Skip to comments.Mourdock is right, it's time to stand by him
Posted on 10/27/2012 5:39:25 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
Another day, another "gaffe" manufactured by the mainstream media with the intention of attacking a conservative Republican candidate. While not surprising, this is nevertheless becoming a tedious ritual played out over and over again by leftist "journalists" trying to score "gotchas" on conservative candidates so as to make up for the fact that leftists' own preferred Democrat candidates generally range from worthless to outright detrimental to the nation. Instead of reporting real news such as the President and his administration's appalling failures in Benghazi, or the fact that this administration gave weapons to Mexican drug cartels and radical Islamists, or the continued bankruptcies of all manner of "green" technology companies who were given billions in taxpayer monies the media seek to invent stories where none should really exist.
Such it is with the recent news about the comments made by Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate for the US Senate in Indiana, a staunch and solid Tea-Party style conservative. When asked about his personal views on abortion in cases of rape (an obviously leading question designed to try to illicit another Todd Akin-style misstatement), Mourdock made the "mistake" of actually answering the question in a way that was both honest, and logically consistent for a pro-life position on this issue. The transcript of Mourdock's answer to the question are below,
"You know, this is that issue that every candidate for federal or even state office faces.
"And I, too, certainly stand for life.
"I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view but I believe that life believes at conception.
"The only exception I have for to have an abortion is in that case for the life of the mother.
"I just I struggle 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."
The Left, being the shallow, simple-minded folk that they are, launched immediately into attack mode. "Mourdock says that rape is God's will!!!!!" went the shrill, cacophonous, "War on Women"-ready line of assault. Never mind that this is not an accurate representation, either factually or theologically, of what Mourdock said. He said that even in cases where the terrible act of rape occurs, if a child is conceived, then God's gift of life has been given. The child is not responsible for his or her conception by such a terrible crime. The "intention" on the part of God is the gift of life not that the woman be raped. Essentially, Mourdock was making the point, as he clarified later, that a child's life should not be snuffed out in the womb just because the circumstances surrounding his or her conception were terrible.
And in this, Mourdock is absolutely correct.
The Left has tried to conflate Mourdock's sentiment with Todd Akin's earlier misstatement in the Missouri Senate race, where he appeared to be dismissing the idea that women could even become pregnant due to rape (a medical falsity), though even then, this is not what Akin really intended to put across. Yet, there really are no similarities between the two. Akin's comment was a somewhat dumb, but hopefully excusable-by-the-voters-in-Missouri, off-the-cuff remark; Mourdock's was a studied comment made by one who has obviously wrestled with the issue of abortion in such cases, even if he has come to a conclusion that many in this nation, and pretty much everyone in the media, disagree with. This doesn't make his statement a "gaffe," it makes it an honest appraisal of the situation as he sees it. For being honest and bold enough to speak his view truthfully, he should be commended.
However, this case raises a greater issue we live in a nation where a small majority of the population, if the most recent years of polling are in any way accurate, holds to at least a "soft" pro-life position, and even larger numbers self-identify as "pro-life," even when their views may not line up with what pro-life activists would like to see. Clearly, the tide has been turning against abortion since it was legalized in 1973, slowly but ever so surely. This being the case, why do we let the media get away with treating the solicitation of legitimate pro-life sentiments from conservative politicians as "unacceptable," as part of a "War on Women" (even though a larger majority of women oppose abortion on demand than do men)?
Frankly, any reasonable person ought to find it more unacceptable to partially birth a baby and then sever his or her spinal cord than it is to ask women to carry a baby to term, even if that baby is the result of rape. In the latter, no one is being tortured and killed, and a precious life can be given up for adoption to a childless couple who desperately wants a child, if the mother doesn't want to keep him or her. In the former, a human being who is about seven inches from being fully born is having their life snuffed out like a candle, most often because they will prove to be "inconvenient" to one or both of their parents. Talk about values dissonance.
Why doesn't anyone ask our President how he could support bills that would have allowed unwanted children to be killed after they were fully born during the course of a "failed" abortion? Why doesn't somebody pin him down and ask him how he, or any other rational human being, could possibly support infanticide, how they could adopt the mindset of some filthy savage in a Roman backwater 2500 years ago? Who are the real barbarians, eh?
I would love to see the next conservative Republican who is asked an "abortion from rape" leading question to turn it right back around on the reporter or the debate moderator, and ask him or her how they could possibly support a procedure in which a living human being who bears the unique mark of humanity in his or her genes, and who can feel pain as well as you or me, and who has as much right to a chance at a full life as any of the rest of us has their limbs pulled off and their spinal cord severed before being vacuumed out of the womb like so much dust from behind a bookshelf? I would love to see a "journalist" be asked this question. I would love to see the sputtering, the deer in the headlights look on their face as they are faced to respond to having their smarmy self-congratulation thrown right back in their faces.
In short, it's time to hammer home the point to the American people that supporting abortion is not "standing up for civil rights." It's condoning murder in one of its cruelest, most inhuman forms. And supporting abortion is what makes you a bad person not opposing it. Let's face it people who are pro-"choice" hold to a terribly immoral, disgusting, and reprobate position on this issue. They are the ones who need to be forced to give account of themselves, not pro-lifers like Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock. This may make people angry, but at least then they'll be thinking which is more than what most of them do now, as they float along on what they think is popular sentiment, never being challenged to actually cogitate on what they believe about this issue. Clear away the pabulum of pro-"choice" ideology, and people will be left with the stark truth about what they believe. Then they can perhaps adopt a more logical, reasonable, and consistent approach to the issue of abortion, much like the one Richard Mourdock expressed in his response to the debate question.
Richard Mourdock deserves our support for expressing his view honestly and being willing to stand up for right, even when the popular culture and media try to demonize him for it. Let's hope and pray that the media does not succeed in using its power to destroy Mr. Mourdock's chance for a Senate seat. We need more people like him in that body.
Another day, another "gaffe" manufactured by the mainstream media with the intention of attacking a conservative Republican candidate.
Where is he in the polls?
You did a wonderful thing, Yashcheritsiy by posting this article. Thank you!
The problem with all the gaff wringing is that in cases where the left is screaming it is not usually what was actually said or clearly intended but what they can conflate to have been said or intended. We can go back to any number of ‘gaffs’ even the Akin gaff. The left ultimately expected us to believe and strangely many did even in GOP circles that Akin, who has two daughters and has voted for the harshest punishements for rapists, intended to suggest that rape wasn’t a serious matter regardless of what he was trying to say beyond that. The left knew very well he was not trying to justify rape but was trying to defend the unborn. In all the gaff ringing it was nearly lost that the critical point that abortions related to rape pregancies represents less than 1% though it is used to justify 100% of abortion on demand which is a ridiculous and truly gaff worthy.
The Mourdock thing is even less a gaff. His context was clear. He wasn’t talking about rape being a gift from God but that every child is. Now unless our self styled “benevolent” leftists think some children should be treated as mistakes for actions of no work of their own I think that is an entirely reasonable and human idea that no child should be viewed as a mistake. If Mourdock or Akin lose because of this craziness it will be shameful just as it is shameful for the GOP to pile on as they did with Akin. It also sets up a chilling and reinforcing effect where the left can support and say what ever damn radical thing they please and we can not.
I can rattle off a laundry list of GOP that have been drummed out or beaten about over innocuous things they said whether it be Trent Lott or George Allen and dare I mention Sarah Palin. There is no value in submitting to the leftist language idea gulgag. What we need to do is smack them up side the head with “How could you be so damn stupid to even suggest they meant such a thing?” when they try to drum this crap up. Sure they will beat the drum but it should be the purpose of every person with honor to not indulge the debate and to ridicule it and stomp on it because what is stake is our liberty not theirs. They can talk about “good pedophiles” and its no big deal and if we bring it up we are just homophobes and such, they can compare our military to Nazis and apologize and be forgiven, they can suggest unborn children aren’t people, they can wish to let them die even if born alive, they can bash Christians with obscentity and rage, they then can be elected because often even we don’t make a big deal about their gaffs which aren’t gaffs at all because for them their gaffs are what they really think.
Some of us embrace the straight-jacket of leftist duplicity and seek only to be seen as reasonable, nice, and well groomed. We do so to our own demise.
Mourdock is right and it is time to stand by him. Amen
There is one victim and one potential victim in a rape - if a child is inadvertently conceived s/he is also an innocent victim. It is time to stop punishing the child for a crime it did not commit. It is time for pro lifers to proclaim this without hesitation or to feel apologetic in any way for proclaiming this truth.
It was plain stupid to say in the final weeks of an election. One would expect a Senate hopeful to be more aware of probable public and certain opposition reaction to such a statement.
Plain stupid and clearly damaging.
Good grief. So expressing a pro-life sentiment is now "stupid" and "damaging"?
I refuse to accept that, and I think it is this kind of idiotic timidity that has gotten us where we are in the first place. Win or lose a Senate race, it's time to start throwing this junk right back in their faces, hard, even if it gives them broken noses in the process.
I work in another state most of the time. I came back to Indy this weekend to vote for Mourdock, Pence, and Carlos May (and Romney, of course). I would have done this even if I had to crawl over broken glass for the 700 miles.
Why exactly did you start this thread...to help Mourdock with damage control.
It was a statement of personal belief that will have absolutely no bearing on what he could try to accomplish in the Senate. It was a statement that could cost us a Senate majority.
Any such statement in the last days of an election that puts the campaign into damage control mode is plain stupid.
So is the attitude that says..."Who cares if we lose the Senate, as long as we piss the left off?"
From a campaign perspective it was an utterly retarded thing to say. wtc911 is dead right on that. Mourdock may have not meant it to come out that way, but the fact is he said it in a debate a couple of weeks before the election. Very stupid.
It is not a pro-life or Christian sentiment. To say a rape is God’s will is Islamic, not Christian. This is not to say that it is OK to abort the baby, but to say rape is God’s will is blasphemy.
EVERY life happens because GOD WANTS IT TO!!! Just because a man and woman do a sexual act, no matter HOW that is, they do NOT create the life....all LIFE is from GOD...ALL OF IT!!
geesh... he NEVER said RAPE was God’s Will...he said the BABY’s LIFE was God’s will!! Read again.
“I just I struggle 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.”
He said exactly that. Whether he meant it in that context or not is another story, but that’s what he said. If he meant it that way, he’s dead wrong.
God works all things together for good. He did NOT intend for the baby to be conceived out of rape. Allow it yes, but intend it no. That was not His will. But He will then work that for good, if we allow him to do so. THAT he does intend.
“when life begins”...you are being thick here.
The word he messed up on is ‘intended’. Very bad word choice. Words mean things, and by using THAT word he created a causal chain that the liberals could jump on.
Sorry that’s tough, but that’s elections. You just don’t throw that stuff out to a political party ran by scumbag lawyers and expect them to ignore it.
Maybe you are a Democrat that wants to KEEP Obama and Obamacare!!
BTW, Are you a Christian???
Welcome to campaign reality. I run them and have for a decade. Politics is war without the bullets, and if you don’t want to fight the war don’t get into it. You screw up and your opposition kicks your teeth in. I don’t make the rules ma’am.
Now Mourdoch is in damage control 10 days before the election by shooting himself in the foot. Why the hell would he do that? He is not a political neophyte.
Do you run campaigns for Republicans or Democrats???
And I asked you if your are a CHRISTIAN?? please answer....it's not that difficult!
And if we lose the seat, and the Senate, and possibly the Presidency over it...was it worth it? What does it prove? What was the point?
Are you more concerned about words, or actions?
Well, I NOTICE yoiu didn’t answer my question...TWICE...please answer and I will answer yours once. geesh...it;s NOT that HARD!! ARe you a CHRISTIAN????
I don’t answer the questions of those who stomp their feet and act like impudent little children when someone utterly destroys their position.
hahahhahahahah!!!!! Sooooooo, you aren;t a Christian....or a Jew for that matter!!! You have NO forgiveness in your heart....you must be a DEMOCRAT!!! Thanks for the answer!!!
I just read your Home Page!!!! you sir are a HYPOCRITE.....Oh, you write..”WORK, WORK WORK to get RINOs out, WORK WORK WORK, yet you throw a CONSERVATIVE like MOURDOCK under the BUS.....BLEEH!!! People that do that are hypocrites!!! COWARDLY HYPOCRITICAL!!
Nice try, no cigar, thanks for playin’. See ya.
HYPOCRITE !!! You can;t even say what RELIGION you follow???? OMG!!! ATHEIST???? VULCAN???? get outta here.
“Welcome to campaign reality.”
“Politics is war without the bullets...”
Truer words have never been spoken. Mourdock (of whom I was a donor to his primary against Lugar) should have been more on his toes.