Support Political Realities

Oklahoma Blogs

Explore Blog OklahomaNextPreviousExplore Blog Oklahoma

Categories

Abortion – We Are Winning The Fight

Most of the posts I have written in recent weeks have to do with the economy and the campaign we are currently in. I have deviated fromAbortion that theme from time to time, but very rarely. I believe the economy is the most important issue we are facing and that Barack Obama’s dismal record needs to be highlighted. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have done a good job of keeping the economy in the forefront of the discussion, as they should be, but abortion has once again inserted itself into the campaign.

In recent days, we have had to deal with the fallout over the remarks made by Todd Akin. As should have been expected, the media has jumped all over the story and once again, the Republicans found themselves playing defense over a comment that none of us want to defend. What Todd Akin said is not something we believe, or want to defend. The comment had to do with rape, but the question Akin was asked was about abortion, and behold, the issue is back in the campaign.

The liberal Democrats have made much ado about the announcement of one of the GOP platform planks this week. Even though the plank on abortion has not changed in years, stating that the party opposes abortion in all cases, the liberals are calling it the Akin plank. It should be noted that even though the plank opposes abortion, with no exceptions, Mitt Romney does not agree with that. He opposes abortion, but believes there should be exceptions for the victims of rape and incest.

How do the Democrats feel about abortion? If anything their support of abortion has grown stronger. They believe abortion should be freely available, with no restrictions. This includes late-term abortions. Barack Obama agrees with this, although he is willing to allow the states to go ahead with efforts to limit the practice, especially those that are considered late-term. Make no mistake, he is still in favor of elective abortions.

How does all of this jive with the feelings of most Americans? According to Chris Stirewalt, not so much. If he is right, it may not bode well for Obama and the Democrats.

(Fox News) However far right Republicans have moved on the subject of life, Democrats have become only more rigid in their liberalism. The GOP will soon nominate a candidate who disagrees with the conservative base about exempting victims of rape and incest from a proposed abortion ban. Could a Democrat who favored restrictions on abortion win that party’s nomination?

Romney seems to be mostly in step with public sentiment on the subject: pro-life with caveats. Obama and his party are trying hard to suggest that Romney is an extremist, but abortion has become a losing issue for the blue team, especially in the predominantly Catholic battleground states of the Rust Belt.

Like gun control, support for unrestricted access to abortion has become a political relic of the 1980s and before. Thanks to a very successful push by religious groups and the wonders of ultrasound technology, support for elective abortion is politically untenable in most states, yet Democrats abide in their support for the practice.

Most Americans fall somewhere between the Republican and Democratic platforms on the subject, but more of them line up with Romney, pro-life with few exemptions, than do with Obama, pro-choice with few exemptions.

If there is one thing that President Obama and the liberal Democrats have been successful at, it is painting Republicans as extreme in their views. They use comments like Todd Akin’s to drive that point home, even if it isn’t true. In light of that, riddle me this. Who holds the more extreme view on abortion? A President who supports the right of a woman to have an elective abortion, no matter how late it is in the pregnancy, or a Republican candidate for President who believes in the sanctity of life, but is willing to allow for instances of rape, incest, or the life of the mother?

Many social conservatives have been harsh on Mitt Romney because he is willing to allow the above mentioned exceptions, but as Chris Stirewalt has pointed out, Romney’s views are in line with those of most Americans. On the other hand, Barack Obama supports allowing a woman to kill her unborn child, with no exceptions. Which of these men best describes a true ideologue? Which of these men best describes a radical extremist? In no way am I belittling social conservatives and the views they hold on abortion, but I would ask one question. Would they rather have a President who is willing to restrict abortion, with few exceptions, or a President who wants absolutely no exceptions to the most barbaric of practices? I believe the answer to that is easy.

I am encouraged by the shift I am seeing in America. We are winning the fight against the practice of elective abortion. It isn’t coming quickly, but through education and medical technology, we are slowly pushing back on the idea that a woman should be able to choose to kill her unborn child. Electing Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will be another small step in the right direction. In my books, I call that a win.

Steven Birn has another take on this issue.

Linked at Women Against Abortion

About LD Jackson

LD Jackson has written 1981 posts in this blog.

Founder and author of the political and news commentary blog Political Realities. I have always loved to write, but never have I felt my writing was more important than in this present day. If I have changed one mind or impressed one American about the direction our country is headed, then I will consider my endeavors a success. I take the tag line on this blog very seriously. Above all else, in search of the truth.

  • http://conservativehideout.com Matt

    It is encouraging. But then again, they have to harp on this stupid comment in order to distract from this administrations utter failure.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      Exactly. Their only option is to distract from Obama’s dismal record of failure.

  • http://westernhero.blogspot.com Silverfiddle

    We are winning the fight, and we’ve done it without bludgeoning people with the power of the state. We’ve done it through logical argumentation and moral persuasion. The religious right should take note of that.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      You are correct and I hope we keep that in mind as we move forward. We do not need more government interference.

  • http://conservativesonfire.wordpress.com Jim at Conservatives on Fire

    I believe that it is the economy which will drive this election. However, I agree with your analysis of the abortion issue, Larry. It is more likely to help our cause than to hinder it.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      The economy is the driving factor, yes. If the Obama campaign has their way, that will change. It will not matter if it is abortion, or any other issue, they will change the subject, if they can. My point of writing this is simple. If they try to bring this election back to abortion, we can still win.

  • http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com/ Jack Camwell

    Before I say ANYTHING at all on this let me make this 100% clear: I am NOT “pro-abortion.” I swear to God I will summarily assault anyone’s intelligence who makes that claim against me. My personal belief: abortion is always a bad thing, regardless of the reason, but the woman is not morally culpable in every circumstance, those circumstances being rape, incest, and endangerment to her life. Abortion is still very, very regrettable in those cases, but life is far more complicated than “right or wrong,” whatever moral culpability she faces is between her and whatever she prays to.

    That being said, I’m still pro-choice for one very simple reason: I cannot be the person who determines whether or not a woman is allowed to get an abortion. Why? Because it’s not my baby, I don’t know the woman or her circumstances, and frankly it’s none of my business.

    Why would you want the government to decide which babies live and which ones die? Think about this. What if you and your spouse go in to the OBGYN, and they tell her that the pregnancy might well kill her (the medical reason is not important for this hypothetical). But you go to the “state” doctor, and that OBGYN says that the mother can live. Under the abortion ban that you all want to enact, that woman would very well not be allowed to abort the baby because some doctor thinks she can survive. Because of that, because of the GOVERNMENT, that woman has had the control of her health, safety, and indeed her life taken away from her.

    That is the pro-choice stance: that the government should not be in control of whether or not a woman keeps her pregnancy, because the government is generally not the best judge of these sort of things. I mean, Congress has trouble passing a budget–A BUDGET. The budget is their most basic constitutional function. Struggle as they might to do even that, you want them to be in control of a woman’s pregnancy? No thanks.

    So yes, allowing abortions beyond the 4th month or so is pretty awful, but the alternative is letting the government decide what a woman is to do. Allowing an abortion ban with exceptions only opens the door to passing an abortion ban WITHOUT exceptions. Apparently, the “no-exception” platform is now the official Republican platform. Do you really want the government telling the women in your family that they MUST give their life for their unborn child?

    Sorry, but it’s HER choice, and her’s alone. Obama is not ADVOCATING that women go get abortions late in the pregnancy. He probably thinks it’s barbaric. But he understands that there are lots of things that are barbaric and immoral that cannot be punished under the law, because it would almost assuredly result in the violation of someone’s rights.

    So there are some things that you will just have to answer for when you meet your maker.

    • http://www.stevenbirnspeaks.com steven birn

      If your neighbor’s kid is murdered would you shrug your shoulders and declare that it isn’t your child so it doesn’t matter? After all you don’t know the circumstances of the murder, maybe his mom did it because of circumstances in her life. When we cheapen human life in the womb, all human life is cheapened and rendered irrelevant.

      • http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com/ Jack Camwell

        “When we cheapen human life in the womb, all human life is cheapened and rendered irrelevant.”

        No. It isn’t.

        If someone decides to take a family member off of life support, I’m not going to crap allover their decision to do so. They are basically terminating that human life.

