What's Good for the Noose is Good for the Pander

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.

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?

Hey I feel the same way about Gun Control. I would like to own a full Automatic weapon with paying for a tax stamp. But it would be a sure loser if our Presidential candidate came out and made a statement in favor of it to prove his bonafides on the Gun Control issue (regardless of his true beliefs). It is about getting elected first and you do not do that by discussing the extreme scenarios. I am Catholic and believe only we get into heaven, I would not win many elections by saying I believe all born again Christians will burn in hell unless they convert to my religion. That was in effect what those two Candidates did in this election. Just cause you believe something doesn't mean you have to say it unfiltered in a debate setting.

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.

Lol...

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.

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.