IT’S AMAZING how few politicians will challenge the claims of feminism. Too much of their money comes from the feminist establishment and they also face the solid wall of the feminist press. Those are explanations as to why they so seldom appeal to ordinary women. But cowardice is obviously a factor too. Or perhaps you just can’t possibly advance into the higher ranks of the political world anymore with a grain of common sense left.

Take the libertarian candidate for president, Rand Paul. He has avoided answering the loathsome Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s most aggressive challenges to him on abortion.

In order to get around Paul’s arguments against abortion, Schultz has demanded that he say whether he supports abortion in the case of rape or when a woman’s life is in danger.

Paul basically has avoided these questions. But there are reasonable answers that won’t necessarily unleash a storm of persecution, even if they are answers that will be distorted by woman-hating harpies like Schultz.

With regard to the issue of rape, Paul could just say, “Look, this idea that women view children as their enemies is just false. It’s promoted by elite feminists like Clinton and Schultz and Pelosi who want other women to just get back to work and be slaves all day, never thinking about love or family.

Women naturally feel a sense of protectiveness to life in the womb. They naturally protect the most vulnerable among the young.

A child conceived in rape is an extreme rarity, but it does happen. A child conceived in rape is not guilty of any crime.

Though a woman may believe she cannot raise a child conceived in an act of violence and may wish to put such a child up for adoption, it is still her child. A good woman would not want to execute an innocent life for the crime of another. Schultz, on the other hand, likes to play the executioner. She is anti-woman and profoundly anti-child.”

— Comments —

Paul T. writes:

I like your proposed answer to Debbie Wasserman Schultz very much and it would be a great thing if Rand Paul spoke in just those terms.

Another possible answer is, “You mention abortion in the case of rape or when a woman’s life is in danger. But that’s not really the issue, is it? Because if I said to you, ‘Fine, let’s make a deal; I’ll agree to abortion in those two cases, if you’ll agree to ban it in all other cases,” you wouldn’t agree to that, would you? And that exposes the manipulativeness and bad faith in your argument.”

Laura writes:

Thank you.

Schultz is baiting Paul. If he says he would not make exceptions in the case of rape then she would use that to the max, presenting women as the victims of male violence. If he says he would make exceptions, then she could point to the hypocrisy of the argument that life in the womb is sacred and inviolate.

Buck writes:

Rand Paul has no core. His libertarian strain is in conflict with his political ambitions, which makes him just another fraud. He’ll struggle to make sense on most issues. You can’t be part libertarian. That’s like being part pregnant. And being pregnant is at the heart of the libertarian schism.

No devout libertarian concedes to the state one whit of authority over his or her body. A person’s right to their own body trumps everything. All libertarian “rights” flow from that principle.

But all authentic libertarians adhere to their non-aggression principle.

When do Libertarian property rights kick in? Some argue at conception, some argue only at birth.

Some argue that a fetus resides in a woman only by the woman’s permission, that the woman must not be made a slave to a fetus by the state. They argue that any woman has a right to “evict” a “trespassing” fetus if it is certain that the “fetus” can NOT survive on its own. Otherwise that might be murder, which is violation of a person’s property right.

Ayn Rand argued that nothing matters beyond the wishes of the pregnant woman, that the “right to life” of a fetus was “vicious nonsense.” Rand resented the Libertarian label, though their thinking consistently aligns. Yet, just as self-identifying Libertarians do, Rand’s Objectivist “followers” fall into intellectual and philosophical conflict over the same schism.

Libertarians don’t ask: do we have a soul, are we just a body, are we a soul in a body? They’re only concern is with individual liberty and property rights, and on that, their won fundamental, core principle, they can not agree.

We’re watching the theater of the absurd.

Paul T. writes:

Yes, Schultz is baiting Paul, just as you say. But Paul could refuse to be baited. Continuing along the line I suggested above, he could say, “Do you need me to clarify why the issue for you isn’t rape or a threat to a woman’s life? Here’s why. If I woman wants an abortion because a pregnancy would interfere with her holiday plans, you’d support her legal right to abort, right? You would, wouldn’t you? Your position is extremist, but you try to distract attention from that by pretending that your concern is rape or a threat to the mother’s life. Millions of Americans see through what you’re doing.” And of course, if Schultz were to say, “No, I don’t support a woman’s right to abort for a reason as frivolous as that,” she would be discredited as a feminist. Not that it would ever occur to her to say such a thing.

 Laura writes:

Schultz is smart enough to respond that he simply is not answering her question, which would be true.

Please follow and like us: