Rand Paul at 2014 Iowa GOP State Convention
Photo credit: Dave Davidson – Prezography.com
Rand Paul Speaks at Iowa GOP Convention 2014
Photo credit: Dave Davidson – Prezography.com

Shane Vander Hart, did a great job today of explaining Rand Paul’s latest exchange with the press over abortion. When the reporter, Paul Steinhauser, asked him to clarify his position on abortion exceptions, Paul tried to turn the tables on the reporter by insisting that he first ask the Democratic National Committee chairman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, about the Democratic “extreme” position of allowing abortion throughout the entire pregnancy.

As Shane pointed out, Wasserman took the challenge and answered the question. She said she supported all abortions, even the 7-lb baby that Paul used as an example, to try and paint her and the DNC as extremists. Is anybody surprised at that answer? The pro-abortion crowd has stood on the no-exceptions position for decades. And the American people, despite the fact they don’t agree, continues to put 100% pro-abortion candidates into office. The Democrats took the bait, and escaped with it, leaving Paul holding an empty pole.

Now let’s see if Paul follows through with his end of the bargain.  He said he’d answer, if the DNC answered.

1)Does he believe that every life is sacred and that every single one should be protected? If so, the battle lines are finally drawn.  Each side would be following the natural end of its position. If the unborn children are sacred, every one should be defended.  If they are not sacred, every abortion should be allowed.

Now THAT would be a debate worth having.

or

2) Is he willing to sacrifice on the altar of political expediency the lives of some unborn babies, to ostensibly save the lives of others?  And leave any real discussion for later, kicking the can and the babies down the road.

1 comment
  1. When Debbie Wasserman Schultz agitates for the “right” of a pregnant woman and her doctor to simply KILL a perfectly healthy, thriving child in the womb right up to MOMENTS before the child is actually BORN, for “whatever” reasons they find appropriate in the privacy of their doctor-patient relationship and according to the conscience or faith of the woman, Wasserman Schultz has become the face of cold-blooded murder and barbarism in our society’s highest echelons of power.
    To argue that even if we wouldn’t do such a thing ourselves, we don’t have the right to impose our views on others (remember, we are TALKING about simply KILLING a perfectly healthy baby because someone has decided they need this baby dead), is like saying that even if you wouldn’t lynch a black man, you have no right to impose your view on people who may have their own reasons for needing to do so, difficult as the choice may be for them.
    Is that a shocking analogy? (Indignation is a cheap and popular political resort these days, a quick dodge just to make the other side stop TALKING about things you don’t want talked about.) I have no sympathy with anybody who would (opportunistically) find that “shocking”. We are TALKING about the institutionalization of a “right” to murder a human being moments before he/she is born.
    Think about that.
    A “RIGHT”.
    Moments before birth.
    Just kill it.
    Because somebody felt, for “whatever” reason (you have no right to ask what reason) it was “necessary”.
    If you don’t find THAT “shocking”, appalling and monstrous, then, sorry, I have no sympathy with your convenient, predictable “outrage” (anything to change the subject, right?) at my analogy. The predictable on-cue outrage is manufactured by a Bizarro-world morality, one that is comfortable with the murder of innocent children but splutters with righteous indignation at mere words. NOBODY owes that kind of morality the time of day, CERTAINLY not to go along with its insidious manipulations….
    Yes, the analogy is apt–even (considering) tame. The people who lynched African-Americans ALSO felt they had their “necessary” and compelling reasons, and certainly didn’t take kindly to others questioning their “private” choices. The idea that “I have my reasons” means whatever you want to do is ipso facto within your rights (no matter who ends up dead) is repellently reminiscent of the ideology that produced Dachau and Auschwitz.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Bob Vander Plaats Endorses Ted Cruz for President

Bob Vander Plaats, Chuck Hurley and Robert Cramer of The FAMiLY Leader personally endorse U.S. Senator Ted Cruz for President of the United States.

Bruce Braley Raves About The VA Despite Skipping Nearly 75% Of His Committee Hearings

  (Des Moines, IA) The Republican Party of Iowa is today releasing…

Bobby Jindal Bows Out

Shane Vander Hart shares his reaction to news that the candidate Caffeinated Thoughts endorsed, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, has suspended his campaign.

A Disturbing Tale About Bruce Braley, Harry Reid and Texas Trial Lawyers

(Des Moines, IA) In response to today’s disturbing Des Moines Register story…