Abortion and GOP politics: “Talk about it more, not less – but better”
The debate over contraception that occupied so much campaign conversation wasn’t started by Rick Santorum and Catholic bishops. Theirs was a response to President Obama’s 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 didn’t introduce the subjects of abortion and rape, either – they were asked about them during debates. Yes, they responded atrociously, but Republicans don’t campaign wearing sandwich boards that say, “Ask me about rape.”ť The media cynically ask these questions to elicit crazy responses. In those two cases, mission accomplished.
So even when we don’t 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….
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 isn’t to talk about it less, it’s to talk about it more – and better.
~ S.E. Cupp (pictured above), New York Daily News, November 21
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Yes!
John McCain, start taking notes.
It’s good to see someone showing some sense on this issue. Too bad so much of the GOP establishment hopes that if they bury their heads in the sand, the issue will just disappear,
The GOP isn’t going to get a clue.
But we can still advance the culture of life. We have some friends in the media.
Abortion sympathizers in the media insist on asking pro-life candidates questions like, “What about rape?”
We need to ask the pro-abort candidates similarly uncomfortable questions.
– “What about a woman who wants to abort her daughter because she would prefer to have a boy?”
– “Should abortion providers be allowed to sell abortions to under-age girls without the knowledge and consent of her parents?”
– ”Since the number of abortion-related deaths of women have doubled in recent years, do you believe that abortion providers need more regulatory oversight for the safety of women?”
– “Whistle-blowers from within Planned Parenthood are charging the organization with defrauding MedicAid and double-charging poor women for unnecessary services. Should we investigate these revelations, or continue to ignore them?”
A prime talking point of the conservatives should be that abortion is an important tool for concealing rape and sex abuse. The abusers bring repeat business to abortion clinics, so it is natural for the abortionists not to bite the ………, hand that feeds them.
Why are the lefties so adamant that these evil activities should be concealed and perpetuated, rather than getting real help for women who have been raped?
Here are two possible responses we came up with over at New Wave Feminists that show support for the woman and child and can’t be chopped up into damning soundbites…
“I am for empowering women enough through resources and information that they feel they have better options in all cases.”
“How about we give the victims of these brutal and unspeakable crimes enough support that they don’t feel like abortion is their only option? Haven’t they already been through enough? Now you want another person intruding on them and removing a child that’s HALF THEIRS as well?”
No one ever seems to mention the fact that she’s also having to terminate HER child. I’d like to see this brought up more.
“The Pro-Life Problem” http://churchmilitanttv.wordpress.com
http://reconciledtogod.blogspot.com/
Why the abortion of children conceived in violence should not be permitted
YCW! How have you been? How is your family? I think of you often.
well-stated by Cupp. Too true. It would help if we had some well-informed, well-spoken, OUTSPOKEN females within the GOP speaking out for prenatal human rights. The last two Republican First Ladies were both Pro-Legal Abortion, and too many female elected officials (particularly in and near coastal areas) are the same. Also, few of the males know what they’re talking about, biologically-speaking, when it comes to abortion. They don’t have to know personally, because it really doesn’t affect them directly for the most part. You see plenty of female pro-abortion politicians who can throw their faces out there in an emotional plea with “I had an abortion! Feel sorry for me, give me your pity, or else YOU HATE WOMEN! BAWWWWW!”, but our side has few (if any?) people out there who can stay out of the ivory towers and say “I’ve been there-my child(ren) and I have been through the crisis. Eventually, it ends, and killing isn’t necessary to end it. And, even if killing these children would have ended it, and made my life better or easier…so what? The price of their lives is TOO HIGH a toll to pay for comfort and stability!”
But unfortunately, having children does make it more difficult to occupy a space in the political sphere. It IS looked at as a toxic “problem” in both parties (though one more than the other, to be sure). It DOES restrict resources to anyone not completely financially-insulated from the lower class. It’s a lot more difficult to hobnob with financial backers and kiss the rings of the establishment at social gatherings with a toddler in tow. And, until the former is no longer the situation in this country, politically, Pro-Life politicians are going to be seen as privileged oppressors trying to shackle the uteri of poor women.
I’m good. I have another blob of cells using my body’s resources–he was born 5 months ago–and my older two are 4 1/2 and almost 3.
and, I think too many on the conservative side of things are reluctant to support anyone who HAS been there, because that requires someone to not be “perfect”. It requires someone to possibly have made some mistakes in the past, and portray themselves as *GASP*human!*GASP*, and everyone knows that every conservative ever is a perfect, flawless Christian, pure as the driven snow.
*sigh*
and everyone knows that every conservative ever is a perfect, flawless Christian, pure as the driven snow.
Honestly, X, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. If we confess that we have pasts and that we aren’t perfect even in the present, we’re labeled hypocrites when we try to explain to others why they shouldn’t travel down the paths we unfortunately chose. And in the liberal mind, being a hypocrite is worse than… well, pretty much anything.
They think if they can “catch” us being human or uncover some old skeleton, that somehow negates everything we believe in and stand for. It says a lot about the media that they desperately try to find affairs or indiscretions in the pasts of conservatives, but find the same stuff in a liberal’s past and it’s not newsworthy at all. It also says a lot that the biggest stories about some people (Olympians, American Idols and so forth) have nothing to do with their amazing talents but about the fact that they’re still virgins and plan to remain so until marriage. That is what passes for tabloid shocker news now, I guess.
So it isn’t that we as conservatives don’t support people who have “been there.” It’s that we know the media will rip them (and us) to shreds when we do.
Kel and Xalise,
This is where being “born-again” comes in…When someone accepts Jesus’ sacrifice for them, they are made new creatures, and the things they used to do–and want to do–are passed away. Liberals are good at scoffing, but people who belong to Jesus have testimonies that cannot be denied. They have exchanged their unrighteous decisions for righteous living that He works in their lives…and they hold out hope for those who have none.
True hypocrites are those pretending to be what they are not. Liberals accusing those with pasts who are trying to make a righteous stand are pretending to be qualified to sit in judgment..,well, they demonstrate from their own lives that they don’t have a clue what it means to be righteous. Jesus even said that people would know His disciples from the fruit of their lives…it is really His…
“Yes!
John McCain, please retire.”
Fixed that for you, Navi. j/k :-p
This is very well put and exactly what really needs to happen. The democrats doubled down on abortion during the entire campaign. Republicans should have done the same instead of running away like scared kittens.
Such an awesome quote of the day I want to stand up and applaud!!!!! Ok, I’m gonna do it. Yeah, that felt good and nobody saw me do it, lol!
We MUST direct the conversation. Abortion advocates have been treating us like dogs, throwing sticks that we try to chase after and each time instead of addressing the problem of the stick, they just ignore us and keep throwing it where they want it, left, right, a little farther, a little closer. We see that with the crazy circular non-logic they so often employ.
Politicans will never save the world, but I sure wish they’d start representing US, their voting constituents. The presidential race was no landslide. Half the population is more with us that our adversaries want to admit. Time for our leaders, if and when they are pro-life, to stand up and be proud of it. Our adversaries use mockery, cartoonish stereotypes, fearmongering, and stubborness. Time to reveal those bullies for who they are. Stand up, understand your own position, and stay classy!
Is it really possible to advocate abortion criminalization and completely avoid being anti-female?
I have a female friend who strongly advocate abortion criminalization. However, she doesn’t feel obliged to avoid being anti-female. She freely admits that she dislikes most women and is something of a misogynist. Yes, women can be woman-haters.
The simple fact is that females get pregnant and females get abortions.
Is misogyny avoidable for people who want abortion outlawed?
I believe more women are victimized by being forced or coerced into abortion than freely choose abortion. Abortion hurts women. The statistics say something like 60% at least are coerced… so I don’t see how it is possible to support women and advocate for legal abortion.
Is misogyny avoidable for people who want abortion outlawed?
Yes. I am very much pro-woman, was raised by a single mother and I have a daughter of my own. I am PRO-women making healthy decisions. I am PRO-women being able to choose their own careers and paths in life and in helping them to do so if they need it. I am never pro-unhealthy choices, but this has nothing to do with one sex or the other, just people in general.
Abortion is a victimization to the highest degree – it is killing another human in order to achieve a desired end. It is the “if I can’t have you, no one can” mentality of the oppressive abuser who chooses to act as the owner of another life.
The leaders of the pro-life movement right now are in large part women. The founding feminist foremothers – Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony… ALL were against abortion. I think you’d be hard pressed to prove that the leaders of the American women’s rights movement were misogynists.
Is it really possible to advocate abortion criminalization and completely avoid being anti-female?
Yes.
P.S. Get less insane friends. It might have a positive effect on your own level of sanity.
this is great!! This is exactly what pro-lifers need to hear, especially pro-life politicians. I agree with X, that we need more outspoken, articulate WOMEN pro-life politicians.
It’s vital to those speaking publicly about pro-life issues (especially those dealing with media reporters) to know how to answer questions eloquently, simply, and keep to the issue. The issue isn’t rape, or incest, it’s life! Turn the questions back on the interviewer – and would you advocate killing a child whose parents go to prison? After all, their life must suck. Who will care for them?
Anyway, hooray for SE Cupp and her speaking out about how pro-life politicians need to speak about the issue. (I’ve always liked her more than Ann Coulter anyway).
And Denise… Yes, of course that’s possible. I’m pro-woman, and I’m anti-abortion. It *is* pro-woman to be against abortion! Abortion hurts women.
“The media cynically ask these questions to elicit crazy responses. In those two cases, mission accomplished.” – yet the media didn’t write the crazy responses these people came out with. They just exposed their true views.
Should Rep. Scott DesJarlais be nominated for 2016?
“but I sure wish they’d start representing US, their voting constituents.” – they do. The people have spoken.
“The presidential race was no landslide.” – no, it wasn’t. But look at the profile of those who lost in the senate and those who came away with reduced margins in the house. Roll on midtrems!
“Half the population is more with us that our adversaries want to admit” – apparently not.
I think Denise should attend one of the Walks for Life this January and meet some new (pro-life) friends! And it’s good exercise.
If what you said was true, Reality, you guys wouldn’t have to rely on hard cases (rape, life of mother) to prop up your position. ;)
That’s just the line run by politicians and others who really are pro-choice to minimise the metaphorical head beating they would otherwise endure from the lunatic fringe :-)
Cupp tries to simply blame the media, but that isn’t completely true. First off, the GOP specifically put no exceptions in their platform. Folks can disagree if that’s right or wrong, but they can’t disagree that the GOP put that in there, not the media. I don’t believe CNN or ABC has a vote for the GOP platform. So while Cupp thinks that people simply come with crazy loaded questions, she’s missing the point that the GOP invited it, and it still didn’t prevent members of the party from answering it with some iota of sensitivity and thought.
Yes. They’re all just “really” pro-choice. That’s why the only time I personally ever get the “WELL WHUDDABOUT RAPE?!” or “WELL, WHUDDABOUT LIFE OF THE MOTHER?!” is from self-admitted Pro-Legal Abortionists who just got roflstomped in a debate with me about ELECTIVE ABORTIONS.
I’d say that if the way you have written your comment is indicative of the way you ‘debate’ those people then it’s probably more a case of them taking the ‘cross the street to avoid the crazy person’ approach.
Cupp tries to simply blame the media, but that isn’t completely true. First off, the GOP specifically put no exceptions in their platform. Folks can disagree if that’s right or wrong, but they can’t disagree that the GOP put that in there, not the media. I don’t believe CNN or ABC has a vote for the GOP platform. So while Cupp thinks that people simply come with crazy loaded questions, she’s missing the point that the GOP invited it, and it still didn’t prevent members of the party from answering it with some iota of sensitivity and thought.
Why should a “Big Tent” party have to specify the specific, controversial details of a broad principle that’s been in their platform for over three decades? Is that not what elected legislators are for?
