Mourdock - God at work when rape leads to pregnancy

[antigoon]

I'm not saying "the other side" doesn't do this, too, but it's just such a sideshow. We're blowing up men, women and children with robot planes halfway across the world and this is what warrants discussion?

I can agree with you on that, but here's another question: if someone thinks rapes are intended by God, then what will their foreign policy be? I'm personally not very comfortable with someone deciding who to bomb and when based upon their religious beliefs. There is a frightening fundamentalist Christian section of our society who thinks the end of times are near.

I don't really think any of those kind of people are in place to occupy the types of positions within the executive branch that would allow them to exert that kind of power.

[Rathma]

The moral of this story is to not bring God into politics, even if you're talking about your opinion. I agree with kirksnosehair that this is "gotcha" politics but this guy deserves it for using God to make a political point.

[Ben_Jamin]

I understand what Kirknosehair is saying.

The way the conception was played is messed up, but it still could be God at Work, testing peoples compassion and value of life. I'm not saying the Rape is Gods Will, but the effects very well could be. The devil acted and now the victim has to choose if she'll accept it and forgive by raising the child right, or deny it a right to live.

[theseoafs]

I understand what Kirknosehair is saying.

The way the conception was played is messed up, but it still could be God at Work, testing peoples compassion and value of life. I'm not saying the Rape is Gods Will, but the effects very well could be. The devil acted and now the victim has to choose if she'll accept it and forgive by raising the child right, or deny it a right to live.

So if a person is raped, it's godly to just accept it?  All women are sinners unless they accept all of their rapes and put their lives on hold to raise the children who will grow up to have the faces of their rapists?

[soundgarden]

Or god could just get rid of the devil and end evil....

[bosk1]

Eventually. But it's not time yet.

[soundgarden]

So you are telling me all my deals with the devil are going to be null one day?

...wtf

[bosk1]

Sorry, man.  I don't make the rules...

[Perpetual Change]

I'm getting pretty tired of being blasted by this story. Do I think women should have the option to get abortions after rape? Maybe, but maybe not, considering all the other technology out there, like the morning after pill. Do I think that women who've waited until like the 2nd or 3rd trimester should have a choice? Definitely not.   

I'm getting really tired of the media just pretending that abortion without limits is like some fundamental right. And, it's pretty amusing how the Obama campaign is now pretty much saying, "Yeah, we don't have that much to offer, but you'd better vote for us or the other guys are gonna take abortions away!"

[eric42434224]

I wish Trump was aborted.  What a waste of breathable air.

[ReaPsTA]

I'm getting pretty tired of being blasted by this story. Do I think women should have the option to get abortions after rape? Maybe, but maybe not, considering all the other technology out there, like the morning after pill. Do I think that woman who've waited until like the 2nd or 3rd trimester should have a choice? No, I don't.   

I'm getting really tired of the media just pretending that abortion without limits is like some fundamental right. And, it's pretty amusing how the Obama campaign is now pretty much saying, "Yeah, we don't have that much to offer, but you'd better vote for us or the other guys are gonna take abortions away!"

I agree with parts of this, and I don't do a lot of bra burning, but...

When Mourdock says something like this, it's very revealing.  Like, okay.  I'm totally against any sort of partial birth abortion unless it's a real life threatening medical emergency.  I think that any woman who would want one is either profoundly stupid or possibly mentally damaged in some way.  Any "doctor" who can perform one is a horrible evil monster.

I think potentially even limiting abortions to only the first months or so of pregnancy - before the mass of cells actually starts to vaguely resemble anything human - might be smart.  Don't know.  Just throwing it out there.

But like, the moment you say a woman who is raped can't have an abortion.  And then you try to justify it, you've crossed a truly insane line morally.  At that point, human beings aren't living breathing people to you.  They're just intellectual abstractions to be discussed and judged in a way that serves you.

