Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reading Godís Will in Indiana (Mourdock and Conception After Rape)
National Review ^ | 10/25/2012 | The Editors

Posted on 10/25/2012 7:15:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Attempting to read the divine will is a notoriously perilous enterprise, all the more so in the middle of a hotly contested Senate race. Richard Mourdock, the Republican nominee from Indiana, has come to appreciate this fact since answering a debate question about his views on abortion in cases of rape. “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

Mourdock was not saying that God intended for the rape to happen — a thought that, taken seriously, would be heretical for a Christian to utter. Nor was he minimizing the anguish of rape, or of pregnancy resulting from rape. His remarks were unlike those of Todd Akin, the Republican Senate candidate from Missouri. Mourdock was not glibly denying that his pro-life principles could ever entail terrible torment.

In discussing these painful matters, we should keep in mind that there are real people involved. There are women who have been raped, too many of them, and we should never tell them, or say anything that can be heard as telling them, that God wanted them to be raped. There are people who were conceived in rape, and neither should we suggest that God does not consider their lives a blessing. Nor should we convey the impression that Christians believe either of these things.

For Mourdock to invoke God’s will was not merely a political mistake. Pro-life Christians and Jews do not believe that God has told us explicitly that unborn children have the same right not to be killed that newborns, toddlers, adolescents, and adults do. We believe that God has given us the power of reason, the ability to acquire knowledge, and the obligation to do justice. Science tells us that human lives begin at conception. Reason persuades us that it is wrong to will the death of human beings, regardless of their age, location, or state of dependency; and wrong, as well, to withhold legal protection on such bases. Our argument does not, that is, proceed from any claim to special access to the mind of God.

It is reasoning, as well, that persuades us that the innocent human beings created through rape deserve protection. We recognize that most people — even most people who believe that abortion should generally be prohibited — do not share this view. There are very few places in the country where a ban on abortion in cases of rape is even a remote possibility. What, then, should pro-lifers who believe that justice requires this ban do? What they have already been doing: Working first toward legal protection for the other 99 percent of unborn children, while seeking to change minds on this question toward the goal of more complete legal protection.

Mourdock has hurt himself by bringing attention, clumsily, to a position he holds that places him in a distinct minority. That position is, however, more than defensible, and it follows logically from very widely shared pro-life premises. President Obama’s support for partial-birth abortion, taxpayer-funded abortion, late-term abortion, and a type of infanticide is also an unpopular set of positions that follows logically from certain premises, albeit very different ones. Some of these views have actually been the law of the land, and others have a greater likelihood of becoming law than a ban on abortions in cases of rape. What a pity that the media’s interest in politicians who espouse unpopular views on abortion is so selective.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: abortion; in2012; indiana; mourdock; rape

1 posted on 10/25/2012 7:15:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Just what we don’t need, a politician who is honest and a man of concience. /s


2 posted on 10/25/2012 7:21:35 AM PDT by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan

I find this first sentence in the article somewhat illogical:

“Attempting to read the divine will is a notoriously perilous enterprise”

Do the Editors of National Review believe in God or not?

If not, then they should openly say so because that’s the only way the above sentence can make sense.

If they do believe in God and He creates life, then I don’t see how the conception of a child cannot be God’s divine will.


3 posted on 10/25/2012 7:24:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan

Praise the Lord Mr. Mourdock has a conscience and is brave enough to proclaim life as sacred. May his reward be great in Heaven. And may satan be eternally thwarted and confounded.


4 posted on 10/25/2012 7:27:32 AM PDT by Florida native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan

Murdock says correctly that an undesired baby is a gift from God.

Obama says we should kill babies if they are undesired.

I know a Godly family that surrounds their new baby with love, even though that baby is the product of rape.

Orthodox Christianity understands that God is in charge of all things, even the bad things.

Murdock is correct.


5 posted on 10/25/2012 7:27:44 AM PDT by mbarker12474 (If thine enemy offend thee, give his childe a drum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You can make a 100% ironclad pro-life case without saying what Mourdock did and without saying what Akin did.

These men are HURTING the pro life cause and as a sideline may even be throwing the Presidential election.

There is no excuse for any of this. It is not necessary.


6 posted on 10/25/2012 7:33:27 AM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

From John’s comments on the attached link. Hard to improve, so I’ll let his comments stand on their own:

Mourdock said nothing wrong. The only reason this is even a blip on the radar is that the left drums up faux outrage over everything, EVERYTHING, and gullible hyper-sensitive conservatives so terrified of being labeled politically incorrect fall into the trap every time.

It is time to stop living in fear of being called pro-rape, racist, sexist, evil, callous, greedy, or whatever other label of the day the left wants to throw out. They have censored us long enough. Left wing politicians and pundits say outright vile things, support communism and fascism, and breed their own racism on a daily basis and don’t get called on it but for a few Twitchy posts.

Enough is enough. Conservatives one and all, from the politicians themselves to the top rated talk radio host to us lowly men and women of the rank and file have to stop condemning our fellows for speaking truth simply because it is a truth the left has deemed to be offensive to their sensibilities.

The response to Mourdock shouldn’t be an editorial in a powerful conservative magazine painting him as somehow in the wrong, hidden behind an anonymous by-line no less. No, the response shouldn’t be directed at Mourdock but at the progressive faux outrage, and it should be a damn well unanimous “SO WHAT?”. Get over it progressives, you weren’t voting for the guy anyway no matter what he did.”

Could he have phrased it more eloquently? Sure. The same can be said of virtually everything... ever. Could it have been phrased more politically? Definitely, but so what? I thought we were at the point we were sick of the usual politics? Or is that just what we tell ourselves to sound contrarian to the Republican establishment? Well, for me I damn well mean it, I am sick of politics as usual. Mourdock wasn’t wrong or offensive to anyone with half a brain who didn’t WANT him to be offensive, and I’m not going to lambast him for being impolitical in his phrasing.

Enough is enough is enough. How can we expect to win back the hearts and minds of the American people from the progressive cancer if we eat our own over what wasn’t even a notably poor choice of words? And more importantly, do we DESERVE to win if this is how we act? Do you think George Washington argued semantics with the British? Did Churchill parse his own mens words while fighting the Nazis?

AND STOP WITH THE “BY THE EDITORS” BY-LINES. It is utter cowardice to hide these sort of articles behind them. State your name, who wrote this.

Again, copied from this link:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331575/reading-god-s-will-indiana-editors#


7 posted on 10/25/2012 7:35:02 AM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

RE: These men are HURTING the pro life cause and as a sideline may even be throwing the Presidential election.

There is no excuse for any of this. It is not necessary.

________________________

OK, let’s put you in the position of advising these men... how would you answer the question of “What’s your policy regarding abortion as it relates to a woman who has conceived after being raped?”

You say it isn’t necessary ... BUT YOU MUST ANSWER THE QUESTION, IT *WILL* ( REPEAT — *WILL* ) BE BROUGHT UP.

Let’s listen to your answer if you were in their shoes.


8 posted on 10/25/2012 7:39:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I agree with the conclusion that we should take the gains we can get, save the lives we can save; however, it brings me up against a philosophical wall:
1) If the unborn are human lives, then, as such, they are worthy of, nay - demand, government protection.

2) If the unborn are NOT human lives, then government has no place interfering in such highly personal decisions.

3) If the unborn are human lives, then the circumstances of their conception is irrelevant as it relates to the government's responsibility to them.

4) If one can deny government protection to one group of the unborn (e.g. those conceived by rape) then one cannot legitimately claim that the unborn are human lives.

Therefore - one cannot legitimately or consistently demand government protection for most of the unborn, while willfully denying the same protection for others.

If government protection can be legitimately denied to that tiny group of unborn conceived by rape, then it can only be because they are not human lives. If they are not human lives, then no unborn is a human life, and therefore, the government has no right or duty to interfere.

Using the “except in cases of rape or incest” logic (that humanity is determined by the circumstances of conception) then would logically deny protection to any adult conceived in similar fashion.

Either ALL of the living unborn are living human beings or they ALL are not. If they are, then their lives DEMAND government protection. If they are not, then their disposal is none of the government's business.

Obviously they are. I certainly would not refuse to save some because I was unable to save them all - but I have real problems with those who make this distinction.

I've been asked what I would do if my daughter was raped and became pregnant. I don't have a daughter, but if a close friend or relative were in such a circumstance, I would express my rage at the rapist, and my love for the tiny life. I would encourage her that God, in His love and wisdom, saw fit to entrust her with that life - even in the midst of her pain. Encourage her to see that tiny life as a gift and a sacred trust from God in spite of the evil.

9 posted on 10/25/2012 7:48:35 AM PDT by GilesB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

“...These men are HURTING the pro life cause ...”

I don’t see how this is hurting the pro life cause - or it least it shouldn’t when this is thought through rationally. Mourdock is actually being consistent. If one correctly takes the pro life position that a person’s life (including unborn life) is sacred and a gift from God, this includes a life begun as a consequence of rape.

The baby who is later born is not responsible for how s/he was conceived. That person has received the gift of life - bestowed by God. The culpable party is the person who committed the crime and is the one who needs punishing, not the innocent child. It is the rapist who needs to suffer the consequences for his deed; it is ludicrous to conclude that the developing child deserves to undergo capital punishment and take the hit for the crime instead of the perpetrator.

Mourdock is pointing out this position that is based upon the logic of reality.


10 posted on 10/25/2012 7:51:09 AM PDT by stonehouse01 (Equal rights for unborn women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

>wasn’t even a notably poor choice of words

Politically speaking, and that is ALL that matters right now if they expect to win, akin and mourdock spoke blindly, not just poorly.

When dealing with the mushy middle and rape victims you can not speak like these two have done.


11 posted on 10/25/2012 8:05:38 AM PDT by soycd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Arthur McGowan
Once again: When asked about rape-and-abortion, say: “What crime has the unborn baby committed?”
And nothing else.
-- Arthur McGowan

12 posted on 10/25/2012 8:09:12 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

It is hurting the pro-life cause because it is not changing any hearts and minds towards the pro-life position ... something many of us have been working on our whole lives.

These are comments that DO NOT HAVE TO BE MADE to make a pro-life case and they are hurtful to many people, even if they are just worded in a clumsy way. But to champion them as a first line of logic in a pro-life discussion is just COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

John Paul II never had to “go there” to make his most elequent arguments about the intrinsic value of all human life.

Lastly, on the political front, these men are not helping pro-life candidates up and down the politial spectrum to be elected. It’s not just their elections, but all elections.

If we cannot get pro-life people elected, abortion will be EXTENEDED even further than it already is. We will not be able to hold the line even at the already weak position it is now, much less make advances in reducing abortion (saving lives).

More life will be lost and fewer and fewer people will care if we do not at minimum hold the line.

These men are NOT HELPING us do that.


13 posted on 10/25/2012 8:09:32 AM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

>OK, let’s put you in the position of advising these men... how would you answer the question of “What’s your policy regarding abortion as it relates to a woman who has conceived after being raped?”

Easy. “The rape victim makes her own decisions on how to handle her own situation.”

Anything else is open to interpretation and voted against by 80% of the population.


14 posted on 10/25/2012 8:13:49 AM PDT by soycd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GilesB

My mother used to teach me a simple truth that seems beyond the ability of most people to grasp today, at least in a way that affects their rhetoric, policies, and the laws by which they govern themselves (particularly as regards the shedding of the innocent blood of unborn children):

TWO WRONGS DON’T MAKE A RIGHT!


15 posted on 10/25/2012 9:15:22 AM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“Politically speaking, and that is ALL that matters right now if they expect to win, akin and mourdock spoke blindly, not just poorly.”

My response is that many of what are considered political “wins” (getting elected) these days are actually losses, because they do nothing, ultimately, to advance the cause of life or morality in our land. Sad to say, many choose symbolism over substance, rhetoric over reality, and “rule of law” over life. A “rule of law” that doesn’t protect human life IS proactive evil, so why would we want people representing us who are entrenched in their determination to protect and preserve the status quo?


16 posted on 10/25/2012 9:23:31 AM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: srweaver; soycd

The part of your reply in quotes, is something I didn’t say. I think you’re responding to soycd at #11.


17 posted on 10/25/2012 10:00:15 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

The complete and true pro life position is that abortion is never justified for any reason, ever. The comments WILL HAVE TO BE MADE because the question of rape and incest will have to be addressed. It cannot be avoided! The sooner the whole truth is out there, the better!! Lies by omission are still lies.

St. John says it best - You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.


18 posted on 10/25/2012 10:41:35 AM PDT by stonehouse01 (Equal rights for unborn women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

You are correct. Response is to soycd at #11. My apology.


19 posted on 10/25/2012 10:42:41 AM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

The complete and true pro life position is that abortion is never justified for any reason, ever. The comments WILL HAVE TO BE MADE because the question of rape and incest will have to be addressed. It cannot be avoided! The sooner the whole truth is out there, the better!! Lies by omission are still lies.

St. John says it best - You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.


20 posted on 10/25/2012 10:57:08 AM PDT by stonehouse01 (Equal rights for unborn women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

>The complete and true pro life position is that abortion is never justified for any reason, ever.

Maybe for 1.2e-12% of the population.

Since we are talking absolutes, the only life in real danger would be the person trying to enforce it when a loved ones life is in danger due to pregnancy.


21 posted on 10/25/2012 11:01:16 AM PDT by soycd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: soycd; stonehouse01
Soycd:

Your view of pro-life enforcement as something that would happen prior to an emergency lifesaving surgery being attempted, is unnecessarily alarming, because that's not the way it happens.

