How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections

A few gaffes – most notably by candidates Akin and Mourdock – cost the Republicans two Senate seats and possibly the White House.  But with just a little common sense and some simple pro-life arguments they could have easily turned this to our advantage.  Romney and others could have done the same thing whether the specific rape/abortion questions came up or not.

The errors resulted when the candidates tried to articulate theological concepts that can’t be distilled into sound bites and that are virtually certain to be misinterpreted by the media and voters.  If you are running for office you should be skilled at knowing what hot topic questions you’ll get and how to steer the answers to your advantage.

So when the topic of abortions in the case of rape and incest came up, they didn’t need to get theological.  They could have noted any or all of the following.  Consider how simple yet accurate these arguments are and how they would resonate with the average voter – even pro-choice voters, the majority of whom side with pro-lifers on topics like parental notification, late-term abortions and taxpayer funding of abortions.

  • Rape is an incredibly serious crime and I support punishing it to the full extent of the law.
  • Incest, in this case, isn’t about 30-something siblings who are attracted to each other, it is about innocent young girls being abused by relatives.  That means it is rape.  Here’s a perfect example.
  • Statutory rape is rape, and the most rampant kind in our society.  Planned Parenthood has been caught countless times on audio and video systematically hiding statutory rape.  If elected, I will not only fight to stop their Federal funding but I would work tirelessly to hold them accountable for their crimes of hiding these rapes. If a 28 yr. old guy is statutorily raping your 13 yr. old daughter or granddaughter then Planned Parenthood will be glad to destroy the evidence and hide the crime – funded by your tax dollars!  They have also been caught hiding sex traffickers, and the opposition to sex trafficking is one of the few issues where Democrats and Republicans have common ground.   Surely we can all agree that we don’t want our tax dollars to fund organizations that hide that crime!
  • If you want to entertain capital punishment for the rapist then we could debate that, but why would the innocent child have to suffer for the father’s crimes?  It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique human beings from fertilization.  Go check out any embryology textbook.  Let’s put the focus on punishing the guilty rapists and those who hide their crimes.
  • If you want to understand the theology about God’s sovereignty I’d be glad to share it with you, but that is beyond the scope of this debate and would take some time to explain.  But you don’t have to be a theologian to know that rape is evil and hiding the crimes of rapists is evil.
  • Roe v Wade won’t be overturned and even if it was it wouldn’t make abortion illegal — it would just turn it over to the states.
  • Remember that the official platform of the Democrats is now pro-abortion, not pro-choice.  They want abortions without restriction — which would include partial-birth abortions (aka infanticide) — and they want pro-lifers to fund them with their taxes.  That means Democrats want more abortions, not less, and they want others to pay for them.  Obamacare is already forcing people to pay for some abortions, and it is deliberately violating religious freedoms and conscience clauses.

They could also respond by asking some of the questions the media never asks pro-abortion candidates:

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you wouldapprove of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover storyon “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

How hard would that be?  Instead, Akin, Mourdock et al answered foolishly and cost us Senate seats and possibly the presidency, and they missed an easy opportunity to educate people on the most important moral issue of our time.

Please equip yourself with basic pro-life reasoning and be prepared to share it.

12 thoughts on “How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections

  1. Hi Neil!

    It’s been a while since I’ve visited. Hope you and your family are doing well! You have listed great points and excellent questions that pro-life individuals should pose to challenge those who believe in “a women’s right to choose.” I have often wondered why someone doesn’t ask the question, “where is the “women’s right to choose” for the female child in the womb?”

    God bless you and keep up the great work.

    Sincerely,
    Christine
    Talk Wisdom

  2. Yup. The GOP should know that these questions will come up and should spend time (it shouldn’t take too much) to prep these guys with good answers for the “gotcha” questions they **must** know will be coming — and if whoever is helping in these campaigns *doesn’t* know that they’re coming, then the person/people shouldn’t be in that position. I mean, these questions aren’t exactly original, but more like “Friday the Thirteenth Part 16″! Okay, the first time the question came up, it may be surprising, but it comes up with every pro-life GOP candidate in every race; it should be part of the “standard prep package” that the GOP sends along with its money. [I'm assuming there is party prep given to the candidates, but there may not be.]

    But I wonder if it’s any coincidence that Mourdock and Akin were Tea Party favorites and not the GOP’s top pick. Mourdock unseated Luger, and I wonder if the GOP only gave token help and were glad that he got tripped up (“serves him right! Luger would’ve had the right answer!”); worst case, perhaps they even prompted the question hoping he’d lose so that they would have an excuse to run a “moderate” candidate (i.e., someone they could control) next time.

  3. This is a wonderful post and the ideas and proposals mentioned are fantastic. What follows is my “but”, though I don’t want it to be regarded as diminishing the soundness of your post.

    The remarks of Akin and Mourdock were indeed less than what is required to avoid the tumult that ensued for daring to speak from the heart. It is true that they were not prepared to answer such questions in a manner that takes into account the deceitful nature of the center-left pundits and politicians. It should be the first order of business for any center-right seeker of public office to drive it into their brains, and such that it becomes second nature, that center-left pundits and politicians will see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and make one out exactly what they feel they need them to be in order to discredit them and their comments.

    There was nothing wrong with what either man said and no honest person could have an issue with their words. Even in the event of confusion on the part of an honorable person upon hearing the words, a simple request for clarification would have resolved the issue.

    But the center-left pundit/politician, on average, is not honorable and does not seek to engage real issues because he cannot due to the fact that the center-left pundit/politician supports dishonorable positions.

    To deal with this fact of political life is difficult and finding ways to express solid, reality based positions and proposals in a manner that cannot be twisted and distorted for political gain by the average center-left pundit/politician is next to impossible. Sadder than this is the too great numbers of center-left supporters that are more than willing to pretend the twisted distortions are accurate representations of the center-right politician and his positions.

  4. I think the answers are pretty easy: I am not seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade during my term in office. I personally am pro-life. I will continue to support offering options that could help reduce the number of abortions especially in terms of gender selection which is already happening in otehr countries. Do I think abortion should be allowed in the case of rape? Answer: Look, rape is a horrible crime. I would hope in a society that cares about victims, due consideration is given by the mother as to the guilt or innocence of the life she is carrying and what options are available based upon her personal values. We should then support her decision with love. As to a woman’s control over her body, well with Obamacare, that ship already sailed. Your choices will no longer bebetween you and your doctor but must be approved by the government wh is paying for that care. Rememberwhat the government gives today, it can take away tomorrow. And you will no longer have any other place to go. If I were a woman wanting more choice over my body, Iam not sure Obamacare is the best choice long term.

  5. Let’s retry with typos fixed. :)

    I think the answers are pretty easy: I am not seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade during my term in office. I personally am pro-life. I will continue to support offering options that could help reduce the number of abortions especially in terms of gender selection which is already happening in other countries. Do I think abortion should be allowed in the case of rape? Answer: Look, rape is a horrible crime. I would hope in a society that cares about victims, due consideration is given by the mother as to the guilt or innocence of the life she is carrying and what options are available based upon her personal values. We should then support her decision with love. As to a woman’s control over her body, well with Obamacare, that ship already sailed. Your choices will no longer be between you and your doctor but must be approved by the government who is paying for that care. Remember, what the government gives today it can take away tomorrow. And you will no longer have any other place to go since Obamacare replaces all other choices.. If I were a woman wanting more choice over my body, I am not sure Obamacare is the best direction.

    • Thanks! I added these this morning. Can’t believe I forgot them, especially the second one!

      Roe v Wade won’t be overturned and even if it was it wouldn’t make abortion illegal — it would just turn it over to the states.

      Remember that the official platform of the Democrats is now pro-abortion, not pro-choice. They want abortions without restriction — which would include partial-birth abortions (aka infanticide) — and they want pro-lifers to fund them with their taxes. That means Democrats want more abortions, not less, and they want others to pay for them. Obamacare is already forcing people to pay for some abortions, and it is deliberately violating religious freedoms and conscience clauses.

      • But Roe v Wade can be overturned with conservative leadership selecting sound, Constitutionalists as Supreme Court Justices. Everyone knows Roe was horrible law and horrible decision making by the Supremes. As stated, it would only return the deciding to the states where it belonged anyway. Roe stands as a national endorsement of
        the practice and moral corruption that led to it.

  6. To be entirely cynical, I think we have to adopt the liberal strategy on abortion. No liberal politican campaigns on eliminating parental notification for abortion or allowing raped 10-year-old girls to be given abortions when their rapist stepdaddies drag them into the clinic, but they win elections anyway.

    Why? Every time they are asked, they say, “I support a woman’s right to choose.” It’s the abortion equivalent of “hope and change,” or of Joe Kennedy III’s “fair shot” campaign. We NEED to do the same thing. “Oh, I support the right to life, but I would never throw a woman in jail for having her rapists’ baby aborted.” (Sure, we might throw the doctor in jail, but we’re not going to let the Lame Stream Media know that!) Wink and nod to our pro-life compatriots, get elected, get stuff done, and move forward.

    Yep, it’s a sign of basketball prowess to sink a shot from the far end of the court. But if you don’t take anything but that shot, you’re going to lose most games. Go for lay-ups and three-pointers that are an inch behind the three-point line.

    We are responsible for the logical consequences of our actions, and the logical consequence of Akin/Mourdock was to cost us the Senate and perhaps the Presidency. We may replace Antonin Scalia with a NARAL-loving appointee, who will forever bar us from enacting pro-life legislation, because these dipheads had to turn an election into an educational seminar on the right to life.

    Let’s take a page from the lefty playbook: SHUT UP AND GET ELECTED. Then pass your legislation and get your judges in.

    Just my opinion.

  7. Pingback: Opposing late term abortions is good morality and good politics | Eternity Matters

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s