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

[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]

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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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

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.

[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.

[FishermanTim]

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"!!!

[Sea Dangles]

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

Unless Spince gets involved in the discussion.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

[Jim in CT]

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...

[Sea Dangles]

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.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by buckman

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?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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

because he also made salma....

[basswipe]

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by basswipe

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