So this scenario of some desperately ill woman perishing because he doctor was restrained from treating her illness or injury (in a way that would collaterally end the life of her conceived child) is something that didn't happen, isn't happening, and won't happen.

A little knowledge of the pre-Roe state-by-state history is useful here.

22 posted on 10/25/2012 11:28:06 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("The first duty of intelligent men of our day is the restatement of the obvious." George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01
"abortion is never justified for any reason, ever"

Which is ALL that has to be said. There is no additional information that needs conveying.

23 posted on 10/25/2012 12:12:18 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01
"abortion is never justified for any reason, ever"

Which is ALL that has to be said. There is no additional information that needs conveying.

24 posted on 10/25/2012 12:12:44 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01
"abortion is never justified for any reason, ever"

Which is ALL that has to be said. There is no additional information that needs conveying and there is no ommission.

25 posted on 10/25/2012 12:13:21 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: soycd

“..when a loved ones life is in danger due to the pregnancy...”

Sorry - I agree, I just sort of assumed that everyone realizes that and my “not justified ever” statement was unclear. However, when the mother’s life is in danger, the abortion is not in the same category as simply murdering the child, the loss of the the baby is considered an unintentional consequence of saving the mother’s life - this is a delicate nuance but morally there is a difference. Of course this should happen if the mother’s life is in danger -


26 posted on 10/25/2012 12:20:42 PM PDT by stonehouse01 (Equal rights for unborn women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

“...all that needs to be said...”

I agree, however we will get asked “what about rape and incest?” and we need to be able to answer honestly and completely. Might as well get it all out there! People will have to get used to this information - even if they don’t like it at first - Thinking/intelligent people will eventually see that “no exceptions except life of the mother” is the only way to deal with this without a double standard arising to cause confusion.


27 posted on 10/25/2012 12:29:59 PM PDT by stonehouse01 (Equal rights for unborn women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There are any number of things a politician can say.
The most simple is:

___ Every life has value, no matter how it was conceived.

There are many others others:

___ Two wrongs do not make a right.

___ The conceived child is not guilty of anything. Punish the rapist not the child

You could also point out that out of the very small number of women who conceive due to rape, the majority opt to cary the child to term. Therefore we are focussing too much attention on a very very small number of cases rather than the 99.9% of cases of abortion in other circumstances.

If one really wanted to save as many lives as possible, one would focus on the other situations and in the rape situations work to change not the law but to provide a great deal of support and help to the extremely small number of women who find themselves in that very difficult situation. Since it is such an extremely small number, it would not cost that much to have a public restitution program that was very generous. Also the rapist should forfeit all assets acquired up to the time of the crime and a high percentage of any future pay to go into this fund.

_______________________________

In short, there are hundreds and hundreds of responses that would be 100% pro-life but would not alienate women, sound stupid or insensitive and be completely unnecessary to say.

It really is not that hard.

For politicians, write down 2 or 3 of these not so hard responses and memorize them. Have practice sessions where you have mock journalists trying to “gotcha” on the subject. Politicians do this all the time to prepare for debates, prepare for town halls etc.

It is really NOT HARD to have a 100% pro-life comment ready and to use it. For people who cannot handle such a simple task, they should not be in politics. Even good intentioned stupid people can drag down everyone on their side and hurt the pro-life cause.


28 posted on 10/25/2012 12:36:44 PM PDT by Lorianne (fedgov, taxporkmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stonehouse01

I agree with you that when the mother’s life is in danger the abortion is not in the same category as murdering an innocent child, however, I believe the mother should also still be free to decide whether she wants to risk her life and not terminate the pregnancy.


29 posted on 10/25/2012 3:57:10 PM PDT by sam_whiskey (Peace through Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sam_whiskey

“...I believe the mother should also still be free to decide whether she wants to risk her life and not terminate the pregnancy...”

I totally agree with you - those women who choose this path are exceptional, saintly and a true inspiration to us all. Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is an example of such a woman - ora pro nobis St. Gianna!


30 posted on 10/25/2012 5:20:18 PM PDT by stonehouse01 (Equal rights for unborn women)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

That would work great in a religious discussion. In politics, it is a losing proposition. Just ask Joe Miller, Doug Hoffman , Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donell, Ken Buck or JD Hayworth how much they can help push forward the pro-life agenda.

In politics, winning is everything, losing means you have zero power to push any agenda.


31 posted on 10/25/2012 10:44:56 PM PDT by entropy12 (Romney/Ryan 2012... Send Obama back to Chicago/Hawaii/Kenya/Indonesia wherever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson