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.)
The NUT doesn’t fall too far from the family tree it appears.
"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.
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!
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.
He denied the press the sound bite they were looking for.
So you would not end a tubal pregnancy...
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.
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...”
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.
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?”
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.
Let’s take care of the 80% and talk about the 20% extraneous “exceptions” after we do.
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?
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.
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.
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.