Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

GOP candidate: "God Intended" Pregnancies from RapeFollow

#1 Oct 24 2012 at 5:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
This seems to be a common view among GOP candidates these days...
Quote:
Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said pregnancies resulting from rape are part of God's plan, tearfully explaining that he only supports abortions when a mother's life is in danger.
"I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said during Tuesday's Senate debate, choking up. Mourdock's opponent, Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly, opposes abortion except in cases of rape and incest.

After the debate, Mourdock further explained his comment.

"Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don't think that," said Mourdock, according to The Associated Press. "Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that's not even close to what I said."


I did find it vexing however that the Democratic candidate also opposes abortion, although he adds "in the cases of rape and incest" to the mix. Of course, Romney has personally endorsed this guy running for office, which the Democrats helpfully pointed out:
Quote:
Democrats wasted no time linking GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney to Mourdock. Earlier this week, Romney personally appeared in a TV ad for the Indiana state treasurer, offering his endorsement.

"Richard Mourdock's rape comments are outrageous and demeaning to women. Unfortunately, they've become part and parcel of the modern Republican Party's platform toward women's health, as Congressional Republicans like Paul Ryan have worked to outlaw all abortions and even narrow the definition of rape," Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement released to press.

"As Mourdock's most prominent booster and the star of Mourdock's current campaign ads, Mitt Romney should immediately denounce these comments and request that the ad featuring him speaking directly to camera on Mourdock's behalf be taken off the air," she added.
...
The Obama campaign hit Romney on abortion soon after, releasing a TV ad of its own that features footage from a 2007 GOP presidential primary debate in which Romney said he would be "delighted" to sign a bill banning all abortions in the U.S.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#2 Oct 24 2012 at 5:59 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Non-story for me. I mean, this is a natural extension of the belief in an omnipotent, all-deciding god, right? Its the same as when someone dies, and folks say "it was part of god's plan."

It sounds crude, and I certainly disagree with it, but this isn't half as damning as it's made out to be.
#3 Oct 24 2012 at 6:19 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
I do find it amusing though that a GOP canidate can run on the platform that God intended Sally to get raped by her dad and get pregnant. I find it even more amusing that the general opinion about it around here is apathy. I guess there is only so many times before your drunk roommate running around the house naked brings not anger or hilarity but indifference.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#4 Oct 24 2012 at 6:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Saying that God intended the pregnancy but not the rape is a bit internally inconsistent. So if she didn't get raped, God's intentions were going to go unheeded? Or did God perk up during the rape and say "Yes! Chance for a baby! Bing!"

More pragmatically, Indiana is a much tighter senate race than expected and this could cinch it for Donnelly. The way the senate races are going this cycle, the Democrats may actually add seats when they were originally even money to lose control earlier this year.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 7:48am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Oct 24 2012 at 7:17 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Saying that God intended the pregnancy but not the rape is a bit internally inconsistent. So if she didn't get raped, God's intentions were going to go unheeded? Or did God perk up during the rape and say "Yes! Chance for a baby! Bing!"

I think I feel a song coming on...


____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#6 Oct 24 2012 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Criminy wrote:
I do find it amusing though that a GOP canidate can run on the platform that God intended Sally to get raped by her dad and get pregnant. I find it even more amusing that the general opinion about it around here is apathy. I guess there is only so many times before your drunk roommate running around the house naked brings not anger or hilarity but indifference.


What else are people who believe in an omnipotent, all-deciding god to believe?

People who believe in god either believe that he's in the thick of it, guiding every action in the world, or that he's relatively indifferent to all the bad stuff that happens (or that he's not all-powerful, but I don't think many subscribe to that one). Something has to explain why bad things happen to good people. It's one of the hardest thing to reconcile about religion.

It's either Sally got raped because god decided it, or Sally got raped because god didn't give a toss. Either one sounds awful when vocalized, but they're inherent beliefs for anyone who believes in god.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 9:51am by Eske
#7 Oct 24 2012 at 7:50 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bing!


