8 votes

Atlantic Mag: Rand Paul Isn't 100% Pro-Life Anymore

Cue the video to 9:40:


http://youtu.be/kHN4f8qHXfk

Atlantic Mag: Republican Senator Rand Paul has described himself as "100 percent pro life" but on Tuesday, he told CNN that there are "thousands of exceptions" to the "Life at Conception Act" he introduced on March 15, which suggests that one of those two things is not precisely true.

Here is Paul's exchange with Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room talking about his pro-life sounding bill:

Blitzer : 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?

Paul: I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is there are thousands of exceptions. I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different. Everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what is going on that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother…. There are a lot of decisions made privately by families and doctors that really won’t, the law won’t apply to, but I think it is important we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeon hole and say this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family and physician.

Blitzer: It sounds like you believe in some exceptions.

Paul: 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 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 people came more to my way of thinking 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.

The idea that people shouldn't be boxed into a set of stringent rules set by others sounds ... familiar. Forget for a moment that the junior Kentucky Senator said this, and what you essentially have there is basically what pro-choice advocates have been arguing.

Continue...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rand should simply

Rand should reintroduce the Sanctity of Life Act. Ron's bill simply turned this issue over to the states. Call his office if you feel the same why I do : 202-224-4343

Perhaps someone can also explain to me the merits of the Life at Conception Act because to me it reads that Abortions are banned across the country with some exemptions. That will not gain supporters. The pro-life crowd will eat it up but Libertarians and Constitutionalists, in my opinion, prefer the Sanctity of Life Act which had the added benefit of pro-lifers supporting the bill as well.

Good for you Rand

I thought that was a good interview.

Rand is moving to restrict government, not individuals

Pro-choice does not run around saying life begins at conception.

Rand is tying the federal governments hands so it can not fund abortions. What the states want to do the states will do, but Rand is removing the federal government from the piggy bank for funding abortions and stem cell.

The Media These Days Sure Seems to be Focused on Eroding

support for Rand Paul among the grassroots. I wonder why they might be devoting such energy to de-railing him?

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Rand needs to watch his mouth

He's getting into a little too much double speak and he's going to loose a bunch of us on this one.

Sounds similar to his

explanation regarding illegal immigration/amnesty.

He likes to compromise - totally different approach than his father's. Compromise in some situations is acceptable but these issues (abortion, amnesty, IMHO) leave little room for compromise and allowing wiggle room is like opening a Pandora's box. Very hard to re-contain what you attempted to control when it is allowed to wrest itself from its constraints.

The "thousands of exceptions" mind-set is sooooooo broad but an excellent premise if one is given to compromise.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

"Ron he ain't"

....!

damn he's good

very impressive navigation of the toughest issues.

Rand Paul 2016

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

Smooth as silk.

.

Rand is playing to the

Rand is playing to the crowd...

Let me just vent... :-/

For my background, I was actually pro-Rand (or, rather, not rabidly anti-Rand) before, but when he came up with that proposed *Federal Law* all I could do was say WTF? to myself, and refrain from posting any comments...

Just one question, "Why now???" -- I can see that he was trying to do what some of us has been accusing him of doing for quite some time, namely, playing political games. But that was a game playing which would jeopardize the core of the reasons why *we* (do not mean to make it collective, read it as "some of us", please!) would have supported Rand.

You see, when I got to talk to a somewhat sane, but not yet educated person on the Left, and they would bring up abortion stance against Ron (in the last two cycles) it actually gave me a good feeling to point it that as much as Ron *personally* is against abortion, he would never try to take the right to decide the interpretation of right & wrong away from the states and, ultimately, the person!

His son did just that... :(

Why???

Yes, I can be convinced that life begins at conception, by a theological argument, and that it is wrong to take it away; and you would not even have to convince this Taoist Agnostic that abortion is bad, and more people around would mean more interesting world for everyone, and more chances that the next Einstein or Paul emerge :) -- but still... Why? And why now?

Did he backtrack because of "the libertarians"? Should I, as a libertarian (anarchist in my worldview, and Ron Paul republican in my political views) still respect him?

Sorry, Rand... I want to be behind you, but you have to tell me what you are really up to, just like your Dad did, and make me decide, OK?

Paul

Well said. IMHO, Rand's

Well said. IMHO, Rand's support for a federal ban on abortion shows that either he has tin ear about politics (contrary to his reputation as a savy guy) or that he really believes in a federal ban. If he the latter is true, his instincts are too often the reverse of Ron's, who always preferred to rely on the states on such issues.

Rand Sounds Great...

As a politician. As amazing as he sounds, I will personally focus on the message of liberty and not get too hopeful on just one individual. The message of liberty is my leader; not the messengers of liberty.

Good luck Rand and God Be With You!!!!

"We’ve moved beyond the Mises textbook. We’re running in the open market." - Erik Voorhees

"thousands"

Seems like "conservatives" are getting all up in arms about the word "thousands" when it really seems to mean actual instances where life the of the mother could be called into question. with 1.2 million abortions a few thousand would equal less than .25% and thus would seem closer to the number of abortions due to protecting the life of the mother.

He is just saying

Not every issue is black and white. He's a physician and he has SEEN thousands of exceptions where it could be disastrous to have the child. He could be speaking figuratively. It is a philosophical debate to a great extent. Turning it into something more is radical. I mean hes the one who introduced the bill to begin with!

Does he mean "there are

Does he mean "there are thousands of exceptions" which would condone abortion? The three that come to mind and were mentioned are incest, rape and life of the mother. Beyond that what else is crucial to the argument? ... (emotional stress [for whom?], form of birth control, financial burden, embarrassment, political views...more? Is there more to this argument that would be put forth by pro-choice advocates that I'm unaware of? What this boils down to is ... where is Rand Paul on this issue since he seems to think it matters enough to put forward an anti-abortion bill at the federal level with "thousands of exceptions"? It sounds like a lot of 'politician-itis' as he stakes out his bid for 2016.

Looks like scientific training

put Rand's blind beliefs in miracles and revelations to the back burner. That IS a rational move.

Free person should procreate based on his own ability to feed his children. Multiplying the poor and crippled as a means for the religious to enter the heaven or find an excuse to sacrifice productive men for is an old dogma we do not need.

I noticed you have never posted anything,

but comment quite frequently...interesting.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

This is a cut and paste.

This is a cut and paste.

I downvoted your last post too.

Did you write it yourself, or did someone hand it to you?

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Bump

for MoxNews