Rand Paul: “Not Changing Any Laws on Abortion,” Life at Conception a “Personal” Belief

http://www.lifenews.com ^ | April 23, 2014 | Steven Ertelt

[NKP_Vet]

Rand Paul is a pro-life Senator from Kentucky who appears poised to become one of the candidates for the Republican nomination for president in 2016. Although he has a strong pro-life voting record, Paul is making comments about abortion that are concerning pro-lifers.

randpaul3As LifeNews reported earlier this year, Paul said in an interview that Republicans should agree to disagree on social issues.

Now, in a new interview, Paul says he doesn’t anticipate changing the laws on abortion and added that his belief that life begins at conception is a personal and religious one, not a scientific viewpoint.

[DuncanWaring]

That’s all true.

My point is that the answer to the question “When does life begin?” is “Long before the memory of anyone alive today”.

[svcw]

Listen dude or dudest, the first thing you did was to say I was not prolife, I responded with what I think of Paul (both of them) and apparently you find that offensive, I don’t care.
I have been on FR longer than you, and so what.
Because I am not a paulbot, you feel superior I suppose, well you aren’t.
I don’t trust him, I didn’t trust his father and I don’t trust you.

[NKP_Vet]

“Rand Paul introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013”

So we now know that Rand Paul is an opportunist hypocrite, who never believed in the bill he sponsored. He was just trying to fool people.

[LambSlave]

Can’t reason with the delusional; nothing he ever does will be good enough for you to do anything but attack him. His conservative voting record, his publically posted platform on the issues, his lone ranger sponsorship of true conservative legislation, and the fact that he is practically alone at actually trying to reduce the size and scope of government (except potentially for Cruz, Palin, and Lee, although they are not as vocal)is good enough for the rest of us.

[NKP_Vet]

Ron Paul used to spout off all time how he was the “most conservative” person on the debate platform. Guess it depends on how you define conservatism. If you define conservative as wanting to legalize drugs, say that any state has the right to define marriage any way they feel like it, and say that Roe v. Wade is the “settled law” of the land I guess Ron Paul was “conservative”. His son takes the EXACT same positions. But the old man had character and principles. He would tell you that we needed to bring all US forces home from overseas and start letting countries protect themselves. Of course he would be blasted by the other GOP contenders. Rand Paul has the exact same position but tries to hid it. Ron Paul voted to allow sodomites in the US military and said more than one time that it is no one’s business who someone else marries (and of course leave it up to the states). Same position for his son, though once again he would tap dance around any question of real marriage. Both want to legalize drugs.

But in the minds of some on FR the Paul’s are “conservative” because they want to cut the size and scope of government.

Call Rand Paul for what he is. A fiscal conservative and a a social liberal, just as liberal as any democrat.

He will never get the GOP nomination. RINOs can’t win elections.

[Theophilus]

Can’t reason with the delusional; nothing he ever does will be good enough for you to do anything but attack him. His conservative voting record...

His record is exemplary, but the best we can hope about these vague, confusing, deflecting, obfuscating, ambiguous, premise accepting statements is that he is trying to fly a false flag in an attempt to fool our enemies. It's not going to work. He's hoisting himself by his own petard.

[svcw]

Really?
Read this.
http://patdollard.com/2014/04/rand-paul-to-axelrod-republicans-like-to-exaggerate-about-voter-fraud/

[Theophilus]

You understand strategy. As does Rand Paul.

He's trying to fool one side or the other but he is only winning the people who don't care.

You want strategy? How's this for a strategy? Every time he's asked about abortion, he should immediately start talking about "compulsory abortion" and how far more people in this world are living in oppressive places with "compulsory abortion" (aka "one child policy") than are living in places where abortion is illegal. He should point out the trend that many political, academic and economic elites favor compulsory abortion and crave it among their highest utopian eugenic policy objectives. He should say he's going to do everything in his power to make sure that "compulsory abortion" and "compulsory euthanasia" for B.S. pretenses like "saving the planet" or "affordable healthcare" are explicitly unconstitutional and are therefore impossible in the United States of America.

He should NEVER use weasel terms like "personal or religious beliefs" or "reproductive freedom" when he's discussing abortion.

[Theophilus]

Interesting and disturbing.

Eliminating voter fraud completely is obviously impossible. But if we really believe that it's determining the outcome of elections it's time to stop complaining and start shooting because you can't fix voter fraud by voting.

I would expect no less from the liberals if they thought we were stealing elections with voter fraud.

[LambSlave]

To me conservative means one who wishes to restrict the federal government to the limits placed on it in the Constitution, with other powers to the states and the people. This means predominantly, limiting the size and scope of the federal government. This means that many social issues, not mentioned in the Constitution, should not be decided by the federal government except by amendment, but left to the states. Roe vs. Wade (which by the way Rand does crusade against) is the reason why you don’t want these issues in the federal purview; once that happens, as a Christian, I have nowhere to go to escape this modern Sodom and Gomorroh unless I overturn Roe vs. Wade. If it were at the state level, most states would ban or severely restrict abortion and fewer children would be murdered. There is a huge distinction between Constitutional Conservatives like myself and Rand Paul and liberals; we want the federal government to not have the power to curtail our religious freedoms and God given rights, the liberals advocate using the federal government to guarantee them every kind of perversion and debauchary while permenantly revoking the rights of Christians and other persecuted classes. A world of difference.

[Theophilus]

...many social issues, not mentioned in the Constitution...

Every single issue in the Constitution is a social issues unless one means by "social issues" that there are issues one wishes were not issues, issues that one just doesn't care about, issues one wishes would just go away.

We should not expect the Creator to protect His endowment to our rights of liberty and property while we alienate and violate His first endowment of the right to life to the most defenseless persons.

Matthew 18:10
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

I shudder to think of what the expression on God's face is right now.

[LambSlave]

I am in complete agreement that ALL abortion is murder and unimaginably evil, and that we are obligated to protect the unborn. So is regular murder, but we handle that at the level of the states; abortion and any other issues not covered by explicitly enumerated as Federal powers in the Constitution should be handled by the states. Don’t you see, it is allowing the federal government domain here that gave us Roe vs. Wade. If you throw this to the Fed, they are just as likely to come out with a “Universal Right to Abortion”. Overturning Roe vs. Wade, and returning this decision to the states (where the majority oppose most abortions)is the safer path. We are on the same side here, which I wish most people would try to see. We fight each other more than the enemy, we just see different methods to accomplish it. The godless nation that we have devolved into is led by a godless government, I do not want to trust them do what is right; they NEVER have before, so making abortion and gay marriage a federal issue is too risky. They will promote death and sodomy, as they have to date. Leave it to my state and even local governments, then there is hope, at least here in flyover country.

[Theophilus]

I agree that it's the duty of every State to prosecute murder. But in the event that a State decides not to fulfill it's duty, or to explain it away, then it's the duty of the rest of the States (via the Federal government) to compel the State in question to do it's duty. Life is and will always be in the purview of the Federal government.

Let's say that only one State decides to fulfill it's duty and protect the life of the unborn from murder while the rest of the States abandon their duty. That one State should fight to the death to fulfill it's duty. Duty to God is not defined by majority opinion. None of us will have any excuse for giving our consent as the governed in this matter.

It seems to me that Rand just wants to move on to the deck chair issues.

[Theophilus]

And speaking of “compulsory abortion”, the camels’ nose is under the tent via Obamacare where we are all forced to pay for murderous child sacrifice. And the few who say so are not saying it enough!

[LambSlave]

The converse problem is more likely imho, since D.C. is corrupted more than the states— that a few of the states will fail in their duty, and that the Federal governement (when liberals are in control) will side with them and pass a Federal law mandating that no states are permitted to do their duty. Don’t get me wrong, I see your perspective and it does have merit also, and I would also support a candidate taking that approach. I think Rand is sometimes too strategic. He is trying to focus on reducing the power of the federal government first and foremost, which requires winning elections, so he is trying to gain votes from independents and liberals to help him get elected by not being entirely honest about his core positions. I understand why, his analysts are telling him that the GOP is fighting a losing battle against demographics, but it is very risky because he could lose his base in the process.

[Theophilus]

Our entire nation is corrupted at every level and we the governed must eventually pay.

Jeremiah 6:14
They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

[cynwoody]

To stop him, you have to win at the ballot box. It's not enough to stand up for principle.

[LambSlave]

Our entire nation is corrupted at every level and we the governed must eventually pay.

I know, I pray often that all who are in Christ receive the strength to embrace these trials in a manner that brings us closer to the Lord.

[Jane Long]

Randy’s being interviewed by David Axelrod (?!) at the Chicago University Institute for Politics...(new gig for A**elrod?).

Randy says his own personal belief is that life begins at conception. When pressed by The Ax whether he’d sign a law according to his own (Randy’s) beliefs, he says, “No, I think where the country is...is that we’re somewhere in the middle and that we’re not changing any of the laws”.

Where the country is?? Placate much, Randy?

This guy has finally gone over the edge.

[Theophilus]

To stop him, you have to win at the ballot box.

Oh I agree! That's why my wife and I think that it's just important to be prolific as it is to be pro-life. We are not merely standing up for principle we are procreating for fun and principle! But I will NOT encourage my 11 born and 1 unborn children to vote for men that don't fear God. With the possible exception of Ted Cruz it seems unlikely that we will ever elect a politician that acknowledges that we are living on borrowed time. The rod is coming down. There is no time left to dance around this abomination!

The whole world has a sense of the impending doom. Will it be

1. World War?
2. Civil War?
3. Nuclear, Biological or Chemical Holocaust?
4. Famine?
5. Infestation?
6. Genetic Disaster?
7. Financial Collapse?
8. Natural Disasters?
9. Worldwide Pandemic?
10. Demographic Implosion?
11. Totalitarian Technological Dystopia?
12. All of the above?
13. Something that we can't even imagine that will make us chew our tongues off?

"The disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy." - John Maynard Keynes