One of the biggest problems with society is how we looks at drug users like they're all Tyrone Biggums.  How liberals look at gun owners like crazed lunatics just itching to kill someone.  How conservatives view everyone who has trouble paying for healthcare like they're leeches who would be best disregarded by the system.

Explain to me how someone can view a fetus as more a human life than the woman who is both carrying the fetus and will then have to raise it.  This is literally insane to me.

Mourdock is the kind of person who makes me wonder if the first amendment was a mistake.

Again, I agree with you in a lot of senses.  The pro-choice side has kinda gone to a weird place.  It's strange reading pro-choice news articles and opinion and noticing that the zygote/fetus/whatever is mentioned only in the most abstract terms if at all.  The narratives surrounding Mourdock are all too convenient for them.  Of course they're going to ride the story as hard as possible.

But people like Mourdock are legitimately evil. 

[kirksnosehair]

I'm getting pretty tired of being blasted by this story. Do I think women should have the option to get abortions after rape? Maybe, but maybe not, considering all the other technology out there, like the morning after pill. Do I think that women who've waited until like the 2nd or 3rd trimester should have a choice? Definitely not.   

I'm getting really tired of the media just pretending that abortion without limits is like some fundamental right. And, it's pretty amusing how the Obama campaign is now pretty much saying, "Yeah, we don't have that much to offer, but you'd better vote for us or the other guys are gonna take abortions away!"

nah, what's really amusing is the fact that the Republican party makes no allowances whatsoever in their platform for rape, incest or the life of the mother.  Their platform is no abortion, ever, under any circumstances of any kind.  Period.    But wait, there's more!  And here's where it gets really REALLY amusing! 


Meanwhile, the guy that's running as Mitt Romney's running mate, who wants to be one breath away from the presidency, sponsored The Sanctity of Human Life Act, which, among other things, criminalizes In Vitro Fertilization - you know that process that Mitt Romney's son and daughter-in-law recently used to produce Romney's two grandchildren.


So, under the policies that Mitt Romney's running mate sponsored, Tagg Romney and his wife would be criminals!  Isn't that special? 

[theseoafs]

I'm getting really tired of the media just pretending that abortion without limits is like some fundamental right.

For the record, no one that I've ever heard of is arguing for the legalization of abortion "without limits".  Per Roe v. Wade, third trimester abortions are flat-out illegal, and I've never heard anybody argue that we should change that.  As far as I'm concerned, there should always be -- and probably will always be -- limits on abortion.

Maybe, but maybe not, considering all the other technology out there, like the morning after pill.

Women who've just been raped are never in the right kind of psychological condition to mosey over to the drugstore to pick up emergency contraception.

[KevShmev]

  As far as I'm concerned, there should always be -- and probably will always be -- limits on abortion.

Agreed. 

As for Mourdock, regardless of what he really meant, he is an idiot for saying it in a debate. 

Colbert's take on this the other night was awesomely hilarious:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420541/october-24-2012/richard-mourdock-s-rape-comment

[Perpetual Change]

Women who've just been raped are never in the right kind of psychological condition to mosey over to the drugstore to pick up emergency contraception.

Yeah, I've heard that, and I get it. But, if we're talking about women's right to chose, at which point after a rape is a women psychologically prepared to make a choice for herself and the child she is carrying?

[kirksnosehair]

Women who've just been raped are never in the right kind of psychological condition to mosey over to the drugstore to pick up emergency contraception.

Yeah, I've heard that, and I get it. But, if we're talking about women's right to chose, at which point after a rape is a women psychologically prepared to make a choice for herself and the child she is carrying?

At the point that she says she's ready.

[Perpetual Change]

Sorry, kirk. Could you make your font bigger, and add a little bit more bold and italics in? I'm having trouble figuring out what your point is.

[Perpetual Change]

And seriously, I get the point. Mourdock holds an extreme view. But, that doesn't make it any better than the Obama campaign is hammering this in so desperately like it's the only issue that matters right now. Though I'm mostly pro-life, I left the Republican party because I didn't want to be a one issue voter, and I was sick of the self-righteous "angry conservative" media. And now, here I am: Listening to MSNBC about why you need to vote for Obama no matter what, even if you don't really like the job he's doing, because abortion rights. While kirksnosehair screams at me through a computer monitor.

[kirksnosehair]

You may want to try ramping down the hyperbole a notch, friend.  I'm not screaming.  I'm perfectly calm.  Italics and bold used for emphasis because..um...emphasis.  And your perception about the Obama campaign is....frankly...odd.  Social issues have played a very small role in this election.  So, I don't know where you're getting all this abortion stuff from.   As for me, I'm a registered Democrat and yes, I am voting for my party's candidate for president.  Proudly. 

[bosk1]

I'm a registered Democrat and yes, I am voting for my party's candidate for president.  Proudly. 

But we still think you're an okay guy, and we don't hold those character flaws against you, Barry.

[kirksnosehair]

 

[Perpetual Change]

Um, okay, but I don't really see how I could ramp my own posts down. Then again, I'm not the one calling the opposing opinion really REALLY amusing!

I've had MSNBC on off in the background all morning, and it was on last night too. They have talked about nothing but Mourdock every time I've listened in. It's truly ridiculous. The only case Barack Obama has to make for a second term is scaring people about what a Mitt Romney term might mean. He didn't have to scare people to beat John McCain.

He's lost my support. Sorry. 

[kirksnosehair]

I'm not sure you read my post correctly.  I wasn't talking about opposing OPINION.  I was talking about their platform.  Their official platform.  And what I found really, REALLY amusing was the fact that Romney's running mate sponsored a bill that would literally make Romney's son a criminal.  Come on, that's good stuff right there 

[Cool Chris]

The only case Barack Obama has to make for a second term is scaring people about what a Mitt Romney term might mean.

For lots of people, that thought is pretty scary. For lots of others, it is a preference for the devil we know - just like in 2004.

[kirksnosehair]

It's a valid case and a valid election strategy that's been used by presidential candidates for decades.    And it's HARDLY the "only" case Obama has to make.  That's pure hyperbole. 

[Scheavo]

Do I think women should have the option to get abortions after rape? Maybe, but maybe not, considering all the other technology out there, like the morning after pill. Do I think that women who've waited until like the 2nd or 3rd trimester should have a choice? Definitely not.   

The morning after pill is basically a form of abortion, and if Republicans had their say, the morning after pill would be illegal. So would birth control pills, because they work in very similar ways. Your statements make me think you're not truly informed about the pregnancy process and what Republicans are actually proposing. They want a fetus to be a full human being, with all the rights of a human being. That would mean that if a women were to have a miscarraige - a very common thing, and something which often happens against the womans will - then the government would logically be required to investigate the matter, and possibly file manslaughter or murder charges.

I think potentially even limiting abortions to only the first months or so of pregnancy - before the mass of cells actually starts to vaguely resemble anything human - might be smart.  Don't know.  Just throwing it out there.

The problem with this, for me, is that this is pretty much the time frame for a woman to know she's pregnant. Some women may suspect something sooner, and find out, but for many others, they won't know for a good 2-4 weeks, some longer, and then you have to allow for some time for the woman to go over her options. And if she was raped (here I think you'll agree with me), she may a lot of trauma to go through first before she finds out she's pregnant, etc.

How liberals look at gun owners like crazed lunatics just itching to kill someone.
[/quote

Uhh... no? That's how conservatives paint liberals, but that's not really the liberal position.

The only case Barack Obama has to make for a second term is scaring people about what a Mitt Romney term might mean.

That's been a part of his strategy, because quite honestly, if you look at what Mitt Romney is proposing, you should be concerned. Collin Powell said it the other day, Romney is surrounding himself with neo-cons and doesn't seem to have much interest in foreign policy, at all. Do you really wnat the same people back in charge of foreign policy who invaded Iraq?

