Opposing late term abortions is good morality and good politics

Republican politicians have a bad habit of either ignoring abortion or saying stupid things about it.  I addressed easy ways to fix the stupid things problem in How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections.  But that was more about making proper arguments when asked about the issue.

But does that mean they should otherwise avoid the topic?  Not at all, especially when considering issues like late term abortions, where 70% of people agree with us.  Remember, the Democrats are on record as pro-abortion extremists.  I say that without hyperbole.  Taxpayer-funded late term abortions are right there in their platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Via A Winning Issue: Abortion and Pascal’s Wager, check out the impact of taking this issue on in Virginia, where Ken Cuccinelli found out too late how to take on Terry McAuliffe..

What moved the voters most was an attack on McAuliffe’s positions on abortion; a single phone message emphasizing McAuliffe’s support for unrestricted, late-term, and taxpayer-funded abortions shifted support a net 13 to 15 points away from McAuliffe and toward Cuccinelli. The cost per vote here was a remarkably cheap $0.50 per additional vote, and even less expensive still when targeting the most persuadable segment of the electorate.

. . .

Essentially, this paper presents the abortion issue as a political version of Pascal’s Wager. For a GOP candidate running for office and ignoring abortion is not possible. You have to decide to be either a sufficiently virulent variety pro-abort that makes it impossible for you to be attacked by Planned Parenthood or you have to be vocally pro-life and attack the issue head on.

The decision should be easy.  Abortion is criminal. There is no medical reason for abortion. Late term abortion is indistinguishable from infanticide. Abortion has nothing to do with women’s rights and everything to do with how we value the most vulnerable members of our society. Every culture that has embrace abortion has inevitably moved on to embraced post-partum infanticide and euthanasia.

There is no reason our candidates should refuse to take a stand against abortion, but especially against late term abortion. It is not only moral, it is good politics.

So be prepared with sound arguments and don’t avoid the topic!  Again, the Democrats are on record as pro-abortion extremists.  Republicans should remind people of that all day, every day.

P.S. Opposing all abortions is good morality and good politics as well, if you do it right.

2 thoughts on “Opposing late term abortions is good morality and good politics”

  1. Shortly after the 2004 election, James Carville and Paul Begala wrote a book entitled, “Take It Back!” It was obviously a book aimed at Democrats to “take back” the country, but in it they addressed the issue of abortion and how out of touch Democrats had become in supporting late-term abortions.

    Unfortunately, they “took it back” without modifying their radical views.


  2. I have never understood how people can support abortion. I always hear it is a woman’s body, and it should be her choice. When the fact is, it is NOT her body. It is a completely separate being with its own unique DNA. An entirely different person from the time of conception. They teach these basic things in Sex Ed, and other biology classes. We learn how the child gets half its DNA from the father and half from the mother. We learn about all the cell divisions and about how DNA is transcribed, and translated etc. We learn about stem cells and how they are activated to further divide and specialize according to the DNA of the child. This is all completely separate from the woman who is carrying this little miracle within her. How then can we also teach that a child is not separate, and not a baby at conception. The baby is given the name fetus, which is just another way of saying a growing/developing baby. Others grasp this term and argue that it is not in fact a baby and cannot live on its own at certain stages in development. A full term infant also cannot live without nurturing, feeding etc., and can only survive with the help of adults. People blind themselves to suit their own sin. To assuage their own guilt. You would think the advance in medicine would silence this nonsense, with all the advanced imaging, and the ability to see these tiny beings, with heartbeats and fingers and all the other things full term babies and adults have, yet that does not seem to be the case. People still scream for women’s rights to make choices about her life and her body. Abortion does not remove a part of a woman’s body, but removes a body from a woman.


Leave a Reply

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s