Rand Paul on the Life at Conception Act

[itshappening]

I support the fundamental right to life, period. These are not new or strange issues to American juris prudence. Conjoined twins have already established settled medical procedures for dealing with questions that politicians have no right to get in front of. However, everyone knows that there is no political will to affect the status quo in Congress, especially when questions of rape and murder are given by the Constitution to be dealt with in the states and not Washington DC. The more important question that will have an actual impact on actual Americans is how skyrocketing debt and incompetent fiscal policies have led to a 14.6% U6 unemployment rate. Americans are struggling every day just to feed themselves and their families, and you are asking me about things that will not change in our lifetimes unless there is a total revolution in American politics which leads to a fundamental shift in the morality of the American people.

Yes Gunny but unless you state you support abortions in exceptional cases then the Democrats will bury you with ads showing crying moms of teenagers who have been raped who will say "candidate X would have forced my daughter to have the baby, it's terrible. we've been through too much already. To be denied an abortion like X is saying and for my daughter to be forced to carry the baby is not fair".

Try arguing with that, large voting sections will not pull the lever for a candidate like that.

 

[AuH20]

To be fair, Senator Paul, you're the one bringing this up with your Life at Conception Act legislation. If you don't want to discuss this issue, why bring it up?

To ignore the muted cries of the most vulnerable in society is at the heart of the dehumanization program that has enabled great injustices to occur throughout history. If your liberties and constitutional freedoms are not protected in such a sacrosanct location as the womb, then where are they protected????

 

[itshappening]

To ignore the muted cries of the most vulnerable in society is at the heart of the dehumanization program that has enabled great injustices to occur throughout history. If your liberties and constitutional freedoms are not protected in such a sacrosanct location as the womb, then where are they protected????

Noble principles don't win elections, simple as that.

Buck, Akin,, Mourdock, all buried in statewide races because they waffled on abortion exceptions. Lesson is don't waffle, be clear that you support them or face the Democrat onslaught of mothers of raped 13 year old girls telling everyone how evil you are for wanting her to carry the baby.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

To ignore the muted cries of the most vulnerable in society is at the heart of the dehumanization program that has enabled great injustices to occur throughout history. If your liberties and constitutional freedoms are not protected in a vulnerable location such as the womb, then where are they protected????

To break from the meta discussion going on in the thread, applying the 14th Amendment to the unborn is done under the banner of incorporation, another idea through which great injustices have been enabled. Ron rejects this idea, and rightfully so.

And to break further from the discussion, if the woman withdraws consent but is forced to carry to term anyway, inalienability of the will does not exist, and any argument put forward about property rights, self-ownership, or rejection of group rights is null and void.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

To be fair, Senator Paul, you're the one bringing this up with your Life at Conception Act legislation. If you don't want to discuss this issue, why bring it up?

I assume this will be 3 year old news by then, and it will be a 'gotcha' newsie trying to lever him on it.

 

[AuH20]

Noble principles don't win elections, simple as that.

Buck, Akin,, Mourdock, all buried in statewide races because they waffled on abortion exceptions. Lesson is don't waffle, be clear that you support them or face the Democrat onslaught of mothers of raped 13 year old girls telling everyone how evil you are for wanting her to carry the baby.

Obama sold noble principles. He's such a swell guy with such a lofty vision for America......................or so I'm told.

 

[itshappening]

I assume this will be 3 year old news by then, and it will be a 'gotcha' newsie trying to lever him on it.

That's very naive. He will get questioned on it repeatedly especially on exceptions and if he supports abortions for victims of rape. If he says no or provides a convoluted answer the Democrats will have a field day digging up rape victims to condemn him.. or doctors telling stories about how they saved a life of a woman in an emergency situation which they couldnt do under Rand's act. "I wouldn't be alive today if Rand Paul had his way".

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes Gunny but unless you state you support abortions in exceptional cases then the Democrats will bury you with ads showing crying moms of teenagers who have been raped who will say "candidate X would have forced my daughter to have the baby, it's terrible. we've been through too much already. To be denied an abortion like X is saying and for my daughter to be forced to carry the baby is not fair".

