Skip to comments.How the GOP Has the Wrong Approach to Abortion
Posted on 11/11/2012 8:55:29 PM PST by SquarePants
First off, let me say this. I am completely, unabashedly and unapologetically pro-life. That being said, I was somewhat dismayed by the reports of the 2012 election featuring the largest gender gap in history. Given multiple national polls showing that people do not support abortion, it remains an issue, and it remains an issue that the GOP does not handle well.
I remember watching the VP debate between Biden and Ryan, and being hugely disappointed in how Ryan handled the abortion question. You can watch a video of it below, but, if I may paraphrase Ryan's answer in general terms, he stressed how important his faith was in coming to his pro-life position. Biden then rambled on about how much he supports a woman's "right to choose." The net result is that Biden generally came across as a rational, compassionate, caring sort - which is not what he is at all, while the impression of Ryan that the underinformed voters ultimately got was that he would be the sort of person who might just be capable of supporting any sort of position informed by his religious views.
Of course, Senate candidates Akin and Mourdock also had cringe-worthy comments on the abortion issue as well. Arguably, poor handling of "women's issues" cost the GOP two Senate seats and possibly the Presidency. So what's the problem? Why does the GOP insist upon conveying the most important message of civilized society - the message that every life is valuable - in such consistently inarticulate fashion? What kind of an approach would serve to neutralize the issue at the voting booth, and bring election results in line with national polls on the matter?
Well, as to why the GOP is so incompetent at communicating the value of life, I'm not really sure. They certainly know it's an issue that will be raised by Democrat candidates and the progressive, state-run media. They certainly have the time and resources to prepare for it. Honestly, I have no idea why the GOP can't positively deliver the pro-life message, but I do know what their message should be.
The GOP message should be, "The abortion issue has nothing to do with religion. Mine or anyone else's. The senseless and societally counterproductive promotion of abortion as an acceptable solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy has led to a culture where the value of a life can be quantified, and that's wrong. Abortion is a human rights issue, and a civilized society has several undeniable obligations. Primary among them is the right to life. This is not an opinion informed by my religious beliefs. This is an opinion informed by common sense. Every life has value, and a civilized society protects life. It's that simple."
The GOP needs to stop hinging their abortion discussions on religion, and their public policy positions on faith. Frankly, it makes the pro-life position look fanatical, when it is anything but. The GOP needs to have confidence that their position is informed by reality, and by the conviction that a society is judged, ultimately, by how they treat the least among them. And most Americans support candidates who promote the future of our nation and stand up for using our government programs in the manner they were intended - which is to protect and provide for those who cannot protect or provide for themselves.
If they were smart, the GOP would position themselves to call out the pro-abortion Democrats for the hypocritical simultaneous support of the contradicting position on Human Rights. Real concern for human rights and promotion of abortion can't exist together. That's not fanatical. That's Realville, USA.
Another one that does not understand the enemy. Abortion is central to the leftist agendautterly central. Not possible to divorce it from that agenda in any way that would seemingly placate a useful idiot for leftism.
Here’s my approach. Saving lives.
From my home page:
Ive posted this in a couple of places and it doesnt seem to get much more than a yawn, even though its kinda-sorta an incremental approach.
I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed.
***I do too. That fetus deserves protection extended by the state.
I do wonder if it is biblical to extend full protection to a fetus? I.e. when a man hurts a pregnant woman, hes expected to pay an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth. But if the unborn baby is killed, the price is not the same.
Perhaps it is time to consider a 3 (or even 4) tiered system of protection.
Tier 1: Living, viable, late term baby which will not be aborted unless the life of the mother is at stake.
Tier 2: Living, not-yet-viable pre-born human who should have the right to protection and life and a safe womb to which it can attain viability. Cannot be aborted unless there is an open rape case associated with the pregnancy or the life of the mother is at stake.
Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision. I personally do not believe in Tier3 abortions, but I can understand that there are many who think it is a right to choose at this stage. It may be time to consider a program where the woman declares her pregnancy and intent to abort. Our societal function at this point would be to provide a family that is willing to adopt this baby and to put up this woman for 6-8 months in a safe environment so the baby can grow and maybe the woman can learn some life skills. If our society cannot muster the forces necessary to save this baby, the woman has the sickening right to abort this pregnancy. Time for us to put up or shut up.
With a 3-tiered plan in place, women would stop using abortion as a means of birth control. Millions of lives would be saved. We would extend the right to life to every human that we have resources to save. Unfortunately, if we cannot put up the resources to save the Tier3 babies, we still would have this horrible practice staining our nations soul.
125 posted on 10/08/2007 1:43:20 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Every pro-lifer needs to read this.
People like Biden, Pelosi and any other Democrat whose proclaimed religion prohibits abortion always fall back on, “I won’t force my religious beliefs on others.” Therefore they can say, “It’s between a woman and her doctor.” This has been the standard argument for at least 10 years.
Personally I think the GOP aught to stop speaking about abortion, get themselves elected and then DO something about abortion.
Abortion is wrong on every level, and Republicans should be able to make that case in a variety of compelling ways.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
You know, I bet a lot of women are pro-life. I guess they don’t count any more?
“Abortion is wrong on every level, and Republicans should be able to make that case in a variety of compelling ways. “
Just like being against stealing and bribery. Nobody says he struggled with his faith to conclude that stealing and bribery is wrong.
It’s all a moot point now.
National judgement is coming.
GOD HIMSELF will pry the “right to abortion” out of America’s cold dead hands.
“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child.”
When Bush and Congress, under Republican control, did very little to control abortion, it was apparent to me that nothing would ever change. Republicans and conservatives should pretty much forget about it. It’s like alcohol; prohibition is long over and the genie ain’t going back in the bottle.
It isn’t going to be changed until a large majority of women decided that they want it changed, and until such time, not only is it pointless to discuss, you will not be elected if you do, so just drop it.
Furthermore, it seems that when conservatives do venture to discuss it, they are SO UTTERLY UNABLE to advance their position with any sort convincing arguments that it is just shocking.
Maybe we might want to try running a proven PRO-LIFE candidate for president next time...
just for fun and giggles
and to see if WE JUST MIGHT WIN...
The elites felt that certain groups should not procreate, so they started the push for abortion and wrapped in the lie of compassion for people in poverty who can't afford children etc.
Since Roe v Wade, there has been a Holocaust as the most innocent of lives has been snuffed out. The majority of abortions are to black babies.
Abortion is a racist, bigoted, and genocidal policy supported by the same party that supported the KKK - Democrats.
Our Declaration of Independence was for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the Democrats won't stand up for the life of the most innocent of all. A definite lack of compassion and pursuit of evil.
The biggest problem confronting us is stupid voters. These idiots think we have a “war on women”. They will vote for people who promise free contraceptives and free “womens health services” which they can purchase relatively easy with their own money if they so choose. Meanwhile, they will put people in office who will control everything in their lives from their automobiles to their toilets. Go figure.
The Republican response should have always been along the lines of, “Our country decided to legalize abortion in 1973 with Roe v. Wade; my personal beliefs have no bearing on this. But if you look at (then continue with negative attack against other guy on a tangential issue)”
I may be wrong on this, but where are the female politicians calling for an end to abortion? I know there are a few out there, but most of the time it seems to be the men who are in front of the camera or at the podium. On the left, the women are always hollering about the “right to choose”
Ultimately, it’s not a matter of how you say it. You either want to allow abortions, or not. Truth be told there are a whole lot of people that would have voted Republican if it wasn’t for abortion. Millions. It would have made the difference for Romney. I know a lot of people say that abortion is central to the leftist agenda. But there are a lot of women who think that they want to have the abortion option, so they vote Democrat. For pro-life Dems, I think it’s a side issue. They’ll not vote Repub because of their pro-life view because their main issue is redistributive socialism & minority empowerment. We need to put everything we have into fighting what they are in the process of doing to this country, as far as ultimately true socialism (govt owned business as in communism) and full redistribution of wealth (via wealth taxes [a percent a net worth due each year]). We will never get to the point where we can outlaw abortion. But are we going to let that issue sink us anyway?
