Richard Mourdock: Another Example Of What It Means To Be Pro-Life

If he is truly pro life he would not even allow for murder in the case of the mother’ s life (which is of course rare). Jesus gave His life for us. Why would we think it wrong for a mother to give her life for her baby, possibly? Murder is murder is murder, no matter how you slice it. I am sure I won’t be invited to speak at any debates!

Human “life” begins when the fertilized egg (zygote) implants in the uterine wall. From that moment on it is a human baby and deserves all the care and protection available. It is not the child’s crime HOW it was created so rape and incest are NOT valid excuses for killing it. Abortion is murder and should be treated as such.

First, let me say that I completely agree with the author’s comments on Mourdock’s position. Clearly, he is being intellectually honest and logical about exceptions to abortion limits, which is what people who are ruled by emotion find so “shocking”. Frankly, if exceptions were allowed in cases of rape, it would make “sense” only as an emotional appeal by people driven more by their feelings bout the female victim that they see than by the male or female victim they don’t see (hidden in the womb). After all, if such an exception were granted on the grounds of our feeling sorry for the rape victim, it would be the only instance of any criminal statute that expressly allowed mortal harm to an innocent 3rd party as compensation to the victim of a crime. Imagine, if you will, if a legislator suggested that if a thief robbed your home, that you were allowed to kill your innocent neighbor. Crazy, you say? But of course. Or let’s perfect the analogy: imagine that you were raped (without conceiving) and beaten almost unto death in front of your 3-year old child. Afterward, every time you looked into your child’s face, it reminded you of the look they had watching helplessly as you were raped and beaten, and thereby made you relive the horror of the rape and near-death experience. Perhaps this horror was so bad that you sought therapy. Now, should you be allowed to kill your 3-year old child to eliminate the source of these horrific memories? I should hope not. Horrible as it may be, the society in which you live must insist on truly humane laws, and require you to do your best to maintain the life of a fetal human being within you.

That said, I must say that I approach this issue from a slightly different position than the author (and, most of the poster’s who support him, I’d wager). That is, although I am a Catholic, and my religious beliefs inform my opinions on many things, my position on abortion is far more secular/scientific/medical than most other pro-life people. For example, while I believe that sanctified human life begins at conception, I do not require civil society to agree with me. As such, I am willing to attach “civil rights” to a human being at the point modern medicine considers a woman “pregnant” — that is, at “implantation” (about day 6 after conception). This, as it happens, allows any woman who is raped to report the crime (or not) and be attended to by medical personnel, who can quite easily stop implantation such that the fertilized egg exits the uterus very much as many do by nature and the will of God, never to become a fetal human being or even a human embryo.

On this point, I may differ from many pro-life people who base their political position solely on their religious beliefs. However, I am satisfied with my position for two reasons.

I believe that the anti-abortion movement today is the abolitionist movement of our time. Where a generation a century and a half ago won the battle against one class of humans (white) who believed they could treat another class of humans (black) as if they were property rather than human beings, today’s pro-life movement seeks to force one class of humans (born) to treat another class (unborn) as human beings rather than property of the mother, to be disposed of as easily and legally as one used to be able to dispose of a slave. In that vein, I find myself living in the shadow of two great men at one time sitting at two vertices of the spectrum of anti-slavery advocates.

First, there was William Lloyd Garrison, a very religious man who looked at a slave and asked “Is he not my brother? Is she not my sister?” and by that measure alone could not shrink from his abolitionist positions. These are the questions I find myself asking when I think of a fetal human being threatened by abortion. Frankly, no disrespect to religion for sure, but who really needs to appeal to religion when this significantly secular perspective is sufficient to come to the aid of these innocents? Quite simply: who the heck are we to declare for ourselves the benefits of self-governance but deny it to those fetal human beings who have not yet managed to exit the womb?

However, there was also Abraham Lincoln, first Republican president of the United States, anti-slavery man, and punching bag for many a fellow abolitionist because he was viewed as less than perfect in his position on the issue. Now, anyone who has read more seriously of Lincoln’s own statements, writings, and actions against slavery would know that virtually all of the nit picking, hair-splitting, and cherry picking done by people both then and now to focus on Lincoln’s imperfections are merely an effort to tear him down in order to elevate ourselves (I fear the up-coming Liberal Hollywood treatment of Lincoln in the new Spielberg movie will be more of the same, largely in an effort to make our current president seem more Lincoln-esque than Lincoln himself). Garrison spent many years complaining of Lincoln’s supposed apostasy on abolition — just as the author attacks Romney for his — yet in the end even Garrison proclaimed that only Lincoln could have produced the political and social revolution that ultimately ended slavery in the US. Even Garrison realized that had Lincoln adopted Garrison’s absolutist position, he would likely have never been elected, if elected would most likely have been impeached and thrown out of office, and could never have achieved the actual victory over slavery that might never have come back within reach forever after.

In the event, I have come to find myself more Lincoln than Garrison in my pro-life position. I am not trying to convince God that in every battle I allow no room for light between my religious convictions and my position in civil society. Instead, I am trying — as Lincoln did better than Garrison — to win the war rather than the battle and achieve the ultimate goal of protecting innocent human life in all ways possible.

As such, I do not ridicule or attack men like Mitt Romney because they fall short of the position of Christ or even of the present author. Christ did not end abortion anywhere, nor is the author likely to do so. Mitt Romney will not likely achieve a breakthrough of the breath-taking magnitude of Lincoln, but he is more likely to do more to win the war against our own inhumanity with regard to abortion than the author or even all of the absolutist “life begins at conception” folks in the country put together.

Following this view, just imagine, if you will, if as a society we could take the following reasonable steps:

1) ban abortions for all reasons outside the normal rules of “justifiable homicide” (e.g., saving the life of the mother) after the point where medical science is capable of detecting recognizable human brain waves from a fetus — that being a rational and scientifically measurable bookend to the point at which civil courts have ruled that humans can lose their “right to life” on the grounds the cessation of such brain waves proves they are in an permanent vegetative state. (current medical science places this point at about 6 WEEKS after conception, so this would eliminate a significant percentage of abortions currently performed)

2) ban abortions for all reasons outside the normal rules of “justifiable homicide” after the point of “implantation”, when medical science considers a woman pregnant. (this occurs at about 6 DAYS after conception, so this would eliminate almost all abortions)

Does this not seem a far more likely progression than that absolutist pro-life positions based solely on religious tenets not shared by all your fellow Americans? The above positions cannot be attacked on the grounds of “church – state” separation, “imposing religion” on people not sharing the same religion, or being unscientific.

Meanwhile, the Alan Guttmacher Institute — a decidely “pro-choice” organization that claims a mission statement of ensuring the full spectrum of “reproductive rights” to all women world-wide — admits that abortion providers themselves report the reasons for women seeking an abortion include a mere 1% for rape (INCLUDING incest), meaning that a man like Romney who is willing at this point in our societal development to allow an exception for rape and incest DIFFERS NO MORE THAN 1 PERCENT FROM YOU.

Perhaps this knowledge will help you to avoid spending too much time complaining about the mote in Romney’s eye while missing the log in your own — emulating Garrison has much to recommend it, but effectiveness in achieving the ultimate goal is NOT one of those things. It may well make you fell better about yourself — as it did Garrison — but it is not likely to save as many innocent lives as the more rational and methodical approach of “imperfect” men such as Lincoln or Romney.

How truly frightening, that ,we as a society even have to debate the issue of “when life begins”..Even if you do not believe in God..science has given us all the information we need to know that , from the moment of conception, all the genomes are present that constitute the make-up of a “person”, a human being. That is the science. God Bless Mr. Mourdock for having the courage to stand strong on this issue, in a world that has contorted their morals to conform with their convenience! Most people who are so outraged at Mourdock’s statement, are the same people who are outraged at the death penalty for those who murder or rape because..”what if we execute someone who is innocent??”..How then do these same people justify the murder, execution of the MOST INNOCENT??? God have Mercy on us all!

“May God grant us more men who will stand upon their principles rather than waffle on the issue of life.” AMEN!