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/another-abortion-falsehood-from-obamas-truth-team/
I wouldn’t accuse the media of a massive conspiracy to smear pro-lifers and Republicans. I think their main agenda is making a profit (which you do by selling sensationalism), not ideology (though this too is present).
The pro-life plank in the GOP platform did not invite undue weight in any way. This one is completely on the media (along with a very small number of damaging statements made by politicians), not the authors of the platform.
Ex-GOP:
The incredible irony of what you said is that the GOP hasn’t changed their stance on abortion in ages. Meanwhile, the dems very recently removed the “rare” language from their platform and added language saying abortion should be tax-funded (“without ability to pay”). Their language also includes absolutely no limitations on the reasons for abortion.
All of this should have prompted several tough questions from the media about sex-selective abortions, partial birth abortion, tax-funding for abortion, etc. Yet, none were asked. What does that say about the media’s (and your) bias?
Your reading comprehension rather lacks, doesn’t it? They were bested in debate with me initially. They attempted to rebut with the hard cases. That implies that they were STILL attempting to debate me, only changing the subject as a deflection. If they were really trying to “avoid” me, you’d think they’d drop the attempts altogether, instead of drastically changing the subject repeatedly in a last-ditch effort to capture a “GOTCHA!” moment.
Kinda like you’re doing here, since this was about you claiming that pro-lifers were the ones bringing up hard cases when it was then pointed out to you quite clearly that it is Pro-Legal Abortionists who do so because they know their position on abortion is for the most part not well-received by the general public.
You’re so cute when you’re acting particularly deluded! ;)
“They were bested in debate with me initially.” – uhu.
“They attempted to rebut with the hard cases. That implies that they were STILL attempting to debate me, only changing the subject as a deflection.” – they probably realized that rational statements weren’t something you would give merit to so they made a last ditch attempt to drop it down to your level.
“If they were really trying to “avoid” me, you’d think they’d drop the attempts altogether, instead of drastically changing the subject repeatedly in a last-ditch effort to capture a “GOTCHA!” moment.” – my bet is they walked away rather than suffer your shoutie attempts at gotchas.
Well my female friends say I’m cute, a couple of my male friends do too. But that’s for them to judge. You don’t know me. I wouldn’t pre-judge your ‘cuteness’ based on the little I know of you.
Like I keep saying, deluded is thinking you will ever stop abortion.
“Like I keep saying, deluded is thinking you will ever stop abortion.”
We stop abortions every day.
“We stop abortions every day” – really? So there are none taking place today? How about tomorrow? Next week? Next month? Next year? How about next decade?
Sure, you turn a few people away from clinics with your chanting and brow beating. Some won’t have abortions. Some of those may be happy about that. Some will just go back later when you aren’t there and some will come to hate what you’ve led them into.
You will never stop abortion.
We won’t stop rape, or murder, either.
“We stop abortions every day” – really? So there are none taking place today?”
Why would you choose to insert ALL as the qualifier here? When I say “I eat salads every day” would you argue that I am wrong because I do not eat all salads, there are in fact other salads in the world, eaten by others, not currently being eaten, and so on? Or when the police chief claims “we stop crimes (or even “crime”) every day, is she lying? Anyways, yes, we stop SOME abortions.
“and some will come to hate what you’ve led them to” Oh dear. Truth, support, and the love and joy of living children really is something to be hated. And what about the regrets of post-abortive women?
We won’t stop lovers kissing, fitness fans jogging or people carrying out charitable deeds.
We won’t stop garden lovers gardening, epicures experiencing fine dining or poets writing poetry.
This is so true. We need to start and continue to bring up abortion unless we want pro-choicers to control the playing field. And we all know how well that has worked out for humanity. How many are dead again? How many countless others have died because we have no way of tracking their destruction? It’s time to start stressing the sheer magnitude and horror of what is going on, while at the same time promoting to the greatest extent non-violent solutions and compassionate support to mothers who unexpectedly become pregnant (with their CHILD – not some nebulous pre-human clump of cells).
Navi – that’s fair. I just think Cupp goes out of her way to try to blame the media. The media wasn’t at fault for Akin’s comment – I looked up the interview transcript – the question Akin answered was “what about in the case of rape? Should it be legal or not?””.
Not too much of a trap question there…
Andrew -
The platform got more scrutiny on the GOP side because Akin’s comments had just happened – plain and simple.
And the Democrats platform changed in 2008 on the word ‘rare’.
I think it is a little interesting that polls show a clear 60% of people that are okay with abortion in some circumstances – so the right runs to the far extreme position supported by roughly 20%, and the left runs to a far extreme position supported by roughly 20% – and the middle 60% is left to see both parties as extremists.
On your last questions – it would be nice if the media took a more direct approach to debating candidates and trying to expose flaws in their arguments – but that approach typically gets blasted.
And on your question of my bias – I wonder if you understand what the word bias means. The post you replied to simply suggested that Cupp shouldn’t just blame the media here – the GOP didn’t have a lot of losses because the media was simply unfair – and the GOP needs to, at some point, start pointing the fingers at themselves or they are going to lose again. So where in that is there bias coming from me? I’m biased towards people taking some responsibility?
they probably realized that rational statements weren’t something you would give merit to so they made a last ditch attempt to drop it down to your level.
And maybe monkeys one day will fly forth from my posterior. Meaningless, immature personal attack/insult which in no way carries any weight with me. But your tantrum when confronted with ACTUAL REALITY is duly noted. Too cute! ^_^
my bet is they walked away rather than suffer your shoutie attempts at gotchas.
Nope. Some blowhards STILL come after me after literally YEARS of being rhetorically-trounced. I don’t need “gotchas” though. My argument is consistent, logical, scientifically-sound, and justified, because it is the fight for basic human rights for all human beings.
As far as your (also immature) “So what? You’ll never stop us, muahahahahaha!” comment, I’ll just let the juxtaposition of one of the other comments here and your response speak for itself. This crosses the line from “adorable ignorance” to “demented psychopathy”, though:
ThelastDemocrat says:
November 27, 2012 at 11:35 pm
We won’t stop rape, or murder, either.
to which you compare:
Reality says:
November 27, 2012 at 11:50 pm
We won’t stop lovers kissing, fitness fans jogging or people carrying out charitable deeds.
We won’t stop garden lovers gardening, epicures experiencing fine dining or poets writing poetry.
because ending young, innocent human lives in utero, forcibly having sex with someone against their will, and unjustly killing others is absolutely comparable to consensual romance, aerobic exercise, charity (?!), gardening, fine dining, or poetry.
#warped
I bet you’re fond of chianti.
Ex-GOP, oh man… where do I start?
First of all, you were the one who said the media was asking the rape questions because of the GOP platform; not me. Now you’re trying to change the premise of your argument?
Why did the media ask Akin the rape question? What prompted that? And why didn’t it also prompt questions about sex-selective, partial-birth, and tax-payer funded abortion?
And the Democrats platform changed in 2008 on the word ‘rare’.
I’m well aware of that. That’s why I said “recently.” 4 years ago is very recent in politics.
Yeah, 60% of people are ok with abortion in some circumstances (i.e. rape, and the life of the mother, which account for less than 2% of all abortions combined). What most of those people are not ok with are sex-selective abortion, partial-birth abortion, and tax-payer funding of abortion. During the PRENDA debate this year, polls showed that 71% of people opposed sex-selective abortion. There were similar margins opposing partial birth abortion around the time of that debate and opposing tax-funding of abortion during the Obamacare debate.
The support for the rape exception is largely due to ignorance perpetuated by the media. Did you know that women who conceive in rape get abortions at half the rate of women who have unplanned pregnancies under other circumstances? Rape victims don’t even want abortion as much as most women, yet they’re the poster child for abortion whenever the debate comes up! Why is that?
As for the life of the mother. No one has ever been denied life saving treatment. Ever. Not even before Roe. That won’t change after abortion is illegal either. If the mother and child will die, of course they will deliver the child (not dismember her) and do everything they can to save both mother and child. Even if they know the child will most certainly die, they can still try to save her. It’s medicine for crying out loud.
And on your question of my bias – I wonder if you understand what the word bias means. The post you replied to simply suggested that Cupp shouldn’t just blame the media here – the GOP didn’t have a lot of losses because the media was simply unfair…
Did I miss something? Did anyone claim the media was solely to blame for the GOP’s losses? If anything, Cupp’s article blames the GOP, saying they need to step it up. I was responding to your objection to the media being biased in any way. I think I’ve laid out pretty well that the media was EXTREMELY biased by not even posing one question about sex-selective abortion, partial-birth abortion, and tax-funded abortion, while at the same time asking the rape question all day long. This, after the GOP has not changed one word of their abortion platform, but the Democrats made two radical changes to their platform in the last 4 years.
So where in that is there bias coming from me?
I believe I’ve already answered this question a few times.
Andrew -
I said that the rape question is legitimate. Cupp seems to make the argument that it shouldn’t be asked, or that it is a trap to ask it. I think it is pretty legitimate. The reason that the Democratic candidates don’t typically get drilled on the issue is because they typically aren’t advocating a legislation change. If you asked most pro-choicers what they want changed on the law, they’d say nothing. When a candidate advocates criminalizing an activity that is currently legal, it makes sense that some followup questions are involved.
But again, I read through the Akin interview (it was an interview, not a debate) – and he seemed to go out of the way to answer it stupidly. Cupp seems to think the question shouldn’t even be asked – I think that’s her point. I don’t agree.
On your stats. I haven’t seen a breakdown or a poll complex enough to judge what people are okay with and what they aren’t. On taxpayer funding though, I was surprised that when it came to a vote in Florida, in lost by 10 points. So not sure where you get the info to support your claim.
Look – I’m not looking to start some big debate here – I agree that if abortion is wrong, all abortion is wrong, regardless of the cause of the pregnancy.
And quite frankly, I don’t care enough about the bias conversation to keep it going.
My issue is that at some point, the GOP needs to put on its big boy pants, stop blaming the poor, stop blaming the media, and start looking at themselves in regards to why they lose. I know that Cupp also blames the politicians that did stupid things – but this whole “biased media” argument gets pretty old and isn’t helping the cause of the right.
And quite frankly, I don’t care enough about the bias conversation to keep it going.
I know what you mean. I don’t like to keep talking about things when I’m wrong either.
Again, you’ve completely missed the point. Cupp’s primary point was that the GOP (not the media) need to fix their mistakes. In this case, she’s telling candidates to learn how to carry on an educated and sensitive discussion about the topic of abortion if they’re going to make it part of their platform.
Navi – that’s fair. I just think Cupp goes out of her way to try to blame the media. The media wasn’t at fault for Akin’s comment – I looked up the interview transcript – the question Akin answered was “what about in the case of rape? Should it be legal or not?””.
Not too much of a trap question there…
The rape question is not inherently a “trap question”, but the problem lies in how it is used. The media did not repeatedly ask Obama about his stance on third-trimester abortions or sex-selection. To get a free pass, all he had to say was that he supports a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions in accordance with Roe v. Wade.
It is not true that pro-choice politicians simply support the status quo. The Democratic Party platform itself expresses sentiment for taxpayer funded abortion. Furthermore, President Obama himself vowed to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as his first act as president. FOCA would, at very least, legalize partial-birth abortion (and go much further in all likelihood, affecting state-level policies and taxpayer funding). Although it doesn’t currently have the votes and is unlikely to in the near future, I don’t think we’re fully out of the woods as long as there’s a pro-abortion president in office (and Politifact has indeed changed promise ratings from “broken” to “kept” in the past). Obama was never asked about FOCA on the campaign trail, despite it being at least as relevant as Romney’s position on abortion in the case of rape.
