Video: RNC Chair tells MSNBC it is possible to be pro-life and pro-woman

posted at 1:21 pm on April 11, 2012 by Tina Korbe

In a TV segment this morning, MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts clearly wanted and possibly expected Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to “walk back” or “clarify” his controversial “war on caterpillars” remark. Priebus would have none of it.

“Walk back?” Priebus said. “I’ll double down.”

Priebus insisted once again that the Republican “war on women” is a “fiction” and maintained that the real “war on women” is the war President Barack Obama has waged on the economy, noting that the poor Obama economy has disproportionately affected women.

Roberts continually insinuated that the GOP “war on women” is a fact — and cited as evidence various pro-life initiatives across the country. Then came a moment of sublime specificity on Priebus’ part — a moment in which he brought Roberts to the crux of the matter and illuminated for the incredulous TV host a reality he’d clearly never considered.

“You and I are never going to be on the same page,” Priebus began. “You and I are never going to be on the same page as long as you believe that, if you’re pro-life, you’re anti-women. You and I will never be on the same page because I happen to believe life begins at conception and you don’t. I happen to believe that you can be pro-women and pro-life.”

Throughout the interview, Roberts resisted Priebus’ ideas with clearly annoyed comments. At one point, he objected that Priebus used the term “pro-abortion.” “I believe the term is pro-choice,” he sniffed. At another point, he protested that the debate is not about what he, Roberts, believes, but about Priebus and his leadership. Watching the interview, it was hard not to think Priebus had struck a nerve with Roberts.

Let’s take it one step further even than Priebus does, though: Yes, it’s possible to be pro-life and pro-women, but is it possible to be pro-abortion and pro-women? Is it truly possible to lie to women and still have their best interests at heart? For, in the end, the pro-abortion position depends upon a lie, upon the deception that women are not mothers when they’re pregnant, that they become mothers only when they give birth. As I’ve written again and again, once a woman is pregnant, she no longer has a choice as to whether she will be a mother. She already is. At that point, her only choice is as to what kind of mother she will be.

Furthermore, the pro-contraception, pro-abortion position has at its heart the idea that fertility is a disease, that woman’s unique capacity for motherhood is not to be regarded with wonder and awe but to be controlled — and not by a woman’s own proactive free choice (say, her choice to abstain from sex or to engage in it) and the mature acceptance of the consequences of those choices, but by artificial, exterior means.

Finally, consider just how many women are aborted each day. Abortion is not strictly a war on women, but the war on life is as much a war on women as it is a war on men.

Priebus is right: It is possible to be pro-life and pro-women. It’s less possible — if not impossible — to be pro-abortion and pro-women.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“Pro-choice”

One of the greatest misnomers in the history of mankind.

catmman on April 11, 2012 at 1:25 PM

There’s no difference between “journalists” and left wing nutjob activists anymore.

therightwinger on April 11, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Wow, this idea that you can’t be pro-abortion and pro-woman sounds like something that would come out of a liberal’s mouth, or pen. I thought they were the ones who were incapable of seeing the other side of an issue.

wbcoleman on April 11, 2012 at 1:26 PM

The more Mr. Preibus talks, the more I like him. Heck of a lot better than the previous RNC chief.

Logus on April 11, 2012 at 1:26 PM

I’m pro-choice. I say let the baby decide.

The Rogue Tomato on April 11, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Which side is it that actively kills girl babies?

rbj on April 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM

The biggest beneficiaries of both abortion and contraception are men who treat women like disposable playthings and who take no responsibility for their children.

Women who believe “feminist” blather are fools.

NoDonkey on April 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Wow, this idea that you can’t be pro-abortion and pro-woman sounds like something that would come out of a liberal’s mouth, or pen. I thought they were the ones who were incapable of seeing the other side of an issue.

wbcoleman on April 11, 2012 at 1:26 PM

So what’s the other side to see? Abortion isn’t a form of infanticide?

Bitter Clinger on April 11, 2012 at 1:29 PM

The biggest beneficiaries of both abortion and contraception are men who treat women like disposable playthings and who take no responsibility for their children.

Women who believe “feminist” blather are fools.

NoDonkey on April 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Indeed

Bitter Clinger on April 11, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Funny, my MBA holding 36 year old pregnant Republican wife agrees.

Odie1941 on April 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM

but is it possible to be pro-abortion and pro-women?

Technically yes. Unfortunately, as we see in numerous countries all over the world, increasingly even in the West, the result is very heavily anti-girl. At one time I naively and optimistically thought that the rise of sex selection abortions would wake up even the hardcore leftwing feminists. I was dead wrong.

jwolf on April 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Lib women have done a great job of convincing lib men that all women care about is getting abortions and free birth control. Thanks lib womeh!

ctmom on April 11, 2012 at 1:33 PM

he should have asked Thomas Roberts how many abortions kill future gay babies. that would have shut him up real quick!

GhoulAid on April 11, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Best answer to this stupid war on women I have heard… we are never going to agree since you don’t beleive you can be pro life and pro women… period.

Love it, Romney should take it and run

momof2 on April 11, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Reince, you have a weird name and you talk weird, but …

Right on, right on, brah

MeatHeadinCA on April 11, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Progressives defining womanhood by abortion again. It’s depraved, demeaning, misogynistic.

forest on April 11, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Priebus is always smacking around MSNBC. Been a big fan ever since he crushed tingles Mattthews last year.

Roymunson on April 11, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Sing it with me, children!!

“I am woman. Hear me roar…until I get into trouble then I want Big Daddy Governement to come in and save me….”

NickDeringer on April 11, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Sal Alinsky tactics is in twisted meanings – pro-choice, social-justice, economic-fairness, celebrate-diversity, green-energy…

The infantile Americans think, “who could be against THAT?”

And back to the Fluke controversy, using the left’s rhetoric, Abortion would a Rape, followed by a Murder. Remember they said that an ultra-sound was akin to rape.

kirkill on April 11, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I believe we can do better than Preibus, but he did a great job of getting under Roberts’ skin while swatting down his slanted questioning.

We need more of that from him. A lot more.

Common Sense Floridian on April 11, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Thank you Priebus!! I am a fan.

dmn1972 on April 11, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Lib women have done a great job of convincing lib men that all women care about is getting abortions and free birth control. Thanks lib womeh!

ctmom on April 11, 2012 at 1:33 PM

and convincing other lib women that it’s better to be a lesbian or a single mom, than put up with men.

kirkill on April 11, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I believe we can do better than Preibus

Perhaps, but we KNOW we can do MUCH worse (e.g. Steele).

NoDonkey on April 11, 2012 at 1:37 PM

How much better Priebus is over Steele, is amazing – on message, on target, leaving the leftist tools masquerading as “journalists” sputtering when their talking points are crushed.

Rebar on April 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Lib women have done a great job of convincing lib men that all women care about is getting abortions and free birth control. Thanks lib womeh!

ctmom on April 11, 2012 at 1:33 PM
and convincing other lib women that it’s better to be a lesbian or a single mom, than put up with men.

kirkill on April 11, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Becoming a lesbian IS better than being with a liberal man.

Especially if a woman likes masculinity in a partner.

NoDonkey on April 11, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Furthermore, the pro-contraception, pro-abortion position has at its heart the idea that fertility is a disease, that woman’s unique capacity for motherhood is not to be regarded with wonder and awe but to be controlled

To quote a certain jug-eared potentate when defending his war on religious freedom- fertility is a punishment.

Happy Nomad on April 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Becoming a lesbian IS better than being with a liberal man.

Especially if a woman likes masculinity in a partner.

NoDonkey on April 11, 2012 at 1:40 PM

just because a man is interested in saving the habitat of the cuddly polar bear doesn’t make him any less masculine, ok?

/

GhoulAid on April 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Priebus did pretty darn good there.

I had one that I wish had been said. When the “interviewer” interjected that “the term is pro-choice” it would have been interesting to hear Priebus note the opposition that the Democrats and the “Guttmacher Institute” (i.e. Planned Parenthood)raise when the Republicans try to require pregant women considering abortion receive more information. They seem to want uninformed choice, not informed choice.

Blaise on April 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Preibus was great, Thomas looked very upset, and Preibus remained calm.

boogaleesnots on April 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Priebus is right: It is possible to be pro-life and pro-women. It’s less possible — if not impossible — to be pro-abortion and pro-women.

I guess I’m gonna be in the minority here. I don’t necessarily agree with this notion. I’m technically pro-choice in that I think abortion should be legal(although it should be left up to the states, not the Supreme Court). Personally though, I’m pro-life. I believe life begins at conception. At the very least, I can guaran-damn-tee you that no one can ever convince me a 4-month old fetus with a beating heart ain’t life. I have a DVD of my son’s ultrasound if anyone dares to argue otherwise.

Ultimately, I believe the choice should be left up to the individual. I’d prefer the father of the child have some input in the decision as well. I hate this notion that it should all be left up the woman as if the man’s opinion is irrelevant. If abortion is in fact murder and a sin, well then I guess these women will have a lot to answer for once they leave this realm and meet their maker in the afterlife. But that’s between them and God. I don’t think politicians or even their fellow citizens should get in the middle of that decision.

Doughboy on April 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Its not abortion, its family planning. Liberals protect us from freedom. MSNBC is free speech.
Nope. none of it works anymore. Stoopid red pill! Why did I listen to Morpheus!?
One more time; Net Neutrality is about fairness. Our president would never judge anyone based on color. SNL is funny while Al Sharpton is serious and factual. Harry Reid had a good point the other day…

onomo on April 11, 2012 at 1:43 PM

WWMSHS?

What Would Michael Steele Have Said?

SouthernGent on April 11, 2012 at 1:43 PM

How much better Priebus is over Steele, is amazing – on message, on target, leaving the leftist tools masquerading as “journalists” sputtering when their talking points are crushed.

Plus he managed to dig the RNC out of a massive sinkhole of debt in less than two years.

Which ain’t exactly bupkus.

Esoteric on April 11, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Doughboy on April 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Legalities aside, reasonable people can agree that abortion is a vile, sub-human practice and that the providers of it are scum.

NoDonkey on April 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM

On a tangential note, concerning women. Anyone seen the trailers for the new Disney/Pixar movie Brave?

Something doesn’t sit well with me. I realize there were female Celtic/British warriors many centuries ago – Boudica comes to mind – but I can’t help also feel that Disney is going to do their typical schpeel and make this into some sort of leftist, feminist drivel.

Not saying there’s anything wrong with a female lead for a flick… but when movies like this come up, doesn’t it make you want to take it with a huge grain of salt?

Logus on April 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM

“The National Institute of Health has said that it is a danger to women’s health and safety of their families, that for 30 years, to be exposed to the prospects of pregnancy.”

- Congresswoman Gwendolynne Moore, (D-WI)

Resist We Much on April 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

As I’ve written again and again, once a woman is pregnant, she no longer has a choice as to whether she will be a mother. She already is. At that point, her only choice is as to what kind of mother she will be.

No matter what you believe about when life starts, legally you’re wrong here. Up to a certain point a woman legally has the ability to abort a fetus. You can argue the morality of it, but until there’s a law banning abortion women DO have a choice.

Cyhort on April 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

“I believe the term is pro-choice.”
No, it’s pro-death, as in cult of death.

John the Libertarian on April 11, 2012 at 1:48 PM

I naively and optimistically thought that the rise of sex selection abortions would wake up even the hardcore leftwing feminists. I was dead wrong.

jwolf on April 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Hardcore leftie feminists only care about the ability to get abortions at the local Planned Parenthood killing factory. They absolutely hyperventilate when the subject comes up and it is seconds before the term “return to back alley abortions” comes out of their mouths. They are truly paranoid that somebody is going to take away their “right” to get an abortion.

That there is a created life involved is meaningless to them. Which also shows you what kind of mother these women would be.

Happy Nomad on April 11, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Hey, the Stupid Party seems to be trying to focus on the economy instead of abortion, condoms and gays!!!!!

Who gave them a clue?

rickyricardo on April 11, 2012 at 1:51 PM

No matter what you believe about when life starts, legally you’re wrong here. Up to a certain point a woman legally has the ability to abort a fetus. You can argue the morality of it, but until there’s a law banning abortion women DO have a choice.

Cyhort on April 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Legality comes and goes. It’s arbitrary and based on trendy whims.

Morality is forever.

Abortion is evil and wrong. There’s no getting around it, not even if you have a good lawyer.

