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..