Marco Rubio says he opposes abortions in all instances


Marco Rubio says he opposes abortions in all instances

By Eric Bradner, CNN August 9, 2015

Washington (CNN)—Florida Sen. Marco Rubio says he opposes abortion in all instances – but he’d support legislation that includes exceptions in cases such as rape, incest and when the life of the mother is threatened, and he has no problem with contraception.

The Republican presidential contender was asked Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about his comment in Thursday night’s debate that “all human life is worthy of protection, irrespective of the circumstances in which that human life was created.”

Rubio said Sunday that he will support “any legislation that reduces the number of abortions.”

That, he said, includes a ban on abortions after 20 weeks – even though “that doesn’t obviously cover the whole gamut.” …


Christie Veto Shuts Down Abortion Clinics in NJ

Read more at:

It is good to have direct consequence as to one’s beliefs too.

Who is more pro-life? One who has words or one who has actually done?


Here is the vital statement “Rubio said Sunday that he will support “any legislation that reduces the number of abortions.”” And quite right so. It appears that he would like to stop abortion altogether, and will support anything to that end, even if it isn’t a complete ban over night. What do you know, a Catholic politician who actually believes in Catholic social teaching and would put it into practice in office.


I think this is just a little bit misleading. He does indicate he has a personal problem with it. That’s nitpicky though.

“I don’t want to ban any contraceptive efforts,” Rubio said. “Obviously, my faith has a teaching that governs me in my personal life on these issues. But I think our laws on those issues are different.”


I caught that too.




I think it’s both/and. The 20 week pain capable bill was an action.


An action that did not pass.


I do not believe Christie is truly prolife, but even if he is, it does not matter because he cannot win. Republicans have to be pragmatic, not just ideologues. If we want an improvement at the WH, we have to vote for someone who can actually win and we have to vote for that person even if he’s far from perfect. I would have hoped Republicans would have learned the lessons of Romney losing–but it seems we are poised to do it all over again.


Very charitable towards Christie, a man who is responsible for actually shutting down Planned Parenthood clinics. Hurray for the Pro-Life side.

As for Rubio, I think he may already be on the way to taking some hits over the debate and that may well include his uncompromising abortion stance.

And everyone said Obama had no chance as well.


You can believe that. I don’t think Rubio has done nearly as much for life as Christie has done, I think the records demonstrate this. Bush has probably done much more as well.

I think the argument was about whether Rubio was the most pro-life of the candidates, NOT if Christie is electable or not. I find this to be a deflection.

I can likewise, claim Rubio is not truly pro-life but could say these things to be politically expedient and it could even be a damaging position in the longrun.


I feel Christie is more liberal than conservative and that he has close to zero chance.


Having participated with pro-lifers, it be something as little as saying a pro-life Rosary at home, a march, reading pro-life websites daily, I could never speak derisively of people who have actually very clear pro-life concrete actions of accountability per their pro-life actions. I believe that is what was talked about and if one is saying who is the most pro-life, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Scott Walker etc. need to be mentioned. I believe that also extends to accomplishments and not just one’s words. One can be the most pro-life person around but if they are not holding elective office to make a difference, those words are not always that potent.

I’m also not going go around and call other candidates “unelectable”; that’s what the process is for.


Yes, and those others you mentioned are not in the race.


I completely agree. I prefer Rubio to Christie, but I’ll not denigrate Govenor Christie and would probably see him as my second or third choice at present. I just think that it’s not precisely accurate to characterize Rubio as all talk no action because the bill he cosponsorsd did not pass.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit