Richard Mourdock: Let’s face it, Democrats are twisting my rape comments for electoral advantage

posted at 6:41 pm on October 24, 2012 by Allahpundit

MKH already touched on today’s outrage du jour but here’s video of the candidate addressing it this morning. The full quote from last night’s debate:

“You know, this is that issue that every candidate for federal or even state office faces. And I have to certainly stand for life. I know that there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view. But I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have on abortion is in that case — of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize 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.”

Two ways to read that last line. One, the “Democrats really need this seat in Indiana” interpretation: Mourdock thinks rape is morally A-OK, at least when it results in pregnancy. Two, the “I can’t believe we’re talking about this” interpretation: He thinks rape is monstrous but that human life is sacred, therefore conception reflects divine will even if the circumstances that lead to it do not. Is there a theodicean conundrum in that? Arguably, sure, but the left’s not dogging him here because he’s caught in a philosophical jam. They’re dogging him because their “war on women” demagoguery simply won’t allow them to let pass an opportunity to paint a Republican as “pro-rape,” especially after the uproar over Akin and especially with a presidential election bearing down that might be decided by the width of the gender gap. I’d love to know what percentage of Dems secretly understand full well what he meant but are making hay over this anyway versus the percentage of liberal true believers who’ve convinced themselves that he really does see rape as some sort of religious sacrament or whatever. I’d bet the split is something on the order of 80/20, although maybe I’m telling myself that just because a lesser ratio would be too depressing.

Someone (I forget who) was complaining on Twitter last night that it’s only pro-lifers who ever get tough follow-up questions to their stated views on abortion, so here’s some of my own for our famously religious president the next time he sits down for an interview. Real simple: Does God wish children of rape didn’t exist? If not, what’s O’s issue with Mourdock? If so, how is it that those children do exist? “Free will” — of a rapist? Should the child be told that God wishes he didn’t exist but that his rapist dad’s degeneracy carried the day? What other types of people, besides children of rape, does God wish didn’t exist? A six-year-old is capable of grasping simultaneously that (a) rape is atrocious and yet (b) a child conceived by it is blameless and capable of great things. That’s what makes rape exceptions to abortion bans morally difficult, even if you come down on the side of allowing the exception. Our politics, it seems, is not capable of grasping that even on a good day, let alone two weeks out from an election.

As for the Akin comparisons, no dice. James Taranto:

Mourdock gave a straightforward and thoughtful answer, if an impolitic one, to the question that was posed, one that made clear he appreciates its (albeit only hypothetical) moral gravity. Akin, by contrast, attempted to avoid the question by arguing that it was irrelevant.

That argument was unsound because it was based on an unfounded empirical premise, one that is generally understood to be false–namely that rape never causes pregnancy, or does so with such infrequency as to constitute a negligible problem. (There is some evidence, though it is far from conclusive, that this is the opposite of the truth: As the Washington Post reported in August, “one provocative study” in 2003 “found that a single act of rape was more than twice as likely to result in pregnancy than [sic] an act of consensual sex.”)

Largely lost amid the hubbub over Akin’s Orwellian phrase “legitimate rape” was its logical centrality to his flawed argument. He evidently knew there were counterexamples that would disprove his premise, so he resorted to the “No-True-Scotsman Move”…

Right. Akin’s big defense after that blew up was that he’d chosen his words poorly in describing “legitimate rape.” But that wasn’t really the issue; the issue was the junk science he floated about women supposedly having some sort of biological defense to conception by rape, which, as Taranto explains, was really his way of dodging the moral dilemma at the heart of argument. Apples and oranges.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Dems are plaing with fire on this one.

RINO in Name Only on October 24, 2012 at 7:32 PM

They are so stupid, so disgusting, so predictable! Now, here comes what will end burning them, as they so richly deserve: http://twitchy.com/2012/10/24/obama-campaign-ties-romney-to-pro-rape-mourdock-pro-lifers-push-back

I thank God they are that idiotic!

Anti-Control on October 24, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Newsflash. Nathor is still a buffoon.

Allahpundit’s take on this is dead on target. Individual’s have free will, granted by their Creator. That gives them the ability to choose to do horrific evil.

Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery because of envy that he was favored by their father. God used that to put Joseph in place in Egypt in a way which saved the nation of Israel from starvation during a famine.

God’s will didn’t include the envy of Joseph’s brothers. His omniscience made use of the result. Likewise, a child conceived of rape isn’t an affront to God, no living being is conceived apart from the Creator’s design. The laws of this nation are founded upon acceptance of Divine architecture, while permitting its own citizens to disbelieve. Nothing more fair has ever existed in a form of government.

Sanctity of life trumps all other interests. And for any imbecile who then suggests that I should oppose the death penalty, such a criminal has willfully forfeited the sanctity of their own life through the taking of another. This is not a hypocritical stance. What is hypocritical is those who proclaim the death penalty an affront against society for the taking of a life, and who then approve of abortion, the taking of a life.

