• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

I think the positions these Republicans take on these matters are based on their religious positions on Divine Providence, Free Will and Predestination. Depending on whether the speaker's faith is based on Catholic, Lutheran or Calvinistic theology their specific takes on rape will differ. The idea that a rape could be a part of God's intention, I believe, probably stems from a Calvinistic position of believing that human Free Will does not exist, what's known as a determinist philosphical position. The problem with this line of logic for those adhering to Calvinist position is that whatever happens, due to God's total perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, is his intention. So, the abortions that have and do take place are also a part of his intention too.

Catholic takes on Free Will, as best explained by Thomas Aquinas, argue that Free Will is compatible with Divine Providence, and hence, I doubt whether the strongest Catholic anti-abortionist would take the position that rape is God's intention.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Doesn't make it any less disgusting that it's consistent with their disgusting values.

Which is disgusting, that God values all life, or that life shouldn't be taken for convenience?
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Which is disgusting, that God values all life, or that life shouldn't be taken for convenience?

That we should force a woman who has been raped to endure the pregnancy brought on by her rapist. That is wrong, period.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

The "Let's force a shattered woman to be tortured for 9 months" is a disgusting value.

Funny, by my values, saying things that so obviously misrepresent a situation is pretty disgusting. Who wants to "force" anyone to be "tortured?"


Not wanting an innocent human being to be killed - literally for the sins of the father - is not forcing torture on anyone.

Pregnancy sometimes happens when sex occurs. Rarely, some jerkwad who belongs in prison will force sex on someone. If these two events unfortunately align, the solution to the problem created by violence and wrongdoing is not more violence and wrongdoing.

The rapist deserves punishment. The rapist caused the situation. The child has done nothing wrong. By hurting an innocent third party, more people make themselves into monsters that belong in prison. Saying that hurting innocent third parties is not permissible does not force anything on anyone, and yes I resent the hell out of that.

I don't even believe in God, but we're far enough afield with comments like that and they warrant correction.
 
Last edited:
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

The "Let's force a shattered woman to be tortured for 9 months" is a disgusting value.

So it's not a disgusting value to kill an innocent party for the crimes of someone else? What exactly is the reason for this? Because the child is the result of it? Oh yeah, that logic is sound all right. My feelings warrant violence, yeah, my feelings. There is something fundamentally broken with your moral code.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

I think the positions these Republicans take on these matters are based on their religious positions on Divine Providence, Free Will and Predestination. Depending on whether the speaker's faith is based on Catholic, Lutheran or Calvinistic theology their specific takes on rape will differ. The idea that a rape could be a part of God's intention, I believe, probably stems from a Calvinistic position of believing that human Free Will does not exist, what's known as a determinist philosphical position. The problem with this line of logic for those adhering to Calvinist position is that whatever happens, due to God's total perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, is his intention. So, the abortions that have and do take place are also a part of his intention too.

Catholic takes on Free Will, as best explained by Thomas Aquinas, argue that Free Will is compatible with Divine Providence, and hence, I doubt whether the strongest Catholic anti-abortionist would take the position that rape is God's intention.

I don't think they're saying rape is Gods intention (this comes from not having read the OP at all, just the thread title), rather that God wants the life conceived, regardless of how it was conceived.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

That we should force a woman who has been raped to endure the pregnancy brought on by her rapist. That is wrong, period.

Why is finite suffering worth more than the life of a child?
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Why is finite suffering worth more than the life of a child?

Who says that the suffering is finite?
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Not wanting an innocent human being to be killed - literally for the sins of the father - is not forcing torture on anyone.

Except for the person who is being tortured by the pregnancy, who would have had options if not for someone else's misguided concern for the insensate life that is growing within her body. Funny how the pro-life position always seems to forget about the woman carrying the pregnancy, her well-being, and the rights she's supposedly entitled to.

Rape babies are just the reductio ad absurdium for why the pro-life position is morally unconscionable on its face.

