Rand Paul remarks on abortion

[Brett85]

That is just not true, TC. He made very clear that if he had his way the law would reflect that life began at conception. But guess what? Rand doesn't get his way all the time. Sometimes there has to be a compromise. The law will more likely in the near term end up with something like a 20 week abortion ban, and that is what we should push for at this juncture. His is the pragmatic view on the issue that can actually reap benefits, as the public is SOLIDLY with us on that point. Why not get to 20 weeks and fight the next battle afterwards? The stupidity of conservative causes has been that liberals have been content to play this incremental strategy for years while we sit here and throw hail mary passes all day.

I wouldn't have had a problem if he had said what you just said, but that's certainly not the way it came across to me. He said that it's an extreme position to ban abortion, not just that we should pursue incrementalism to protect life.

 

[Brett85]

This was a poor answer strategically, I can certainly agree with that, but to say that he betrayed his pro life principles is WILDLY inaccurate

Why would he give another poor answer like this when he already received heat from pro lifers for his "thousands of exceptions for abortion" comment? He's just shooting himself in the foot.

 

[specsaregood]

@Rocco-What do you think is the strategy behind this? Is this kind of rhetoric going to help him in Iowa and other deep red states? Why is Rand answering a question like that as if he's running in a general election campaign for President, when he has to win the GOP primary before he ever gets to that point?

Who won the last 2 GOP primaries? Were they the "pro-life" candidates?

 

[Brett85]

Who won the last 2 GOP primaries? Were they the "pro-life" candidates?

Romney had to flip flop on the abortion issue and act like some hardcore pro lifer in order to win. He certainly wouldn't have won the GOP primary if he had taken the same position that he took in Massachusetts.

 

[William Tell]

Who won the last 2 GOP primaries? Were they the "pro-life" candidates?

Who lost the last 2 general elections, in part because Conservatives of all stripes thought they were to squishy to bother voting for?

 

[specsaregood]

Romney had to flip flop on the abortion issue and act like some hardcore pro lifer in order to win. He certainly wouldn't have won the GOP primary if he had taken the same position that he took in Massachusetts.

Right and despite his flipflops he still didn't get the "pro-life" vote and he won. And I don't recall McCain being the poster child of pro-lifers.

 

[specsaregood]

Who lost the last 2 general elections, in part because Conservatives of all stripes thought they were to squishy to bother voting for?

I think it was much more than that.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

If he is pandering, then that's really stupid, because he has to make it through the GOP primary first. He's acting like he's already running for President in a general election. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree that it is stupid, and I believe he will at the very least appoint justices that disagree with Roe v. Wade.

 

[Brett85]

Right and despite his flipflops he still didn't get the "pro-life" vote and he won. And I don't recall McCain being the poster child of pro-lifers.

What evidence do you have that Romney didn't get the pro life vote? He had to at least get some of the pro life vote in order to win. He tied for 1st with Santorum in the Iowa caucus.

 

[William Tell]

I think it was much more than that.

It was a huge part of it.

 

[Brett85]

Rand is so concerned about getting support from social conservatives that he went to Iowa and made it clear to them that he opposes legalizing marijuana, but now he says that he's in favor of a moderate or middle of the road position on abortion? That's just mind boggling to me. Social conservatives care far more about an issue like abortion than whether or not marijuana should be legalized.

 

[specsaregood]

but now he says that he's in favor of a moderate or middle of the road position on abortion?

Please give me the timestamp of where Randal says he favors a moderate or middle of the road position on abortion in this interview. TIA.

 

[Brett85]

Please give me the timestamp of where Randal says he favors a moderate or middle of the road position on abortion in this interview. TIA.

43:25 mark.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

He said that banning abortion is an extreme position, having the law where it is now is an extreme position, and he's somewhere in the middle between those two extremes.

I don't think you're being deliberately dishonest here, but you have completely mischaracterized his statement. At no time did he say that he is somewhere in the middle between those two extremes; instead, he made the very straightforward and accurate observation that the country is somewhere between those two extremes.

You've always struck as a fairly intellectually honest person, TC, so I'd appreciate it if you'd take a moment to go back and listen carefully to everything Rand said here, because as things stand someone could fairly accuse you of lying.

He's going to be labeled as a bigger flip flopper than Mitt Romney if he keeps this up.

I agree, if by "this" you mean "having his statements lied about."

He's on record in 2010 as filling out a survey from the Kentucky Right to Life where he said that he supports a ban on abortion without exceptions for rape and incest.

And no doubt he'll continue to support this in the primary, but such a ban has no chance of passing in the current political climate. If you want to pass such a ban, you must first persuade more of the public to support it. As things stand, it can't/won't happen. However, a ban on third-trimester abortions COULD pass in the current political climate. More importantly, by forcing Democrats to PUBLICLY OPPOSE such a ban, he will be bringing focus and attention to the extremism of the DEMOCRATS' position on this issue, whereas heretofore Republicans have been the ones getting hammered for taking the "extreme" stance of wanting to ban all abortions.

You're completely missing the strategic importance of what Rand Paul did in this interview and are misrepresenting/lying about what he said as well. If Rand can successfully portray himself as "moderate and sensible" on the issue of abortion while painting Democrats as extreme, way-outside-the-mainstream baby-killers who support abortions at nine months. And once we get a third-trimester ban, it will be much, much easier to pass a ban after five months. Then three months. Then eight weeks. Then . . .

Slippery slopes are a real thing, but they aren't always bad. This is a slippery slope that I expect you'd very much like us to slide down, and Rand is making the most intelligent effort to get the ball rolling that I've ever seen from a Republican in my lifetime.

He'll fight on spending issues and civil liberties and take unpopular positions like abolishing the Department of Education, but he's afraid to take an unpopular position on an issue like abortion. That just makes me think that he's not serious at all or doesn't care at all about the abortion issue.

I think you're being extremely unfair and are missing important distinctions between the issues that make it perfectly sensible for him to handle them in different ways.

 

[Brett85]

I don't think you're being deliberately dishonest here, but you have completely mischaracterized his statement. At no time did he say that he is somewhere in the middle between those two extremes; instead, he made the very straightforward and accurate observation that the country is somewhere between those two extremes.

So again, he's characterizing his own position as being extreme? How much sense does that make? At the 43:25 mark of the interview, he criticized the Republicans who don't support any exceptions for abortion. Those were his own words.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

No, I heard what he said. He said that there are two extremes, and that banning abortion with no exceptions is one of those extremes. And ironically, he was on that "extreme" back in 2010 when he filled out a survey from Kentucky Right to Life where he said that he supported banning abortion with no exceptions.

At no point in his remarks did he distance himself from this extreme position - indeed, he explicitly identified himself with it. All he did was acknowledge that the law is unlikely to reflect this position until a larger fraction of the population is persuaded of it. I think his discussion of the issue - talking about how he'd held a one-pound baby in his hand and contrasting that with the mental image of an eight-pound baby being aborted - is expertly crafted to make middle-of-the-road voters on this issue feel uncomfortable identifying as pro-choice and more likely to support both him and other abortion restrictions in general. Your resistance to this strategy baffles me and stems, I think, from a misunderstanding of what he is trying to do.

 

[specsaregood]

43:25 mark.

He says no such thing at 43:25. You must be hearing things. Perhaps we need an actual transcript.

 

[Brett85]

At no point in his remarks did he distance himself from this extreme position - indeed, he explicitly identified himself with it. All he did was acknowledge that the law is unlikely to reflect this position until a larger fraction of the population is persuaded of it.

That's certainly not how it came across to me, and I've listened to it multiple times. He only said that he "personally believes" that life begins at conception. It sounded to me like he's personally pro life but doesn't want to force his views on other people. To me, that's not pro life. I don't care what his personal religious beliefs are. I care about his policies.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

If he is pandering, then that's really stupid, because he has to make it through the GOP primary first. He's acting like he's already running for President in a general election. It makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes perfect sense.

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/assume-the-sale-game/

 

[Crashland]

I will admit I was surprised when Rand went down this road. Personally I am a bit ecstatic that someone in the GOP is actually willing to take what I see as a more reasonable approach (I don't even consider myself pro-life).

BUT:
1. It's hard for me to believe he is actually sincere about taking a softer approach because his past statements have been extremely hard-line pro-life. To me this sounds like it could just be pandering.
2. I'm not sure it makes sense politically to make a stand at all on this issue. The safest course would probably be to just state you are pro-life and then try to change the subject. Especially when he is already spending some political capital on the immigration issue. It could easily turn off a lot of voters who include hard-line pro-life among their reams of litmus tests that their candidate MUST agree with otherwise they can't support them, which I think is incredibly stupid but there are a lot of people who do that.

And I disagree with Rand on one thing - the question is not "At what point does a fetus become a human life?". The answer to that is obvious, and that is not the part that the country needs convincing on. The real question is "Under what circumstances does a human life have the unconditional right to use someone else's physical body?" The answer to that is much less obvious, since there are many arguments about life vs. consciousness, personhood, viability, culpability, body autonomy, risks, moral obligation vs. legal obligation,...etc.