I can't get over the story that started when Indiana senate hopeful Richard Mourdock stated that a pregnancy resulting from a rape is Gods intention. Psychos like that are a rare breed, but unnerving none the less.The fact that Romney still supports him is a disappointment too.

It's nuts and on most networks has bumped Libya.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't get over the story that started when Indiana senate hopeful Richard Mourdock stated that a pregnancy resulting from a rape is Gods intention. Psychos like that are a rare breed, but unnerving none the less.The fact that Romney still supports him is a disappointment too.

Agree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't get over the story that started when Indiana senate hopeful Richard Mourdock stated that a pregnancy resulting from a rape is Gods intention. Psychos like that are a rare breed, but unnerving none the less.The fact that Romney still supports him is a disappointment too.

Those that don't believe there is such a thing as God or a god would view ANY statement about God's intention as ridiculous. Those of you who believe in God, or some type of Creator or intelligent designer, or even in nature and its evolution--what do you believe is the intended biological consequence of rape? Is the deposit of sperm as a result of rape supposed to result in something other than pregnancy? Is it psychotic to believe that the semen of a rapist is intended to produce pregnancy? Does your God, or Creator, or view of nature, see the fetus as being a different "product" than the fetus derived from consentual sex?

In their deepest and most honest beliefs, all candidates have personal views that are repugnant to the opposition. What is important in our political milieu are the policies that can be effected. If most people view a politician's personal views on a given subject stupid, the chances of policies being passed that support that view are slim to none in a society that adheres to the original U.S. Constitution. A centralized form of government which is not limited by that Constitution, however, can make legislation against the will of the people. So I prefer a politician, who may have what many consider to be quirky personal views, but supports the Consititution, far more than an opponent who believes the Constitution is irrelevant and prefers an all-powerful central government.

There are some real tool bags out there
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The statement is bull and callous. There is no place for religion in politics By the way Romney did not support him he has an ad endorsing Romney
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

insane and unfortunately reinforces many of the stereotypes of repubs

insane and unfortunately reinforces many of the stereotypes of repubs

exactly

The statement is bull and callous. There is no place for religion in politics By the way Romney did not support him he has an ad endorsing Romney
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What has a place in politics? Does social control over individual beliefs have a place? Does freedom of individual belief have a place? It seems that the world's history of politics has given a place in it for anything human, including a range from anarchy to total suppression. American politics seems to have given individuals a place to believe as they wish--so long as what they wish does not become a tyrannical majority over those who wish to believe differently.

what perfect candidate does Indiana have in the Senate race? Is there somone who perfectly fits what there is a place in politics according to your or "America's" version of what politics should be? If not, wouldn't you pick the one that most does so? That's your choice, but if you choose to pick the one who most denies your individual freedom because the other holds a belief that offends you, then you will have chosen a statist who will rule you in more constrictive ways than American tradition would allow.

insane

Really? What do you believe the intended biological consequence of rape is? It could be herpes. But that could also be a consequence of consentual sex. It could be pregnancy. But that could also be a consequence of consentsual sex. So what were God's, or nature's, or biology's intended consequences? It would seem that pregnancy, or venereal disease, or what ever biological "side" effects that might occur are the same for rape or consentual sex. So why is it insane to say, if you believe in God, that it was God's intention? [QUOTE] and unfortunately reinforces many of the stereotypes of repubs

How many stereotypes does it reinforce? Is it even a stereotype? Isn't the reinforcement an obvious concoction of those who wish to defeat repubs by making them all to be the same in every, including unpopular or presumably unacceptable ways? Is the best way to govern, doing so by dissembling, carefully creating public images that fit politically correct models. If we all must fit those models would such a society be worth living in? Would God, or the intelligent designer, or evolutionary nature even allow it?

Was he saying that the act of rape was God's intention, or the resulting biological fusion of genetic material into a fetus?
Maybe a little more clarity could shed a little more light on this person's belief.

Was he saying that the act of rape was God's intention, or the resulting biological fusion of genetic material into a fetus?
Maybe a little more clarity could shed a little more light on this person's belief.

Excellent point.

The total context of the discussion that led to his statement would help, including why he even made the statement. If it was the result of being asked a question, what was the question? And did he say more that was not in the link.

He did say, according to the link, that "even when life begins with that horrible situation of rape, that is something that god intended." It sounds to me that by referring to rape as a "horrible situation", that what God intended was the life beginning, not the "horrible situation". He did make apologies later for being misinterpreted.

What has a place in politics? Does social control over individual beliefs have a place? Does freedom of individual belief have a place? It seems that the world's history of politics has given a place in it for anything human, including a range from anarchy to total suppression. American politics seems to have given individuals a place to believe as they wish--so long as what they wish does not become a tyrannical majority over those who wish to believe differently.

what perfect candidate does Indiana have in the Senate race? Is there somone who perfectly fits what there is a place in politics according to your or "America's" version of what politics should be? If not, wouldn't you pick the one that most does so? That's your choice, but if you choose to pick the one who most denies your individual freedom because the other holds a belief that offends you, then you will have chosen a statist who will rule you in more constrictive ways than American tradition would allow.

There is no place in politics for one to impose legislation or their beliefs on others.
Granted legislators have freedom to believe what they want. If there views/beliefs religious or otherwise impede on their ability to represent their constituency then they do not belong in office and the constituency has the ability to vote them out or in this case not vote the individual in. Plain and simple

Intermingling beliefs such as his with legislative policy alienates a vast majority of our citizens therefore defeating the purpose of representation. A representative is an extension of his constituency in the purest form. If his constituency is 60% pro life in all forms then he wins. I honestly do not believe there is a single district in the US that would qualify as such but I could be wrong.

I wonder if anyone asked him if he had a daughter would he still feel the same?

I did grow up with a girl who was conceived in the manner he describes. Her mother in my eyes is an extremely strong woman. I can not imagine going through the pain of being raped then finding yourself pregnant and carrying the child to term and raising her all the while knowing she was a product of such a violent invasion of your life. She was raised lovingly and cared for like any other mother would have cared for a child. Incredible strength to do that. I can not say I would have wanted the same for my daughter or sisters had they been out in her shoes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By the way Romney did not support him he has an ad endorsing Romney
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Romney, who has endorsed Mourdock, recently appeared in a TV ad on his behalf. According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG), as of yesterday morning, the ad had aired 102 times in Indiana over the past week. Both Romney and Ryan have stumped with the Senate candidate in recent months."

Romney campaign stands by Mourdock - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57539436/romney-campaign-stands-by-mourdock/)

insane and unfortunately reinforces many of the stereotypes of repubs

You are correct these are the sound bytes the Maddows of the world live for
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are correct these are the sound bytes the Maddows of the world live for
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, and it makes Romney and Ryan, according to your views unfit to serve in the office of President and Vice President.

Yes, and it makes Romney and Ryan, according to your views unfit to serve in the office of President and Vice President.

That is not correct Romney stated he felt abortion and reproductive rights are an issue for the states to decide not the federal government. I don't remember any where that Paul Ryan has stated he is 100% pro life or would look to change current precedent based on religious beliefs. How does that qualify as collusion of church and state?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is no place in politics for one to impose legislation or their beliefs on others.

Apparently there is. The health care bill, for instance. Imposition is not supposed to occur in the American form of politics, though in the dictatorial form espoused by other countries it is essential. We, here in this country, are being imposed upon in more and greater degrees as we "progress" to a utopian adminstrative state. The only way that a theocracy can be imposed against our will is if the Constitution is ignored and government is allowed to dictate at the discretion of those in power. That is why it is important to keep intact that mechanism of government that prevents imposition from a top-down power structure. There is no way Mourdock can impose his beliefs through legislation if the the Constitution is adhered to. That can only be done if the Constitution is made irrelevant and an all powerful central government decides amongst its ruling class to impose such a form of government. What is important, is not Mourdocks personal beliefs, but what he supports--constitutional governance or the current and growing administrative state. If he supports the former, his personal views are not a threat. And if his opponent supports the latter, and is elected, then whatever imposition his party or our administrators decide upon, is possible.

Granted legislators have freedom to believe what they want. If there views/beliefs religious or otherwise impede on their ability to represent their constituency then they do not belong in office and the constituency has the ability to vote them out or in this case not vote the individual in. Plain and simple

Exactly. See above.

Intermingling beliefs such as his with legislative policy alienates a vast majority of our citizens therefore defeating the purpose of representation. A representative is an extension of his constituency in the purest form. If his constituency is 60% pro life in all forms then he wins. I honestly do not believe there is a single district in the US that would qualify as such but I could be wrong.

Then there is nothing to fear from his beliefs. The Constitution provides that individual legislators can believe whatever they wish, but that they can only legislate within the parameters that the Constitution allows. It is the legislator that believes he is not constrained by that Constitution that is to be feared.

I wonder if anyone asked him if he had a daughter would he still feel the same?

If he truly believes that God intended that pregnancy was a result of heterosexual sex, he might have a conflict with how he would "feel," and what he believed. That is the nature of the conflict between conviction and emotion. That is essentially the conflict that drives us toward socialist forms of government even though most everyone believes that socialism doesn't work. If your feelings trump your belief, then you have life and government by whim.

