Gods Intention

[Sea Dangles]

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.

[buckman]

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

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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.

[Nebe]

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

[Jackbass]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

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.

[FishermanTim]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by FishermanTim

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.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

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

[RIJIMMY]

insane and unfortunately reinforces many of the stereotypes of repubs

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

insane and unfortunately reinforces many of the stereotypes of repubs

exactly

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=RIJIMMY;965425]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?

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?

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

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.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

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.

[Sea Dangles]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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.

[JackK]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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'.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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!

[Sea Dangles]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Taliban achieves its imposition by force.

And I suppose rape is fun for the whole family?