This is oddly specific, but reading this reminded me of that one Friends episode where Chandler's boss started calling him by his last name and it caught on with the rest of the office.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#8 Oct 24 2012 at 8:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,826 posts
And to think, people like this are elected to represent us.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#9 Oct 24 2012 at 8:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
People who believe in god either believe that he's in the thick of it, guiding every action in the world, or that he's relatively indifferent to all the bad stuff that happens (or that he's not all-powerful, but I don't think many subscribe to that one). Something has to explain why bad things happen to good people. It's one of the hardest thing to reconcile about religion.

The standard argument would be that God is aware of what's going on but not making it happen (although he has that power and does use it as he wishes). Jesus says that God is aware when a sparrow falls, not that God individually crushes each tiny bird skull. Doing so would negate the premise of free will, sin and redemption.

Bad things happen to good people because that's life with free will. The promise of Christianity is that, although you're virtually guaranteed to find suffering in this life, your faith and actions (including how you react to the ills of the world) will reward you with a positive afterlife that lasts far longer than your time on Earth.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Oct 24 2012 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
People who believe in god either believe that he's in the thick of it, guiding every action in the world, or that he's relatively indifferent to all the bad stuff that happens (or that he's not all-powerful, but I don't think many subscribe to that one). Something has to explain why bad things happen to good people. It's one of the hardest thing to reconcile about religion.

The standard argument would be that God is aware of what's going on but not making it happen (although he has that power and does use it as he wishes). Jesus says that God is aware when a sparrow falls, not that God individually crushes each tiny bird skull. Doing so would negate the premise of free will, sin and redemption.

Bad things happen to good people because that's life with free will. The promise of Christianity is that, although you're virtually guaranteed to find suffering in this life, your faith and actions (including how you react to the ills of the world) will reward you with a positive afterlife that lasts far longer than your time on Earth.


Aye, the "watchmaker theory", right? But that's just one notion.

I'm far removed from the religious scene, but the impression I've got is that many, if not most, religious folks subscribe to the other theory, or some wishy-washy combination of the two. Athletes and actors thank god for their wins, not because they're thankful that he gave humanity free will and then walked away, but because they believe he played some active role in process. Many cite god for miracles, and for horrors visited on people that they don't like.

That's all just to say that it seems like this guy voiced a common belief, one that most people don't have issue with until it involves rape. Nobody cries foul when a child dies, and mourners comfort themselves by saying "I guess it was just God's will." But they're one and the same.
#11 Oct 24 2012 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,400 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Athletes and actors thank god for their wins, not because they're thankful that he gave humanity free will and then walked away, but because they believe he played some active role in process. that appearing humble will help their career.


FTFY

Also Mourdock has a few screws loose.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 7:56am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#12 Oct 24 2012 at 8:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I've no desire to get deep into the theological weeds here. The primary difference between your examples is that Mourdock is using this philosophy in a desire to restrict rape victims from seeking abortions. Words of gratitude after a win or comfort after a loss don't elicit the same introspection because they don't have the same consequences.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Oct 24 2012 at 9:17 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
What disgusts me is that it is meant to phrase the pregnancy as a gift from God. Like you should feel like you're a terrible person if you're unhappy that your rape resulted in a pregnancy.

Because, you know, it wasn't enough to say that, terrible situation or not, that fetus had a right to life. Now you have to attack the women for being victims and not rejoicing over it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#14 Oct 24 2012 at 9:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
If God has his role in everything, then God invented abortion and we ought to be using it.

On the other hand, if the devil possesses men (and women) to go out and commit atrocities, then the atrocities wasn't God's plan at all.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#15 Oct 24 2012 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I've no desire to get deep into the theological weeds here. The primary difference between your examples is that Mourdock is using this philosophy in a desire to restrict rape victims from seeking abortions. Words of gratitude after a win or comfort after a loss don't elicit the same introspection because they don't have the same consequences.


