"Self defense" isn't murder...IF the life of the mother is truly in imminent danger, AND there is no other reasonable way to save her.
Carving out irrational and purely emotion-driven exceptions to the right to life makes the people who do it seem crazy and dangerous to me.
I wouldn't be able to pander to the irrational, ignorant, crazy and dangerous, no matter how well it paid.
He denied the press the sound bite they were looking for.
How many other Republicans have been willing to tie their name to a pro-life bill? At least Rand has done that unlike other Republicans that have shunned the unborn and treat pro-life as dirty words. The media is looking for an “Akin moment” to bring down any pro-life conservative.
Answer should be:
“When somebody proposes such legislation, I’ll be happy to discuss it.”
“The simple fact is that this red hering has been around for 40 years to paint pro-lifer’s as extreme.”
“50 Million Americans would be alive today, if these conditions had been applied at the time of Roe v Wade.”
“So, Wolf, Why don’t you ever ask pro-abortion zealots, why they haven’t introduced legislation, to limit access to abortion, in this manner?”
Good answer. He didn’t let himself be painted into a box.
One thing in reading his answer that comes to mind is: Isn’t he an optometrist?
How many births are optometrists involved with in his state?
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.
Your thoughts, sir.
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.
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
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
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.
“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.