…the mainstream pro-life position, expressed in legislation like the Texas abortion law copied in multiple states around the country, is that after five months of a pregnancy you have a fetus which could be viable outside the womb and therefore you can’t kill it, plus abortion as a practice has to be heavily regulated so as to protect the public from the Kermit Gosnells of the world and as such abortionists have to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals if they want to practice.
There are pro-life folks out there who take firmer positions than that expressed in the Texas law, but given the scope of possibilities available for legislation on this issue while Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land those positions are mere rhetoric. The Texas abortion law is the active position within the pro-life movement at present.
And that position eliminates the “tough” hypotheticals about things like rape and incest. If you have five months to abort the pregnancy you have plenty enough time to resolve such cases. One would expect a rape victim to end any pregnancy resulting from such an ordeal as soon as she possibly could – or if not, certainly within five months.
As for medically necessary abortions, the Texas law does permit them.
Rand Paul has supported the Texas abortion law, and other pro-life legislation. But he’s still asked about the “tough” hypotheticals, and he’s done answering questions about them. Instead, he demands the media obtain the kind of specificity from the pro-abortion crowd that they demand from him and other pro-life politicians.
The mainstream “pro-choice” position, expressed by DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, looks like this…
She knows her position is disastrous with the general public, and that’s why she refuses to come out and say she’s for aborting babies viable outside the womb. But what she’s saying is that she is for such a practice. If she wasn’t, she would disclaim the charge and say “That wouldn’t happen; no doctor would advise it” or some other such dodge, though we know that wouldn’t fly because the Gosnell case was an example of how far abortionists are often willing to go.
But at least we could have that argument, and if we did it might lead to a resolution and some consensus that no, in America it wouldn’t be legal to kill a seven-pound baby in the womb.
The abortion industry and political machine isn’t interested in that resolution. They control Debbie Wasserman Schultz. So she has to dodge the question even when Wolf Blitzer is the one putting it to her.
This is what it looks like when your position on an issue is extreme. You can’t clearly articulate that position, for fear it would make you and your party unelectable.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz can either come off as a liar and a weasel, or she can come off as a radical extremist baby-killer. She’s choosing to be a liar and a weasel, and attempting to pin the extreme label on Rand Paul.
And Paul is winning the argument, and so is the pro-life position. Whether Paul’s campaign for president is successful or not he’s moving the ball.