CNN ASKED RAND PAUL ABOUT ABORTION EXCEPTIONS: THIS IS HOW HE ANSWERED

The Blaze ^ | 03/20/2013 | Becket Adams

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

That is simply not what Sen. Paul said. You have a reading-comprehension problem. Hand the article to someone to read to you — s.l.o.w.l.y. Then ask them to explain what it says.

[CityCenter]

This is exactly why we lose elections.

[dadfly]

it is futile to prevent human beings from sinning. sin will always be with us until the second coming. it is not futile to aposteriori try a human being for denying life to a human being without due process. that act creates deterrence.

[SoothingDave]

Instead of supporting policies to save most of the babies, you hold out for all and get none.

That’s not very wise.

[SoConPubbie]

This is exactly why we lose elections.

You're right.

Our candidates try to be all things to everyone and obfuscate in such a manner that they think they can find a sweet spot where the most people will vote for them.

Hence Rand Paul's stating he is against Amnesty, and then presenting a plan to "Normalize" (provide amnesty) for 2 million Illegal Aliens every year.

Hence Rand Paul's inability to succinctly and explicitly answer a journalist when that journalist asks him if he is for or against abortions in terms of Rape or Incest.

We will start winning elections again when we dump the Karl Rove/Mitt Romney/GOP-e model of moderating our stands on principles.

[SoConPubbie]

it is futile to prevent human beings from sinning. sin will always be with us until the second coming. it is not futile to aposteriori try a human being for denying life to a human being without due process. that act creates deterrence.

Sheesh.

This isn't about keeping people from sinning but protecting the innocent, unborn babies, and their right to life from selfish people.

What an absolutely stupid thing to say.

[SoConPubbie]

That is simply not what Sen. Paul said. You have a reading-comprehension problem. Hand the article to someone to read to you — s.l.o.w.l.y. Then ask them to explain what it says.

Senator Paul was asked a direct question:

“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.

He then hemmed and hawed and finally stated:

“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 never stated explicitly without exception that he was against Abortion in the cases of Rape and Incest, instead he kept saying things like you couldn't him in any character and "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"

[Dead Corpse]

Criticizing him for penning the most pro-life legislation we’ve seen in over a generation.

With friends like you folks, who needs Democrats?

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

“He never stated explicitly without exception that he was against Abortion in the cases of Rape and Incest,...”

Because he’s a physician ... and not a moron.

Contrary to what you seem to want us to believe, Sen. Paul did not say that rape and incest would be sufficient reasons to allow abortion. Quite the opposite. He is saying that, in the real world, there are numerous valid medical conditions that might require an abortion to save the mother. In a large number of those cases, both the mother, and the baby would have died, without an abortion. Not having an abortion would not save a baby — but it would mean the untimely death of the mother.

[Jay Redhawk]

There are a number of folks here that are simply interested in aborting any small government Republicans chances in the next election cycle. They are statists who will probably wind up supporting Jeb Bush or some other has been. They can live with 8 years of Hillary without a problem, just as long as a few federal crums are tossed their way.

[dadfly]

humm. murder isn’t about sin? ok. i guess i’m stupid. maybe i wasn’t very clear. maybe you didn’t read my previous comment. still, i don’t think we are on opposite sides. the idea is to protect the right to life for the innocent unborn baby. on that i hope we agree. the fact that conception occurred after the sin of rape, does not in any way implicate the innocent baby. that baby shouldn’t have to suffer for the sin of the rapist. and the inconvenience of the victim of the heinous crime sad though it is, cannot in a just society be allowed to trump the babies right to life.

[GeronL]

bump

[Boogieman]

I haven’t said a word criticizing him about writing any legislation, so stop lying about me. I’m criticizing him for putting out a weasely statement that essentially excuses any abortion a doctor wants to perform.

[Boogieman]

“Instead of supporting policies to save most of the babies, you hold out for all and get none.”

No I don’t, stop making stuff up and argue with what I’ve actually said.

[Dead Corpse]

Exactly. The John McCain facton of FR...

[Dead Corpse]

Except for that whole redefining life at conception thingie that would make a lot of what you allude to murder.

Face it. You are blinded with hate for anyone threatening the entrenched power structure.

We get it...

[Boogieman]

Entrenched power structure? What the hell are you on about? I haven’t said a word about that either. It seems like you would rather argue with some voices in your head than anything I’ve actually said, so have fun with that.

[EternalVigilance]

No more weasel words or gimmicks. Simply provide equal protection for every innocent person as the supreme law of the land explicitly and imperatively requires:

http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/the-equal-protection-for-posterity-resolution.html

[so_real]

There’s nothing particular about one ectopic pregnancy versus another that would require a special exemption for some and not others.

Again ... you say the words but miss the point. I agree there is nothing particular about one ectopic pregnancy versus another. And you agree there are "thousands" of these pregnancies occurring every year (over 100,000 according to the CDC). 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. And this position jives 100% with Rand Paul's response. I trust that Rand Paul is pro-life. And I see that he was clever to avoid the liberal's abortion trap (where they accuse us of wanting women to die in order to save babies - and then mock us because the baby in these scenarios dies anyway). If it were you in that interview with Wolf Blitzer, I'm afraid you would have fallen headlong into that trap and your presidential run would have ended before it began.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

“Doesn’t matter what he says or what his legislation will do. He’s a Paul so fling your poo...”

!!!!!!!!!!!!!