A fair point. I think things get dicey after putting forth belief that "life begins after conception" - it's a belief that could come from non-religious thinking, even though Mourdock definitely seems to get to it through religion. He may be using religious means to drive his policy, but the end result is something that some non-religious people believe too (that life begins at conception). His policy is no more offensive to me than an anti-abortion position that's steeped in non-religious rhetoric.

And as previously mentioned, I don't think that his assertion is demeaning, as it's in line with a widely-accepted belief system. So logically, I don't think there's any reason to be offended. I understand why there's a different reaction between what he said and, per my example, what an athlete or actor says when they invoke god. But I don't think that reaction is based on logic: I think it's too emotional, and prone to misconstruing his words into something more like "Rape pregnancy is a good thing, because God."

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 11:41am by Eske
#16 Oct 24 2012 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
I disagree--I do think the assertion is demeaning at its core. Not necessarily because of what he said outright, but because of what his claims also logically says.

I don't believe he's saying that pregnancy via rape is a good thing.

What I do think he's doing is completely disenfranchising the women who actually face this situation. He's telling those women that the fact that they are pregnant is a good thing--God ordained that they would bring life into the world. What God ordains is fundamentally good, and rebelling against god is sin.

What he's done is taken away the right of a rape victim to curse her own circumstances. He's said to them that they have the right to lament the rape, but not the baby. Even worse, his comments completely ignore the 9 months of **** (not to mention any other long-term emotional stressers from knowing a child exists that is half yours and half your rapists).

He's completely taken away their right to judge their own situation according to their own faculties. That's fundamentally demeaning.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#17 Oct 24 2012 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
And as previously mentioned, I don't think that his assertion is demeaning, as it's in line with a widely-accepted belief system. So logically, I don't think there's any reason to be offended. I understand why there's a different reaction between what he said and, per my example, what an athlete or actor says when they invoke god. But I don't think that reaction is based on logic: I think it's too emotional, and prone to misconstruing his words into something more like "Rape pregnancy is a good thing, because God."

I don't necessarily agree with this but, without arguing it, I'll just point out that...
Quote:
But I don't think that reaction is based on logic: I think it's too emotional, and prone to misconstruing his words into something more like "Rape pregnancy is a good thing, because God."
...alone made it a profoundly stupid thing to say in the political arena. "It's just logical" won't mitigate the political damage in a tight senate race.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Oct 24 2012 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
But I don't think that reaction is based on logic: I think it's too emotional, and prone to misconstruing his words into something more like "Rape pregnancy is a good thing, because God."
...alone made it a profoundly stupid thing to say in the political arena. "It's just logical" won't mitigate the political damage in a tight senate race.


I can certainly agree to that.

idigorry wrote:
I disagree--I do think the assertion is demeaning at its core. Not necessarily because of what he said outright, but because of what his claims also logically says.

I don't believe he's saying that pregnancy via rape is a good thing.

What I do think he's doing is completely disenfranchising the women who actually face this situation. He's telling those women that the fact that they are pregnant is a good thing--God ordained that they would bring life into the world. What God ordains is fundamentally good, and rebelling against god is sin.

What he's done is taken away the right of a rape victim to curse her own circumstances. He's said to them that they have the right to lament the rape, but not the baby. Even worse, his comments completely ignore the 9 months of **** (not to mention any other long-term emotional stressers from knowing a child exists that is half yours and half your rapists).

He's completely taken away their right to judge their own situation according to their own faculties. That's fundamentally demeaning.


I'm not so sure of that. His statement specifically addresses whether or not abortion should be allowed, irrespective of other feelings; any conjecture about his opinion on what women can lament is unsubstantiated by his words.

Folks like this couch their thoughts in the preciousness of "life". To them, it overrules the impact on the woman, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're wholly indifferent to her. Foremost, they want the child to be born, and thereafter, to be loved.

That's cognitive dissonance, perhaps. But I don't think it's demeaning.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 12:29pm by Eske
#19 Oct 24 2012 at 10:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,400 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Folks like this couch their thoughts in the preciousness of "life". To them, it overrules the impact on the woman, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're wholly indifferent to her. Foremost, they want the child to be born, and thereafter, to be loved.

That's cognitive dissonance, perhaps. But I don't think it's demeaning.


I have no problem with the 'preciousness of life' aspect, but I think it's demeaning because they aren't allowing the victim come to that conclusion (or not come to that conclusion) on her own.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#20 Oct 24 2012 at 10:41 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Folks like this couch their thoughts in the preciousness of "life". To them, it overrules the impact on the woman, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're wholly indifferent to her. Foremost, they want the child to be born, and thereafter, to be loved.

That's cognitive dissonance, perhaps. But I don't think it's demeaning.


I have no problem with the 'preciousness of life' aspect, but I think it's demeaning because they aren't allowing the victim come to that conclusion (or not come to that conclusion) on her own.


To them it's a life. Why would they leave the conclusion up to an individual? In their mind, abortion is a death, and it's the responsibility of the government to prevent needless death through legislation, where possible.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 12:42pm by Eske
#21 Oct 24 2012 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Folks like this couch their thoughts in the preciousness of "life". To them, it overrules the impact on the woman, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're wholly indifferent to her. Foremost, they want the child to be born, and thereafter, to be loved.

That's cognitive dissonance, perhaps. But I don't think it's demeaning.


I have no problem with the 'preciousness of life' aspect, but I think it's demeaning because they aren't allowing the victim come to that conclusion (or not come to that conclusion) on her own.


This is kinda what I was feeling.

You can ground the evil of a rape in free will, and so take the blame of it away from God (assuming you accept that the problem of evil has an answer, which you must if you believe in a Christian definition of God). But what Mourdock is saying is that the child resulting from a rape is intended.

If it's a sin to curse God and his works, then that means it would be a sin to curse the pregnancy and your current situation. Saying that things are the way God intended is the same as saying you have no right to them being otherwise--that to NOT be pregnant* would be evil.

And I think there's an important distinction here that really speaks to the point I'm trying to make. This isn't just about abortion, which would be going against God's will. This is something fundamental to the existence of the pregnancy in the first place. Namely, it's saying that it would have been a perversion of the world for this state of affairs not to have come about. If you had just been raped, without the additional emotional baggage, it would have been more evil than being raped and ending up pregnant.

I think that's incredibly demeaning.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#22 Oct 24 2012 at 10:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,400 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Folks like this couch their thoughts in the preciousness of "life". To them, it overrules the impact on the woman, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're wholly indifferent to her. Foremost, they want the child to be born, and thereafter, to be loved.

That's cognitive dissonance, perhaps. But I don't think it's demeaning.


I have no problem with the 'preciousness of life' aspect, but I think it's demeaning because they aren't allowing the victim come to that conclusion (or not come to that conclusion) on her own.


To them it's a life. Why would they leave the conclusion up to an individual? In their mind, abortion is a death, and it's the responsibility of the government to prevent needless death through legislation, where possible.


The minute they put a ban on research involving any human cell line I can at least give them kudos for being consistent. Until then they simply seem to be obsessed with one form of human life and negligent of another; in my mind at least. Making me suspect it's more about control than any sort of real regard for human life. The minute human life can be sacrificed to save them from cancer or something it suddenly becomes more kosher to kill somehow.

Honestly, if some of those people were aware of half of what we do... *shudder*

Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 10:12am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#23 Oct 24 2012 at 11:05 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,826 posts
All life is sacred until it leaves the womb and again when it's old enough to vote.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 1:05pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#24 Oct 24 2012 at 11:51 AM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,342 posts
Wait. I thought real rape never results in a baby? Gosh, that darn ol' GOP has me all confused again.Smiley: frown
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#25 Oct 24 2012 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
If God wants to gift me with a baby so **** much, He can leave it in a basket on my doorstep instead of sending a rapist to deliver it.

Plus, that way I don't have to wait nine months to open the present!
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#26 Oct 24 2012 at 1:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Or shoot it over to you via reed-filled river bank in a basket.

Have you even BEEN to a river bank recently? Your child is probably seven by now!

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 2:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)