        I think that I said, very emphatically, that abortion is always regrettable and awful, and that after a certain point in the pregnancy it becomes outright barbaric. It would be heart-wrenching for a woman to abort her baby in the 8th month of pregnancy. But it’s NONE OF MY BUSINESS about why she does it, because since that baby is inside her she is allowed to do with it as she pleases.

        Once the baby is born, which is the point in which we determine citizenship and personhood, that’s when it becomes actual murder.

        Your problem is that the only way you can understand the pro-choice argument is to believe that we’re all heartless monsters who don’t give a damn for the sanctity of life. You apparently cannot comprehend how any compassionate person could think differently than you.

        Well, people like me realize that life sucks and it’s full of bad choices that we have to make. I’m not going to make that choice for a woman, because I have no right to impose my will on her. She’s the incubator for the baby, it’s her choice.

        A woman’s womb and what grows inside it is no business of the government.

        • http://www.stevenbirnspeaks.com steven birn

          There is no compassion in killing innocent human life in the womb. A woman’s womb doesn’t belong to her, it doesn’t belong to the government. It belongs to God.

    • http://uncertainoutcomes.blogspot.com/ Frank Koza

      Jack, if I may add… What we have is a huge conundrum between moral beliefs and the reality of the power of the equation of exponential growth in terms of world population. People who have very strong moral values try to impose those values on society in issues such as this through policies and in the law without looking at the effects on the burgeoning world population growth and inevitable results. Sure, every life saved makes us feel good, but it also hastens the exponential growth equation to carry us through to the unimaginable.

      God gave us the dilemma. How do we fix it?

      I highly recommend looking at The Most Important Video You Will Ever See before discussing such issues.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      I believe I am fairly clear about your stance on abortion. I happen to agree with you that there may be cases in which the woman is not morally culpable. The usual suspects of rape, incest, and health issues apply here. While I agree there may be exceptions, etc. that argument has been used far too often by the liberal supporters of abortion on demand. They like to portray it as a life and death issue of the mother, but the statistics do not bear that out. The vast majority of abortions that are performed in this country are done so because the woman chooses to have one, ie. elective abortions. The only life and death involved is the life and death of the unborn child. The liberals like to portray those of us who oppose abortion in most, or all, cases, as endangering the life of the mother, but that just is not the truth. Again, the statistics do not bear that out.

      I agree that Congress should stay out of the abortion issue. If they want to waste their time passing resolutions, let them knock themselves out, but any government decisions that come down should come from the states.

      I am a firm believer that abortion is a plague on this nation. You can’t even count the number of babies that have been killed since Roe v. Wade was handed down from the Supreme Court. The liberals like to accuse those of us who oppose the practice as being barbaric and wanting to control the lives of other people. My answer to that is to ask who is more barbaric, a woman who decides she doesn’t want a pregnancy and takes the life of her unborn child, or someone who is trying to protect the life of that unborn child? Please note, the same exceptions I mentioned above apply here.

      You are right, there are some things that we will not answer for until we meet God in the judgment. I believe many people will be in shock when He brings up the issue of abortion.

  • http://Www.bunkerville.wordpress.com Bunkerville

    Why must we have this devisive plank in our platform? While I am pro life, I will never agree to zero exceptions. That will be our plank in our convention. No exceptions for even the mother and the left will have a field day. Meanwhile, these so called planks are meaningless.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      I’m not so sure it should be considered a divisive plank. Or at least, any more so than the plank of the Democratic platform that wants to allow abortion on demand.

  • http://www.stevenbirnspeaks.com steven birn

    Thanks for the link. I am in complete agreement, we’re winning this issue.

  • Steve Dennis

    We may be winning the battle in that we are in the mainstream of America on this issue, but it will all come down to who wins the messaging war. Democrats are masters at portraying both themselves and Republicans as something they are not, while Republicans seem to have a problem getting their message out–as shown by Todd Akin. If the Republicans allow the Democrats to define them they will lose this battle even though more Americans agree with them.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      I couldn’t agree more, Steve. They are very good at doing exactly that. It’s up to us to show the general public how wrong they are.

  • Pingback: Saturday Links: Special Bitter Relationship Edition - Conservative Hideout 2.0