I recently read an article that talks about his stance on abortions after rape. His stance, as he apparently clarified to that pinnacle of interviewers Piers Morgan, is that, if a woman comes to an ER claiming an immediately preceding rape, then she should be given the drugs or hormones necessary to cause an abortion, but that, get this, it wouldn't actually be an abortion. Let that sink in for a moment.
Now, I'll say what we're all thinking: an extremely incredulous "what?!" Basically, Paul's reasoning that this is permissible is that we don't really know if fertilization has taken place so it's okay to possibly murder a theoretic human being so long as we aren't sure if they're there or not. Apparently Paul must have been in opposite land on the day he swore that part in the Hippocratic Oath where doctors promise to err on the side of life, just in case, because here he is clearly acting in that way.
Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death.
If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks.
But it may also be within my power to take a life;
this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and
awareness of my own frailty.
Above all, I must not play at God.
(sadly, from Wilipedia)