NoDonkey on April 11, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Furthermore, the pro-contraception, pro-abortion position has at its heart the idea that fertility is a disease, that woman’s unique capacity for motherhood is not to be regarded with wonder and awe but to be controlled — and not by a woman’s own proactive free choice (say, her choice to abstain from sex or to engage in it) and the mature acceptance of the consequences of those choices, but by artificial, exterior means.

Yes! Fertility is the normal function of the human body. Infertility is the disease. These people have it completely upside down and wrong in every way. Thanks, Reince, for trying to set them straight!

SoonerNationGal on April 11, 2012 at 1:52 PM

WWMSHS?

What Would Michael Steele Have Said?

SouthernGent on April 11, 2012 at 1:43 PM

And, what rap beat would he have said it to and would he have been doing rapper/gang hand signs?

Resist We Much on April 11, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Cyhort on April 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Just because the law says a woman can kill off a child doesn’t mean that the woman’s role as mother hasn’t begun. The choice really is to nuture life or to kill it off as too inconvenient.

Happy Nomad on April 11, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Legalities aside, reasonable people can agree that abortion is a vile, sub-human practice and that the providers of it are scum.

NoDonkey on April 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM

You won’t get any argument from me there. I think many women use it as a form of birth control which is reprehensible. And I vehemently oppose any federal funding for institutions like Planned Parenthood.

I’m torn on whether or not I’d support any legislation banning abortions after there’s a detectable heartbeat, since that would require women to have them within the first 3 months. But I wouldn’t mind having a national debate on the topic since it would at least force people to acknowledge that that heart is in fact beating very early on in the pregnancy.

Doughboy on April 11, 2012 at 1:54 PM

“I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion.”

- Maxine Waters (D-CA)

I would have marched day and night for Maxie’s mum right to abort her. Heck, I would have paid for the procedure!!!

Resist We Much on April 11, 2012 at 1:54 PM

How much better Priebus is over Steele, is amazing – on message, on target, leaving the leftist tools masquerading as “journalists” sputtering when their talking points are crushed.

Rebar on April 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM

…we need to get him out there more!
What a contrast to DWS!

KOOLAID2 on April 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM

If it keeps him from becoming a media spectacle, I’m going to lie and say Priebus did an awful job.

theperfecteconomist on April 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM

“I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion.”

- Maxine Waters (D-CA)

March? Why not just ride your broom, Maxie?

NoDonkey on April 11, 2012 at 1:57 PM

At one point, he objected that Priebus used the term “pro-abortion.” “I believe the term is pro-choice,

LIAR, the “pro-choicers” never support those clinics that offer help to women who choose life over death for their unborn child.

PP receives hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars and the support of too many corporations to count.

Pro-life clinics rely on private donations from individuals. Just try to approach these corporations for donations to these clinics and you will be summarily declined. They want nothing to do with them.

As in all things, these liberals do not want to be labeled for what they truly are. The only “choice” they support is abortion.

Cowards, pick on someone your own size.

Jvette on April 11, 2012 at 1:57 PM

No matter what you believe about when life starts, legally you’re wrong here. Up to a certain point a woman legally has the ability to abort a fetus. You can argue the morality of it, but until there’s a law banning abortion women DO have a choice.

Cyhort on April 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Actually people – in this case women – have any number of choices every day and always, irrespective of whether an act is legal or not.

Legality just made the practice of abortion something that could be put out into the open and used as a political bludgeon… as well as enable people to get away with murder.

My grandmother evidently had an abortion at the behest and mechanations – he went looking for the right doctor who would do it – of my grandfather back in the mid 1930′s in New Orleans.

Interestingly my father, who was and is today still deeply disturbed by this knowledge will continue to use the meme of a coathanger in a back-alley shop as a reason as to why Roe v. Wade is a good thing. I seriously doubt my grandmother, who was a nurse, would have allowed someone to use a coathanger.

Logus on April 11, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Okay, my opinion about Priebus is improving.
That’s not hard to do, though, because it started at “Who?”
Keep at it, Reince. Grow them bigger!

Dexter_Alarius on April 11, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Ah, the war on women. I vote conservative because I loathe my wife! What’s more, she votes the same way with me. Holy crap, is this some sort of Stockholm’s something or other?

