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 Gods 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 Obamas 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 medias interest in politicians who espouse unpopular views on abortion is so selective.
>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.
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.
A little knowledge of the pre-Roe state-by-state history is useful here.
Which is ALL that has to be said. There is no additional information that needs conveying.
Which is ALL that has to be said. There is no additional information that needs conveying.
Which is ALL that has to be said. There is no additional information that needs conveying and there is no ommission.
“..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 -
“...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.
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.
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.
“...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!
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.
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.