During the past decade, there has been some political headway in restricting some abortions or making access to abortion more difficult. I’m not sure that this strategy can be considered ineffective.
However, US attitudes towards abortion have been essentially frozen in place for the past 40 years.
If the pro-life movement were to address the goal of changing the culture, that might be helpful in promoting legislative change. As it is now, the issue of abortion can cost politicians the election, e.g. Mourdock of Indiana, if they stray too far from the center position.
Consider too:
**John 18:36 **Jesus answered, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants (would) be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here.”
And
Revelation 3:14 … 'The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the source of God’s creation, says this: 15 “I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. 16 So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”
In the greater things, Akin and Mourdock had things right and gave a good witness. It “cost” them the election but that is almost to their credit. The could have been “clever as foxes and gentle as a dove …” I suppose and avoided the questions perhaps. Jesus did not always answer his questioners … particularly when they showed guile and were insincere.
Trading men of character and honor for some sly Pontius Pilate types would not be good.
Though maybe what happened will be a tutorial for avoiding such media traps in the future for 2014’s candidates.
Then too – maybe God is pleased with the witness of Akin and Mourlock, as Jesus too lost his only election (to Barabbas). In THAT case Jesus intended to - going to the cross for us was his mission.
Pilate on the other hand, knew what was right to do, wanted to do it, but toyed around with
taking advantage of the situation for his own gain. His slyness backfired on him.
Sometimes there is a cost for being right. Pilate would not pay that price, which looked to be a riot.
In a way, the gentlemanly candidacies of Thomas E. Dewey, George H.W. Bush, and Mitt Romney all failed. So did Fritz Mondale’s and George Mc Govern’s. Maybe its like courting a bride. Nice guys DO finish last sometimes.
Obama was not nice. Elected twice.
Fear and negative campaigning WORKED! “Republicans are racist” is actually believed!
This time there were no tough PAC ads like the Swift Boat folks that sunk John Kerry.
In fact, the gentlemanly Romney/Ryan campaign eschewed the birthers, the Tea Party, barely acknowledged the “Religious Freedom” folks and made no bold “Contract With America”.
R&R DID go hard on the economy … sometimes. Then positive - “America will come roaring back!” And adopted a unity theme, even promising to “reach across the aisle”.
It appears appeals to special interest groups works better. And calling one’s opponents “anti-woman” or “too white” (meaning prejudiced) or against everything sensible from clean air to “health care” - in a thrilling high-emotion dudgeon apparently does too.
Maybe an angry campaign headed by a more calm gentleman or lady who calms the righteous anger with firm resolve and direction is the ticket. Reagan had a nice mix. Nixon won twice with Agnew as the “mean cop” … the second time in a landslide!
Principle FIRST though. Strategy next. “What does it profit a man … etc.” :yyeess:
AKIN:
“Legitmate rape” is a police term (meaning they must investigate the truth of an easily made claim) to find out if it was: a violent or coerced or statutory criminal act - or a case of “not prosecutable” claims that lack necessary evidence of violence, coercion, or statutory limits. Be it “rape” in reality or claims ranging from 'buyers remorse" to “possible blackmail” unto even “revenge” as in “rape case” referenced in “To Kill A Mockingbird”.
Akin answered a loaded question - and brought UP the fact that “in the case of rape or incest” the unborn child neither raped anyone nor committed the incest yet was sentenced to death informally and executed without a trial. He seemed to want to be gentle and assuring by referring to the theories of Dr. Dr. John C. Willke that posited the very trauma of a violent rape was not conducive to conception.
Akin overstated the matter and badly stated it - as even some famous pro-life spokespeople were conceived via a rape (through no fault of their own of course) that their mothers endured and yet gave birth to them later. Akin’s initial statement sounded as if such were impossible rather than just very unlikely.
What is more, the term “legitimate” when NOT used as a police term (and even when it IS used as just a police term!) next to the crime “rape” is a ghastly combination. Traumatic would have been better. Silence better than that … other than reiterate his defense of the innocent babies.
Mourlock, a Senate hopeful in Indiana, suggested during a debate that pregnancies that result from rape are “something that God intended to happen.”
Apparently so. But one must not say so, or be tricked into it, must one.
I was hoping they would both win anyway. But Romney won in both Akin’s state and Mourlock’s state - so they actually did his candidacy no damage locally in the electoral college. Unless one factors in votes lost elsewhere, like nearby states of Iowa, Ohio and Michigan which were close - or their own failed candidacies, which, had they won, would have made the Senate majority much closer than it will be coming in January.