Good grief. Divide and conquer, divide and conquer.

robertlbryant on April 11, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Come on… Say it just once and deal with it later.
‘You’re so hung up on abortion… too bad your momma wasn’t pro-abortion enough to have let you be one.’
-

RalphyBoy on April 11, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Sal Alinsky tactics is in twisted meanings – pro-choice, social-justice, economic-fairness, celebrate-diversity, green-energy…

The infantile Americans think, “who could be against THAT?”

And back to the Fluke controversy, using the left’s rhetoric, Abortion would a Rape, followed by a Murder. Remember they said that an ultra-sound was akin to rape.

kirkill on April 11, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Well that was pinpoint. I hope Romney puts the thumb screws half as tight to Barry as he did his brethren. We’ll see million dollar progressive ads exclaiming how conservatives want to kill puppies or some blather no doubt. But I fear much worse from this marxist. Look at all the violence he’s already fostered. How far will the community agitator go?

onomo on April 11, 2012 at 2:02 PM

The pinnacle of womanhood – is the extermination of a baby in your own womb. Usually, because you’ve just gotten shit-faced at the local bar, and slept with somebody you’ve just met.

Abortion IS womanhood!

OhEssYouCowboys on April 11, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I’m technically pro-choice in that I think abortion should be legal(although it should be left up to the states, not the Supreme Court). Personally though, I’m pro-life. I believe life begins at conception.

This position makes no sense whatsoever. If life begins at conception, then allowing abortion to be legal should clearly be wrong.

Once that intellectual hurdle has been crossed, no justification can allow abortion other than to save the LIFE of the mother. (not mental health, not financial health, not social life, etc.)

Once you understand that life begins at conception (which anyone who passed high school biology should know), you know that ending that life arbitrarily should fall under the general murder statutes. I think it’s telling that (in Indiana at least) the statute on murder contains a specific exception for abortion. Without that exception, the same law would apply. And it should.

But to say that you personally believe life begins at conception, but you think they should still have a choice on whether or not to end that life for convenience is the most repugnant level of relativism, a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles that human liberty is based on or extreme naiveté.

FlareCorran on April 11, 2012 at 2:04 PM

March? Why not just ride your broom, Maxie?

NoDonkey on April 11, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Every time Maxine Waters opens her mouth, I’m reminded of where she came from and what it’s become. Kinloch, MO. An interesting and rich history, the city is now little more than a village. A nest of corruption, crime and ridicule.

I live not too far from that place. When we moved here we made the mistake one day of driving through the place at night – we didn’t know where we were. We got out of dodge quickly. Our city is next to it and our police refuse to go into it whether they’re chasing someone and refuse to help Kinloch if they call and ask for help from outside towns.

If someone gets a job with Kinloch’s police or fire department, they’re pretty much assured that they’re not easily going to get on with any of the local services. Kinloch is the bottom of the barrel.

Logus on April 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM

He should have asked Roberts why Obama has launched a “War on unborn Children”.

After all, war, by definition, involves killing and maiming. I fail to see how advocating for the birth of children in the womb qualifies as war. In fact, it is somewhat contra-intellectual.

Something about protecting the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us seems to come to mind. In that regard, I believe most of us think of a woman as the standard bearer for that role: our mothers.

Marcus Traianus on April 11, 2012 at 2:07 PM

It was nice to see that self-important, pretty boy, Super Lib MSNBC hack look all atwitter at Priebus’ deft counterpunching. You Lefty Loser trolls need to study this tape. The old days of rolling over the Conservative opponent are gone. And hacky deflection just won’t cut it anymore.

EMD on April 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

But to say that you personally believe life begins at conception, but you think they should still have a choice on whether or not to end that life for convenience is the most repugnant level of relativism, a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles that human liberty is based on or extreme naiveté.

FlareCorran on April 11, 2012 at 2:04 PM

What’s repugnant about it? I’m not God. I have a personal belief and that’s it. You don’t know when life begins. None of us do. Is using the morning after pill a form of murder? If not, then what about having an abortion a month into the pregnancy before the heart is beating? How about 3 or 4 months in when the heart is beating, but the fetus could never survive outside of the womb? How about when it’s 6 months along and could technically survive an early birth, but the statistics are weighted heavily against its favor? How about 7 months? And so on and so forth.

We all believe what we believe. I however do not think what I believe should be forced on the rest of the nation. If you feel it should, more power to you. But there’s nothing repugnant about saying that a personal belief of mine(and admittedly around half of the American public), even about something as serious as when life begins, shouldn’t necessarily be the law of the land.

Doughboy on April 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

…it is possible to be pro-life and pro-woman…

Doing TWO things at ONCE (!) – no lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist would ever believe that such mental agility is possible because with their defective, ideologically warped brains, they certainly CAN’T DO IT !!!!!

TeaPartyNation on April 11, 2012 at 2:20 PM

The look on Robert’s face was priceless. I don’t understand why more republicans don’t take this tact and dismiss the premises of the left. Romney needs to use this as a model. Roberts was clearly agitated and thrown off his game once he realized he lost control of his talking points. Nice job Priebus!

Ellis on April 11, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I saw a T-shirt on a toddler that said:

Now that I’m safe, I’m Pro-Choice!

Bevan on April 11, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Wow, this idea that you can’t be pro-abortion and pro-woman sounds like something that would come out of a liberal’s mouth, or pen. I thought they were the ones who were incapable of seeing the other side of an issue.

wbcoleman on April 11, 2012 at 1:26 PM

1. Pro-abortion isn’t the same as wanting abortion to remain legal.

2. Tina didn’t even say it’s impossible. If the other side would give us this same consideration, it would be very hard to complain.

Esthier on April 11, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Finally, consider just how many women are aborted each day.

Casualties from the Dems’ war on women and children.

LASue on April 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Good job Mr. Priebus.

magicbeans on April 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

As I’ve written again and again, once a woman is pregnant, she no longer has a choice as to whether she will be a mother. She already is. At that point, her only choice is as to what kind of mother she will be.

No matter what you believe about when life starts, legally you’re wrong here. Up to a certain point a woman legally has the ability to abort a fetus. You can argue the morality of it, but until there’s a law banning abortion women DO have a choice.

Cyhort on April 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Well, once a woman is pregnant, she no longer has a choice as to whether she will be a mother. Unless she was pregnant (i.e. a mother) there would be no baby to abort. If she aborts her fetus she is still a mother, the mother of a child now dead. She legally gets to choose if her child lives or dies because for some unfathomable reason our society thinks mothers should have that option.

darcee on April 11, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Doughboy on April 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Doughboy on April 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

I’m behind you Doughboy! I am in the same boat. I would never personally approve of an abortion being performed for an unborn child of mine but I also would never tell another person what they can or cannot do with their own. I equate it to my personal stance on alcohol. While I would never drink it, I would also never tell anyone else that they can’t drink it. Let people have their freedom to choose and let them face the consequences (which includes footing the bill!).

reagant on April 11, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Doughboy on April 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

In one respect it’s called erring on the side of caution. And just as from your perspective there’s a possible sliding scale up, there is also a sliding scale down.

And you don’t know when life begins?

Just what is it that happens when a sperm fertilizes an egg, or did you miss human biology 101?

It’s not an acorn and it’s not going to become an oak tree. It’s not going to become anything other than what it already is, a human being the instant it was fertilized/conceived.

People who want to keep abortion legal claim it’s because they don’t want to push their beliefs on others. Sorry, that’s an absurd argument to make. You’re appealing to the law for morality and acceptability. You’re putting the rights of one human being over another because one can breath air and voice an opinion, because one has the backing of the law and the other doesn’t.

Abortion’s all good for them, but not for me. Yet, a human life is at stake in both equations. This isn’t like deciding what to eat for dinner or wear to the party. This isn’t deciding what car to buy or political party to affiliate with. You are talking about a human being and the reality that you do/may/have/will want your unborn child(ren) to live, but it’s okay if someone else wants to kill their unborn children. All because you don’t want to force your beliefs against someone else.

Twisted logic, that.

Talk like that next time someone tries to murder you.

Yes, we don’t know about exactly when a soul joins with a body. We don’t know when that moment of consciousness truly occurs. But we do know what happens when a sperm fertilizes an egg. A new, unique human being is created, and it is alive. It is human and alive, even if it hasn’t got a heart or brain yet or can’t say hello, even if the law says it’s not got legal protection yet because it’s not legally defined as a person yet.

Just because something is legal doesn’t make that law or the practice it legalizes right. The law doesn’t determine humanity and it certainly doesn’t determine morality, but people who find nothing wrong with abortion certainly do like to cling to it… that and their personal pride and arrogance.

Logus on April 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Good job……that’s how interviews should be done.

Implicate the talking head as holding the view.
They are on an agenda. Notice he backed off once
he realized those were his views also. Stop
thinking that they are smart….they aren’t.

lilium479 on April 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Reince Priebus is a fraud. He helped scheme for Multiple Choice Mitt against the Pro-Life Woman Sarah Palin. Reince Priebus is a piece of crap like Mitt Romney. Hope those f-ers burn in 2012.

CoolChange80 on April 11, 2012 at 3:05 PM

We all believe what we believe. I however do not think what I believe should be forced on the rest of the nation. If you feel it should, more power to you. But there’s nothing repugnant about saying that a personal belief of mine(and admittedly around half of the American public), even about something as serious as when life begins, shouldn’t necessarily be the law of the land.

Doughboy on April 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Suppose “what I believe” is that you are not a living person. Would you find it equally unfair that my choice to kill you is usurped by laws that protect your life? Why should your definition of life be the law of the land, but not mine?

And therein lies the irreconcilable conflict regarding the support of abortion. Either all human life is the inherent right of the person (as stated in our Declaration of Independence), or you support the idea of allowing the government to make value judgments on what people do and do not “count” as worthy of having such a right protected by society. An idea I would have thought to be gone from this nation with the ultimate abolition of slavery.

The Schaef on April 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM

The look on Robert’s face was priceless. I don’t understand why more republicans don’t take this tact and dismiss the premises of the left. Romney needs to use this as a model. Roberts was clearly agitated and thrown off his game once he realized he lost control of his talking points. Nice job Priebus!

Ellis on April 11, 2012 at 2:21 PM

-
Something Rush has advocated for years it works.
-

RalphyBoy on April 11, 2012 at 3:23 PM

the idea of allowing the government to make value judgments on what people do and do not “count” as worthy of having such a right protected by society. An idea I would have thought to be gone from this nation with the ultimate abolition of slavery.

The Schaef on April 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I thought that argument was only good for homosexuals seeking marraige, not pro-lifers seeking an end to legalized abortion? //

I used to hold similar views to Doughboy on abortion. I was in my late teens/early twenties. I also wasn’t thinking much on the subject. In fact I pretty much ignored it. I was also leaning heavily moderate – if not liberal – during that time. Then I began to really think about the topic and came back to a fully pro-life position, one step at a time. At this point, an ectopic pregnancy would be about the only reason I’d find “acceptable” for killing the unborn… and even then I wonder.

Doughboy’s position – as was my past one – is squishy. Something I have been called because of my political party stances, specifically concerning voting. Lots of people are squishes. Even and especially a lot of people calling other people squishes. But trying to hold to both sides of the abortion argument as logically sound? Squishy, sandy morality.

Logus on April 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM

How is killing babies NOT a war on women?

Pretty soon you’ll be able to get disability compensation for being a liberal since it has to be a mental disorder.

goflyers on April 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM

At one point, he objected that Priebus used the term “pro-abortion.” “I believe the term is pro-choice,”

Why is it that pro-abortion people are terrified of the word “abortion”? If abortion is no big deal and a “fundamental right”, why won’t they even use the word? They’ve even changed the language so that abortion is now called “womens health” or “reproductive rights”. Could it be that they know they’ve lost the fight and that the majority of people in this country oppose abortion and see it for what it really is…child slaughter. The gig is up.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 4:17 PM

it is possible to be pro-life and pro-woman

I believe the technical term for people such as this is…………

………Fathers.

Subsunk

Subsunk on April 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Excellent.

acasilaco on April 11, 2012 at 4:21 PM

We all believe what we believe. I however do not think what I believe should be forced on the rest of the nation. If you feel it should, more power to you. But there’s nothing repugnant about saying that a personal belief of mine (and admittedly around half of the American public), even about something as serious as when life begins, shouldn’t necessarily be the law of the land.
Doughboy on April 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Not wanting your own beliefs to be forced on the nation is admirable, but every law codifies somebody’s belief.
The purpose of seeking political power is to make sure that somebody is you.