Freelancer on October 24, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Nice post.

0-bow-mao and the others so-called Christians who attack Mourdock as a ‘pro-rapist’ are disgusting, grunting pigs, who don’t understand the gist of Christianity and have no business calling themselves, “followers of Christ”.

Anti-Control on October 25, 2012 at 12:20 AM

And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape

Yeah, that just screams, “God wanted you to be raped, you slut!

To an idiot.

There Goes The Neighborhood on October 25, 2012 at 12:40 AM

I took it to mean He intended the pregnancy to happen, not the rape.

That is indescribably stupid. It is *unfathomably* stupid. It is *UNPRECEDENTEDLY* stupid. God intended the pregnancy, but had no other means of bringing the pregnancy about…outside of rape? Seriously…think, think, think before you post. This is what is wrong with conservative Christianity, to a tee.

libfreeordie on October 24, 2012 at 6:56 PM

I think it’s your interpretation that’s missing the mark. Saying, “God intended the pregnancy to happen,” is not saying, “It was God’s perfect plan for you to be raped so you can be pregnant.”

It’s the old dilemma, “If God is good, then why do bad things happen?”

Well, bad things happen because people sin instead of doing God’s will. Sin always hurts someone else eventually. When you steal, someone is hurt by being deprived of money or possessions. When you kill, someone is deprived of their own life, and others are deprived of that person’s presence in their lives.

One of the possible consequences of rape is pregnancy. What you do with that pregnancy is a separate question from whether or not it is “fair” that you are pregnant.

Anyone who can listen to what Mourdock said and claim he was saying that rape is God’s will didn’t listen at all.

I refer you to Joseph. He was sold into slavery because his brothers were jealous of him. It shouldn’t have to be said that this was a bad thing. He was thrown into prison because Potiphar’s wife accused im of trying to rape her. This was also a bad thing.

But somehow through these experiences he became the second greatest power in Egypt and was able to save the lives of his father’s house and his brother’s family. As he said, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.”

At heart, Mourdock is expressing a belief in Providence even in such an extreme case. What he’s really guilty of is “casting his pearls before swine.” As in, talking about something he believes because of his faith that will not be shared by the faithless. To the left, it’s nothing but an opportunity to claim shamelessly that Mourdock is somehow in favor of rape, or at least thinks women who were raped somehow deserved it.

There Goes The Neighborhood on October 25, 2012 at 1:03 AM

You do realize the Bible was written hundreds of years after Jesus died, right?

So how do even know Jesus said anything at all?

A burning pine tree tells me that you’re wrong…….. ;)

KMC1 on October 24, 2012 at 8:08 PM

The Gospels were written because the apostles who had been eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus were getting older and dying off. Their intent was to write down what they had been telling people for years, so that the stories would not be lost with their death.

The last of the Gospels was written before AD 90. The other Gospels had been written before then. This is within a single generation of the Crucifixion. There were a lot more than 4 Gospels written, but the people in the churches rejected some of them because they did not line up with the preaching and teaching of the apostles.

Paul’s epistles were written well before then. Galatians may well have been written before AD 50.

The latest book written of the New Testament — and therefore, of the Bible — was the book of Revelation somewhere between 92-99 AD. So no more than about 60 years after the Resurrection.

This is not “hundreds of years later.”

There Goes The Neighborhood on October 25, 2012 at 1:35 AM

I believe what everyone is looking for here: “God enters in to all things to work his good.” Romans 8:28 It’s man that gets in the way by trying to do it our way (i.e. abortion) instead of letting God work it out his way…

American Patriot1980 on October 25, 2012 at 2:36 AM

Saw this story yesterday morning on the local news. My wife and I shared a double face palm moment. Another rep saying something stoopid. But then the local did something very unprofessional after the news break to start the story. They showed the whole quote. Big mistake.
That’s when we realized we’d been hooked by the news hookers. It was a sound faith based statement. The kind of statement the baby yankers (uhm infant removers) can’t stand! Only they may judge and only they are always in the right! Cased closed. Well before they have to face any criticism.
Mr. Murdoch is being slandered by sl#t facists wearing our first amendment right as though it signifies them as some sort of vestal virgins.

onomo on October 25, 2012 at 6:56 AM

Since HA loves that source of truth in the AM, Morning Joe, I checked in today.

Not a word about the WH playing possum on Libya from the gang.

Two visits to Dear Leader on Leno admitting his hope for a Detroit World Series win. I guess California is locked up…and most of the state hates the San Francisco Giants anyway.

Lots of dismay about the far right Republicans while Mica quietly beamed. A “woman’s body” was was a big element in the discussion and fit nicely with a review of polls showing the Republicans going down at a very slight angle. The Dems love Ohio and Nevada right about now.

