Replies

No, that’s not what I’m saying. I only listed rape as a reason because that has been the recent focus. So here goes...

legal abortion for convenience - no
legal abortion for rape - yes
legal abortion for incest - yes
legal abortion for life & legitimate serious health risks - yes

The baby conceived in any scenario is no less innocent. I agree with that. I don’t claim to hold a consistent, pure, pro-life position. As such, in those cases where a woman had no choice, when she was a victim of a crime, I don’t think she should have to bear the responsibility of carrying the baby to term. Saying that she could give it up to adoption ignores what all she has to go through to make it that far.

As I said, I realize the obvious logical problems with this position. But I’m hardly alone. Just compare the % of Americans who claim to be pro-life to the % that shares your view of no abortion at all (except maybe for life of mother???). They don’t match up. Clearly a lot of pro-lifers favor exceptions.

Overall, the vast majority of Americans think there should be exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. On the other hand, the vast majority also opposes unrestricted abortion rights. The consensus view of Americans, if there is one, is either than abortion should be legal, but with significant restrictions, or that it should be illegal, but with exceptions. So the party platform for both the GOP (exception for only life of mother) and the Dems (abortion on demand) is out of step with the majority of Americans.

The problem for the GOP is that the media will focus on and highlight their ‘extremism’ while of course giving the Democrats a complete pass on theirs. So Republicans have to try and point out that it is the Democrats who are more out of touch with the American people on abortion.

The only way we’ll get close to what you want is for Roe to be overturned.* The only way Roe will be overturned is by winning the Presidency and the Senate, and then getting to replace Ginsburg and hoping Roberts doesn’t go left again. The Senate part of the equation has become much harder because Akin opened his mouth and let out idiocy. The Democrats couldn’t have scripted anything dumber, and more fitting of their caricature of pro-lifers. A likely pickup has now become a likely hold for the Dems. Add that to Florida where another vulnerable Dem now likely to escape because of another bad Republican candidate in Connie Mack Jr and it’s not looking to good.

Should Romney win and the GOP takes the Senate, and there is a Sup Court opening, Romney will have to nominate a solid conservative or risk abandonment from the base. But if he wins, and the Dems take the Senate, would Romney even try to get a conservative through? I doubt it. I don’t think he’d want to expend political capital on a fight he’s doomed to lose. And he would lose; if the Democrats have the Senate, they would either vote down a conservative judge outright, or if there is a chance of a few Dems crossing over, they might do something unprecedented and filibuster a Sup Court pick. The best we could hope for would be another Sandra Day O’Connor. And she was terrible; Reagan’s biggest mistake.

So I want Akin out because I think that increases our chances of finally getting a genuine conservative Sup Court. Such a Court would overturn Roe, and return the matter to the states where it belongs. It’s not inconceivable that it could come down to one or two Senate seats.

*I don’t accept judicial supremacy as legitimate. I don’t think the President, Congress, and the States are compelled to obey an outrageous, unconstitutional decision like Roe. But on this I am probably out of touch. Judicial supremacy is firmly entrenched and the people (along with the other lesser branches of govt) have been conditioned to meekly obey whatever nonsense the Sup Court hands down. Unless that changes (it won’t) our only hope is a good, Constitutionally-bound Sup Court.