Tim Dunkin
October 26, 2012
Mourdock is right, it's time to stand by him
By Tim Dunkin

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.

© Tim Dunkin

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)


Tim Dunkin

Tim Dunkin is a pharmaceutical chemist by day, and a freelance author by night, writing about a wide range of topics on religion and politics. He is the author of an online book about Islam entitled Ten Myths About Islam, and is the founder and editor of Conservative Underground, a bi-weekly email newsletter focusing on foundational conservative worldview and philosophy. He is a born-again Christian, and a member of a local, New Testament Baptist church in North Carolina. He can be contacted at tqcincinnatus@yahoo.com. All emails may be monitored by the NSA for quality assurance purposes.

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Tim Dunkin: Click here

Latest articles

 

Alan Keyes
'A Bucket Brigade': The most simple, feasible way to take back America!

Stephen Stone
A path to impeachment

Alan Keyes
Perry's plight highlights liberty's real crisis

Larry Klayman
Sowing seeds of our own destruction

Alan Caruba
Witnessing a failed presidency

J. Matt Barber
How we told our kids about sex

Rev. Austin Miles
Obama vacations while Marine rots in Mexican jail!

Lloyd Marcus
Peterson Vazquez, my Hispanic patriot brother hero

David Huntwork
Meet Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: the leader of ISIS and the new caliph of the Islamic State

Matt C. Abbott
The church, politics, and the unborn; On predators and narcissism; Prayers for Cardinal George, Paul Likoudis

Ellis Washington
Muslim Brotherhood = Devout [not radical] Islam, Part II

Curtis Dahlgren
BACK TO SCHOOL: "Beware education deluxe" (Part 2)

Rev. Mark H. Creech
Labor Day: 'the plowing of the wicked'

A.J. Castellitto
WAR MACHINE, Inc. (Fighting for the Gods of War)
  More columns

Cartoons


Michael Ramirez

DaleToons

RSS feeds

News:
Columns:

Columnists

Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Bonnie Alba
Jamie Freeze Baird
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
Fr. Tom Bartolomeo
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites