape pill. Maybe Star Trek beam technology? I really don’t see any other way to handle rape victims.
Any notion that you can force a rape victim to carry a child is futile.
From my home page:
___________________________________________________________________
I’ve posted this in a couple of places and it doesn’t seem to get much more than a yawn, even though it’s kinda-sorta an incremental approach.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1908148/posts?page=125#125
I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed.
***I do too. That fetus deserves protection extended by the state.
I do wonder if it is biblical to extend “full” protection to a fetus? I.e. when a man hurts a pregnant woman, he’s expected to pay an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth. But if the unborn baby is killed, the price is not the same.
Perhaps it is time to consider a 3 (or even 4) tiered system of protection.
Tier 1: Living, viable, late term baby which will not be aborted unless the life of the mother is at stake.
Tier 2: Living, not-yet-viable pre-born human who should have the right to protection and life and a safe womb to which it can attain viability. Cannot be aborted unless there is an open rape case associated with the pregnancy or the life of the mother is at stake.
Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision. I personally do not believe in Tier3 abortions, but I can understand that there are many who think it is a “right to choose” at this stage. It may be time to consider a program where the woman declares her pregnancy and intent to abort. Our societal function at this point would be to provide a family that is willing to adopt this baby and to put up this woman for 6-8 months in a safe environment so the baby can grow and maybe the woman can learn some life skills. If our society cannot muster the forces necessary to save this baby, the woman has the sickening “right” to abort this pregnancy. Time for us to put up or shut up.
With a 3-tiered plan in place, women would stop using abortion as a means of birth control. Millions of lives would be saved. We would extend the right to life to every human that we have resources to save. Unfortunately, if we cannot put up the resources to save the Tier3 babies, we still would have this horrible practice staining our nation’s soul.
125 posted on 10/08/2007 1:43:20 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
___________________________________________________________________
I also can appreciate Rand Paul's personal opinion, coming from his physician's experience and perspective, regarding deciding for, or rather not deciding for someone else how such a belief applies to them and their personal circumstances, such as regarding rape or the life of the mother, and resolving the issue they may be dealing with. Maybe the states should individually decide such exceptions for themselves.
But, given where we are now, having anyone come up with a law to state when life begins in the most conservative way possible, since it clearly is needed, is a major step in the right direction.
In such cases, the only person who unequivocally committed no crime nor lack of judgement is the one being murdered, without recourse, defense, or due process.
The murder of defenseless innocents is "heartless", imho, not guaranteeing them a chance to live.
I fully agree that when we permit society to rationalize the murder of the most innocent, we are only a twist of logic from our own very personal extinction--and it is guaranteed that someone somewhere will find a reason, no matter how twisted.
Do you look for any reason to tear apart a candidate before you understand their position on a subject?
He isn’t the only one either.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2998955/posts
The PDS is strong amongst the RINO’s and GOP-e who are threatened by anyone reigning in the Federal leviathan. For them, it isn’t about what is RIGHT, it’s about them grabbing the reins and being in control themselves.
Wow.. excellent answer.
Todd Aiken or Richard Mourdock he ain’t.
Will people please cut the crap about politicians carving out judicious exemptions? We’ve got to stop destroying everyone who fails to cross every one of our “t’s”. The American people are so dumbed down and agnosticated that rational discussions about rape and incest are not possible. Women are so brainwashed that many will vote for the jackass who will pay for her abortion and head for the hills over the guy who would stand by her. Sorry, this is just a fact. Bob
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.