Weigel: What Paul Ryan should have said about abortion
October 15, 2012
On the National Review site, George Weigel outlines the argument that Rep. Paul Ryan could have made about abortion during the vice-presidential debate.
Ryan should have stressed that his opposition to abortion is not based on his Catholic faith but on scientific facts, Weigel argues. Then he should have added that his faith teaches him to feel compassion for the women who confront crisis pregnancies, and to want to spare them from the damage done by abortion. He should have mentioned the "real American heroes" who staff crisis-pregnancy centers, providing real options for women in crisis.
Weigel argues that "that kind of response might have radically changed the terms of the abortion debate."
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: nix898049 -
Oct. 16, 2012 4:17 PM ET USA
I find it useful, per Judie Brown, to substitute the word 'mother(s)' for the word 'women' in quotes like Mr. Weigel's. It changes the whole tone of the statement/argument.
Posted by: TheJournalist64 -
Oct. 15, 2012 9:07 PM ET USA
It was easy to tell from his non-verbals that Ryan was giving a highly prepared speech spouting the party line. He clearly has no particular love for the locomotive-size "exceptions" to the Republican platform's so-called pro-life planks. But he has to stick to the script or the media will have a field day talking even more about how "anti-woman" they are.
Posted by: richardols3892 -
Oct. 15, 2012 5:12 PM ET USA
Basing opposition to abortion on scientific facts does make more sense than an appeal to Catholicism. Nat Hentoff, the nationally known author, columnist, jazz critic, death penalty opponent and liberal is an atheist, yet is a vocal and articulate opponent of abortion.