Richard Mourdock's rape comments: A Defense

[Corduroy]

Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate for the US Senate in Indiana, said in a debate on Tuesday that "even when life begins with that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen."


The remark drew criticism from his Democratic opponent, congressman Joe Donnelly, as well as from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's camp – even as Mourdock defended his words.


During the debate in New Albany, Indiana, Mourdock, Donnelly and Libertarian candidate Andrew Horning were asked about their views on abortion.


"The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother," Mourdock said. "I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something God intended to happen."

This comment is freaking out the talking heads and leading to tepid denunciations across the Republican camp, but really what's so bad about this comment? It's a favourite rhetorical tactic of the pro-choice community to ask pro-lifers "what about rape and incest?" Assuming that this exception must exist doesn't really follow from the logic of pro-life though. If anyone pro-life says they only support abortion under these circumstances (and life of the mother), then you can't really trust them. They're either calculating cynically, aren't really pro-life, or haven't thought it out thoroughly.

If you believe that an unborn child has the right to life, then how does rape or incest negate that? There is no way to square it without special pleading.

And then there's the God intended it to happen comment, which Mourdock has oddly repudiated. If you believe in the omnipresent, omnipotent God with a plan for each and everyone, doesn't it follow that bad things are part of the plan as well? Admittedly that is a weaker argument, as the definition of God is elusive enough to be everything to everyone, but the point is that Richard Mourdock's comments are not shocking or surprising. They seem to follow logically from the worldview of many many people: God has a plan and unborn children are persons.

Should we be offended that he said this? Should Republicans distance themselves from him for espousing views they likely hold but don't have the courage to admit? He's being honest, and while I'd never vote for the man if I could, I can see clearly where he's coming from. If we can take anything from this, isn't it just proof that all of this is just an act, that politics is symphonic bull****, and the only reason why this man is being derided is because he played his own song?

 

[karrie]

One of my friends gave her child up for adoption after a rape. I found it admirable. Had the options existed that they do today, to pop a pill at the hospital when she was brought in, chances are the pregnancy never would have occurred anyway, but, we didn't have the same medication options then. And she was prolife. Her mental state didn't put her at risk from the pregnancy, she never blamed the baby or her body. So she never felt the need to abort.

I think if he wants to believe in that ideal situation, yeah, he's more than free to express his opinion. But, it's only an ideal. All too often women in that same position are at risk of suicide. That's not very pro-life.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

One of my friends gave her child up for adoption after a rape. I found it admirable. Had the options existed that they do today, to pop a pill at the hospital when she was brought in, chances are the pregnancy never would have occurred anyway, but, we didn't have the same medication options then. And she was prolife. Her mental state didn't put her at risk from the pregnancy, she never blamed the baby or her body. So she never felt the need to abort.

I think if he wants to believe in that ideal situation, yeah, he's more than free to express his opinion. But, it's only an ideal. All too often women in that same position are at risk of suicide. That's not very pro-life.

I thought the issue was that the baby was 1/2 made up of the monster that raped you. And you would see his face every time you looked at your baby which can't be good.

 

[karrie]

I thought the issue was that the baby was 1/2 made up of the monster that raped you. And you would see his face every time you looked at your baby which can't be good.

Adoption.

 

[TenPenny]

If you believe in God, then you have to believe that God intended it to happen.

You cannot believe in the all powerful, all knowing God, and then not put responsibility for everything that happens on him/her. If God didn't intend for it to happen, then God is not all powerful/all knowing.

By the same token, God allowed/caused/wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen, and any good Christian would have to accept that God allows Muslims terrorists to exist, therefore God wants them to exist.

 

[karrie]

If you believe in God, then you have to believe that God intended it to happen.

You cannot believe in the all powerful, all knowing God, and then not put responsibility for everything that happens on him/her. If God didn't intend for it to happen, then God is not all powerful/all knowing.

Plenty of people believe in the duality of good and evil..., God and satan. heaven and hell.

Plenty of people believe in a god that ISN'T all knowing, ever present, yadda yadda. But it's cool of you to try to dictate how people HAVE to think based on your criteria.

 

[TenPenny]

Plenty of people believe in the duality of good and evil..., God and satan. heaven and hell.

Plenty of people believe in a god that ISN'T all knowing, ever present, yadda yadda. But it's cool of you to try to dictate how people HAVE to think based on your criteria.

You missed the IF you believe part.

IF is not dictating, I'm saying IF.

Try it some time.

I take it that your version of God is a convenient guy.

 

[Corduroy]

I thought the issue was that the baby was 1/2 made up of the monster that raped you. And you would see his face every time you looked at your baby which can't be good.

If someone is actually pro-life I don't how this changes anything. Presumably their value of life extends to the unborn. How does the preservation of life get trumped by emotional trauma? The child is innocent. Should an innocent life be murdered because it reminds someone of a traumatic event? That doesn't seem to follow from the pro-life premise. If you're pro-life you should be against abortion in all cases, except the life of the mother (then you're in a different moral dilemma).

 

[TenPenny]

If someone is actually pro-life I don't how this changes anything. Presumably their value of life extends to the unborn. How does the preservation of life get trumped by emotional trauma? The child is innocent. Should an innocent life be murdered because it reminds someone of a traumatic event? That doesn't seem to follow from the pro-life premise. If you're pro-life you should be against abortion in all cases, except the life of the mother (then you're in a different moral dilemma).

The child isn't innocent, the child is guilty of sin, as all children are. LOL.

 

[Machjo]

This comment is freaking out the talking heads and leading to tepid denunciations across the Republican camp, but really what's so bad about this comment? It's a favourite rhetorical tactic of the pro-choice community to ask pro-lifers "what about rape and incest?" Assuming that this exception must exist doesn't really follow from the logic of pro-life though. If anyone pro-life says they only support abortion under these circumstances (and life of the mother), then you can't really trust them. They're either calculating cynically, aren't really pro-life, or haven't thought it out thoroughly.

If you believe that an unborn child has the right to life, then how does rape or incest negate that? There is no way to square it without special pleading.

And then there's the God intended it to happen comment, which Mourdock has oddly repudiated. If you believe in the omnipresent, omnipotent God with a plan for each and everyone, doesn't it follow that bad things are part of the plan as well? Admittedly that is a weaker argument, as the definition of God is elusive enough to be everything to everyone, but the point is that Richard Mourdock's comments are not shocking or surprising. They seem to follow logically from the worldview of many many people: God has a plan and unborn children are persons.

Should we be offended that he said this? Should Republicans distance themselves from him for espousing views they likely hold but don't have the courage to admit? He's being honest, and while I'd never vote for the man if I could, I can see clearly where he's coming from. If we can take anything from this, isn't it just proof that all of this is just an act, that politics is symphonic bull****, and the only reason why this man is being derided is because he played his own song?

Pro-life or pro-choice, you ought to have a solid argument for or against. I believe human life begins at conception, so it naturally follows from that that, regardless how it's conceived, human life begins at conception, full stop.

And of course if one believe human life begins at birth, then certainly he'd oppose the idea that a person can be accused of manslaughter for killing a baby in the womb of a mother after beating her. Again, a logical argument based on the belief in question.

Some people just have a hard time with logic. But you, corduroy, seem to have a rational head on you based on waht you post. Thumbs up!

 

[Corduroy]

The child isn't innocent, the child is guilty of sin, as all children are. LOL.

I think I once asked a Christian if a child kicking his mother in utero broke the fifth commandment. They didn't answer. Can't imagine why.

 

[Machjo]

I think I once asked a Christian if a child kicking his mother in utero broke the fifth commandment. They didn't answer. Can't imagine why.

Well, strictly speaking, that would be Jewish, not Christian, law. And I'm not sure if ability to understand his actions counts for something.

 

[Corduroy]

Well, strictly speaking, that would be Jewish, not Christian, law. And I'm not sure if ability to understand his actions counts for something.

It depends on the denomination. They have to get around the idea that God punishes people for sin and redeem them for faith in Jesus. There are many ways to square those ideas with various situations. One situation is being innocent of sin and so having no need for Jesus. Some say children cannot be held responsible for their actions until a certain point (a similar assumption is made in criminal law), some use the concept of original sin saying even children are guilty, sometimes you can't square it and so you make up limbo, and some say children are born innocent but sin very quickly. Children are of course covetous and disobedient from very early. My question was about that last explanation.

 

[karrie]

You missed the IF you believe part.

IF is not dictating, I'm saying IF.

Try it some time.

I take it that your version of God is a convenient guy.

What my version of god is or isn't is irrelevant, because it's personal, not to be dictated by anyone.

 

[Goober]

Another Wacko for the Senate.

Fallout Continues from Richard Mourdock’s “Gift from God” Rape Comment | TIME.com

The GOP seems to have a rape problem. Specifically, their candidates can’t seem to stop themselves from talking about it. On Tuesday night Richard Mourdock of Indiana, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, told an audience at a political debate that pregnancy resulting from rape is something that God intended:

“I struggled with it myself for a long time but I came to realize that 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.”

 

[DaSleeper]

Re: Another Wacko for the Senate.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/u...-richard-mourdocks-rape-comments-defense.html

 

[TenPenny]

What my version of god is or isn't is irrelevant, because it's personal, not to be dictated by anyone.

That would mean that you're not actually a christian, since by your own admission you create your own god. So, nothing I said would refer to you, would it?

 

[Goober]

Cordruy- I did not see this thread I will ask that my later thread be merged. My apologies

 

[karrie]

That would mean that you're not actually a christian, since by your own admission you create your own god. So, nothing I said would refer to you, would it?

There you go again, attempting to define others. Regardless, you never said anythig about Christians. You said if you believe in a god, then you believe he's all knowing, all powerful. Which is false.

 

[Goober]

Re: Another Wacko for the Senate.

Please make in the original thread - I made a mistake. My apologies

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/u...-richard-mourdocks-rape-comments-defense.html