Try arguing with that, large voting sections will not pull the lever for a candidate like that.

All kinds of radical right to lifers have been elected. It's all about being able to uphold the principle without allowing the wedge to be driven. If they can't get a devastating soundbite to fill the news cycle, then those attacks make way less traction. If they run those ads, call them out for ignoring the issues that are hurting Americans every day to focus on irresponsible speculation of what may or may not happen over the next couple decades.

 

[69360]

Yes Gunny but unless you state you support abortions in exceptional cases then the Democrats will bury you with ads showing crying moms of teenagers who have been raped who will say "candidate X would have forced my daughter to have the baby, it's terrible. we've been through too much already. To be denied an abortion like X is saying and for my daughter to be forced to carry the baby is not fair".

Try arguing with that, large voting sections will not pull the lever for a candidate like that.

Remove the social stigma from rape victims and provide safe and easy access to the morning after pill is the correct position to counter that sort of ploy and how I expect Rand would handle it.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

That's very naive. He will get questioned on it repeatedly especially on exceptions and if he supports abortions for victims of rape. If he says no or provides a convoluted answer the Democrats will have a field day digging up rape victims to condemn him.. or doctors telling stories about how they saved a life of a woman in an emergency situation which they couldnt do under Rand's act. "I wouldn't be alive today if Rand Paul had his way".

How does Rand's act affect such medical decisions?

Do doctors get arrested for committing murder when separating conjoined twins where it is known that one of them will die?

Murder is settled law. Why aren't these doctors being prosecuted for murder?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Remove the social stigma from rape victims and provide safe and easy access to the morning after pill is the correct position to counter that sort of ploy and how I expect Rand would handle it.

If Christians believed their scripture, then they would conclude that life is in the blood, that the soul is carried in the blood, and that life begins 12~14 days after conception. However that is neither here nor there, because if there is one thing I have learned it's that Christians will prefer their own invested understanding over the revealed Word of God every day of the week.

 

[Brett85]

The only way to shut it down is to state you support abortion in exceptional cases. Pro-life candidates who cannot bring themselves to say this risk a storm, national backlash and losing.

Mitt Romney ran on a platform of opposing abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and that stance didn't help him one bit.

 

[itshappening]

How does Rand's act affect such medical decisions?

Do doctors get arrested for committing murder when separating conjoined twins where it is known that one of them will die?

Murder is settled law. Why aren't these doctors being prosecuted for murder?

see the case in Ireland where the woman died because the doctors wouldn't abort the baby.

They will ask about rape and incest and do we really want the final weeks of a campaign dominated by abortion?

Whether we like it or not that's what happens. Look at the cases of Mourdock, Ken Buck and Todd Akin who lost statewide campaigns because voters were turned off by their views on abortion. The only way to shut it down is to say you support abortion in exceptional circumstances. case closed, next.. then they can't hit you on the no exceptions and the deluge of crying rape victims who hate you being paraded on TV is fended off.

 

[jmdrake]

those answers are far too long and convoluted. anyone who advocates no abortion for rape/incest/life of mother in danger is going to be toast no matter what the explanation is and the more you waffle on the subject the worse it is. The only position to take is to say "YES, I support abortion in exceptions" and that's it. that's all voters want to hear especially independent women in ohio, colorado, New Hampshire, Florida, Wisconsin and a bunch of other swing states. You cannot win waffling about rape and incest, it has to be clear cut that you support it or you create a witch hunt and huge national media storm.

Note that I gave both short and long answers. And that's how you win. You have the short soundbite answer for the TV commercials and the longer more convoluted answers for the interviews. And giving a thoughtful answer is not at all "waffling" and it's politically naive of you to suggest that. Waffling is changing your answer, as opposed to giving an explanation for it. If you think a short "I support abortion with exceptions" is going to get Rand through the GOP primaries, especially in Iowa, then you haven't been paying attention. Rand had to fight for his political life just to get past the "Plan B for rape" exception. Akins and Murdock lost because they gave stupid answers, not because they "waffled". Oh, and democrats will crucify you for making "exceptions" as well. I've seen it happen personally. "You support a rape exception? But I thought you said abortion was murder? How can there be an exception to murder someone just because his parent was a rapist?"

 

[jmdrake]

see the case in Ireland where the woman died because the doctors wouldn't abort the baby.

Laws against murder always include the defense of self defense and necessity. Next!

They will ask about rape and incest and do we really want the final weeks of a campaign dominated by abortion?

Do you want the republican primary to be dominated by the abortion question so that you don't make it to the general election? In the general flip the script and put the pro choice candidate on the defensive by asking him why he wants to impose the death penalty on the innocent children of rapists. And if you accept Plan B as an alternative (and Rand has in the past) there is already a "rape exception" that many pro lifers can live with. But an open ended "You can have an abortion any time in the pregnancy as long as you claim you were raped" exception is guaranteed to lose someone like Rand the nomination. There would be no general election to worry about.

Whether we like it or not that's what happens. Look at the cases of Mourdock, Ken Buck and Todd Akin who lost statewide campaigns because voters were turned off by their views on abortion. The only way to shut it down is to say you support abortion in exceptional circumstances. case closed, next.. then they can't hit you on the no exceptions and the deluge of crying rape victims who hate you being paraded on TV is fended off.

And that's a recipe for not winning the GOP nomination in the first place especially if you are a "Paul" and you already have the "Republicans are wary about your foreign policy because of your dad" baggage.

 

[jmdrake]

Mitt Romney ran on a platform of opposing abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and that stance didn't help him one bit.

Shhhh....don't confuse him with the facts.

 

[Brett85]

Rand Paul supports allowing rape victims to have access to the morning after pill, so any claim that Rand wants to "force rape victims to give birth" is completely untrue.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

see the case in Ireland where the woman died because the doctors wouldn't abort the baby.

They will ask about rape and incest and do we really want the final weeks of a campaign dominated by abortion?

Whether we like it or not that's what happens. Look at the cases of Mourdock, Ken Buck and Todd Akin who lost statewide campaigns because voters were turned off by their views on abortion. The only way to shut it down is to say you support abortion in exceptional circumstances. case closed, next.. then they can't hit you on the no exceptions and the deluge of crying rape victims who hate you being paraded on TV is fended off.

We don't live in Ireland, we live in America. In America, there are no legislative exceptions from murder when it comes to doctors separating conjoined twins when it is known that one of them will die, and yet doctors are not prosecuted for doing just that. That is why these questions are held as locally as possible, because there is no way a politician 3000 miles away in Washington DC can possibly know what is happening in a single Operating Room with a single patient.

If an unborn baby is alive, then abortion is murder. Medical precedent is already well established in America when dealing with murder. The states have been dealing with murder for more than 200 years now. Is there some plan to make New York a province of Ireland that I haven't heard of?

----

Mourdock Buck and Akin collapsed because they provided hot soundbites to feed a news cycle.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Note that I gave both short and long answers. And that's how you win. You have the short soundbite answer for the TV commercials and the longer more convoluted answers for the interviews. And giving a thoughtful answer is not at all "waffling" and it's politically naive of you to suggest that. Waffling is changing your answer, as opposed to giving an explanation for it. If you think a short "I support abortion with exceptions" is going to get Rand through the GOP primaries, especially in Iowa, then you haven't been paying attention. Rand had to fight for his political life just to get past the "Plan B for rape" exception. Akins and Murdock lost because they gave stupid answers, not because they "waffled". Oh, and democrats will crucify you for making "exceptions" as well. I've seen it happen personally. "You support a rape exception? But I thought you said abortion was murder? How can there be an exception to murder someone just because his parent was a rapist?"

THIS. x1000

 

[tsai3904]

FYI, the Life at Conception Act (S. 91) is sponsored by Roger Wicker. Rand is an original cosponsor.