I did grow up with a girl who was conceived in the manner he describes. Her mother in my eyes is an extremely strong woman. I can not imagine going through the pain of being raped then finding yourself pregnant and carrying the child to term and raising her all the while knowing she was a product of such a violent invasion of your life. She was raised lovingly and cared for like any other mother would have cared for a child. Incredible strength to do that. I can not say I would have wanted the same for my daughter or sisters had they been out in her shoes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In one respect, this boils down to what you believe to be the value of individual life and what that life is. And that can spawn emotions in opposite directions. If you believe that an individual life has a "sacred" value to itself, and therefor to society, and that a fetus is an individual life, that will evoke different emotions than if you believe that it is not an individual life, and, even further, that individual lives are less important than collective life. And further, the divide leads to differing forms of government, such as the individual being free and sovereign, or the individual being a mere subject of the state.

There is no place in politics for one to impose legislation or their beliefs on others.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thats just silly, all legislation is based on imposing beliefs on others. All of it, every single law.

Can I drive 100 mph?
Smoke crack?
Pick up some hookers?
Pee in public?
Walk naked on main st?
Not pay my taxes?
Shoot someone who cheated me?

No, someones beliefs turned into law. And like it or not, most of our laws are based on some moral or religious code.

im an not defending this moron (not you, the jackass that made the rape comment) but we cant fool ourselves that our laws are not based on others beliefs or religion.

That is not correct Romney stated he felt abortion and reproductive rights are an issue for the states to decide not the federal government. I don't remember any where that Paul Ryan has stated he is 100% pro life or would look to change current precedent based on religious beliefs. How does that qualify as collusion of church and state?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then why are they endorsing Mourdock? Is it because they believe what he believes re God's intent? Or is it because they believe it is an issue for the states, and that Mourdock's beliefs are of no consequence to federal legislation? If the former, they are, by your view, not fit for office? If the latter, and you support Romney/Ryan, why do you care so much about Mourdock's view on God's will? And if it's a squishy attempt at political correctness so that both they and Mourdock can get elected, does your contempt for such dupicity hold second candle to getting your boys elected? And if that's so, then maybe you should hold your nose and let Mourdock get elected so your boys can get control of the Senate.

Once again, was he stating that the rape was God's intent or was the fertization of an egg to create a zygote?

Two completely different issues that are complete opposites!

Let's clarify that first so that we will all know what he said and not what was "reported"!!!

There is no possible way to spin any result of a rape as Gods intention.

Unless Spince gets involved in the discussion.

There is no possible way to spin any result of a rape as Gods intention.

Unless Spince gets involved in the discussion.

Not true if you believe that God has a plan for everything or if you believe life begins at conception. Would you kill a baby after he or she is born just because he or she has been conceived as a result of rape? To some it's the same and with legitimate reason.
Not judging either way
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Politically speaking, it's an incredibly stupid thing to say.

I'mnot sure his point, if I understand it correctly, is all that deranged. Anti death penalty folks are mostly opposed to the death penalty because it's immoral to kill a human. If one person is a decent person, and the other is a murderer, the anti-death-penalty advocate says that both are equally deserving if life. There's a lot of logic to that.

Similarly, those who are anti-abortion, can make a case that the details of conception are irrelevent. If the baby is a human being, then it is entitled to protections, regardless of the level of consent involved in the conception. Is a person born of rape less of a person than other people?

I'm not sayng I agree, just arguing for the sake of arguing...

It is too bad you are missing the point here.
There have been enough advances and contributions from people who were "mistakes".There is certainly nobody alive who is less of a person,regardless of conception. But to characterize it as Gods will under those circumstances is reckless and deranged.

Not true if you believe that God has a plan for everything or if you believe life begins at conception. Would you kill a baby after he or she is born just because he or she has been conceived as a result of rape? To some it's the same and with legitimate reason.
Not judging either way
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If God has a plan for people to get raped and pregnant why is he so popular?

If God has a plan for people to get raped and pregnant why is he so popular?

You'll have to ask a higher power then me .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If God has a plan for people to get raped and pregnant why is he so popular?

because he also made salma....

If you believe that a child conceived by rape is god's will you are a fvcking lunatic plane and simple.

Well with the "god's will" mentality anything is now acceptable.All the pain,destruction and stupidity that happens everyday must be god's will!Sh!t that splinter I got today at work must be god's will.

God's will is the pussy's way out of making a real decision.If my wife or child were raped and conception occurred no child would ever be born as the result.....NOT EVER.

If you believe that a child conceived by rape is god's will you are a fvcking lunatic plane and simple.

Well with the "god's will" mentality anything is now acceptable.All the pain,destruction and stupidity that happens everyday must be god's will!Sh!t that splinter I got today at work must be god's will.

God's will is the pussy's way out of making a real decision.If my wife or child were raped and conception occurred no child would ever be born as the result.....NOT EVER.

Are you saying a child conceived through rape does not deserve a chance at life?
Btw I do not have a position in the abortion fight. Every situation is different and I won't judge others
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you believe that a child conceived by rape is god's will you are a fvcking lunatic plane and simple.

Well with the "god's will" mentality anything is now acceptable.All the pain,destruction and stupidity that happens everyday must be god's will!Sh!t that splinter I got today at work must be god's will.

God's will is the pussy's way out of making a real decision.If my wife or child were raped and conception occurred no child would ever be born as the result.....NOT EVER.

Basswipe, what if you were conceived via rape? Would you rather be aborted, or brought into the world?

The 'Gods will' argument doesn't mean that anything immoral is acceptable. It just implies that things happen for a reason, even though that reason often isn't clear in the here and now. That's where 'faith' comes in. The fact that events are God's will doesn't mean that we don't have free will, and it doesn't mean that certain things are wrong.

This post says as much about you as Murdoch's statement says about him.

It is too bad you are missing the point here.

It's not that your point is being missed. It's that your point is being disputed.

There have been enough advances and contributions from people who were "mistakes".There is certainly nobody alive who is less of a person,regardless of conception.

Excellent point, and tending toward the argument that disputes your real point which is:

But to characterize it as Gods will under those circumstances is reckless and deranged.

So you claim to know God's will more than Mourdock/Murdoch?

The counter argument is that pregnancy is a result of sexual union, and that the result is not dependent on human laws or social restrictions or personal preferences or "horrible situations". If you believe in God, it would not be reckless or deranged to believe that the process, being His creation, is His will. It would be a contradiction to say that it wasn't. The same would apply to those who believe in "nature" and its "evolution" in which the process of pregnancy as a result of sexual union is the same regardless of "horrible situations."

As for what humans do with God's creation (if you believe your god has given them free will)--that is a matter of consequences either for trespassing His will by doing harm to his creation (which includes other human beings) and reaping his punishment for disobedience--as might be exemplifed by the rapist; or by suffering the "horrible situations" that others impose in order to abide by His will and reaping His reward--as might be exemplified by the girl that jackbass knew who lovingly raised her child who was conceived as a result of rape.

That is all to say that Murdoch's remark was not meant to mean that rape is God's will, it is to say that the process of creating new life is God's creation and therefore His will. How we treat that creation, is not His will, but the free will He has given us and by which we will be judged.

And as a Senator in the Federal Government, he would not have, as Romney states, power to impose those beliefs on others. Reproductive "rights" are the domain of the states not the Federal Government--that is if you abide by the Constitution.

It just implies that things happen for a reason, even though that reason often isn't clear in the here and now. That's where 'faith' comes in.

This is just as completely demented as the original remarks.

-spence

This is just as completely demented as the original remarks.

-spence

And what higher authority do you have to pronounce someone elses words as demented without demonstrating why, and why your remark isn't?

Hence the term blind faith.
People with this extremely unique perspective are every bit the Taliban of Christianity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hence the term blind faith.
People with this extremely unique perspective are every bit the Taliban of Christianity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is so unique about it? And if it is how could it be the Taliban of Christianity?

It is unique in its extremism.
Most don't take it to that level
I view the Taliban the same way
Just saying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is unique in its extremism.
Most don't take it to that level
I view the Taliban the same way
Just saying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is, as Spence might say, a circular argument. Unique IS extreme. That is the essence of uniqueness. There are no "sort of," or moderate, uniquenesses. To be unique is to be extremely different. When you say extremism, I think you mean something else. Comparing it to the Taliban would make it not unique. But it would conjure up what you consider heinous. ANY god based religion is considered, by many atheists, to be a heinous imposition.

Heinous impositions, even extreme or even not so heinous impositions, are the result of coercion. The Taliban achieves its imposition by force. Does Murdoch's belief or religion impose on you by force?

Are you imposing your personal belief when you criticize someone else's?

The Taliban achieves its imposition by force.

And I suppose rape is fun for the whole family?

This is just as completely demented as the original remarks.

-spence

Spence, you subscribe to a political philosophy that claims that a mass murderer has the right to live, but not an unborn baby. As such, I am not surprised that you cannot comprehend my view that all human life, refardless of the circumstances of conception, is a precious, unique, irreplacable gift from God.

If someone like you thinks I'm 'demented', that's the most sure way I can think of, to know that I'm in the right.

Unique IS extreme. That is the essence of uniqueness.
It would be more circular if it assumed a hard to justify generalization about the extreme. I don't think most people would find any generalization about rape...period.

Perhaps you meant redundant?

-spence

Hence the term blind faith.
People with this extremely unique perspective are every bit the Taliban of Christianity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right. Because Christians want to keep women uneducated, and Christians are flying planes into buildings. Yep, we're exactly like the Taliban.

And I suppose rape is fun for the whole family?

Who said that? Why do you need to put extremist, jibberish words in anyone's mouth.

Rape is a barbaric offense. But are you saying you cannot comprehend someone who would say that if a life is created as a result of the rape, thatthe baby doesn't deserve to be butchered for a crime that the baby obviously had no part of?

I'm not saying that I oppose laws that allo wfor abortion in the case of rape. What I'm saying is, I certainly understand the compassionate view of someone who says the baby should not be slaughtered for something he did not cause.

And I suppose rape is fun for the whole family?

That you would suppose that is not surprising.

Right. Because Christians want to keep women uneducated, and Christians are flying planes into buildings. Yep, we're exactly like the Taliban.

You're not even refuting what he said...you just don't understand it.

-spence

You're not even refuting what he said...you just don't understand it.

-spence

I am refuting it. He said Christian radicals are the "taliban" of Christianity. I refute that. There are radical Christians out there, but we aren't responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths. We don't support the barbaric treatment of women.

By the way, what Murdoch actually said? He said that rape is a horrible crime. But he said if life gets created from that act, it's God's will. He didn't say the rape is God's will, he said the creation of life is God's will. If you believe in God, then you believe that God intended for intercourse to sometimes create life, regardless of the method of conception. I don't know why God didn't create a mechanism to prevent pregnancy in the case of rape. But he didn't. Therefore, according to what I believe, it was His will to allow for some rape victims to get pregnant.

Does that mean I think rape is no big deal? Hell, no. But I don't see the subsequent miracle of life as morally equivalent to the repugnant violation that preceded it.

It would be more circular if it assumed a hard to justify generalization about the extreme. I don't think most people would find any generalization about rape...period.

Perhaps you meant redundant?

-spence

His reasoning is circular in that the proof of his redundancy (Murdoch's belief being uniquely extreme) is given by saying that it is like another, presumably, uniquely extreme belief, the Taliban. In other words, his belief is uniquely extreme because it is uniquely extreme.

That's why I supposed he meant something other than unique when he called it extreme, and that by extreme he meant something heinous rather than being innocuously unique. His comparison obviously made it other than unique. And the phrase "uniquely extreme" was not only redundant, but his reasoning was falaciously circular. There was no valid circularity since the Taliban and Murdoch's religion, though, in Sea Dangles opinion, they are both uniquely extreme (which could be said about all uniquenesses), they are different in their extremity.

I am refuting it. He said Christian radicals are the "taliban" of Christianity. I refute that. There are radical Christians out there, but we aren't responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths. We don't support the barbaric treatment of women.


I would imagine that the victims of the crusades, spanish inqusition, salem witch trials (etc, ad nauseum) might not agree with you...

Just Sayin'.

I would imagine that the victims of the crusades, spanish inqusition, salem witch trials (etc, ad nauseum) might not agree with you...

Just Sayin'.

oh no you didnt. :hihi:

I would imagine that the victims of the crusades, spanish inqusition, salem witch trials (etc, ad nauseum) might not agree with you...

Just Sayin'.

This reminds me of a line by Christopher Marlowe in his play "The Jew of Malta.": "Thou hast committed fornication: but that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead."

Beating the dead horse of the past is not a remedy for redemption. I believe Jim in CT is referring to present day Christianity.

This reminds me of a line by Christopher Marlowe in his play "The Jew of Malta.": "Thou hast committed fornication: but that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead."

Beating the dead horse of the past is not a remedy for redemption. I believe Jim in CT is referring to present day Christianity.

Doesn't mean their poo don't smell.
Shall we go into cults and what they have done in the name of "God"?
They're present day!

I find this thread fascinating .
Could some pro choice defender help be out with a couple questions ??
If abortion is ok and worth defending how can killing a fetus also be murder ??
At what point do you consider a fetus a life? Heartbeat? When you can feel it kick?
Never?
Would you morn a miscarriage ? Have sympathy for the baby?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is unique in its extremism.
Most don't take it to that level
I view the Taliban the same way
Just saying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i agree dangles

This is such a tough social topic. Personally, I honestly still don’t know how I feel and I vote Republican most of the time. I see some points from both sides. I guess I’m on the fence to some extent if that is possible. I don’t think it should be used for birth control but on the other hand every case is different and personal and this is where I struggle with it. I guess I tend to think a woman can do other things to impact the health and life of a baby if she wants to (drugs, drinking etc).

I think we all tend to look at life differently. When we look for life in space we look for the smallest, tiniest cell structure to prove that “life” exists outside of Earth. When we talk about abortion we sometimes defin life differently. We look at other factors of when a fetus is “life” like conception, heartbeat, etc.

Technically sperm alone and by itself is alive..................

Heavy stuff to ponder…………

This is such a tough social topic. Personally, I honestly still don’t know how I feel and I vote Republican most of the time. I see some points from both sides. I guess I’m on the fence to some extent if that is possible. I don’t think it should be used for birth control but on the other hand every case is different and personal and this is where I struggle with it. I guess I tend to think a woman can do other things to impact the health and life of a baby if she wants to (drugs, drinking etc).

I think we all tend to look at life differently. When we look for life in space we look for the smallest, tiniest cell structure to prove that “life” exists outside of Earth. When we talk about abortion we sometimes defin life differently. We look at other factors of when a fetus is “life” like conception, heartbeat, etc.

Technically sperm alone and by itself is alive..................

Heavy stuff to ponder…………

im with you. To quote our president, "above my pay grade"
If I knocked some girl up in high school, I am all for abortion. But I remember when my wife was just a few weeks pregnanat and we heard the heartbeat, amazing.

What I get from all of these replies is something that troubles me with liberals. Tolerance. Why are liberals tolerant of some extreme views and not of extreme views when they relate to christianity? I GUARANTEE you that some libs driving around with the religious tolerance sticker on their prius are furious over these remarks. Why? cant you be tolerant of others views even if they disagree with yours? If you read through this whole thread, its the conservative crew that is at least trying to understand different points of view. Libs would have this guy tarred and feathered.

im with you. To quote our president, "above my pay grade"
If I knocked some girl up in high school, I am all for abortion. But I remember when my wife was just a few weeks pregnanat and we heard the heartbeat, amazing.

What I get from all of these replies is something that troubles me with liberals. Tolerance. Why are liberals tolerant of some extreme views and not of extreme views when they relate to christianity? I GUARANTEE you that some libs driving around with the religious tolerance sticker on their prius are furious over these remarks. Why? cant you be tolerant of others views even if they disagree with yours? If you read through this whole thread, its the conservative crew that is at least trying to understand different points of view. Libs would have this guy tarred and feathered.

I agree with the first sentence of your post Jim whole-heartedly. Then you lose me.
Are there foaming-mouth liberals incensed over this? Yes. For me, it is not a question tolerance. I respect their belief structure. I find it troubling b/c he is looking to have an elected seat where he will have he ability to try and impose this belief on the rest of us.

The "Liberal" Position, is not to use abortion as birth control. Instead, given all the heavy discussion here, the point of 'choice' is exactly that. If your beliefs don't allow you that choice, so be it.

This guys words got twisted on him a bit... Todd Akin is just a moron....

. I find it troubling b/c he is looking to have an elected seat where he will have he ability to try and impose this belief on the rest of us.



But why him, All elected officials have the ability to try to impose their beliefs on us, no?
Fact Bry, think about this. If Obama is elected the estate tax will go to 55%. That means if you slave all your life, when you die, the government will SEIZE your property, from your children. If your children dont pay, they will come with guns to seize your property. The government will impose its will to seize your property.

I find it troubling b/c he is looking to have an elected seat where he will have he ability to try and impose this belief on the rest of us.


RI, doesn't everyone have a point of view or a belief? Don't all politicians have the ability to "try" to impose this belief on the rest of us? My argument through many threads here is that's human nature, and the founding documents were based on that nature. The founders understood that danger very well, so they crafted a form of government that would best protect individuals from the imposition of others, at least from that imposition being directed from an all-powerful central government. They gave that central government specific and limited powers which would give it the strength to protect and preserve the union but not give it the ability to impose personal beliefs.

Mourdock is running for a FEDERAL seat in Congress. If the Constitution were being followed as intended, he would have no business imposing his belief on other individuals. And if he understood that, and believed that, and acted on those constitutional principles, he would function within the powers granted and not even try to impose his belief. Simply put, he would not have the ability to do so.

Could your "finding it troubling" be based on the obvious fact that we are no longer operating under the strictures of the Constitution at a Federal level? That you see impositions being imposed, some of which you agree with, from which individuals have no defense? Don't we now assume that Congress can do as it wishes as one Congressman blatently admitted? Don't we just accept Supreme Court decisions that even on their face are dictatorial? The power to tax action or the absence of action at will? That is the power to punitively impose whatever amount on virtually anybody, thereby having the ability to impose any legislation derived from any belief on any and every individual--really? Is that what the Constitution intended or even says? No. But that is the state in which we find ourselves. So it is no wonder that people have, if not an explicity overt fear, at least a subliminal one, of a U.S. Senator imposing his beliefs. And, on the contrary, a desire to elect those who will impose the beliefs we have and agree with.

Isn't the problem that allows your fear to seem to be a reality, the functionally all-powerful, anti-constitutional, administrative state that has replaced a government that was once constrained by the Constitution?

I would imagine that the victims of the crusades, spanish inqusition, salem witch trials (etc, ad nauseum) might not agree with you...

Just Sayin'.

OK, I am talking abuot the times we live in. If you can find any victims of those crimes, I will apologize.

Christians are humans, which mean swe are all far from perfect. But we are not, in any way, the moral equivalent of the Taliban. We don't hurt thousands of people in the name of our religion.

I agree with the first sentence of your post Jim whole-heartedly. Then you lose me.
Are there foaming-mouth liberals incensed over this? Yes. For me, it is not a question tolerance. I respect their belief structure. I find it troubling b/c he is looking to have an elected seat where he will have he ability to try and impose this belief on the rest of us.

The "Liberal" Position, is not to use abortion as birth control. Instead, given all the heavy discussion here, the point of 'choice' is exactly that. If your beliefs don't allow you that choice, so be it.

This guys words got twisted on him a bit... Todd Akin is just a moron....

'The "Liberal" Position, is not to use abortion as birth control."

Excuse me? That's not even close to the liberal position. The liberal position is that the woman can choose an abortion any time she wants, for any reason. Please show me where the liberal position is that abortions are immoral if used simply as after-the-fact birth control?

Obama's position was to allow 'abortion' after the baby was born, outside the womb, and no longer connected to the mother. Anotehr word for that is 'infanticide'.

But why him, All elected officials have the ability to try to impose their beliefs on us, no?
Fact Bry, think about this. If Obama is elected the estate tax will go to 55%. That means if you slave all your life, when you die, the government will SEIZE your property, from your children. If your children dont pay, they will come with guns to seize your property. The government will impose its will to seize your property.

Absolutely. And you have the right to vote or not vote for that person, based on YOUR beliefs, and their beliefs...

And that is a bit misleading, as it is for estates worth over 1 million and is back to early 2000 rates where it was 55% over 675,000 and 50% over 1,000,00 or so.... not some unprecedented level

but it is your right to vote for him, or Murdock or Akin based on YOUR beliefs, and what you know about theirs, just as if I lived in Indiana, it would be my right to vote for or against Murdock for the same reasons.

this is a very intersting thread and I hope all could keep the dialog civil. I really like the opposing views.

BTW - someone from this site recomended 'A History of God" I am currently reading it, so far very good

Doesn't mean their poo don't smell.
Shall we go into cults and what they have done in the name of "God"?
They're present day!

Sure, lets go into all the cults, including the progressive cult that treats government as a god, and what that cult has done, under their god's guise of "fairness" and "equality," to individual rights. And that's present day!

It appears that people think their god is better than other folk's god. Don't everyody's god poo stink? That seems to be the nature of poo.

If you don't poo in my back yard, I won't poo in yours.

And that is a bit misleading, as it is for estates worth over 1 million and is back to early 2000 rates where it was 55% over 675,000 and 50% over 1,000,00 or so.... not some unprecedented level

.

yes or no question - you believe the government has the right to seize more that 1/2 your property after you die if you have accumulated more that a million dollars of worth (worth, not dollars, estates are valued with all property)?
I believe it is an absolute crime.

Maybe God is sitting up on his cloud and and thinking of ways to get people all pissed of about stuff so he can amuse himself (or herself if you belive that). That's the best explanation I can come up with. Or, maybe there's no God and Allah is really the one messing with everyone. Who knows? I never understood why one person's superior being was better than another's.

OK, I am talking abuot the times we live in. If you can find any victims of those crimes, I will apologize.

Christians are humans, which mean swe are all far from perfect. But we are not, in any way, the moral equivalent of the Taliban. We don't hurt thousands of people in the name of our religion.

Comment was meant more tongue-in-cheek. But for a few examples:

Army of God bombing abortion clinics?
The KKK?
Catholic/Protestant conflicts in Ireland?
Anders Breivik?
The NAZIS?? (which to be fair about half of the ruling party members rejected christianity, but radical christian ideology was a major part of the propaganda)


My point is simply that when it comes to religion, no one's hands are clean.

Unless you're a Buddhist. I can't think of any Buddhist bombings :huh:

This reminds me of a line by Christopher Marlowe in his play "The Jew of Malta.": "Thou hast committed fornication: but that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead."

Beating the dead horse of the past is not a remedy for redemption. I believe Jim in CT is referring to present day Christianity.

And that reminds me of George Santayana's famous quote:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

If one is willing to live life by the tenets set forth in a two thousand year old book, then they shouldn't conveniently ignore all of the events that occurred afterwards (as a direct result of said book). That goes for christianity, islam, judaism, etc, etc.

And that reminds me of George Santayana's famous quote:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

I admire Santayana's writings very much. I especially am in tune with his views on nature. Not the syruppy isn't it all beautiful and scenic and lets take a picture view, but on nature being the foundation through which we experience life.

As for the quote of which you are reminded, it has become a truism. We now apply it to the horrors and wars of the past. But Santayana was not referring only to destructive events, he was talking about the destruction of the past itself. There is much in history that he loves. He is very much a traditionalist and a believer that much of the past is good and we would not be "condemned" to repeat but would be blessed to retain.

A fuller quote which includes what immediately is written before the famous passage is: "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

This so much applies to what has happened in the history of our country. The Founders searched the past, and retained that which previous experience from classical history to their present day would best secure natural liberty. They weren't about absolute change. They were about improving history and the liberty of the beings that populate it. Then, a movement, progressivism, sprung from cataclysmic 19th century thinkers who wanted to reject the past as a means to improve the lot of the common man. Their "theories" were not based in nature as a foundation, but nature to be tamed and molded to fit what they considered good. That movement spread to "intellectuals" here, ironically, as an administrative method copied from Prussia which was instituted there to keep the masses from overthrowing the monarchy. The Progressives considered the Constitution "outdated," irrelevant, and an obstruction to their goal of an all-powerful system of central government which could more efficiently deliver and administer an "effective" freedom to the people rather than a merely legal freedom garanteed by the Constitution. It is this administrative system based on "modern" thinkers rather than past experience which we have today. Actually that "modern" system has been applied in recent history from WWI to the present in the West and, in a more severe form, in the East. It is no longer modern and the experience of effective liberty has not been as beneficial to freedom as was legal liberty. Actually the trajectory has been to benefit collective groups at the expense of the individual.

To that point, you might consider another Santayana quote: "individualism is in one sense the only possible ideal; for whatever social order may be most valuable can be valuable only for its effect on conscious individuals."

Another quote by him that I find more interesting than the rest: "There is eternal war in nature . . . War is but resisted change; and change must needs be resisted so long as the organism it would destroy retains any vitality." This can not only apply, again, to the Constitution and the war being waged on it and the resistance to that change if there is enough vitality left in the resistance. It also gives the lie to the quest for peace without victory. We are the product of war. Every molecule of our being is at war to survive and flourish against constant invasions of microbes and forces of nature. It is a war which we, as individuals will eventually lose. But we live on with the progeny who survive natural deaths and unnatural abortions and who will continue the battle. Our universal, material, biological inheritance is composed of this battle and every fiber of our being is informed by it. It is our natural mode. We must win to survive. We cannot compromise in this battle, not only with the forces of nature, but against the human forces that wish to enslave or destroy us. Santayana also said "Only the dead have seen the end of war." Peace will come with victory, either by those who wish to enslave or those who wish to be free. And that peace will last only until the next battle.


If one is willing to live life by the tenets set forth in a two thousand year old book, then they shouldn't conveniently ignore all of the events that occurred afterwards (as a direct result of said book). That goes for christianity, islam, judaism, etc, etc.

We humans have this wonderful capacity to misread. Often we do so intentionally. If we have a purpose that may be a direct contradiction to a bible, or a Constitution, but knowing the influence of quoting or adhering to that bible or constitution, we may with malice "interpret" those binding documents in a way that makes it easy to impose other than what is in them. Such is the unfortunate and malicious way that good books and constitutions are corrupted and thus lead to "events that occur afterwards," and which can erroneously be seen "as a direct result" of those documents.

As for The Bible, the "New Testament" version, much is blamed on it, such as inquisitions and conquests, which are not professed in the book. Certainly there have been those who seemed to read the words in ways not intended and twisted them to aid in horrific events. Blaming the Bible would assume, since you consider it the direct cause, that such horrific events would not have occurred if there was no Bible. Nonsense. The Bible was an excuse. Something else would have been the cause if there was no Bible. Remember the quote about those who cannot remember the past. The original history of Christianity was one of suffering and persecution and poverty and enslavement. Christ was a redeemer of the unfortunate, not a torturer. Those that forgot that message were the cause of being condemned to repeat the horrors that original Christians wanted us to escape.

Wow,way to keep the thread going with no clue what I meant.I certainly was not comparing Christianity with the Taliban. The comparison was between two groups who take their religious beliefs to the extreme. In my opinion detbutch and JimCT(shock) display just that when compared with the majority of their Christian peers. I think the Taliban subscribe to similar passion when compared with the majority of their peers. I would also venture a guess that history would reveal more deaths in the name of Ghristianity than all other religions combined.

But they don't count cuz it was long ago.

I would also venture a guess that history would reveal more deaths in the name of Ghristianity than all other religions combined.

But they don't count cuz it was long ago.

Mel Brooks´ Spanish Inquisition - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqgZnvfJ9Jg)

We humans have this wonderful capacity to misread. Often we do so intentionally. If we have a purpose that may be a direct contradiction to a bible, or a Constitution, but knowing the influence of quoting or adhering to that bible or constitution, we may with malice "interpret" those binding documents in a way that makes it easy to impose other than what is in them. Such is the unfortunate and malicious way that good books and constitutions are corrupted and thus lead to "events that occur afterwards," and which can erroneously be seen "as a direct result" of those documents.

As for The Bible, the "New Testament" version, much is blamed on it, such as inquisitions and conquests, which are not professed in the book. Certainly there have been those who seemed to read the words in ways not intended and twisted them to aid in horrific events. Blaming the Bible would assume, since you consider it the direct cause, that such horrific events would not have occurred if there was no Bible. Nonsense. The Bible was an excuse. Something else would have been the cause if there was no Bible. Remember the quote about those who cannot remember the past. The original history of Christianity was one of suffering and persecution and poverty and enslavement. Christ was a redeemer of the unfortunate, not a torturer. Those that forgot that message were the cause of being condemned to repeat the horrors that original Christians wanted us to escape.

Excellent points. What a great discussion. Thank you for expanding upon Santayana's message. I particularly like the "eternal war" segment- Could you source that for me? I'd like to read it in its fullest.

While I agree with you that the bible was used as an excuse, the fact remains that it was the direct cause. It doesn't matter that someone could have found a different excuse if there was no bible. My point (and vaguely relating to SD's original topic) is simply that religious extremism is present in both religions. Obviously there's nothing identical to the Taliban in modern day (<50 years) christianity (unless you consider the catholic church and altar boys), but the history of both religions is stained with blood.

And it's still worth noting that while I'm not religious, I do feel that overall the Bible (and other religious tomes- the Quran, Torah, etc) have contributed to more good than evil in this world. They are all a simple collection of guidelines, intended to be interpreted loosely in order to promote fellowship. Like you said- it's the zealots and crazies that give the religions a bad name. I'm not a subscriber to blind faith- while I consider myself extremely spiritual, I don't get organized religion. I've seen too many people profess themselves as "good christians", yet they lie, cheat, steal, and are quite generally abominable. But for some people, religion is their answer, and it really helps them turn their life around. I can respect that.

I still think I follow the George Carlin tenets though.

Excellent points. What a great discussion. Thank you for expanding upon Santayana's message. I particularly like the "eternal war" segment- Could you source that for me? I'd like to read it in its fullest.

The quote is from an essay "tipperary" found in a collection of essays (he calls them soliloquies) entitled "Soliloquies in England and Later Soliloquies." If you can't get the book at the library, you can probably find the essay (or the entire book) on line. It is elusive and sometimes hard to track down. It was, for me, one of the most influential essays I have ever read. Read it a long time ago in my college days when I was more impressionable. But rereading it impresses me as much or more than it did then. Only that which is in quotes in my post is Santayana's. The rest is my extrapolation from what he says. Though it was written in 1922, I think, it is timeless and relevant today. If you can't find it, let me know.

While I agree with you that the bible was used as an excuse, the fact remains that it was the direct cause.

I have to respectfully disagree. If I knowingly twist something you say as an excuse or a cause to commit a murder or other mayhem, especially if what you say directs me to do the opposite, the direct cause would be my personal motives, not your words. If a sympathetic jury was persuaded that you didn't maliciously twist words and was erroneously inspired by them to do harm, they might let you off with a lesser sentence depending on the severity of the crime, but could not condemn the words whose meaning was the opposite of what you interpreted. The direct cause would not be the words but your misinterpretation of them. Otherwise, since good can be so easily corrupted and then be the cause of evil, why do good?

It doesn't matter that someone could have found a different excuse if there was no bible.

It matters because it demonstrates that the bible was not needed. Therefor it was not the cause.

My point (and vaguely relating to SD's original topic) is simply that religious extremism is present in both religions. Obviously there's nothing identical to the Taliban in modern day (<50 years) christianity (unless you consider the catholic church and altar boys), but the history of both religions is stained with blood.

Sure, it makes sense to believe that extremism exists, not only in both, or all, religions, but the same sense would lead you to believe that extremism exists in all things human. The problem with making anything useful of that sense is that those you consider to be extreme believe that they are not, and, perhaps, that you are. If by extreme you simply mean out of step with the majority of a group, that could "mean" innumerable things. It could be a pejorative difference to those who have collectivist mentalities, or it could be a desirable trait to individualists. Being extreme, in itself, says very little other than a severe difference. Extremities can be simply functional with no connotation of "good" or "bad." On the other hand, they can be descriptive moral or social qualities. You can be extremely good or extremely good at something. Or extremely bad. But, again, the good or bad can be a matter of opinion.

As for Mourdock's supposedly "extreme" view, there are obviously differing opinions whether his belief is good or proper or correct. If the extreme is merely that his views are a minority opinion, there is no quality to that other than numbers.

And so much of history, whether it be religious, political, economical, social, whatever, is, as you say, "stained in blood." That is part of nature's eternal war. Those that think that the blood staining will stop if we could all just get along and all think the same way,and that clashes among differing tribes will melt by a universal peace treaty (without victory) don't have a very clear picture of what drives humanity.

And it's still worth noting that while I'm not religious, I do feel that overall the Bible (and other religious tomes- the Quran, Torah, etc) have contributed to more good than evil in this world. They are all a simple collection of guidelines, intended to be interpreted loosely in order to promote fellowship. Like you said- it's the zealots and crazies that give the religions a bad name. I'm not a subscriber to blind faith- while I consider myself extremely spiritual, I don't get organized religion. I've seen too many people profess themselves as "good christians", yet they lie, cheat, steal, and are quite generally abominable. But for some people, religion is their answer, and it really helps them turn their life around. I can respect that.

I still think I follow the George Carlin tenets though.

Spiritually, we have a lot in common. George Carlin, not so much. He's VERY (extremely?) funny . . . but not so deep. Perhaps, I have learned to be more tolerant of "extremists" when they have no impact on my life--such as mourdock's supposed extremism. Extremism can be a spice of life. It can lead to "good" change as well as "bad." The mediocre in-between seldom moves anything.

Basswipe, what if you were conceived via rape? Would you rather be aborted, or brought into the world?

The 'Gods will' argument doesn't mean that anything immoral is acceptable. It just implies that things happen for a reason, even though that reason often isn't clear in the here and now. That's where 'faith' comes in. The fact that events are God's will doesn't mean that we don't have free will, and it doesn't mean that certain things are wrong.

This post says as much about you as Murdoch's statement says about him.

Yes I would rather be aborted.

As to the rest of your post it is completely meaningless to me as I have no "faith" and I do not believe in god,I'm a realist.

And I don't really care what my statement says about me in your mind.

Are you saying a child conceived through rape does not deserve a chance at life?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes.

Yes I would rather be aborted.

As to the rest of your post it is completely meaningless to me as I have no "faith" and I do not believe in god,I'm a realist.

And I don't really care what my statement says about me in your mind.
Couldn't agree more with you.

My take on this is the child should have a "chance". And by chance, I mean the mother should always under any circumstance have the option to chose weather she has a child or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does that mean I think rape is no big deal? Hell, no. But I don't see the subsequent miracle of life as morally equivalent to the repugnant violation that preceded it.

Lets address this with a satirical piece a friend just happened to link:

A Fan Letter to Certain Conservative Politicians ? Whatever (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/)

Dear certain conservative politicians:

Hi! I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have. There’s just something about making the point to a woman that her consent and her control of her own body is not relevant against the need for a man to possess that body and control it that just plain gets me off. A guy’s got needs, you know? And my need is for control. Sweet, sweet control.

So I want to take time out of my schedule to thank you for supporting my right to control a woman’s life, not just when I’m raping her, but for all the rest of her life as well.
Ah, I see by your surprised face that you at the very least claim to have no idea what I’m talking about. Well, here’s the thing. Every time you say “I oppose a woman’s right to abortion, even in cases of rape,” what you’re also saying is “I believe that a man who rapes a woman has more of a right to control a woman’s body and life than that woman does.”

Oh, look. That surprised face again. All right, then. On the chance that you’re not giving me that surprised face just for the sake of public appearances, let me explain it to you, because it’s important for me that you know just how much I appreciate everything you’re doing for me.

So, let’s say I’ve raped a woman, as I do, because it’s my thing. I’ve had my fun, reminding that woman where she stands on the whole “being able to control things about her life” thing. But wait! There’s more. Since I didn’t use a condom (maybe I’m confident I can get other people to believe it was consensual, you see, or maybe I just like it that way), one thing has led to another and I’ve gotten this woman pregnant.

Now, remember how I said the thing I really like about raping a woman is the control it gives me over her? Well, getting a woman pregnant is even better. Because long after I’m gone, she still has to deal with me and what I’ve done to her. She has to deal with what’s happening to her body. She has to deal with doctor visits. She has to deal with the choice whether to have an abortion or not — which means she has to deal with everyone in the country, including you, having an opinion about it and giving her crap about it. And if she does have an abortion, she has to deal with all the hassle of that, too, because folks like you, of course, have gone out of your way to make it a hassle, which I appreciate. Thank you.

Every moment of that process, she has to be thinking of me, and how I’ve forced all of this on her — exercised my ability to bend her life away from what it was to what I’ve made of it. Me exercising my control.

I gotta tell you, it feels awesome.

But! You know what would feel even more awesome? The knowledge that, if you get your way and abortion is outlawed even in cases of rape, that my control of her will continue through all the rest of her life.

First, because she’ll have no legal choice about whether to have the baby I put in her — sorry, dearie, you have no control at all! You have to have it! That’s nine months of having your body warp and twist and change because I decided that you needed a little lesson on who’s actually running the show. That’s sweet.