Rarely, some jerkwad who belongs in prison will force sex on someone.

One in four women. One in sex men. And those statistics are believed to be under-reported. Hardly rare.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

I don't think they're saying rape is Gods intention (this comes from not having read the OP at all, just the thread title), rather that God wants the life conceived, regardless of how it was conceived.

If that's the case, then the benevolent nature of God must be questioned.

Also, the United States of America does not make policy as to what it's citizens can or cannot do based on the guesses of the whim of a supposed deity.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Why is finite suffering worth more than the life of a child?

What Sam said.
 
Last edited:
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

YourStar did, she mentioned suffering a pregnancy, that's only 9 months.

But there's still emotional trauma to the mother with that that can continue long after the pregnancy and birth.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

If that's the case, then the benevolent nature of God must be questioned.

Not really, God didn't make the rape happen, He merely places the same value on all innocent life.
Also, the United States of America does not make policy as to what it's citizens can or cannot do based on the guesses of the whim of a supposed deity.

Yes it does, US policy is determined by policy makers, most of whom assume to know the will of a supposed deity.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Except for the person who is being tortured by the pregnancy

Naked hyperbole, but go on...

who would have had options if not for someone else's misguided concern for the insensate life that is growing within her body.

Well there's always options. It's just that contracting out to kill a third party should never be legal and usually isn't, and if caught doing it you've so clearly gone off the reservation that you probably deserve to spend the rest of your life in prison, at best.

As far as "misguided," hey throughout human history, there's so often been a class of humans that are minimized and denied equality and legal protections under the guise of thinly veiled bigotry that it's hard to keep track of them all. Suffice to say that I'm sure defenders of those respective status quos found challenges to them misguided as well, as hey, those folks don't count.

Funny how the pro-life position always seems to forget about the woman carrying the pregnancy, her well-being, and the rights she's supposedly entitled to.

I have never understood how anyone gets that as a takeaway.

I also don't think you should go shoot some random person on the street. By thinking that, have I forgotten about you? Do I not care about your well-being? Have I limited your rights?

Doesn't seem to follow, does it? Just seems like a unsupported, unrelated group of assertions, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

But there's still emotional trauma to the mother with that that can continue long after the pregnancy and birth.

We have ways to deal with that do we not?
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

I don't think they're saying rape is Gods intention (this comes from not having read the OP at all, just the thread title), rather that God wants the life conceived, regardless of how it was conceived.

I understand that and made a mistake in my answer.

Okay, but here's a problem with the position that these speakers are taking: if the consequence of the rape is a pregnancy, and that pregnancy can be argued to be a part of God's intention, how can the rape not also have been a part of God's intention too? Calvinists believe that God ordains all things, that man has no Free Will and that all things are pre-ordained, and that God's Divine Providence is present in all actions. I've never had a Calvinist explain to me how evil actions can be removed from that Divine Providence. If a rapist is subject to that determinism too, how can evil actions be divorced from God's intention?

Maybe this is moving the topic into more theoretical philosophical territory than the OP intended, but unless you come to grips with these issues of God, man and Free Will, how can you deal with these kind of political/theological/philosophical questions?
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

But there's still emotional trauma to the mother with that that can continue long after the pregnancy and birth.

Or the mother could be fine 20 minutes after the rape and lead a long and happy life with the child, so we'll stick to 9 months of actual harm, rather than a unspecified and arbitrary amount.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

But there's still emotional trauma to the mother with that that can continue long after the pregnancy and birth.

