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

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

[Casie]

...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....

[rarestia]

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."

[Sola Veritas]

“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.

[SoConPubbie]

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

[Gunslingr3]

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."

[SoConPubbie]

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.

[so_real]

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.

[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.

You are trolling. Period.

[Erik Latranyi]

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.

[Redmen4ever]

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.

[SoConPubbie]

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.

[dadfly]

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.

[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.

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.

[JohnPDuncan]

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.

[soycd]

>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.

[Casie]

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. :)

[SoConPubbie]

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?

[Trailerpark Badass]

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?

[SoConPubbie]

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.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

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.