The week before last, Rand Paul successfully broke the unwritten rule for Republican candidates by trying to have an intelligent debate on abortion. He brought attention to the hypocrisy of the left, calling out DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the Democratic Party’s ambiguous stance on where life begins during a pregnancy.
The media loves to interview right-of-center, Christian political candidates on if they make exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. Of course this is only in hopes of capturing a 15 second soundbite of something that sounds unintelligent or mildly offensive out of context. Despite the incredibly low occurrence of these events, the left will always try to shift the debate to these irrelevant issues.
The only significant debate around abortion, which bears any weight, is the only issue those like Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic Party have no answer for. At what distinct point is a developing fetus a human being?
Paul proved himself during these handful of interviews to be a champion on standing his ground, staying reasonable, and expecting the left to be held to their own standards. Several times his rebuttal of Wasserman Schultz’s attack on his defense of life, cornered her into answering whether extremely late term abortions, even up to the day of birth, should be legal.
Paul said to Wolf Blitzer in this clip, “if that is the position of the party, a lot of pro-choice people are going to be uncomfortable with her position.”
This is extremely generous toward her inevitable opinion, which she spent the rest of the interview trying to dodge. I will explain why, but first let me preface the explanation.
The topic of abortion, while important, usually should be avoided. This is simply because it will only draw in raw emotion the vast majority of the time, from all sides, which leads toward the destruction of all reasonable debate and discussion. This does not mean you should waver on your principles, or not defend life; just avoid circular arguments that get nowhere. It is still important, however, to clarify amid all the noise, why a pro-life stance isn’t only the morally right stance, but the more logically sound one as well. This is why it is so important for someone as articulate as Rand Paul should lead the pro-life debate in the near future. Contrary to popular belief, a religious defense of life, while completely valid, is not the sole defense, and perhaps not always the most effective. Luckily a logical perspective is easy to render.
Since the early twentieth century, the progressive movement has been successful at owning the language on abortion by introducing terms like “pro-choice” in an attempt to shift the debate. Since then, the left has always contended that the core issue is the right of the mother to do with what she wishes with her own body. This concept is a complete fabrication. As I mentioned earlier, the only point up for contention is determining when a developing fetus is deserving of the rights of personhood.
The idea that a baby, within the minute of birth is alive and completely deserving of every right of personhood; but one minute earlier is not alive nor deserving of these rights, is completely and utterly insane.
With that said, it is actually one of only two logical conclusions one can come to, without drawing an arbitrary line.
There are no clear, distinct changes between the last day of the second trimester and the first day of the third, other than a calendar change. The only distinct point one can find during the pregnancy, in regards to life, is the moment of birth and the moment of conception. Everything else draws a very grey and subjective line. i.e. 26 weeks and six days, abortion is completely fine, moral, and legal. 27 weeks, abortion is murder and is an extremely deplorable and despicable act.
While these few exceptions, which Debbie Wasserman Schultz tries to make into the entirety of the argument, are completely reasonable to carve out; the core of the issue still remains untouched. If her position and the position of the party she represents is the distinct, logical (yet insane) option that abortion is fine up until the moment of birth, they should own up to it. The only reason they don’t is because they recognize if society were to have a real debate on these grounds, they lose by a landslide. That is why all they can do is bicker and scream about how the evil conservatives don’t respect women’s rights because A, B, and C.
Hopefully, more conservative and libertarian pro-life candidates will begin to answer these “got-cha” non-newsworthy questions by the mainstream media like Rand Paul.
This would result in either forcing the mainstream media to act as journalists, and ask questions on actual topics in the active public debate, as opposed to looking for soundbites. Or, it could result in a shift of the abortion debate, ending American apathy and neutrality on the important issue. Everyone would have to determine which side they are on. This second possibility would force us to respect the difficult situations women face while going through pregnancy, respecting their individual rights to do what they want with their own bodies (which all of Western society already does), not shame those who have had abortions in the past but clarify the significance of the miracle of human life, but most importantly, realizing that the unborn life inside a mother deserves to have his or her rights respected as well.
Perhaps one day we will get past the typical talking points of the elitist media, and surpass the debates that end in: “You are a baby killer!” “Well you are a fascist!” Then we can expect the government to do the one and only job it has a right to do: protecting the rights of its people.
For a government incapable of rendering a defense of the natural rights of those most incapable of defending themselves, is a government undeserving of existence.
In the meantime, the Democratic Party and Debbie Wasserman Schultz will continue to treat the American people like idiots and dodge their true belief that life only begins at physical birth, and abortion up to that point is fine. Hopefully Rand Paul will continue his unapologetic stances, and intelligently shift debates toward real important topics in the future.