Stanek wkend question: Thoughts on Coulter’s charge that having no rape/incest exception is “insane”?
I can’t think of a time when I haven’t agreed with Ann Coulter, even if her rhetoric is sometimes considered over-the-top. I usually enjoy her rhetoric, except her insistence on using the word “retard.”
Rhetoric aside, Coulter is a smart and savvy conservative.
So I was disappointed and stymied by this portion of Coulter’s analysis of the shellacking many Republicans took in Tuesday’s election:
No one can be blamed for the hurricane that took the news off the election, abruptly halting Romney’s momentum, but Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock can be blamed on two very specific people: Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.
The last two weeks of the campaign were consumed with discussions of women’s “reproductive rights,” not because of anything Romney did, but because these two idiots decided to come out against abortion in the case of rape and incest.
After all the hard work intelligent pro-lifers have done in changing the public’s mind about a subject the public would rather not think about at all, these purist grandstanders came along and announced insane positions with no practical purpose whatsoever, other than showing off.
While pro-lifers in the trenches have been pushing the abortion positions where 90% of the country agrees with us – such as bans on partial birth abortion, and parental and spousal notification laws – Akin and Mourdock decided to leap straight to the other end of the spectrum and argue for abortion positions that less than 1% of the nation agrees with.
In order to be pro-life badasses, they gave up two easy-win Republican Senate seats.
No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist. Yes, it’s every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape. But sentient human beings are capable of drawing gradations along a line.
Just because I need iron to live doesn’t mean I have to accept 100,000 milligrams, which will kill me. If we give the guy who passed bad checks a prison furlough, that doesn’t mean we have to give one to Willie Horton. I like a tablespoon of sugar in my coffee, but not a pound.
The overwhelming majority of people – including me – are going to say the law shouldn’t force someone who has been raped to carry the child. On the other hand, abortion should be illegal in most other cases.
Is that so hard for Republicans to say?
Pro-life activist and the product of rape Rebecca Kiessling wrote a lengthy response to Coulter that is well worth reading. I wish Ann would speak with Rebecca.
Coulter got the scenario so wrong. It wasn’t so much the “no exceptions” position Akin and Mourdock held that got them in trouble. It was the ridiculous way they explained their position.
Consider how Ohio U.S. Senate candidate Josh Mandel deftly turned the tables on that question by pointing out opponent Sherrod Brown’s extremist position of believing abortion should be legal throughout all 9 months of pregnancy.
Brown stuttered in response, “I’ve never heard anybody say that before Josh, I’m not aware of that.” Mandel may have lost his race, but it wasn’t over a stumble on his pro-life position. (View video here, 48:52-51:40.)
And it wasn’t only the “last two weeks of the campaign” that were “consumed with discussions of women’s ‘reproductive rights.’” It was the last 10 months of the campaign, after Obama and the Democrats launched their “war on women” meme.
At any rate, what are your thoughts on Coulter’s analysis? Perhaps you agree with her?