Why Richard Mourdock Was Not Wrong

On October 23rd Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock made a huge gaffe. He made an extreme and indefensible comment.
Or did he?
By some of the responses, you would think so. In response to his comments, President Obama said, "I don't get these guys (referring to Mourdock and Todd Akin, who is now famous for his 'legitimate rape' comments). Rape is rape." Actress Tina Fey said, "If I have to listen to one more grey-faced man with a two-dollar haircut explain to me what rape is, I'm gonna lose my mind." Carly Fiorina, the National Senatorial Committee vice-chairwoman, said, "Richard Mourdock said a really stupid thing, and he apologized." This was in response to Meet the Press moderator David Gregory summing up Mourdock's comments by saying that Mourdock was talking about "rape, and that it could be God's will, and that pregnancy because of rape should be taken to term." His opponent in the race, Joe Donnelly, said, "I was shocked by what was said, and I think it was insulting and wrong to women, to survivors of rape and to their families. It has no place -- comments like that -- in public discussion."
Clearly Mourdock must have made an extreme and divisive statement about rape.
But he didn't.
In a debate, Mourdock was asked about his position on abortion in cases of rape and incest. Here is his response: "I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen."
Mourdock really made no statement at all about rape. In fact, the subject only came up because he was asked about it. The only comment he made about rape itself is that is is a "horrible situation." This hardly seems controversial, divisive, or extreme. He made no statement to which someone should respond, "Rape is rape." He made no statement that somehow tells women "what rape is."
The extreme reaction has been the way people has made him out to say that he is pro-rape or that he believes that rape is "something that God intended to happen."
Mourdock's comments were not about rape. They were about abortion and his view on when life begins. he said that life is a gift from God, and he said that life, even when it begins in horrible situations, is still something that God intended." Certainly people disagree that God is the source of life, but that a person has this belief is hardly groundbreaking.
But didn't Mourdock admit that he was wrong when he apologized?
Here is his apology: "I said that life is precious. I believe life is precious. I believe rape is a brutal act. It is something that I abhor. That anyone could come away with any meaning other than what I just said is regrettable, and for that I apologize. If they came away with any impression other than that I truly regret it, I apologize. I've certainly been humbled by the fact that so many people think that somehow was an interpretation."
As some opponents have pointed out, Mourdock didn't really apologize. He regrets that his words were misunderstood.
His words were not about rape, but about when life begins and what we should do when life is present. No matter how many people try to make his comments about rape, they simply aren't.
More to the point, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List supported Mourdock, saying, "Richard Mourdock said that life is always a gift from God, and we couldn't agree more. To report his statement as an endorsement of rape is either willfully ignorant or malicious."
Ultimately, if anyone genuinely misunderstands Mourdock's statement, it is probably because they misunderstand the reason why many people (in fact, the majority of Americans) are pro-life. The reason is that we believe that life begins at conception, that life is precious, and that innocent life should be protected. This fact is not dependent on whether that life was conceived as a result of a devoted man and woman, a drunken one-night stand, or a horrific act of violence. My previous post walks through this reality.

In my last post I mentioned Rebecca Kiessling. She was conceived in rape and her mother gave her up for adoption. When she later reconnected with her biological mother, she said that she would have chosen abortion if it had been legal at the time. Rebecca Kiessling is alive today because she was conceived before Roe v. Wade.
Today Rebecca Kiessling is grateful for those who stood in the gap and protected her life, a life conceived in the horror of rape. I bet she is even grateful to any grey-faced men with two-dollar haircuts who fought to protect her life.

Abortion Exceptions: What about Rape?

I had the privilege of speaking on the issue of abortion at Life Bible Fellowship Church this past Sunday. Speaking about abortion is daunting for several reasons, and one of those reasons is that it seems impossible to address all the different questions and concerns people have.
You can click here to watch the message in its entirety: http://vimeo.com/52027093
After the message I had several people ask me about whether or not there should be an exception in cases of rape. I got to talk to them individually, but I thought it would be good to write a post in order to cover the question more thoroughly. I am going to address the matter by responding three statements that I believe often reflect arguments in favor of such an "exception clause."

If a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape, then it is not her fault that she is pregnant. She should not be punished for what someone else did.
It is certainly true that a woman who gets pregnant as a result of rape does not bear any guilt for anything. She has suffered a horrific wrong, an act of violence. I know of no pro-life person who would in any way minimize the horror of rape. But this argument makes a false assumption.
The false assumption in this statement is that the pro-life argument is, "If you are pregnant, then you got yourself into this situation. Therefore you need to take responsibility instead of taking the easy way out." If that was the pro-life argument, then it would make sense to say, "But if you are pregnant through no willful action of your own, then you shouldn't need to suffer the consequences of pregnancy."
But this is not the pro-life argument. The pro-life argument is that the unborn is a person. A person conceived in rape is not any less of a person than a person conceived in a loving sexual act between a husband and a wife.
This past Saturday night I got to attend the banquet for Assure Pregnancy Clinic. The speaker was a woman named Rebecca Kiessling. She shared her powerful story that night. She was adopted, and when she tracked down her birth mother, she discovered that she was conceived by rape. Rebecca powerfully talked about the emotional difficulty of dealing with this information. But when it comes to the abortion issue, and the exception clause, she commented, "The supreme court has ruled that the man who did this to my birth mother does not deserve the death penalty. Did I then deserve the death penalty because of what he did?"
Just as is true with abortion in general, we have an easier time talking about it when we don't put a face to the subject. Could we really stand in front of Rebecca, or others conceived in rape, and say to them, "Because of how your mother conceived you, I would support her right to abort you"? I know that I can't do this.
A life is a life no matter how that life comes about.

If a woman gives birth as a result of rape, the child would be painful reminder of a horrific thing that happened to her.
Once again, I believe that this statement could be true. If the mother keeps the child, the child may be a reminder of that painful and horrible act of violence against her. But I don't believe that it follows that the right or best choice is abortion.
First of all, there is the wonderful choice of adoption. Rebecca Kiessling's mother chose to put her up for adoption. If the real problem here is that the child's presence will bring a painful reminder of the violence of rape, then there are many, many couples who would love to take the child into their family. If the real issue is that the mother would not be able to bring herself to look into the eyes of the child of not be pained, the child could be placed in a family who would love him or her.

Second of all, there are many people who remind us of painful things that have happened to us. A friend who informs a woman that her husband has died in a car accident may forever remind that woman of her grief over her husband. A doctor who delivers the news that a child has died may forever remind the parents of the horror of that child dying. In 2001 one of my best friends was killed by a reckless driver. I am facebook friends who his college roommate. When I interact with him, or see his updates, I think of my friend Matt, and I am pained at his death.
But the friend, the doctor, and the college roommate bear no guilt. Their proximity to the tragedy simply makes them a person who reminds us of pain that we suffered (perhaps at the hands of someone else). In the same way, the child bears no guilt for the "father" in this case. The fact that the child may bring a painful reminder of violence and violation is not a reason to abort the child. This is an act of injustice, punishing the child for the sins of the "father."
Third of all, I believe that in many cases the child would be a source of joy rather than of grief. There are many situation in which tragedy takes place, but we celebrate something beautiful that comes from that tragedy. We severely underestimate the redemptive power of God when we conclude that nothing good could come from bearing and loving a child who was conceived in rape. God, who brings good out of evil, salvation out of desperation, and life out of death, can always bring good out of bad circumstances. This doesn't mean that I think the mother MUST keep the child instead of choosing the route of adoption, but I think we make a lot of faulty assumptions when we conclude that the mother's relationship with the child would necessarily be irrevocably tarnished.

If pro-life people would flex, and allow for some exceptions, the movement could make some headway.
Right now Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are running on a pro-life platform with the exceptions of rape and incest and the life of the mother. Is this platform the way to go, simply in order to build consensus and move closer to the overturn of Roe v. Wade?
Scott Klusendorf writes and speaks about abortion, advocating for the protection of unborn children. In his book The Case for Life he writes about how he handles questions about cases of rape. He concludes that it does very little good to allow for the exception in moving toward middle ground. He says,
"Here's why. The abortion-choice position he defends is not that abortions should be legal only when a woman is raped but that abortion is a fundamental right she can exercise for any reason she wants during all nine months of the pregnancy. Instead of defending this position with facts and arguments, he disguises it with an emotional appeal to rape. But this will not make his case. The argument from rape, if successful at all, would only justify abortion in cases of sexual assault, not for any reason the woman deems fit. In fact, arguing for abortion-on-demand from the hard case of rape is like trying to argue for the elimination of all traffic laws because a person might have to break one rushing a loved one to the hospital. Proving an exception does not prove a rule.
"To expose his smoke screen, I ask a question, 'Okay, I'm going to grant for the sake of discussion that we keep abortion legal in cases of rape. Will you join me in supporting legal restrictions on abortions done for socioeconomic reasons that, as studies on your side of the issue show, make up the overwhelming percentage of abortions?'
"The answer is almost always no, to which I reply, 'Then why did you bring up rape except to mislead us into thinking that you support abortion only in hard cases?'"
As Klusendorf points out, talk about the rape exception is often (but not always) a smoke screen. 1% of abortions are in situations of rape or incest. This does not downplay the horror of rape in these cases, but it does show that pregnancy by rape is by no stretch of the imagination the main reason for abortion, or even one of the main reasons.