AesopFan on April 11, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Not wanting your own beliefs to be forced on the nation is admirable, but every law codifies somebody’s belief.
The purpose of seeking political power is to make sure that somebody is you.

AesopFan on April 11, 2012 at 4:35 PM

That is a point way too many people, even conservatives, fail to understand.

Making marijuana illegal is taking one person’s belief about the morality, etc. of marijuana and forcing it upon another person.

Making insider trading illegal is taking one person’s belief about the morality, ethics and economic consequences of insider trading, and forcing it upon someone else.

Zoning laws take one person’s belief about how certain property can be used and forcing it on someone else.

Speed limits are based on one person’s belief about what the “correct” maximum speed on a certain road should be.

Every law is based on one person’s belief. The reason it is a law is that other people disagree with that belief and the power of the state is needed to enforce compliance, otherwise there would be no need for laws at all.

There is literally no such thing as a law that nobody disagrees with. Every law is violated because people disagree with the laws.

Now, admittedly, conservatives want less gov’t and fewer laws. However, conservatives don’t believe that there are not legitimate laws and no legitimate gov’t functions. Of course there are legitimate laws and legitimate gov’t functions. And protecting an innocent life is one of those legitimate gov’t functions.

The argument “don’t force your belief on me” is not an argument. It is a cop out. either you argue why abortion is a perfectly fine procedure and why society needs abortion to be legal, or you don’t. Saying you are pro-abortion because you don’t want to “enforce your morals” is not a true argument. You are already enforcing your morals by allowing abortion. You are saying that society must allow abortion to happen regardless of people who disagree with allowing abortion’s beliefs.

If we were talking about forcing everyone to genuflect upon entering a federal building, I could see the argument made that it is unfair to force your beliefs and religious practices on others. That would be a valid argument, because there is no other consideration there. It is merely a gesture. Abortion is not akin because there is or is not an innocent life involved. If you want to argue that a fetus is not a life, then make that argument. Arguing that one “is personally opposed to abortion, but don’t want to enforce my beliefs” is a total coward move. Because by being personally opposed to abortion, you are admitting it is a life – what other reason is there to be personally opposed to abortion? Yet you will not protect that life?

Monkeytoe on April 11, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Why is it that pro-abortion people are terrified of the word “abortion”? If abortion is no big deal and a “fundamental right”, why won’t they even use the word? They’ve even changed the language so that abortion is now called “womens health” or “reproductive rights”. Could it be that they know they’ve lost the fight and that the majority of people in this country oppose abortion and see it for what it really is…child slaughter. The gig is up.

Trafalgar on April 11, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Because almost everyone claims to be “personally opposed” to abortion, but not in favor of making it illegal. Which is ridiculous. Why is one “personally opposed” to abortion? Because you believe it is a life. Otherwise, why be opposed to it?

“I’m personally opposed to heart surgery” for instance is the same thing that these people are saying, if they truly believe that the fetus is not a life. I suppose there is some very small number of people where this could be true if they are christian scientists or otherwise have beliefs against surgery in general. But that is not the people we are talking about here.

So, by saying they are “personally opposed” to abortion, they are admitting it is morally wrong. The only thing that could make it morally wrong is if it is killing an innocent life.

And, nobody wants to be confronted with that realization. So they try and pretend instead that they are fighting for something else. “Freedom”, “choice”, “health”. All nonsense, of course.

I ask the same question I always ask of lefties. when you always have to lie about your position, how is it you convince yourselves that you are right? If your position was the right one, shouldn’t you be able to be honest about it?

Monkeytoe on April 11, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I hear someone’s looking for a running mate….

SomeCallMeJohn on April 11, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Furthermore, the pro-contraception, pro-abortion position has at its heart the idea that fertility is a disease, that woman’s unique capacity for motherhood is not to be regarded with wonder and awe but to be controlled — and not by a woman’s own proactive free choice (say, her choice to abstain from sex or to engage in it) and the mature acceptance of the consequences of those choices, but by artificial, exterior means.

Yes! Fertility is the normal function of the human body. Infertility is the disease. These people have it completely upside down and wrong in every way. Thanks, Reince, for trying to set them straight!

SoonerNationGal on April 11, 2012 at 1:52 PM

For the record, this is a quote from Tina. A good one at that.

bntafraid on April 11, 2012 at 11:03 PM