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.)
Yours is my position, but unless you are unconcerned about losing every election, you must understand that you can’t feed meat to babies barely able to digest milk. Bob
To boot, his answers were very savvy in that he gave the vulture media no hooks to hang him on. This is the kind of brainwork I like in a conservative politician.
There's little use arguing about necessary or unnecessary abortions with The Inflexibles on any FR thread. It's just spinning wheels. They will tear apart any conservative politician, or, indeed, any FR poster who has a position on abortion which is to them "impure".
I'm not for Rand or anyone else, for that matter, for president at this early time.....and I oppose his latest amnesty stance.
But the Senator's position on abortion is probably the same as you're going to hear from most conservative candidates now and in the future. It's the nature of today's dangerous public campaigning.
But they, also, will be ripped to shreds by the perfectionists who eat their own.....and who prefer to go down with the Titanic rather than jump into a lifeboat with a dripping pinhole in the prow.
Leni
What is it about you that even the slightest mention of the name “Paul” puts you into a lying tail-spin.
Sorry Mr. Rove... Your time is over.
What are you talking about? Of course it matters what he says, that’s exactly what people are criticizing him for, not his last name.
It's right there in front of your eyes. There is no "unhappy but necessary need for medical abortion" for other things besides the life of the mother. Once you open that door, then you are just talking about abortions of convenience on demand, since there is no real distinction between this position and the current state of affairs.
Ok, you’ve named one exception that nobody on either side of the debate argues with. What are the thousands of other exceptions that Paul mentions? Or are you uncurious about what those are and where he wants to draw the line?
If outlawing abortion except for thousands of exceptions is being “pro-life”, then Roe vs. Wade was a “pro-life” decision.
“What about the case in Ireland where they couldn’t perform an abortion and the mother died?”
There is no such case. In Ireland, doctors are required to intervene and do everything to save the life of the patient, even if that means performing an abortion. There is nothing in Irish law that stopped them from performing an abortion, if that is what the doctors deemed necessary to save her life.
But if you would rather go on believing pro-abort propaganda, then I guess that is your prerogative.
If God elects Rand, I'll believe I'll see a tiny glint of hope and mercy.
Every supporter of Personhood for the preborn has to be ready for THE QUESTION, the question that tripped up candidates like Akin and Mourdock, the inevitable question about exceptions for rape, incest, etc.
MAKE THE CASE ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS. Period.
Make the legalized abortion advocates have to defend denial of civil rights.
Pro-aborts will always be willing to exploit rape victims and others who have dealt with difficult pregnancies. Turn the tables on them. Make them justify the death penalty for the most innocent. Make them try to justify killing a child for the sin(s) of the parent or parents (whether it is via rape or incest). They can’t argue beyond their bumper-sticker slogans and only win when abortion abolitionists don’t make the civil rights argument.
Do not go into unproven theories and speculations that are only unnavigatable landmines that will only undermine your advocacy faster than you can say Todd Akin.
Keep talking about civil rights. It’s so simple, you have to wonder why supposedly intelligent people running for office cannot grasp that concept.
“Only in the case of saving the mom. Paul is a doctor and most likely knows lots of rare and UNHAPPY cases that threaten the life of the mom.”
That is not what Paul said, and I’ve already posted his quote and even bolded the relevant section, so I’m not going to do it again. Nobody is disagreeing with Paul about an exception for the life of the mother, our problem is his nebulous and unspecified exception for thousands of “other things”. That’s just weasel language which opens the door to a doctor approving an abortion of convenience for anyone at anytime.
“Paul is pro-life. I am pro-life. I don’t know why we are disagreeing except that you don’t like Paul, and its totally cool that you don’t. :p”
It has nothing to do with liking or not liking Paul. I’ve already expressed why I have a problem with his statement, and it had nothing to do him personally, it has to do with the fact that it is NOT a pro-life statement. So either you didn’t understand me, or you just want to misrepresent my position and try to demean me with this childish implication that I have something personal against Paul.
I am reading the entire article, listening to the entire video and reading your entire quotes... and hearing something different than you. :p And again, thats ok.
“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.”
All I can say is that he is an incredible bulls*** artist. Sounding more and more exactly like his nutcase father. Just smoother and better looking.
"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."
The problem is even if he was elected president the spineless Congress would do nothing. He knows this and said he wants to nudge the debate in the right direction.
“It appears to me that he is referencing each “individual case” as a potential “exception”.”
Not buying it. If Paul simply meant that ectopic pregnancies were a valid exception, or simply that a condition which threatened the life of the mother were an exception, then there would have been absolutely no need for him to make the statement you quoted. There’s nothing particular about one ectopic pregnancy versus another that would require a special exemption for some and not others.
When he says that everything is particular to the individual case, then he opens the door to any doctor being able to approve an abortion for any reason at all. Only the doctor and the mother know their individual circumstances, and our medical privacy laws really prevent anyone else from knowing them, so it would be impossible for any pro-life law to have a significant effect if we base it on that standard.
I’m not mind-reading here; he is using the same language that all the wishy-washy politicians use when they are really pro-choice but want to appear pro-life. Name any blue dog dem elected in a red state, or RINO elected in the suburbs of a blue city, and I’m sure I could find a similar quote from them.
“who prefer to go down with the Titanic rather than jump into a lifeboat with a dripping pinhole in the prow.”
How about a better analogy? We’d prefer to go down with the Titanic rather than jump into a lifeboat being kept afloat by just a few murdered babies, or the lifeboat kept afloat by a lot of murdered babies. Sinking is preferable to us than either of those options.
We weren’t talking about what liberals mean — we were talking about what Senator Paul said. You couldn’t be more wrong about the way you characterized that.
Your line of argumentation will only ensure that the pro-life side never makes any gains.
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.