Gods Intention

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

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

"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

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?

[Sea Dangles]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

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
Why Do Women Have Abortions
Why Do Women Have Abortions?

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

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who is suggesting otherwise?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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……………………

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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."