U.S. Senate Candidate Criticized by Both Parties for Pro-Life Comments
A Republican candidate for one of Indiana's U.S. Senate seats has been attacked by both Democrats and members of his own party for saying that a child conceived because of rape is still a gift from God. During a debate with his Democratic opponent on October 23, Indiana's state treasurer Richard Mourdock, who defeated longtime GOP Senator Richard Lugar to carry the Republican Party mantle, addressed the issue of abortion and rape, one of the “exceptions” presidential candidate Mitt Romney has embraced to make himself more attractive to “pro-choice” women voters.
Eschewing Romney's easy compromise, Mourdock stuck with his own pro-life values, saying that while he had once struggled about whether a woman who gets pregnant through rape might be justified in aborting the baby, “I came to realize that life is a gift from God.” He added that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that...
Lady_Virtue wrote: How I wish that were the case in people's minds today. So many people now treat intercourse like it's a recreational sport and virginity is to be shedded as soon as possible. Seems everyone wants to be the first to get rid of it and no one wants to be the last who still has it. People fail to think about the long-term and inevitable consequences of sex. It is to be had within marriage and within marriage alone, exclusively with one's spouse. That means the possibility of conceiving a baby; sex is not solely for pleasure. I've even heard people say they DON'T want their future spouses to be virgins; rather, they want someone who's experienced and knows what he/she is doing. How backwards can you get?
Yes, of course you are correct. It is absolutely amazing how far even Christ's church has gone from God's thoughts on this issue. But, one day we will all stand before Him and then we will know His holiness! Good comment, it was a blessing to me.
Frank wrote: Virginity was that important in God’s mind.
How I wish that were the case in people's minds today. So many people now treat intercourse like it's a recreational sport and virginity is to be shedded as soon as possible. Seems everyone wants to be the first to get rid of it and no one wants to be the last who still has it. People fail to think about the long-term and inevitable consequences of sex. It is to be had within marriage and within marriage alone, exclusively with one's spouse. That means the possibility of conceiving a baby; sex is not solely for pleasure. I've even heard people say they DON'T want their future spouses to be virgins; rather, they want someone who's experienced and knows what he/she is doing. How backwards can you get?
John Y., might it be that you're uncomfortable with Christianity? Rejecting substance for form, because the liturgy is worthless, no form is even disgusting to God. This one reason that the Lord's prayer shouldn't be used as a mantra.
Gil Rugh said or, wrote: Jesus has rebuked those who made their religious practices an outward display to be honored by man. He elaborated on the practice of prayer by instructing how not to pray followed by giving a pattern for prayer.
Prayer that is nothing more than meaningless repetition or "many words" for the sake of going through the motions is not acceptable to God. Jesus taught that prayer should be informed by the Word of God, not to inform God.
In teaching the manner of acceptable prayer He began by pointing out that God must be approached with respect to the family relationship believers have with Him. God must be approached both intimately and reverently. God must be approached on the basis of what He has already said in His Word. In the pattern that Jesus gave He mentions the nature of appropriate requests to be made, three in respect to God and three in regard to personal human needs.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: I can see no part of the Catholic religious practices or the mass that has any warrant in Scripture. So due to word constraints that face you John, let us narrow down our question. What part of the Catholic Mass do you consider to be Scriptural?
The readings from the Bible, the Apostles Creed, the Lord's Prayer, prayers to Jesus and the words of Jesus from the Last Supper.
Lemnor, the only reason why I still attend the Catholic Church is that I am more comfortable with the liturgical worship over the non liturgical worship of Fundamentalist Protestant Churches. If I only participate in the scriptural parts to the Mass, adhere only to the scriptural Catholic doctrines and make Catholics cognizant on here and other discussion forums that the only way to become saved is by embracing Jesus Christ as ones Savior and Lord.
I can see no part of the Catholic religious practices or the mass that has any warrant in Scripture. So due to word constraints that face you John, let us narrow down our question. What part of the Catholic Mass do you consider to be Scriptural?
John Yurich USA wrote: I didn't state all Catholics read the Bible and are familiar with the books of the Bible.
John Yurich; Obviously you are perceiving the unScriptural nature of the Roman Catholic religion as your statement alludes. Also you have posted many times how you do not involve yourself with the unBiblical idolatrous and blasphemous practices of the mass etc. Observing the many unChristian rites and practices of the popish organisation - why then do you provide it with credence by attending and proclaiming your attendance in these posts and other comment sites?
This is false witness to the (gullible) people whom you join with in the pews. And this is implying religious credibility to an idolatrous heretical thus sinful organisation.
You are working against the Lord.
Remember the warning of the Lord; 2Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
Lemnor wrote: If the Roman Catholics can "read" the Bible, then why do they practice idolatry heresy and blasphemy? Their lack of faith proves them to be less than Christian. Their witness is discard the Bible and do the opposite.
I didn't state all Catholics read the Bible and are familiar with the books of the Bible. I stated that I was taught by parents growing up to read the Bible and that I am so familiar with the Bible that I can go to any book in the Bible within a matter of seconds. Yes, not all Catholics are not Christians. But there are some Catholics who are Born Again by reason of having embraced Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord. I am among those Catholics who embraced Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord during an Altar Call at my brothers Non Denominational Church in November 1997. And the minute that I embraced Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord I felt the Holy Spirit come over me and at that moment I started to know that there are some unscriptural RCC doctrines and to reject and repudiate the unscriptural RCC doctrines, adhere only to the scriptural RCC doctrines and only participate in the scriptural parts to the Mass.