Try reading this vanity, there's info in it you may find useful -- though I bet you already know it?
I really hate to say this, but young women today don't have a choice women a generation or so had, and that's the right to say "No" to premarital sex. These days, with few exceptions, a woman either gets dumped for refusing premarital sex, or else she agrees with her boyfriend to have sex while they're "dating" in the hopes that the sexual relationship will eventually lead to courtship and marriage.
So, these women are hollering about "the right to choose" (contraception, abortion) because they no longer have the original choice of saying "No" and still being able to get married.
Women these days -- especially young women -- have no idea how truly enslaved they are.
Republicans have made that case for decades--and failed to compel a majority of people in this country. The bottom line is that unintended pregnancy = slavery in the minds of a lot of women. And none of that is new thinking. I wonder how in heck the GOP ever thought they would defeat that kind of logic?
The abortion issue has nothing to do with religion.
Ridiculous! Where does the entire notion of right and wrong come from...if not from God and His wisdom?
I think it has to be done outside of the political realm. Never rely on politicians to do what you want, they will let you down every time.
I think it’s much simpler and frivolous than that. I can’t say I know what’s going on at the high school or college age anymore, but with my middle age, unmarried college friends, the argument appears to be: “A kid with some random guy (who will just bail) will end my career, keep me from going on that vacation to Peru, and make me lose my single and gay friends. Oh, and my dog/cat/fish/bird will no longer be my child, and fluffy deserves more. And I won’t be able to live in that expensive apartment in the city and I’ll have to move to the *gasp* suburbs and drive a minivan.”
Seriously, that’s pretty much it: Lifestyle trumps all.
I really hate to say this, but young women today don’t have a choice women a generation or so had, and that’s the right to say “No” to premarital sex.
You mean the poor thing is a **victim**?
THIS woman says that’s utter nonsense. I happen to know there ARE young women who say “NO” and several of them have now got wonderful husbands. Perhaps the young men are really seeking morally decent women? Ohhh wow...what a shock!! Not...
> Personally I think the GOP aught to stop speaking about abortion, get themselves elected and then DO something about abortion.
I agree. And during interviews and debates answer all abortion question with: “Sorry, abortion is not a political issue to me.”
That's great. I said "with few exceptions" and you have just met those few.
For girls with morals, the dating landscape is a minefield. How can such a girl find a like-minded morally decent man? She is very lucky (and blessed) if she does!
This article is based on the premise that the “gender gap” is related to abortion.
I have seen evidence of a “gender gap.” I’ve never seen evidence that it’s caused by the Republican stance on abortion.
Heres another gem from Mother Theresa:
Mother Teresa of Calcutta in the 1980s was contacted by Harvard University because they wanted her to give a commencement speech. She refused. The University contacted her again explaining to her that they would be willing to not only pay for her trip from India to the United States, but would also be willing to donate 1 million dollars to her favorite charity. She decided to take them up on their offer.
During the commencement, when it came time for her to deliver her speech; she approached the microphone and said, Love God, Love Neighbor she then sat down to which the whole place erupted in applause and all those present took to their feet this ovation last more than 3 minutes.
After she had spoken at Harvard, she was boarding a plane back to India, a woman reporter approached her with the question, Mother Teresa, do you think there will ever be woman president in the United States? Mother Teresa responded immediately and without missing a beat, NO, she said, you already aborted her. Very sober and strong words from a future saint about our American way of life.
The words SEVERAL and FEW do not equate.
BINGO! Gee, imagine that....God IS involved in people’s lives.
The leftist agenda, boiled down to its essence, is the supremacy of the state over God. The power to determine when life and the rights of man begin, and end, is everything.
I have a modest proposal. Agree to government funded abortions, and raise the ante by offering a bounty. Give every unmarried woman who has an abortion $5,000. If the woman is a minority or on welfare, increase the bounty to $10,000. Let’s see what the liberals say to that.
Problem with states like that is that God does push back against them. They end up wallowing in self-pity because they will never believe the cause.
