Indiana Republican candidate Richard Mourdock has been criticized for saying that pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will. That's a cruel will.
As any Christian will tell you, "God works in mysterios ways." Why must there be so much mystery is what I am wondering.
Cruel that there is a baby or cruel that it happened in that manner?
I'm asking this in light of comments made by the President saying he didn't want his daughter "punished" with a baby.
For a woman to be forced to bear and care for a child she neither wants nor loves is punishment for both the woman and the child, who will grow up knowing he/she is not loved. Should a woman love her child? Everyday she looks at the child she sees the face of the man who raped her. Are you going to tell her she must love the child? Some women do, but can you pass a law forcing her to do what is not in her heart?
I am not sure why but adoption never comes up in these conversations.
Maybe you should try carrying a baby around for nine months, then maybe you will know why. The men who make these laws never have to suffer the consequences of such laws.
Are you a mom as a result of rape? It could happen to you. Would you decide to keep the product of rape because it is your child and you love it or because there's a law saying you must? The law can make a woman keep an unwanted baby, but no law can make her love it.
And even if you get raped, that still doesn't give you the right to tell another woman how she should respond to the experience.
It's another burden on Social Services. There are plenty of already born children who need homes. Why does anyone care what a stranger does with a mass of cells insider her body?
Adoption pretty regularly does come up. I wonder why we don't hear more about pre-and post-natal care, child malnutrition,health care and parental leave from the evangelicals. Their interest in the baby wanes once it's born.
The right-to-lifers bring it up regularly.
Well then. you being a right-to-deather....you have the moral high ground. i should just shut up huh?
Nope as previously discussed Ralph is someone who believes people shouldn't be forced to give birth (generally we call such people pro choice ) and yes this does give him the moral upper ground with anyone who believes in the most basic of personal freedoms and personal CHOICE.
Like I said earlier to make it fair why don't you just abort every third. They don't mean anything till they are born right?
Well, if you want to do that with your body that is okay for you. You just can't tell anyone else that they must. or mustn't do with their bodies.
There you go again, try to make decisions for everyone in every circumstance.
At least we want to give it a chance to be here.
"At least we want to force women to give birth against their will and then without a touch of irony talk about defending freedom" There fixed it for you.
"At least" is the correct term for that. It's the very least you can do. All righteous before the birth and then it's on it's own. How's that single young victim going to pay for that birth and heath care?
How true. Maybe they just want more recruits to fight in the wars they love so much.
I think you purposely missed the point. Who wants their daughter punished for a rape by forcing her to carry the baby?
Well that's a more valid question if you are one who thinks the unborn child has no value.....
Well that's a more valid statement if you are one who thinks God condones and allows rape to allow the son or daughter of a rapist to live.
Actually your unbelief explains why you don't believe the unborn have any value.
You are putting words in my mouth. I personally don't like abortion and think adoption should always be considered. In the case of rape the women should immediately be given something to prevent or stop the pregnancy if she wants. If a longer time has gone by it should be given up for adoption, but abortions will always happen and it's better to have it done by doctors than illegally. In the case of rape the control should be given to the mother.
Why do you think I missed your point on purpose? Why would I want to do that?
You didn't miss my point, you missed the presidents point.
How could that have been deliberate when I did not read or hear what he said. I was responding to what you said he said. I meant what I said and cannot apologize for it, but I do apologize for misunderstanding the point you were making by quoting him.
I'm not asking for an apology. Sometimes people hear what they want and miss the message. That's why I said it was deliberate.
Can we go back and determine where exactly what we're disagreeing about. Right now, I'm just disagreeing with the notion that I did something deliberate. I would not have chosen to follow you if I did not think you are cool. So let's go back and unravel this before we get in a habit. Please, no more accusations.
It appears that Rad was responding to someone else and you thought he was referring to you. Check out the first page. He is responding to BAREFOOTFAE.
I also don't remember. Perhaps it was my mistake. Sorry.
And you still view a child as punishment. Got any?
The the unwanted pregnancy as punishment for the unwanted sex.
But it's not God who's doing the punishing. It's the law that would force her to give birth to an unwanted child that's doing the punishing.
Give it up for adoption? Meanwhile she has to take a nine month hiatus from whatever plans she had for her life—going to school, starting a business, becoming a fashion model, sav ing money for retirement that she now has to spend on a gynecologist because there's no healthcare. Yes, this is a declaration of war against women.
It's science. If a healthy woman has sex during the day she is ovulating, she gets pregnant.
Of course, but we when she did not decide to have sex it not any longer called consensual sex. It's no longer her decision.
True. Women ovulate for two days and sperm remain alive in the body for five days, so there is a seven day window when sex can result in pregnancy. Not sure what this has to do with rape.
Well...Isn't this special. I don't care WHO made the statement, what State he's from or what side of the political fence he stands. The guy is a MORON. That's the first, second and final word I have to say on this.. You ASKED. I answered. Thank you.
Moron is too kind a word and is too high on the intelligence scale for Richard Mourdock. There is a word which aptly describes him to a "T"-SUBIDIOT or better yet, QUARTERIDIOT!
Would this imbecile, be the same one who said that "If it's a "LEGITIMATE rape".....?......and also added....that "the female human body is able to SHUT DOWN during a rape to prevent pregnancy??"
THAT friggan empty headed blow hard? Too bad his mother's body didn't shut down before HE was conceived.........His BRAIN is surely SHUT DOWN. BEYOND insanely ludicrous.
Actually, the word that best describes the man is one of 7 words that cannot be uttered on television, so I won't say it here.
Supposedly he is way down in the polls. Not as much as you would expect but he is losing.
This wouldn't be God's will because God hates sin. Rape is sin. God does allow us a freewill though and because of that there is much sadness in the world. I consider abortion sin too.
But everyone does not share your beliefs. For you to decide to keep a baby resulting form rape because of your beliefs is one thing. To have a law based on your beliefs forced on those who believe otherwise is wrong.
I do agree, but someone does have to make up laws for the good of the people and not everyone agrees on these laws. The problem arises when the laws are passed based on a particular faith. This is why we (all peoples) need a separation between church and stat. Polygamy is an example. Do we need laws against polygamy? To some we need no laws as they think it's their right we should not interfere (just as we think a woman should have the right to choose). But, women and boys can be taken advantage of in a Polygamous society so we need laws. In the case of abortion we need laws to allow it or young women will get it elsewhere in unsafe conditions.
I see what you are saying. I wonder, do we need laws that allow it or abortion or should we simply not have laws that prohibit it? You may be right. We can't leave it up to individual doctors or individual states to decide what a woman can do. Maybe an amendment? Something that can't be changed every two years depending on who's in Congress. If we can pass three amendments specifically protecting African Americans, we can pass an amendment that gives women rights over their bodies. Perhaps something a little less controversial than the ERA could go through.
Some are actually working to repeal the Civil Rights Act...
I know. People like Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin come and go with as much consequence as the Y2K scare. But when the mainstream media takes them seriously, I have to keep my eyes open. As do we all, for I think that now the issue is more about class than race.
We obviously needs laws that stipulate when an abortion can take place and that when can be argued. It's really a tricky situation because we feel women should get control, but at what point? 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or 9 months. Clearly some lines need to be drawn and these lines are to be drawn without any churches consent. At what point is a fetus a baby? At what point does it feel pain? The when can be argued, but not the abortion itself because abortions will always take place and they need to be safe.
I agree. Drawing the line by educating women about fetal development would be much more effective than forcing a law on them. This should probably be done in junior high, before the girl gets pregnant. She's more likely to make rational decisions when her future isn't at immediate stake.
There s a fine line between information and propaganda. Whether I show a girl a chart where the fetus develops sexual organs in the 14th week of gestation or show her a video of a screaming baby being snatched out of his mother's womb, it's going to have some impact. Question is, will it be an informed decision or an emotional reaction.
I don't think it's her decision in the later months unless the baby is killing the mom. One of my kids was born 3 weeks early and he looked the same as full term baby to me. We certainly need restrictions on when abortion can happen. At 6,7 or 8 months it's murder. We have laws against murder. Do we say well the baby was only one month old so it's not murder? When is the issue and that when should be very early, after that is adoption.
Republicans like Mourdock are very willing to poke their nose in where it doesn't belong and make decisions for women they don't know and than deny any responsibility for their decisions.
I don't know why would would have free will in everything other than getting knocked up.
If that is not what he means, he means we have no choice in everything and no free will,
If that is the case, then the rape itself must also be God's will.
Remember that according to the Bible, rape is not a crime against the woman, but against her husband or father. If a man rapes a married woman, he is to be put to death. If he rapes her in the city, they are both to be put to death because in the city, she could have screamed and someone would have rescued her. Since she did not scream, she is an accomplice to this crime against her husband. If a man rapes a woman who is not married, he is to pay her father a sum of money and marry her. He is not to divorce her for the rest of her life. Whether the woman wants to be married to the man who raped her is not an issue. (Deuteronomy 22:24-28)
Forcing a woman to bear the product of rape is a declaration of war against women. Rape is a common practice in war. What do the soldiers say? "This is my weapon. This is my gun. One is for killing. One is for fun." So the gun is not the weapon. His penis is. The purpose of rape during war is to force the women of the enemy to bear children, thus dividing her loyalties.
But the Republican party clings to pro-life as its only claim to morality. What is the virtue of being concerned about people who aren't here yet if they don't give a damn about the people who are here? We'll protect you before you're born, but once you're born, you're on your own.
I agree with this statement on every level. I don't see why these men are making decisions for us when they themselves won't have to suffer the repercussions of the laws they pass. Here's a word of advice to the government: Keep your sexist and irrational laws away from our bodies.
Yes! And why are Christian men making laws that are based solely on their Christian beliefs for women who are not Christian? Doesn't the Constitution say something about separating Church and state?
In science, neanderthals and homo erectus were not considered humans because they had not developed fully human characteristics even though they were the predecessors of humans. The same is true of a fetus. If Church doctrine doesn't allow Christians to believe in neanderthals, kewl, but why should they be allowed to make laws for everyone else based on their religion?
The last time the Church had the power to make laws, it was the Dark Ages. Let's not go there again.
Forcing a woman to give birth after she has been raped is adding to her trauma. I can't imagine what she would go through during those 9 months. Especially when in some places the rapists have filed for child visitation rights. She is never allowed to forget that this child is a child of rape.
Visitation rights?! We definitely need more women in congress and more women judges. Well the nation goes to the polls in two days. This is our chance to speak loud and clear.
For an ideology that is supposed to be about hope, I am always amazed at how negative liberals are about human life.
No one has any idea at what possible POSITIVE results may ensue from that pregnancy. Where is the hope huh?
Also any reasonable discussion towards saving the child is always characterized as Christians forcing their beliefs on someone. Being a parent can have some very wonderful rewards. I find it striking that there is never a positive view of the child in question.
Have you ever been raped and borne a rapists child? Neither have I. We don't know what a woman feels and she should have the choice to do what she wants.
It is not a blessing to be raped and become pregnant... Some might want to go ahead, but some might not. The argument is that no one should be forced.to bring that pregnancy to full term if they choose not to.
And, for the record, people who are pro-choice care about life as much as you do.
It's one thing for a woman to choose to take the gamble that maybe something positive might come of a baby conceived by rape. It's something entirely different when the law forces her to take that gamble whether she is up to it or not.
Anti-abortion laws are not just characterized as Christian, they ARE Christian and have no basis outside religion.
Liberals are negative about human life? That's a leap. I find it interesting that Republicans are the least to share. I think Christians have been tricked by Republicans to think that their party is more Christian because of it's stand on abortion, but the Republicans seem to be less likely to be Christ like and care for the poor and sick.
Forcing a girl to give birth to a rapist's child will not give a positive result to that girl. The girl did not ask for this pregnancy and should not have to be forced to conceive. Let's hoping the child does not inherit the fathers lack of respect for women or potential psychological problems.
