The Mourdock Moment: Life, Death, and Lies on the Campaign Trail

Friday, October 26, 2012

Albert MohlerBy Dr. Albert Mohler AlbertMohler.com

The controversy over comments made by U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock reveals the undeniable ugliness of American politics. At the same time, the media firestorm underscores the importance of getting the pro-life position right—and expressing it well.

Richard Mourdock

Mourdock, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Indiana, was debating his opponent, Rep. Joe Donnelly, this past Tuesday night, when the issue of abortion emerged. Both candidates claimed to affirm that life begins at conception, but Mourdock called for the end of abortion on demand. He then extended his remarks with these words:

“This is that issue that every candidate for federal, or even state, office faces, and I too stand for life. I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view and I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have [for abortion] is in that case [where] the life of the mother [is threatened]. I struggled with it for a long time, but I came to realize that life is a 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.”

Apoplexy Duly Ensued

Immediately, Mourdock was charged with claiming that God intended a rape to happen. A spokesperson for the Obama campaign said that President Obama “felt those comments were outrageous and demeaning to women.” Democratic operatives and media voices denounced Mourdock as hateful, extremist, and worse, and even many of his fellow Republicans scattered and ran for cover. Some demanded that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney should pull an ad supportive of Mourdock.

A closer look at Mourdock’s comments reveals that the candidate was not in any true sense calling rape “something that God intended to happen.” Everything Mourdock said in that answer flowed from his stated presupposition that life begins at conception, and that every human life is a gift from God.

Nevertheless, the liberal media went into full apoplexy, painting Richard Mourdock as a woman-hating extremist with reprehensible views on an issue as serious as rape.

Almost none of those who quoted Mourdock in making these charges used the full quotation, much less the audio of its delivery in the debate. The full quote reveals that the candidate was affirming the full dignity of every human life, regardless of the circumstance of conception.

To their credit, some in the media saw through the controversy. Writing for The New Republic, Amy Sullivan made clear that she disagrees with Mourdock’s position, but she honestly explained his words, and she expressed disappointment in his treatment by many liberal commentators.

In her words:

“Despite the assertions of many liberal writers I read and otherwise admire, I don’t think that politicians like Mourdock oppose rape exceptions because they hate women or want to control women. I think they’re totally oblivious and insensitive and can’t for a moment place themselves in the shoes of a woman who becomes pregnant from a rape. I think most don’t particularly care that their policy decisions can impact what control a woman does or doesn’t have over her own body. But if Mourdock believes that God creates all life and that to end a life created by God is murder, then all abortion is murder, regardless of the circumstances in which a pregnancy came about.”

She is exactly right, and bravely so.

She continued:

“Take a look again at Mourdock’s words:

“I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And…even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

The key word here is “it.” I think it’s pretty clear that Mourdock is referring to a life that is conceived by a rape. He is not arguing that rape is the something that God intended to happen.”

Amy Sullivan also acknowledged that Mourdock’s position is “a fairly common theological belief.” Her candor and honesty were refreshing exceptions to most of the coverage.

Similarly, Kevin Drum, writing in the liberal journal Mother Jones, also registered his disagreement with Mourdock’s argument. Nevertheless, he was bold to ask the obvious—”can’t we all acknowledge that this is just conventional Christian theology?” He added, “What I find occasionally odd is that so many conventional bits of theology like this are so controversial if someone actually mentions them in public.”

Both Drum and Sullivan described Mourdock’s argument as a form of theodicy, meaning a defense of God that points to good coming out of evil. They are certainly right to identify this argument as germane to the context of rape and pregnancy, but Mourdock did not actually go so far as to make the argument.

The controversy over his statements reveals the irresponsibility of so many in the media and the political arena. The characterizations and willful distortions of Mourdock’s words amount to nothing less than lies.

At the same time, Mr. Mourdock is responsible for giving the media and his political enemies the very ammunition for their distortions.

The debate question did not force Mourdock to garble his argument. The cause of defending the unborn is harmed when the argument for that defense is expressed badly and recklessly, and Mourdock’s answer was both reckless and catastrophically incomplete.

The issue of exceptions that might justify an abortion cannot be discussed carelessly. Furthermore, any reference to rape must start with a clear affirmation of the horrifying evil of rape and an equal affirmation of concern for any woman or girl victimized by a rapist. At this point, the defender of the unborn should point to the fact that every single human life is sacred at every point of its development and without regard to the context of that life’s conception. No one would deny that this is true of a six-year-old child conceived in the horror of a rape. Those who defend the unborn know that it was equally true when that child was in the womb.

No doubt, Mourdock meant to express this point, but his words fell far short of an adequate expression of the argument. In his political situation, that failure might be fatal. In terms of the cause of defending life, his garbled argument makes the task more difficult.

And yet, this controversy was really not about a failure of communication. Behind it all is the great chasm that separates those who defend the sanctity of life and those who defend abortion on demand. With that in mind, how should the defenders of life think about exceptions that might justify an abortion?

The Exceptions

One truth must be transparently clear—a consistent defense of all human life means that there is no acceptable exception that would allow an intentional abortion. If every life is sacred, there is no exception.

The three exceptions most often proposed call for abortion to be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. These are the exceptions currently affirmed by Mitt Romney in his presidential campaign. What should we think of these?

First, when speaking of saving the life of the mother, we should be clear that the abortion of her unborn child cannot be the intentional result. There can be no active intention to kill the baby. This does not mean that a mother might, in very rare and always tragic circumstances, require a medical procedure or treatment to save her life that would, as a secondary effect, terminate the life of her unborn child. This is clearly established in moral theory, and we must be thankful that such cases are very rare.

Next, when speaking of cases involving rape and incest, we must affirm the sinful tragedy of such acts and sympathize without reservation with the victims. We must then make the argument that the unborn child that has resulted from such a heinous act should not be added to the list of victims. That child possesses no less dignity than a child conceived in any other context.

How should we think of these questions in light of our current cultural and political context? We must contend for the full dignity and humanity of every single human life at every point of development and life from conception until natural death, and we cannot rest from this cause so long as the threat to the dignity and sanctity of any life remains.

In the meantime, we are informed by the fact that, as the Gallup organization affirmed just months ago, the vast majority of Americans are willing to support increased restrictions on abortion so long as those exceptions are allowed. We should gladly accept and eagerly support such laws and the candidates who support them, knowing that such a law would save the life of over a million unborn children in the nation each year.

Can we be satisfied with such a law? Of course not, and we cannot be disingenuous in our public statements. But we can eagerly support a law that would save the vast majority of unborn children now threatened by abortion, even as we seek to convince our fellow Americans that this is not enough.

We must argue for the dignity, humanity, and right to life of every unborn child, regardless of the context of its conception, but we must argue well and make our arguments carefully. The use and deliberate abuse of Richard Mourdock’s comments should underline the risk of falling short in that task.

About these ads


Categories: Bible Prophecy, Breaking News

Tags: , , , , , , ,

14 replies

  1. Great article! I also highly recommend this one, which focuses more on the media’s reaction to Mourdock’s comments: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2012/10/media-embarrassingly-ill-equipped-to-discuss-rape-theodicy/

    • Thanks for the reblog! God bless you! hope you are doing great!

      • sorry for the late response but I am doing great the first Remnant meeting wnet well and it was such a blessing, although we are changing the time to Saturdays at 6pm to accomodate more people schedules. That article was just so typical of the medias biased coverage. there is so much on my mind right now with all the areas satan is decieving the world, and what i’m supposed to do for God that i feel like i could write for days and days and barely scratch the surface. I have never felt this burdened to speak out, and I thank God for placing this inferno in my soul. I really think I will see Christs return in my lifetime. all your recent blog posts about prophecy and especially the tribulation video, really makes me think, even though there is always an underlying tone of God is trying to get our attention. anway i won’t babble your ears off, (actually your eyes) lol. Grace and Peace to you.

  2. god of the world blind many eyes,& heart is been choke by the devil,let pray that GOD will give them[all leaders heart of flesh,so that they can repent from their wicked doings.

  3. Reblogged this on Citizen Tom and commented:
    The topic is a hot one. His thoughts were bit complex. His opponents wanted something with which to hang him. Therefore, when U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock garbled his thoughts, they pounced.

    Nonetheless, one verse explains the issue.

    Romans 8:28 Good News Translation (GNT)

    We know that in all things God works for good with those who love him, those whom he has called according to his purpose.

    Do we want God to make certain all things work for good in our lives? Then when we understand that He has called to His purpose, we must respond by loving Him.

    When a woman is raped, there is some possibility she will become pregnant. Will this baby be at fault? No. The baby is a victim too, but the woman may not want to see it that way.

    God allows us a choice. We each can choose life or death. We can love God and accept the gifts He has gives us, or we can refuse to obey His commands.

    Thus, if she becomes pregnant, a rape victim can kill the baby. She can either allow God to work all things for good in her life, or she refuse.

    • Thanks you for the reblog Tom! God bless you! I think more people need to see this because their minds, just like mine years ago, are conditioned to ‘it’s okay if a woman is raped.’ When I had the realization back then, I realized that I only said that and thought it out of habit, because that’s what I was used to hearing. But when I really stopped and thought about it, I realized that it’s not an excuse.

  4. Typical media response. Twist the truth, select just the part of the quotes that will support their opposition and cause a fire storm. I agree as well with the author. And I applaud the senator for his courage.

  5. I agree wholeheartedly with the author of this article! The media and the liberals love to twist people’s words, lie and deceive. I’m ashamed of all of the republicans who did not stand with this man! God will remember that when they stand before Him! If we do not stand for Godly principles, God will not stand with us! For if God is for us, who can be against us?

"If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14 God's call to the world! Are you ready?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,170 other followers

%d bloggers like this: