I’ve listened to Rand Paul on this subject. He’s not as bad as Mitt Romney with his ‘health of the mother’ and he’s not as good as those who say ‘life of the mother.’
He seems confused by all the medical knowledge he has and refers to unusual medical conditions and exceptions that non-medical people aren’t informed about.
He was right to take the Debbie Wasserman to task over late term (full term) abortion, but Rand Paul needs to define for HIMSELF when life begins. Then he needs to apply his libertarian principle of life and liberty for distinct individuals. ANYONE who defines life at conception OR EVEN THOSE who define it at implantation CANNOT justify the violation of rights of the unborn.
Wow, still putting the best spin on Paul and his pro-choice politics.
I think Rand Paul's problem is that he really hasn't taken a position at all. He claims to be pro-life but does he really believe the principle of life beginning at conception or even with the first heartbeat? Would he take the position that the unborn from the first heartbeat to the last would have a right to live as much as the mother who is sitting in the abortion clinic contemplating ending that life?
One problem we have is that simply too many women have had abortions and are not willing to accept the fact that they are guilty of a heinous sin. American's have gotten away from the notion that acts against God's commandments are sinful. They justify their sins in order to appease their own consciences and as a result they are more than willing to accept sin as acceptable behavior both the the world and to God.
I really don't know where Rand Paul stands on a spiritual level in regard to issues of life. He seems to take a clinical approach to the subject, which tells me he is not going to push any pro-life agenda. He will mouth the right words to appease the Conservatives, but temper them so as not to overly offend the abortion loving crowd.
His approach to politics seems to be predicated more on appeasing his opponents than exciting his supporters.