Yes, that is a very good point. I can’t think of many visible pro-life women politicans. I’m not even certain that there are any.
It does seem to be men only, are almost all men...and they are arguing for women to give up a right already granted them, which seems like a difficult sell. It’s the old how do you close Pandora’s box once it has been opened, or how do you put toothpaste back in the tube.
It is almost like men arguing that women should give up their right to vote, which is not going to happen. I don’t believe it’s a winnable argument at this point, especially not when the other party is just waiting to demagogue the *** out of it as soon as it is even mentioned.
Thanks for the link. I do seem to remember reading this before. LOL.
Of course I have been aware of Sanger and Eugenics for years.
They are pro-life visible women politicians. And they are viewed as the ‘uncle Toms’ of the abortion issue. They aren’t going to persuade anybody who isn’t already pro-life.
So give them a real war on women.
Help their cohort get as many abortions as possible. Give them free tubal litigation as an upgrade.
In 40 years, their numbers collapse at the polls and they will realize (too late) what the whole point of the exercise was.
Some people need to get what they want, good and hard to cop a clue.
White females voted for Romney, 55-45. It wasn't a gender gap.
Nor can Obamacare and the right to make decisions without 3rd party interference that was established in Roe. The Republicans have not challenged the false Dem rhetoric that says Obamacare keeps a woman in charge of her health care decisions. NO ONE is in charge of their health care under Obamacare!
I'd like to see the Republicans point out the Dem's hypocrisy of supporting Roe's privacy/autonomy while totally destroying it in Obamacare. Then I'd like to see someone take it to the courts. How is it a woman can make a decision to abort without 3rd party interference but can't independently select her insurance benefits? Or decide for herself what premium she's willing to pay? How is it that her physician can discuss abortion without interference from 3rd parties but other procedures she may want require him to adhere to guidelines established from comparative effectiveness research and other bureaucratic red tape? Is there a right to privacy or not? A right to autonomous decision making or not? I'm sick of the Republicans letting the Dems get away with this nonsense while claiming the other side has a war on women.
I think the real problem’is this.
We allow one special protected class of citizen to legally murder another, if it desires, for any reason. We call them pregnant women. We cannot say we are a civilized society if one citizen can legally murder another. If anyone else does, we punish them. Except the pregnant woman. Or the abortion doctor, if the woman wants abortion. Dad causes miscarriage, jail. Drunk driver causes miscarriage, jail. If the woman wants the baby anyone who kills it before birth is punished.
We can’t claim to be civilized if one class of person gets to play God with another person’s life. This must be addressed.
By dating. Men who continue to date her and are not having sex with her, probably are pretty decent fellows, nothing has changed except that the females are so easy today.
LOL, I have used that kind of argument before to shock liberals.
It is funny how dirty so many liberal good deeds and gifts to the populace sound when you say something like, ‘well, OK, but let’s try an experiment, let’s take a five year moratorium on abortions, except for the Jews, they can abort all the Jewish babies that they want, or let’s ban partial birth for whites, but preserve the “right” only for blacks.
They must be something different than “rights” and “freedoms” if people recoil at them when you put it that way.
There’s another issue associated with making abortion illegal that the pro-abortionists bring out. The question of punishment.
If you make abortion illegal at some stage, what should the punishment be for the abortionist and for the mother who has her unborn baby aborted? If it’s a life like any other, than does an abortion constitute first degree murder, with its associated penalty?
I’ve never heard a good answer to this question by any pro-life person. It is crucial that we have an answer to this that we can confidently defend.
“Personally I think the GOP aught to stop speaking about abortion, get themselves elected and then DO something about abortion.”
So if you were running for office and somebody asked your position on abortion, you would answer “I don’t want to talk about it”?
And then you would get elected????
“Ridiculous! Where does the entire notion of right and wrong come from...if not from God and His wisdom?”
Do atheists have a concept of right and wrong? Do aborigines? Did the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians have a concept of right or wrong?
My personal belief is that a strong charge against the abortionist would be enough to eliminate most instances of the act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.