At the Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire on Saturday, several of the candidates were asked about their positions on abortion. Marco Rubio’s answer to a question about how he would respond to claims that his position is intolerant or extreme stood out as being particularly astute, and it should be an example for other candidates to follow.
Marco Rubio’s position on abortion is, statistically speaking, outside the mainstream. He believes abortion should be outlawed except to save the life of the mother. That position — which rejects abortion in cases of rape or incest — is held by only about 20 percent of the public.
That said, Rubio didn’t back away from his position or try to change the subject. Instead, he asked the audience to think about abortion less as a political or legal issue and more as a human rights and moral one. That’s smart because, according to Gallup, just 1 percent of Americans believe that, legality aside, abortion is not a moral issue. Interestingly, polls show that more Americans believe abortion is immoral than believe it should be illegal.
Rubio also did something all Republican candidates should emulate. After acknowledging his own position, he focused on the Democrats’ extremism on abortion, and the media’s reluctance to highlight it. The Democratic Party is now not only uniformly pro-abortion, but nearly uniformly pro-abortion even in the most extreme cases. But many Americans don’t know this because it is rarely talked about. As Rubio said:
“There has been five Democratic debates. The media has not asked them a single question on abortion and on abortion, the Democrats are extremists. Why doesn’t the media ask Hillary Clinton why she believes that all abortion should be legal, even on the due date of that unborn child?
“Why don’t they ask Hillary Clinton why she believes that partial- birth abortion, which is a gruesome procedure that has been outlawed in this country, she thinks that’s a fundamental right? They are the extremists …”
But what made Rubio’s answer truly brilliant is that he acknowledged that abortion is “… a difficult issue, because it puts in conflict two competing rights,” Rubio said. “On the one hand is the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body, which is a real right. And on the other hand is the right of an unborn human child to live. And they’re in conflict. And as a policy maker, I must choose which one of these two sides takes precedence. And I have chosen to err on the side of life.” Notice how Rubio didn’t back away from his own view (“I have chosen to err on the side of life”).
Partisans on both sides of the abortion debate (and most other debates) fear making concessions to their opponents for fear that it will be lead to a curtailing of the rights or values that they hold dear. But in his answer, Rubio qualified his answers by acknowledging what most people inherently understand: That abortion is involves a conflict of rights, a clash of values.
Not only was what Rubio said undeniably true, it was also a great way to get people who don’t already agree with him on abortion to listen and take him seriously. Studies have shown that making qualifying statements when arguing your case improves your chances of being listened to. In a debate, if the person who you want to persuade sees that you are a reasonable person who’s trying to understand their side and find areas of agreement, then they’ll be much more likely to hear you out. People are naturally inclined to caricature their opponents, so if that caricature can be broken, it’s a great start to helping people understand your position.
Rubio reiterated his pro-life stance a few minutes later, and said that while as president he would sign an imperfect pro-life bill that saves lives, he would not back down from what he believes. “I would rather lose an election than be wrong on the issue of life,” he said.
In just a few sentences, Rubio demonstrated goodwill, a willingness to seek compromise and also a determination to stick by his principles even if it hurts him politically. In a race so far defined by a lack of nuance, Rubio’s thougtful answers on abortion were refreshing.
Daniel Allott is deputy commentary editor for the Washington Examiner