John Yurich USA wrote: You have the audacity to imply that I don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God, that I don't read the Bible and that the Catholic Church does not use the Bible during the Mass? Well I have always believed that the Bible is the Word of God, I was taught by my parents growing up to read the Bible and the Catholic Church has always used the Bible during the Mass for Bible readings. I know the Bible so well that I can go to any book in the Bible within a matter of seconds.
If the Roman Catholics can "read" the Bible, then why do they practice idolatry heresy and blasphemy?
Their lack of faith proves them to be less than Christian. Their witness is discard the Bible and do the opposite.
Lemnor wrote: Better take that up with God JY. The quote used from Deuteronomy is from a book called the Bible. This is a book written by God. Ever use it in the antichrists club you attend??
You have the audacity to imply that I don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God, that I don't read the Bible and that the Catholic Church does not use the Bible during the Mass? Well I have always believed that the Bible is the Word of God, I was taught by my parents growing up to read the Bible and the Catholic Church has always used the Bible during the Mass for Bible readings. I know the Bible so well that I can go to any book in the Bible within a matter of seconds. Suppose the rapist didn't stay around long enough for the woman to find out who he was in order to marry him?
Jim Lincoln, you stated that Catholics practice rape? Well no practicing Catholic would engage in rape. Only a non practicing Catholic would engage in rape. I know that there are some priests who engage in rape but if they engage in rape then I don't consider them to be practicing Catholics.
Frank wrote: De 22:28 changes the word from being forced to being laid hold of, which could also be a form of manipulation? So was this a forcible rape? Now the text also "doesn’t say that the issue of the resulting marriage was a punishment for the woman", but the man. But my guess is the woman might not have had a choice, but her parents could have withheld consent. Remember it is likely no one would have ever married this woman because she was now not a virgin.
Thank you Frank. Interesting points. It is certainly a controversial verse.
"and lay hold" H8610 תּפשׂ tâphaś taw-fas' A primitive root; to manipulate, that is, seize; chiefly to capture, wield; specifically to overlay; figuratively to use unwarrantably: - catch, handle, (lay, take) hold (on, over), stop, X surely, surprise, take.
Does sound as though the man took the "forceful initiative" on the act. I think it is logical to assume the man was receiving a "punishment" for the act, note the "find a damsel" - and "they be found" - it was definitely an illicit act. And v29 "he hath humbled her" - his fault.
Lemnor, the rapist that is described in the Old Testament would no doubt be Jew on Jew, and while kidnapping and rape in modern time is still practiced by some Muslims and Catholics it is not what a Christian does.
Also Christians are to marry Christians, a rapist is not a Christian, also he should be put in jail and if the woman's kinfolk etc., caught up with him he would probably be missing some parts to fulfill his role as a husband, so this fellow couldn't be a husband anyway.
It will be interesting how Indianans vote on this, especially the women.
But, yes, the infants from such abhorrent behavior should be put up for adoption and the mother should suffer no consequences either social or financial.
Cliff Leckey wrote: Why would anyone want to abort a Baby conceived through rape? when so many childless couples would give anything to adopt such a baby & some even go overseas in desperation to buy what they cannot obtain naturally. Of course woman`s "rights"/"wants" come into play. I will not mention selfishness.
Perfectly said! The baby in the womb is an innocent life and why would anyone want to kill someone who is innocent is beyond me. Yes, it is due to the feminist movement. Your comment was a blessing to me; thanks!
Why would anyone want to abort a Baby conceived through rape? when so many childless couples would give anything to adopt such a baby & some even go overseas in desperation to buy what they cannot obtain naturally. Of course woman`s "rights"/"wants" come into play. I will not mention selfishness.
Lemnor, De 22:17 among others speak of the importance of a woman’s virginity. In fact, 22:21 says that if she lied about her virginity, she would be stoned to death.
Also noted that De 22:24 Says if a an engaged woman doesn’t resist rape, she is to be put to death. She didn't protect her virginity.
De 22:25-27 doesn’t say that this “raped” engaged woman would in fact end up being married to her betrothed. My guess is their marriage would have been off? Even though verse 25 uses a very strong word “force” for what took place. In other words, she was not at all responsible. Virginity was that important in God’s mind.
De 22:28 changes the word from being forced to being laid hold of, which could also be a form of manipulation? So was this a forcible rape? Now the text also "doesn’t say that the issue of the resulting marriage was a punishment for the woman", but the man. But my guess is the woman might not have had a choice, but her parents could have withheld consent. Remember it is likely no one would have ever married this woman because she was now not a virgin. So, in the case of something that might be less than "forcible" rape, the man had to take responsibility and marry the woman and provide for her for the rest of her life.
John Yurich USA wrote: Suppose the woman is not insane and does not want to marry her rapist? Only an insane woman would marry her rapist. The woman could have the baby and then give the baby up for adoption to be raised by a married couple.
Better take that up with God JY. The quote used from Deuteronomy is from a book called the Bible. This is a book written by God. Ever use it in the antichrists club you attend??
Lemnor wrote: Hows about marrying the rapist? Deut 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. So the child not only lives but is provided with a family.
Suppose the woman is not insane and does not want to marry her rapist? Only an insane woman would marry her rapist. The woman could have the baby and then give the baby up for adoption to be raised by a married couple.
Deut 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
So the child not only lives but is provided with a family.
Dr. Mark Allison | 1/20/2013
Dr. Alan Cairns | 6/22/2009
COMMENTS | 
beaver: "
mike
maybe you'd like to pick a more suitable adjective.
my, my,..."
