Skip to comments.What's Good for the Noose is Good for the Pander
Posted on 11/14/2012 6:57:34 AM PST by Kaslin
Recently, Ann Coulter wrote a controversial column suggesting that numerous Republican losses in the 2012 election cycle could be tied to the GOP stance on abortion. After lamenting the problem, she suggested a solution: the GOP should officially abandon its opposition to the so-called rape exception to a ban on abortion.
Ann's position on this matter is wrong for three reasons. First, it is unprincipled. Second, it will not be received with the popular support she envisions. Third, it is not the best political response to the problem. After elaborating on each problem associated with Ann's position, I propose an alternative. It is one that I consider to be more viable, so to speak.
1. It is the not the principled position. Conservatives don't believe that we should be punished for the actions of others. We believe that we should be held responsible for our own actions. I should not have to bail out my neighbor if he cannot pay his mortgage. I should not have to pay for welfare programs if my neighbor refuses to work. I can help my neighbor if I so choose. But I ought not to be forced to do so. The consequences of my conduct should fall upon me, not upon others.
Ann does not claim we should adopt the rape exception as a compromise. Ann actually claims that the rape exception is the principled position. She makes this claim entirely on the basis of the principle that it is wrong to force the rape victim to carry the rapist's baby to term. But no one wants to apply force to the rape victim. True conservatives want to ensure that no one applies force to the innocent child before he or she can be given up for adoption. Why? Because the baby is innocent. The baby has never committed a rape. Therefore, the baby should live. And if the baby defaults on her mortgage in adulthood, she should bear the consequences, not someone else.
2. It is not the majority position. Ann Coulter has asserted that the rape exception is popular. She has even gone so far as to suggest that 99% of the people agree with it. That is an assertion, which is unsupported by evidence. It is also patently false. No one who is pro-choice is in favor of the rape exception to a rule banning abortion. The reason is simple: they cannot favor any exceptions to a rule they don't actually favor.
When you add a) the forty-something percent of the population that rejects the exception because they reject the rule and b) the sizable portion of pro-lifers who reject the exception as a matter of principle, then what do you get? You get a majority rejecting the rape exception. That's the reason you don't have a bunch of unbathed rape exception supporters huddling on Wall Street shouting "we are the 99 percent!"
3. It is not the best political position. Ann has been going wobbly on us in recent years. This sort of thing goes with the territory when you live in Manhattan and serve on the board of gay political organizations. She should not be suggesting that we retreat on the rape exception in order to avoid the accusation that we are soft on rape. She should be joining me in a legislative blitz that will prove conclusively that Democrats care less about rape than Republicans. My plan is simple: we push to legalize the execution of rapists who impregnate women through force, instead of executing "their" babies.
The Supreme Court has banned executions for rape - even aggravated child rape since 2008. They did it because most states - almost all of them, in fact - did not allow that option. It's called evolving standards of decency. When a punishment falls out of favor with the states, the Court bans it across the board. The solution is simple: all Republican-led legislatures need to pass new laws providing for the execution of rapists who impregnate women. The evolving standard of decency is a door that should swing both ways. If the effort is shot down in the capitol or the courtroom it will be liberals, not us conservatives, who do it. Let them tie the noose around their own necks, in a manner of speaking.
If this goes like I plan then the Democratic Party will be exposed and damaged for caring more about preserving unrestricted abortion than stopping sexual assault. Republicans might even attract the votes of illegal immigrants who are currently known as undocumented Democrats.
Coulter is no different from Hannity or Boehner in wanting to abandon principals for perceived political gain. In fact abandonin abortion or embracing amnesty would HURT the GOP much more than it could ever help.
Abortion from rape is statistically tiny, almost insignificant. The Democrats are high-fiving themselves that they were able to turn such ridiculously small exception into a giant stumbling block for Republicans.
All Republicans need to do is prepare better answers - that’s all.
Ann is auditioning to take Rachel Maddow’s slot, on MSNBC.
Since the election was stolen, the problem obviously is in monitoring the election, not suggesting that more unborn Americans die in abortuaries.
Maybe she should go back to dating Bill Maher, and leave us alone.
Coulter is, as far as the vastly important issue of morality is concerned, a Chamberlain.
I came up with a way to handle any fringe exception the left brings up, long ago.
Just “allow” it, at least in the present argument.
Rape? Incest? Life of the mother? No problem, we’ll make exceptions for those if all other abortions are restricted. Are you OK with that?
No? Then what other exceptions do you want to talk about?
Pretty soon we’re down to convenience and at that point you look them in the eye and ask them if they really want to argue that it’s OK to kill a baby in the womb for the CONVENIENCE of the mother.
I’d change his scenario .... for sure, execute rapists who impregnate a woman who aborts the baby.
Of course they will. They have no shame in admitting it these days.
There is an HBO show... “Girls”... (remember the girl from the “First Time” Obama ad...) and I happened to run across it ONCE... they were waiting at the abortion clinic to throw their friend an abortion party.
seriously. It is now something to celebrate apparently.
Ann is good at flapping her lips. She does not walk the talk.
I know there are some in that boat,
but what it does is rip the mask off of those who are trying to walk the line of “I’m a good person” by shoving it in their faces that “good people” don’t advocate killing babies.
It draws the line in the sand.
HUMMMM, ever WONDER WHY Anne Baby is as ELDERLY as she is and NEVER married. CAN YOU SAY, FLAKY!
I wonder if she’s really, really happy that she pushed Romney. It’s my oppinion people like her should all be pushed out of the party. If we stop watching and listening, they’ll go away.
On this issue I actually agree with Ann. Those two Clowns basically threw their elections by make those Ideological Pure statements on Rape babies and that Indiana Candidate killed Mitt momentum he was gain with women by focusing on this issue. I think the GOP needs to train these candidates on how to answer these abortion questions in a general way(the name of the game is politics after all). Talking about Rape and Incest babies being gifts from God is a sure way to lose in the vast majority of the country. That guy lost in Red state Indiana on that issue alone. I firmly believe these two guys lost us the presidency and ensured the appointment of a pro-abortion judge to the Supreme Court, great job on your uncompromising statements. The name of the game is to win by telling the majority of voters your beliefs that are in line with them, then do what you believe when you get in there.
Well, she’s right.
People running on this issue, or even so much as speaking a single sentence on this issue are not going to be elected.
That is all.
Maybe there millions of GOP voters just laying in wait to help elect the next candidate that insists rape victims be denied the morning after medicine.
We get a chance every four years to elect that person so it’s just a matter of time.
The good news is that after that person gets elected then banning birth control pills will be a piece of cake.
When Lib tries to corner Conservative with, “What about in cases of Rape or Incest?”....
“Why don’t YOU introduce legislation banning abortion except for cases of Rape or Incest?”
“The simple fact is that is a fraudulant position, as you would never introduce or support such restrictions. So, why are YOU challenging me with a proposition that you would never support in the first place?”
Take note, people.
After-rape meds which work by killing sperm or by blocking ovulation, are morally and legally licit everywhere. I’ve been tracking this issue for decades and I can not name one person or organization which disagrees with this. Can you?
So, if you did run, and a reporter asked you how you felt about the 1933 ban on automatic weapons you’d either refuse to answer the question or lie?
The GOP won’t gain ANYTHING and they will lose a lot if they try changing anything on this issue. Those two men didn’t do anything wrong. They just happened to have R’s after their name, and that makes them targets for media to twist their words. If they were D’s they could advocate abortions as a food source and the MSM would do what it could to help them out.
What you illustrate with your post is that any action on the matter is quite possibly the longest ever pipe dream in the history of man.
I mean, first Akin or Murdoch would have to be elected, and then they would actually have to do what they said within the confines of the GOP, which as well all know does not do sh*t, and then a president would have to sign it, and then it would have to not be overturned in the very next election...
Sadly ,in this country, once rights are given they are never revoked, except of course for free speech and the right to bear arms potentially.
It draws the line in the sand.
Re drawing lines in the sand: Democrats always redraw the line when conservatives capitulate and ‘evolve’ on a principle. Visualize a tug-of-war contest between liberals and conservatives. As soon as libs pull us over the line, the new line becomes where the new ‘middle’ of the rope is.
Not until conservatives, such as Mike Adams already does, recognize this fact of life, will we ever have enough power to pull the ‘rope’ toward our side, even temporarily.