So how would I have answered Couric's questions about abortion?

I said yesterday I thought Palin's answers to Couric's questions about abortion came up short. So what do I think she should have said?

Someone wrote to suggest I am looking too much for a "perfect" or "ideal" presidential candidate and ought not to be so hard on Palin. "I have this [issue of abortion and 'morning-after' pills] in my face every day and don't have a policy ironed out on laws for an ideal world."

My reply:

I would "merely" want to point out that,

• As far as I know, you're not a professional politician, nor have you ever pretended to be one.
   
• Palin is running for VP of the United States on a declared/avowed "pro-life" platform.
   
• I am not seeking to critique anyone else's position at this time. I am only seeking to note that Palin walked into an interview declaring her "principles" and then demonstrated that, from a political/legal perspective, her "principles" are vacuous; she had obviously never really thought through how to respond to legitimate political/legal/policy questions on the subject.

I believe she ought to have responded in a substantive manner to the issues Katie Couric raised. She should have "stood up" for her avowed principles.

Among the points I would have wanted her to make:

• Extreme cases make for bad laws. (Or: You don't want to make laws based on extreme cases.)
   
• My concern [speaking for Palin, here!] is to stand up for the rights of the unborn baby.
   
• It is--absolutely--required for us to consider the rights of the 15-year-old girl.
   
• What I [again, speaking for Palin, here!] am concerned to change is the idea or principle that, because of difficult circumstances, "of course" we abandon the baby in behalf of the baby's mother.
  
  Our culture, at this point, seems to assume that the baby means nothing, is nothing, has no rights, ought not to have rights; the mother should have absolute, life-and-death power over her baby, with no input or encouragement or pressure from society at large (or the government).
   
• If, in these rare, extreme circumstances such as the one you mentioned, Katie: if in such a case we were to establish a policy that the government might reimburse the victim for her pain and suffering (unless and until the perpetrator of the crime can be brought to justice and will be required, himself, to make restitution) . . . --What is the problem with that?
   

Now, if I wanted to press the case further than required, I might continue something along these lines:

• What I don't understand, Katie [and, again, I'm attempting to speak for Palin, here!], is why we as a society seem to believe that the innocent baby should die, but the monstrously wicked perpetrator of the rape himself ought to be permitted to live? . . .
  
  Obviously, in our society today, we seem to think it is legitimate to condemn the innocent baby to death. . . .
  
  [And now, if I really wanted to push things, I might even note that I take my general worldview from the Bible. So . . . ] As I'm sure you're aware, I seek to follow Jesus. My spiritual roots are in Him.
  
  According to the Bible, if a witness in a court of law is found to have spoken falsely against an accused, then the false witness him- or herself, should suffer whatever punishment his false testimony would have brought upon the one against whom he testified.
  
  Here, apparently, in the case of a rapist, the biological father of the baby intends for the baby to die.
  
  My opinion--and I don't expect to be pushing for such a law in the near future; we have many far higher priorities to attend to!--but I believe it would be appropriate to put the rapist to death even while we do everything we can to save the life of the baby.
  
  It is time our culture stopped looking out for the so-called "rights" of the perpetrators of irresponsible and and evil acts and began to provide protection for the innocent: in this case, the mother and the baby. . . .

. . . I would say something like this.

But please know: this is not my area, either. I am not like you, confronted by this issue on a daily basis. I'm not confronted by it even on a semi-annual basis.

But I expect, if I were in Sarah Palin's shoes, and I were a legitimate candidate for VP, I would consult with "the best" counselors there are on this planet about issues like this that I know are going to be hot-buttons.

I would contact Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics, Inc. and/or others of his caliber. These people have done amazing work at putting together powerful similes, metaphors and other communicative tools from the pro-life side.

But, no. Palin, a supposedly experienced politician who claims to be ready for the vice presidency, just went out "n*ked," without appropriate preparation. And she got slaughtered.