Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackbass
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.