Not to mention the physical changes, and potential damage to their health from the pregnancy, the medical bills required for the pregnancy, all the ultrasounds, the hospital stay, the midwife, the maternity clothes, the time needed off of work. It's a lot to deal with when that is your choice, and your excited for the baby. So forcing someone to deal with all that right after having to go through what is more than likely the worst experience of her life is just morally wrong. It is not simply a matter of waiting 9 months.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, God intended it | Reuters



Honestly, I think it is a reasonable and somewhat consistent position, although I don't agree with it. From the standpoint of someone trying to get elected in a close race with an unusually strong Libertarian candidate to splinter the Republican vote, it was just a stupid thing to say though. If it plays anything like Todd Akin's comment did, Joe Donnelly will take the senate seat from the Republicans in Indiana. I'd pretty much given up hope for the Republicans to take the senate this year anyway. Things looking very good for the GOP in 2014 though.

What an idiot, I can't believe he said that. Everyone knows that rape doesn't cause pregnancy. The magical elves in the vagina shut everything down.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Or the mother could be fine 20 minutes after the rape and lead a long and happy life with the child, so we'll stick to 9 months of actual harm, rather than a unspecified and arbitrary amount.

That is unrealistically limiting the discussion. You can't ignore the emotional suffering that occurred during the rape.

And no one is fine 20 minutes after a rape, that is ridiculous.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

But there's still emotional trauma to the mother with that that can continue long after the pregnancy and birth.

Btw, since when is emotional trauma of a crime an excuse to kill? I must of missed something somewhere because I can't remember when that was fine. I surely can't think of how it makes sense either.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Naked hyperbole

Says someone who's never had to fear the possibility. It's very easy to be cavalier about threats you don't have to face.

Suffice to say that I'm sure defenders of those respective status quos found challenges to them misguided as well, as hey, those folks don't count.

Except that the "folks" you're defending aren't sentient because they lack the very biological prerequisites to sentience. They don't care whether they live or die, because they literally, physically cannot possibly care. So yes, your prioritization of something that has no more sense nor purpose than a stone is wholly misguided.

I have never understood how anyone gets that as a takeaway.

I also don't think you should go shoot some random person on the street. By thinking that, have I forgotten about you? Do I not care about your well-being? Have I limited your rights?

I have every right to shoot someone that won't leave my house. I certainly have the right to shoot someone whom is hijacking my entire metabolism against my will. Again, by comparing the unborn child to "some random person on the street", you are completely and utterly disregarding the role that the woman plays in this process.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, God intended it | Reuters



Honestly, I think it is a reasonable and somewhat consistent position, although I don't agree with it. From the standpoint of someone trying to get elected in a close race with an unusually strong Libertarian candidate to splinter the Republican vote, it was just a stupid thing to say though. If it plays anything like Todd Akin's comment did, Joe Donnelly will take the senate seat from the Republicans in Indiana. I'd pretty much given up hope for the Republicans to take the senate this year anyway. Things looking very good for the GOP in 2014 though.

Christ almighty - "God intended for you to be raped" is really how his viewpoint comes across - not just from him . . . but anytime I hear it, that's how it really seems to me. That seems to be their underlying point (since he's all-knowing like people who believe claim he is - he knew it would 'come to this' and there it is - God's will be done)

This is where people's belief in 'God's will' truly nauseates me.

How can people hold THAT view and think God is somehow a GOOD force? "all things happen because God wants it to" - well then god can go **** himself and so can all the psycho zealot nutters who want to suck him off.
 
Last edited:
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

I understand that and made a mistake in my answer.

Okay, but here's a problem with the position that these speakers are taking: if the consequence of the rape is a pregnancy, and that pregnancy can be argued to be a part of God's intention, how can the rape not also have been a part of God's intention too? Calvinists believe that God ordains all things, that man has no Free Will and that all things are pre-ordained, and that God's Divine Providence is present in all actions. I've never had a Calvinist explain to me how evil actions can be removed from that Divine Providence. If a rapist is subject to that determinism too, how can evil actions be divorced from God's intention?

From my knowledge of Calvinism, everyone is a sinner, thanks to Adam. He's already chosen the people to be saved, and their actions, evil or good, are irrelevant to their salvation, and so any evil they commit is part of a larger plan.
 
Back
Top Bottom