• 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]

PeteEU said:
Yes in a GOP lead country that will be the law.. just as it is in many Muslim countries who all live in the 1400s still.

And Romney agrees and backs this guy and has even campaigned for him...
Click to expand...

Not anymore...heheh.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Dragonfly said:
To force a woman to carry a pregnancy-through-rape to term, and deliver that child is medieval, abhorrent, and outright disgusting.
Click to expand...

To take innocent human life in aggression is barbaric, abhorrent, and disgusting.

Conversely, to have someone not kill an innocent needlessly is none of those things.



"This sure is a bad situation, but you know what'd be great? Let's just start killing folks."



Tucker Case said:
Oh, so you use circular logic to reach your desired conclusion. Fallacious.
Click to expand...

Not really. Words just, you know, mean things.

Pregnancy is a self-limiting condition. Whatever else it might be, and I have quite a few words for it, abortion is elective. These are facts.

Self-limiting and elected - there is no need. Without need. Needless.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

JayDubya said:
To take innocent human life in aggression is barbaric, abhorrent, and disgusting.

Conversely, to have someone not kill an innocent needlessly is none of those things.



"This sure is a bad situation, but you know what'd be great? Let's just start killing folks."
Click to expand...

You're telling me that if an 18 year old high school senior who has not graduated yet is raped, and she's brought into a hospital ER for treatment and care, she should, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES in your opinion be given the opportunity to take any medication that would effectively terminate any possible conception or pregnancy?

Is that what you're saying?
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Dragonfly said:
You're telling me that if an 18 year old high school senior who has not graduated yet is raped, and she's brought into a hospital ER for treatment and care, she should, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES in your opinion be given the opportunity to take any medication that would effectively terminate any possible conception or pregnancy?

Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...

That's a pretty ridiculous mischaracterization of my post, there, duderino.

If you prevent conception, there is no human being killed, and no moral issue at hand whatsoever.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Dragonfly said:
You're telling me that if an 18 year old high school senior who has not graduated yet is raped, and she's brought into a hospital ER for treatment and care, she should, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES in your opinion be given the opportunity to take any medication that would effectively terminate any possible conception or pregnancy?

Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...

I wonder why you picked 18? Isn't that a bit high for your irrelevant point?
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Henrin said:
I wonder why you picked 18? Isn't that a bit high for your irrelevant point?
Click to expand...

As an aside, these scenarios can get pretty ridiculous, amirite?

So much time and effort spent talking about the minutia of extreme statistical outliers. Anyway...
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Where in the hell is my tin hat?!
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Tucker Case said:
Oh, so you use circular logic to reach your desired conclusion. Fallacious.
Click to expand...

Tucker...just my guess and I could be totally wrong, but Jay may have invented circular logic.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

PeteEU said:
Yes in a GOP lead country that will be the law.. just as it is in many Muslim countries who all live in the 1400s still.

And Romney agrees and backs this guy and has even campaigned for him...
Click to expand...

In the context of this thread, nothing you say here is correct.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Here's a yummy update in the news:


UPDATE: 10/23, 12:00 p.m. -- Mitt Romney's campaign confirmed that he still supports Richard Mourdock and has not asked Mourdock's campaign to pull the ad Romney made in support of his Senate candidacy.

"Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock, and Mr. Mourdock’s comments do not reflect Gov. Romney’s views," Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an email. "We disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest but still support him."

He still supports him? Uhhhhhh, why? Doesn't this belief indicate that Mourdock is a few bricks short of a full load?
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

American said:
In the context of this thread, nothing you say here is correct.
Click to expand...

Hey Romney supports this guy.. if he wins, then it must mean that abortion will be banned since that is what this moron and Romney want.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Zyphlin said:
So...not going to answer my initial question in the first line of the post?
Click to expand...

I was running out the door, but I will say that the events in question are nowhere near the same. One's temporary loss of a job and being told to pick up one's spirits, that something will come through soon is not the same thing as finding yourself in a position of potentially becoming a parent for the rest of your life-along with psychological trauma associated- (or a future adoption candidate with the knowledge that that child or yourself will have mixed feelings about that whole amount of baggage) because someone decided to rape you.
 
Last edited:
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Zyphlin said:
So...not going to answer my initial question in the first line of the post?
Click to expand...

I will too,losing a job and a violent sexual assault resulting in a pregnancy, are not the same thing they cannot be equated. While I acknowledge losing a job is traumatic, one can be repaired by obtaining a new position and made whole. A rape leaves a scar, for some a very deep emotional scar, that can never be made whole. Saying it was God's will a woman had to endure degradation and the violation of her person in such a horrific manner so that a child could be born is ludicrous, excepting maybe for the most devout person. As a policy of the government, it's insulting.

You may call the platitude consistent, but consistency is implies a one-size-fits-all response is adequate. It is not.

EDIT: Fiddy, I didn't ready your reply before typing mine, I was on the previous page as I responded.
 
Last edited:
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Anagram said:
I don't think that's true. Although I disagree with their views, and Akin said a lot that was just factually wrong, I can understand the reasoning behind their views and I think they are logically consistent. I also don't believe they've descended anywhere near the levels of madness as blowing up schools and assassinating 11 year olds.
Click to expand...

But if someone tries to impregnate a 11 y/o, her body will probably shut down to stop it, and if it doesn't, it means God approved it.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

solletica said:
But if someone tries to impregnate a 11 y/o, her body will probably shut down to stop it, and if it doesn't, it means God approved it.
Click to expand...

Only if she's legitimately raped. See, if you concieve, that's just God saying your rape wasn't real. It all makes sense.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Removable Mind said:
Here's a yummy update in the news:


UPDATE: 10/23, 12:00 p.m. -- Mitt Romney's campaign confirmed that he still supports Richard Mourdock and has not asked Mourdock's campaign to pull the ad Romney made in support of his Senate candidacy.

"Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock, and Mr. Mourdock’s comments do not reflect Gov. Romney’s views," Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an email. "We disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest but still support him."

He still supports him? Uhhhhhh, why? Doesn't this belief indicate that Mourdock is a few bricks short of a full load?
Click to expand...

Romney believes in a rape exception. Romney's position is more compromising. Romney is a Massachusetts moderate and he used to even support the abominable practice of abortion. Frankly, I don't trust him on this important issue and wish the GOP had selected someone else.

Mourdock does not support such an exception. Mourdock's position is more reasonable and consistent, even if inspired by religiousity.

If one is to talk in terms of principle rather than compromise... if one does not support abortion because one affirms the human right to life and human equality, no, there is no more justification to kill humans conceived in rape than any other human. However, the reality is that when abortion is banned again, political forces will probably make a rape exception a necessity. Considering that we're talking about a fraction of a percent of cases, that is far better than the status quo.



In any event, why would a national Republican presidential candidate support a Republican senate candidate to win a senate seat even if they don't totally agree on the minutia - and it IS minutia - of one social issue? Gee, I don't know. Bizarre.
 
Last edited:
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

I think there's an important question that this brings up. Is everything that happens God's will? If so, how is there sin? After all, if you're just doing God's will...
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Anagram said:
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.
Click to expand...
I guess you could get pretty nuanced and say that, though rape is the work of Satan, life is the work of God. Although that almost makes it seem like God and Satan are in cahoots together in these situations.

I think the idea that God intends for women to get raped and have children suggests that this God person is pretty f**ked up, though. Why would God do it that way rather than give you the love of your life, who you can marry and have sex with (in that order of course) and populate the world with lots of golden christian children?

Reminds me of a few years back when some celebrity (I'm going to act like it was Jennifer Hudson, but that may not be accurate) said that the brutal murder of almost her entire family was God sending her a message. I was like damn! Your God doesn't mess around!
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

One may also note that while, say, Catholics oppose abortion broadly, according to their website, the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS - the Mormons - have this as their official statement:

Abortion

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.
Click to expand...

Romney is of course, Mormon. It kind of makes sense for his view to mirror the view of his faith...

Does this really explain the difference? Well, people are people. Biden is staunchly pro-abortion, pro-Roe and he somehow claims to be Catholic. Orrin Hatch is consistently pro-life and he's also a Mormon.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Gina said:
I will too,losing a job and a violent sexual assault resulting in a pregnancy, are not the same thing they cannot be equated. While I acknowledge losing a job is traumatic, one can be repaired by obtaining a new position and made whole. A rape leaves a scar, for some a very deep emotional scar, that can never be made whole. Saying it was God's will a woman had to endure degradation and the violation of her person in such a horrific manner so that a child could be born is ludicrous, excepting maybe for the most devout person. As a policy of the government, it's insulting.

You may call the platitude consistent, but consistency is implies a one-size-fits-all response is adequate. It is not.

EDIT: Fiddy, I didn't ready your reply before typing mine, I was on the previous page as I responded.
Click to expand...

Fiddytree said:
I was running out the door, but I will say that the events in question are nowhere near the same. One's temporary loss of a job and being told to pick up one's spirits, that something will come through soon is not the same thing as finding yourself in a position of potentially becoming a parent for the rest of your life-along with psychological trauma associated- (or a future adoption candidate with the knowledge that that child or yourself will have mixed feelings about that whole amount of baggage) because someone decided to rape you.
Click to expand...

Both of your posts basically completely miss my point and zero in on the other portion.

I'm not suggesting Rape and Losing a Job are comparable traumatic events (they both are traumatic events, no they're not on a similar level).

What I'm suggesting is that the general mindset of "Life progresses according to God's Will, and if something bad happens one should seek to find what good they can in the outcome and trust thta God's Will shall lead you in the right direction" is not "disgusting" or "unreasonable".

I SPECIFICALLY made a situation where the bad thing was not as bad as the example in this thread, to highlight exactly what you two have shown...that the issue is not the idea, the issue is your emotional response to the idea being applied consistently even in cases where it may be more painful to accept.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Zyphlin - I read back to your post in question, here . . . and I'll point out that to some people 'it's god's will' is a phrase given for comfort when someone's dealing with a very difficult situation - to put their mind at ease or at least maybe help relieve stress or try to get them to let go of the personal strain of believing that they can change the unchangeable (like when someone dies tragically)

To some, though, it's heavy and a firm belief that they base all of their actions on . . . as is this situation of opposing abortion after rape 'because it was god's will' - it's not just words of supposed comfort, it's action aimed at circumventing a perceived 'act of god that shouldn't be tinkered with.'
An example of using it as a foundation for your actions: if someone lost their job and then someone didn't hire them for another job because "it's god's will that you are unemployed."

I don't believe in the use of the phrase at all - but I know it's applied differently and that application depends on the intent of the person saying it.

It's one thing when trying to just give comfort and ease one's difficult situation.
A whole nother thing to use 'god's will' as a means of deciding what they can or cannot DO.
 
Last edited:
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

JayDubya said:
Romney believes in a rape exception. Romney's position is more compromising. Romney is a Massachusetts moderate and he used to even support the abominable practice of abortion. Frankly, I don't trust him on this important issue and wish the GOP had selected someone else.

Mourdock does not support such an exception. Mourdock's position is more reasonable and consistent, even if inspired by religiousity.

If one is to talk in terms of principle rather than compromise... if one does not support abortion because one affirms the human right to life and human equality, no, there is no more justification to kill humans conceived in rape than any other human. However, the reality is that when abortion is banned again, political forces will probably make a rape exception a necessity. Considering that we're talking about a fraction of a percent of cases, that is far better than the status quo.



In any event, why would a national Republican presidential candidate support a Republican senate candidate to win a senate seat even if they don't totally agree on the minutia - and it IS minutia - of one social issue? Gee, I don't know. Bizarre.
Click to expand...

Uh huh....alrighty then.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Zyphlin said:
Both of your posts basically completely miss my point and zero in on the other portion.

I'm not suggesting Rape and Losing a Job are comparable traumatic events (they both are traumatic events, no they're not on a similar level).

What I'm suggesting is that the general mindset of "Life progresses according to God's Will, and if something bad happens one should seek to find what good they can in the outcome and trust thta God's Will shall lead you in the right direction" is not "disgusting" or "unreasonable".

I SPECIFICALLY made a situation where the bad thing was not as bad as the example in this thread, to highlight exactly what you two have shown...that the issue is not the idea, the issue is your emotional response to the idea being applied consistently even in cases where it may be more painful to accept.
Click to expand...

It is an unreasonable response, specifically because the situations are not at all equal. (I'll stick with unreasonable, though I do have a very visceral reaction to it, response.) You cannot divorce the emotion from rape by waving it off and saying it's not the issue. I'll say it again, consistency is a one-size-fits-all response. It is of no value in the circumstance of rape.
 
re: Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

spud_meister said:
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.
Click to expand...

He is rather unclear on the distinction.

spud_meister said:
Why is finite suffering worth more than the life of a child?
Click to expand...

Why is it the place of the government to decide that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom