Skip to comments.Letís talk more about abortion
Posted on 11/21/2012 3:53:39 PM PST by Coleus
This past weekend, I was down in Washington and had a chance to talk to some Republican lawmakers and strategists on Capitol Hill about the trouncing we took in the presidential election.
Over and over again, the fear that the conservative pro-life position may have contributed to our loss came up. Their solution? We have to stop talking about it.
But this cannot be an option. The respect for life is a moral imperative that defines conservatism as much as fiscal responsibility. Conservatism cannot abandon it and remain uncompromised.
Over time, liberalism has normalized abortion, first insisting it should be safe, legal and rare, then painting pro-life advocates as fanatics who should be ostracized for foisting their puritanism on the public.
Conservatives need to reclaim the conversation which they cant do without talking about it.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach writes in the Jewish Press that religious extremists who are obsessed with abortion, rape and sex should speak about it from an asylum.
His advice has become common sense in the wake of Mitt Romneys defeat: Get this conversation out of the GOP.
The problem with that is that it allows liberals to own this issue. The debate over contraception that occupied so much campaign conversation wasnt started by Rick Santorum and Catholic bishops. Theirs was a response to President Obamas mandate essentially requiring Catholic organizations to ignore their convictions and provide insurance coverage for birth control for their employees.
Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock didnt introduce the subjects of abortion and rape, either they were asked about them during debates. Yes, they responded atrociously, but Republicans dont campaign wearing sandwich boards that say, Ask me about rape. The media cynically ask these questions to elicit crazy responses. In those two cases, mission accomplished.
So even when we dont talk about it, liberals will find a way to get us to discuss abortion. We may as well direct the conversation instead of being dragged into it unprepared.
Another thought is that men dont belong in this debate. Even the President rang that bell, saying, This is exactly why you dont want a bunch of politicians, mostly male, making decisions about womens health care decisions.
Putting aside the fact that he is perfectly comfortable making decisions about our health care, discussing abortion is the job of politicians, and we do want a bunch of them advocating for the policies we prefer. Citizens dont write laws themselves.
And men do belong in the debate. The strongest argument Ive heard against abortion was my fathers. There are sane, compassionate voices on this issue, and that they dont have uteruses shouldnt disqualify them.
Stick to science is another frequent invocation. When it comes to Akin, who believed babies conceived from rape magically disappear, that credo is a good one.
But the pro-life argument is based on sound science.
In the DNA of a fertilized embryo is the complete design of a human being, mapping eye color and other hereditary traits. Within weeks, the human embryo meets all the criteria needed to count as living: metabolism, reaction to stimuli, reproduction.
Thats the science from there, the questions enter the realm of morality. As Ann Furedi, head of the largest independent abortion provider in Britain, said in a 2008 debate, the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter? Well, if thats the point, then science really isnt the issue.
Half the electorate is pro-life. That means we have to talk about life in compelling, compassionate ways that resonate.
We have to stand up for life without standing against women. And, yes, we have to put up better candidates who make sane, rational pro-life arguments. The solution for conservatives isnt to talk about it less, its to talk about it more and better. email@example.com
Just as an FYI, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach ran as a pro-choice candidate for congress in NJ. He quoted the Book of Exodus, where it said that the fetus does not have the same legal status as a person and that in Jewish Law you have to side with the person who you know is alive.
Abortion of a human life is the single biggest atrocity mankind will ultimately have to pay for, that has done an untold amount of harm to our civilization.
Great artists, engineers, and scientists who will never have an impact - the potential to mankind we will never know.
JEWS of all people, other than Church going Catholics, should be PRO-LIFE considering they were almost KILLED off!! Are they STUPID or EVIL...pick one.
Instead, I would recommend stressing the dangers of abortion to women.
There are a multitude of problems: physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual.
The GOP should sympathize with women instead of condemning them.
The GOP should offer support and answers to the multitude of problems mentioned above.
The GOP can do this and still retain its pro-life position.
By his own criterion, Obama should be entirely disqualified from making any military decisions.
“Don’t talk about it”
Yeah, great strategy.... until the MSM asks you about it... What do you do then? Change the subject?
Conservatives need to learn how to be STRONG on this issue. I had an abortion debate with someone recently. They were pro-choice, but through some very basic arguments, I got them to the point where they felt uncomfortable about their own positions, and agreed that abortion should be more difficult to get, with strict limits and regulations. I’m not a master debater, I just know my arguments, and I know the arguments on the other side.
We could learn a lot from Reagan. I think it was the Mondale debate, in which he was asked about his pro-life position, and he had a great analogy about a man in California killing his wife’s baby during a night of drunken abuse. He was charged with murder. Killing a baby, whether you are a mother, father, or stranger, is murder.
Ask liberals if they would be happy to perform an abortion. They will likely shuffle uncomfortably and say, “no”. Follow up by asking why they would support an action they clearly find to be too morally abhorrent to carry out themselves. Ask them if they could look at pictures of aborted children without cringing, and if not, why would they support what is shown?
We can win this argument, because we are right. We just need to know our stuff, and argue it well. Make it an issue of morality and life. Choice is a wonderful thing, but I cannot just “choose” to kill the guy in front of me at Target because it would be “convenient”. If we want to tackle the problem of unplanned pregnancy in this country, we have to battle the root cause, and not throw out a quick fix that takes an innocent life.
This should be ISSUE #1 when it comes to planning for the future elections, because we handled this question terribly this time around, and the MSM are eager to ask it again.
I forgot to mention that Rabbi Boteach ran as a republican. And let’s just say that in the primary he was very rude to his 2 Catholic opponents.
I agree. Personally, I don’t care if two men want to get “married” to each other, or if someone wants to smoke pot, but an unborn child is an innocent life that needs protection, that can’t speak for itself. I think the long-term trend is going to come our way on this issue, as science brings more and more clarity to exactly what goes on in those first few weeks in the womb. Just looking at a woman six weeks pregnant, maybe you might think her pregnancy is just an amorphous nothingness, a medical condition basically, but with ultrasound and other kinds of technology, we can clearly see that THAT’S A BABY IN THERE!!!
That said, there’s no freakin’ excuse for idiots like Akin and Mourdock to flub questions that they should have memorized the answers to decades ago. It’s ridiculous.
He is a DISGUSTING person.....I don;t care that he ran as a Republican...he is RUDE, OBNOXIOUS and VILE!!! There is NOTHING Holy about him...NOTHING!!! He ACTS like he;s ANTI-CATHOLIC.
I sense that the more we talk about it the less it will occur, but the more we attempt to legislate it the more we will stir up resistance.
Incivility must be pointed out at every turn, both in public and in private, if we are going to inhabit a relatively peaceable world. I would encourage social conservatives to doggedly point out instances of incivility that include abortion, thievery, harm to life and property of others, and any case where natural law is transgressed. The time has become more ripe than ever.
But don't think speaking out comes with no price.
My goal is to shine the light on the myth of “Partial Birth Abortion”.
Why is there no open conversation questioning the alleged process of PBA?
Does anyone really believe that the doc interrupts the birth process, flips the baby over, in utero, stops the final thrust, keeping the baby’s head inside, while killing him or her?
Can you believe that anyone would assert that there is a medical case, wherein this would be safer for the mother, than completing the delivery?
The simple fact is there are no “Partial Birth Abortions”.
The baby is delivered and then killed.
By that logic, maybe we could have averted WWII by informing the Germans that their conduct was uncivil. If people don't already know that ripping a child from his mother's womb is "uncivil" then nothing you can possibly say will convince them. They simply don't care. The best we can hope for at this point is that we don't have to pay for it (and that's not looking good now that the "Affordable Care Act" has been forced upon us).
Yes it's Sarcasm.
Ardent pro-lifers need to go assyetrical if they wish to go anywhere in their war.
Start with fleshing out the abortion positions of other liberal groups and paint it in their terms. An example I gave in another thread was — go after PETA for being and constantly remind them (and the public) that they’re pro murder of unborn children while overemphasising animal rights.
Start reminding the NAACP that abortion largely affects Black unborn babies than whites.
Hit the gay and lesbian groups with the thought that women may choose abortion if they knew their child would be gay.
Hit it as a womans issue as families are more apt to abort a unborn female in hopes of gendering a male afterwards.
Find ways to wedge and split liberal groups over the abortion issue.
“...making decisions about womens health care decisions.”
When did killing your baby, become a “health care decision”?
Abortion is inhuman, vile and brutal. So is brutal & violent rape. I am having hard time coming to terms with sending the pregnant woman to prison if she chooses to abort the pregnancy immediately. No abortion after 60 days after rape.
Ironically, the idea of the federal government classifying abortion as a form of contraception seems to have originated with Anthony Comstock.
You welcome the question, and first say it is so important the answer needs to be put into writing rather than sound bytes. Have your position written down clearly for all to see, and make clear why abortion is the last choice a civil person should ever make; that only in the rarest of circumstances would it be morally acceptable. Even then it points to a condition in our midst that warrants thinking on a higher plane.
Civility also entails forgiveness. The law is unforgiving. I do not think legslation will change the hearts of women who are willfully ignorant or evil, but loud, incessant voices pointing to the good may save many innocent lives.
From a legal perspective the issue is most definitely better determined at local and state levels.
The contingencies of past silence do not excuse the obligation to speak up where there is wrong. I must agree - there are many people who do not care, even more than we. They are precisely the ones whose incivility ought be pointed out to their face and to the whole world. Testify to what is right and good. Go down with the Truth on your side.