Why Do “Right Wingers” Keep Saying Such Awful Things About Abortion
There seems to be a general, meaning primarily liberal, feeling that conservative candidates such as Atkins and Mourdock are misogynistic and need to shut the fluck up. I’m not going to defend each and every statement made by these, or other candidates, but it seems to me that their statements are rather consistent with their, and more importantly others, point of view. The sight of various Republicans running for cover without even attempting to refute the bigoted views expressed by those on the Left is not only disgusting, but might well explain the continued popularity of the Tea-Party.
I have a somewhat nuanced view on the whole “abortion question” and yet believe that mine is probably closer to the majority opinion than the ones I normally see expressed in the press. The links I attached to the two candidates above were specifically chosen because the views expressed illustrated the opposing positions. Let’s see who has the more consistent position.
On the one hand, if one believes that all life is sacred and that the entity, of whatever label, within the womb is a life, what can be more consistent than to suggest that such a life should be protected? It would seem to me that such a logical progression is simply a no-brainer. Interestingly, the aforementioned argument is completely ignored by the media. To put it in perspective, in the recent controversy surrounding Ann Coulter’s use of the term “retard”, I didn’t see anyone claiming that the “intellectually challenged” were assumed to have any less rights than the rest of the general population. In fact, it seemed to me, many were suggesting the disadvantaged should receive more protection. not less.
On the other hand, those who suggest that while they agree with the proposition that life begins in the womb, they also agree that exceptions should be made on account of rape and incest need to acknowledge that they are agreeing that, under certain circumstances, they are willing to sacrifice the life of the one for the other. This may be a valid argument, and one that can be made, but to ridicule those who take the opposing view which is, in fact, more consistent than their’s seems a bit disingenuous to me.
Obviously those who support abortions anytime, anywhere, and under any circumstances have their own problems with consistency, but those are almost too numerous to mention. In the context of this controversy I would simply suggest that it would seem to me that their stated position makes the question of exceptions moot.
This is a subject which cannot be addressed in one simple and short article, but I would suggest that taking the positions of these two men out of context represents the most reprehensible act of all.
An update 10/30/2012
An interesting perspective on the discussion..
AaronInvestigates 
“The Democrats are for Cradle-To-Grave entitlements, it’s getting to the cradle that’s the hard part!” Dennis Miller
On the same topic of logical analysis of abortion positions of politicians, you might like reading this blogger’s article entitled Biden Fights For The Pro-Life Cause.
– Jeff
Thanks…I read it and commented. Interesting.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/can-neuroscience-challenge-roe-v-wade/?src=me&ref=general
The road less traveled today has fewer travelers because of the lack of consistency in applying ones personal beliefs wholeheartedly and without fear of any consequences. It is so much easier for those to view the issue of abortion by focusing on all the gray area rather than the black and white areas which require one to base their decisions on inner values and principles, The gray area is laden with all sorts of mental machinations to justify any actions of any sort.
i found the linked article very thought provoking and hopeful.
Thanks you for your comment and the link. I have some recollection of parts of the article, but I’m not sure if I read it, or something which used the same graphics and made similar points.
Having said all that, I’d be interested in a little more insight as to what you were attempting to suggest in your comment. I’d rather not make assumptions when I can ask you straight out.
I have been one who has suggested in the past that using science as a tool might be one way to address the issue.
Thanks again.
Thanks for your response…
Thought your article did not address the issue of abortion as pro or con it did address one of the roadblocks that prevent a unheated and honest exchange of ideas on the issue by some of those used to keep abortion legal.
It appears to me at least the closest anyone can come to a honest discourse is on the peripherals arising out of the issue such as your stance (and mine also) that the consistency showed by Atkins and Murdock, although not the popular way, does attest to a glimpse of their character.
And it is at that point Atkins and Murdock must be shown to be a enemy of women and their so called ‘body rights’ and
differing attacks made to askew any of their reasoning and statements that just might make sense to some of the undecideds or those who may be persuaded to open their minds again for another look at the issue.
Is this insightful enough? Thank you for your time.
Thanks for the clarification….
Not to put words in your mouth, but apparently we agree that there is a problem in the way the discussion is being framed, but we disagree on the consistency of Atkins and Mourdocks stated positions. Alternatively, we agree on their consistency, just not on the conclusions….
Thanks but I am not sure I understand exactly where we disagree.
Even better….:)
Agreement is always the goal.
I wasn’t sure what you were suggesting about the positions of the two candidates being referenced.
lol…truth be told i think we are birds of the same feather… 🙂
Great…I had attempted to return the favor and take a look at your offerings.
As that was not possible, I look forward to your further contributing here.
Thanks.