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