Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rand Paul: I’m pro-life, but exceptions should be handled case by case
Hot Air ^ | March 20, 2013 | Allahpundit

Posted on 03/20/2013 6:39:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

So confused am I by what he’s saying in the clip below that I’m not sure I’ve summed up his position correctly in the headline. The Blaze, wisely, didn’t even try. Their own post on this is simply titled, “CNN Asked Rand Paul About Abortion Exceptions: This Is How He Answered.” Here’s what we know: Not only is Paul pro-life, he just introduced the Life At Conception Act in the Senate, which would overturn Roe via a federal statute aimed at protecting due process for a fetus per Congress’s power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. So far, so good. Simple question from Wolf Blitzer, then: Would he make an exception for pregnancies caused by rape and those that threaten the health of the mother? That’s when things got … complicated.

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......

(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...


TOPICS: Kentucky; Issues; Parties; U.S. Senate
KEYWORDS: abortion; demagogue; fff; moralabsolutes; prolife; randpaul

1 posted on 03/20/2013 6:39:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

You can’t be pro-life and have exceptions . . . either you’re dealing with a living human or you aren’t . . . exceptions are what liars and losers use.

It is either a living creature guaranteed life or it isn’t. There is no waffling. You’re starting to get on my nerves.


2 posted on 03/20/2013 6:40:44 PM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways . . .


3 posted on 03/20/2013 6:42:27 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

If you’re a Christian, you believe that God knew you BEFORE you were in your mother’s womb.


4 posted on 03/20/2013 6:46:08 PM PDT by bimboeruption (Clinging to my Bible and my HK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

He cannot be trusted. Why is anyone still batting for this idiot’s team?

I guess like any other Republican, he can act as liberal/unprincipled as he likes and idiots will support him.


5 posted on 03/20/2013 6:47:08 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Mother’s life would get much higher priority in my book over the fetus, but that situation is rare anyways.


6 posted on 03/20/2013 6:54:13 PM PDT by entropy12 (The republic is doomed cuz people have figured out they can get free stuff by voting democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

The problem is that you are dealing with two human lives. If your wife has a tubal pregnancy it will kill her and the baby will probably not survive either. But you want no exceptions, so you let them both die. Or it might be the case that the pregnancy will probably kill the mother, but she wants her baby to live so she goes ahead with it. On the other hand, she might decide to live and try for another baby later. This is a tough decision. Do you really want it to be made in the criminal justice system?

In the case of sexual abuse, either rape or incest, the woman may want to carry the child to term. However, she may not be strong enough to do that, particularly if she is a child herself.

The question is what threshold does our society want to set that indicates our reverence for the life of the mother and the baby and at the same time does not criminalize really heart wrenching decisions.


7 posted on 03/20/2013 7:00:12 PM PDT by SubMareener (Save us from Quarterly Freepathons! Become a MONTHLY DONOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

This innocent baby has a bad dad so she deserves to die.

This innocent baby’s mom wants to continue to party and does not want to be fat so no adoption.

This innocent baby has too many siblings so mom wants her gone. She does not want to know her baby is out there and she doesn’t know what’s happening to her so mom wants her killed.

99% of Abortions are a result of pure selfishness


8 posted on 03/20/2013 7:01:51 PM PDT by Linda Frances (Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Well if you grant due process rights to the fetus, or what PP calls the products of conception, a couple of things are in play...

You clearly can’t give the baby the death penalty, for a crime his father committed.

A baby would also have equal status with the mother, so the law of double effect would apply.

Here are a few examples from Catholic bioethics.

A mother could ethically pursue cancer treatment, even treatment that might harm the child, especially if her life expectancy without treatment would not allow her to carry the baby to term.

Another, a mother with an infection that creates an ectopic pregnancy can receive treatment for the infection despite the fact that the treatment puts the babies life in danger. Why? The infection is again going to kill the mother and the child.

In both cases the law of double effect is in play, the mother has equal standing to the child and the primary objective of the treatment is not to murder the baby.

Rand’s father, with all of his faults, was a OB... I’m sure Rand is clear on the science, and for all of you who criticize him... where we’re your heroes in the GOP advancing this legislation when they controlled both houses of Congress & the Whitehouse?


9 posted on 03/20/2013 7:04:54 PM PDT by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener

Good post!!


10 posted on 03/20/2013 7:07:26 PM PDT by Osage Orange (Life is a bitch. If it was easy, we would call it a slut)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.


11 posted on 03/20/2013 7:09:43 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

A friend of mine had a fallopian tube pregnancy. She would have died long before the fetus became viable if she hadn’t terminated. There is a case.


12 posted on 03/20/2013 7:10:38 PM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

He’s a demagogue.


13 posted on 03/20/2013 7:10:55 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Either the innocent human is worthy of protection or he/she isn’t. No “case by case” analysis can possibly apply.


14 posted on 03/20/2013 7:12:49 PM PDT by jagusafr (the American Trinity (Liberty, In G0D We Trust, E Pluribus Unum))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Whatever he is, it is a perfect example of situational ethics. And anyone supporting that is no different than if they were supporting a dem with the same beliefs.

If people cannot agree that this guy isn’t a conservative after his BS this week, we might as well call it a day.


15 posted on 03/20/2013 7:14:44 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601

Ectopic pregnancies are one of the very few cases where a pregnancy must be terminated to safe the life of the mother. As you note, there is no case in which an ectopic fetus has ever been viable, so it wouldn’t be possible to bring the child to anything approaching viability. Is it murder to terminate a pregnancy which could never be viable? Compare this with rape and incest.


16 posted on 03/20/2013 7:19:07 PM PDT by jagusafr (the American Trinity (Liberty, In G0D We Trust, E Pluribus Unum))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If Rand Paul can lead the country to stop the 95-99 percent of abortions that are just at the discretion of the mom, and leave us to discuss rape, incest, and life of the mother, I say go for it Rand. If conservatives can’t figure out that they need to grab the gains that are available rather than sacrifice millions of lives over arguing the final few, they have no business running anything. I say we save 95% now and work on the rest as opportunities permit. I think Rand Paul is taking the same approach.


17 posted on 03/20/2013 7:19:53 PM PDT by TN4Liberty (My tagline disappeared so this is my new one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty

But what good is it to save most of the babies if I can’t be “pure?”


18 posted on 03/20/2013 7:23:06 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

From a medical doctor with real Western ethics, I may trust this method of decision. However, we don’t have doctors with ethics anymore. They are into humanist bio-ethics. That is when they decide to test drugs on children instead of lab rats as they recently did.

If they give psychiratry power over deciding who and what is sane and what is not based on political correctness (in a gun ownership examination, for example), we will be the soviet union in no time. Marxists/fascists love this stuff. Hitler used that profession for the murder of the mentally unfit, handicapped, worthless, etc. Heck, America had a program to sterilize the “mentally unfit.”


19 posted on 03/20/2013 7:31:00 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Well put.


20 posted on 03/20/2013 7:46:23 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Just once I’d like to have one of these guys; break cover as a conservative instead of a liberal/moderate. Just once. But no. Always the opposite.


21 posted on 03/20/2013 7:50:20 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rwilson99
In an extreme hypothetical, suppose that a 15 or 17 year old child was truly criminally insane, could not differentiate right from wrong, and posed an immediate threat to the life of his mother, albeit entirely unwittingly so. I don't think there's a FReeper on this board who would argue against the mother's right to use lethal force against her own child to protect her own life. It would be profoundly tragic, it would be painfully sad, but I don't think it would be immoral.

While I don't have an extensive medical background, I can't envision a scenario or case where the deliberate killing of an unborn child would ever contribute to the health of the mother; however, if there was such a case, I would consider that a similar instance of self defense. Certainly there are times, as you cite, where a procedure whose primary intent is to save the mother, may have a secondary effect of killing the child, and that too, I would consider profoundly tragic, painfully sad, but not immoral.

22 posted on 03/20/2013 8:01:14 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

IMHO Rand Paul is a political chamelion. His appearance changes to appear similar to whatever background he inhabits at any given moment. He currently is buddying up to conservative types, so he’s taken on the appearance of one of them.

I don’t trust him any farther than I did his old man.


23 posted on 03/20/2013 8:02:56 PM PDT by Tucker39
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601
A friend of mine had a fallopian tube pregnancy. She would have died long before the fetus became viable if she hadn’t terminated. There is a case.

Yes there is, as of today, but doctors are already trying to re-implant embryos that start out in a fallopian tube pregnancy into the uterus.

There are very few situations that can actually be classified as threatening the life of the mother during pregnancy. Rand Paul with his statement that there are thousands of situations is just plain wrong.
24 posted on 03/20/2013 8:10:41 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
But what good is it to save most of the babies if I can’t be “pure?”

Better have your flame retardant suit ready, Dave. No shortage of posters here who are perfectly willing to watch a million babies die every year, rather than sully their stainless consciences by saving 999,990 of them.

25 posted on 03/20/2013 8:11:40 PM PDT by Notary Sojac (“Institutions will try to preserve the problems to which they are a solution.” - Clay Shirky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr
Ectopic pregnancies are one of the very few cases where a pregnancy must be terminated to safe the life of the mother. As you note, there is no case in which an ectopic fetus has ever been viable, so it wouldn’t be possible to bring the child to anything approaching viability. Is it murder to terminate a pregnancy which could never be viable? Compare this with rape and incest.

I have heard of attempts to re-implant the fetus in the uterus. I did not hear if it was successful.
26 posted on 03/20/2013 8:12:41 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

The great tragedy here is that our side fails to discuss ethics with any depth...

Instead of saying something intelligent such as... “I think the rapist should face the death penalty before any innocent child” we get pseudo from losers like Todd Akin.

While his heart might be in the right place, his stupidity makes him easy to beat.


27 posted on 03/20/2013 8:13:21 PM PDT by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: laweeks
Every pro-life candidate from now on is going to be asked the "Akin question". It will go something like this:

"Mr. Candidate, if a twelve-year old girl is raped by her uncle, should she be required by law to continue the pregnancy to full term and give birth? Yes or no, sir???"

28 posted on 03/20/2013 8:14:11 PM PDT by Notary Sojac (“Institutions will try to preserve the problems to which they are a solution.” - Clay Shirky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
Better have your flame retardant suit ready, Dave. No shortage of posters here who are perfectly willing to watch a million babies die every year, rather than sully their stainless consciences by saving 999,990 of them.

Incorrectly stated.

This is about Rand Paul's inability to unequivocally stand against Abortion in all cases except where absolutely necessary.

Cases of Rape and Incest do not qualify.
29 posted on 03/20/2013 8:14:16 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
"Every pro-life candidate from now on is going to be asked the "Akin question". It will go something like this: "Mr. Candidate, if a twelve-year old girl is raped by her uncle, should she be required by law to continue the pregnancy to full term and give birth? Yes or no, sir???"

And knowing that full well in advance, we'll still have candidates who are totally unprepared to answer it with any conviction.

30 posted on 03/20/2013 8:17:32 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
"Mr. Candidate, if a twelve-year old girl is raped by her uncle, should she be required by law to continue the pregnancy to full term and give birth? Yes or no, sir???"

And if that candidate is an ACTUAL, SINCERE conservative, he/she will answer yes.

And simply add that while the circumstances of the conception are tragic and undeniably wrong, it will not make it better to murder the unborn child, but will simply make it worse for the mother.
31 posted on 03/20/2013 8:18:14 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
As stated by your conservative candidate:

"Mr. Candidate, if a twelve-year old girl is raped by her uncle, should she be required by law to continue the pregnancy to full term and give birth? Yes or no, sir???"

"Yes. But while the circumstances of the conception are tragic and undeniably wrong, it will not make it better to murder the unborn child, but will simply make it worse for the mother."

As it will appear on every nightly news show, every night up until the election:

"Mr. Candidate, if a twelve-year old girl is raped by her uncle, should she be required by law to continue the pregnancy to full term and give birth? Yes or no, sir???"

"Yes."

32 posted on 03/20/2013 8:23:02 PM PDT by Notary Sojac ('Institutions will try to preserve the problems to which they are a solution.' - Clay Shirky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
I think a well scripted and rehearsed answer would be to counter the question (much as Santorum did) with something to the effect of, "If the guilty rapist isn't going to be subject to the death penalty, I see no reason why the innocent unborn child should be."

Put it in terms of life and death, guilt and innocence. Maybe even add a, "Do you?" to the end of it and put the reporter on the defensive...insist that the reporter answer the rejoinder.

33 posted on 03/20/2013 8:34:44 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Exactly.

Until our candidate refuse to equivocate about right and wrong, we will continue to lose.

Our candidates need to lead from a sincere position of principle, not perform a risk analysis before answering every question.


34 posted on 03/20/2013 8:47:21 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; Notary Sojac

We just saw, again, how a candidate that tries and plays it safe, Mitt Romney, loses.

It is not the way to win elections.


35 posted on 03/20/2013 8:49:18 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Absolutes are invariant. Murder is murder without exception.


36 posted on 03/20/2013 9:07:56 PM PDT by re_nortex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Liberty
Rand also can't decide whether illegal aliens are illegal and should be treated as such and required to go through the same process as every other immigrant who enters this country, legally, under going the same background checks, paying the same fees and stand in the same lines, he probably can't also say that life begins at conception and guaranteed to the same First Amendment Rights as the already born.

Let's not bother with the ectopic pregnancy because those cases were always treated differently even when abortion was illegal.

Everyone who wants to argue hard case law pretend that 95% or more pregnancies fall into those categories, when that percentage is much smaller but desire to make pro-lifers argue those cases instead.

The truth is 95-98% of abortions that are performed purely for convenience and a sizeable amount are performed on underage girls, some as young as 10 years old, at the behest of the adult males who impregnated these girls and should be prosecuted for rape and the abortion mills that perform those abortions should also prosecuted for not reporting child abuse.

Unfortunately, the abortion mills are Planned Parenthood!

37 posted on 03/20/2013 9:37:58 PM PDT by zerosix (Native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

I guess its like illegal aliens, babies will be judged ona case by case basis. Maybe if the baby gets a thumbs down it will be left exposed on a hillside like in the really old days


38 posted on 03/20/2013 9:40:41 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

And your point is


39 posted on 03/20/2013 9:51:29 PM PDT by zerosix (Native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Giving an unalloyed "yes" to the question I constructed above may win an election in 2035 or thereabouts, assuming that millions more of the voting electorate have been brought around to a 100.00% pro-life point of view.

But not this year, and not in 2014 or 2016. As long as you recognize that fact, more power to you.

40 posted on 03/21/2013 4:23:44 AM PDT by Notary Sojac ('Institutions will try to preserve the problems to which they are a solution.' - Clay Shirky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: re_nortex
Murder is murder without exception.

Which means that the abortionist must be given the death penalty or life imprisonment.

And it means that the woman (along with any helping friends or family) who secures the abortion shall be prosecuted as an accessory.

This is the sort of thing that any candidate who flatly states that "abortion is murder" will be asked by the MSM, too. Words have meanings......

41 posted on 03/21/2013 4:26:33 AM PDT by Notary Sojac ('Institutions will try to preserve the problems to which they are a solution.' - Clay Shirky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
OK, Rand. What happened? This latest flip flop is dizzying.

There you were, flying high from the filibuster, when suddenly you were body-snacthed by Romney.

42 posted on 03/21/2013 10:32:47 AM PDT by Jane Long (Background checks? Dandy idea, Mr. President. Shoulda started with yours. - Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener

I never heard of a pro-lifer that was against ending a pregnancy when the mother has a tubal pregnancy. In fact, I don’t even think this is considered an abortion. The pregnancy is already doomed with a tubal pregnancy.


43 posted on 03/21/2013 10:51:06 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All; 2ndDivisionVet

I’d like to know why Planned Parenthood gave Rand Paul a 33% favorable rating.

“KY U.S. Senate Jr Rand Paul Republican 33”
snip http://votesmart.org/interest-group/1578/rating/6093


44 posted on 03/22/2013 12:29:51 AM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson