Rand Paul: I’m pro-life, but exceptions should be handled case by case

Hot Air ^ | March 20, 2013 | Allahpundit

[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......

[Norm Lenhart]

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.

[Joe 6-pack]

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.

[Tucker39]

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.

[SoConPubbie]

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.

[Notary Sojac]

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.

[SoConPubbie]

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.

[rwilson99]

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.

[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???"

[SoConPubbie]

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.

[Joe 6-pack]

"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.

[SoConPubbie]

"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.

[Notary Sojac]

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."

[Joe 6-pack]

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.

[SoConPubbie]

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.

[SoConPubbie]

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

It is not the way to win elections.

[re_nortex]

Absolutes are invariant. Murder is murder without exception.

[zerosix]

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!

[GeronL]

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

[zerosix]

And your point is

[Notary Sojac]

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.