Then a quick summary of a NYT op-ed on the Romney economic plan. Surprisingly, the article showed that Britain and Germany, two economies with a history of austerity, were not doing as well as the USA which had the manna from heaven known as Stimulus. It was not really challenged so someone should ask Joe or one of the staff to contact a search engine with the words “there was no austerity in Britain”.

I read a summary on that point showing that the US stimulus “hurt” many of the locations of the spending if one judges by the situation this far in the future. Unfortunately, my economics expert is honest and tells that the locations had other problems so it isn’t fair to arrive at such a conclusion.

It is weird that the NYT has to go to Europe and completely misses Greecs. Nobody listens when economists I know talk about Obamacare and debt killing the US economy.

IlikedAUH2O on October 25, 2012 at 7:45 AM

The Gospels were written because the apostles who had been eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus were getting older and dying off. Their intent was to write down what they had been telling people for years, so that the stories would not be lost with their death.

The last of the Gospels was written before AD 90. The other Gospels had been written before then. This is within a single generation of the Crucifixion. There were a lot more than 4 Gospels written, but the people in the churches rejected some of them because they did not line up with the preaching and teaching of the apostles.

Paul’s epistles were written well before then. Galatians may well have been written before AD 50.

The latest book written of the New Testament — and therefore, of the Bible — was the book of Revelation somewhere between 92-99 AD. So no more than about 60 years after the Resurrection.

This is not “hundreds of years later.”

There Goes The Neighborhood on October 25, 2012 at 1:35 AM

So they weren’t eyewitness accounts, then. They were written decades after the events they allege happen. Yup, there’s no way they could have exaggerated, made up or been wrong about anything they wrote or what they claim.

Hm. That sounds…reliable for something so important.

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Hm. That sounds…reliable for something so important.

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 8:09 AM

For someone who argues that one person’s feelings trumps another person’s life, you seem to think people should care what you think about life.

Good Lt = FEELINGS TRUMP LIFE

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 8:20 AM

For someone who argues that one person’s feelings trumps another person’s life, you seem to think people should care what you think about life.

Good Lt = FEELINGS TRUMP LIFE

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Are sperm living things? Eggs?

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 8:55 AM

For someone who argues that one person’s feelings trumps another person’s life,

Except nobody’s arguing that.

What we’re arguing is that the decision of a rape victim to terminate a pregnancy is not yours to make.

Commence with your perfunctory namecalling.

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 8:56 AM

So they weren’t eyewitness accounts, then. They were written decades after the events they allege happen. Yup, there’s no way they could have exaggerated, made up or been wrong about anything they wrote or what they claim.

Hm. That sounds…reliable for something so important.

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Yeah they were.. Titanic survivors were still alive decades after the fact. WWII vets are still alive 70 years later. Ugh how in the hell do you think history is recorded?– Decades later by eyewitnesses. /facepalm.

melle1228 on October 25, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Boom. That is the sound of a nice man falling off the turnip truck. Punkins in there too.

Fleuries on October 25, 2012 at 9:25 AM

What we’re arguing is that the decision of a rape victim to terminate a pregnancy is not yours to make.

Commence with your perfunctory namecalling.

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 8:56 AM

It’s not her call either. She has every right to make decision that involves her body, but not when it involves someone else’s body. And don’t give me the burden crap mmkay, because born children in general are a burden to their parents at times- does that mean they should be able to kill them?

Children are not property- period. It is the same type of arguments that were used to justify slavery.

melle1228 on October 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Titanic survivors were still alive decades after the fact

The difference is that we know the Titanic existed and that it sunk. There is EVIDENCE for that.

We know WWII took place, that it existed, and that can be verified and corroborated independently. There is EVIDENCE for that.

Ugh how in the hell do you think history is recorded?

Don’t you think it’s a little strange that the only stories of supernatural occurring in that part of the world in that time appear in one single text with no corroborating evidence, independent observations from anybody else other than those involved with its creation, or

Decades later by eyewitnesses. /facepalm.

melle1228 on October 25, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Um, pretty sure the Titanic survivors and WWII vets lived through it, can be backed up by evidence and can be corroborated. And even all of the accounts by those people may not be accurate on all points or facts.

Do you disagree that the authors of the NT and OT could have been (and have been shown to be) wrong and deluded about a great many things, and the fact that their texts were written decades after the alleged events were not in fact eyewitness accounts or real-time reports?

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 9:35 AM

She has every right to make decision that involves her body, but not when it involves someone else’s body.

Excuse me, but a zygote is not “a body.”

And yes, as long as that is attached in some way to her body, it’s part of her body.

IE, none of your business.

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Except nobody’s arguing that.

What we’re arguing is that the decision of a rape victim to terminate a pregnancy is not yours to make.

Commence with your perfunctory namecalling.

