The Lord said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?" (Exodus 4:11)
Richard Mourdock is the Republican candidate for senator here in Indiana. Last night during a debate he testified to his faith and today the priests of Secularism are baying bloodhounds on his trail. His crime? Mourdock spoke of his conviction that babies conceived in rape are a gift from God and should not be murdered:
I just struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize: Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.
Ho-hum right? Is there any Christian alive who believes a little child is not a gift from God? What wickedness consumes a man to the point that he considers a baby in the womb to be an enemy that must be killed, and that anyone who defends that baby by calling him or her a gift from God must be locked up in the stocks down on the town square and pelted with rotten tomatos, spit on, and otherwise publicly abused?
Some years ago, the counter-culture hero who wrote One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Sometimes a Great Notion, Ken Kesey, was being interviewed by Paul Krassner, editor of The REALIST (the successor publication to Stewart Brand's Last Whole Earth Catalog). During the interview, Krassner raised the subject of abortion and got more than he was prepared for:
KRASSNER: And yet, since you're against abortion, doesn't that put you in the position of saying that a girl or a woman must hear an unwanted child as punishment for ignorance or carelessness?
KESEY: In as I feel abortions to be probably the worst worm in the revolutionary philosophy, a worm bound in time to suck the righteousness and life from the work we are engaged in, I want to take this slowly and carefully...
* * *
Punishment of unwed mothers? Bullshit! Care of neither the old nor the young can be considered to be punishment for the able, not even the care of the un-dead old or the un-born young. These beings, regardless not only of race, creed and color but as well of size, situation or ability, must be treated as equals and their rights to life not only recognized but defended! Can they defend themselves?
You are you from conception, and that never changes no matter what physical changes your body takes. And the virile sport in the Mustang driving to work with his muscular forearm tanned and ready for a day's labor has not one microgram more right to his inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than has the three month's foetus riding in a sack of water or the vegetable rotting for twenty years in a gurney bed. Who's to know the values or extent of another's trip? How can we assume that the world through the windshield of that Mustang is any more rich or holy or even sane than the world before those pale blue eyes? How can abortion be anything but fascism again, back as a fad in a new intellectual garb with a new, and more helpless, victim?
I swear to you, Paul, that abortions are a terrible karmic bummer, and to support them—except in cases where it is a bona fide toss-up between the child and the mother’s life—is to harbor a worm of discrepancy.
KRASSNER: Well, that’s really eloquent and mistypoo, but suppose Faye were raped and became pregnant in the process?
KESEY: Nothing is changed. You don’t plow under the corn because the seed was planted with your neighbor’s shovel.
KRASSNER: I assume that it would be her decision, though?
KESEY: Almost certainly. But I don’t really feel right about speaking for her. Why don’t you phone and ask?
[Krassner phones Faye Kesey in Oregon and reviews the dialogue. She asks: “Now what’s the question—if I were raped, would I get an abortion?” “That about sums it up.” “No I wouldn’t.”]
KRASSNER: But would she marry the rapist to give the child a name? . . . What would you have done in my place before abortion was legalized and someone with an unwanted pregnancy came to you for help, and you knew of a safe doctor as an alternative to some back-alley butcher?
KESEY: I have been in your place and done what you did. I think now—not just because of religious stands but of what happened to the girls’ heads as a result—that I did a great disservice because I was being asked for more than money or the name of a guy in Tijuana. In the last few years, when asked the question, I've found myself able to talk the women out of it. I could have talked them out of it back then as well. There are girls with kids coming and no old man to carry his share of the load. Women sense far better than a man what the bearing and raising of a child means in terms of a lifetime commitment. It all comes down to a pact of support. And if the man pulls out his support first, how can he blame the woman for pulling out hers? Next time you're asked to choose between hygiene and a back-alley butcher, Paul, try choosing instead against both possibilities and for life instead.
[Emphases in the original.]
When purportedly civilized denizens of the Temple of Secularism hound the godly for speaking against their bloodlust, we ought not be silent. How dare they! What great bloodquilt must consume their souls that they attack a man for defending little defenseless babies! For shame!
To accept such attacks upon the merely civilized by being silent is to connive at the bloodshed our nation has been drowning in for decades, now.
(Incidentally, let me add that I read part of this interview first back in the seventies and have never forgotten it. At the place where the three asterisks appear above there is an extended story which is one of the most eloquent stories opposing euthanasia I've seen. So click through the link above and read the part I've left out. You'll not regret it.)