Rand Paul remarks on abortion

[Brett85]

Serious question, TC: Are you autistic? Like, do you have mild-to-severe Asperger's?

You can personally attack me all you want, but I'm presenting serious concerns that I have with Rand on this issue, and until he addresses these concerns I won't be able to support him. I guess I'll just have to stick with supporting Greg Brannon and others who are staunchly and openly pro life.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

I haven't seen any positive press for him from the "mainstream websites." The Politico piece that I read just accused him of being a flip flopper and unwilling to take a stand on controversial issues.

Politico is not a mainstream website, it gets little traffic and is full of left-wing hacks.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

Welcome to the reason I do not debate TC.

Yeah, I'm about to quit, this is jaw-droppingly tedious and frustrating. It's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

Let's try to avoid the ad hominems

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Actually, I'm pretty sure third term abortions are legal if the moms life is in danger. Situations do arise where it's either loose the kid or loose both like major trauma. To say cause the kids life support system to die in order to "save" the kid is the kind of one size fits all law I'd expect from the government.

LEAVE IT ALONE RAND!

-t

 

[menciusmoldbug]

No, the American electorate was pro choice then, and it's pro choice now. There's no difference.

Mother of God, man. Mother of God.

There's no difference.

Two groups of hundreds of millions of people separated by thirty years are identical. Because a majority happens to respond to a single poll question in the same direction. There's no difference.

[mod delete]

I'm out.

 

[erowe1]

Actually, I'm pretty sure third term abortions are legal if the moms life is in danger.

Third trimester abortions are legal, period. The exception Roe v. Wade allows for the third trimester includes any threat to the health of the mother that is so broad, that any woman who wants an abortion only needs to find some doctor to claim, based on her words, that she'll suffer psychological damage from having a baby (i.e. like all mothers do in one way or another), and she meets the criterion.

 

[erowe1]

Mother of God, man. Mother of God.

There's no difference.

Two groups of hundreds of millions of people separated by thirty years are identical. Because a majority happens to respond to a single poll question in the same direction. There's no difference.

You are insane or retarded or maybe both, and I don't particularly care which.

I'm out.

Not that I want to reel you back in, but in case you're bluffing...

What do you think the difference is on this particular issue?

My guess is that the electorate is more pro-life now than it was then.

 

[Brett85]

Mother of God, man. Mother of God.

There's no difference.

Two groups of hundreds of millions of people separated by thirty years are identical. Because a majority happens to respond to a single poll question in the same direction. There's no difference.

You are insane or retarded or maybe both, and I don't particularly care which.

I'm out.

As a Christian, I won't respond with the same hatred and vitriol toward you. Have a great night, and God bless.

 

[erowe1]

Ronald Reagan ran on a platform of banning abortion without exception

I highly doubt this. Source?

 

[EBounding]

Rand was saying he wouldn't propose an all out ban on abortion because it would have little public support and wouldn't succeed. He thinks the most likely scenario as far as the law is concerned is there will eventually be restrictions "somewhere in the middle", which he would support. I think this is pretty clear from the video.

Now Rand was obviously trying to tread carefully with a more "hostile" audience. Yes, he could have said "Illegalize abortion at conception". But then he wouldn't have been able to talk about how the public was moving towards more abortion restrictions or the fact that people think late stage abortions are already illegal.

So was it a good strategy? Time will tell. But I do know that there aren't any soundbites potential primary opponents could use against him. I also know Rand is pro-life.

 

[jtstellar]

do you place things in order and prioritize when you tackle issues in life? you do, right? i hope so.

 

[Brett85]

If Rand's purpose in this is simply to appeal to moderates and "expand the base," then why doesn't he come out in favor of marijuana legalization? That would appeal to a lot of non conservatives and is also an issue that most social conservatives don't care about whatsoever. So I just don't understand the strategy at all.

 

[Crashland]

If Rand's purpose in this is simply to appeal to moderates and "expand the base," then why doesn't he come out in favor of marijuana legalization? That would appeal to a lot of non conservatives and is also an issue that most social conservatives don't care about whatsoever. So I just don't understand the strategy at all.

Rand doesn't need to expand into Ron Paul's base -- he is trying to expand deep into the traditional democrat base. That doesn't fully answer your question but I think that is part of the reason for the difference.

 

[Brett85]

Rand doesn't need to expand into Ron Paul's base -- he is trying to expand deep into the traditional democrat base. That doesn't fully answer your question but I think that is part of the reason for the difference.

So you think that only libertarians support legalizing marijuana? The polls show that 50-60% of the American people support legalizing marijuana, and the number is rapidly growing. Those are the kinds of issues that Rand should be appealing to independents and Democrats on, not taking a moderate position on the abortion issue.

 

[erowe1]

he is trying to expand deep into the traditional democrat base.

I hope not. That's a terrible idea. He needs to win the Republican nomination. To do that he has to beat the establishment. And to do that he has to become the conservative standard bearer.

 

[twomp]

Do the pro-life people here think that government banning abortions will actually stop abortions from happening? Great solution though for the pro-life people, you can't have an abortion but if you try the government will come in with a gun pointed at you to tell you to stop.

 

[Brett85]

Do the pro-life people here think that government banning abortions will actually stop abortions from happening? Great solution though for the pro-life people, you can't have an abortion but if you try the government will come in with a gun pointed at you to tell you to stop.

Do the laws that we have against murder prevent all murders from happening? Of course not, but as a civilized society, we still have to have laws against murder.

 

[William Tell]

You can personally attack me all you want, but I'm presenting serious concerns that I have with Rand on this issue, and until he addresses these concerns I won't be able to support him. I guess I'll just have to stick with supporting Greg Brannon and others who are staunchly and openly pro life.

Good plan, 2014 is where it's at. We need Brannon and others in the US Senate and House, and liberty guys in the State Houses. I know '16 is just around the corner, but the '14 Primaries are NOW!

 

[specsaregood]

And now that's something Rand should talk about when asked these kinds of questions. He can throw plenty of red meat to conservatives without taking an extreme stand. Say this: "What will I do about abortion as president? Well, for starters, not one cent of American tax dollars will be spent to fund abortions in this country or any other country. There will be no federal funding for any organizations that perform abortions, and no foreign aid given to foreign governments that fund abortions."

So he should talk about ending foreign aid to Israel? Is that your suggestion?