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.

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.

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

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

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?

And I suppose rape is fun for the whole family?

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.

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

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

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.

That you would suppose that is not surprising.

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.

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 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:

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

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…………

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....

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.

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?

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.

'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'.