# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Rand Paul aborts his own pro life views live on cnn

## Brett85

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/2...s-live-on-cnn/

----------


## ronpaulfollower999



----------


## sailingaway

OK, what they quoted sounded weird. Did it actually come out that way?

----------


## Brett85

> OK, what they quoted sounded weird. Did it actually come out that way?


I watched the interview Live.  What they're saying is essentially true.

----------


## Antischism

Wow, he's all over the place. Maybe his beliefs are evolving.

----------


## Brett85

Free Republic and all of the other conservative sites are all trashing Rand over this.  Immigration reform is one thing, but he's really going to lose a lot of support among conservatives if he won't stand for life.

----------


## TokenLibertarianGuy

Sad. There are no exceptions when abortion suddenly isn't murder.

----------


## torchbearer

> Wow, he's all over the place. Maybe his beliefs are evolving.


it would be like me saying that personally, I am against aborting a baby, but in the same breathe say that when it comes to federal laws, things become complicated and may have many exceptions. I have a hard time envisioning a law that can account for every life event. I didn't see him as all over the place. but a complex issue given layers of answers.

----------


## sailingaway

> it would be like me saying that personally, I am against aborting a baby, but in the same breathe say that when it comes to federal laws, things become complicated and may have many exceptions. I have a hard time envisioning a law that can account for every life event. I didn't see him as all over the place. but a complex issue given layers of answers.


Wouldn't that be a situation where you might refrain from filing a bill?

----------


## sailingaway

Maybe it's just a clarification thing.  We'll see.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Honestly, I'd still vote for Ron Paul if he were pro-choice, but Rand is already a huge compromise and ever concession he makes I'm getting scared that he'll give up more and more.  As I mentioned in a PM, I don't expect him to get into hardcore libertarian theory every time he is in front of a podium, but I do expect him to at least stand for the constitution and not contradict himself all the time...  The latter is important because it means I don't know what he'd actually do in office.

This bothers me more than if he had just said he was pro-choice from the outset, because its making me doubt his sincerity.  And seriously?  three thousand exceptions?  If he said "Three" maybe I'd just say he changed his views on rape and incest and sort of give him a pass, but three thousand?  It sounds like he's saying "Life begins at conception but abortion is a decisino between a woman and her doctor so cognitive dissonance."

If Rand doesn't stop playing politics he may lose my support soon.  Every time he does this I trust him less and less.  I don't want another rhetorical genius like Reagan, I want someone who actually supports at least most of my values.  

This is just showing, once again, that Rand really should just change his last name so people would judge him on his own merits instead of on his father's.

----------


## Antischism

> it would be like me saying that personally, I am against aborting a baby, but in the same breathe say that when it comes to federal laws, things become complicated and may have many exceptions. I have a hard time envisioning a law that can account for every life event. I didn't see him as all over the place. but a complex issue given layers of answers.


I mean given what he has previously stated and the bill in question, it comes off as very odd and malformed to me, unless he's in the process of refining his views on the issue or trying to come across as less "extreme" on abortion.

----------


## jkr

THE COMMENTS ARE ASS

----------


## Lightweis

> Honestly, I'd still vote for Ron Paul if he were pro-choice, but Rand is already a huge compromise and ever concession he makes I'm getting scared that he'll give up more and more.  As I mentioned in a PM, I don't expect him to get into hardcore libertarian theory every time he is in front of a podium, but I do expect him to at least stand for the constitution and not contradict himself all the time...  The latter is important because it means I don't know what he'd actually do in office.
> 
> This bothers me more than if he had just said he was pro-choice from the outset, because its making me doubt his sincerity.  And seriously?  three thousand exceptions?  If he said "Three" maybe I'd just say he changed his views on rape and incest and sort of give him a pass, but three thousand?  It sounds like he's saying "Life begins at conception but abortion is a decisino between a woman and her doctor so cognitive dissonance."
> 
> If Rand doesn't stop playing politics he may lose my support soon.  Every time he does this I trust him less and less.  I don't want another rhetorical genius like Reagan, I want someone who actually supports at least most of my values.  
> 
> This is just showing, once again, that Rand really should just change his last name so people would judge him on his own merits instead of on his father's.


Ok who else are u going to support in 2016?

----------


## torchbearer

> Wouldn't that be a situation where you might refrain from filing a bill?


 when it comes to life of the mother, pro-life absolutist say the women must die, even if there is a good chance the baby dies also. and though this incident is probably not happening that often, a law forbidding abortions, no matter what- condems that particular woman to death, and takes the decision away from her and her family.
 You can say life begins at conceptions, recognizing life. but then recognize a simple law at the federal level won't be good enough.

----------


## sailingaway

the Blaze on it: h xxp://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/cnn-asked-rand-paul-about-abortion-exceptions-this-is-how-he-answered/

----------


## Brian4Liberty

The red herring strikes again. Rand shouldn't have chased it.

Someone will be unhappy no matter what comes from this. If there is not enough support to pass a Constitutional Amendment, then the Federal government should just stay out of issues like this, where there is nothing close to consensus.

----------


## sailingaway

> when it comes to life of the mother, pro-life absolutist say the women must die, even if there is a good chance the baby dies also. and though this incident is probably not happening that often, a law forbidding abortions, no matter what- condems that particular woman to death, and takes the decision away from her and her family.
>  You can say life begins at conceptions, recognizing life. but then recognize a simple law at the federal level won't be good enough.



I don't have to say anything at all because I didn't just sponsor a bill on it, but he had better figure out what the bill means, even if it is just 'the states decide when it applies and they are sovereign on those decisions', imho.

----------


## itshappening

Rand is pro-life and will make that clear.  The FreeRepublic crowd hate everyone and look for any excuse to dump on them

----------


## Brian4Liberty

This is going to play right into the gender divides that the mainstream media has been pushing.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

This is good politics on Rand's part. Short term he will take some flak, but long view putting this bill forward will help him when trying for the nomination.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

I'm afraid Rand is getting off the beaten path too much lately and it is resulting in his support levels dropping off. Sticking his neck out on immigration was one thing but these social issues are enough for someone that likes you 90% of the time to immediately withdraw support. He's getting ahead of himself and is offering tmi.

----------


## torchbearer

> I don't have to say anything at all because I didn't just sponsor a bill on it, but he had better figure out what the bill means, even if it is just 'the states decide when it applies and they are sovereign on those decisions', imho.


maybe look at a different situation, where we recognize both entities as living humans with rights. two mountain climbers in a rare situation where one has fallen, and is dragging the other guy to his death. is it murder if you cut the rope tying you together if it is to save your own life?

----------


## sailingaway

> This is good politics on Rand's part. Short term he will take some flak, but long view putting this bill forward will help him when trying for the nomination.



The question isn't having a bill but presenting a principled position and being able to articulate what the principle is.  Misspeaking happens, but he'll want to clear this up.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Rand could be stringently pro-life, but approach it like Ron did.  It would be a win/win.  Ron rarely got too far into questions of exceptions.  He just offered a solution that would actually END state funding of abortion.  Why isn't Rand talking about that!?

----------


## sailingaway

> maybe look at a different situation, where we recognize both entities as living humans with rights. two mountain climbers in a rare situation where one has fallen, and if dragging the other guy to his death. is it murder if you cut the rope tying you together if it is to save your own life?


My point is that what I think doesn't matter. If you are passing a law you need to know what it does or doesn't do, because unanticipated consequences become enshrined. He needs to be able to articulate it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm afraid Rand is getting off the beaten path too much lately and it is resulting in his support levels dropping off. Sticking his neck out on immigration was one thing but these social issues are enough for someone that likes you 90% of the time to immediately withdraw support. He's getting ahead of himself and is offering tmi.





> Rand could be stringently pro-life, but approach it like Ron did.  It would be a win/win.  Ron rarely got too far into questions of exceptions.  He just offered a solution that would actually END state funding of abortion.  Why isn't Rand talking about that!?


As you guys well know, I'm strongly against legalized abortion but that's not my problem here.  My problem here is a compromise on Rand's own principle.  Is he going to be doing this constantly in order to get elected?  I can tolerate a few mistakes, but I can tell you, I'm willing to not vote for him if he shows a lack of principle like this consistently.

----------


## jmdrake

Well for those of you hoping Rand would flip flop on this, I hope you're happy.

For those of us living in political reality:



Geeze!  Why can't Rand think through his positions, come up with something solid and stick with it?  Something like "The purpose of this bill isn't to create a federal ban on abortion, but to undercut the argument of Roe v. Wade that there isn't a compelling state interest in protecting life.  States do have an interest because a fetus is a person.  But just like states vary on the definitions of and penalties for murder than can differ on abortion."

In fact, Rand can still say ^that.

----------


## jmdrake

> My point is that what I think doesn't matter. If you are passing a law you need to know what it does or doesn't do, because unanticipated consequences become enshrined. He needs to be able to articulate it.


Yeah.  _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sailingaway again._

The one thing liberals and independents that I know liked about Ron Paul is that they were sure where he stood even if they disagreed.  Rand overcompensating and appearing to pander will only get him so far.  This is not the way to win independents.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

Here's the video of Rand in his own words.

----------


## Christian Liberty

To be clear, I haven't given up my support of Rand yet, but I'm very unhappy.  When someone does this I seriously second-guess their principle.  And if I can't even trust them to be principled on their positions, it doesn't really matter if they agree with me on every single issue, since they could just give up those positions at any time.  Compare what Reagan said to what he did and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.  Reagan talked about "Government overstepping its bound when it stops you from hurting yourself" while all the while punishing drug users and dealers...

Since the GOP, except Ron Paul (I would have included Rand here until today) is mostly BS on abortion anyway, I don't mind so much voting for a pro-choice candidate.  Its uncomfortable but I'd do it if I had to.  But this... Rand is just showing himself as untrustworthy, which is even worse.

He has 3 years to redeem himself but right now I'm kind of ticked.  I also think that this may well be the first of many.  Rand is turning into a politician.  Which was exactly my fear with all this compromise.  I highly doubt he stops being a politiican here.

----------


## NY-Dano

Isn't this bill basically the same thing as Ron's Sanctity of Life Act? So life would be defined at conception (thus basically overturning Roe v. Wade) but it would be up to the States? Therefore what Rand said may not be totally inaccurate, but he does need to clarify.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah.  _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sailingaway again._
> 
> The one thing liberals and independents that I know liked about Ron Paul is that they were sure where he stood even if they disagreed.  Rand overcompensating and appearing to pander will only get him so far.  This is not the way to win independents.


When I was a neoconservative, this was the biggest reason (That and his conservative view on the economy, I was a weird neoconservative that actually supported real conservative views on ecomonics even while supporting insane foreign policy) I initially liked him even while disagreeing with him all the time.

Rand Paul is pissing me off.  This is exactly what I was afraid of with too much compromise.  I don't give a crap if we actually win or not, since we can't.  We need to be the movement of principle, and do the right thing REGARDLESS of if we win or not.

I know I'm going to get neg repped for this but I don't care.  Screw winning.  Be principled, and leave the results to God.

----------


## thoughtomator

I honestly don't give a $#@! about abortion, a lot more people are going to die if we don't end the wars and fix our finances, and there's nobody in office better than Rand on that. If you're genuinely pro-life, making a short-term compromise on abortion shouldn't be a problem as a practical matter. People who have already been born count as life too.

----------


## brandon

This is one issue that I hope Rand can play both sides of without ever having a firm opinion. What a waste of time.

----------


## No Free Beer

I am 100% pro-life and I did not see anything wrong with Rand's answer

----------


## cajuncocoa

Rand is trying to play both sides on too many issues.  I'm back to asking:  Who is Rand Paul?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I honestly don't give a $#@! about abortion, a lot more people are going to die if we don't end the wars and fix our finances, and there's nobody in office better than Rand on that. If you're genuinely pro-life, making a short-term compromise on abortion shouldn't be a problem as a practical matter. People who have already been born count as life too.





> I am 100% pro-life and I did not see anything wrong with Rand's answer


Although I would think less of a candidate who supported abortion when compared to one who did not, all other things being equal, I have said already that I'm willing to make that compromise.  The Republicans are just as "BS" on this as Rand anyway.  Other than maybe a few of the harder-core conservatives, the party as a whole doesn't give a crap anyway.

What worries me here is the lack of consistency.  If he stops with "Lacking consistency" here than I will still support him, and strongly.  I'm not going to let one mistake ruin his career.  I am, however, much, much more skeptical of him now.  Ron Paul would NEVER stupidly contradict himself like this.  And while one scenario like this may be worth looking past, a few of them and we could very easily have another Ronald Reagan on our hands.  Which is to say, not terrible, but certainly nothing close to a constitutionalist, let alone a libertarian, yet having libertarian rhetoric.  I don't want a guy who has libertarian rhetoric if he won't follow through.  I'd rather have a guy who doesn't even pretend.  And I fear that by 2016, Rand will be corrupted to the point where it doesn't matter.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Rand is trying to play both sides on too many issues.  I'm back to asking:  Who is Rand Paul?


+1.  Me too.

----------


## jmdrake

> I honestly don't give a $#@! about abortion, a lot more people are going to die if we don't end the wars and fix our finances, and there's nobody in office better than Rand on that. If you're genuinely pro-life, making a short-term compromise on abortion shouldn't be a problem as a practical matter. People who have already been born count as life too.


I care about winning.  And sadly many of the people Rand might lose on this are the same ones he kinda/sorta won over after soft-peddling his dad's foreign policy.  They don't really care, as you and I do, about ending the wars.  And if it was just about finances, Ron should be president.  This was a tactical blunder, no question about it.  Hopefully it's far enough out for him to recover.  But I can see the attack ads forming as I type this.

----------


## V3n

Saying complicated issues involve exceptions and discussion = flip flop  

lolwut??

----------


## itshappening

By the way Blitzter was soft on him re: abortion. Sooner or later someone will try and pin him down on rape and incest and will press him on it hoping to get him to say the R word or make a silly statement.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I care about winning.  And sadly many of the people Rand might lose on this are the same ones he kinda/sorta won over after soft-peddling his dad's foreign policy.  They don't really care, as you and I do, about ending the wars.  And if it was just about finances, Ron should be president.  This was a tactical blunder, no question about it.  Hopefully it's far enough out for him to recover.  But I can see the attack ads forming as I type this.


He can recover from this, he just needs to stop doing it.  Now.




> By the way Blitzter was soft on him re: abortion. Sooner or later someone will try and pin him down on rape and incest and will press him on it hoping to get him to say the R word or make a silly statement.


I would just answer "Our constitution does not mention abortion, and so while I personally feel that abortion is murder even in this case (I would not say the word "Rape" so it would be harder to cherry pick the quote), the constitution does not give me authority as President of the United States to pass any laws on this issue, and so in accordance with the 10th amendment I support the rights of each state to make its own abortion laws."

Would that work?

----------


## supermario21

By introducing the life at conception act, I wouldn't suspect Rand is pro-choice considering most people (media/leftist types) view that piece of legislation as right-wing buffoonery. I would question my support of Rand if he supported abortion for anything other than grave threat to the mother (maybe tolerate rape/incest, that's it).

----------


## supermario21

> He can recover from this, he just needs to stop doing it.  Now.
> 
> 
> 
> I would just answer "Our constitution does not mention abortion, and so while I personally feel that abortion is murder even in this case (I would not say the word "Rape" so it would be harder to cherry pick the quote), the constitution does not give me authority as President of the United States to pass any laws on this issue, and so in accordance with the 10th amendment I support the rights of each state to make its own abortion laws."
> 
> Would that work?



To us, yes, to evangelicals, no. They'll say a states rights position is de-facto pro choice. Even though we control about 30 states. It's why this issue is so hard to argue, every side has their own views and objectives, which as Rand correctly said on CNN, is more than "check the box." That's why I think there is mass over-reaction here.

----------


## TheGrinch

Not crazy about inconsistent messaging at all, but he did also say that while the country isn't ready to legislate on the issue, that he introduced the bill more to just get a debate going.

I don't see anything wrong with him conceding that there may be a number of extraneous instances where it may be wrong to take away the mother/doctors choice (such as in cases of rape or life-threatening situations), but that he personally believes that life should be defined as at conception and will stand for that principle. The problem is that "doctor/mother choice" does contradict his previous rhetoric, but he has also claimed to be a realist on other issues, so perhaps here too on the lone issue I think compromise may be necessary (not even libertarians agree on this issue).

Really I just wish that he'd keep his mouth shut unless he was asked, but since this stands to only lose him political points (amazing how you can piss off pro-choicers, pro-lifers and even agnostics on the issue in a matter of days), maybe he is sincere that we should have a real debate on it now, before it becomes a divisive campaign issue later.

----------


## Brett85

> when it comes to life of the mother, pro-life absolutist say the women must die, even if there is a good chance the baby dies also.


No, I support an exception for the life of the mother.  If that's all Rand was talking about, I don't have a problem with that.  But it's ridiciulous for him to say that he supports "thousands of exceptions to a ban on abortion."  It didn't just limit it to the life of the mother.

----------


## cajuncocoa

What makes no sense to me about this is not just the inconsistency on the issue of abortion, but the lack of logic behind it....if we are to believe what we've been told by Rand's strongest supporters right here on RPF.  When it comes to foreign policy, we've been told that Rand has to say certain things to appeal to Glenn Beck's audience.  He had to endorse Mitt Romney so that he would still be viable in the GOP.  But when it comes to an issue that is heart and soul to most GOP voters, he flip-flops before the ink is dry on his own amendment.  WTF?

----------


## Brett85

> Saying complicated issues involve exceptions and discussion = flip flop  
> 
> lolwut??


Then why introduce a bill that bans all abortions nationwide?  He should take a consistent position on the issue.

----------


## TheGrinch

> No, I support an exception for the life of the mother.  If that's all Rand was talking about, I don't have a problem with that.  But it's ridiciulous for him to say that he supports "thousands of exceptions to a ban on abortion."  It didn't just limit it to the life of the mother.


You'd have to think he meant thousands of individual exceptions, not thousands of reasons. He may have made a bluder here, but he's not stupid to completely go back on the legislation he just put forth.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Then why introduce a bill that bans all abortions nationwide?  He should take a consistent position on the issue.


Did you listen to the interview? He said that he doesn't think America is ready for legislation, but he put forth the bill to get a dialogue going.

----------


## jbauer

God Lord Rand.  Can't you Shut your Fing Mouth?  If you can't handle doing 20 interviews a day then don't do it.  You can never win on abortion no mater how you state it.

----------


## jtstellar

one solution, leave to locals, that's the finality.  let people have the choice to live with a town of aborters or not.  naturally richer neighborhoods will likely have less of these instances.  let the locals decide, and of course when that happens, there will be some places that allow and some that don't, hence "exceptions".  to poor women who say they can't move to some place that does and i shouldn't take their choices away, i say don't take my choices away to decide whether i want my town to be one full of aborters, not just me, 70% other people in the town as well, it is you that need to get kicked out/moved out/shipped out

 not forcefully but if you threaten a doctor to perform services the town does not want provided.  if all your neighbors hate you, chances are you shouldn't be there anyway.

----------


## itshappening

> Then why introduce a bill that bans all abortions nationwide?  He should take a consistent position on the issue.


He is being consistent.  He's just not saying the exact words you want him to say.  Considering he's speaking on CNN and to Wolf Blitzer he's not going to sound like a hardcore anti-abortionist.

----------


## Christian Liberty

That may have been what he meant but that was so unclear I seriously think that it was an attempt at political rhetoric rather than a genuine mistake.  I still like Rand more than anyone else in the senate but he's showing me more and more that he's a politican.  Honestly, he should just stay where he is for now and focus on being a good senator.  I'll vote for him if he runs for President but I'd advise against it.  Anyone that actually wants to be President really shouldn't be President.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> What makes no sense to me about this is not just the inconsistency on the issue of abortion, but the lack of logic behind it....if we are to believe what we've been told by Rand's strongest supporters right here on RPF.  When it comes to foreign policy, we've been told that Rand has to say certain things to appeal to Glenn Beck's audience.  He had to endorse Mitt Romney so that he would still be viable in the GOP.  *But when it comes to an issue that is heart and soul to most GOP voters*, he flip-flops before the ink is dry on his own amendment.  WTF?


I don't even think that's close to being true. That's exactly what Rand is saying, he knows its not possible right now, but he's pushing the agenda forward.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> one solution, leave to locals, that's the finality.  let people have the choice to live with a town of aborters or not.  naturally richer neighborhoods will likely have less of these instances.  let the locals decide, and of course when that happens, there will be some places that allow and some that don't, hence "exceptions".  to poor women who say they can't move to some place that does and i shouldn't take their choices away, i say don't take my choices away to decide whether i want my town to be one full of aborters, not just me, 70% other people in the town as well, it is you that need to get kicked out/moved out/shipped out


This really is the only workable solution as far as I can see.

----------


## itshappening

> What makes no sense to me about this is not just the inconsistency on the issue of abortion, but the lack of logic behind it....if we are to believe what we've been told by Rand's strongest supporters right here on RPF.  When it comes to foreign policy, we've been told that Rand has to say certain things to appeal to Glenn Beck's audience.  He had to endorse Mitt Romney so that he would still be viable in the GOP.  But when it comes to an issue that is heart and soul to most GOP voters, he flip-flops before the ink is dry on his own amendment.  WTF?


He hasn't flip flopped.  He does not support abortion but thinks there are cases where doctors should make a decision like the one in Ireland where they couldn't abort the baby and the mother died.  Do you expect him to say to Wolf Blizter : "Yes Wolf, I support banning abortions even when the mothers life is in danger, that'll show her!"?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> He hasn't flip flopped.  He does not support abortion but thinks there are cases where doctors should make a decision like the one in Ireland where they couldn't abort the baby and the mother died.  Do you expect him to say to Wolf Blizter : "Yes Wolf, I support banning abortions even when the mothers life is in danger, that'll show her!"?


Well, he opened up that can of worms with the amendment he proposed.  Why go there if he didn't want to answer that question...and since he did go there (proposing the amendment) his response to Blitzer looks like a flip-flop.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He hasn't flip flopped.  He does not support abortion but thinks there are cases where doctors should make a decision like the one in Ireland where they couldn't abort the baby and the mother died.  Do you expect him to say to Wolf Blizter : "Yes Wolf, I support banning abortions even when the mothers life is in danger, that'll show her!"?


No, even I don't support that (I support the life of the mother restriction, but not the rape or incest exceptions, and I oppose Federal involvement on the issue since its not in the constitution.)  I see no reason why Rand couldn't have said something like I said "I believe abortion is murder even in that case (Meaning rape, but not saying the word rape so it can't be soundbited) but since its not in the constitution I support state's rights to make their own laws on this issue and keep the Federal government out of it."

----------


## torchbearer

I think people are not understanding why I brought up the mountain climber example. life at conception is the statement that human rights of life are granted and protected by the state. but even still, their are exceptions. as in the mountain climber example. it isn't just about crafting a law for a mothers life exception, its about the fact that there isn't a consensus on what those exceptions are and there won't be until there is a debate. sounds like a non-answer, but is the answer.

----------


## itshappening

> No, even I don't support that (I support the life of the mother restriction, but not the rape or incest exceptions, and I oppose Federal involvement on the issue since its not in the constitution.)  I see no reason why Rand couldn't have said something like I said "I believe abortion is murder even in that case (Meaning rape, but not saying the word rape so it can't be soundbited) but since its not in the constitution I support state's rights to make their own laws on this issue and keep the Federal government out of it."


Because murder, rape and incest are words Rand should never say in the context of abortion.  He's too smart to say that whatever he personally believes.  Just because he's not wording exactly as you want doesn't mean anything.

----------


## thoughtomator

> I care about winning.  And sadly many of the people Rand might lose on this are the same ones he kinda/sorta won over after soft-peddling his dad's foreign policy.  They don't really care, as you and I do, about ending the wars.  And if it was just about finances, Ron should be president.  This was a tactical blunder, no question about it.  Hopefully it's far enough out for him to recover.  But I can see the attack ads forming as I type this.


The GOP herd will line up behind Rand. They lined up behind Romney who is explicitly pro-abortion, Rand is a huge improvement over that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> one solution, leave to locals, that's the finality.  let people have the choice to live with a town of aborters or not.  naturally richer neighborhoods will likely have less of these instances.  let the locals decide, and of course when that happens, there will be some places that allow and some that don't, hence "exceptions".  to poor women who say they can't move to some place that does and i shouldn't take their choices away, i say don't take my choices away to decide whether i want my town to be one full of aborters, not just me, 70% other people in the town as well, it is you that need to get kicked out/moved out/shipped out
> 
>  not forcefully but if you threaten a doctor to perform services the town does not want provided.  if all your neighbors hate you, chances are you shouldn't be there anyway.


I wouldn't viciously oppose this but I disagree and think it should be state, not local, level.  I'm fine with ultra-decentalization of almost anything else, but not murder.  And if you break it down to the town level, its just way too easy to go to the next town and get an abortion.  At least in the state-level its tougher (Personally if I were a governor I'd also try to pass a law saying anyone who leaves state to get an abortion is  exiled for life, but I also realize SCOTUS would never allow this).  The only reason I don't think it should be Federal level is because its not in the constitution, I don't have a problem with a Federal ban on principle.  Theoretically if there were enough support for an amendment to the US constitution defining life as beginning at conception and making it a Federal crime I would have no issue with it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because murder, rape and incest are words Rand should never say in the context of abortion.  He's too smart to say that whatever he personally believes.  Just because he's not wording exactly as you want doesn't mean anything.


I didn't say rape or incest.  Saying "Murder" would give him a huge boost amongst conservatives, while saying "State's rights" would somewhat pacify moderates and liberals.  Or at least, that's how I see it.  I'm no politician...

----------


## TheGrinch

> Well, he opened up that can of worms with the amendment he proposed.  Why go there if he didn't want to answer that question...and since he did go there (proposing the amendment) his response to Blitzer looks like a flip-flop.


In his own words, he proposed the amendment to get a debate going, and not because he thinks legislation is at all likely. Sounds to me like he understands the compromises that will have to be made to end most abortions, but nonetheless wants to get a debate going about "life begins at conception".  Kind of like Ron is on other issues besides this one, "You have to change the morality of the people, not the laws". The only chance for pro-life legislation to pass is to get past the wedge issue and have a reasonable debate.

But no, as far as it will be used against him, it certainly wasn't very politcally savvy, and thus is why I have hard time believing he wants to play politics by getting a debate going on the single biggest wedge issue in American politics.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I wouldn't viciously oppose this but I disagree and think it should be state, not local, level.  I'm fine with ultra-decentalization of almost anything else, but not murder.  And if you break it down to the town level, its just way too easy to go to the next town and get an abortion.  At least in the state-level its tougher (Personally if I were a governor I'd also try to pass a law saying anyone who leaves state to get an abortion is  exiled for life, but I also realize SCOTUS would never allow this).  The only reason I don't think it should be Federal level is because its not in the constitution, I don't have a problem with a Federal ban on principle.  Theoretically if there were enough support for an amendment to the US constitution defining life as beginning at conception and making it a Federal crime I would have no issue with it.


I believe both Rand and Ron's amendments make it clear that murder is still a states matter, and that all the bill would do is emphasize that "life begins at conception" through US citizenhood at that point.

----------


## KingNothing

> Free Republic and all of the other conservative sites are all trashing Rand over this.  Immigration reform is one thing, but he's really going to lose a lot of support among conservatives if he won't stand for life.



Trashing Rand because he doesn't think a rape victim should be forced to carry the baby?  Alright.  Trash away.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> In his own words, he proposed the amendment to get a debate going, and not because he thinks legislation is at all likely. Sounds to me like he understands the compromises that will have to be made to end most abortions, but nonetheless wants to get a debate going about "life begins at conception".  Kind of like Ron is on other issues besides this one, "You have to change the morality of the people, not the laws". The only chance for pro-life legislation to pass is to get past the wedge issue and have a reasonable debate.
> 
> But no, as far as it will be used against him, it certainly wasn't very politcally savvy, and thus is why I have hard time believing he wants to play politics by getting a debate going on the single biggest wedge issue in American politics.


I don't think there has ever been a lack of debate on this issue, and I doubt that Rand's amendment is going to change anyone's mind.  I agree with you, it wasn't politically savvy and I think it will hurt him more than it will help.

----------


## jmdrake

> The GOP herd will line up behind Rand. They lined up behind Romney who is explicitly pro-abortion, Rand is a huge improvement over that.


And Romney ultimately lost.  Romney also was also always the consummate insider.  Rand's an outsider.  Romney had an virtually unlimited personal war-chest.  Rand has "moneybombs".  Prior to the GOP herd lining up behind Rand, there will GOP jackals looking to tear him apart.  This gives them ammo.  All is not lost, but it isn't a good day.

----------


## compromise

WTF is going on? Why would Rand fall into this trap? This is as bad as the Maddow interview.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> In his own words, he proposed the amendment to get a debate going, and not because he thinks legislation is at all likely. Sounds to me like he understands the compromises that will have to be made to end most abortions, but nonetheless wants to get a debate going about "life begins at conception".  Kind of like Ron is on other issues besides this one, "You have to change the morality of the people, not the laws". The only chance for pro-life legislation to pass is to get past the wedge issue and have a reasonable debate.
> 
> But no, as far as it will be used against him,* it certainly wasn't very politcally savvy*, and thus is why I have hard time believing he wants to play politics by getting a debate going on the single biggest wedge issue in American politics.


I disagree. 

He needs to win the Republican nomination first. When he is in campaign mode and everyone forgets about this stupid interview he will have a bill that was going to stop abortion whereas Rubio, etc. have not put a similar bill forward. There is no amount of hot air from pundits that can change that fact. Rand will be the social conservative favorite on paper, at least.

If he is lucky enough to get to the big show he will change his spin on it and marginalize the issue. Simple as that. This was a political move and I think a good one.

----------


## jmdrake

> Trashing Rand because he doesn't think a rape victim should be forced to carry the baby?  Alright.  Trash away.


He said "thousands of exceptions."  That's merely one.  And if your defining the fetus as a "person" with the same right to life as any other "person", that right to life doesn't vanish just because your daddy was a rapist.  The best way to get out of this is not go for exceptions, but say that your attempt is to overturn R v W and throw it back to the states.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I don't think there has ever been a lack of debate on this issue, and I doubt that Rand's amendment is going to change anyone's mind.  I agree with you, it wasn't politically savvy and I think it will hurt him more than it will help.


Well, maybe if he's actually one of the few pro-lifers to emphasize that are exceptions, then maybe we can move past rhetoric that implies "anti-life" and "anti-choice" to find some middl ground, and maybe bring them to our way of thinking in the many cases where ending a life should not be reduced down to "choice". But yeah, I'm not holding my breath on that, but neither am I ready to assume he's just playing politics.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not crazy about inconsistent messaging at all, but he did also say that while the country isn't ready to legislate on the issue, that he introduced the bill more to just get a debate going.


I seem to recall someone quoting him in another thread as originally saying that this bill would ban abortion as we know it, instead of "This bill will start the conversation on how we end abortion."  I could be wrong.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I disagree. 
> 
> He needs to win the Republican nomination first. When he is in campaign mode and everyone forgets about this stupid interview he will have a bill that was going to stop abortion whereas Rubio, etc. have not put a similar bill forward. There is no amount of hot air from pundits that can change that fact. Rand will be the social conservative favorite on paper, at least.
> 
> If he is lucky enough to get to the big show he will change his spin on it and marginalize the issue. Simple as that. This was a political move and I think a good one.


Perhaps, but if he's looking at it as a political move, I think he risks significant backlash as well (the truth has never stopped the smear-machines who are looking for any ammo they can find, just like with Ron, they'll make sure people don't forget). 

But whether you take him at his word, or think he's trying to have his cake and eat it too, I don't find this compromise to be something to get all worked up over... Just know that the smear artists and drama queens will most certainly use it against him.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I disagree. 
> 
> He needs to win the Republican nomination first. When he is in campaign mode and everyone forgets about this stupid interview he will have a bill that was going to stop abortion whereas Rubio, etc. have not put a similar bill forward. There is no amount of hot air from pundits that can change that fact. Rand will be the social conservative favorite on paper, at least.
> 
> If he is lucky enough to get to the big show he will change his spin on it and marginalize the issue. Simple as that. This was a political move and I think a good one.


Perhaps, but if he's looking at it as a political move, I think he risks significant backlash as well (the truth has never stopped the smear-machines who are looking for any ammo they can find, just like with Ron, they'll make sure people don't forget). 

But whether you take him at his word, or think he's trying to have his cake and eat it too (which I still find doubtful), I don't find this compromise to be something to get all worked up over... Just know that the smear artists and drama queens will most certainly use it against him.

----------


## itshappening

> I seem to recall someone quoting him in another thread as originally saying that this bill would ban abortion as we know it, instead of "This bill will start the conversation on how we end abortion."  I could be wrong.


He's not going to use hardcore anti-abortion rhetoric on CNN.  Rand knows his audience whether it's the neocon Hannity or the liberal Blitzer.

----------


## jmdrake

> WTF is going on? Why would Rand fall into this trap? This is as bad as the Maddow interview.


Ban Wolf Blitzer!

(Seriously, I meant that as a joke, but you watch.  Within a week someone will try to blame this all on CNN and say Rand should only go on "friendly" media outlets.)

----------


## itshappening

> I seem to recall someone quoting him in another thread as originally saying that this bill would ban abortion as we know it, instead of "This bill will start the conversation on how we end abortion."  I could be wrong.


He's not going to use hardcore anti-abortion rhetoric on CNN.  Rand knows his audience whether it's the neocon Hannity or the liberal Blitzer.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I seem to recall someone quoting him in another thread as originally saying that this bill would ban abortion as we know it, instead of "This bill will start the conversation on how we end abortion."  I could be wrong.


Well, forgive me if I take Rand at his word on his intentions over someone else's speculation as to why he put forth the bill.

----------


## jmdrake

> He's not going to use hardcore anti-abortion rhetoric on CNN.  Rand knows his audience whether it's the neocon Hannity or the liberal Blitzer.


Ummmmm...*THAT DOESN'T FREAKING MATTER!*  People on one media outlet will pick up rhetoric used on another media outlet.  And those making attack ads watch all media outlets.  Anyway, you wanted Rand to flip flop.  You got your wish.

----------


## thoughtomator

> And Romney ultimately lost.  Romney also was also always the consummate insider.  Rand's an outsider.  Romney had an virtually unlimited personal war-chest.  Rand has "moneybombs".  Prior to the GOP herd lining up behind Rand, there will GOP jackals looking to tear him apart.  This gives them ammo.  All is not lost, but it isn't a good day.


Romney lost for a hell of a lot of reasons, but abortion isn't one of them. The same folks who prioritize abortion turned right around and said oh no we must vote Romney because otherwise evil Obama will win. It's not the anti-abortion folks who stayed home in 2012.

Abortion-banning doesn't even have a strong enough constituency to win a GOP primary. The vast majority of people are just sick and tired of abortion derailing the national debate.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> I seem to recall someone quoting him in another thread as originally saying that this bill would ban abortion as we know it, instead of "This bill will start the conversation on how we end abortion."  I could be wrong.


It's called, "The Life at Conception Act"... now you guys are telling me that isn't political? I can imagine him with ads in Iowa and southern states with the bill mentioned relentlessly.

He did it yet he knew it wouldn't pass. Why else take the flak from liberals and moderates in the media when he is riding high on his Cpac win and filibuster win?

----------


## itshappening

> Ummmmm...*THAT DOESN'T FREAKING MATTER!*  People on one media outlet will pick up rhetoric used on another media outlet.  And those making attack ads watch all media outlets.  Anyway, you wanted Rand to flip flop.  You got your wish.


This isn't a flip flop though and won't be seen as such.  He will get pinned down further if he ever gets the nomination believe me. Wolf was soft on him.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, forgive me if I take Rand at his word on his intentions over someone else's speculation as to why he put forth the bill.


It was a quote.  I can't find it now because all of the "Rand - abortion" Google searches are now dominated by the latest news.  If I run across it, I'll post it.  I'm certain about this because the other day I was arguing "Rand's bill didn't really ban abortion" until someone threw his quote at me.

----------


## talkingpointes

> He's not going to use hardcore anti-abortion rhetoric on CNN.  Rand knows his audience whether it's the neocon Hannity or the liberal Blitzer.


Thanks almighty political wizard. Can you please give me Rand's talking points of this week so I don't look like an idiot when I talk about principles.

We went from a movement to a wedge in the two-party pie. There is a special place in hell for sellouts I believe.

----------


## Quark

I hope you guys remember Ron's answer to a very similar question on Piers Morgan. Seems consistent with Rand's.

----------


## TheGrinch

> It's called, "The Life at Conception Act"... now you guys are telling me that isn't political? I can imagine him with ads in Iowa and southern states with the bill mentioned relentlessly.
> 
> He did it yet he knew it wouldn't pass. Why else take the flak from liberals and moderates in the media when he is riding high on his Cpac win and filibuster win?


Rand said the filibuster was about more than drones, it was about opening up a dialogue on presidential powers.

Rand said he knows the amendment has no chance to pass, but wants to open up a dialogue regarding life at conception.

Are you noticing a trend here? Every indication I've gotten from Rand is that he wants to actually have real discussions and get things done. Maybe that's naive when it comes to abortion, but he wouldn't have comprimised today on the bill he just put forth if all he was looking for is street cred with the socons. He would have used rhetoric more like his dad to defend the bill, not to undermine it. IMO, it shows me that he'd prefer for us to find middle ground than take sides.

----------


## itshappening

> Thanks almighty political wizard. Can you please give me Rand's talking points of this week so I don't look like an idiot when I talk about principles.
> 
> We went from a movement to a wedge in the two-party pie. There is a special place in hell for sellouts I believe.


Rand is not there to educate the public.  He's there to sound reasonable to the host/audience in this case quite a liberal one and in Hannity's case a foaming at the mouth neocon.  He's after votes not education and this is the best way to go about it.

----------


## jmdrake

> This isn't a flip flop though and won't be seen as such.  He will get pinned down further if he ever gets the nomination believe me. Wolf was soft on him.


Ah.  So Rand needs to *really* flip flop to satisfy you.  Gotcha.

----------


## TheGrinch

> It was a quote.  I can't find it now because all of the "Rand - abortion" Google searches are now dominated by the latest news.  If I run across it, I'll post it.  I'm certain about this because the other day I was arguing "Rand's bill didn't really ban abortion" until someone threw his quote at me.


Okay, so what if the bill _would_ ban abortion. He knows it has no chance of passing, but he was able to put forth his position, to move on to now having a reasonable debate, per his words.

----------


## talkingpointes

> Rand is not there to educate the public.  He's there to sound reasonable to the host/audience in this case quite a liberal one and in Hannity's case a foaming at the mouth neocon.  He's after votes not education and this is the best way to go about it.


Right. How do you know this ? How do you know he doesn't want power ?

----------


## itshappening

> Ah.  So Rand needs to *really* flip flop to satisfy you.  Gotcha.


I dont know how he will handle it when he gets pressed on it more relentlessly by the MSM who are ignoring him at the moment and won't take notice unless he has the nomination (NBC/CBS/ABC, which most Americans watch) but he's that good it might look like a flip flop when it isn't.  Rand is no dummy like most  Republican politicians he's brilliant at being very careful with his words and he thinks quick on his feet.

----------


## KingNothing

> Ummmmm...*THAT DOESN'T FREAKING MATTER!*  People on one media outlet will pick up rhetoric used on another media outlet.  And those making attack ads watch all media outlets.  Anyway, you wanted Rand to flip flop.  You got your wish.


It's not like he Hermain Cain'ed his way through this.  He's expressed a nuanced point of view articulately, and I imagine most of the country is on board with his stance.

----------


## jmdrake

> Okay, so what if the bill _would_ ban abortion. He knows it has no chance of passing, but he was able to put forth his position, to move on to now having a reasonable debate, per his words.


Hey, you're trying to convince the wrong person.  I support Rand.  I also look at the current headlines and see how what just happened hurt him.  The damage is not unrecoverable, but it's certainly there.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I hope you guys remember Ron's answer to a very similar question on Piers Morgan. Seems consistent with Rand's.


I'm not an MD so I have no clue if a "Shot of estrogen" would stop conception or kill an already conceived child.

----------


## supermario21

LOL

----------


## itshappening

> Right. How do you know this ? How do you know he doesn't want power ?


It's pretty obvious, he's being careful with how he words things. If he didn't care about winning votes he would sound more hardcore and explicit like Ron.

----------


## jmdrake

> It's not like he Hermain Cain'ed his way through this.  He's expressed a nuanced point of view articulately, and I imagine most of the country is on board with his stance.


Which is?

----------


## talkingpointes

> Ah.  So Rand needs to *really* flip flop to satisfy you.  Gotcha.


Maybe you should step back a few paces so you can witness the genius.

----------


## KingNothing

> He said "thousands of exceptions."  That's merely one.  And if your defining the fetus as a "person" with the same right to life as any other "person", that right to life doesn't vanish just because your daddy was a rapist.  The best way to get out of this is not go for exceptions, but say that your attempt is to overturn R v W and throw it back to the states.



That is only "best" because it is what Ron wanted to do.  It isn't logically consistent either.  If abortion is murder in every case, how in the hell can anyone logically justify it being allowed in one state, but not another?  I understand the federalism argument and am on board with it, but it amounts to a constitutional technicality that allows us to punt on the issue.  And I'm fine with that, but it isn't a morally right answer particularly when speaking in absolute terms regarding what fetuses and abortions actually are.

----------


## jmdrake

> Romney lost for a hell of a lot of reasons, but abortion isn't one of them. The same folks who prioritize abortion turned right around and said oh no we must vote Romney because otherwise evil Obama will win. It's not the anti-abortion folks who stayed home in 2012.
> 
> Abortion-banning doesn't even have a strong enough constituency to win a GOP primary. The vast majority of people are just sick and tired of abortion derailing the national debate.


Did you enjoy building that straw man?  I didn't say Romney lost over abortion.  I was responding to the comment that the GOP herd would get behind Rand like they got behind Romney by pointing out that Romney ultimately lost.  One reason Romney lost is because many conservatives stayed home.  Abortion may be a reason.  Him flip flopping on Obamacare is an obvious one.  And I pointed out some of the major differences between Romney and Rand.  But hey, ignore facts that are uncomfortable.

----------


## itshappening

Look at the comments on Rawstory, they actually think he's flip flopped and are celebrating his "cave" but he hasn't caved and he hasn't flip flopped.

This is part of Rand's genius.  He's anything you want him to be unless you listen carefully and read beyond the headlines. 

Drake is upset because of liberal commenters and media thinking they have a win but they don't because his position hasn't changed.

----------


## torchbearer

> Look at the comments on Rawstory, they actually think he's flip flopped and are celebrating his "cave" but he hasn't caved and he hasn't flip flopped.
> 
> This is part of Rand's genius.  He's anything you want him to be unless you listen carefully and read beyond the headlines. 
> 
> Drake is upset because of liberal commenters and media thinking they have a win but they don't because his position hasn't changed.


 A bill Clinton in reverse. interesting.

----------


## KingNothing

> Which is?


That abortion is a personal issue and in every case it will come down to the decisions an individual makes.  Because of that, Serious discussions are necessary.  Rand's opinion is that abortion is not moral, that life is to be cherished, but that he also can't legislate morality into people.

I don't think it's difficult to grasp when you approach the issue looking for nuance.  When you speak in absolutes, you end up saying things that are either logically inconsistent or morally repugnant.

----------


## Quark

> I'm not an MD so I have no clue if a "Shot of estrogen" would stop conception or kill an already conceived child.


There are studies that have revealed the quickest conception can occur 30 minutes after sexual intercourse (assuming everything else is perfect.) Ron's argument is that he has no idea whether or not conception did occur, and he has no way of knowing, so it would not be murder (or even manslaughter) legally (which is all that matters in this situation involving the state.) I think it's a reasonable answer to a tough situation. He then states that he does not support abortion after rape if it happens months afterwards (after there is knowledge of the baby.) Which is also reasonable.

----------


## economics102

> I'm not an MD so I have no clue if a "Shot of estrogen" would stop conception or kill an already conceived child.


He makes a good point there. The ones who keep bringing up these questions about "what if the woman is raped?", etc, are the pro-choicers, because they know the pro-life position looks worst in the light of that particular hypothetical. But as Ron points out, there are hypotheticals that put pro-choicers in a bad light too: if the pro-choice position is "a woman has the right to her body and the right to choose," then what about the hypothetical of the woman aborting the fetus one minute before birth? Doesn't she theoretically have the "right" to do that?

----------


## jmdrake

> That is only "best" because it is what Ron wanted to do.


  Wrong.  It's best because that's what the constitution mandates.




> It isn't logically consistent either.


It's constitutionally consistent.




> If abortion is murder in every case, how in the hell can anyone logically justify it being allowed in one state, but not another?


Do you understand that there are 50 different murder rules in 50 different states?  Do you understand that in some states the Trayvon Martin case wouldn't have been controversial because George Zimmerman wouldn't have been able to claim self defense under those circumstances anyway?  If murder rules can vary from state to state, why do you think abortion rules can't?




> I understand the federalism argument and am on board with it, but it amounts to a constitutional technicality that allows us to punt on the issue.


It ain't about "punting on the issue."  It's about following the constitution which generally leaves the definition of crime up to the states.




> And I'm fine with that, but it isn't a morally right answer particularly when speaking in absolute terms regarding what fetuses and abortions actually are.


Do you believe the constitution is immoral?  If not then the correct moral position is to leave it up to the states.

----------


## jmdrake

> There are studies that have revealed the quickest conception can occur 30 minutes after sexual intercourse (assuming everything else is perfect.) Ron's argument is that he has no idea whether or not conception did occur, and he has no way of knowing, so it would not be murder (or even manslaughter) legally (which is all that matters in this situation involving the state.) I think it's a reasonable answer to a tough situation. He then states that he does not support abortion after rape if it happens months afterwards (after there is knowledge of the baby.) Which is also reasonable.


Ron Paul rocks!  Someday folks will truly appreciate his political genius.  If he wasn't saddled with being the conscience of America for opposing then popular wars before the rest of the country figured out he was right he would be president.  (And the problem with the GOP is that it can't bring itself to admit it was wrong.  Idiot conspiracy theorists like Ann Coulter are still trying to say Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda and was trying to get yellow cake from Niger.)

----------


## thoughtomator

> Did you enjoy building that straw man?

----------


## Brett85

> Did you listen to the interview? He said that he doesn't think America is ready for legislation, but he put forth the bill to get a dialogue going.


Then why didn't he just introduce a bill that overturns Roe v. Wade or something like that?  A less controversial bill could still start a discussion on abortion.  The bill that he introduced if passed would ban every single abortion nationwide.  If he's not willing to stand by that position in interviews then he should drop his support for the bill.

----------


## jmdrake

> That abortion is a personal issue and in every case it will come down to the decisions an individual makes.  Because of that, Serious discussions are necessary.  Rand's opinion is that abortion is not moral, that life is to be cherished, but that he also can't legislate morality into people.
> 
> I don't think it's difficult to grasp when you approach the issue looking for nuance.  When you speak in absolutes, you end up saying things that are either logically inconsistent or morally repugnant.


Ummmm......huh?    That sounds like Hillary Clinton's position on abortion and it's 180 degrees from what he was saying on Tuesday.  That would be a great position to take if he was running for the democratic nomination for president.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Look at the comments on Rawstory, they actually think he's flip flopped and are celebrating his "cave" but he hasn't caved and he hasn't flip flopped.
> 
> This is part of Rand's genius.  *He's anything you want him to be* unless you listen carefully and read beyond the headlines. 
> 
> Drake is upset because of liberal commenters and media thinking they have a win but they don't because his position hasn't changed.


Sounds a lot like:

"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."

That's not genius at all, but a lot of folks thought it was.

----------


## jmdrake

> 


I'm not letting you off the hook that easy.  Again.

* I didn't say Romney lost over abortion. I was responding to the comment that the GOP herd would get behind Rand like they got behind Romney by pointing out that Romney ultimately lost. One reason Romney lost is because many conservatives stayed home. Abortion may be a reason. Him flip flopping on Obamacare is an obvious one. And I pointed out some of the major differences between Romney and Rand. But hey, ignore facts that are uncomfortable.*

----------


## T.hill

Considering his motive is trying to initiate a national debate, I really don't think he flipped on anything. He still personally believes abortion is murder and all life should be protected.

----------


## sailingaway

> That is only "best" because it is what Ron wanted to do.  It isn't logically consistent either.  If abortion is murder in every case, how in the hell can anyone logically justify it being allowed in one state, but not another?  I understand the federalism argument and am on board with it, but it amounts to a constitutional technicality that allows us to punt on the issue.  And I'm fine with that, but it isn't a morally right answer particularly when speaking in absolute terms regarding what fetuses and abortions actually are.


But it is the only answer you can give. You can say as Ron very clearly has, precisely what HE considers right (estrogen shot immediately after rape or incest before conception even confirmable or known since it takes up to two weeks for sperm to fertilize egg) but say however, as with defenses to murder for self defense or insanity, or manslaughter, states will determine what defenses there are etc., because we are a federation under the Constitution.

The problem is that it isn't clear here, and on an 'issue of principle' (or why raise it) you need to be clear.  it isn't like it is the only chance Rand will have to answer the question, but 'thousands of exceptions' is not likely the soundbite he'll want to continue.

----------


## Brett85

> He hasn't flip flopped.  He does not support abortion but thinks there are cases where doctors should make a decision like the one in Ireland where they couldn't abort the baby and the mother died.  Do you expect him to say to Wolf Blizter : *"Yes Wolf, I support banning abortions even when the mothers life is in danger, that'll show her!"?*


No, but he should've been clear that the life of the mother is the only exception he supports, if that's his actual position.

----------


## itshappening

> Sounds a lot like:
> 
> "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."
> 
> That's not genius at all, but a lot of folks thought it was.


Rand's aim is to get 51% of the vote. You don't get it ranting like a hardcore anti-abortionist even if you are one.

----------


## T.hill

He is trying to spur a philosophical discussion on many issues, he's not just using his position to pass laws, but to get people to think. Ron did the same exact thing while he was a congressman and running for president.

----------


## Brett85

> Rand's aim is to get 51% of the vote. You don't get it ranting like a hardcore anti-abortionist even if you are one.


You don't win the GOP primary if you look like a pro choice social liberal.  He's already getting the "social liberal" tag from Republicans who don't like him.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rand's aim is to get 51% of the vote. You don't get it ranting like a hardcore anti-abortionist even if you are one.


He won't get it by being all over the place either.

----------


## sailingaway

> He is trying to spur a philosophical discussion on many issues, he's not just using his position to pass laws, but to get people to think. Ron did the same exact thing while he was a congressman and running for president.


uh, did you ever doubt what his laws would do or what his position was? 

And the honest answer to that is, a few times, if he misspoke in an interview, and the media ran with it. But then he explained what he meant and since he was always consistent, any confusion only existed thereafter for those who actively wanted to be confused.

----------


## jmdrake

> Look at the comments on Rawstory, they actually think he's flip flopped and are celebrating his "cave" but he hasn't caved and he hasn't flip flopped.
> 
> This is part of Rand's genius.  He's anything you want him to be unless you listen carefully and read beyond the headlines. 
> 
> Drake is upset because of liberal commenters and media thinking they have a win but they don't because his position hasn't changed.


Oh go stuff yourself!  Yesterday you were acting like the sky was falling because Rand, in your mind, screwed up on abortion.  Then Rand does what you want to do, catches hell because of it, history proves me right, and you think I'm upset?  Hell, I love being proven right.  Rand overcompensates, gets reamed by both sides (not just "liberals" as you are dishonestly claiming).  Why am I not surprised?

----------


## KingNothing

> You don't win the GOP primary if you look like a pro choice social liberal.


*Takes a look at Romney and McCain*

----------


## TheGrinch

> Then why didn't he just introduce a bill that overturns Roe v. Wade or something like that?  A less controversial bill could still start a discussion on abortion.  The bill that he introduced if passed would ban every single abortion nationwide.  If he's not willing to stand by that position in interviews then he should drop his support for the bill.


This:



> He is trying to spur a philosophical discussion on many issues, he's not just using his position to pass laws, but to get people to think. Ron did the same exact thing while he was a congressman and running for president.


See the thing about dialogue and comprimise is that you don't start at the point that is as far away from what you really believe.  If he wanted the bill to pass, then yes, it will need to have concessions and exceptions, but that's not his purpose here. It's to have a debate about at what point in time a life begins.

----------


## itshappening

> You don't win the GOP primary if you look like a pro choice social liberal.  He's already getting the "social liberal" tag from Republicans who don't like him.


If you look on FreeRepublic which is the most hysterical and anti-Ron Paul site on the net (I was banned 4 times during the primaries) you'll see there are people defending him.

----------


## Brett85

> See the thing about dialogue and comprimise is that you don't start at the point that is as far away from what you really believe.  If he wanted the bill to pass, then yes, it will need to have concessions and exceptions, but that's not his purpose here. It's to have a debate about at what point in time a life begins.


So I guess in the GOP primary debates he's going to have to say "I introduced a bill to provide legal protections for the unborn, but I don't actually want it to pass."  That will reassure pro life voters.

----------


## jmdrake

> Rand's aim is to get 51% of the vote. You don't get it ranting like a hardcore anti-abortionist even if you are one.


Had Rand followed my advice from yesterday, and explained that his bill itself didn't ban anything (and it didn't) but paved the way for states to restrict abortion (and it did) then he wouldn't have appeared "hardcore anti-abortion."  Now he's starting to appear dishonest and/or confusing.  Even people in this thread are claiming that Rand's position is that abortion is a "personal choice" because the state shouldn't "legislation morality."  Ummmm.....okay.  And if 70% of Republicans believe that's what Rand's position is, how does he win the nomination again?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Then why didn't he just introduce a bill that overturns Roe v. Wade or something like that?  A less controversial bill could still start a discussion on abortion.  The bill that he introduced if passed would ban every single abortion nationwide.  If he's not willing to stand by that position in interviews then he should drop his support for the bill.


A less controversial bill would have been better indeed.  Rand's proposed amendment is too extreme.  I happen to agree that life begins at conception, but I'm not happy with legislation that gives the federal government the power to decide when life begins (or ends).   I think he painted himself into a corner with this amendment, which is why the Blitzer interview comes off as a flip-flop.

----------


## TheGrinch

> He won't get it by being all over the place either.


Don't listen to itshappening, he always just assumes that Rand is playing politics, even when there's no evidence of it (in fact, Rand proved him wrong on the Hagel nomination), and IMO, he does it just because he knows it pisses off and divides the hsardcore purists like you... I can't see any other reason why anyone who supports a candidate to claim they're playing politics even when there's strong indication they aren't.

----------


## jmdrake

> *Takes a look at Romney and McCain*


......who had the GOP establishment behind them and who ultimately lost the presidency largely because conservatives stayed home.

----------


## Brett85

> If you look on FreeRepublic which is the most hysterical and anti-Ron Paul site on the net (I was banned 4 times during the primaries) you'll see there are people defending him.


There's also a lot of people there and at Hot Air and other conservative sites criticizing him.  This was a completely unnecessary mistake by Rand.  If you're not willing to defend the substance of your bill, then don't introduce it in the first place.  He wouldn't have been asked this question if he hadn't introduced the bill in the first place.

----------


## erowe1

> No, but he should've been clear that the life of the mother is the only exception he supports, if that's his actual position.


It looked to me like he didn't contradict that.

----------


## itshappening

> There's also a lot of people there and at Hot Air and other conservative sites criticizing him.  This was a completely unnecessary mistake by Rand.  If you're not willing to defend the substance of your bill, then don't introduce it in the first place.  He wouldn't have been asked this question if he hadn't introduced the bill in the first place.


There's still people defending him. It's not a mistake. He didn't sell anyone out or anything. He just sounded more reasonable to Blitzer and people are reading whatever they want into it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You don't win the GOP primary if you look like a pro choice social liberal.  He's already getting the "social liberal" tag from Republicans who don't like him.





> *Takes a look at Romney and McCain*


Both establishment candidates.  Both defeated handily in the general election.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That abortion is a personal issue and in every case it will come down to the decisions an individual makes.  Because of that, Serious discussions are necessary.  Rand's opinion is that abortion is not moral, that life is to be cherished, but that he also can't legislate morality into people.
> 
> I don't think it's difficult to grasp when you approach the issue looking for nuance.  When you speak in absolutes, you end up saying things that are either logically inconsistent or morally repugnant.


I'd probably fall in that last category to most posters here.  Oh well.  I realize that my ideal legal system would take a lot of changes in a lot of people's morality, but I still think abortion should be treated exactly like murder and punished in the same manner.  You can't do that with 50% of the population opposed to it, but in much the same way that you can't create a libertarian society when 95% of the population is against it, morality and feasibility are not equivalent.



> There are studies that have revealed the quickest conception can occur 30 minutes after sexual intercourse (assuming everything else is perfect.) Ron's argument is that he has no idea whether or not conception did occur, and he has no way of knowing, so it would not be murder (or even manslaughter) legally (which is all that matters in this situation involving the state.) I think it's a reasonable answer to a tough situation. He then states that he does not support abortion after rape if it happens months afterwards (after there is knowledge of the baby.) Which is also reasonable.


Is the intent of the estrogen shot solely to destroy a conceived embryo that may or may not exist?  Or is it also a way to prevent conception from ever happening?  If the latter, I would argue that you can't have rights until you exist and so the action designed to prevent conception should be legal.




> He makes a good point there. The ones who keep bringing up these questions about "what if the woman is raped?", etc, are the pro-choicers, because they know the pro-life position looks worst in the light of that particular hypothetical. But as Ron points out, there are hypotheticals that put pro-choicers in a bad light too: if the pro-choice position is "a woman has the right to her body and the right to choose," then what about the hypothetical of the woman aborting the fetus one minute before birth? Doesn't she theoretically have the "right" to do that?


Depends on what kind of pro-choicer you are.  To most people, its based on what feels right, which is really inconsistent anyway.  To an evictionist such as Walter Block, it depends on whether there is a less violent way to remove the fetus, but the right to evict is absolute, whether it leads to death or not.  However, it must be done in the most peaceful way possible.  To the radical feminist, yes, she does have that right.

To me, you NEVER have the right to kill in the womb other than in self-defense of your own life, and if that means you can't evict, too bad.  The fetus isn't a tresspasser, he was either invited to stay there in consensual sex, or the rapist is a tresspasser in rape, and so the rapist should have to compensate this breech of her freedom, but the child is still innocent and should not die.




> Do you believe the constitution is immoral?  If not then the correct moral position is to leave it up to the states.


Yeah, it was an immoral usurption of the AoC.  However, it is the law of the land now, and way better than any other pratical alternative at this point.  There's literally no way to appeal to the AoC now.

----------


## jmdrake

> Don't listen to itshappening, he always just assumes that Rand is playing politics, even when there's no evidence of it (in fact, Rand proved him wrong on the Hagel nomination), and IMO, he does it just because he knows it pisses off and divides the hsardcore purists like you... I can't see any other reason why anyone who supports a candidate to claim they're playing politics even when there's strong indication they aren't.


I'm not against Rand playing politics as long as he a) stays true to principle and b) plays it well.  I don't think this hand was played as well as it could be.

That said, how did the Hagel nomination "prove" to you he wasn't playing politics?  Seems the opposite to me.  He gained the help he needed to stand against Brennen by voting to put a hold on Hagel's nomination, then threw folks like Justin Raimondo a bone by voting for Hagel's nomination.  In the end he everyone from Raimondo and Code Pink to Glenn Beck and Mark Levin backing his StandWithRand.  I call that well played.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Had Rand followed my advice from yesterday, and explained that his bill itself didn't ban anything (and it didn't) but paved the way for states to restrict abortion (and it did) then he wouldn't have appeared "hardcore anti-abortion."  Now he's starting to appear dishonest and/or confusing.  Even people in this thread are claiming that Rand's position is that abortion is a "personal choice" because the state shouldn't "legislation morality."  Ummmm.....okay.  And if 70% of Republicans believe that's what Rand's position is, how does he win the nomination again?


Ummm, no one in this thread  has argued that. You're twisting the argument. 

I think that Rand's amendment was much closer to what he believes, but no one is saying that he thinks he shouldn't "legislate morality", he wouldn't have put forth an amendment if he thought that about abortion. Rand's argument is that he *can't* legislate morality in the current political environment without having debate and reaching some sort of consensus. These are his own words. 

Thus, I can come to no other conclusion than he wants to have a conversation about at what point life begins, and then maybe we can go from there with the necessary exceptions and concessions if we can reach a consensus on life beginning at (or at least near) conception.

----------


## erowe1

> He just sounded more reasonable to Blitzer


I doubt that he sounded more reasonable to anyone.

But he was speaking extemporaneously. A measure of flexibility has to be allowed for that.

----------


## jmdrake

> There's also a lot of people there and at Hot Air and other conservative sites criticizing him.  This was a completely unnecessary mistake by Rand.  If you're not willing to defend the substance of your bill, then don't introduce it in the first place.  He wouldn't have been asked this question if he hadn't introduced the bill in the first place.


T.C., if I recall, you were the one that gave me the info that Rand said his bill actually banned abortion.  I contend that it doesn't, but I can't find that quote from Rand.  Can you help me with that?  Or do I have my wires crossed?  If Rand himself never claimed this bill banned abortion then this isn't as bad as I think.

----------


## Brett85

> It looked to me like he didn't contradict that.


He didn't necessarily contradict it, but he didn't confirm it.  He was asked what the exceptions should be, and he just gave an answer that there should be "thousands of exceptions."  That's definitely a soundbite that could be used against him in commercials in a GOP primary.

----------


## erowe1

> He didn't necessarily contradict it, but he didn't confirm it.  He was asked what the exceptions should be, and he just gave an answer that there should be "thousands of exceptions."  That's definitely a soundbite that could be used against him in commercials in a GOP primary.


He said, "There is going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved..." That implies that the it's still the life of the mother that is the deciding factor for exceptions.

He may not have confirmed that was his position, but if he didn't contradict it, then there's really nothing here for pro-lifers to be upset about.

----------


## puppetmaster

> He said, "“There is going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved..." That implies that the it's still the life of the mother that is the deciding factor for exceptions.
> 
> He may not have confirmed that was his position, but if he didn't contradict it, then there's really nothing here for pro-lifers to be upset about.


This

----------


## jmdrake

> It's not like he Hermain Cain'ed his way through this.  He's expressed a nuanced point of view articulately, and I imagine most of the country is on board with his stance.





> Which is?





> That abortion is a *personal issue* and in every case it will come down to the decisions an individual makes.  Because of that, Serious discussions are necessary.  Rand's opinion is that abortion is not moral, that life is to be cherished, but that he also *can't legislate morality into people*.
> 
> I don't think it's difficult to grasp when you approach the issue looking for nuance.  When you speak in absolutes, you end up saying things that are either logically inconsistent or morally repugnant.






> Had Rand followed my advice from yesterday, and explained that his bill itself didn't ban anything (and it didn't) but paved the way for states to restrict abortion (and it did) then he wouldn't have appeared "hardcore anti-abortion."  Now he's starting to appear dishonest and/or confusing.  Even people in this thread are claiming that Rand's position is that abortion is a "personal choice" because the state shouldn't "legislation morality."  Ummmm.....okay.  And if 70% of Republicans believe that's what Rand's position is, how does he win the nomination again?





> Ummm, no one in this thread  has argued that. You're twisting the argument. 
> 
> I think that Rand's amendment was much closer to what he believes, but no one is saying that he thinks he shouldn't "legislate morality", he wouldn't have put forth an amendment if he thought that about abortion. Rand's argument is that he *can't* legislate morality in the current political environment without having debate and reaching some sort of consensus. These are his own words. 
> 
> Thus, I can come to no other conclusion than he wants to have a conversation about at what point life begins, and then maybe we can go from there with the necessary exceptions and concessions if we can reach a consensus on life beginning at (or at least near) conception.


 I haven't twisted anything.  I've provided the quotes here to prove that.  Your apology is accepted in advance.

----------


## Brett85

> T.C., if I recall, you were the one that gave me the info that Rand said his bill actually banned abortion.  I contend that it doesn't, but I can't find that quote from Rand.  Can you help me with that?  Or do I have my wires crossed?  If Rand himself never claimed this bill banned abortion then this isn't as bad as I think.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=9-0qPVwKRdc

2:55 mark.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I'm not against Rand playing politics as long as he a) stays true to principle and b) plays it well.  I don't think this hand was played as well as it could be.
> 
> That said, how did the Hagel nomination "prove" to you he wasn't playing politics?  Seems the opposite to me.  He gained the help he needed to stand against Brennen by voting to put a hold on Hagel's nomination, then threw folks like Justin Raimondo a bone by voting for Hagel's nomination.  In the end he everyone from Raimondo and Code Pink to Glenn Beck and Mark Levin backing his StandWithRand.  I call that well played.


Fine, you can't "prove" intentions, but you can prove that those suggesting he was purely playing politics were baseless to assume that he was placating the neocons. Itshappening was pushing it as if it was truth and actually a good thing... Then in the end, it turns out Rand was true to his word, he would fight it to try to get answers to his questions, but would ultimately stick to his word of letting the president make his own appointments if it became a battle not worth fighting.

To suggest more than that is pure speculation, and much like this matter, not listening to what Rand actually says he's doing, which has been consistent with what he's done.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I haven't twisted anything.  I've provided the quotes here to prove that.  Your apology is accepted in advance.


Again, there is a gigantic difference between saying he "shouldn't" legislate morality, and saying he *can't* legislate morality in the current environment. It is pretty clear that he will have to change the morality of the people through debate for a bill anywhere near what he's proposed to be able to be enacted.

----------


## AlexAmore

> He said, "“There is going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved..." That implies that the it's still the life of the mother that is the deciding factor for exceptions.
> 
> He may not have confirmed that was his position, but if he didn't contradict it, then there's really nothing here for pro-lifers to be upset about.


So tell me if I get this straight:

The law is killing unborn babies would be illegal. There will be, of course, thousands of mother's lives at risk because of or during their pregnancy. In that case he doesn't want an across the board law that says "kill the mothers for the baby's sake. No exception.". He wants that situation to become a discussion between family and doctor. I think that is a fair position and I'm VERY pro-life.

Again please correct me, if needed.

----------


## AlexAmore

dp

----------


## sailingaway

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=9-0qPVwKRdc
> 
> 2:55 mark.



hm.

----------


## sailingaway

> So tell me if I get this straight:
> 
> The law is killing unborn babies would be illegal. There will be, of course, thousands of mother's lives at risk because of or during their pregnancy. In that case he doesn't want an across the board law that says "kill the mothers for the baby's sake. No exception.". He wants that situation to become a discussion between family and doctor. I think that is a fair position and I'm VERY pro-life.
> 
> Again please correct me, if needed.



The issue here is that RAND needs to make it clear what he means.  At this point people are literally guessing.

People misspeak.  so correct the record and say what you DO mean.

----------


## erowe1

> So tell me if I get this straight:
> 
> The law is killing unborn babies would be illegal. There will be, of course, thousands of mother's lives at risk because of or during their pregnancy. In that case he doesn't want an across the board law that says "kill the mothers for the baby's sake. No exception.". He wants that situation to become a discussion between family and doctor. I think that is a fair position and I'm VERY pro-life.
> 
> Again please correct me, if needed.


I don't think we should try to divine his exact position from this interview.

----------


## thoughtomator

> I'm not letting you off the hook that easy.  Again.
> 
> * I didn't say Romney lost over abortion. I was responding to the comment that the GOP herd would get behind Rand like they got behind Romney by pointing out that Romney ultimately lost. One reason Romney lost is because many conservatives stayed home. Abortion may be a reason. Him flip flopping on Obamacare is an obvious one. And I pointed out some of the major differences between Romney and Rand. But hey, ignore facts that are uncomfortable.*


Any person reading what you wrote in the context of this thread would find it _totally reasonable_ to perceive that you were implying that Rand would lose a primary or election because of this stance on abortion. If that's not what you meant, it is incumbent upon you to clarify your remarks, not to throw out nasty accusations at anyone who reads them as they appear to have been intended.

----------


## TheGrinch

> The issue here is that RAND needs to make it clear what he means.  At this point people are literally guessing.
> 
> People misspeak.  so correct the record and say what you DO mean.


Guessing? His position is pretty clear. He put out a bill that he knows isn't going to pass, but will bring back to the forefront the question of when one's right to life begins, which clearly he believes is at conception.

However, he also realizes that it is a major problem of the hardcore pro-life view to assume that are no exceptions, and so he doesn't to completely strip the parent/doctor relationship of determining what's best for all parties involved in mroe extreme cases.

In other words, life begins at conception = black and white, extraneous circumstances and enacting legislation = shades of grey. If you have to guess, you're not listening to what he's saying...

----------


## sailingaway

> Guessing? His position is pretty clear. He put out a bill that he knows isn't going to pass, but will bring back to the forefront the question of when one's right to life begins, which clearly he believes is at conception.
> 
> However, he also realizes that it is a major problem of the hardcore pro-life view to assume that are no exceptions, and so he doesn't to completely strip the parent/doctor relationship of determining what's best for all parties involved in mroe extreme cases.
> 
> In other words, life begins at conception = black and white, extraneous circumstances and enacting legislation = shades of grey. If you have to guess, you're not listening to what he's saying...


You didn't listen to the youtube TC posted at about 2:55.

----------


## Brett85

> So tell me if I get this straight:
> 
> The law is killing unborn babies would be illegal. There will be, of course, thousands of mother's lives at risk because of or during their pregnancy. In that case he doesn't want an across the board law that says "kill the mothers for the baby's sake. No exception.". He wants that situation to become a discussion between family and doctor. I think that is a fair position and I'm VERY pro-life.
> 
> Again please correct me, if needed.


I hope that's what he's saying, but he wasn't very clear.  I want him to clarify it.

----------


## TheGrinch

> You didn't listen to the youtube TC posted at about 2:55.


I looked back through the thread and could not find that post. Do you have the link to the video perhaps?




> So I guess in the GOP primary debates he's going to have to say "I introduced a bill to provide legal protections for the unborn, but I don't actually want it to pass."  That will reassure pro life voters.


Missed this earlier, now you're just being ridiculous and playing gotcha, acting as if I'm arguing that he "(doesn't) actually want it to pass", really,  you sound like you didn't even bother to listen to the interview. 

He said he doesn't think any kind of bill he would propose would be likely to pass, hence why he feels at least opening up debate is needed (I'm not sure I agree, I said all along it's not an issue I think he's going to win any time soon, but I applaud him for trying to move past this massive wedge issue and maybe make headway that's not currently possible).

----------


## erowe1

> I hope that's what he's saying, but he wasn't very clear.  I want him to clarify it.


I don't think he needs to clarify it.

There's nothing major about today's interview. It's not the most thorough explanation of Rand's abortion views, nor is there really anything revelatory in it. The reason people are making a big deal out of it is solely for the fact that it just happened today. Nobody will care about it in a week or think of this interview as an important resource for Rand's abortion position. It will be forgotten, and I think he should let it be.

When he runs for president, he'll need to come out with something clear that explains his position. But that's a ways off.

----------


## FriedChicken

Wow ... I really have to strain hard to think of very many reasons an abortion would be acceptable if its understood that life begins at conception ...

#1 parent or child has a mental disorder
#2 parent or child has physical disorder
#3 parent has a substance abuse problem
#4 parent has an income problem

I mean, I don't agree with any of the above but know people who believe in at least one of them ... how creative do you have to get to reach the number one thousand with exceptions? And he said thousands ... as in at least 2k exceptions.

Everyone was looking for a reason to pin a target on his back, how is it not hard to imagine a gotcha type interview where they're intent on hearing these "thousands of exceptions" listed?

Dang it Rand.

Regardless of what you really mean ... what were you thinking??

The REALLY big trap is when someone tries to get him to answer the question: What scenario ISN'T an exception? (boom! Rand Paul discriminates agains [fill in the blank].

Hope this blows over and he can patch it up. I was sure he knew what he was doing when he introduced the bill - I'm thinking I was wrong.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> To us, yes, to evangelicals, no. They'll say a states rights position is de-facto pro choice. Even though we control about 30 states. It's why this issue is so hard to argue, every side has their own views and objectives, which as Rand correctly said on CNN, is more than "check the box." That's why I think there is mass over-reaction here.


There are two different sides to this issue in my mind.  There is 1. the moral issue of abortion, and 2. the moral issue of our government stealing from Americans who find abortion abhorrent in order to fund it.

Ron's emphasis was so appropriate.  He emphasized number 2.  Ron emphasized the one aspect of this issue that could garner the most support, even from pro-choice people.  He didn't emphasize number 1, because the country is still divided on it.  Rand should do this.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Wow ... I really have to strain hard to think of very many reasons an abortion would be acceptable if its understood that life begins at conception ...
> 
> #1 parent or child has a mental disorder
> #2 parent or child has physical disorder
> #3 parent has a substance abuse problem
> #4 parent has an income problem
> 
> I mean, I don't agree with any of the above but know people who believe in at least one of them ... how creative do you have to get to reach the number one thousand with exceptions? And he said thousands ... as in at least 2k exceptions.
> 
> ...


Agreed they'll likely take the soundbite out of context, but as he clarifies later, he doesn't mean thousands of reasons, he means thousands of individual extraneous situations, meaning people:




> *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*


Nothing here but poorly-chosen wording and semantics, the more I look into it.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Free Republic and all of the other conservative sites are all trashing Rand over this.  Immigration reform is one thing, but he's really going to lose a lot of support among conservatives if he won't stand for life.


You don't stand for life.  The so-called pro-life movement is filled with pro-state/pro-medical regulation phonies.  They don't want penalties for the mother and do not want what they call murder to be treated as murder.

It is a bunch of bull$#@! - stop spreading it.  Seriously, just $#@!ing stop it already.  I'm not a theist or a Rand supporter yet (no money has flowed from my pocket to his).  I'm willing to support him.  I'm not willing to see $#@!s rope-a-dope us into cultural war bull$#@!.  Are you trying to split libertarians from constitutional conservatives to screw with our chances 2016?  There is a bridge between these groups but we ought not be supplying our own trolls when the illiberal elite will provide their own.

Either it is MURDER 1 or STFU, TC.  And show me the large, broad based coalition pushing for "MURDER 1" (for the mother and co-conspirators) and not for more regulations.

----------


## garyallen59

I see nothing wrong with what he said and it doesn't sound like a flip flop at all.

But the media is already working on taking him down through headlines.

Sad to see.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You don't stand for life.  The so-called pro-life movement is filled with pro-state/pro-medical regulation phonies.  They don't want penalties for the mother and do not want what they call murder to be treated as murder.
> 
> It is a bunch of bull$#@! - stop spreading it.  Seriously, just $#@!ing stop it already.  I'm not a theist or a Rand supporter yet (no money has flowed from my pocket to his).  I'm willing to support him.  I'm not willing to see $#@!s rope-a-dope us into cultural war bull$#@!.  Are you trying to split libertarians from constitutional conservatives to screw with our chances 2016?  There is a bridge between these groups but we ought not be supplying our own trolls when the illiberal elite will provide their own.
> 
> Either it is MURDER 1 or STFU, TC.  And show me the large, broad based coalition pushing for "MURDER 1" (for the mother and co-conspirators) and not for more regulations.


Regardless of how you feel about abortion, regardless of how hypocritical one side or the other is, the one thing that many can agree on is that the American taxpayer should never be forced to fund abortions in any way.  Rand should attack this like Ron did...and stay out of the minutia of exceptions and all that stuff.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You don't stand for life.  The so-called pro-life movement is filled with pro-state/pro-medical regulation phonies.  They don't want penalties for the mother and do not want what they call murder to be treated as murder.
> 
> It is a bunch of bull$#@! - stop spreading it.  Seriously, just $#@!ing stop it already.  I'm not a theist or a Rand supporter yet (no money has flowed from my pocket to his).  I'm willing to support him.  I'm not willing to see $#@!s rope-a-dope us into cultural war bull$#@!.  Are you trying to split libertarians from constitutional conservatives to screw with our chances 2016?  There is a bridge between these groups but we ought not be supplying our own trolls when the illiberal elite will provide their own.
> 
> Either it is MURDER 1 or STFU, TC.  And show me the large, broad based coalition pushing for "MURDER 1" (for the mother and co-conspirators) and not for more regulations.


I believe its murder and that most Republicans are full of bull on it.  I believe that it ought to be a capital crime.  But that isn't going to happen.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> I believe its murder and that most Republicans are full of bull on it.  I believe that it ought to be a capital crime.  But that isn't going to happen.


Regarding "most Republicans", you are fooling yourself:




> This morning, his staff clarified that position, saying Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, wants to see abortion providers penalized, possibly criminally, *but not mothers*  should his pro-life view prevail and abortion turn from the generally legal procedure it is today to a prohibited act.
> 
> http://carrollspaper.com/main.asp?Se...rticleID=12186


Find the ones pushing it to be prosecuted as murder with no exception for the mother (unless of course she is innocent and the abortion was against her will).

Pawlenty is just as pro-choice as any pro-choicer WRT the mother.  The so-called pro-life movement doesn't spin it that way because the truth would cause them to lose power and influence.  They bless whoever genuflects in their direction and skewer the $#@! of whoever dares question state authority over the medical profession.

----------


## TaftFan

No he didn't.

----------


## KingNothing

> Both establishment candidates.  Both defeated handily in the general election.


Yeah, I'm sure they would have done MUCH better if they'd have spoken more about how rape victims must keep their "rape gift" and how mothers must sacrifice themselves if an abortion is the only way to save their lives.  That would have definitely locked up the White House for Mitt!

----------


## T.hill

> +1.  Me too.


There is no flip-flopping.

----------


## jmdrake

> Again, there is a gigantic difference between saying he "shouldn't" legislate morality, and saying he *can't* legislate morality in the current environment. It is pretty clear that he will have to change the morality of the people through debate for a bill anywhere near what he's proposed to be able to be enacted.


 That's a distinction without a difference.  The reason you "shouldn't legislate morality" is because you "can't legislate morality".  But abortion law isn't about legislating morality any more than laws against rape or murder are about "legislating morality."  Legislating morality is when you pass laws against victimless crimes.  If you don't think the baby is a victim in an abortion, then you aren't pro life.  Also I see you didn't even try to defend the "personal issue" comment.  Not that it matters, but this hair splitting is getting annoying.  Saying that abortion is a "personal issue" and you "can't legislate morality" are typical Democratic talking points.  If Rand said that at CPAC he'd be toast about now.  Thank goodness he didn't.  That said, as I pointed out in another thread, Rawstory got what Rand was saying totally wrong.  All he did was endorse a life (and maybe health) of the mother exception to abortion and say that early pregnancies are naturally going to be treated differently than later pregnancies.  (Possible allusion to plan B and other contraceptives that might arguably happen after fertilization but always occur before implantation.)

----------


## thoughtomator

> I believe its murder and that most Republicans are full of bull on it.  I believe that it ought to be a capital crime.  But that isn't going to happen.


That's a respectable position. Now, knowing that it isn't going to happen, the best thing that can be done is harm reduction - making it socially undesirable, getting rid of the worst cases (e.g. PBA), having support systems for pregnant women so they don't end up facing the choice between abortion and raising a child alone, working for more general prosperity so the means exist to actually take care of these children, and so on.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yeah, I'm sure they would have done MUCH better if they'd have spoken more about how rape victims must keep their "rape gift" and how mothers must sacrifice themselves if an abortion is the only way to save their lives.  That would have definitely locked up the White House for Mitt!


Who has said anything about a "rape gift?"  Who has said anything about rape at all?  Nor is anyone suggesting that Rand should take a "no exception for the life of the mother" position.  That said Rand should take a clear position.  And he shouldn't take an "it's just a personal issue" position.  Not if he wants to win the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yeah, I'm sure they would have done MUCH better if they'd have spoken more about how rape victims must keep their "rape gift" and how mothers must sacrifice themselves if an abortion is the only way to save their lives.  That would have definitely locked up the White House for Mitt!


It must have taken awhile to build that strawman out of this exchange...




> You don't win the GOP primary if you look like a pro choice social liberal. He's already getting the "social liberal" tag from Republicans who don't like him.





> *Takes a look at Romney and McCain*





> Both establishment candidates. Both defeated handily in the general election.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's a respectable position. Now, knowing that it isn't going to happen, the best thing that can be done is harm reduction - making it socially undesirable, getting rid of the worst cases (e.g. PBA), having support systems for pregnant women so they don't end up facing the choice between abortion and raising a child alone, working for more general prosperity so the means exist to actually take care of these children, and so on.


I believe the free market will provide the kind of prosperity you describe, support charity (Not government theft) to help young women who get pregnant, and any laws and punishments (NOT police state tactics against the innocent) that we can get...

----------


## FrankRep

> He is being consistent.  He's just not saying the exact words you want him to say.  Considering he's speaking on CNN and to Wolf Blitzer he's not going to sound like a hardcore anti-abortionist.


Traditional Conservative knows what Conservatives want to hear and Rand Paul hurt himself by dancing around the issue.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> One might wonder at this point about Paul's position on abortion to save the mother. "In all my years [as an OB-GYN], I never saw a case where the mother needed an abortion to save her life."
> 
> The congressman stated he never personally saw it, suggesting it is a rare occurrence, though he never denied the possibility. Paul's next point answers the dangling question there:
> 
> "A woman's health care should be a private matter between her and her doctor," Paul explained. "The government shouldn't get in the middle." Bottom line, if a woman really needs an abortion, so be it  at least so far as the federal government is concerned.
> 
> Despite his personal feelings on abortion, congressman Paul is not in favor of federal regulation for or against it (he is against oddities like partial birth abortion, however), thus leaving the issue to the states. "The federal government has no business involving itself in abortion."


http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinio...cc4c002e0.html

I'm going to stick up for Rand on this one. His answer was very similar to the one Ron gives when pressed on it.

If Rand does the same on foreign policy, I am in.

----------


## T.hill

I think its reasonable to say he should clarify his statements on abortion, but I understand he is separating debate from his own personal position.

----------


## awake

"They  thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that  label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian." Rand Paul 

He is not his dad. When his positions differ from his father do him and yourself a favor: don't apologize for them. He is a grown man with his views. The 'tactical 3 steps ahead Rand', as some like to portray him simply deflect that he is not libertarian. 

He has his positions, if you support him then promote him and his views as they are.

----------


## itshappening

> Traditional Conservative knows what Conservatives want to hear and Rand Paul hurt himself by dancing around the issue.


Conservatives don't watch Wolf or CNN.  He never danced around the issue.

----------


## Michigan11

16 pages in this thread... I wondered what happened. I watched the video and I have no idea what the big deal is here, I stopped readin at the 8th page in this thread. From what I heard, Rand answered questions with common sense. Am I missing something here?

----------


## jmdrake

> Traditional Conservative knows what Conservatives want to hear and Rand Paul hurt himself by dancing around the issue.


What he said isn't being accurately reported.  He was talking about a life of the mother exception.  That's all Blitzer specifically asked him about.

----------


## I<3Liberty

> Free Republic and all of the other conservative sites are all trashing Rand over this.  Immigration reform is one thing, but he's really going to lose a lot of support among conservatives if he won't stand for life.


I've said this on countless other threads. This debate is getting really old. No law will protect the unborn. The black market and DIY abortions will make up for the lack of legal abortions. I agree, it's not moral, but a ban WILL NOT fix the problem. Even Ron Paul has said this. We need culture change (discouraging casual sex and encouraging use of protection for individuals that do go ahead and have sex, but do not wish to become pregnant.) We also need to support and get on the market 100% effective options like RISUG. We need products like this because they will provide women with a choice without harming the unborn. 

Rand is not compromising his views. He is making a valid argument for the life of the mother (which we cannot compromise) -- there may be events where the fetus needs to be removed or it may perish as a result of the mother's medical treatment. Personally, I take a Kantian perspective and believe that it's the intention that matters. If the mother needed chemo and this killed the fetus -- this is legally permissible because the intent was to save the mother not kill the fetus.

I'd also like to raise the point that the vast majority of abortions (globally speaking) are spontaneous (not intentional) and the result of a lack of adequate healthcare and nutrition for women living in poverty.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> What he said isn't being accurately reported.  He was talking about a life of the mother exception.  That's all Blitzer specifically asked him about.


Here is what The Blaze (Glenn Beck's site) is reporting ... 




> 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:
> ...


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...w-he-answered/

----------


## I<3Liberty

> 16 pages in this thread... I wondered what happened. I watched the video and I have no idea what the big deal is here, I stopped readin at the 8th page in this thread. From what I heard, Rand answered questions with common sense. Am I missing something here?


I agree. This debate is getting SO DARN OLD. Rand's answer was acceptable. The reporters may have portrayed it in a way to sensationalize it or stir up controversy, but it is a lot like other libertarian's opinion on the issue. This is going to sound awfully biased, but, I've stated my opinion on this thread and several others and feel it is the best option especially since legislation doesn't necessarily stop a problem.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> He's anything you want him to be...


And *there* is the danger in dancing with the devil.

Play this game long enough, and you forget who you were or why you even came to DC in the first place.

----------


## FrankRep

> Conservatives don't watch Wolf or CNN.  He never danced around the issue.


Oh I bet Conservatives know all about the stunt Rand Paul pulled on CNN. I bet FreeRepublic has a thread dedicated to it.

----------


## Dogsoldier

Abortion is probably 1 of the most complicated issues.

I get both sides argument.

Its a womans body and its her right to do with it as she pleases.

Killing a baby is murder.

I get both sides argument.

I think about all sides alot.

Like how about the argument of "if a government can tell me what I can and can't do with MY child then its not mine its government property"...Because that is true if the government can tax your property or tell you what to do with anything you have then you do not own it the government does.

Or for the other side....Every individual has the self evident, inherent,or God given right to life.Killing a baby is murder...

It really is a tough issue because if you make abortion illegal and a murder charge you will have to round up millions and millions of women and charge them with murder.Which is impossible.

I know this fact .... karma,do unto others,Every action has an equal and opposite reaction........So ANY woman that kills her own baby will reap the consequences regardless if we throw them in jail or not....They will be punished....I'm very confident in that.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

dont hang Rand for this...

there has to be exceptions or any "pro life" bill will fail. basically, not abortions for one night stand. one step at a time imo.

----------


## WM_in_MO

Evictionism would be nice...

----------


## cheapseats

> "There are a lot of decisions made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t, the law won’t apply to."



Meaning, WHAT?  Abortion shall be a private matter, but Abortion Hysterics shall be consoled by official albeit toothless condemnation?

What a farce.

----------


## Brett85

A prominent social conservative in Iowa is saying that Rand just killed his chances in Iowa in 2016 with the statements he made in the interview with Wolf Blitzer.

http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2013/...ortion-fiasco/

----------


## Brett85

And this.

http://theiowarepublican.com/2013/ra...nception-bill/

----------


## TaftFan

The point he is making is the difficulty with prosecution.

----------


## Right Wing

> When I was a neoconservative, this was the biggest reason (That and his conservative view on the economy, I was a weird neoconservative that actually supported real conservative views on ecomonics even while supporting insane foreign policy) I initially liked him even while disagreeing with him all the time.
> 
> Rand Paul is pissing me off.  This is exactly what I was afraid of with too much compromise.  I don't give a crap if we actually win or not, since we can't.  We need to be the movement of principle, and do the right thing REGARDLESS of if we win or not.
> 
> I know I'm going to get neg repped for this but I don't care.  Screw winning.  Be principled, and leave the results to God.


I completely agree.  Also, when I was a neoconservative I was very similar to when you were a neoconservative.  I basically was not full blown, but just didn't dig deep enough into what Ron was saying, the paleoconservative and Old Right brand of foreign policy.  Once I did and grasped it, I woke up and my neocon days were over.

----------


## ifthenwouldi

Defining life as something reasonably close to conception with "exceptions" for rape, incest, and maternal health concerns would be a HUGE step in the right direction for me. It's not perfect, but since those three exceptions occur less than 20% of the time...

...it would result in no less than 80% fewer abortions, and that's no small matter.

----------


## Brett85

> Defining life as something reasonably close to conception with "exceptions" for rape, incest, and maternal health concerns would be a HUGE step in the right direction for me. It's not perfect, but since those three exceptions occur less than 20% of the time...
> 
> ...it would result in no less than 80% fewer abortions, and that's no small matter.


1)  That would be a huge flip flop from Rand's position when he was running for the Senate.  Back then he said that the only exception should be for the life of the mother.
2)  It's not possible for an exception for rape to actually work.  A woman could simply claim that she was raped and get an abortion, which would mean that we would have abortion on demand.  If the law actually required a woman to prove that she was raped in a court of law before she could get an abortion, the trial wouldn't be over within nine months and the baby would be born before the trial was over.  It simply isn't possible for a rape exception to be enforceable.

----------


## KingNothing

> A prominent social conservative in Iowa is saying that Rand...


Yeah, I'm sure he'll have a tough time there now that he can say "I crafted a bill to ban abortion, entirely."

----------


## cheapseats

> ...If the law actually required a woman to prove that she was raped in a court of law before she could get an abortion, the trial wouldn't be over within nine months and the baby would be born before the trial was over.



Are ya plannin' to LOCK HER UP & STRAP HER DOWN to make sure no abortion occurs during the trial?  Or are ya content to charge her with some degree of homicide?

How to Win Women & Influence Independents, eh?

Some of you are downright DRACONIAN.

----------


## KingNothing

> Are ya plannin' to LOCK HER UP & STRAP HER DOWN to make sure no abortion happens?
> 
> How to Win Women & Influence Independents, eh?


Exactly.  I'm not sure why people think absolutist stances on abortion are winning strategies.

Christ, Herman Cain blundered his way to a nuanced opinion and in spite of hedging and abject stupidity, he was still the top Republican.

----------


## Brett85

> Exactly.  I'm not sure why people think absolutist stances on abortion are winning strategies.
> 
> Christ, Herman Cain blundered his way to a nuanced opinion and in spite of hedging and abject stupidity, he was still the top Republican.


He gave a couple of interviews where it sounded like he was pro choice, and then there was a huge firestorm over that, and he immediately reversed himself and tried to convince everyone he was pro life.

----------


## Brett85

> Are ya plannin' to LOCK HER UP & STRAP HER DOWN to make sure no abortion occurs during the trial?  Or are ya content to charge her with some degree of homicide?
> 
> How to Win Women & Influence Independents, eh?
> 
> Some of you are downright DRACONIAN.


I have no clue what you mean by that.  My position is that abortion should only be legal when the life of the mother is in danger.  I'm in favor of prosecuting the person who actually kills the baby.  So if an abortionist performs an abortion and kills the baby, the abortionist should be prosecuted, not the mother.

----------


## EBounding

When Rand said "thousands of exceptions", I took it to mean there are thousands of medical conditions that could endanger the mother's life.  

Regardless, everyone's obviously confused and that's dangerous because it just lets your enemies define your position for you.

----------


## abacabb

Honestly, I don't think Rand was flip flopping.

He said that there are "thousands" of situations between the family and a doctor, and what he was referring to is an abortion to save the life of the mother.

Meaning, the law cannot enforce medical exceptions and being that the government isn't a doctor, doctors will be the ones who make that choice.

He implied that he still supports no abortion in rape and incest, saying "after we make the law, I hope people start thinking as I do..."


Personally, I think he very cleverly evaded the question.

Now, being that we are in a culture war, I don't think he took the opportunity to preach what is right, but he ensured his political survival and the furtherance of his bill. Being that he wants the states to decide anyway, it doesn't really matter what his personal opinion on the subject even is. His opinion simply is that the states decide, as they did before Roe V. Wade.

----------


## KingNothing

> He gave a couple of interviews where it sounded like he was pro choice, and then there was a huge firestorm over that, and he immediately reversed himself and tried to convince everyone he was pro life.



And had he not sexually harassed every woman he'd ever met, he would have still won the nomination.

You're making FAR too big a deal out of this.  An overwhelming majority of the country doesn't care about a candidate's stance on abortion, they just care that they "like" him and think he's folksy yet intelligent, brave yet compassionate, principled yet reasonable.  If Rand can continue to play to that, which his "thousands of exceptions" stance does, he'll have a far better chance of winning than if he comes out and says "RAPE FETUSES MUST BE BORN AND ANY WOMAN WHO GETS AN ABORTION SHOULD BE EXECUTED!"

----------


## cheapseats

> ...But abortion law isn't about legislating morality any more than laws against rape or murder are about "legislating morality."


ONLY. IF. YOU. BELIEVE. THE. RELIGIOUS. PREMISE. THAT. LIFE. BEGINS. AT. CONCEPTION.





> Legislating morality is when you pass laws against victimless crimes.  If you don't think the baby is a victim in an abortion, then you aren't pro life.


If you don't believe the first trimester "mass of tissue" is a baby, you are not talking about Life vs. Murder, but Choice vs. Control.

YOU (and others) believing that life begins at conception does not make it so.

MOREOVER, the Bible does not say "thou shalt not abort", it says THOU SHALT NOT KILL.  Before it says THAT, it says we are "accountable for every human life."  ACCOUNTING = RECORDING & REPORTING.  If Judgment Day and Pearly Gates there be, each individual will present his/her own Statement of Account.

Let's do some accounting for WAR DEAD, shall we?  The people we pony up taxes to KILL.  Particularly, let's do some accounting for COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

If Abortion Hysterics would betake themselves to Afghanistan to serve as human shields for Afghan children and pregnant Afghan women, the war would end.  Just sayin'.

----------


## abacabb

> ONLY. IF. YOU. BELIEVE. THE. RELIGIOUS. PREMISE. THAT. LIFE. BEGINS. AT. CONCEPTION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't believe the first trimester "mass of tissue" is a baby, you are not talking about Life vs. Murder, but Choice vs. Control.
> 
> YOU (and others) believing that life begins at conception does not make it so.


Would you take a pregnant cat and kick it in the stomach?

I love the mental gymnastics that somehow a fetus isn't human and its life isn't worth protecting.

----------


## Origanalist

> Would you take a pregnant cat and kick it in the stomach?
> 
> I love the mental gymnastics that somehow a fetus isn't human and its life isn't worth protecting.


I think maybe he would.

----------


## KingNothing

> Would you take a pregnant cat and kick it in the stomach?
> 
> I love the mental gymnastics that somehow a fetus isn't human and its life isn't worth protecting.


It isn't "mental gymnastics" - it's a reasonable stance.  I disagree with it, but it is entirely reasonable.  Why is the morning after pill fine, but what effectively amounts to a "30 days after pill" not acceptable? The entire stance is arbitrary.  And, btw, you can still find plenty of people who take the argument even further and suggest that any "spilt seed" is an abomination because it could have potentially been life.  That stance is just as reasonable as any other on the abortion debate spectrum.

----------


## abacabb

> I think maybe he would.


Something deep down, we have compassion for fetuses, even of animals. To go about saying killing a fetus is an equivalent choice to drinking tea or coffee is to purposely go against the very basest morality.

The whole "choice" lingo is silly. Were we depriving OJ the free choice of killing his wife by making a law against it?

----------


## juleswin

> Are ya plannin' to LOCK HER UP & STRAP HER DOWN to make sure no abortion occurs during the trial?  Or are ya content to charge her with some degree of homicide?
> 
> How to Win Women & Influence Independents, eh?
> 
> Some of you are downright DRACONIAN.


Yea and if you believe the radical pro lifers, why then is it ok to kill a child because he/she was conceived through incest or rape? God knows I'd hate to be killed just because my father committed a crime. Also even when the life of the mother is in danger, why kill the child? I say we let both beings live through the pregnancy and see who makes it alive. My money is on the fetus but since we are pro life extremist, lets not play God and let him decide who lives

This is why I think we should ignore anyone who will withhold their vote because their candidate is not fully on board with pro life camp and yet have no problem voting for an agent of war on the living. They  are single minded and only care about such an irrelevant and liberty suppressing and very unpopular issue. Its better to ignore these people than trying to appease them and then end up losing the soft left/right and whole center

----------


## abacabb

> It isn't "mental gymnastics" - it's a reasonable stance.  I disagree with it, but it is entirely reasonable.  Why is the morning after pill fine, but what effectively amounts to a "30 days after pill" not acceptable? The entire stance is arbitrary.  And, btw, you can still find plenty of people who take the argument even further and suggest that any "spilt seed" is an abomination because it could have potentially been life.  That stance is just as reasonable as any other on the abortion debate spectrum.


I think the simple stance is if you take in any chemical to purposely kill something, it's killing. Now whether it is morally equivalent to pump a woman up with estrogen a day after a rape (Ron Paul's stance) to end the pregnancy or to do a second trimester abortion, only God knows. I think the simple answer is the later you go, the worse it is.

That's why Rand Paul's answer "let the doctor decide" is the best compromise, as I'm not a doctor and really don't know exactly what's going on if a woman is pumped up with estrogen or not. I'd presume the birth control pill by virtue of the way it controls hormones kills countless babies.

----------


## juleswin

> I have no clue what you mean by that.  My position is that abortion should only be legal when the life of the mother is in danger.  I'm in favor of prosecuting the person who actually kills the baby.  So if an abortionist performs an abortion and kills the baby, the abortionist should be prosecuted, not the mother.


Not even as an accessory to murder? Shows how asinine your stance is, even women that hires a hitman to kill their husbands are still tried on some degree of murder. In your case, the woman who drives to an abortion clinic, pays the doctors and then hangs around to receive the abortion is let go without any charges.

Yea that makes sense and it tells everyone you people don't believe or ever intent to treat abortion the same way as murder.

----------


## abacabb

> Not even as an accessory to murder? Shows how asinine your stance is, even women that hires a hitman to kill their husbands are still tried on some degree of murder. In your case, the woman who drives to an abortion clinic, pays the doctors and then hangs around to receive the abortion is let go without any charges.
> 
> Yea that makes sense and it tells everyone you people don't believe or ever intent to treat abortion the same way as murder.


There's laws against murder because it's a threat to society.

Abortion is a lesser kind of murder and it does not literally hurt society (though it spiritually does, like drugs). Doctors should lose licenses and get fines, the women should be fined. In reality, people would get offended by fining the women because we live in a victimization culture.

But, that's why Rand's approach is best, like Ron's. Take it to the states, stop funding them, and we will have less abortions. Its a step in the right direction.

----------


## juleswin

> I think the simple stance is if you take in any chemical to purposely kill something, it's killing. Now whether it is morally equivalent to pump a woman up with estrogen a day after a rape (Ron Paul's stance) to end the pregnancy or to do a second trimester abortion, only God knows. I think the simple answer is the later you go, the worse it is.
> 
> That's why Rand Paul's answer* "let the doctor decide"* is the best compromise, as I'm not a doctor and really don't know exactly what's going on if a woman is pumped up with estrogen or not. I'd presume the birth control pill by virtue of the way it controls hormones kills countless babies.


Turns out you are just as confused as Rand. Letting the doctor decide is essentially being pro choice because people who want to receive and abortion will only go to doctors who have already decided that life begins when the mother says it begins. Remember, being pro choice doesnt mean you like abortion just means you want to give the mother the right to choose what goes on insider her body

----------


## abacabb

> Turns out you are just as confused as Rand. Letting the doctor decide is essentially being pro choice because people who want to receive and abortion will only go to doctors who have already decided that life begins when the mother says it begins. Remember, being pro choice doesnt mean you like abortion just means you want to give the mother the right to choose what goes on insider her body


I don't think I'm confused, I'm simply not a doctor.

If there doctors out there with a "M.O." of overly diagnosing babies that are a threat to the mother's life, that's between them and God. The government is not equipped to overrule doctors on medical matters. It's like the government telling Rand how to do eye surgery.

----------


## juleswin

> I don't think I'm confused, I'm simply not a doctor.
> 
> If there doctors out there with a "M.O." of overly diagnosing babies that are a threat to the mother's life, that's between them and God. The government is not equipped to overrule doctors on medical matters. It's like the government telling Rand how to do eye surgery.



I think you are very pro choice but don't know it yet. "letting the doctor decide", "that's between them and God" those are the same excuses pro choice-ers use to justify their support of choice.

Also panel of govt doctors now can tell Rand how to perform eye surgery. That has been going on for decades now, there is no free market in healthcare, it has been for a long while now a govt regulated market.

----------


## jtstellar

among all the cries of rand flip flopping ever since his political debut, none has ever been true other than him rephrasing his belief in different ways, it's always the people that fail to read him making the same failed forecasts, i will check the sources in a few mins to see if for the 100th time this is still the same stupid breed making false claims

----------


## abacabb

> I think you are very pro choice but don't know it yet. "letting the doctor decide", "that's between them and God" those are the same excuses pro choice-ers use to justify their support of choice.


I just don't have the medical pedigree for this stuff. Let's make the law and if and when it gets abused, sensible precautions can be taken to amend the law and improve it (i.e. doctors with atypical high abortion rates get investigated as per that state's law).

A law which tells a doctor how to be a doctor is not something 99% of pro-life people are behind. I think the life argument is blown out of proportion in order to distract so-cons from much more important issues (i.e. not killing people overseas). But, they get their panties in a bundle about fetuses and gays. Yes, abortion is bad, but let's be sensible so we can actually get something done.

----------


## Brett85

> Now, being that we are in a culture war, I don't think he took the opportunity to preach what is right, but he ensured his political survival and the furtherance of his bill. Being that he wants the states to decide anyway, it doesn't really matter what his personal opinion on the subject even is. His opinion simply is that the states decide, as they did before Roe V. Wade.


No, his bill bans abortion at the federal level.  It's a personhood bill.

----------


## abacabb

> No, his bill bans abortion at the federal level.  It's a personhood bill.


Excuse my ignorance. Aside from not funding abortion, how does the bill Constitutionally do that? I was under the impression that it took abortion out of federal jurisdiction. The law would seem unenforceable then.

----------


## Brett85

> And had he not sexually harassed every woman he'd ever met, he would have still won the nomination.
> 
> You're making FAR too big a deal out of this.  An overwhelming majority of the country doesn't care about a candidate's stance on abortion, they just care that they "like" him and think he's folksy yet intelligent, brave yet compassionate, principled yet reasonable.  If Rand can continue to play to that, which his "thousands of exceptions" stance does, he'll have a far better chance of winning than if he comes out and says "RAPE FETUSES MUST BE BORN AND ANY WOMAN WHO GETS AN ABORTION SHOULD BE EXECUTED!"


But he's already given interviews where he said that shouldn't be any exceptions of rape.  He said that on Bill O'Reilly's show back in 2010.  So all Hillary or whoever the Dem nominee would have to do in 2016 is play the tape of Rand saying that on O'Reilly's show. 

Also, it's more imperative that Rand take a hardcore socially conservative view on the abortion issue than it is for other candidates, because Rand is already deviating from the social conservative line on issues like marriage and drugs.  He doesn't want to be seen as a hardcore social liberal across the board in a GOP primary.

----------


## Brett85

> Excuse my ignorance. Aside from not funding abortion, how does the bill Constitutionally do that? I was under the impression that it took abortion out of federal jurisdiction. The law would seem unenforceable then.


I think it's like Ron's bill in that it gives the unborn legal protections under the law at the federal level, but allows the states to decide how to enforce the law, what the penalties should be, etc.

----------


## abacabb

> I think it's like Ron's bill in that it gives the unborn legal protections under the law at the federal level, but allows the states to decide how to enforce the law, what the penalties should be, etc.


Anything with courts, because that sort of law in sensible.

----------


## Brett85

> It isn't "mental gymnastics" - it's a reasonable stance.  I disagree with it, but it is entirely reasonable.  Why is the morning after pill fine, but what effectively amounts to a "30 days after pill" not acceptable?


From what I understand, the Morning After Pill simply prevents conception from ever ocurring in the first place, rather than causing an abortion.  I would personally rather allow a woman to use the morning after pill than to have her get an abortion when she's three months pregnant.

----------


## abacabb

> From what I understand, the Morning After Pill simply prevents conception from ever ocurring in the first place, rather than causing an abortion.  I would personally rather allow a woman to use the morning after pill than to have her get an abortion when she's three months pregnant.


What if it theoretically kill a Zygote one every 20 times its used?

----------


## Brett85

> What if it theoretically kill a Zygote one every 20 times its used?


I don't know, but from what I understand a lot of pro life groups and pro life people don't even oppose this pill as it generally just prevents life from ever forming in the first place.  It's different from RU 486, which actually causes an abortion and isn't a normal form of birth control.  The Morning After Pill simply works the same way as most other forms of birth control.

----------


## jmdrake

> ONLY. IF. YOU. BELIEVE. THE. RELIGIOUS. PREMISE. THAT. LIFE. BEGINS. AT. CONCEPTION.


You must never have either had a miscarriage or been involved with a woman who did.  *All* of the books given to women who had a miscarriage at *any* hospital in American *stress* that she lost a baby.  Not a fetus.  Not a mass of cells.  Not a "tumor", but a living human *baby*.  It is disgusting hypocrisy for the same society that mourns the loss of an unborn child that's wanted turns around an pretends it wasn't a child because it was unwanted.  You do not have to be religious to believe that human life begins sometime prior to birth.  You only have to be consistent.

----------


## cheapseats

> ...It is disgusting hypocrisy for the same society that mourns the loss of an unborn child that's wanted turns around an pretends it wasn't a child because it was unwanted.  You do not have to be religious to believe that human life begins sometime prior to birth.


Lotsa real estate between "sometime prior to birth" and "AT CONCEPTION".





> You only have to be consistent.


Speaking of consistency AND HYPOCRISY, why do so many who persist that ABORTION IS MURDER then say that only the attending physician, NOT the woman, should be punished?  IF abortion is murder, THEN both doctor and woman must be charged with murder.

But that would lose votes, RIGHT?

----------


## dancjm

> ONLY. IF. YOU. BELIEVE. THE. RELIGIOUS. PREMISE. THAT. LIFE. BEGINS. AT. CONCEPTION.


I am not a religious person all. When an ovum is fertilized by a sperm, it becomes an Embrio. That Embrio is Human, and it is alive. That is why I consider it to be Human life.

Nothing religious about it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Lotsa real estate between "sometime prior to birth" and "AT CONCEPTION".


Sure.  Now find me a book on miscarriage that makes such a distinction or admit that you don't know what you're talking about.




> Speaking of consistency AND HYPOCRISY, why do so many who persist that ABORTION IS MURDER then say that only the attending physician, NOT the woman, should be punished?  IF abortion is murder, THEN both doctor and woman must be charged with murder.
> 
> But that would lose votes, RIGHT?


Hypocrisy is you trying to lump everyone in the same position to score points.  Not everyone seeking to restrict abortion uses the "M" word and not everyone even seeks to charge anyone with murder.  The most common punishment for doctor misconduct is loss of his medical license.  And all of that is beside the point.  Your claim that someone had to be "religious" in order to believe life began before birth is proven to be false.  I know you'd rather change the subject than admit you're wrong.  That's okay.  It happens to the best of us.

----------


## jmdrake

> I am not a religious person all. When an ovum is fertilized by a sperm, it becomes an Embrio. That Embrio is Human, and it is alive. That is why I consider it to be Human life.
> 
> Nothing religious about it.


+rep for the proof by contradiction.

----------


## cheapseats

> I am not a religious person all. When an ovum is fertilized by a sperm, it becomes an Embrio. That Embrio is Human, and it is alive. That is why I consider it to be Human life.


Why YOU consider it to already be human life.  Absent heart and brain, as it IS, some do NOT view the "mass of tissue" as LIFE.





> Nothing religious about it.


Lemme rephrase.

ONLY. IF. YOU. BELIEVE. THE. PREMISE. THAT. LIFE. BEGINS. AT. CONCEPTION.

----------


## cheapseats

> Hypocrisy is you trying to lump everyone in the same position to score points.  Not everyone seeking to restrict abortion uses the "M" word and not everyone even seeks to charge anyone with murder.


Beggin' yer pardon, "WHY DO SO MANY who persist that Abortion is murder..." explicitly does NOT lump all "pro life" people in with the ABORTION IS MURDER extremists.

But there ARE plenty of people equating Abortion with Murder.  Are you saying you are NOT one of them?

Would one of the ABORTION IS MURDER people care to explain...IF ABORTION IS MURDER, why shall not women and doctors alike be prosecuted for murder and punished to the full extent of the law?

----------


## Brett85

> Beggin' yer pardon, "WHY DO SO MANY who persist that Abortion is murder..." explicitly does NOT lump all "pro life" people in with the ABORTION IS MURDER extremists.
> 
> But there ARE plenty of people equating Abortion with Murder.  Are you saying you are NOT one of them?
> 
> Would one of the ABORTION IS MURDER people care to explain...IF ABORTION IS MURDER, why shall not women and doctors alike be prosecuted for murder and punished to the full extent of the law?


Because the woman isn't the one who actually commits the act of murder.

----------


## jmdrake

I believe the best way to deal with abortion is through licensing laws rather than criminal laws.




> Beggin' yer pardon, "WHY DO SO MANY who persist that Abortion is murder..." explicitly does NOT lump all "pro life" people in with the ABORTION IS MURDER extremists.
> 
> But there ARE plenty of people equating Abortion with Murder.  Are you saying you are NOT one of them?
> 
> Would one of the ABORTION IS MURDER people care to explain...IF ABORTION IS MURDER, why shall not women and doctors alike be prosecuted for murder and punished to the full extent of the law?

----------


## jmdrake

> Why YOU consider it to already be human life.  Absent heart and brain, as it IS, some do NOT view the "mass of tissue" as LIFE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lemme rephrase.
> 
> ONLY. IF. YOU. BELIEVE. THE. PREMISE. THAT. LIFE. BEGINS. AT. CONCEPTION.


Thank you for rephrasing that.  And I hope we can now agree that this isn't necessarily a "moral question".  When life begins is a scientific question.  Most everyone can agree that a toddler meets the definition of human life.  (Some bioethicists in England seem crazy enough to deny that, but they're clearly nuts).  Most everyone can agree that sperm or ovums are not human life.  (Some people disagree, but again not part of the mainstream and I'd call them nuts as well though not as dangerous as someone who would advocate killing toddlers).  Where to draw the line in between those two extremes?  That's unclear.  But someone can validly draw that line a myriad of places without calling on religion.  This is really a scientific question.  Science has let us know that a baby in the mother's womb can respond to his mother's voice or to calming music, or even recognize his father's voice.  Based on all of the evidence, while I'm not sure when a developing baby can truly be considered "human", I am certain that many aborted fetuses fit the rational definition of that word.  They have beating hearts, brainwave activity, etc.

----------


## cheapseats

> Because the woman isn't the one who actually commits the act of murder.



You would prosecute/punish the doctor but not the woman because the doctor is the one who actually "commits the act of murder".

Bearing the hysterical angle of IS IT OKAY TO MURDER INCONVENIENT/UNWANTED TODDLERS in mind, your position would allow a parent to PRESENT their child for execution by another without bearing any culpability.

Bearing ordinary murder laws in mind, your position would exonerate a person who "merely" contracts/seduces/incites/ASKS another to commit murder.

----------


## Todd

> ONLY. IF. YOU. BELIEVE. THE. RELIGIOUS. PREMISE. THAT. LIFE. BEGINS. AT. CONCEPTION.


Seems I read that on page one of my Biology book.  Not my Bible.

----------


## cheapseats

> ...When life begins is a scientific question.  Most everyone can agree that a toddler meets the definition of human life.  (Some bioethicists in England seem crazy enough to deny that, but they're clearly nuts).  *Most everyone can agree that sperm or ovums are not human life.  (Some people disagree, but again not part of the mainstream and I'd call them nuts* as well though not as dangerous as someone who would advocate killing toddlers).


I'm with you here.





> Where to draw the line in between those two extremes?  *That's unclear.*  But someone can validly draw that line a myriad of places without calling on religion...


...and without calling people who believe differently MURDERERS.

People "can *validly* draw that line a myriad of places"...therefore the Liberty Moovement will embrace LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION?  Hardright Republicans, yes.  But the Liberty Moovement? I think not.  I think "Abortion Abolition" rhetoric can only divide & weaken the GOP.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Those little swimmers sure look like "life". If they were found on Mars, it would be a major discovery. "Every sperm is sacred."

----------


## Brett85

I contacted Rand's office and told them my concerns.  They said that they would tell Rand about my concerns.  I hope they follow through on that.

----------


## jtstellar

so as promised i watched the clip just to see if it is proven the 101th time naysayers and scaremongers since rand's day 1 debut are failures and they get it wrong yet again-- yep.

what's different in this than what ron said about abortion, essentially that it should be put into a category similar to 'violence' and all violent acts are handled by the states, towns and localities can decide the particulars of the situation and some will have looser views on abortion if localities so decide, hence the 'exceptions' rand worded here.  

rand, as -usual- is simply phrasing it in a way that is smoother and people who are born stupid as -usual- misread him and are raising much ado about nothing, and in the end as -usual- will walk away like they never said anything stupid about rand after it's been disproved, and as -usual- go on their stupid lives, however unintentional because stupidity isn't something you can control, unto trolling the next subject.

----------


## Brett85

> what's different in this than what ron said about abortion, essentially that it should be put into a category similar to 'violence' and all violent acts are handled by the states, towns and localities can decide the particulars of the situation and some will have looser views on abortion if localities so decide, hence the 'exceptions' rand worded here.


Rand's position isn't to allow the states to handle the issue.  The bill that he introduced would ban every single abortion nationwide.  That's why there's still a huge inconsistency between his bill and what he was saying on Wolf Blitzer's show.  I think it's completely valid to be confused and concerned about Rand's position on this issue.

----------


## erowe1

> Rand's position isn't to allow the states to handle the issue.  The bill that he introduced would ban every single abortion nationwide.


With no life of the mother exception?

----------


## Brett85

> With no life of the mother exception?


The bill doesn't mention any exceptions.

----------


## erowe1

> The bill doesn't mention any exceptions.


I wonder if it would need to. I assume that if the unborn baby is legally treated as a person, then an abortion to save the life of the mother would legally be the same as separating conjoined twins to save one rather than let both die.

----------


## cheapseats

> The bill doesn't mention any exceptions.



Compare that with the "thousands of exception" acknowledged on leftie CNN.

----------


## Brett85

> I wonder if it would need to. I assume that if the unborn baby is legally treated as a person, then an abortion to save the life of the mother would legally be the same as separating conjoined twins to save one rather than let both die.


I'm not sure about that.  I guess that's something Rand should address.

----------


## KingNothing

> The bill doesn't mention any exceptions.


Best of both worlds then.  He gets to say he proposed legislation that would appease the hard right socons, and he gets to say he's for a Real discussion to appease everyone else.

----------


## erowe1

> Best of both worlds then.  He gets to say he proposed legislation that would appease the hard right socons, and he gets to say he's for a Real discussion to appease everyone else.


I don't really see it that way.

Rather than trying to appease someone, he should pick what he really wants and make that the focus of the discussion.

If he would just drop the federalizing of the issue entirely, and say leave it up to the states, and take on other socons head-on, arguing that that approach is the very best pro-life approach, I think it would be a winning strategy.

If not enough pro-lifers are there, then we need to get them there. And I think we can.

----------


## jmdrake

> The bill doesn't mention any exceptions.


That's because the bill isn't actually an abortion ban.  It's a declaration of personhood.  As written it doesn't ban a single abortion, and I see no difference between it and Ron Paul's "sanctity of life" act which also didn't ban a single abortion.  The problem is, people don't understand the difference between laying the legal foundation for banning abortion, and actually banning abortion.  I've tried to explain it, but alas it seems like I'm failing.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't really see it that way.
> 
> Rather than trying to appease someone, he should pick what he really wants and make that the focus of the discussion.
> 
> If he would just drop the federalizing of the issue entirely, and say leave it up to the states, and take on other socons head-on, arguing that that approach is the very best pro-life approach, I think it would be a winning strategy.
> 
> If not enough pro-lifers are there, then we need to get them there. And I think we can.


+rep!  When the pro-life movement began it was *all* about overturning Roe v. Wade.  Now a certain radical fringe element has morphed it into something else.

----------


## Brett85

> That's because the bill isn't actually an abortion ban.  It's a declaration of personhood.  As written it doesn't ban a single abortion, and I see no difference between it and Ron Paul's "sanctity of life" act which also didn't ban a single abortion.  The problem is, people don't understand the difference between laying the legal foundation for banning abortion, and actually banning abortion.  I've tried to explain it, but alas it seems like I'm failing.


I posted this before.  Rand says at the 2:55 mark that his bill outlaws abortion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=9-0qPVwKRdc

----------


## jmdrake

> I posted this before.  Rand says at the 2:55 mark that his bill outlaws abortion.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=9-0qPVwKRdc


Thank you for posting it again.  Now that I watch it I see where the misconception is coming.  Rand didn't say "This bill outlaws abortion."  Listen again.  He said:

"I'm convinced *that we can get this bill to the forefront of the American debate* and ultimately outlaw abortion once and for all."

What did Rand later say on Blitzer?  *This bill starts the debate*!

If you sneeze you missed it.  The bill is a starting point.  It isn't a ban.  It no more ends abortion than the emancipation proclamation ended slavery.  It mentions no sanctions.  It doesn't say even say if penalties for violating it are civil or criminal.  It doesn't even specify what constitutes a violation.  It's not an abortion ban.  It could pave the way for one though.

----------


## Brett85

I don't see how Rand's bill would simply send the issue back to the states when his bill grants the unborn legal rights under the 14th amendment.  The 14th amendment itself says that no state government has the right to deny the right to life to its citizens.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

> I posted this before.  Rand says at the 2:55 mark that his bill outlaws abortion.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=9-0qPVwKRdc


Nope. He says, "I'm sure we can get this bill to the forefront of the American debate, and ultimately outlaw abortion once and for all." When it comes to being stealthily libertarian on an issue, Rand knows how to weasel-word and still sound like a million bucks. 

Honestly I think you're just going to need to find another candidate to vote for. Like his pappy, Rand knows that federal prohibition of all abortions would be a foolish, Wilsonian move that would anger the public. He is willing to use the forum of government to make points, publicize the debate, and find reforms where most of the public's representatives can agree, like ending federal funding for abortion or at least giving practicing Christians the opportunity to x-out of a % of their taxes going to Planned Parenthood. 

But federally outlawing abortion is not on the Pauls' agenda. Nope. Sorry. Never has been. I take serious issue with two points you've been peddling over and over, 1) that a majority of Americans are strongly pro-life and 2) that a Republican can't get elected in 2016 without running on a federal abortion ban. Neither are true. 

Abortion also seems to be the #1 deal-breaker issue among Christian GOP represented here. Do you really think a federal abortion ban is more important than the overall current state of affairs? Do you expect everyone else on Earth to link the abortion issue with social & fiscal enlightenment the way you personally do, so that any pro-choice libertarian is inherently dishonest and not worth electing? What if in 10 years the government is 40 trillion dollars in debt & Americans are hurting in chaos, would they be able to effectively police abortions then? Would anyone have any money to spend on private, peaceful anti-abortion efforts? Consider the world-historical consequences of this fracture. If we don't save the country, abortion banning will be moot.

----------


## Brett85

@KurtBoyer-You're simply wrong.  Rand had to take the position of supporting a federal ban on abortion in the GOP primary in 2010, otherwise he would've lost the primary.  He was being accused by his primary opponents of being pro choice or being "pro choice for states."  He had to come out in favor of a federal ban on abortion back then in order to refute that criticism.  He says flat out on his website that he supports a federal ban on abortion.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/

"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."

----------


## Brett85

And I never said that the majority of the American people are pro life.  I just said that the majority of the American people aren't going to refuse to vote for an anti abortion candidate under any circumstances.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't see how Rand's bill would simply send the issue back to the states when his bill grants the unborn legal rights under the 14th amendment.  The 14th amendment itself says that no state government has the right to deny the right to life to its citizens.
> 
> "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


Question 1.  What do you believe Ron Paul's answer to abortion was?  Federalize it or give it to the states?

Question 2.  What do you see as the difference between Ron's personhood bill and Rand's?

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

> @KurtBoyer-You're simply wrong.  Rand had to take the position of supporting a federal ban on abortion in the GOP primary in 2010, otherwise he would've lost the primary.  He was being accused by his primary opponents of being pro choice or being "pro choice for states."  He had to come out in favor of a federal ban on abortion back then in order to refute that criticism.  He says flat out on his website that he supports a federal ban on abortion.
> 
> http://www.paul.senate.gov/
> 
> "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."


Yeah. _In Kentucky._ I also remember Rand putting up hardcore for States' Rights on abortion during the debates with Greyson. I'm sure you remember what a fool he made of that fat crony. What Rand said is that as a people's representative in congress he would uphold his & the Kentucky public's views on the issue, not that his goal was to become President and issue an executive order mobilizing the Department of Sexual and Reproductive Purity. 

If Mitt Romney, a pro-choice moderate, can get elected in a *national* GOP primary, surely Rand Paul can. And I don't know if Rand couldn't win the Kentucky presidential primary even if he doesn't get fascist on abortion. Just a hunch.

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

> And I never said that the majority of the American people are pro life.  I just said that the majority of the American people aren't going to refuse to vote for an anti abortion candidate under any circumstances.


I don't understand what that means.

----------


## cheapseats

> ...Rand had to take the position of supporting a federal ban on abortion in the GOP primary in 2010...



...to become a senator from Kentucky, NOT to become president of the nation.

----------


## Brett85

> Yeah. _In Kentucky._ I also remember Rand putting up hardcore for States' Rights on abortion during the debates with Greyson. I'm sure you remember what a fool he made of that fat crony. What Rand said is that as a people's representative in congress he would uphold his & the Kentucky public's views on the issue, not that his goal was to become President and issue an executive order mobilizing the Department of Sexual and Reproductive Purity. 
> 
> If Mitt Romney, a pro-choice moderate, can get elected in a *national* GOP primary, surely Rand Paul can. And I don't know if Rand couldn't win the Kentucky presidential primary even if he doesn't get fascist on abortion. Just a hunch.


Obviously he wouldn't have the authority to ban abortion through an executive order.  But he would sign pro life laws that Congress passed.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't understand what that means.


It means that although the majority of voters are pro choice, most voters aren't going to base their vote for President on the abortion issue.  A Gallup poll showed that only 15% of pro choice voters would never consider voting for a pro life candidate.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ...to become a senator from Kentucky, NOT to become president of the nation.


No.  Rand took the position for a federal ban in 2010.  TC is right.

----------


## Brett85

And the "fascist" position on abortion is to support the death penalty for innocent human beings who have never received any kind of due process.  I thought libertarians were supposed to believe in due process?

----------


## devil21

so so sick of these friggin emotional social wedge issues that only affect a tiny percentage of the population.

----------


## jtstellar

i think rand is really driving out some wackos, the true 'wing-nuts' if you will.  i've never read before people coming out and actually speaking of things like 'it will sit better with most americans if we deported a significant portion of the 12 million illegals here, even if not all' on youtube just now, and you have people coming out of the woodworks saying even states shouldn't decide, on sometimes delicate issues you have to have a judge personally looking into circumstances and statements from neighbors etc to decide abortion cases, whether some towns just have looser views in general or stricter

all perfectly reasonable views, but with rand's recent assault on american public-zombieness to force a debate, you're seeing the true wing-nuts coming out of the woods.  i've never seen it before quite frankly, it used to be a media phrase, but we now know what the true wing nuts look like.  deport 5+ million people, states don't hear cases on abortion.  hah.

----------


## jtstellar

> No.  Rand took the position for a federal ban in 2010.  TC is right.


as right as you implying rand's filibuster will be perceived as no big deal, because the wise sola_fide deemed it no big deal?  quote him pls, i don't want to check sources for the 102th time of someone misunderstanding rand, it's not like i will be compensated for time spent looking up claims that will be proven wrong, yet again.  and just so you know, since rand is appealing to a wide range of voters, we aren't really desperate for your support, so don't sweat it, no reason to stress yourself out.  i ain't.

----------


## I<3Liberty

> And the "fascist" position on abortion is to support the death penalty for innocent human beings who have never received any kind of due process.  I thought libertarians were supposed to believe in due process?


OMG, this thread is on the 27th page and you are getting absolutely nowhere. 

As I've said countless times, others have said, and Ron Paul has said -- YOU CANNOT solve problems like this through legislation. You must change culture, support the anti-abortion cause through charities and non-profits, and (I cannot stress this enough) help women have a choice without harming an unborn life. The biggest problem with anti-abortion folks is they ignore the need for choice on the woman's part. Go donate to some of the labs working on 100% effective contraceptives and help them get these products to market. In the meantime, encourage people to use protection if they do not wish to have a baby. 

Many libertarians do agree with you that this is a moral issue that needs to change, but we use sound logic in our attempts to conquer this problem and protect the rights of both women and the unborn.

----------


## Dianne

Sigh...   I'm having many issues with Rand ... He's definitely not his Father.

----------


## Dianne

Oh, and once FOX News gives a "Paul" positive coverage .....   you know you better cut and run.

----------


## Brett85

> OMG, this thread is on the 27th page and you are getting absolutely nowhere. 
> 
> As I've said countless times, others have said, and Ron Paul has said -- YOU CANNOT solve problems like this through legislation.


Ron Paul is opposed to legal abortion.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

If abortion was in fact illegal in this country or any of the states, what would the penalty be for the women that take action in terms of regulating their bodies? It would include premeditation, so murder in the 1st? Would an abortion abolitionist be worthy in God's eyes if they put a bullet in the alleged sinner? This issue will undoubtedly be debated ad infinitum in this thread and threads to come for 100s or maybe 1000s of pages and nothing will be solved. This is a human grey area that only God will be able to settle the score.

----------


## Brett85

> If abortion was in fact illegal in this country or any of the states, what would the penalty be for the women that take action in terms of regulating their bodies?


I don't know of anyone who advocates prosecuting women who get abortions.  All of the pro lifers I know simply support passing a law that closes down abortion clinics and prosecutes the doctors who perform abortions.

----------


## I<3Liberty

> Ron Paul is opposed to legal abortion.


He's morally opposed to it, as many people are. The problem is, you really can't stop it through a ban. people can easily go outside of the US (as they do with many other procedures just because it's cheaper), they can do it themselves, or go through the black market. 

Personally, I'm also morally opposed to the idea, but I actually support viable solutions that do not compromise either stakeholder (the mother or unborn fetus.) As I've said countless times, all women want is a choice. No one gets pregnant to have an abortion. Rather, they intervene too late because they either did not use protection or lacked a 100% reliable choice. As a libertarian morally opposed to this and morally opposed to not allowing women the right to choice -- I fully back the 100% effective contraceptives for men and women. This is how we will settle this problem. The women's right to choose side and anti-abortion side will both have their concerns addressed and we will not compromise either the woman or unborn's rights. Win/win, end of problem, and hopefully the end of these debates.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I don't know of anyone who advocates prosecuting women who get abortions.  All of the pro lifers I know simply support passing a law that closes down abortion clinics and prosecutes the doctors who perform abortions.


That would be hypocrisy since there's an alleged criminal conspiracy to commit 'murder'. Then women would have to go to an abortion speakeasy where their lives would be further put at risk. This is a distraction issue used to keep social cons from focusing on economics.

----------


## Brett85

> That would be hypocrisy since there's an alleged criminal conspiracy to commit 'murder'. Then women would have to go to an abortion speakeasy where their lives would be further put at risk. This is a distraction issue used to keep social cons from focusing on economics.


Abortion laws wouldn't have to be exactly the same as the murder laws we have.  It's a different situation and the law could be applied differently.  Realistically it would cause a lot of damage to the pro life cause to advocate prosecuting women who get abortions, which is why the focus should be on prosecuting abortion doctors.

----------


## Brett85

> He's morally opposed to it, as many people are.


You're entitled to your own opinion on this issue, but Ron Paul's position is that he's opposed to legal abortion.  He supports overturning Roe v. Wade and supported a Human Life Amendment while in Congress that would ban abortion nationwide.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> You're entitled to your own opinion on this issue, but Ron Paul's position is that he's opposed to legal abortion.  He supports overturning Roe v. Wade and supported a Human Life Amendment while in Congress that would ban abortion nationwide.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...kpqfbg#t=2212s

He's also said that.

----------


## camp_steveo

> it would be like me saying that personally, I am against aborting a baby, but in the same breathe say that when it comes to federal laws, things become complicated and may have many exceptions. I have a hard time envisioning a law that can account for every life event. I didn't see him as all over the place. but a complex issue given layers of answers.


That's interesting.

Personally, I hate the idea of abortion.  However, I also hate the way it gets done when it's illegal.  That's much worse IMO.

----------


## Brett85

> Personally, I hate the idea of abortion.  However, I also hate the way it gets done when it's illegal.  That's much worse IMO.


Personally, I hate the idea of murder.  However, I also hate the way it gets done when it's illegal.  That's much worse IMO.

----------


## presence

Traditional Conservative I got the gist from Rands statements that all abortion is illegal except 

1) a handful of estrogen pills the day after or
 2) medical NECESSITY of the mother.      (....eta "life of the mother" is at stake.)

(but I admittedly have not read through this whole thread)

  Generally I agree with Rand but I don't think it is politically possible to get there right now.  

Do you agree with this assessment of his stance, 
do you agree with this stance, and 
do you think it is politically possible across the red/blue divide.  


  I am still firmly for my "10 gram rule" at the present time (not that I could see my family seeking an abortion) and I think that Rand's stance (if I understand it correctly) could evolve from my "ten gram rule" should the nation build the will to evolve in that direction.  I have this frustrated belief that the harder the "pro life movement' pushes on a life at conception act the less chance we have to end late term abortion in the foreseeable future.

Anybody else also feel free to chime in.



2 States (AR, ND) Move Towards TEN GRAM RULE on Abortion

----------


## Brett85

I agree, except I would be more specific and say " the life of the mother."  Obviously there's no chance of Rand's bill passing and abortion becoming illegal anytime soon, but it's still good to have the goal of ending abortion and to try to convince other people to share that goal.

----------


## presence

> I agree, except I would be more specific and say " the life of the mother."  Obviously there's no chance of Rand's bill passing and abortion becoming illegal anytime soon, but it's still good to have the goal of ending abortion and to try to convince other people to share that goal.


agreed

but


 I feel like Rand, or any other "pro life" senator (or activist) would do the "pro life" movement; do unborn babies

 better

 to sponsor BOTH a life at conception bill (which will fail in the current political climate)
and a life at 10 grams / embryo transition / ~3 months bill (which could stop all, non critical to mothers health, second trimester abortions)

I feel like shifting RVW back has a chance NOW and it should be seized.


I feel like all "pro life" people would do good to coalition with abortion moderates (which I expect most people are) to take a step in the right direction.

----------


## robert68

> You're entitled to your own opinion on this issue, but Ron Paul's position is that he's opposed to legal abortion.  He supports overturning Roe v. Wade and supported a Human Life Amendment while in Congress that would ban abortion nationwide.


From "Federalizing Social Policy" by Ron Paul:




> Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion... 
> 
> Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. *Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue.* So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

----------


## sylcfh

Abortion is a meaningless issue, anyway. It's a wedge issue used by the Rove's and Luntz's of the world to rally the base.

It's time we focus on actual liberty, and not sidetrack ourselves with demagoguery.

----------


## HigherVision

> agreed
> 
> but
> 
> 
>  I feel like Rand, or any other "pro life" senator (or activist) would do the "pro life" movement; do unborn babies
> 
>  better
> 
> ...


Shouldn't it be life at implantation rather than conception? Because wouldn't life at conception require making birth control pills illegal since they can block implantation after an egg has been fertilized?




> Abortion is a meaningless issue, anyway. It's a wedge issue used by the Rove's and Luntz's of the world to rally the base.
> 
> It's time we focus on actual liberty, and not sidetrack ourselves with demagoguery.


Nah it's important. What's sad though is that it would take a law to stop so many women from destroying their unborn babies. That millions of women choose to do this. Sort of like circumcision. The real tragedy isn't just that it's legal but that so many parents don't care enough about their children to not do it.

----------


## Brett85

> Abortion is a meaningless issue, anyway. It's a wedge issue used by the Rove's and Luntz's of the world to rally the base.
> 
> It's time we focus on actual liberty, and not sidetrack ourselves with demagoguery.


If the government allowed people to kill babies that have been born who are less than one year old, would that be a meaningless issue?

----------


## sailingaway

> From "Federalizing Social Policy" by Ron Paul:


But that is why he creatively came up with the life at conception then turn it over to states how to handle.  Under Ron's view the federal government has to undo Roe v Wade because that WAS the federal government.

----------


## juleswin

> If the government allowed people to kill babies that have been born who are less than one year old, would that be a meaningless issue?


Yes, because only a small percentage of women with babies would ever have the opportunity to do it or even think of doing it. Irrelevant because govt decision will only force people to perform the abortion in secret or earlier before the govt can interfere which could be good and bad. Bad in that some people will rush the decision of getting an abortion and good in that less matured fetuses will be aborted.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes, because only a small percentage of women with babies would ever have the opportunity to do it or even think of doing it. Irrelevant because govt decision will only force people to perform the abortion in secret or earlier before the govt can interfere which could be good and bad. Bad in that some people will rush the decision of getting an abortion and good in that less matured fetuses will be aborted.


So you're ok with killing a baby that's already been born who's less than one year old?

----------


## sylcfh

> Nah it's important. What's sad though is that it would take a law to stop so many women from destroying their unborn babies. That millions of women choose to do this. Sort of like circumcision. The real tragedy isn't just that it's legal but that so many parents don't care enough about their children to not do it.




Would you support a law banning circumcision? I think the practice is barbaric, but passing laws against it certainly won't convince anyone. They're not converts, they're simply coerced by the state.

----------

