Replies

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"

“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.