I’m re-running this in honor of Rand Paul turning the tables on the Left and asking if they are OK with killing a 7 lb. baby in the womb. I much prefer Cruz or Walker over Paul, but it was a great answer. We need more of that!
Also see Turning rocks into softballs where I offer some other tips on how to respond to the questions about rape, incest or abortions in general.
We need to be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves!
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.