News

Pro-life conservative Richard Mourdock challenges Richard Lugar in Indiana Senate primary

1 Comment

From Life News.

Excerpt:

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) is currently in the fight for his political life. Despite his status as the most senior Republican member of the US Senate, Lugar is in danger of losing his 2012 primary to Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock. A poll conducted by Basswood Research on behalf of the conservative Club for Growth put Mourdock at 34% with Lugar trailing by 2 points. The numbers reflect the opinions of 500 likely Republican voters and come with a margin of error of +/- 4.4%.

[…]Lugar’s relationship with pro-life advocates has been rocky during his time in the Senate. Lugar should be commended for supporting pro-life initiatives like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Mexico City Policy, the de-funding of Planned Parenthood and the repeal of Obamacare. However, Lugar alienated pro-life advocates with votes in favor of embryonic stem cell research and his enthusiastic support for President Obama’s two pro-abortion Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Even before Sotomayor’s nomination made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lugar announced he would vote to confirm her. A year later, Lugar jumped at the chance to support Elena Kagan, becoming the first Republican not on the Judiciary Committee to support her confirmation.

National Review has more about Mourdock and Lugar.

Excerpt:

Mourdock is a mainstream conservative: pro-life, opposed to gay marriage, and committed never to support a tax hike. As a trained geologist who worked in the energy industry, he speaks with authority on the need for more domestic production, as well as the dangers of global-warming alarmism. He’s a history buff, too. Recent readings include Lincoln’s Sword, a study of Abraham Lincoln’s rhetoric by Douglas L. Wilson. On the day of our meeting at a hotel in Indianapolis, Mourdock wore a yellow tie with blue script on it. “I can’t remember if this is my Emancipation Proclamation tie or my Gettysburg Address tie,” he said. (A close inspection revealed that it was the Emancipation Proclamation tie.)

[…]In most of his Senate races, Lugar has won about two-thirds of the vote, but that’s been against Democratic opposition. In 2006, his last election, the Democrats didn’t even bother to run a candidate against him, even though that was a good year for their party — the year of Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps they knew what they were doing. In 2010, only four Republican senators registered more liberal voting records, according to the American Conservative Union. In a separate analysis, National Journal ranked Lugar as the Senate’s fourth most liberal Republican. He’s a moderate to the core: a pro-lifer who voted to confirm both of Obama’s nominations to the Supreme Court, a hawk on farm subsidies who opposed the ban on earmarks, and a foe of Obamacare who has supported more federal spending on health care. Lugar also has favored stronger gun-control laws, minimum-wage hikes, and the DREAM Act, which would provide an amnesty to illegal aliens who attend college or serve in the military.

[…]Last summer, GOP activists began to approach Mourdock about running against Lugar. He says he didn’t take it seriously at first. “What did I ever do to you?” was his stock response. But the suggestions kept coming. After the election, Mourdock began to consider a race. “When Lugar refused to do away with earmarks in the lame-duck session, I decided to get in,” says Mourdock. “I’ll be the first to admit that in the world of budgets, earmarks are a rounding error. But I thought it was important.”

Erick Erickson of Red State endorses Mourdock.

Excerpt:

For the better part of his Senate career, Richard Lugar has defined leadership as reaching across the aisle to screw conservatives. He was a thorn in President Reagan’s side. He is a problem now for conservatives.

He has supported earmarks, refused to sign a brief opposing Obamacare, and routinely laments “polarization”, by which he means conservatives actually standing up and fighting back.

As much as conservatives need to stop Heather Wilson from winning the GOP nomination in New Mexico, conservatives and tea party activists can and should seize this moment and beat Richard Lugar.In fact, I hear that the GOP establishment in D.C. is deeply worried. There is independent polling out showing Lugar is extremely vulnerable to be beaten in a Republican primary.

Let’s do it. And let’s do it with Richard Mourdock.

While Lugar has been in the Senate fighting against conservatives, Mourdock has been in Indiana fighting for conservatives. Mourdock has been out on the campaign trail withstanding attack after attack from Lugar and his acolytes. And the attacks have all largely been to cast Mourdock as . . . wait for it . . . too conservative for Indiana.

You can see them compared issue by issue here. Lugar voted to confirm Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. RUTH BADER-GINSBURG!

Mourdock has also been endorsed by Mark Levin, so you know he’s better than Lugar. Now is the time to throw the RINOs out, while the people still know what socialism does to the economy and what secularism does to the unborn.

According to the latest poll, Mourdock leads Lugar by 2 points.

News

A gay man and a lesbian decide to have a child through IVF

3 Comments

From the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

Seven years ago, when Sabrina Morgan, 33, was single and desperate for a child, she found herself chatting to Kam Wong, 41, a gay man who was longing to be a father, in an online fertility forum. ‘I instantly thought he was genuine, down-to-earth, laidback and flexible,’ says Sabrina.

‘We exchanged pictures. It wasn’t about sexual attraction, obviously, but it was important what he looked like. I asked him if he had any history of baldness and loose teeth. It was part humour but it was also my way to steer towards more serious questions, like does he have any genetic health conditions.’

For Kam, who is in a long-term relationship, contacting Sabrina was about more than being a sperm donor: ‘I adore children. The desire to have my own has always been with me. Because of my sexuality I thought it might never happen. The urge grew stronger in my thirties until one day I researched options. When I met Sabrina I was very nervous. This was my chance to fulfil my dreams.’

It took Sabrina six years to conceive through IVF. By then she had met Kirsty Slack, 37, who is now her romantic partner. Sabrina and Kirsty live together and are Zaide’s primary carers. Kam visits weekly, which will increase as Zaide gets older.

Kam and Sabrina are one of the growing number of couples in so-called ‘co-parenting’ relationships – biological parents who have a close but platonic relationship and both contribute to child-rearing . Co-parenting isn’t just for the gay community. Straight men and women are choosing to put romance aside in the name of reproduction.

[…]Catherine, 41, met Steve, 39, on the website [xyz]. He is gay and she has been single for two years. He lives in London for his job as an analyst but will join Catherine in Swansea if and when he gets her pregnant, through artificial insemination (AI).

It isn’t that Catherine doesn’t want to find love but that she wants a child more: ‘I’ve stopped looking for a partner. Of course I need love, but I can have a partner at any age. I can only have a child now,’ she says.

[…]Catherine started her online search after a break-up from a three-year relationship with a man who didn’t want children. ‘I’d just turned 39 and thought, “I don’t have time for this to happen again.” In a worst-case scenario I would seek an anonymous donor, but I’ve always thought a child needs a father. At the very least I wanted a donor who would visit regularly.’

Catherine chatted to Steve for a month online before meeting: ‘When I saw him my heart jumped. I thought, “Finally it’s going to happen!” I was happy for him to stay in London, but he wanted to be fully involved. Now I’m helping him find a job in Swansea.’

If Catherine conceives they plan to live together for a trial period: ‘We know we could end up like a bickering couple. If so we will live separately. I have friends with small children – I could see how hard it would be for me to live alone. Who would go out to get nappies and milk if I ran out?’

Mary actually found this post for me on the Boundless web site, where she found these two comments.

A very bad man: (Bryan)

We can condemn surrogacy by a single man or woman all we want. But at the end of the day, NO ONE can deny the fact that the biological urge to reproduce is strong and sometimes defy reason.

I do understand that young man’s desire to have a biological baby because to be honest, I feel that way myself. Boundless readers may want to condemn people like us but let it be known that there are people who, confronted with such a strong biological urge, have no choice but conduct surrogacy with a woman in India. I must admit, although I am a man and not a woman, I still long to hold the tiny fingers of a helpless baby in my hands, gaze at the cute eyes of mini-me and caress the soft baby skin in my arms. It is just natural. Boundless readers, if you want to condemn single young men with desires like me, go ahead. But let it be known that people like me exist but are just keeping quiet (until now, of course).

Men aren’t supposed to talk like that – they are supposed to protect children from the selfishness of predators. Not ruin the child’s life because of their own selfishness. It’s completely backwards.

A very good woman: (Kim)

My heart just breaks for men in our society (American). How horrible to always be faced with low expectations, being made fun of, thought of as the unneccessary “moron”… How wrong!

For what it is worth, a man who is willing to fight against culture and strives to be a man of honor and respect- with everything that entails- certainly commands my respect.

What a sad, sad society we have become. I feel for that child and the emotional and mental anguish he will feel. Read any literature on abuse and at the very least this arrangement will leave this child open for abuse via a low self esteem. Can you imagine being passed back and forth when it is convenient for your parents? Getting older and finding out you were a child of convenience and want, want in a selfish form and not a giving form?

I think it’s important for Christians to connect issues like this to their Christian worldview. Instead of tolerating and excusing every sin to make people like us, we should take a step back and ask ourselves if the Bible might not be correct when it prohibits certain conduct as sinful.  Obviously selfish atheists are going to want to blur the lines of morality, redefining it so that chastity, fidelity and sobriety are out, but yoga, recycling and vegetarianism are in. But there is no reason that we have to go along with them. We should be on the side of the children. The new generation of secularists have turned their backs on chastity, courting and traditional self-sacrificial marriage. Now they are struggle to desperately grasp for their happiness, no matter how much harm they cause to innocent children. Let’s tell them that some things are wrong.

News

How pro-life apologetics helps strengthen your evangelism

3 Comments

From Scott Klusendorf’s Life Training Institute.

Excerpt:

Beyond the obvious obligation we have as thinking human beings to clarify the status, and defend the value, of innocent, unborn human life, engaging in the pro-life project is also a way to make the case for the truth of Christianity in general. It stands to reason that if the scientific, philosophical, and moral arguments we offer in defense of the humanity of the unborn also happen to align exactly with the biblical notion of what it means to be a human being made “in the image of God,” then the Bible might also have something to say about other things of importance.

This is a point Scott makes repeatedly but it was recently driven home in a very concrete way by, of all people, a hard core atheist in the most recent issue of Salvo magazine. A secular skeptic, law school professor, renowned blogger, and mocker of deluded “Godiots,” the “Raving Atheist” attended a blogger party where he serendipitously sat next to a Catholic blogger named Benjamin. As the “Raving Atheist” explains:

At one point the conversation turned to abortion, and I asked Benjamin’s opinion of the practice. I was stunned. Here was a kind, affable, and cogently reasonable human being who nonetheless believed that abortion was murder. To the limited extent I had previously considered the issue, I believed abortion to be completely acceptable, the mere disposal of a lump of cells, perhaps akin to clipping fingernails.

This unsettling exchange spurred me to further investigate the issue on Benjamin’s blog. I noticed that pro-choice Christians did not employ scientific or rational arguments but relied on a confused set of “spiritual” platitudes. More significantly, the pro-choice atheistic blogosphere also fell short in its analysis of abortion. The supposedly “reality-based” community either dismissed abortion as a “religious issue” or paradoxically claimed that pro-life principles were contrary to religious doctrine. Having formerly equated atheism with reason, I was slowly growing uncertain of the value of godlessness in the search for truth.

Though the “Raving Atheist” continued to rave, there was now a stone in his God-rejecting shoe, placed there by a reasoned defense of the pro-life view. He couldn’t disconnect himself from it and later admitted that the “selfless dedication [of pro-life advocates] to their cause moved [him] deeply.” Later, he met a woman named Ashli whose work in pregnancy care drew him to further consider the pro-life position. Soon thereafter, the “Raving Atheist” became, in part, a pro-life blogsite …

Click here to read the astonishing conclusion. Then come back here.

Back? Ok, so what did we learn from this? Well, the moral of this story is that it is very important for Christians to have a good understanding of moral issues like abortion and same-sex marriage so that they can talk about these issues based on what they know. When someone can stake out a moral position on these kinds of issues, using science and history and other hard evidence – not just the Bible – then it helps non-Christians to take us seriously as thinkers.

Unless we demonstrate the ability to reason out there in the real world – outside the church – then we are not going to be viewed as authoritative on any subject – especially on spiritual subjects. We really need to study up on other issues, and show that we care about the unborn (abortion issue) and children (same-sex marriage issue). We have to show that there is more to us than just doing what feels good. We have to show that we are smart and that we are willing to be unpopular in order to do the right thing. That we didn’t just inherit these views from our parents, or from our culture. That we have actually thought things through more than just reading the Bible, and that it makes a difference in how we view the world, and in how we live.

And I also think that it is just as important to read about economics, because we care about the poor. Socialists don’t know anything about economics. Whenever their wealth redistribution policies are tried, people get poorer and are less likely to be employed. If we really cared about the poor, we would study economics. Entrepreneurs stop hiring workers when they think that there is no profit to be made from undertaking an enterprise.

We also need to read about military and foreign policy issues, because we care about peace. Pacifists don’t know anything about military affairs and terrorism. Whenever their appeasement policies are tried, wars start and innocent people die. If we really cared about preventing wars and terrorism, we would study military history, counter-terorism and foreign policy. Bad men become aggressive when they think there is no cost to bear for it.

Ignorance is never a good idea when you are trying to do good – and you can’t know what is really good just by your feelings and intuitions. If you want to do good, you need to be 1) convincing and 2) effective. And that takes study. Don’t choose policies based on what makes you feel good and what sounds good to others. Push for effective policies – what actually does good – and then have your arguments and evidence ready to convince people, using evidence from authorities that they accept as non-Christians. If you have the will to study a little, you can be passionate and convincing. Non-Christians respect passion and knowledge. They don’t respect fideism and mysticism. They can spot a fake a mile away.

The best book to read on Christian worldview is Wayne Grudem’s “Politics According to the Bible“.

If you want to see Scott in a good debate against an ACLU spokeswoman, click here. He is also the author of the best introductory book on pro-life apologetics, entitled “The Case for Life“.