CNN ASKED RAND PAUL ABOUT ABORTION EXCEPTIONS: THIS IS HOW HE ANSWERED

The Blaze ^ | 03/20/2013 | Becket Adams

[headsonpikes]

Changing the subject is lawyerly.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

First off, you persist in misrepresenting what Sen. Paul actually said. Not only misrepresentation -- you have it completely backwards.

Second, you continue to dodge the sad reality that sometimes continuing a pregnancy will lead to the death of the mother. In a large portion of those cases, the baby will also die in the womb. That's reality. Sen. Paul knows that first hand, from his experience as a physician. That's what he's talking about. That's the only class of exemptions he was saying he had to support.

You wrote about "mothers literally deciding to sacrifice their own lives for their child’s", as if that were a clear conservative principle. Either way -- someone dies, so the moral issue is far from clear. Fine, if a mother wants to sacrifice herself for the child (in those cases, where her death wouldn't also mean the death of the unborn child) -- but, on what planet is it a "conservative principle" that the mother is deprived of the choice to save her own life instead?

To repeat -- your line of argumentation will only ensure that the pro-life side never makes any gains. I'll go further -- the pro-abortionists love people like you. With friends like you, the pro-life cause needs no enemies.

[Dead Corpse]

... then he is not a conservative from a pro-life, Christian standpoint.

Oh sweet Jesus just shut the hell up.

"I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.

I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.

I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. I support a Human Life Amendment and have co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. In addition, I support a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement."

Copied form here...

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3

[CityCenter]

That’s not what I meant. What I meant is the we lose elections because we have too may people searching for any thing they can find that wil disqualify a good candidate. There is no perfect person and there was nothing wrong with Rand Paul’s answers.

[rarestia]

Would you two go back to each one of my posts and point out where I explicitly said that I supported the principle I dictated? I didn’t, so stop quoting me or purporting that I did.

I do not believe it is in the government’s interest nor any business of the public to legislate abortion one way or the other. Having worked in the health care industry, I understand that it is a medical procedure that, when done by an experienced surgeon, can save the life of the mother and/or the baby.

I have a very close friend from college with endometriosis who conceived and was forced to decide to have an abortion to save her own life or carry the child to term. She carried that baby boy until her 35th week and was admitted to the hospital due to complications. Her baby, despite being born premature, was healthy and is now a very happy and active 8 year old. She chose to carry that child despite overwhelming odds against her and physical pain and against the advice of doctors. She chose life.

I also know a woman from a battered women’s sheltered many years back who was raped in an alleyway on the way home from class. She decided to have an abortion after 5 weeks. To this day, the question of, “Who would that child have been?” haunts her. She’s haunted by her choice, but I do not hold her in any lesser regard than my friend who is now a mother. Her sin is for her to repent.

Just as Sen. Paul said, ...”there are thousands of exceptions...” The only thing I’ve definitively come out to say on this surrounding my own beliefs is in post 44 I said, “Abortion for the sake of ‘correcting a mistake’ is grotesque and in violation of tenets in every Christian faith,” and I stand behind that.

This CNN interviewer had Rand Paul pigeonholed and wanted him on the record saying he supported abortion in some way, shape, or form, and they succeeded. Paul discussed the issue from a medical perspective, and for that, I applaud him. He made it as non-political and non-religious as he could considering the circumstances.

I stand behind his legislation, but that doesn’t mean it’s appropriate insomuch as we shouldn’t be having this discussion to begin with. The Liberals opened this can of worms back in the 70s, and now it’s hanging like a stone around the necks of every American based on their position on the subject.

Just because a Catholic like myself believes that abortion is morally objectionable and against the tenets of my faith does not mean I’m going to stand up for an amendment to a law that should not have been affirmed in the first place. These should be private medical decisions made by competent adults. There should not be advertisements for subsidization of these procedures because some ghetto whore can’t stop sleeping around with every man in the neighborhood. Defending the indefensible is no different than affirming the act itself.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Now, you’re even misquoting yourself!

[Hot Tabasco]

Here, I was going to be supportive of Rand Paul.

Before you cast judgment on Rand Paul, why don't you wait until the MSM starts asking members of the Democrat party the same questions.

I'm not so certain that all of the Dems support abortion but then they're NEVER asked.

In virtually every election the MSM attempts to divide and conquer the GOP on this issue and the GOP falls for it every time.

We currently have the most conservative Supreme Court since around 1945, every one of our Republican presidents in the past 35+ years have been pro-life, so why hasn't R v. W been overturned and why does the abortion issue remain front and center for GOP candidates when there is not a damn thing they can do about it if elected?

[rarestia]

Where? Stop making unvalidated claims. I quoted myself directly from the post. I copy/pasted the quote straight from it. Of what are you accusing me now?

[Dead Corpse]

IOW... you had no clue what Rand’s position was and just decided to pile on.

Ok then...

[Gene Eric]

>> He is a LIBERTARIAN = LIBERTINE = ANARCHIST.

A libertarian is opposed to statism. Your moral grievances are with liberalism.

[rarestia]

What’s his position then, Corpse? It’s not clear by the article. What information do you have to add? I’m all ears.

[Dead Corpse]

Ok... One more time... Read it this time please...

“I do not support amnesty, I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves. However, millions of illegal immigrants are crossing our border without our knowledge and causing a clear threat to our national security. I want to work in the Senate to secure our border immediately. In addition, I support the creation of a border fence and increased border patrol capabilities.

Immigrants should meet the current requirements, which should be enforced and updated. I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common.

I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.

Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation’s security. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.”

Directly from here:

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=12

[Dead Corpse]

“I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.

I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.

I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. I support a Human Life Amendment and have co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. In addition, I support a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement.”

Copied form here...

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3

[Dead Corpse]

In fact...

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issues

Just read. Anything from the above link.

I know you won’t. You don’t care. It doesn’t fit the “All Paul’s are libertine kook” template y’all are passing around.

[rarestia]

I’m going to just ignore post 132, because we never discussed immigration nor was anything I’ve posted intended to be a commentary on immigration or Paul’s stance on it.

His pro-life stance is admirable and akin to my own. You are, however, quoting from his Senate webpage and not exactly commenting on what he said during this interview with CNN. What are you impressions on his commentary therein?

[rarestia]

Dude, stop wallowing in your doubt and discuss. I’ve read everything you’ve written. My initial comment was a response to what was written in the article. You immediately dismiss me as an anti-Rand-Paul FReeper, and you couldn’t be further from the truth.

Stop dismissing everyone who doesn’t believe exactly what you do and understand that some of us base our arguments and discussions from different perspectives than you. Just because I posted my beliefs on abortion from my personal principle standpoint doesn’t mean I don’t agree with Paul. Hell, I voted for his father in the primaries in 2004 and 2008 and 2012.

[Dead Corpse]

That if he would have taken a hard line stance the media would be crucifying him right now.

Like all politicians... Don’t judge by what they say, but by what they do.

What did Paul do? He penned a Senate Bill that pins the protection for life to conception. Completely guts prophylactic abortion and even extends to protecting the life of a child started under rape and incest without having to step in the tar pit the liberal media has used to torpedo other conservative politicians. The “exceptions” he mentions are the case-by-case “Mother will die” type medical procedures that no one in their right mind would rule out.

Pure. Genius.

And yet he still takes a double ration of crap here because of who his DAD is. My Dad and I disagree on a large number of things. Why would the Paul’s be any different?

[rarestia]

I don’t equate Ron to Rand. They are certainly different beasts. My father and I are similarly different in many ways: he likes cars, I prefer computers; I like to hunt, he likes to fish.

I do not fundamentally disagree with Paul’s stance. I was making the case that someone who stands by their principles will have no problem defending them. I don’t disagree that Paul had to make the best of a bad situation, and I believe he navigated the CNN minefield quite well.