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 8:56 AM

You are arguing it Good Lt.
Your argument is that the life of a child is worth less than the feelings of a woman. If the woman feels she wants to abort, that trumps the life of the child. That is your argument, plain and simple, and if your argument is that it is not my choice, it is theoretically possible at some point in time that murdering someone like you becomes legal because the had bad feelings that trumped your life and it too would not be my choice any more but it does not make murder any more palatable or less evil.

FEELINGS TRUMP LIFE the argument of Good Lt.

Because she feels bad, she has the power to end the life of another human being!

High quality humanity there!

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Excuse me, but a zygote is not “a body.”

And yes, as long as that is attached in some way to her body, it’s part of her body.

IE, none of your business.

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 9:35 AM

A zygote is a human being in another stage of development. Just like a newborn does not look the same as a two year old and so on.

Embryologist agree that it is a life. It has its own genetic code. There can be no constitutional rights if there is no life.

Babies who are being breastfed are attached to their mother. Does that mean she can kill them? BTW, a nine month fetus is also “attached” to a woman’s body- does that mean they can be killed. I suspect you would say yes..

BTW,like I said ” A slave is not a person- it is property. And I can do whatever I want with my property.” Same basis for the argument.

melle1228 on October 25, 2012 at 9:56 AM

The difference is that we know the Titanic existed and that it sunk. There is EVIDENCE for that.

We know WWII took place, that it existed, and that can be verified and corroborated independently. There is EVIDENCE for that.

How do we know? Because of EYE witness accounts.

Don’t you think it’s a little strange that the only stories of supernatural occurring in that part of the world in that time appear in one single text with no corroborating evidence, independent observations from anybody else other than those involved with its creation, or

Look up archeological evidence for the Bible and get back to me.

Do you disagree that the authors of the NT and OT could have been (and have been shown to be) wrong and deluded about a great many things, and the fact that their texts were written decades after the alleged events were not in fact eyewitness accounts or real-time reports?

Except for minor details, the four gospel agree on the major points. They were written independent of each other.

melle1228 on October 25, 2012 at 10:00 AM

You are arguing it Good Lt.

*citation needed

Your argument is that the life of a child rape victim is worth less than the feelings of a woman.

If the woman feels she wants to abort, that trumps the life of the child.

Why isn’t it illegal to terminate a zygote?

That is your argument, plain and simple, and if your argument is that it is not my choice, it is theoretically possible at some point in time that murdering someone like you becomes legal because the had bad feelings that trumped your life and it too would not be my choice any more but it does not make murder any more palatable or less evil.

Why is murder illegal? Why isn’t abortion illegal?

I ask because you seem to be struggling with distinctions.

Because she feels bad, she has the power to end the life of another human being!

It’s not your body, it’s not your life and it’s none of your business. We don’t leave these decisions in the hands of screeching extremists for a reason.

This seems to anger your greatly for some reason.

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Mr. Murdoch is being slandered by sl#t facists wearing our first amendment right as though it signifies them as some sort of vestal virgins.

onomo on October 25, 2012 at 6:56 AM

Murdock’s so-called gaffe doesn’t even register on this Hoosier’s change-a-vote meter. Why? Because I know what a low, vile Obama-fellating POS Donnelly is. Even if (God, please) Obama loses, Donnelly would just shift his fluffing efforts to whatever turd runs the Democrat party. He’s made that way. It’s what he does.

SKYFOX on October 25, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Still comes down to feelings of one person trumps the life of another.

You cannot get past it by ignoring it.

Good Lt argument = Feelings Trump Life!

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 10:04 AM

How do we know? Because of EYE witness accounts.

Plus the shipwreck, plus the corroborated accounts, plus the list of victims, etc.

There is MORE than eyewitness accounts for these events.

That’s the point.

Look up archeological evidence for the Bible and get back to me.

Look up the ‘archaeological evidence’ for supernatural occurrences, prophecies, magic and divine intervention/existence and get back to me.

Except for minor details, the four gospel agree on the major points. They were written independent of each other.

The devil is in the details. And the fact that they don’t agree on many details is not ‘evidence’ of supernatural occurrences.

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Still comes down to feelings of one person trumps the life of another.

Control of a woman’s own body, of which a zygote can be a part, trumps your ability to make any decision on her behalf.

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Control of a woman’s own body, of which a zygote can be a part, trumps your ability to make any decision on her behalf.

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Not really, that is based on law. Once we get abortion banned that argument is null and void. You argue because it is legal through judicial fiat that it is good?

Feelings Trump LIFE. Good Lt hates life so much that he is convinced the feelings of one person should allow them to slay another person. Feelings Trump Life. Its a good argument…

I love how you name it a zygote, it is a zygote for all of a few hours at most. zygocyte, is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. Once it divides it is no longer termed a zygote. In fact, a Zygote is NEVER attached to the female body. How could it, it is a single cell.

OMG it is a Zygote, must be a disease! KILL IT! It is a human life, a unique individual human life.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Once we get abortion banned that argument is null and void.

LOL

You argue because it is legal through judicial fiat that it is good?

I’m asking you why you think the distinction has been made by society. You haven’t answered.

I love how you name it a zygote, it is a zygote for all of a few hours at most. zygocyte, is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. Once it divides it is no longer termed a zygote. In fact, a Zygote is NEVER attached to the female body. How could it, it is a single cell.

Are cells living things or not?

It is a human life, a unique individual human life.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Here’s a brain teaser: Has the rape victim (whom you’ve reduced merely to a vessel now, worthless and not to be considered) consented to the the act of reproduction?

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 10:26 AM

The latest book written of the New Testament — and therefore, of the Bible — was the book of Revelation somewhere between 92-99 AD. So no more than about 60 years after the Resurrection.

This is not “hundreds of years later.”

There Goes The Neighborhood on October 25, 2012 at 1:35 AM

The New Testament was not written all at once. The books that compose it appeared one after another in the space of fifty years, i.e. in the second half of the first century. Written in different and distant countries and addressed to particular Churches, they took some time to spread throughout the whole of Christendom, and a much longer time to become accepted. The unification of the canon was not accomplished without much controversy (see CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES). Still it can be said that from the third century, or perhaps earlier, the existence of all the books that today form our New Testament was everywhere known, although they were not all universally admitted, at least as certainly canonical. However, uniformity existed in the West from the fourth century. The East had to await the seventh century to see an end to all doubts on the subject.

I think you should read this article: http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8427

The Bible was written over at least 50 years – 40 years after Jesus died. This is according to the Church itself.

Nothing in the Bible is anything more than here say. Nothing.
And yet folks decide “it’s the word of God”. Lol….

Then more men kept arguing about and tweaking it for another few hundred years.

And I encourage you to go visit St. Peter’s in Vatican City – see for yourself the mummies, the ornate gold encrusted accoutrements, the pomp and circumstance. I have.

And then tell me the Church is nothing more than a man made fallacy by which to rule the people.

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Here’s a brain teaser: Has the rape victim (whom you’ve reduced merely to a vessel now, worthless and not to be considered) consented to the the act of reproduction?

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Aren’t you cute.
FEELINGS TRUMP LIFE.
based on the feelings of the MOTHER, the life of the CHILD may be extinguished.
The child is innocent, did nothing to harm anyone. INNOCENT life. To be slain at the will of another based on their feelings.

Go tell Rebecca Kiessling on the other thread how she leached the life out of the vessel that was her mother!

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Are cells living things or not?

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Ignorant moron makes stupid statements and comes back with this?
Are living cells alive? Gasp, profound questions we will never know.

According to you, they are just chemical reactions unworthy of any consideration. You should really be the one answering the question.

The only real answer is, if it requires you to take special measures to prevent their growth, then they are a life.

Stop them from implanting (feeding), murder.
Stop them from continued life through poisoning, murder.
Stop them from living by cutting them limb from limb, murder.

In each instance, it requires you to do something to stop their life. Since you are nothing but a bunch of chemical reactions with no soul or other special property, why should any one respect your continued life existence?

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 11:12 AM

And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

This is where Calvinism really shows its disgusting colors. I love you, Calvinists, but you really, really have your head up your ass on this subject. Greg Boyd can help you get it back out, if you want.

TexasDan on October 25, 2012 at 11:15 AM

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Trollin!

Trollin!

Trollin on the rivahhhhhh!

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Trollin!

Trollin!

Trollin on the rivahhhhhh!

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Compared to your bible attacks, mine is trolling? LOL.

My arguments are meant to protect life.
Your arguments are intended to devalue life and make it worthy of extinguishing. But I am trolling. Funny, very very funny.

The truth is that my arguments are effectively unassailable. Thus you are forced to assail something else.

Once initiated by conception, there are only three outcomes. It dies due to events outside of the control of anyone, someone actively murders it, it is born into the world.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 12:07 PM

My arguments are meant to protect life.
Your arguments are intended to devalue life and make it worthy of extinguishing. But I am trolling. Funny, very very funny.

There ya go again, jumping that shark like its a sport!

And to you, it actually is.

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 12:19 PM

There ya go again, jumping that shark like its a sport!

And to you, it actually is.

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Accusation, check
Evidence, lacking.
Typical troll.

The devaluation of life is your creed, just wear it proud man! Wear it proud.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 12:21 PM

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Oh how clever. You must have been the star of your school’s forensic debate team.

JFS61 on October 25, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Oh how clever. You must have been the star of your school’s forensic debate team.

JFS61 on October 25, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Oh look, the bully has a buddy to back him up.

Lets look at your attack shall we?
Nothing, Check
More Nothing, Check
Continued nothing, Check

Value, Worthless

Good job, trying out for the 2013 OWS sleeping in their own feces events?

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 12:26 PM

@ astonerii;

You’re ridiculous.

You make the most outlandish statements, emphatically, and act as sanctimonious as a Muslim, yet have no facts or even rational connections to your thoughts.

Then you puff yourself up and cast insults randomly about, because you’re not taken seriously. By anyone.

My guess is:
- Live with roommates
- Dead end job
- Angry because mommy and daddy didn’t explain anything to you.

And now, you think you know everything to avoid admitting to yourself how little you know.

Carry on.

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 12:36 PM

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 12:36 PM

more wide ranging accusations
continued lack of anything specific

Once life is starts, what is the act of ending it? Killing in the general sense, murder when it is a human life.
There is a statement. Feel free to attack that! Instead, you will continue to attack me. Why? Because in reality there is no attack you can make and remain a relevant speaker on the issue.

It is simple. The only time we generally sanction the deliberate killing of a human life is when that human individual has done such heinous crimes against others that allowing that person to remain a part of society, even behind bars is beyond allowance.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 12:50 PM

@astonerii

Can you please point to ONE statement I’ve made regarding abortion in this entire thread?

You’re arguing against a made-up “enemy” that doesn’t exist. You’ve completely misunderstood my comments, therefore my point.

Do you FEEL as foolish as you’ve made yourself sound now??

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 12:55 PM

The problem is when humans (like mourdock) try and make God’s will clear, legibile and rational. When the point of faith is that you *accept* God’s will. There’s something that’s gone wrong when people understand everything bad that happens as a secret blessing in disguise, or that they lose the ability to choose how to respond to that blessing. What if a woman coming into a feeling of her own agency and power via abortion, preserving her ability to succeed in life and eventually do good in the world is God’s will. Christians who claim to know without a doubt that abortion is not the will of God are arrogant and are missing the point of Christianity. Its about a personal relationship with Jesus, not dictating to others what God’s will is. And so your weird calvinist rhetorical move doesn’t make much sense either.

libfreeordie on October 24, 2012 at 6:54 PM

You were correct that Mourdock’s issue is a Calvinistic world view that mis-assigns the causality of every event to the agency and will of God; but the opposite of that is not to conflate a human being exercising their own will as one and the same with the Will of God, At Least As Far As We Know. By your argument, someone could say that the rapist had come into a “feeling of his own agency and power” vis-a-vis raping the woman. It’s ridiculous to propose that any action we take, great or small, is automatically sanctioned by God and protected by the “personal relationship with Jesus” clause, like some sort of attorney-client privilege.

The warfare world view says that God is in anguish over a woman’s rape, as we should expect him to be, and that it was no more part of his plan or design than any of the sins that each of us has chosen to commit. And while the creation of truly free individuals demands that he not block the exercise of their free will, or the consequences of those decisions, He does still contend in this world as well–as do all the angels and demons.

TexasDan on October 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM

astoronii, I am 150% pro life. I have never heard the “Feelings trump Life” argument.

I’m stealing it.

cptacek on October 25, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Control of a woman’s own body, of which a zygote can be a part, trumps your ability to make any decision on her behalf.

Good Lt on October 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM

You would have a point if she had the ability, in and of herself, to decide whether to keep or abort the child. But she doesn’t, of course; she relies upon the services of others to perform the abortion–there is nothing either natural or private about it.

TexasDan on October 25, 2012 at 1:03 PM

@astonerii

Can you please point to ONE statement I’ve made regarding abortion in this entire thread?

You’re arguing against a made-up “enemy” that doesn’t exist. You’ve completely misunderstood my comments, therefore my point.

Do you FEEL as foolish as you’ve made yourself sound now??

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 12:55 PM

You attacked my statements on abortion by calling it trolling. Sorry, why on earth would I feel foolish when you are the person that is a fool. I know, arguing with a fool… Maybe that is it? You know what a fool you are and thus since I am giving you feedback that in your own eyes lowers me to your level?

Maybe if you want to intercede on behalf of someone else, you should wait and do so when you are able to actually bring something to the table.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 1:04 PM

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Well, that was a less than gracious way of admitting you jumped the shark and completely misunderstood what I wrote, but at least you admit it.

I knew you had it in you ;)

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Well, that was a less than gracious way of admitting you jumped the shark and completely misunderstood what I wrote, but at least you admit it.

I knew you had it in you ;)

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Still not getting you. By attacking Christianity, which says the murder of another human a sin against God and punishable in the after life. Right? So doesn’t that reduce the value of any individual life? If not, why not? The only thing at that point protecting your life is the law of man.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 1:25 PM

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 1:25 PM

My honest opinion is that your arrogance blinds you by allowing you to only absorb what you already believe.

You’ve made several suppositions in this last post, and frankly you’re only seeing things from one (narrow) perspective. There are other religions besides Christianity which prohibit murder, for instance. Pointing out that religion is a construct of man, and not of “God” is not the same as saying murder is acceptable.

There’s also a desire to do what’s “right” generally inherent in almost all people, that gets perverted by religions. Look at Islam for instance, does ANYONE but some bonehead perverted by that religion, really believe blowing oneself up in a crowded place is “God’s will”? Please. That person inherently knows (knew) it’s wrong, and had to be convinced by twisting some writing in a book (supposedly written by “God” himself. LOL!) to “justify” irrational behavior. People are doing the same here, by assuming to “know “God’s” will” – its ridiculous, and incredibly, incredibly arrogant.

My advice to you, assuming you are actually here to try and learn from others, is to take it down a couple notches and be more accepting to other viewpoints. None of us know everything.

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 2:28 PM

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 2:28 PM

LOL says the man who does not understand faith based anything?

No one said you argued murder is ACCEPTABLE on this specific thread.

What I said was that you were undermining the value of human life by making it solely unacceptable because man says so. Man can change his views on things. Mans laws are mutable. Mans desire to exact punishment is fickle. Mans law does not grant you inalienable rights, in fact mans laws specifically makes all rights alienable.

So by arguing that only mans law and mans law alone is that which makes something acceptable or not devalues human life to what ever another man decides to value it at.

Sorry charlie, but I made no assumptions. You just are a bit lacking in understanding what your own argument means.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 2:34 PM

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 2:28 PM
By the way, the twisting of religion into people killing people. That is when men twist it. This is one reason why Christianity is a superior religion to ones such as Islam. Christianity did not cause the crusades, in fact, Christianity argues that no individual place is sacred, that you carry the church with you in your heart. It was man that chose to fight for land that caused the crusades.

Also note, as deadly as religious twisting has been in our history, law of man in Germany, in Russia, In South East Asia, in East Asia has caused orders of magnitude more death and destruction than any other type. None of those places practiced Christianity while they slayed people by the tens of millions.

Law of man will ensure you have no rights in the end, particularly the right to your life.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

What I said was that you were undermining the value of human life by making it solely unacceptable because man says so. Man can change his views on things. Mans laws are mutable. Mans desire to exact punishment is fickle. Mans law does not grant you inalienable rights, in fact mans laws specifically makes all rights alienable.

I’m not going to bother with you anymore, as its obvious you’re not rational.
You keep saying mans laws are mutable – yet here you are on a thread trying to interpret “God’s will”. The very process of you trying to parse “God’s will” has you putting yourself into the position of determining what constitutes life, the value of life in relation to the desires of a woman who has been raped and conceived, and how to use this “divine understanding” to force another to do your bidding.

All while you pontificate about how man’s laws are fluid while “God’s will” is the only truth.

You’re an idiot.

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I’m not going to bother with you anymore, as its obvious you’re not rational.
You keep saying mans laws are mutable – yet here you are on a thread trying to interpret “God’s will”. The very process of you trying to parse “God’s will” has you putting yourself into the position of determining what constitutes life, the value of life in relation to the desires of a woman who has been raped and conceived, and how to use this “divine understanding” to force another to do your bidding.

All while you pontificate about how man’s laws are fluid while “God’s will” is the only truth.

You’re an idiot.

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Did I ever say I know God’s will other than he sees each life as sacred? You call me irrational! LOL

I do not have to parse out what is life. You cannot tell that a fertilized egg inside a womb is life? That if left unmolested that fertilized egg only has three options. It dies of unknown reasons by no intent of anyone, it is murdered in the womb by intention of someone, or it is born into the world. That is very basic. It is a life as a fertilized egg and remains a life until it dies. How it dies is what we are debating.

Does a person have the right to destroy a life for no other reason than their feelings? If they do, why can I not just kill you if you piss me off. Particularly if you are invalid and incapable of defending and caring for yourself any better than say a 3 day old embryo? What right to you have to life if the other has no right to life.

So, now we have you on record in this specific thread being uncaring about life. Not that we needed you on record for it, because your arguments already indicated your position in total. Man’s law is mutable, and if you rely on man’s law, you are at the mercy of having no intrinsic rights that are yours. The only rights you have are those other men do not take from you.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 3:12 PM

So, now we have you on record in this specific thread being uncaring about life.

You do? Please, QUOTE ME.

Not that we needed you on record for it, because your arguments already indicated your position in total.

Really? QUOTE ME.

Everything you wrote is absolute nonsense.

As usual.

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Two ways to read that last line.

No Allah, there isn’t. It’s clear that Mourdock said if you get pregnant from a rape, it was God’s will. Suggesting otherwise makes you a partisan hack who’s trying to cover for one of your own who shit the bed during an election cycle. So are the female HA bloggers on board with this?

Constantine on October 25, 2012 at 3:32 PM

You do? Please, QUOTE ME.

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 3:25 PM

The very process of you trying to parse “God’s will” has you putting yourself into the position of determining what constitutes life, the value of life in relation to the desires of a woman who has been raped and conceived, and how to use this “divine understanding” to force another to do your bidding.