All of this said, is the Romney/Ryan position better than the Obama/Biden position? I can't imagine how I could say anything but Yes. Less abortions are better because that means less unborn children dying. At the same time, I think we would feel conflicted if, in an effort to free slaves in the 1800s, someone argued, "We can't get the pro-slavery people to come around on this one. So let's make a slavery exception for those whose skin is especially dark." Would this be better than the previous situation? It would in the sense that more oppressed people would be set free. But it is a hard position to justify. It certainly is not a position that anyone would want to defend today.
But would I vote for such a law if it was on the ballot? I think that I would. I would not vote for it if we were starting from a position of abortion being illegal. But if we moved from abortion on demand to abortion only in special cases, this would save lives. And I would have a hard time not voting for something that would save lives.

No pro-life person is excusing or minimizing the horror of rape. But the horror of rape should not lead us to excuse ending the life of an innocent unborn child. If those of us who are pro-life are going to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, this should include unborn children who are conceived in rape. They are no less human and no less valuable than any child, grandchild, niece, or nephew in our lives today.

Abortion and the Quest for Value

Today I had the privilege of meeting with some leaders from Assure Pregnancy Clinic in Ontario. We had a great conversation about their ministry and about the current state of the pro-life movement.
At one point I asked Sharon Sparks, the director, what she thought was the main message that needed to be heard by women seeking abortions. She said many wonderful things, but the first thing that she said was, "You are valued."
It is important to talk about the biblical teaching on abortion and the worldview issues that follow. It is important to talk about the medical issues surrounding abortion. It is important to talk about the guilt and shame and regret that so often follow the choice to abort a child.
At the same time, according to the staff of Assure, many of the women coming to the clinic believe that abortion is wrong (at least in most cases). The problem is not simply lack of education. The problem is that women feel cornered. Their parents or boyfriends (or sometimes husbands) are pressuring them to abort. Many times financial concerns enter into the decision. These pressures and concerns often drown out the ethical questions surrounding abortion. It can create a situation in which medical and Scriptural arguments fall on deaf ears.
But then there is Sharon's message. You are valued. You are important. You matter.
When we believe that we are important and valuable, an amazing thing happens. Suddenly, we feel empowered not to take the easy path, but the more difficult one.
There are times when my wife gives me encouragement as a husband, a father, a pastor, and a man. She speaks words that reinforce a deep value that I have in all of these roles. When I hear these life-giving words I am not inspired to sleep in, sit on the couch, watch TV, and overeat. Instead I am inspired to seek Christ more powerfully, invest in my kids more personally, pursue my wife more vigorously, and live for Christ more holistically. Her words of value make me want to take the more challenging path because this is more consistent with that idea that I am valued.
When we believe that we matter, we are empowered to make difficult decisions instead of taking the path of least resistance. We suddenly want to get off the couch and work hard at something. We suddenly want to recover from our addictions. And we suddenly want to care for a needy child instead of escaping from a difficult situation.
The Gospel of Jesus gives us the powerful situation that we are valued. We are not valued because we decide that we are. We are valued because God values us! he values us so much that he parted with his beloved Son in order to rescue us from sin and death! We are treasured by the Creator of the entire universe.
If we are going to make a difference in the lives of women, men, and unborn children, we must communicate the gospel value that they are treasured by God himself. I pray that we can boldly and joyfully embrace and communicate this truth. And I pray that this truth will drive all of us to choose the more challenging path of living as people who are deeply valued, rather than settling for the mediocre life of people who believe they are forgotten or ignored.

Pro-Choice Americans at an All-Time Low

I tweeted this video last week, but I couldn't stop thinking about it for several reasons.
The link below is to a 4-minute segment on Morning Joe. They are discussing a recent poll that shows that pro-choice Americans are at a record low percentage. Please check out the video, and then check out the commentary below.



Now, if you watched the video, I want to walk through several very interesting elements of this story and how they covered it.
1. The disbelief of the facts by one member of the panel. As soon as the statistics were done being presented, that today 50% of Americans are pro-life and only 41% are pro-choice, one man on the panel asked if this was because the poll was using archaic methods of gathering information. When he was informed that this was not the case, he incredulously asked, "How do you explain that then?" His disbelief is informative. The pro-choice position has become such the accepted majority position in the public eye that this man thought that the statistics simply HAD to be mistaken. Important lesson: Media presentation of public opinion is not necessarily public opinion.
2. Technology's role in the pro-life movement. One panelist, Joe Scarborough, explains how advanced ultrasounds make it nearly impossible to deny that unborn babies are. . .babies. Several times he repeats the idea that it is simply undeniable that the unborn are persons. His most conclusive statement was, "You can call it what you want to call it, but that's a life in there." Something we complain about technology and the corruption it can bring. But thank God for the medical technology that has allowed us to see the reality of what is going on in the womb.
3. Seeing unborn babies makes it hard to be pro-choice. This is very similar to the point above, but I thought it deserved its own section. People are being swayed to the pro-life position because of what they see. In other words, when we are able to see reality we are compelled to lean to the pro-life side. None of us should be afraid to come face to face with the truth. The truth is sometimes unpleasant, but it should not be ignored or denied. The truth about what goes on in the womb informs our consciences concerning unborn children.
4. We are still unwilling to go all the way. The video ends with the entire panel agreeing that a person could be personally pro-life without being in favor of abortion being outlawed. Of course, they are right in the sense that people do claim that position. But this is not a rational or consistent position. If that is a person in the womb, it is NEVER okay for ANYONE to take that life. And, while grace and humility is needed, people need to be called out on this. It is not noble or balanced to say, "I would never personally kill that person, but I am in favor of protecting the rights of others to kill that person." If the unborn child is a person, he or she deserves full protection.

I pray that, through the courage of defenders of the unborn, and through the advances in medical and ultrasound technology, and through a reviving work of God in our hearts, we will embrace a full protection for unborn children. As, God-willing, we advance toward this, it is the calling of each person who embraces the pro-life position to actively promote the dignity and humanity of unborn children.

Are the Terms Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Helpful?

            Recently I had the honor of being a guest blogger for Randy Alcorn (my illustrious father-in-law). My post was called, “The Growing Consistency of the Pro-Choice Position.” One reader made a comment that stood out to me. Here is it in its entirety:

“Pro life” people need to do a better job of having a more consistent ethic of being pro life. There are some that do, but the vast majority don’t. The critique that states “pro life people believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth” has some validity. Far too many people that identify with the pro life movement are very outspoken on abortion, but strangely silent on the death penalty, needless wars, the AIDS epidemic, global warming and its effects on natural life, the prison industrial complex, child labor in the third world, and the list goes on. Stop talking about pro choice people being inconsistent and hypocritical and look at yourself.

            At first I felt defensive when I read it, and somewhat justifiably. In my opinion the reader wildly exaggerates the lack of care for people in crisis. And his comments also reveal that he may have only read the title of the post, and not the post itself. Still, lurking behind this, there is a valid point. But I don’t believe that valid point is the one he intends to make.

            I think it is valid that he wants consistency from the pro-life position. If I call myself pro-life, that grid should carry over in all cases. I should be against the death penalty and all war (not just needless ones), as well as anything that could possibly cause death. I should be against killing in self-defense because it takes a life just as much as murder takes a life. I should also be against eating meat and hunting because it ends the lives of animals. If I am pro-life, I should be pro-life the whole way.

            While all of that might sound silly, it simply reflects the fact that pro-life is not a very helpful label. It needs specification in order to be a meaningful label.

            For that matter, pro-choice is also not a helpful label. No one is consistently pro-choice. We don’t believe people should have the protected right to steal, rape, and murder others. This position also needs specification if it is going to be meaningful.

            So, if these terms are not meaningful, how did they come about? Here is an overly simplistic explanation. A person in favor of legalized abortion (person #1) is speaking with a person against legalized abortion (person #2):

            1: You’re anti-abortion.

2: I don’t like that label. It is not so much that I am against something as that I am in favor of something.

1: What is it that you are in favor of?

2: Life. I am pro-life. You on the other hand are pro-abortion, which is basically the same as being pro-death.

1: I’m not pro-death. I’m not even pro-abortion. I just think everything should have the choice to have an abortion. I am pro-choice.

It’s not hard to see how it happened. But it has left us with unhelpful labels.

            The reader may be right that it is not consistently pro-life to be against abortion, but in favor of the death penalty. However, apart from the pro-life label, there is nothing inconsistent about that position. It is not inconsistent to believe that unborn babies should not be killed and at the same time believe that the state should have the power to put murderers to death. It is not inconsistent to believe that unborn babies should not be killed and at the same time believe that war is sometimes justified. And it is not inconsistent to believe that killing someone in self-defense is justifiable.

            Here is the point: the term “pro-life” should not serve as a prison to people who are against abortion. The consistency should manifest itself in consistent concern for those who are being wronged and are unable to protect themselves.

            While I personally would redefine the terms involved in the abortion debate, I think this is unlikely to happen. I accept the terms because I feel that this is necessary in order to have a discussion that is helpful. At the same time, I would have no problem if someone called me “anti-abortion.” That is an accurate label. I am also anti-murder, anti-corruption, anti-domestic-abuse, and anti-genocide. There are certain things that we should be against.