Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNN ASKED RAND PAUL ABOUT ABORTION EXCEPTIONS: THIS IS HOW HE ANSWERED
The Blaze ^ | 03/20/2013 | Becket Adams

Posted on 03/20/2013 10:57:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Republican Senator Rand Paul boldly declared last week when he introduced the Life at Conception Act that “human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection.”

However, during an interview on Tuesday with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the Kentucky senator seemed to soften his tone when asked about abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk.

“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.

“What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different,” Sen. Paul responded. “Everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what is going on that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.”

Paul continued:

"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. There are a lot of decisions made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t, the law won’t apply to. But I think it is important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeonhole and say, “Oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family.”

“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 concluded:

What I don’t believe that I can compromise on is that I think that there is something special about life and that all of the rights that we spend time up here discussing … all of these things stem from a sort of a primordial right to your life and how you use it. Watch the senator’s comments here:

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO

Sen. Paul announced the Life at Conception Act last Friday.

“The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans,” he said. “I plan to ensure this is upheld.”

The bill’s 15 Republican cosponsors include Sens. John Barrasso (Wyo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Daniel Coats (Ind.), Thomas Coburn (Okla.), Michael Enzi (Wyo.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Charles “Chuck” Grassley (Iowa), John Hoeven (N.D.), James “Jim” Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), James Risch (Idaho), John Thune (S.D.), and Roger Wicker (Miss.)


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abortion; cnn; paul; randpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-138 next last

1 posted on 03/20/2013 10:57:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“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.


Here, I was going to be supportive of Rand Paul. And then, he pulls out the weasel excuses for murdering the unborn. Seems there is nothing I can trust him on.

So much for being a leader.
2 posted on 03/20/2013 10:59:37 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

The NUT doesn’t fall too far from the family tree it appears.


3 posted on 03/20/2013 11:03:21 AM PDT by History Repeats (sic transit gloria mundi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
the life (not "health") of the mother

"Self defense" isn't murder...IF the life of the mother is truly in imminent danger, AND there is no other reasonable way to save her.

4 posted on 03/20/2013 11:08:49 AM PDT by ApplegateRanch (Love me, love my guns!©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch
"Self defense" isn't murder...IF the life of the mother is truly in imminent danger, AND there is no other reasonable way to save her.

“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.

Well, you're problem, if you are truly pro-life, is that Rand Paul doesn't stop there.

Also, true situations where the Mother's life is actually in danger, is usually a tubal ligation and the baby probably isn't going to survive anyway.

There are very, very few real situations where the Mother's life is truly in danger. Just another way for the left, and those truly not pro-life to make excuses for murdering the unborn.
5 posted on 03/20/2013 11:15:06 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Sounds like ole Rand has been in DC long enough he's learned the DC two-step well enough to instruct Phd post grad classes in it!

Yes, Rand is even smoother than his daddy, who blurts out so many offensive statements that he'd never get the Presidential not but Rand, he's got it down pat and can be on both sides of the same coin in the same sentence, that even makes John F'in Kerry envious!

6 posted on 03/20/2013 11:17:05 AM PDT by zerosix (Native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Conventional wisdom seems to be that standing firmly against abortion for spurious reasons, like rape and incest, makes one seem "heartless."

Carving out irrational and purely emotion-driven exceptions to the right to life makes the people who do it seem crazy and dangerous to me.

I wouldn't be able to pander to the irrational, ignorant, crazy and dangerous, no matter how well it paid.

7 posted on 03/20/2013 11:17:17 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (So?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

He denied the press the sound bite they were looking for.


8 posted on 03/20/2013 11:18:05 AM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

So you would not end a tubal pregnancy...


9 posted on 03/20/2013 11:18:19 AM PDT by Excellence (9/11 was an act of faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Akinophobia. Fear of clear, consistent prolife statements because if you don’t handle it exactly right, the left will make you pay. Or so goes the phobia.


10 posted on 03/20/2013 11:19:07 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

Forget logic...

PDS has found a new home. Anyone with the last name “Paul”, possibly including the late Pope John Paul, is subject to flying monkeys flinging feces.

“Doesn’t matter what he says or what his legislation will do. He’s a Paul so fling your poo...”


11 posted on 03/20/2013 11:19:32 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How many other Republicans have been willing to tie their name to a pro-life bill? At least Rand has done that unlike other Republicans that have shunned the unborn and treat pro-life as dirty words. The media is looking for an “Akin moment” to bring down any pro-life conservative.


12 posted on 03/20/2013 11:20:51 AM PDT by middlegeorgian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Answer should be:

“When somebody proposes such legislation, I’ll be happy to discuss it.”
“The simple fact is that this red hering has been around for 40 years to paint pro-lifer’s as extreme.”
“50 Million Americans would be alive today, if these conditions had been applied at the time of Roe v Wade.”
“So, Wolf, Why don’t you ever ask pro-abortion zealots, why they haven’t introduced legislation, to limit access to abortion, in this manner?”


13 posted on 03/20/2013 11:21:01 AM PDT by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

He’s purposing the most pro-life/anti-abortion bill we’ve seen in decades... But that still isn’t good enough for the PDS suffers.


14 posted on 03/20/2013 11:21:42 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Let’s take care of the 80% and talk about the 20% extraneous “exceptions” after we do.


15 posted on 03/20/2013 11:22:39 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Excellence
So you would not end a tubal pregnancy...

NO, not saying that. My wife and I actually had to.

That being said, after we had done that, sometime later, we heard that the doctors were experimenting with reimplanting the embryo from a tubal ligation into the uterus.

Wish they had been able to do that when we had to go through that horrific procedure.

Once they perfect that medical procedure, there will be one less reason to terminate the life of the unborn.
16 posted on 03/20/2013 11:24:03 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Good answer. He didn’t let himself be painted into a box.

One thing in reading his answer that comes to mind is: Isn’t he an optometrist?

How many births are optometrists involved with in his state?


17 posted on 03/20/2013 11:26:27 AM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton (Go Egypt on 0bama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Let’s take care of the 80% and talk about the 20% extraneous “exceptions” after we do.

Sorry, but I am not interested in someone who can't be honest and courageous.

Rand Paul, with his lying about his Amnesty plan and now this, can't be trusted.
18 posted on 03/20/2013 11:26:56 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I disagree. I think he’s trying to be honest. He’s a doctor and his father is a doctor. Yet he’s also a legislator whose charge it is to decide on the rules in such matters. In one person a particular issue could affect the life of the mother but in another it might not. And he’s got to work that out as both a doctor and a legislator. But he’s actually thinking about it, not being kneejerk or worrying about the politics. That’s a virtue.


19 posted on 03/20/2013 11:27:05 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I think the point of the legislation is that no termination should happen without due process. This means that you cannot just contract with an abortionist to kill your baby without some court somewhere reviewing the case. The actual effect of this would be nullify most abortions immediately, but still allow for the possibility that a mother could have a reason that permits her to terminate. If the anti-Paul zealots can’t understand this then they were never going to be useful anyway.


20 posted on 03/20/2013 11:29:02 AM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
...weasel excuses for murdering the unborn. Seems there is nothing I can trust him on.

I do not understand your extreme negative reaction to Paul recognizing the unhappy but necessary need for medical abortion "where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved".

Its ok, of course if you dislike Rand Paul, but attacking him for this statement looks a lot like the manufactured outrage that liberals enjoy concocting so much. I like RP and I'm sick of libs recycling this War on Women line of questioning ad nauseum. :p

Rand has proudly said he is pro-life again and again and again and....

21 posted on 03/20/2013 11:31:53 AM PDT by Casie (democrats destroy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
A LOT of politicos realize abortion is a third-rail much akin to gun control. The problem is a matter of principles. A principled conservative will say:

Abortion is unacceptable under any and all circumstances. Prevention should be through abstinence. A properly raised society, one in which God has supremacy and respect for one's self is paramount to all other concerns, will have no need for abortion. Women would respect themselves enough to not be whores. Men would be respectful of themselves and of the rights of women and would not deign to seek sexual encounters over enriching relationships. Both sexes would be well-armed and properly trained to protect themselves from rape, incest, and unwelcome sexual advances.

A Republican says:

Well, there should obviously be some exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Women are going to get themselves into trouble, and they need to have this as a last resort, nuclear option.

It's politically expedient for Republicans to be wishy-washy on this subject. Telling it like it is and EMPOWERING the population to be responsible for themselves is anathema to everything we've been taught over the course of the last 40 years. Truly principled leaders would stand up against the ghastly practice of abortion, stand on their principles, and offer solutions to the problem. Republicans are loose on principles and are not willing to offer any solutions outside of "some exceptions."

22 posted on 03/20/2013 11:34:45 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; All

“Seems there is nothing I can trust him on.”

He is a LIBERTARIAN = LIBERTINE = ANARCHIST. No self respecting Social Conservative can trust his ilk at all. I hope he gets his political career destroyed before he can screw with the 2016 primaries the way his wackjob father did in 2012.

I consider his ilk to be just a microgram less evil/bad/dangerous than Obama. I would NOT have voted for his father in 2012...and I would not vote for him in 2016.


23 posted on 03/20/2013 11:36:46 AM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
PDS has found a new home. Anyone with the last name “Paul”, possibly including the late Pope John Paul, is subject to flying monkeys flinging feces.

Just another version of "You're just a purist" being thrown around when somebody's preferred candidate, and make no mistake, this is what this is about, is shown not only to be lackluster, but woefully lacking, where conservative principles are concerned
24 posted on 03/20/2013 11:37:34 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
One thing in reading his answer that comes to mind is: Isn’t he an optometrist?

How many births are optometrists involved with in his state?

I guess you missed this part:

"I’ve been there at the beginning of life. I’ve held one pound babies in my hand that I examined their eyes."

25 posted on 03/20/2013 11:40:25 AM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Casie
I do not understand your extreme negative reaction to Paul recognizing the unhappy but necessary need for medical abortion "where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved".

Re-read what he said:
“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.

“What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different,” Sen. Paul responded. “Everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what is going on that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.”
This is not just about the life of the mother, which is used by the left to mean a lot of instances that really are not about the life of the mother, but about incest, and rape, and as Rand Paul states: "thousands" of other situations.
26 posted on 03/20/2013 11:40:37 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; All

Please don't judge Rand Paul harshly on this topic. There really is *no* problem with his response. All you have to do is lookup "ectopic pregnancy" to understand his position. As a God-fearing doctor, Paul is correct to understand there are legitimate exceptions -- though few and far between. And, he understands the burden of making those exceptions.

“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.”

This was a fine answer.


27 posted on 03/20/2013 11:45:58 AM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Purist? No. You are falsely trying to make Rand out to be pro-abortion when he’s trying to put forth the most pro-life bill we’ve seen in a long time.

You are trolling. Period.


28 posted on 03/20/2013 11:46:43 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Here, I was going to be supportive of Rand Paul. And then, he pulls out the weasel excuses for murdering the unborn. Seems there is nothing I can trust him on.

It seems you have comprehension issues.

I grow tired of people chewing up our side. Rand Paul is one of the strongest pro-life Senators in office and you are ready to throw him out.

Liberals love people like you.

29 posted on 03/20/2013 11:48:29 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I like the law in Germany. There, a right of privacy prohibits state intrusion during the first several weeks. After that, a pregnancy can be terminated only for a grave reason and ... this is the important thing ... the life of the child is to be protected if this doesn’t jeopardize the life of the mother. In other words, terminating a problematic pregnancy doesn’t mean killing the not yet born child.


30 posted on 03/20/2013 11:48:30 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
I grow tired of people chewing up our side. Rand Paul is one of the strongest pro-life Senators in office and you are ready to throw him out.

Liberals love people like you.


Let me ask you a question:

Are u truly Pro-Life, or is this just another Conservative principle for you?

As for me, I don't want even one more unborn child to be murdered; that child is a life worth saving.

Apparently, according to Rand Paul with his support for Abortion for Rape, incest and the murky "Life of the Mother" situations, it's just another conservative principle that needs to be managed.


31 posted on 03/20/2013 11:54:27 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

wow. i’m thankful that paul is there in the senate causing the leftists in both parties some measure of grief, but that bumbling, dissembling answer confirms he’s no conservative. the use of the word “extraneous” in that context is incoherent.

the answer is simple. the morally justifiable exception occurs when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy. and that must logically be determined by the mother and her family privately in consultation with her licensed physician(s). even then, the decision to seek abortion is still voluntary by the mother. in my view, any other circumstance where abortion is performed is morally equivalent to murder. no matter what the current fashion or law. that being said, the state cannot prosecute as the current law is practically determined by roe v. wade. period. end of answer.

for example, rape—no. the life of the mother is not threatened. adoption is the best alternative for a mother who doesn’t desire or can’t raise the baby. simple, easy answer for someone who is not morally conflicted.


32 posted on 03/20/2013 11:54:31 AM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Purist? No. You are falsely trying to make Rand out to be pro-abortion when he’s trying to put forth the most pro-life bill we’ve seen in a long time.

Get back to me when Rand Paul is unwilling to butcher an unborn child because he/she was unfortunate to be conceived as a result of either Rape or Incest.
33 posted on 03/20/2013 11:57:12 AM 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

Rand is a medical doctor and knows more about exceptions than you could imagine.

What about the case in Ireland where they couldn’t perform an abortion and the mother died? These cases happen and it does the pro-life cause no good to be arguing for the death of mothers.


34 posted on 03/20/2013 11:58:28 AM PDT by JohnPDuncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

>Abortion is unacceptable under any and all circumstances...

Anyone making such a proclamation and trying to get or stay elected would be finished politically long before they finished their speech. There will always be exceptions.


35 posted on 03/20/2013 11:59:31 AM PDT by soycd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
I read that to mean there are thousands of specific medical conditions that put the unfortunate pregnant woman's life at risk.

I have zero medical knowledge, but it does not seem unreasonable to me that things like heart conditions, bleeding disorders, liver ailments, diabetes, physical injury are just a small fraction of dangerous pregnancies that a doctor would be aware of.

Again, I think you are conveniently ignoring Paul's dedication to pro-life beliefs. But it is ok that you do like Rand Paul. :)

36 posted on 03/20/2013 12:03:04 PM PDT by Casie (democrats destroy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan
What about the case in Ireland where they couldn’t perform an abortion and the mother died? These cases happen and it does the pro-life cause no good to be arguing for the death of mothers.

So what about Rand Paul's position that it is OK to kill the baby for Rape and Incest?

Is that OK with you?
37 posted on 03/20/2013 12:03:15 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: JohnPDuncan
What about the case in Ireland where they couldn’t perform an abortion and the mother died?

What about it?

Maybe that you don't know as much about that case as you think you do?

38 posted on 03/20/2013 12:07:00 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (So?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Casie
I read that to mean there are thousands of specific medical conditions that put the unfortunate pregnant woman's life at risk.

And if that is what he meant, that should give you pause to think.

Have you ever seen a list of medical conditions during a pregnancy that would cause a mother to have to abort her baby to save her life?

I've never seen that list, much less anything that would support such a statement and I pay close attention to this subject.

You'd think that if they were really concerned about this and that it was factually correct, they'd provide a list of those conditions that would quiet down the objections.

But they don't. They'd rather it was left in murky gray areas. Because there are not thousands of conditions.
39 posted on 03/20/2013 12:07:03 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
Really? Would a "principled conservative" chose to have a mother die, rather than have a truly therapeutic abortion? Would a "principled conservative" chose to have a mother and the unborn baby die, rather than have a truly therapeutic abortion.

Senator (and Dr.) Paul gave a well-reasoned principled answer. An answer based on harsh realities.

With "friends" like you, the pro-life side doesn't need enemies.
40 posted on 03/20/2013 12:09:34 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Arguing facts not in evidence.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/nkypolitics/files/2010/04/KYRTL2.pdf

As I said, PDS on display.

41 posted on 03/20/2013 12:09:52 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Your thoughts, sir.


42 posted on 03/20/2013 12:13:14 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Blather. Reince. Repeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Seems there is nothing I can trust him on.

Nothing? Really?

Yes, Rand Paul will have faults. Guess what. No politician is going to be everything you want him/her to be because they are fallible...just like us.

There's too many people around here looking for a white shining knight. Purist thinking will NEVER work.

43 posted on 03/20/2013 12:15:10 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

There have been myriad stories of mothers literally deciding to sacrifice their own lives for their child’s. It is truly the ultimate sacrifice and one not likely to be easy on any woman. Women have done it throughout the ages and are guided by a spiritual understanding that I could never personally claim.

Abortion for the sake of “correcting a mistake” is grotesque and in violation of tenets in every Christian faith. We could argue about life of the mother/baby all day long, but if you’re being honest, you know damn well that liberals are specifically talking about the destruction of life due to promiscuity and a lack of self-respect or morality. BIG difference.


44 posted on 03/20/2013 12:15:39 PM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Arguing facts not in evidence

So, if Rand Paul actually believes in what he wrote, why is he proposing a bill that goes directly against his principles and allows for the murder of unborn children in the cases of Rape and Incest?
45 posted on 03/20/2013 12:15:59 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: what's up
Yes, Rand Paul will have faults. Guess what. No politician is going to be everything you want him/her to be because they are fallible...just like us.

Get back to me when he quits lying about his Amnesty Plan not being Amnesty and quits lying about actually being against Abortion in the cases of Rape and Incest and then puts forward a bill that does exactly that.

If we were talking about unimportant issues, you might have a point. But we're talking about issues that kill babies and on the Amnesty issue, will kill off both the GOP and this grand experiment we call a Representative Republic.
46 posted on 03/20/2013 12:20:23 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

he didn’t say that

in fact he made the point that once life begins (as is universally accepted after birth) no one treatng babies distinguishes among babies based on where they came from (ie, whether they were conceived by rape or incest)

that is a pretty good argument for protecting innocent life


47 posted on 03/20/2013 12:21:13 PM PDT by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
in fact he made the point that once life begins (as is universally accepted after birth) no one treatng babies distinguishes among babies based on where they came from (ie, whether they were conceived by rape or incest)

that is a pretty good argument for protecting innocent life


Read the whole article:
"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.”

48 posted on 03/20/2013 12:24:31 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
So what about Rand Paul's position that it is OK to kill the baby for Rape and Incest?

Is that OK with you?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Now you're lying. Even this liberal rag out to slime Paul admits this truth:


49 posted on 03/20/2013 12:25:42 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Find the “rape and incest” exemption in S.583 that you insist is there.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php

It isn’t.

You are lying.


50 posted on 03/20/2013 12:30:25 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-138 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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