Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Winning The Abortion Debate
A few months back, I posted about a sex selection abortion ban in California being voted down on party lines. I went toe-to-toe with several folks on Ricochet as to the efficacy of the law and whether or not it could be enforceable. We had a nice debate on it, but I want to focus on one big benefit to putting a bill like this up for a vote. We have them on record voting “yes” to gendercide.
Most pro-choice Americans get queasy at the idea that someone could justify an abortion solely on disapproving of the child’s gender, i.e., it being a girl. Forcing Democrats to vote on this bill exploits that unease and gives us something to fight back with, especially with regards to the so-called “War on Women.” The next time a Democrat accuses his opponent of “not caring about a woman’s choice” or about women’s “reproductive health,” the Republican candidate can point to these votes and ask her opponent whether he — like all other Democrats who voted on the bill — thinks it’s okay to abort a baby for the crime of being a girl. Wait for an answer, and don’t let him weasel out of it. If Democrats want a war on women, we’ll give them a war on women.
There are other arrows pro-life candidates can pull from their quivers. You know how Democrats like to hammer everyone about “women’s health,” which is now the most important thing in the world? Then ask why so few abortion clinics in Democrat-run cites like Philadelphia (hello, Kermit Gosnell) and New York inspected for sanitary standards like other medical clinics. Remember that bill that Wendy Davis — the “Abortion Barbie” as some have dubbed her — filibustered in her pink sneakers? That was the meat of the bill.
During a debate, a Republican can mention how Dr. Gosnell’s clinic — and you will have to give a brief synopsis as to who the man is since pretty much nobody does — was able to operate for 20 years without inspection, even though city officials had reports of the horrendous conditions at the clinic. That many clinics in New York City are not inspected to ensure their standards. That nail salons and restaurants are held to a higher sanitary standards than abortion clinics in this country. “Does my opponent,” a Republican might ask, “oppose legislation to ensure abortion clinics are held to the same sanitary and health standards as other community health clinics?” You get the idea.
Many who hold a pro-choice position have really not thought through the realities of abortion: what the actual procedure is and how it effects women. If the Republican party is going to be the pro-life party — or, at least, the party opposed to the radical position the Democrats have taken on abortion — then they need to sharpen their rhetoric and do their homework so they’re not left flat-footed when asked questions and can respond with questions of their own that put pro-choice candidates on the defensive.
Social issues shouldn’t be a third rail just because they’re emotional and unpleasant. It’s much easier to talk about economics and policy, but these things must be brought to the attention of the general public and given a fair hearing.
Published in General, Politics
Matede,
I agree with everything that you have written but I don’t know if it will help. People are so selfish that even with a change of the law they will do as they please. People are really desensitized. They consider babies mistakes that need to be erased. Why should they suffer for having casual sex? It causes one to despair. It is to the point that people think being responsible is repressive and bad.
My thoughts are bleak. It is modern child sacrifice. The child either is not born or suffers without a parent because two people would rather have an orgy than a family. The hedonistic gods must be appeased.
“ I want to focus on one big benefit to putting a bill like this up for a vote. We have them on record voting yes to gendercide.”
Amen to this and to every attempt to force showdowns on things that matter. This is one reason why Tea Party types are so furious with the “welllll, that bill would never pass anyway” Republicans. If the Republicans cannot produce the recoreded Democrat opposition, then we have nothing to go on but the Republican opposition. We’re not being dense about this — this is the weapon we get hit with come election time.
Density is the yeah, whatever Republican voters who accept the GOP’s flimsy excuses for failure.
Wow Dime, this is really pessimistic. I really think that many people just hear abortion and have a knee jerk reaction of “women’s rights” or “what if a woman is raped’. But I think these reactions are because it’s hidden, they don’t want to think about it. Why did the press ignore the Gosnell case? I think it’s because that case would bring to light the realities of this practice in all of its ugliness. The responses I have in my post, I know for a fact, that most people have never heard them, because I’ve mentioned them to people and they either don’t believe me or are appalled. If these things could be brought up on television during a national debate it would force people to examine their stance on this issue.
We need to bring Moloch into the debate as often as is possible. We’re doing the same thing in society: sacrificing our children for our own temporal benefit.
I’m pro-life all the way, but I can understand how a candidate doesn’t want to wade into the abortion debate. It’s rife with land mines and if he doesn’t get the language expressed just right, it will be twisted on him and used against him. Certain elected officials need to be identified as the “go-to” guy (preferably gal) in the debate and be the point man. Sort of like Henry Hyde used to be and I think Chris Smith is today. But really we need a prominant pro-life woman to be that candidate. Perhaps if the woman running in the Iowa Senate race wins, she might be ideal.
I agree that if a candidate doesn’t express themselves right then it can blow up in his face. My point is the Dems are going to bring this up, it’s part of their War on Women thing. My point is have this stuff chambered so you don’t get flustered and can throw it back on them to respond to information that even Democrat candidates probably know nothing about. This will get them flustered and defensive, helping the Republican shift the debate into a new direction.
I like this. We should go on the offensive.
In a previous Ricochet conversation, we identified the fact that people were calling themselves pro-life while they accepted the consideration that there might be exceptions to being pro-life. It is the exceptions that keep one from being pro-life. For instance we hear about rape, incest, and life-of-the-mother. Those are exceptions, and more often than not, people haven’t thought them through.
If abortion were outlawed except for rape, a lot of men would be accused of rape (and tried, and possibly jailed) so that an abortion could be obtained. Whether or not there was an actual rape, that man would carry a record which would haunt him. Were you ever accused of a felony?
Incest means that a relative used another person for sex. However we don’t execute people convicted of incest, we imprison them.