Besides, if you don't know what Obama has proposed for a second term of what an Obama second term would mean, it means you're not educating yourself. Maybe the problem is you're watching MSNBC, and equating that with Obama's platform? Obama's running, one, on his record, and on continuing that record. That's something you can easily educate yourself on. Go watch the 2nd debate again, because Obama laid out several things (at least as much as Romney) on what he would do specifically.

[Perpetual Change]

It's a valid case and a valid election strategy that's been used by presidential candidates for decades.    And it's HARDLY the "only" case Obama has to make.  That's pure hyperbole. 

It may be valid, but it's certainly not something I look for in a candidate. I voted for Barack Obama over John McCain because, while Barack Obama wanted me to be optimistic about the future, John McCain just wanted to use all sorts of nonsense scare me about Barack Obama. I can't say I really feel the same about Obama vs. Romney. In fact, I may feel the exact opposite.

They want a fetus to be a full human being, with all the rights of a human being. That would mean that if a women were to have a miscarraige - a very common thing, and something which often happens against the womans will - then the government would logically be required to investigate the matter, and possibly file manslaughter or murder charges.

The latter half of this statement is absolutely ridiculous to me. Where have you seen any evidence of a Republican saying they want the government to go around investigating miscarriages? Otherwise, nowhere near all Republicans are against the morning after pill. That's just an extreme wing of the party.

That's been a part of his strategy, because quite honestly, if you look at what Mitt Romney is proposing, you should be concerned. Collin Powell said it the other day, Romney is surrounding himself with neo-cons and doesn't seem to have much interest in foreign policy, at all. Do you really wnat the same people back in charge of foreign policy who invaded Iraq?

Honestly, I had no idea the Neocons left.

Besides, if you don't know what Obama has proposed for a second term of what an Obama second term would mean, it means you're not educating yourself. Maybe the problem is you're watching MSNBC, and equating that with Obama's platform? Obama's running, one, on his record, and on continuing that record. That's something you can easily educate yourself on. Go watch the 2nd debate again, because Obama laid out several things (at least as much as Romney) on what he would do specifically.

I watched all three debates. I'm educating myself fine. I don't like the general attitude and emphasis his campaign has taken. And it's not just MSNBC. Just today, I posted something about wanting to vote third party on my Facebook wall, and a friend replied by essentially guilting me about not sticking up for women's rights. Candidates and their parties should offer their constituency more than just fear-mongering and guilt. Obama's not doing that for me anymore. And, because I don't even live in a battleground state, I don't see why I shouldn't just vote for a third party.

[Scheavo]

They want a fetus to be a full human being, with all the rights of a human being. That would mean that if a women were to have a miscarraige - a very common thing, and something which often happens against the womans will - then the government would logically be required to investigate the matter, and possibly file manslaughter or murder charges.

The latter half of this statement is absolutely ridiculous to me. Where have you seen any evidence of a Republican saying they want the government to go around investigating miscarriages? Otherwise, nowhere near all Republicans are against the morning after pill. That's just an extreme wing of the party.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/01/494058/stearns-abortion-criminal/?mobile=nc

This may not be what the standard voting Republican thinks, but what the Republicans in power are proposing these drastic measures.

Oh, and it's a direct legal repercussion of defining an embryo as human life. Notice how often Republicans and extreme Conservatives call abortion murder? Do you think they don't stand by those statements? If an embryo is human life, and killing an embryo is murder, than an embryo dying is murder, and should require an investigation. Or should we not investigate what is legally defined as murder? What's to stop a women from getting an abortion, and claiming a miscarriage?

The problem that you're ignoring is that the extreme wing of the party has taken over on this issue. The official Republican party platform is extreme, and you can't just ignore that.

That's been a part of his strategy, because quite honestly, if you look at what Mitt Romney is proposing, you should be concerned. Collin Powell said it the other day, Romney is surrounding himself with neo-cons and doesn't seem to have much interest in foreign policy, at all. Do you really wnat the same people back in charge of foreign policy who invaded Iraq?

Honestly, I had no idea the Neocons left.

Obama has adopted several of their policy, but he also inherited their problems. He has made several significant changes to their foreign policy, and has signaled a massive difference for the future than what neo-cons are currently proposing.

Besides, if you don't know what Obama has proposed for a second term of what an Obama second term would mean, it means you're not educating yourself. Maybe the problem is you're watching MSNBC, and equating that with Obama's platform? Obama's running, one, on his record, and on continuing that record. That's something you can easily educate yourself on. Go watch the 2nd debate again, because Obama laid out several things (at least as much as Romney) on what he would do specifically.

I watched all three debates. I'm educating myself fine. I don't like the general attitude and emphasis his campaign has taken. And it's not just MSNBC. Just today, I posted something about wanting to vote third party on my Facebook wall, and a friend replied by essentially guilting me about not sticking up for women's rights. Candidates and their parties should offer their constituency more than just fear-mongering and guilt. Obama's not doing that for me anymore. And, because I don't even live in a battleground state, I don't see why I shouldn't just vote for a third party.

I'm sorry some people are stupid enough to equate wanting to vote for a third party as not caring for women's rights. However, if you vote for Romney, you are voting for a platform that defines an embryo has human life, making the birth control illegal, making in vitro fertilization illegal, making some forms of stem cell research illegal, and making any form of abortion - with no exceptions, not even for the life of the mother - illegal. That is what Republicans are proposing.

[bosk1]

Scheavo, despite some problems I have had with your posting in P/R in the past, since the time we tightened up the rules and made that known, I feel like your posting style has improved drastically, mainly because you have argued just as passionately without resorting to insulting overgeneralizations.  But a couple of places in your recent posts have slipped back into that realm.  For example:

I'm sorry some people are stupid enough to equate wanting to vote for a third party as not caring for women's rights.

Your statements make me think you're not truly informed about the pregnancy process and what Republicans are actually proposing.

You could easily have reworded your post to make the same points just as forcefully without wording them in a way that is insulting and likely to only lead to putting someone on the defensive.  I want this forum to be better than that, so please made a better effort to debate the issues without the indirect barbs that may likely to escalate into personal attacks.  Remember:  It's not necessarily what you say, but how you say it.

[Scheavo]

Hmm, I was actually defending PC in that first remark, but point taken.

As for the second quote, if someone says something that is factually incorrect, how do you voice that within the rules? If I were to theoretically say some things that are extremely wrong about what Christianity is, are you not allowed to correct me that I'm not talking about the matter correctly?

[bosk1]

As for the second quote, if someone says something that is factually incorrect, how do you voice that within the rules? If I were to theoretically say some things that are extremely wrong about what Christianity is, are you not allowed to correct me that I'm not talking about the matter correctly?

You can say that they are mistaken and then politely correct them rather than accusing them of being uninformed, which I think the rest of your post did.  But, again, including an accusation like that is just likely to put the person on the defensive personally and just escalate into an area that is no longer about productive discussion. 

[Chino]

So if God has the power to get a raped woman pregnant... Why on Earth would he inpregnate a woman who will end up aborting it?

[Rathma]

So if God has the power to get a raped woman pregnant... Why on Earth would he inpregnate a woman who will end up aborting it?

atheistthoughts

[Perpetual Change]

The problem that you're ignoring is that the extreme wing of the party has taken over on this issue. The official Republican party platform is extreme, and you can't just ignore that.

Okay, but by that same logic, the Democratic Party platform is extreme in that it allows partial birth abortions, which I find even more reprehensible that the potential consequences of not allowing abortion after rape.

It's not a choice between two extremes, unlike what both parties want you to believe. Most Republicans support abortion under some special circumstances despite what the party platform says, and I've read that somewhere around 2/3rds of Democrats think there should be some limits on abortions, despite the official platform being silent on that. And, if I'm being completely honest, I find the Republican stance on the issue (extreme cautiousness toward any abortion whatsoever) to be much more palatable than the Democratic stance (increasing potential for abortions is a political strategy).

Obama has adopted several of their policy, but he also inherited their problems. He has made several significant changes to their foreign policy, and has signaled a massive difference for the future than what neo-cons are currently proposing.

Kinda "just met the new boss, same as the old boss" to me. Was talking with a friend yesterday who showed me this. Sorry, but it's not just the policy, but the entire philosophy that more-or-less governs both parties on war that I simply can not accept very warmly.

However, if you vote for Romney, you are voting for a platform that defines an embryo has human life, making the birth control illegal, making in vitro fertilization illegal, making some forms of stem cell research illegal, and making any form of abortion - with no exceptions, not even for the life of the mother - illegal. That is what Republicans are proposing.

I'm not sure how the bolded statement could be construed as incorrect. And, even though an embryo is a human life, I'm not sure why that should make birth control or in vitro fertilization illegal. I'm not sure at all why it has to be one extreme or the other. 

[Scheavo]

The problem that you're ignoring is that the extreme wing of the party has taken over on this issue. The official Republican party platform is extreme, and you can't just ignore that.

Okay, but by that same logic, the Democratic Party platform is extreme in that it allows partial birth abortions, which I find even more reprehensible that the potential consequences of not allowing abortion after rape.

It's not a choice between two extremes, unlike what both parties want you to believe. Most Republicans support abortion under some special circumstances despite what the party platform says, and I've read that somewhere around 2/3rds of Democrats think there should be some limits on abortions, despite the official platform being silent on that. And, if I'm being completely honest, I find the Republican stance on the issue (extreme cautiousness toward any abortion whatsoever) to be much more palatable than the Democratic stance (increasing potential for abortions is a political strategy).

Interesting, I had not heard about that. My one question would be what the Democrats meant by "legal." Considering partial birth abortions are already illegal, it could very well be that they meant to keep it that way, and they simply worded it very poorly to try and highlight their difference with the Republican party platform.

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.

I can't come up with another explanation for why the word "legal" finds itself in that paragraph, it struck me as odd when I read it.

Obama has adopted several of their policy, but he also inherited their problems. He has made several significant changes to their foreign policy, and has signaled a massive difference for the future than what neo-cons are currently proposing.

Kinda "just met the new boss, same as the old boss" to me. Was talking with a friend yesterday who showed mehttp://www.emptywheel.net/2012/10/25/the-moral-rectitude-assassination-czar/]this[/url]. Sorry, but it's not just the policy, but the entire philosophy that more-or-less governs both parties on war that I simply can not accept very warmly.

The problem I have with this is that the people are basically indicting war, but not making that clear in their argument. They talk about the evils of war, but they never once discuss the merits of War. Basically, the argument is very poorly defined, and personally, I find it somewhat naive. War is an ugly, ugly business, one which for the most part I never support, but when in War, I don't see what good it is to point out that War is ugly.

However, if you vote for Romney, you are voting for a platform that defines an embryo has human life, making the birth control illegal, making in vitro fertilization illegal, making some forms of stem  is[/i] what Republicans are proposing.

I'm not sure how the bolded statement could be construed as incorrect. And, even though an embryo is a human life, I'm not sure why that should make birth control or in vitro fertilization illegal. I'm not sure at all why it has to be one extreme or the other.

Because one effect of the pill is to (try) to prevent an embryo from attaching itself to the side of the uterus, which prevents pregnancy. But if an embryo is now a human life, that means this act is now legally defined as murder.

In vitro fertilization works by fertilizing eggs to make embryo's outside the womb, and than implanting those embryo's in the women in the hopes that they attach themselves to the wall of the uterus. However, many of the embryo's are not used, destroyed, or do not survive the process. This is intentional. But under these new definitions, that is now murder and the killing of human life.