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.)
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.
This is exactly why we lose elections.
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.
Instead of supporting policies to save most of the babies, you hold out for all and get none.
That’s not very wise.
Criticizing him for penning the most pro-life legislation we’ve seen in over a generation.
With friends like you folks, who needs Democrats?
“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.
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.
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.
bump
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.
“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.
Exactly. The John McCain facton of FR...
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...
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.
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
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.