Life-of-the-mother is the easiest to deal with. Induced abortion means that the baby is targeted for death, needlessly.
Should the mother’s health require medicines or technologies which might kill the child, that woman is always permitted to be treated for her illness, but not to directly abort the child. Neither the mother or the child is “more important,” and both have a right to life. Should the medicines or technologies lead to the child’s death, it is an unintended consequence. The child was not directly targeted and the mother does have right to live which is independent of the child’s right to live.
So, pro-life is not about the exceptions, it is about no exceptions. We never should target the innocent for punishment, let alone death. No child, having been conceived, has done anything to merit being killed.
Donald – I agree with all of your points. However, the problem is to the general population we are WAY past trying to convince them of a pro-life position with no exceptions. Plus it would probably take too long to get that point accross. As it stands right now, in a debate, so that the Republican doesn’t get slammed on a question about abortion to go on the offensive rather than defensive. Most of the “low information voters” can’t seem to understand concepts that don’t fit on a bumper sticker.
I think you are so right about your argument. Politicians have to be smart and think, yes think about what they think and what they should say when asked. If they don’t have an answer to counter abortion, then most people assume they agree. If a politician has accepted the inevitably of abortion as a loosing argument – then they will sound like it’s a loosing argument. I for one think this is a bell weather policy, along with guns, net neutrality and the success of Apple. If you investigate (“It’s settled” was said by the die-hard feminists long before climate changers started ranting these words.) the history of abortion this was the thinking of the “winners” for female rights. It was settled with the Roe vs. Wade and yet… here we are. When it was settled there were no pro-life organizations; no political organizations countering the abortion strutters, because no one thought the supreme court would overreach right into the 50 States’ business and wave a magic wand bestowing a bogus right on one group – females – of citizens. When the pro life movement started it was ridiculed and scoffed at and was told, “it’s settled,” “abortion is law of the land.” Today the pro life movement overshadows the abortion industry, because that is what it is – a money making business Planned Parenthood hiding behind a “right” and a supposed non-profit Inc. tax ID number. If you think not – where are the really radical feminists shouting about women’s rights? (What is it now? Oh yeah “women’s health” “War on women’s health.”) When was the last time a bill was introduced which was encouraging more abortions not adding limits to abortion? When was the last time a feminist shouted, “it’s settled” or “it’s the law of the land?” They don’t because most thinking people understand and rightly have observed – what the Supreme’s can bestow, can also be un-bestowed and is slowly inexorably being un-bestowed; each new case arrives and is settled further unsettling Roe vs Wade.
Two things I would encourage people passionate about stopping abortion employ; Citizenship, they are no longer fetuses – they are US citizens or future US citizens. It is time to stop using a descriptor which is innocuous and non-specific – these babies will be US citizens – every baby born alive during an abortion – is a US citizen and is afforded the full weight, power and authority of the federal government to insure their rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. All politicians will gladly patriotically claim this and should be interested in insuring this especially when most politicians are falling all over themselves to weasel someway to bestow citizenship on “children” crashing our southern border. The second is a free market principle – whenever the government put’s it’s thumb on the scale of the marketplace it distorts the marketplace i.e. housing, alcohol, agriculture, light bulbs, green energy, electric cars., etc., etc., etc. When it finally stops, markets recover their equilibrium i.e. no more alcohol, no more solar panels, wind turbines, cheaper housing, and electric cars are discontinued. If you want abortion to become rare, like electric cars and green energy, press for the free market principle of – no government subsidies for Planned Parenthood.
My problem is that we’re constantly defending our position and not forcing the other side to defend its absolutism and fanaticism. Even pro-lifers who will countenance exceptions can drive home this point again and again: the Democrat position is that abortion should be allowed at any time, for any reason, done anywhere, by anyone.
The question Democrats must be forced to answer is: “Which exceptions have you, or will you, vote for?”
Exactly. That’s my point. Nobody EVER challenged Obama on his radical position on abortion, even though they had him on record as voting AGAINST the born alive bill. That is what Republican candidates need to do. Challenge them, make them defend their position. But we have to do it on a way that we can find common ground with the general public to make them think about their own position and what it means. The culture surrounding abortion needs to change and people need to be forced to think about it. That is my point, but in a debate the candidate only has about 3 minutes so they can’t get too nuanced.
That’s why I’d really like to see life-friendly pols boil it down to: the Democrat platform is abortion any time, anywhere, by anyone, for any reason.
To be blunt, the only way most Democrat politicians could be more extreme about abortion is to perform abortions themselves.
Several responses
I do understand the “pro-life but” position and I do recognize that it is a placeholder. Last presidential election I voted for Romney. Romney is a Mormon and the LDS position is the “pro-life but” position with exceptions for rape, incest, and life-of-the-mother (so not really pro-life).
If I believe that there might be a legitimate attempt by politicians to limit abortion I can vote for them. I would like all the children saved, but if any can be saved, that is a great good and one I can get behind.
10 cents,
The above is not the witty banter I expect from you. It is kind of depressing so please stop it. It may be true but I look to you for biting facetiousness!
Thanks, Matede. You are absolutely right. This is the sort of thing that should be part of a GOP talking points bulletin for all GOP candidates nationally.
Thanks MJbubba, that’s why I posted it and am super excited it got promoted to the main feed (thank you ricochet editors it’s obvious I am not a professional writer). Hopefully, someone of influence will look at it, right now I’m honored Paul Rahe read it.
You have more confidence than I do in Republicans expressing themselves well on social issues. I don’t think most of them can do it.
Good Points.
Beside the masterful marshalling of useful points, Matede, I can;t describe how much I like that picture. Whoever selected it, it’s awesome.
This is an incredible unforced error.