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.
Now to respond to their arguments:
21 posted on Sun Nov 11 2012 23:31:20 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) by Hokestuk: “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.”
Great. So we get a Republican elected who acts like a Democrat and thinks the government ought not to be protecting people's lives.
How does that help us?
Maybe the economy will do better. The economy in Sodom and Gomorrah was doing well too — after all, they were well-watered cities on the plain which Lot chose because they looked like a good place to live.
In the long run, that won't help us one bit.
38 posted on Mon Nov 12 2012 00:22:11 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) by chris37 (Heartless.): “I can’t think of many visible pro-life women politicans. I’m not even certain that there are any.”
I can't believe I'm seeing this on Free Republic.
married21 has already pointed out two: Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.
Want a longer list? It would quickly grow to dozens of nationally known names, plus hundreds if not thousands on the state level of politics.
Liberal women usually favor abortion. Conservative women generally don't, unless they're libertarians. Sounds about like liberal, conservative and libertarian men.
Gender isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not we want to protect babies from mass murder.
It really is that simple.
Michele Bachmann has really shown some steel in the face of attacks from both sides of the aisle. In 08 the NRCC stripped her of funds leaving he to face down the democrats on her own and she survived. In 2010 she again faced the full might of the democrat party and won again. In 2012 she ran a pretty respectable presidential campaign and again faced the democrats and many “republican” attacks that would have made the liberal Palin haters proud and still went on to win her house seat.
That woman is sporting some serious mettle.
You’re either pro-life or you’re pro-infanticide and that’s the way to frame the debate.
Republicans shouldn’t fall into the rape/incest trap.
The issue is whether or not we want to protect babies from mass murder.
It really is that simple.
__________________________
It is INDEED!
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I didn’t know that the thread had continued to this point.
As an aside...I’ve been seeing some pundits calling AGAIN for social issues to be put on the back burner by Republicans/conservatives. AMAZING! They still don’t GET IT!
Just the other day a FReeper told me that the GOP needs to pander to atheists more and shut up about gay marriage and abortion.
That would be the day that Free Republic ceases to be, well, Free Republic.
Agreed.
Especially since very few liberals want to advocate capital punishment for anything, and since Louisiana's law allowing the death penalty for extreme cases of rape was recently overturned by the Supreme Court, we can easily make the case that if we don't have the death penalty for the rapist there's no reason to have a death penalty for the baby.
In reality, rape and incest are a minuscule percentage of abortions and get entirely too much attention as “hard cases.” But that's not an argument pro-life men can make effectively; it needs to be made by pro-life women, and ideally by women who have been rape victims, of which there are some willing to speak out.
The messenger counts as well as the message, and that means some subjects simply don't sound good coming from a man.
I don’t advocate abortion on Free Republic. If you read my posts you’ll see that I just disagree with the politics of pro-life vs. pro-abortion.
I.E Angry males making demands upon women isn’t going to be a winning political stance with the voting public. They’re not even going to listen to you, and getting people to listen is 75% of the battle for a pro-life nation.
So instead of ‘pushing’, lets do some ‘pulling’ and convince people that they are pro-life. Ronald Reagan was pro-life, The Bushes where pro-life, yet none of them attacked the abortion issues head on. But the mere fact that they expressed pro-life opinions helped others come to the conclusion that they are pro-life themselves.
This is my final say on the matter, since it appears somebody (probably the person that started responding disrespectfully to my opinons) complained.
Angry men making demands on women? It’s God’s command, not man’s.
Thank you, Jim. I really appreciate this.
When all is said and done, the pro-life position being “God's command, not man's” really **IS** the bottom line.
After an election defeat, the after-action reports quite correctly ask the question of what we could have done differently. Those discussions always include moderates trying to get conservatives to compromise, and I do agree that temporary tactical concessions for longer-term victories may be helpful on some issues.
Killing babies is not one of them.
Lots of ink and lots of electrons can and will be used to explain the conservative position on abortion. Many of those arguments are important and valuable. For me the most important issue is that God said it, that settles it, and if I don't believe it, that's my problem.
However, this is more than a social conservative issue. Even from a secular constitutional perspective, if we do not affirm the right of people to live, no other right is safe. Protecting the lives of its citizens is the most important role of government.
This is and must remain a no-compromise issue for conservatives — not only conservative Christians but also any conservative who values “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” in the words of the Declaration of Independence. If our government will not protect the right to life, we have no reason to believe it will protect any other right enumerated in the Constitution.
It really is that simple.
You’re right. Rape/incest are the libtard’s gotcha divide and conquer questions and that crap has to stop and I think “infanticide” is the best way to shove it right back at them and nullify their argument.
Their abortion position is “anything goes.” That’s why they’re against ultra sounds because there’s actually an innocent, little human inside the woman’s body.
BTTT
If I hire and pay someone to kill you, I’ll be as guilty as the guy I hired to pull the trigger.
“Get rid of the doctors, and it will shut down. Guaranteed.”
You’re still avoiding the question - there will still be some abortions (back alley) that you would have to address the issue of punishment. Or are you saying you’re willing to look the other way?
What do you suggest be done?
“What do you suggest be done?”
There’s one train of thought I’ve been exploring. It involves asking some very fundamental questions about morality, and crime and punishment, and to do so without recourse to theological dogma. In other words relying only on rational thought.
By the way, I don’t have any problem with somebody saying I’m against abortion because the bible says so and I believe in what the bible says. That’s fine, but that’s not a rational argument, it’s dogma, it’s not up for discussion.
Anyway, my train of thought goes like this:
1. The motive force of all humans is the pursuit of their own happiness (as they define it).
2. Humans are pretty good at determining what makes them happy in the short run, but not as good as determining how a particular or a set of short term actions will impact their happiness in the long run.
3. To deal with the long term happiness problem, younger people have relied on their elders to teach them the lessons that they learned through experience as to the do’s and don’ts of life. Sort of like a first time explorer telling a subsequent traveler what to watch out for on his journey. These “rules” is what I call “morals”. (BTW this is one of the key roles that religion plays in our lives - it tells us the dos and don’ts that will lead us to a happier life ( or even afterlife)).
4. One of the “rules” or moral that is quite universal among humans is “thou shall not kill”
5. If, as I stated above, morals are rules that lead one to a happier future, how does “thou shall not kill” accomplish that? Or similarly “thou shall not steal”?
6. Let’s say there was no law against killing, what would happen if say I killed your brother. What would be the consequences on my future happiness of such an act? Well, I got a feeling I could easily end up being killed by you or his other relatives or sons. So for my own future happiness I’d be wise to not kill someone else.
7. But what if that someone else was a loner with no living relatives, no close friends. If I killed him, how would that effect my long term happiness? What would be the consequences? They may not be as severe as the case described in 6. But would there still be some consequences. Would strangers feel that I would pose a threat to their life? Probably. Would there be a sense of empathy that would cause a backlash against my action. Maybe. Would I be ostracized? The consequences would most likely not be as severe as when the life I’ve take has great value to others, but they may still be significant.
8. So the amount of natural consequences (pre law) seem to depend on the magnitude of the loss to other people a particular action causes.
9. If we apply this type of reasoning to abortion, we’d have to ask, how does a woman aborting her fetus affect her future happiness? What about that of others around her? Do they feel a loss? Given the negative reaction to abortion of many people, it would seem that it does effect them. In what way? Is it empathy? Is it a fear of the “slippery slope”?
10. Now, in the case of the murder of a loner with no friends or relatives, society has decided that the punishment should be the same as for a person that is loved by 1000 people. So can a parallel be drawn between a fetus and the loner with no friends and relatives?
11. Most people would agree with that, IF ( and it’s a big if) the fetus were considered a human being. I believe this is where all the disagreement between Pro-lifers and pro-abortionists resides - in deciding at which point a fetus is a human being.
Yeah, you’ve correctly apprehended the dispute. What we used to do before abortion became legal was go after the doctors and have the women testify against the doctor. The rate was only a tenth what it is now.
Very sloppy exegesis of Exodus 21:22-25, to say the least. 1. Assumes without any evidence that the fight results in a dead child, and 2. Ignores the element of intent in the law, as though a punishment for manslaughter rather than first degree murder is because a victim is less than human.
And so on. See:
http://www.prolifetraining.com/FiveMinute6.asp
Cordially,
Sure, you've just taken the "personally opposed, but..." approach.
I.E Angry males making demands upon women isn’t going to be a winning political stance with the voting public. They’re not even going to listen to you, and getting people to listen is 75% of the battle for a pro-life nation.
If the MURDER OF 54 MILLION INNOCENT AMERICANS isn't reason enough to be angry, then what is?
NOBODY is talking about "making demands upon women," we are talking about protecting innocent life. The fact that you cannot distinguish the difference is disturbing.
So instead of ‘pushing’, lets do some ‘pulling’ and convince people that they are pro-life. Ronald Reagan was pro-life, The Bushes where pro-life, yet none of them attacked the abortion issues head on.
President Reagan was pro-life, but other than scant lip service there isn't any reason to believe that the Bushes are.
As far as not attacking the issue, you seem to forget President Reagan's Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, the Mexico City Policy and banning federal funding for abortion.
But the mere fact that they expressed pro-life opinions helped others come to the conclusion that they are pro-life themselves.
When someone is being murdered, it is more important to stop the murder than to convince the apathetic that murder is wrong.
Very sloppy exegesis of Exodus 21:22-25, to say the least.
***My purpose is not to do an exegesis, but it would appear that your purpose is to be an arrogant pharisee, to say the least.
By the way, an exegesis is an explanation or interpretation of a text, so whether that was your purpose or not, that is what you did when you gave your representation of that particular Biblical example involving a pre-born child.
Why don't you give a substantive response instead of call me names?
Cordially,
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.