The national media coverage of the Akin gaffe is also disproportionate. It was talked about for weeks, even months. That is simply not due weight for a comment made by one candidate seeking statewide office (where he would represent less than 2% of the population). We can find other examples from last year. The media went crazy over Senator Kyl’s unfortunate claim that abortion is over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does. But they barely batted an eye when Senator Lautenberg said that Planned Parenthood’s opponents don’t deserve civil rights.
Finally, I think you missed the main point of Cupp’s piece. It was not about media bias. Rather, she is pointing out that Republicans did not lose because they focus too much on abortion (as too many commentators have claimed). Instead, they let other people frame the debate and stay on the defensive (sometimes making fatal mistakes). However, they could win on the abortion issue if they spoke about it more often and more tactfully (judging by the fact that the electorate has a pro-life tilt). She actually looked at the GOP and offered a reason regarding why they lost, rather than simply criticizing the media.
“ The media cynically ask these questions to elicit crazy responses. In those two cases, mission accomplished.”
“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 isn’t to talk about it less, it’s to talk about it more – and better.”
I think you are both right, Ex and Andrew. She trots out the tired old “evil media trapping the GOP” stuff, but she has a refreshing change there with actually admitting the GOP needs to put up non-stupid candidates that don’t blunder tricky questions and can actually argue their pro-life positions without sounding like clueless idiots. So, that’s good at least. At least one person seems to be admitting that the GOP actually needs to change, that it’s not a solely a media conspiracy to drown out any conservative viewpoints.
To be fair, I don’t think that what Mourdock did was all that bad, at least not on the level of cringe-inducing screw up that was Akin. He simply tried to state a pretty universal to Christianity belief (that God has a plan and he can bring good things out of stuff even like rape) and messed it up somewhat. I do think that he got slammed rather unfairly, unless you want to take every single Christian in the US to task for thinking God has a plan and can bring beauty out of evil. It’s not exactly fair to hammer a politician for *gasp* apparently believing what their religion says. So I can see some merit when people complain about the media being unfair there. But with Akin, that wasn’t media, that was just a dumb old guy trying to talk about stuff he didn’t understand at all and screwing it up royally. That’s been far more a problem for the GOP than unfair media, in my opinion. I quite agree with most of this lady’s quote.
xalisae says:
November 27, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Is it really possible to advocate abortion criminalization and completely avoid being anti-female?
Yes.
P.S. Get less insane friends. It might have a positive effect on your own level of sanity.
(Denise) That friend is anything but insane. She is a very conservative woman who happens to have a low view — generally — of her own sex.
If a person is going to have friends at all, he or she must accept both eccentricities and flaws. Humans are a highly differentiated species and all humans have defects. Mother Angelica says she attends confession once a week! The late Pope John Paul II also attended confession once a week. This is puzzling. What do they have to confess? But I guess there was something!
Someone made a similar comment when I told about the close friend who was certain a woman he impregnated would abort because he “would make her life so miserable she’d have to abort just to get some peace.” That person wondered why I’d remain a close friend of a man who easily admits he would hassle or threaten a woman into getting an abortion. The fact is that people have flaws. As I’ve said before, I am strongly encouraging this friend to get a vasectomy.
wrong thread. >_<
November 29, 2012 at 7:39 am
xalisae says:November 27, 2012 at 4:02 pmIs it really possible to advocate abortion criminalization and completely avoid being anti-female?Yes. P.S. Get less insane friends. It might have a positive effect on your own level of sanity.
(Denise) Her being a misogynist does in fact make it easier for her to support criminalizing abortion. The low opinion she has of her own sex means that she isn’t troubled by the woman who commits suicide because abortion is illegal or the woman who jams a coat hanger or knitting needle up herself. She has no sympathy for them or for girls and women generally who panic when pregnant or who reject the pregnancy or whatever. It leaves her cold in large part because of her attitude toward her own sex. She believes women generally tend to be contradictory. ”Women want toasted ice” is what she says.
Maybe you should explain to your friend that all women, just like all men, are not alike, and that making generalizations about any gender, race, or creed is pretty misguided.