Rand Paul Refuses To Detail Abortion Position Huffington Post
Quoted Text
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) refused to say whether he supports legal abortion in cases of rape and incest in a Wednesday interview with The Associated Press and scolded the reporter who pressed him on it.
The 2016 presidential candidate said he does not want to get into the details of his opposition to abortion. "The thing is about abortion -- and about a lot of things -- is that I think people get tied up in all these details of, sort of, you're this or this or that, or you're hard and fast [on] one thing or the other," Paul said.
The senator added, "I've supported both bills with and without [exceptions], you know. In general, I am pro-life. So I will support legislation that advances and shows that life is special and deserves protection."
When the AP reporter pressed Paul on whether women who have been raped should be able to have an abortion, the senator became annoyed. "I gave you about a five-minute answer," Paul said. "Put in my five-minute answer." (Sarcastic B@stard)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Rand Paul Refuses To Detail Abortion Position Huffington Post
He gave his answer. He would support any bill that recognizes the fetus and shows that life is special and deserves protecting. It would appear that he supports any bill that gives the fetus personhood. It certainly doesn't sound like he wants to "ban abortion" like you've been suggesting.
Quoted Text
I've supported both bills with and without [exceptions], you know. In general, I am pro-life. So I will support legislation that advances and shows that life is special and deserves protection."
He gave his answer. He would support any bill that recognizes the fetus and shows that life is special and deserves protecting. It would appear that he supports any bill that gives the fetus personhood. It certainly doesn't sound like he wants to "ban abortion" like you've been suggesting.
He says there are lots of "exceptions" in his law to outlaw abortions, but he's keeping them a secret till after the election. What are his "EXCEPTIONS" Cicero? Do you know what "EXCEPTIONS" are in his anti abortion bill??? No one does. He considers those to be just "DETAILS".
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Rand Paul’s vile abortion deceit: How he’s trying to conceal his odious anti-choice record Paul thinks he can appease his antiabortion base while remaining the candidate of "personal freedom." He's wrong
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
He says there are lots of "exceptions" in his law to outlaw abortions, but he's keeping them a secret till after the election. What are his "EXCEPTIONS" Cicero? Do you know what "EXCEPTIONS" are in his anti abortion bill??? No one does. He considers those to be just "DETAILS".
Sure there are a lot of exceptions. The exceptions for abortion is not the purpose of the bill, the purpose is to give constitutional rights to the fetus. Like I said before, the premise of the question has nothing to do with his proposed bill. He said he would support a bill with or without exception, as long as the fetus is legally recognized and has protected right.
You, Debbie and the DNC need to ask a question where the premise of the question pertains to his bill.
Rand Paul’s vile abortion deceit: How he’s trying to conceal his odious anti-choice record Paul thinks he can appease his antiabortion base while remaining the candidate of "personal freedom." He's wrong
What a shame, even Salon mis-quotes Paul. Paul specifically uses the word outlaw when talking about abortion. Now I see why Box misrepresents Paul by incorrectly quoting him. The rags he reads spread the lies to the useful idiots.
Paragraph from Salon article:
Quoted Text
This is a radically different perspective on personhood than the one he offered in a recorded statement asking voters to call their representatives to pass the measure to “ban abortion once and for all.” He urged voters to force their “wavering” representatives to support personhood or face “angry voters back home.”
Sure there are a lot of exceptions. The exceptions for abortion is not the purpose of the bill, the purpose is to give constitutional rights to the fetus. Like I said before, the premise of the question has nothing to do with his proposed bill. He said he would support a bill with or without exception, as long as the fetus is legally recognized and has protected right.
You, Debbie and the DNC need to ask a question where the premise of the question pertains to his bill.
This bill, no matter what you call it is an anti abortion bill. Nothing more.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
What a shame, even Salon mis-quotes Paul. Paul specifically uses the word outlaw when talking about abortion. Now I see why Box misrepresents Paul by incorrectly quoting him. The rags he reads spread the lies to the useful idiots.
Rand Paul's Own Words: "Will you help me in a bold and aggressive campaign to end abortion on demand once and for all."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
This bill, no matter what you call it is an anti abortion bill. Nothing more.
No, the bill is pretty clear. Do you or don't you believe a fetus deserves constitutional protection to its right to life. That is the question. Debbie and the rest of the Democrats can stand up and vote NO. They should just start attacking Paul for even suggesting a 7 pound fetus has legal rights. They should start running ads, showing 4d ultrasound pictures of 7 pound fetus' in the womb, and laughing at Paul for even suggesting the blob of cells has a constitutionally protected right to life. An ad like that would show how out of touch Paul is to think a 7 pound fetus deserves legal protection.
Yeah, and Salon actually quoted him saying "ban". Which he's never said.
Good Cicero. Show me. I must have missed it. The word "BAN" only shows up once in the article and it's not a Rand Paul quote... so... Show me where they post Rand Paul Saying 'BAN". Show me. Or is this yet another Cicero LIE? http://www.salon.com/2015/04/0....._anti_choice_record/
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
No, the bill is pretty clear. Do you or don't you believe a fetus deserves constitutional protection to its right to life. That is the question. Debbie and the rest of the Democrats can stand up and vote NO. They should just start attacking Paul for even suggesting a 7 pound fetus has legal rights. They should start running ads, showing 4d ultrasound pictures of 7 pound fetus' in the womb, and laughing at Paul for even suggesting the blob of cells has a constitutionally protected right to life. An ad like that would show how out of touch Paul is to think a 7 pound fetus deserves legal protection.
I've read the story. The ONLY PERSON MENTIONING A "7 POUND BABY" IS RANDY PAUL. MORE LIES???
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Good Cicero. Show me. I must have missed it. The word "BAN" only shows up once in the article and it's not a Rand Paul quote... so... Show me where they post Rand Paul Saying 'BAN". Show me. Or is this yet another Cicero LIE? http://www.salon.com/2015/04/0....._anti_choice_record/
Here's the scumbag writers LIES that he pushes into the soft skulls of you useful idiots.
Quoted Text
...When pushed on the matter of exceptions, Paul said:
Well, I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. You know, I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different, and everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what’s going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother. [...] I don’t think it’s a simple as checking box and saying exceptions or no exceptions.
Right here boxy. The slimy writer misquotes his recorded statement as if Paul said the word "ban". He didn't say ban, he's said outlaw and end. NEVER BAN.
This is a radically different perspective on personhood than the one he offered in a recorded statement asking voters to call their representatives to pass the measure to “ban abortion once and for all.”He urged voters to force their “wavering” representatives to support personhood or face “angry voters back home.”
And just as he’s dodged questions about abortion exceptions in order to put a moderate spin on an extreme proposal like personhood, Paul has been similarly evasive on whether he believes that birth control would come under new scrutiny as a result of such a law
Yeah, and Salon actually quoted him saying "ban". Which he's never said.
is a lie, right?
This entire thread you have been making statements that are not true. This one is just the latest. The Salon article never QUOTED Paul saying the word "BAN".
So... either you are lying... or on drugs... or mentally ill... or you just don't care that you are posting lies.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