KMC1 on October 25, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Right there moron.

astonerii on October 25, 2012 at 6:59 PM

No Allah, there isn’t. It’s clear that Mourdock said if you get pregnant from a rape, it was God’s will. Suggesting otherwise makes you a partisan hack who’s trying to cover for one of your own who shit the bed during an election cycle. So are the female HA bloggers on board with this?

Constantine on October 25, 2012 at 3:32 PM

What would lead you to believe that your ability to accurately judge the intent of those who disagree with you is worthy of respect?

Your arrogance provides a lot of unintentional humor, and I am sure you are as aware of the cause for that as you are of your own partisan hackery. Thanks for the laughs, sister!

Anti-Control on October 25, 2012 at 8:42 PM

This is where Calvinism really shows its disgusting colors. I love you, Calvinists, but you really, really have your head up your ass on this subject. Greg Boyd can help you get it back out, if you want.

TexasDan on October 25, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Mourdock’s statement was not necessarily a Calvinistic one, and to presuppose that it was in the manner you did (while quoting Greg Boyd, a depressed/depressing/lefist-leaning Christian) only serves to reveal your own prejudice.

For the record, I am not a Calvinist, and found Mourdock’s statement to be an affirmation of conception, not rape. Anyone who would misconstrue his statement to be some kind of pro-rape one is psychologically disturbed.

Anti-Control on October 25, 2012 at 8:51 PM

while quoting referencing Greg Boyd

Anti-Control on October 25, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Constantine on October 25, 2012 at 3:32 PM

The evil is allowed by God. That is the theological understanding held by the Fathers of the Church and the great Doctor himself.

From the Haydock Commentary on Romans 8:28
For those who love God, all things work together unto good. All trials, temptations, afflictions, must be taken as coming from the hand of God, who ordains or permits them for the greater good of his elect.”

While Mourdock’s comment is theologically sound, it is obviously an uncomfortable truth for many folks.

Just sayn.

TXJenny on October 25, 2012 at 8:53 PM

The evil is allowed by God. That is the theological understanding held by the Fathers of the Church and the great Doctor himself.
From the Haydock Commentary on Romans 8:28
“For those who love God, all things work together unto good. All trials, temptations, afflictions, must be taken as coming from the hand of God, who ordains or permits them for the greater good of his elect.”
While Mourdock’s comment is theologically sound, it is obviously an uncomfortable truth for many folks.
Just sayn.
TXJenny on October 25, 2012 at 8:53 PM

You’re making the false equation that if God allows evil that evil is God’s will, his choice. This is not theologically sound in the least, nor is anyone claiming to know God’s will beyond the desire for peace, love and understanding among all people. Mourdock is a disgrace, as are his apologists.

Constantine on October 25, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Mourdock is a disgrace, as are his apologists.

Constantine on October 25, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Funny – I look at you, and say the same thing! All you do is self-righteously attack those who disagree with you, and ramble.

You clearly are not a mature, kind, pleasant, gracious, nor serious person, so, why should anyone who is respect you?

Conceit, thy name is Constantine!

Anti-Control on October 25, 2012 at 10:00 PM

You’re making the false equation that if God allows evil that evil is God’s will, his choice. This is not theologically sound in the least, nor is anyone claiming to know God’s will beyond the desire for peace, love and understanding among all people.
Constantine on October 25, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Not to rain on your parade of bad theology, but St. Augustine tells us, “Nothing, therefore, happens unless the Omnipotent wills it to happen. He either allows it to happen or he actually causes it to happen” (Enchiridion 95). He continues, “Nor should we doubt that God doth well, even when he alloweth whatever happens ill to happen” (Enchiridion 96). That’s right, God permits evil.

St. Thomas Aquinas concurs (ST Ia.19.12).

Now that you’ve been shown the truth of the matter, don’t make the mistake of rejecting it. For as St. Augustine warns, “Unless we believe this, the very beginning of our Confession of Faith is imperiled–the sentence in which we profess to believe in God the Father Almighty. For he is called Almighty for no other reason than that he can do whatsoever he willeth and because the efficacy of his omnipotent will is not impeded by the will of any creature” (Enchiridion 96).

Constantine, I think you owe Mourdock an apology.

TXJenny on October 25, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Constantine, I think you owe Mourdock an apology.
TXJenny on October 25, 2012 at 10:45 PM

You have no point unless you can quote Scripture instead of theological meanderings from centuries ago. The god who wills The Plague, The Inquisition, The Holocaust and every human tragedy ever experienced bears no resemblance to the kind, just and loving God described in the New Testament, and exists only in the minds of those who want to relieve themselves of personal responsibility.

I pray you are never in a position to comfort someone who has suffered tragedy. If you do and choose to offer the falsehood “it was God’s will” I pray you get the response you deserve.

Constantine on October 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3