If women are forced to have sex and then forced to have babies what kind of people will you have in the world where people are forced in this way? I thought slavery was over and done with. It seems the US is regressing into their own dark age. I've been reading a lot of really crazy stuff coming from the US media lately.
I guess that's why liberals believe in gun control, abolition of the death penalty, and health care, Right?
Conservatives, on the other hand, support the death penalty, the second amendment, and are anti health care...all which have disastrous effects on human life.
Getitrite, it is such a paradox. Conservatives who are purportedly pro-life is in fact, anti-life. Anti-life for women who they insist should be merely baby machines and grin and take the consequences. Anti-life because they do not actually care about the subsequent nurturance of the unwanted child and his/her eventual outcome! Anti-life because they support needless war which in fact KILLS and damages young men's lives! NEED I SAY MORE?!
Forcing women to have these unwanted children will, in fact, increase many anti-life problems...like...child abuse, neglect, starvation, poverty, murder, overcrowded prisons, death row, decreased life expectancy...
None are god's will. For the people who don't know it yet, you need a woman and a man. And above all a fertile spermatozoon and a fertile ovum.
I don't think all pregnancies are God's will. I don't blame God for unwanted or wanted pregnancies. I don't know why you would want to associate your spiritual and religious beliefs with rape.
This question, this "issue" is a tool of the institutions of power to prevent you from paying attention to the real problems facing us. As long as we keep arguing about things like this, we won't look at what is happening to our country and to our real freedoms.
The reason this will always be an "issue" is because it pits multiple truths against one another. BOTH sides are "right." There is no one in this forum who will say any of the following things as they stand on their own are untrue:
1. Babies are innocent: true
2. Rape is horrible: true
3. Having a child inside of you that is the result of rape can be traumatic: true
4. There are systems that care for unwanted children: true
5. People like to be in charge of their own lives: true
So, there you have the core truths for the two "sides." Because of this, people are always going to find ways to argue about this. It's emotional at every level, and nobody is "wrong."
So, intelligent people should realize this can't be solved, because no emotionally charged person with truth on their side is ever going to agree that truth is wrong.
So stop fighting over this crap. You can't "solve" it. If you're so convinced that this is a massive problem in America, why not spend that energy trying to prevent rape instead. Both sides could channel their energies into positive action rather than endless, un-winnable arguing and the flinging of insults. You're just adding insult to injury with this stuff.
The day Republicans join women in a fight against rape, I will sprinkle salt and pepper on my hat. And you are free to hold me to that.
If they were trying to help women, , we could work together to bring these falsely opposing truths together. But as long as they exercise the power to force women to bear unwanted children, we must continue to fight. We may not win if we keep on, but we will definitely lose of we stop.
You see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. This "argument" is so charged with emotion, and understandably so, that it has moved into a realm of, well, if not outright insanity, at least to a place where there is no possibility of fixing anything.
Do you realize your opening line suggests that Republicans (and apparently all of them as I read this) are pro rape.
How can you possibly solve problems when you are operating from a place absolute and total absence of truth?
Problems are solved by finding middle ground. Even if there is only one tiny grain of sand to stand upon and call it middle ground, you have to start there, calmly, and work outward, figuring out what else you agree on. And here's the hard part, because this is the part that requires some intellectual strength... you have to be able to SEE what the other side is saying. If you are all caught up in emotional knots, so furious that you are driven to lunacy and outpourings of just ridiculous claims, you actually give the morons on THEIR side food to prove how unhinged the "other side" is. And so it keeps feeding itself.
Most people who start saying stuff like you did are too far gone to think anymore and they just run around having spasms of absurdity and, well, they doom their own causes to failure by their inability to adopt an approach of mind and strategy.
And I am sure you will probably read this and think I am against you in this. Which is sad, because I am not. I'm frustrated that we can't solve it, and it is arguments like the one that you just made that curse us to the very thing you would have fixed. YOU and everyone who acts like this work against the very cause you would have fixed.
I have reread my post and am having trouble seeing where I either said or implied that all Republicans are pro-rape. I said they would not engage in measures to prevent rape. There are certainly individuals who engage in such activities and just happen to identify themselves as Republicans, but as a party, the Republicans have not.
The words you use: "furious," "lunacy." "ridiculous," "spasm..." is that truly what you see when you read my posts?
I'm not sure what SHADESBREATH was going on about either. I think it's important to get straight what the parties stand for. Obama want's equal pay for equal work. Romney does not (that is where he stands on Women's rights). Romney thinks the rich should pay less tax then the poor because he knows the rich can influence the poor to get votes (and he's right). Romney is using the abortion debate to get votes from the religious, who don't realize that his party seems to go against the very teachings of Jesus.
And what makes it so crazy, Romney's actions concerning abortion are as inconstant as the moon. He stands for whatever he thinks people want him to stand for at the moment. If he gets in the White House neither the Dems nor the Reps can say for sure what he will do. A cousin of mine said something about no-feudalism and corporate peasants.
I love Canada. Went to Toronto Ontario twice as a kid. Still, like the article says, they go back and forth between conservatives and liberals up there just like they do down here. If I move there, I may still one day have to face the same stuff I'm trying to escape down here.
Honestly though, it makes no sense to consider myslelf a conservative or a liberal. What do I have to conserve or with what can I be liberal? I'm just a noun—a person, in a place, doing her thing.
I think Obama would get 99% of Canadian votes. Canada and America are very similar and yet completely different. What American's call conservative is not the same as what Canadian's call conservative as the article states. In Canada the Federal Government has a little more power over it's provinces then the Federal Government has in the it's states. Universal health care is never in question no matter which government is elected. As a result Canada has much less expensive medication prescriptions. Canadian banks are under Government regulation and as a result the credit crunch had absolutely no effect on Canadian banks. For some reason American's seem to be afraid of Government regulation and protection, I'm perplexed by that. Canada also has a stronger separation of church and state, as a result most people don't know or care of what if any religion a politician belongs to. Canadians do not have the right to buy guns, it's a privilege and it's heavily regulated and as a result Canada's murder rate is far less.
You know, sometimes I suspect there is something the doctors can do for my eyes (I am legally blind) but I can't afford it so they're not even saying. It has nothing to do with the deficit or cutting government spending. If you get a kidney transplant, you have to take anti-rejection medication the rest of your life. Here in the states, insurance will only pay the first three years. The average American cannot afford the expensive medication so they have to go on dialysis. What's crazy is insurance will cover dialysis which cost two or three times more than the medication! Go figure.
Remember the United States was born out of revolution against King George. Our whole constitution is designed to prevent the government from doing what he did. "Congress shall make no law doing this." "Congress shall make no law doing that." That's why small government is considered to be conservative here. In the same way, Canadian thought is predicated on Canadian history and the fact that half of Canada is still owned by the British crown (please correct me if I am mistaken).
The British or the British crown has no authority in Canada.
No authority, but what about cultural influence? French Canada notwithstanding, of course.
All of North America's culture is influenced by the British. Canadian's are pretty much American's with universal health care.
I hear you. Now that Obama is in the Oval Office again, maybe we'll get closer to having universal healthcare. Since the Reps still dominate the House of Representatives, Obama will still have to fight. He is a fighter.
Have you ever heard of Africville?
But Obama is not a Canadian. He is a citizen of the United States (I will not say "an American" here because America is a continent, not a nation, so Canadians, Mexicans and Brazilians are as much Americans as Chicagoans and Washingtonians) . So this is where he is fighting the battle. Canadians don't need Obamacare because you already have your own equivalent.
If hordes of US citizens flee to Canada, you might welcome us, but we would still be guests in someone else's country. As my mother says, "if the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence, it's because the people on the other side are taking care of it." That is what Obama is trying to do.
The day Republicans join women in a fight against rape, I will sprinkle salt and pepper on my hat.
So, in saying that, you are saying that "Republicans" do NOT join women in the fight against rape. THAT is what you said, and THAT is untrue. The inference is that "Republicans"—and that's a big group of people mind you—are either in favor of rape or at the very least, could care less. So, if that is the case, then no law against rape has or even will get votes from any republicans because of their stance as being pro rape or completely unconcerned about rape.
I call a claim like that lunacy. I think it is ridiculous to suggest or imply such a thing. I think you can't possibly actually mean that, which makes saying it a spasm of emotion, of which being furious counts.
Hopefully that clears that up.
As far as "as a party" goes, since when have Democrats stood as the party of absolute and undivided unity in all things? You seem to think it must be true since "Republicans" work so uniformly against you. So, to suggest that Republicans move as some giant, unthinking automaton bent on the advocacy and support for rape is a completely and totally emotive spasm rather than a sensible statement meant to examine a problem.
Yes, there are some far-right Christian psychos who are also Republicans who act as you describe, but there are many others who are not. Most others do not, which is why the things you say "Republicans" want to do is not law. In fact, it's the other way around. There is nobody forcing anyone to do anything on a national level, and there hasn't been for decades. Nor will there be. Unless people make absurd comments like you are making and get everyone's emotions flaring, defenses up,rallying around lies and half-truths, and give fuel to the far right who can prove the insanity of "the other side."
So, I'm just trying to stop you from shooting yourself, and the rest of us, in the foot.
The fact that you can't see/won't see/aren't capable of seeing the problem of the collision of two ideals behind the debate is the real danger to us all, in this and all issues.
If a rape was god's will, then so are abortions if they are getting performed and there is no need for any laws since god will sort everything out himself.
Yes, everything is God's will—rape, murder, robbery,you name it. And a party that's ready to turn responsibility over to God is not going to engage in rape prevention.
I am not a Christian, so correct me if i am wrong.
But god gave man free will.
There for anything he or she does is to their own desire and these will be judged on judgment day.
So abortion or pregnancy is done by free will, not gods will.
Perhaps out of a sense of fairness we should just abort like every third pregnancy?
That work for you guys? Because they are people yet are they and you needn't be attached?
Do you just want to abort the atheist and liberal babies? Is there some sort of DNA test or something that you would want applied?
An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure: CONTRACEPTIVES.
Great Idea, just ask the rapist to strap one on.
Contraceptives may be useful during consensual sex, but you can't seriously require all females to go on the pill from puberty to menopause in case they get raped. Rapists aren't likely to use condoms. Spermicide? I can hear the little sperm cells screaming, "OH NO! RAID!"
Please understand, I was responding to a comment made by BAREFOOTFAE, about abortion in GENERAL, not about pregnancies from rape. You should go back and read it. Thanks
Why don't you just stop worrying so much about other peoples' zygotes?
Well said Shadesbreath. As a Republican against rape, I appreciate your response.
Anyone who believes that any pregnancy is "God's Will" should read the book called I'm no Monster by Stephanie Marsh. The real events of a man in australia who held his daughter captive in a basement for 24 years raping her and getting her pregnant 7 times.
Sounds like a monster to me.
No one has ever seen or heard God, but everyone thinks they know what his/her/its will is.
by Tammy Barnette3 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-candid … itics.html Indiana Republican Senate Candidate Richarard Murdock said pregnancies resulting from rape are part of God's plan....
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
Abortion is THE MOST CONTENTIOUS arena and subject of American politics. Abortion also generates the MOST VISCERAL reaction among people. However, what business and concern it is whether a woman elects to...
by LauraGT3 years ago
The ridiculously backwards and small thinking of right-wing Republicans related to rape keeps popping up this season. Now it's Indiana State Senate candidate Richard Mourdock who has said that pregnancy that...
by Mark Knowles7 years ago
I see we have a bunch of female religionists preaching what we should be doing, but I am confused. God made it pretty clear that women were to be seen and not heard - they are, after all, subservient to men and should...
by Jouneyman27 years ago
I'm kinda new to this forum but in reading through some of the threads on religion I was amazed at the spectrum of theories and beliefs. In all of what I read, which wasn't ALL the topics, I didn't see this question...
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
ERRATA: Title should read, Well, JUST SHOOT ME IN THE FOOT PLEASE! Father Benedict Groeschel, American friar of the conservative Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, stated that teenagers act as seducers in some...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.