Posted on 04/26/2014 10:45:28 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who stirred up controversy after saying that there can be "thousands of exceptions" to a ban on abortion, has clarified that he is still a pro-life politician.
"What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions," Paul told CNN on Tuesday.
"You know, I'm a physician and every individual case is going to be different and everything's going to be particular to that individual case and what's going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother," he stated.
The senator has introduced a "Life at Conception Act," which upholds traditional religious beliefs that human life begins at conception. Despite his proposed bill, he admitted that many Americans aren't ready for such a drastic change.
"My intention is to bring it forward and to have a healthy philosophic and moral discussion over what we should do, what the state should be involved with, when should life be protected. And I don't think we're ready yet, our society, maybe, to change any laws, but I think it's worthwhile having the discussion if we can keep it from being too much of a flippant of a discussion over this that concrete this and that," Paul explained.
Paul spokesman Doug Stafford explained to LifeNews, however, that the senator's statements were not fully understood by the media.
"Paul meant that a singular exception to save the life of the mother would likely cover thousands of individual cases – for example, ectopic pregnancies or others that directly threaten the mother's life," Stafford clarified.
As to Paul's comments that he doesn't expect to see a full abortion ban in America any time soon, the spokesperson insisted that that is just looking at the reality of the situation.
"[Paul] was trying to say that while he believes in all of these things and will keep pushing them, he won't succeed soon because the country isn't there yet. I think public opinion polls show that. The country is at best split, and we don't yet have a culture that fully supports life," Stafford added.
Caffeinated Thoughts, a conservative news and commentary website, argued that even if the senator's comments were misunderstood, his stance on pro-life issues is still troublesome.
"If you believe in 'thousands of exceptions' you are not pro-life. If you believe that life begins at conception and believe in ANY exceptions other than perhaps the life of the mother then there is something seriously flawed with your worldview," wrote Shane Vander Hart, founder and editor-in-chief of Caffeinated Thoughts.
"Some say he was taken out of context, but even so, it was not a well-thought out statement. It was politically flawed. It made him look like a flip-flopper."
At the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., last September, Paul revealed that he struggles with doubt in his Christian faith.
"My faith has never been easy for me," Paul said, "never been easy to talk about and never been without obstacles. I do not and cannot wear my religion on my sleeve. I am a Christian but not always a good one. I'm not completely free of doubts. I struggle to understand man's inhumanity to man. I struggle to understand the horrible tragedies that war inflicts on our young men and women."
A principled stance has NO EXCEPTIONS!!
1. No abortion. No exceptions.
2. No taxes. No exceptions.
3. No welfare. No exceptions.
4. No minimum wage. No exceptions.
5. No world policing. No exceptions.
Effe DemocRat Ru Paul.
Is Paul pro life or not? That is the topic of this thread. If you contend Paul is not prolife then please submit your evidence. Paul has been a US Senator for 4 years, he has a record, show me where in Paul’s US Senate voting record he is not prolife. thanks
See post 20, I would have to say that Paul is not pro-life.
That is what this thread article is revealing.
Careful - you will be accused of being a left-Wing plant if you ask them to use their brains for actual thinking.
Despite all evidence of the world being a myriad subset of gray shades, there are many who are incapable of admitting that reality is not and cannot be a pure black/white enterprise. That thinking dooms us to Leftist control because they will invariably find reason to 'disqualify" anyone on our side who shows the ability to think in terms of reality.
“Careful - you will be accused of being a left-Wing plant if you ask them to use their brains for actual thinking.”
Yeah, don’t I know it!
I read the article, Paul was talking about an exception for the LIFE of the mother. I agree with him.
No he wasn’t, there is no discussion about “an exception for the LIFE of the mother” of the mother, there are no politics on “an exception for the LIFE of the mother” of the mother, there are no political movements or arguments against “an exception for the LIFE of the mother” and Paul wasn’t having so much trouble and rambling and taking so long answering the abortion question because he was merely agreeing with the GOP pro-life position of “an exception for the LIFE of the mother” of the mother.
This is a guy who is telling us about “exceptions” to the GOP party platform position:
BLITZER: So, just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do believe that, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, is that right?
PAUL: Well, I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions.
“” I don’t think it’s a simple as checking box and saying exceptions or no exceptions.””
“”And there are a lot of decisions that are made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t — the law won’t apply to, but I think it’s important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeon hole and say, oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family. And so, I don’t know if there’s a simple way to put me in a category on any of that.””
BLITZER: Well, it sounds like you believe in some exceptions.
PAUL: Well, there’s going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved *”and other things that are involved”*.
So, 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, the people came more to my way of thinking, it’s still be a lot of complicated things that 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.
What is wrong with people bump to read later.
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.