An element of the Republican Party wants to blame the Romney loss on fallout from the Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock Senate campaigns and their inarticulate handling of the rape aspect to the abortion issue. These are the same people who I guess think Mitt Romney was articulate and unassailable on his handling of all manner of issues . . . or withdrew their support of him on the first fumbled, cringe inducing statement he made. Political realists and consistent they are not.
And so many Republicans who want to intellectualize or pretend a “realistic” approach to politics and abortion are in philosophical reality nothing more than pretenders to the concept and psychologically pathetic hand-wringers. In some ways they seem politically pathological because they were content with their candidate being as negative as can be on various issues distorting and attacking a fellow Republican primary opponent, or returning fire aggressively, but become geldings when it comes to the general election and the Democrats.
The reality is that rape is a horrible crime. So if reality is an operating principle and adapting to or even promoting reality a political virtue why is exposing the reality of abortion apparently not a virtue? The “reality” is that these supposedly realistic critics refuse to take into account the reality of abortion – the flesh and blood of it — they run from every aspect failing to find their own tongue while claiming conservative sympathies. Indeed “sympathy” is about as much as these conservative “realists” ever actually muster on the issue. It does not matter to such pretenders that poll after poll shows that there is a net increment of political support for the pro-life / right to life view vs the pro-abortion /pro-choice view. They run no mater what.
We are constantly reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s 1860 critique of Whigs and other political elements squeamish over the “social issue” of the day, slavery.
“. . . Let us apply a few tests. You say that you think slavery is wrong, but you denounce all attempts to restrain it ”
“We must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics; we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion … and there is no single place, according to you where this wrong thing can be properly called wrong!”
Now do not misunderstand our position. We believe that an incremental approach to saving unborn lives is not unprincipled as long as the principle of the right to life is not denied . . . that in every breath it is exposed that the ANTI-LIFE pro-abortion opposition is at the root of the political problem — and aggressively call attention to the essentially abortion-for-any-reason- at-any-time-and- paid-for-with-tax-dollars “principle” that Democrats officially espouse. We advocate protecting as many lives as we can while going back for more, not leaving anyone behind.
But it must never be lost that the biological children of rape can have names, they live and breathe when they are allowed to. Rebecca Kiessling is the name of but one such person. She is a compelling and articulate “reality” about rape and abortion who lives in Iowa. Next time you, oh so with it, “realists” want to pontificate your superficial “realist” political doctrine, take the opportunity to look Rebecca Kiessling in the eye and tell her she should not be here, she had no right to live because of the crime of her biological father. Find out more about her and her views on the matter here.
And Dear “Realist,” how about getting really real and looking at yourself in the mirror. There is a good chance someone in your lineage or that of someone close to you was conceived in rape — which from your standards means yours or their motley collection of genes is illegitimate.
How dare I say that — because in human history including Europe, the progenitor of most of our population base, ruthless conquering factions plundered and raped continuously and for all we know, perhaps some time in the dark ages or before our superficial and limited and perhaps now sanitized genealogies, one of our ancestors was conceived in rape, brutal or “statutory” or whatever. So “realists” get off your unrealistic high horse.
Akin and Mourdock were and admitted to being inarticulate on the matter at the time and each tried to pull their particular phrasing back. Even at that their statements were distorted and taken out of context. So now in politics that is a reason to sh*t can them? Really?
Again, now what other politician this cycle made some inarticulate comments that were predictably able to be taken out of context and exploited by the opposition? How come Akin’s and Mourdock’s critics, given their perfect political ear, were not calling for their head(s)? To one such vociferous Akin critic, Ms Ann Coulter, I say please insert the name Mitt Romney, a good man with foot in mouth disease up there with the best of them, a man no less prone to the occasional bone headed “out of touch” comment or possessed of a former position that needed to be “explained” or abandoned or walked back or thought better of and changed.
The far worse fault in this debate over the politics of abortion is not saying enough . . . letting the pro-aborts paint you personally and not aggressively getting personal and returning fire. You do not neutralize your enemy by running from them. You make them pay by telling the truth. In reality the biggest problem this election was exemplified by the sort of hand wringing squeamish detractors of Akin and Mourdoch who also refused to help them. R Mall
Congratulations, Roger, this is an excellent piece. I have occasionally criticized some of your writings, despite always on target, as being a bit too long and maybe sometimes overwrought.
Not this time. I hope every Veritas reader will take the time to read it in its entirety. It’s a message that needs to be circulated widely and considered thoughtfully.
Just this past weekend, a friend of my wife and I, a Republican and a conservative, expressed her dismay at the GOP’s failure in this 2012 election. She blamed, to a great extent, the Akin and Mourdock statements, but, most striking was her endorsement of the view that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape and incest.
We had a spirited discussion and, while I never feel that my obnoxious form of passion is never very persuasive, she seemed to grasp, as a result of our conversation, the reality of the issue: the offspring of these abhorrent acts are innocent parties who do not deserve death for the sins of their sires.
This lady was initially most sympathetic to the plight of, say, the 12 year old who must bear the offspring of a rape or act of incest. Sad and unjust as it is, while it is unspeakable trauma for the mother, one must ask if a death sentence for the child of the act is justice! Thanks Roger.