Once the baby’s born, the woman will have to decide whether to keep it. Here’s an interesting fact: Of the women who have gotten pregnant from rape who give birth to that baby, most keep the baby, by a ratio of about five to one. So my ability to change the life of the woman just keeps growing, doesn’t it? From the rape, to the nine months of the pregnancy, to the rest of her life dealing with the child I raped into her. Of course, she could put the kid up for adoption, but that’s its own bundle of issues, isn’t it? And even then, she’s dealing with the choices I made for her, when I exercised my control over her life.

Best of all, I get to do all that without much consequence! Oh, sure, theoretically I can get charged with rape and go to prison for it. But you know what? For every hundred men who rape, only three go to prison. Those are pretty good odds for me, especially since — again! — folks like you like to muddy up the issue saying things like “forcible rape.” Keep doing that! It’s working out great for me.

As for the kid, well, oddly enough, most women I rape want nothing to do with me afterward, so it’s not like I will have to worry about child support or any other sort of responsibility… unless of course I decide that I haven’t taught that woman a big enough lesson about who’s really in control of her life. Did you know that 31 states in this country don’t keep rapists from seeking custody or visitation rights? How great is that? That’s just one more thing she has to worry about — me crawling out of the woodwork to remind her of what I did, and am continuing to do, to her life.

Look how much control you want to give me over that woman! I really can’t thank you enough for it. It warms my heart to know no matter how much I rape, or how many women I impregnate through my non-consensual sexual battery, you have my back, when it comes to reminding every woman I humiliate who is actually the boss of her. It’s me! It’s always been me! You’ll make sure it’ll always be me. You’ll see to that.

I am totally voting for you this election.

Yours,
Just Another Rapist.

P.S.: I love it when you say that you “stand for innocent life” when it comes to denying abortions in cases of rape! It implicitly suggests that the women I rape are in some way complicit in and guilty of the crimes I commit on top of, and inside of, their bodies! Which works out perfectly for me. Keep it up!

Lets address this with a satirical piece a friend just happened to link:

A Fan Letter to Certain Conservative Politicians ? Whatever (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/)

Dear certain conservative politicians:

Hi! I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have. There’s just something about making the point to a woman that her consent and her control of her own body is not relevant against the need for a man to possess that body and control it that just plain gets me off. A guy’s got needs, you know? And my need is for control. Sweet, sweet control.

Dear lowly esteemed and evil rapist: my allegience is to the Constitution, not your perverted need. One individual's unconsented control over another is as repugnant to me as a government's unconsented control over the individual. I believe government, that which governs least, is necessary, and that the people must consent to it. I believe that the government and the people must be governed by the rule of law to which they have consented. Tyrants like you are as odious to me as is a tyrannical government.

So I want to take time out of my schedule to thank you for supporting my right to control a woman’s life, not just when I’m raping her, but for all the rest of her life as well.
Ah, I see by your surprised face that you at the very least claim to have no idea what I’m talking about. Well, here’s the thing. Every time you say “I oppose a woman’s right to abortion, even in cases of rape,” what you’re also saying is “I believe that a man who rapes a woman has more of a right to control a woman’s body and life than that woman does.”

I do not support your right to control anybody but yourself, which you apparently are not capable of doing. I support the people's right to choose on the legality of abortion. I do not support the Federal Government dictating that right. It is not granted that power in the Constitution. I am not surprised by the weasely words of a control freak. I have seen the words of progressive politicians and judges that twist the words of the Constitution to allow them to control us in ways that Constitution would not allow. I am very familiar and not surprised by this tactic.

Oh, look. That surprised face again. All right, then. On the chance that you’re not giving me that surprised face just for the sake of public appearances, let me explain it to you, because it’s important for me that you know just how much I appreciate everything you’re doing for me.

So, let’s say I’ve raped a woman, as I do, because it’s my thing. I’ve had my fun, reminding that woman where she stands on the whole “being able to control things about her life” thing. But wait! There’s more. Since I didn’t use a condom (maybe I’m confident I can get other people to believe it was consensual, you see, or maybe I just like it that way), one thing has led to another and I’ve gotten this woman pregnant.

Now, remember how I said the thing I really like about raping a woman is the control it gives me over her? Well, getting a woman pregnant is even better. Because long after I’m gone, she still has to deal with me and what I’ve done to her. She has to deal with what’s happening to her body. She has to deal with doctor visits. She has to deal with the choice whether to have an abortion or not — which means she has to deal with everyone in the country, including you, having an opinion about it and giving her crap about it. And if she does have an abortion, she has to deal with all the hassle of that, too, because folks like you, of course, have gone out of your way to make it a hassle, which I appreciate. Thank you.

Every moment of that process, she has to be thinking of me, and how I’ve forced all of this on her — exercised my ability to bend her life away from what it was to what I’ve made of it. Me exercising my control.

I gotta tell you, it feels awesome.

But! You know what would feel even more awesome? The knowledge that, if you get your way and abortion is outlawed even in cases of rape, that my control of her will continue through all the rest of her life.

You mean if the people get their way. I am not a control freak like you and dictatorial governments. It will take the people to make that decision, not me. I thoroughly support that at the State level where it consitutionally belongs. And, by the way, whether you get her pregnant or not, she will remember the horror of you the rest of her life. Abortions will not eliminate that memory.

First, because she’ll have no legal choice about whether to have the baby I put in her — sorry, dearie, you have no control at all! You have to have it! That’s nine months of having your body warp and twist and change because I decided that you needed a little lesson on who’s actually running the show. That’s sweet.

She will have the legal choice the people give her. That is rule of law. The only show you run is your own.

Once the baby’s born, the woman will have to decide whether to keep it. Here’s an interesting fact: Of the women who have gotten pregnant from rape who give birth to that baby, most keep the baby, by a ratio of about five to one. So my ability to change the life of the woman just keeps growing, doesn’t it? From the rape, to the nine months of the pregnancy, to the rest of her life dealing with the child I raped into her. Of course, she could put the kid up for adoption, but that’s its own bundle of issues, isn’t it? And even then, she’s dealing with the choices I made for her, when I exercised my control over her life.

Best of all, I get to do all that without much consequence! Oh, sure, theoretically I can get charged with rape and go to prison for it. But you know what? For every hundred men who rape, only three go to prison. Those are pretty good odds for me, especially since — again! — folks like you like to muddy up the issue saying things like “forcible rape.” Keep doing that! It’s working out great for me.

Yes, it's her decision. Just as we all have to decide how we deal with the horrors that crap like you impose on us. If she keeps the child and loves it, it may turn out a blessing and its own joy--one which you will not experience. Like all pitiful control freaks, from individuals to governments, the savor of control is sweeter than life.

As for the kid, well, oddly enough, most women I rape want nothing to do with me afterward, so it’s not like I will have to worry about child support or any other sort of responsibility… unless of course I decide that I haven’t taught that woman a big enough lesson about who’s really in control of her life. Did you know that 31 states in this country don’t keep rapists from seeking custody or visitation rights? How great is that? That’s just one more thing she has to worry about — me crawling out of the woodwork to remind her of what I did, and am continuing to do, to her life.

Look how much control you want to give me over that woman! I really can’t thank you enough for it. It warms my heart to know no matter how much I rape, or how many women I impregnate through my non-consensual sexual battery, you have my back, when it comes to reminding every woman I humiliate who is actually the boss of her. It’s me! It’s always been me! You’ll make sure it’ll always be me. You’ll see to that.

I am totally voting for you this election.

Yours,
Just Another Rapist.

Of course you won't have to "worry" about the kid. Scum like you worry only about yourself. You don't have the ability to freely associate with others, to have the joy of consentual social or personal intercourse. Like a dictator, or dictatorial government, you must suppress free association and control all aspects of anything or anyone you touch. As a "conservative" who wishes to "conserve" the constitutional freedoms of our federal republic, I wish you, and the Federal government would let us decide about our "reproductive rights."

P.S.: I love it when you say that you “stand for innocent life” when it comes to denying abortions in cases of rape! It implicitly suggests that the women I rape are in some way complicit in and guilty of the crimes I commit on top of, and inside of, their bodies! Which works out perfectly for me. Keep it up!

More twisting of words. It suggests nothing of the sort . . . unless you want it to. You can control your own words, but not mine. Everyone is innocent here except you and a government that runs roughshod over the Constitution, and uses verbiage such as yours to justify it.

I don't belive the idiot said rape was right or that pregnancy from rape was to be welcomed. I think he pointed out though that someone has to speak for the unborn.

I don't belive the idiot said rape was right or that pregnancy from rape was to be welcomed. I think he pointed out though that someone has to speak for the unborn.

Not only did he not say rape was OK, he said was "horrible". Also, like you said, his statement was that the unborn baby does not have a say in how he is conceived. I think you can make a compelling case that there's no justice in killing a baby for something he didn't have a say in.

Basswipe and Likwid, I'm glad you're here to spout off your opinions, vile though they may be. You are implying that my concern for the baby, is the same thing as being in favor of rape. Not so. Teh act or rape, and the well being of an unborn baby, are two distinct things.

The funny thing is, if anyone makes light of rape, it's not conservatives, who are typically very tough on crime. Do you think a rapist would rather have a jury of 12 cowboys in Texas, or 12 Harvard professors in Massachusetts?

Have fun with that one...

I don't belive the idiot said rape was right or that pregnancy from rape was to be welcomed. I think he pointed out though that someone has to speak for the unborn.

thank you :uhuh:

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

if you replaced God with Nature in his comments, would that make them less offensive to some of you God-o-phobes in the context which he meant, which was that the creation of a human life is the result of something more than simple accident....and that he places the same value on each life created as he does his own....

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from Nature. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that Nature intended to happen."


interesting that our President was very clear on Leno the other night in stating that...

"RAPE is RAPE"....glad to hear he's found such clarity on that issue

sadly...he's apparently found no such clarity on these related issues...

LIFE is LIFE ?......not so much
KILLING is KILLING ?.....not so much

Mourdock's comments are some of the least offensive comments in this thread:uhuh:

interesting how many platitudes reagrding equality, justice, fairness, compassion get thrown out the door at some arbitrary point between conception and...well....you pick the date....

if Religion is forever tainted by the number of lives interrupted by those that have used Religion through history to their disturbing ends or goals, how tainted is a Society(s) that sanctions millions upon millions of lives to likewise be interrupted, in most cases, as a matter of convenience and as an abrogation of responsibility?

Another Taliban has spoken.
Go kill a doctor who gives abortions.
That will make it better.

how tainted is a Society(s) that sanctions millions upon millions of lives to likewise be interrupted, in most cases, as a matter of convenience and as an abrogation of responsibility?

Wow.
Just wow.

how tainted is a Society(s) that sanctions millions upon millions of lives to likewise be interrupted, in most cases, as a matter of convenience and as an abrogation of responsibility?

I would think that rape would be an "inconvenience" to the victim.

What kind of God would allow rape anyway?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another Taliban has spoken.
Go kill a doctor who gives abortions.
That will make it better.

like I said, Moudock's comments are some of the least offensive in the thread, thanks for adding yet another:uhuh:

I would think that rape would be an "inconvenience" to the victim.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who is suggesting otherwise?

I would think that rape would be an "inconvenience" to the victim.

What kind of God would allow rape anyway?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

noone said that it wasn't, including Mourdock, he made a simple and honest statement regarding the value that he places on "life", I'm amazed at the tangents this sets many of you off on.....

God doesn't "allow" rape, humans commit rape, murder and many other acts which violate the tenants of most religions

What kind of God would allow rape anyway?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A God that gives you the free will to do it or not--with all the appropriate consequences to the rapist and the victim. If the implication of your question is that God predestines and is responsible for all actions, then you have eliminated the human need for a god. Such a god, that gives no choice, need not be pondered over nor obeyed. Any thought or action you have or do are this god's choice not yours. All that exists is not separate from this god but are a part of it. All that is done or thought, are done so by this god.

A God that "allows" rape, allows the free will He has given you to do so or not. This God "allows" all actions but disapproves of and punishes, now or later, actions that trespass HIS will or are destructive to the order of His creation. This God allows you all that is "good" in His creation, and all that is "evil." Any other type of supernatural god is irrelevant. A god you might name Fate or Destiny, and a god you might name Chaos, either leave you no possibility of a separate choice nor a meaning that might result in choice.

The God Mourdock believes in has created us in His image and we are commanded by Him to husband the rest of His creation, the natural world, in accordance to His will and in a way that maintains His order. Mourdock, if he believes in the Constitution, believes in founding principles of free will and the responsiblity of molding that will to the natural order--nature and nature's God. And he will also believe that it is not an all-powerful central government which imposes its will on the people, but that it is the free and God given natural will of the people that allows that central government limited responsibility, and allows the people to build and create the good and goods in free and diverse ways which respond to their individual needs thus expanding the wealth of the nation--a sort of expansion of the biblical command to be fruitful. He would also, therefor, believe that "reproductive rights" would be those allowed by local and state governments as an expression of their people. So he would not be a threat to impose his personal belief on the entire nation as a Federal Senator.

Mourdock's God is the creator of man.

The other type of god that is relevant to humans is the god created by man. Those who believe in this type of god, believe all the other gods are created by man, and therefor fictions. The god they create is not supernatural, though it reigns over man and nature as if it were. Their god does not "allow" free will or unalienable rights to citizens who consent to a limited government, but from an all-powerful seat, grants those citizens limited rights. It also punishes those who trespass the boundary of rights that it allows. The rapes, mayhem, disorder, wars, all evils, also occur under this god even though they are not "allowed." This god is under the duress of constantly finding ways to control populations by instilling new rules and methods of order. Of distributing to and defining needs that constantly expand in response to the distribution. Of constanly narrowing the scope of rights it grants in order to maintain the satisfactions of various groups and majorities that it caters to. Because it limits more and more the rights of the people in order to control and satisfy them as groups rather than individuals, it has to control more and more the means and ownership of wealth and its distribution. The bibical command to be fruitful is limited by this god, and the fruits of labor shrink to those allowed by this god.

This god, of course, is unlimited centralized government--the one size fits all that so many seem to want. Because it is not supernatural, it has only fictive powers (similar to the fictitious god of predestination) over nature and the nature of man. It is not founded on nature nor human nature, it seeks to control them. It is the type of humanly created, unnatural god that has usurped the Constitution and its form of government. Mourdock, if he believes in the Constitution, would rather restore constitutional principles.

He obviously does not approve of rape or believe that rape is God's will. He views it as Man's will, an act which is against God's will, and a violence against God's natural order-- that natural process of conception of life--a process which is his God's will. I would guess Mourdock believes that the victim of rape who gets pregnant would have to make the choice of seeing that natural process to its finish in conception. Presumably, that conception, not rape, perhaps not even the method, would be God's will. I doubt that Mourdock wants to impose his belief on her God-given free will to make her own decision. I would guess that he would wish her to conceive the child, if not for a fruition of God's will, at least as a concern for the child itself.

Yes.


I know someone very special to me who was and I'm very happy you were not part of there life or be killed decision

Funny to watch the psychos get upset and scramble to defend their beliefs. I don't anticipate anybody changing their minds regardless.Even trying to substitute the word nature for God,but a rose is still a rose.
zealots who will be surrounded by virgins upon death should be grouped with you morons for an intelligent discussion.
God bless fox news........?

Yeah, that is psyco speak in any language.

Another Taliban has spoken.
Go kill a doctor who gives abortions.
That will make it better.

Here's the difference...on those rare occasions when a Christian terrorist kills an abortion doctor, everyone in the mainstream Christian community immediately condemns the attack.

And yes, thank God for Foxnews. Foxnews has its share of zealots like Hannity. But it'sthe only place to get fair-minded reporting from the hard news folks there. For example, they broke the story about the CIA paramilitary heroes asking for help, and being denied. Where was CNN and MSNBC on that scoop?

Do you disagree that objective reporting is vital?

Wow.
Just wow.

Can you specify as to what yoru outrage is here?

Every study ever done, and there have been several, show that the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, and nothing to do with the life of the mom being in jeopardy. Rather, the vast majority of abortions are after-the-fact birth control done precisely for the convenience of the mother. I'm not saying it's a casual decision...but the facts speak for themselves...the vast majority of abortions are done for the "convenience" of the mother.

Reasons U.S. women have abortions... [Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16150658)
Why Do Women Have Abortions (http://www.californiaprolife.org/resources/abortion_information/why_do_women_have_abortions/)
Why Do Women Have Abortions? (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html)

Sorry to interrupt your rant with, you know, facts.

A God that gives you the free will to do it or not--with all the appropriate consequences to the rapist and the victim. If the implication of your question is that God predestines and is responsible for all actions, then you have eliminated the human need for a god. Such a god, that gives no choice, need not be pondered over nor obeyed. Any thought or action you have or do are this god's choice not yours. All that exists is not separate from this god but are a part of it. All that is done or thought, are done so by this god.

A God that "allows" rape, allows the free will He has given you to do so or not. This God "allows" all actions but disapproves of and punishes, now or later, actions that trespass HIS will or are destructive to the order of His creation. This God allows you all that is "good" in His creation, and all that is "evil." Any other type of supernatural god is irrelevant. A god you might name Fate or Destiny, and a god you might name Chaos, either leave you no possibility of a separate choice nor a meaning that might result in choice.

The God Mourdock believes in has created us in His image and we are commanded by Him to husband the rest of His creation, the natural world, in accordance to His will and in a way that maintains His order. Mourdock, if he believes in the Constitution, believes in founding principles of free will and the responsiblity of molding that will to the natural order--nature and nature's God. And he will also believe that it is not an all-powerful central government which imposes its will on the people, but that it is the free and God given natural will of the people that allows that central government limited responsibility, and allows the people to build and create the good and goods in free and diverse ways which respond to their individual needs thus expanding the wealth of the nation--a sort of expansion of the biblical command to be fruitful. He would also, therefor, believe that "reproductive rights" would be those allowed by local and state governments as an expression of their people. So he would not be a threat to impose his personal belief on the entire nation as a Federal Senator.

Mourdock's God is the creator of man.

The other type of god that is relevant to humans is the god created by man. Those who believe in this type of god, believe all the other gods are created by man, and therefor fictions. The god they create is not supernatural, though it reigns over man and nature as if it were. Their god does not "allow" free will or unalienable rights to citizens who consent to a limited government, but from an all-powerful seat, grants those citizens limited rights. It also punishes those who trespass the boundary of rights that it allows. The rapes, mayhem, disorder, wars, all evils, also occur under this god even though they are not "allowed." This god is under the duress of constantly finding ways to control populations by instilling new rules and methods of order. Of distributing to and defining needs that constantly expand in response to the distribution. Of constanly narrowing the scope of rights it grants in order to maintain the satisfactions of various groups and majorities that it caters to. Because it limits more and more the rights of the people in order to control and satisfy them as groups rather than individuals, it has to control more and more the means and ownership of wealth and its distribution. The bibical command to be fruitful is limited by this god, and the fruits of labor shrink to those allowed by this god.

This god, of course, is unlimited centralized government--the one size fits all that so many seem to want. Because it is not supernatural, it has only fictive powers (similar to the fictitious god of predestination) over nature and the nature of man. It is not founded on nature nor human nature, it seeks to control them. It is the type of humanly created, unnatural god that has usurped the Constitution and its form of government. Mourdock, if he believes in the Constitution, would rather restore constitutional principles.

He obviously does not approve of rape or believe that rape is God's will. He views it as Man's will, an act which is against God's will, and a violence against God's natural order-- that natural process of conception of life--a process which is his God's will. I would guess Mourdock believes that the victim of rape who gets pregnant would have to make the choice of seeing that natural process to its finish in conception. Presumably, that conception, not rape, perhaps not even the method, would be God's will. I doubt that Mourdock wants to impose his belief on her God-given free will to make her own decision. I would guess that he would wish her to conceive the child, if not for a fruition of God's will, at least as a concern for the child itself.

If a woman is raped, she should be able to make the choice not to have the baby. If she chooses to do so, good for her. She is a very strong and brave woman. If she decides not to do so, she should not be ashamed ridiculed etc. etc.

From a moral standpoint, I don’t think it should be used as a form of birth control due to negligence etc.

Funny that a bunch of men are arguing this case. Also ironic that many of these posts point that it’s done out of convenience to the woman, don’t you think the man might be persuading many of those decisions????? It’s a convenience to the woman and most times the man……………………

If a woman is raped, she should be able to make the choice not to have the baby. If she chooses to do so, good for her. She is a very strong and brave woman. If she decides not to do so, she should not be ashamed ridiculed etc. etc.

From a moral standpoint, I don’t think it should be used as a form of birth control due to negligence etc.

Funny that a bunch of men are arguing this case. Also ironic that many of these posts point that it’s done out of convenience to the woman, don’t you think the man might be persuading many of those decisions????? It’s a convenience to the woman and most times the man……………………

Well put
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If a woman is raped, she should be able to make the choice not to have the baby. If she chooses to do so, good for her. She is a very strong and brave woman. If she decides not to do so, she should not be ashamed ridiculed etc. etc. don't see where anyone has disagreed with this, it is a special case with difficult circumstances no doubt

From a moral standpoint, I don’t think it should be used as a form of birth control due to negligence etc. but it is in most cases

Funny that a bunch of men are arguing this case. Also ironic that many of these posts point that it’s done out of convenience to the woman, don’t you think the man might be persuading many of those decisions????? It’s a convenience to the woman and most times the man……………………

you seem to be stuck on a word, and mixing issues, and creating arguments that don't exist...the first is the issue of life, the second of rape and the third is State's issue vs. Federal...both genders can discuss the issue...Mourdock never stated as far as I'm aware that he'd force anyone to have a child, he was asked about his personal belief and he stated his belief that life is sacred and that we're all created equal endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights the first being LIFE or something psycho like that, he acknowledged the horror of rape and the difficulty weighing that into his beliefs, how many times does this have to be pointed out????? seems like some are determined to take this to an entirely different place...love the name calling and references...that really adds to the discussion

If a woman is raped, she should be able to make the choice not to have the baby.

Constitutionally, so long as the baby is not considered a human being, and the State in which she resides has no objection, she has that right. Constitutionally (as written not as "interpreted"), the Federal Government has no say. Ergo Mourdock's belief cannot, as a Senator in the national congress, impact that right. He is free to express his personal moral or religeous belief but not to impose it. If that baby is considered a human being guilty of no crime, neither she or the state has the constitutional power to deny its right to life.

If she chooses to do so, good for her. She is a very strong and brave woman.

Agree. Not only for choosing to give birth to the baby, but for going through the same pains and deprivations that all women who give birth must.

If she decides not to do so, she should not be ashamed ridiculed etc. etc.

No one should be ridiculed or embarassed for making legitimate choices. She would only be ashamed if she felt she was doing something she felt was intrinsically wrong. The source for instilling right and wrong would come from societal mores or laws, or more deeply from her personal beliefs--those most personal beliefs instilled by experience or philosophical or religeous conviction. For those who are conflicted, counseling or advice from various sources pro and con might help.

From a moral standpoint, I don’t think it should be used as a form of birth control due to negligence etc.

Why not? If the baby is unimportant enough to abort due to rape, what makes it important enough to deliver if the woman doesn't want it?

Funny that a bunch of men are arguing this case. Also ironic that many of these posts point that it’s done out of convenience to the woman, don’t you think the man might be persuading many of those decisions????? It’s a convenience to the woman and most times the man……………………

Sure nuff. The man can be complicit in the decision, even to the point of making it. But he has no legal right to demand or deny the abortion. Which ties to the baby somehow being part of the woman's body--which it is not. It has its own genetic code. It is a separate and distinct being. The mother's body is doing what nature, or God, or some accident is commanding it to do. Her choice to abort is her intellectual decision against her body's "decision."

you seem to be stuck on a word, and mixing issues, and creating arguments that don't exist...the first is the issue of life, the second of rape and the third is State's issue vs. Federal...both genders can discuss the issue...Mourdock never stated as far as I'm aware that he'd force anyone to have a child, he was asked about his personal belief and he stated his belief that life is sacred and that we're all created equal endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights the first being LIFE or something psycho like that, he acknowledged the horror of rape and the difficulty weighing that into his beliefs, how many times does this have to be pointed out????? seems like some are determined to take this to an entirely different place...love the name calling and references...that really adds to the discussion

You seem to be stuck on Mourdock, I'm not talking about him at all.......

Please list out where I name called anyone?????
Apology accepted in advance.

From a moral standpoint, I don’t think it should be used as a form of birth control due to negligence etc.

Why not? If the baby is unimportant enough to abort due to rape, what makes it important enough to deliver if the woman doesn't want it?

detbuch, Sorry, don't see eye to eye with you on this. My personal belief.

You seem to be stuck on Mourdock, I'm not talking about him at all.......the thread is about his comments

Please list out where I name called anyone????? very sorry, that was not directed at you but at the general tone of some of the posts, thought it was obvious but realized after it might be misreadApology accepted in advance. I apologize

.............................

Funny to watch the psychos

Who are the psychos spewing aggressive anti-social rhetoric here? Differences of opinion are not anti-social, trying to squelch those differences would be.

get upset

How do you equate rational discussion with being upset? Are you upset that others are discussing the very topic you introduced? Are we all supposed to agree with you or be called psychos?

and scramble to defend their beliefs.

Scramble? Has the discussion been disorderly (discounting some exceptions of gratuitous name calling)? Are you scrambling to promote your belief? Several here have tried to understand Mourdock's statement in light of his beliefs. That doesn't mean we all hold those beliefs. Though I have much admiration for Christianity as a religion, I am not a Christian. I cannot, at least not yet, submit myself to the dogma of any religion. But I can defend other's beliefs when they are being unfairly attacked or ridiculed.

don't anticipate anybody changing their minds regardless.Even trying to substitute the word nature for God,but a rose is still a rose.
zealots who will be surrounded by virgins upon death should be grouped with you morons for an intelligent discussion.
God bless fox news........?

You sound bitter. Or upset. Even a bit of a zealot for your belief. Are you not able to mount an intelligent discussion with those who disagree with you. Your insistence on comparing us "morons" with Taliban and Islam while not being able to accept or discuss a different point of view compares you more to them than those you claim to be similar religious zealots.

Yeah, that is psyco speak in any language.

Right . . . whose speech is psycho here?

ScottW - apology accepted :kewl:

From a moral standpoint, I don’t think it should be used as a form of birth control due to negligence etc.

Why not? If the baby is unimportant enough to abort due to rape, what makes it important enough to deliver if the woman doesn't want it?

detbuch, Sorry, don't see eye to eye with you on this. My personal belief.

OK. Your personal view just seems a bit inconsistent, perhaps some conflicting notions about the issue. Personal beliefs can lead to disagreement and not be resolved so long as those beliefs are maintained. Discussions between different believers, as long as they remain civil, usually involve a degree of persuasion, a desire to show the rationale of one's belief against the other's negative view, even a desire to change minds. But that takes open discussion. I have to respect your view which is probably more representative than mine. The Taliban in me, don't you know.

OK. Your personal view just seems a bit inconsistent, perhaps some conflicting notions about the issue. Personal beliefs can lead to disagreement and not be resolved so long as those beliefs are maintained. Discussions between different believers, as long as they remain civil, usually involve a degree of persuasion, a desire to show the rationale of one's belief against the other's negative view, even a desire to change minds. But that takes open discussion. I have to respect your view which is probably more representative than mine. The Taliban in me, don't you know.

Understood. This topic can be debated so many ways and in so many forms. Most have very strong beliefs either way. I'll admit that I honestly don't have a strong "black or white" stance like some of the folks here as some situations make me more liberal minded than others. My personal view doesn't seem as inconsistent to me but I also see how others can feel the way they do. In a perfect world human morality would prevail and this would not even be a topic for discussion as it wouldn’t happen. I wish we lived in that world, on the other hand I’m not 100% sure Government should make that same decision for a woman – couple. I do struggle with it as it seems there is no perfect answer (good thing I’m not running for office in the near future)