What's new
By:

Scalzi on Rape and Abortion

my own thoughts when I read/heard Mourdock's comment about what "God" intended when a rape results in pregnancy were that I wanted to ask him that since he feels it's appropriate for him to force his religious beliefs on others, I wondered if he has given up eating beef since Hindus believe that cows are sacred, and if he's also given up eating pork since Jews and Muslims believe that a taboo against eating pork is part of God's teaching.
 
I don't even understand the outrage over his remarks. Other than the fact it goes against modern secular moral standards, it follows perfectly from Christian beliefs. If god is the all knowing creator of humans, then he did indeed intend for a pregnancy to happen, rape or no rape.
 
SiroMar said:
I don't even understand the outrage over his remarks. Other than the fact it goes against modern secular moral standards, it follows perfectly from Christian beliefs. If god is the all knowing creator of humans, then he did indeed intend for a pregnancy to happen, rape or no rape.
Click to expand...

What are his policy implications though? I wasn't aware of the context Moewilliniams provided. Saying a child is a blessing from God is the right thing to say--regardless of how crass & dismissive liberals can be with this stuff--but inferring zero tolerance policy is not.

FWIW, I realize the left is trying their hardest to frame Mitt Romney as an anti-aborition-no-matter-what conservative but that just is not true. My guess is he takes the softened stance of LDS leadership, just as he has said this entire campaign.
 
franklin said:
What are his policy implications though? I wasn't aware of the context Moewilliniams provided. Saying a child is a blessing from God is the right thing to say--regardless of how crass & dismissive liberals can be with this stuff--but inferring zero tolerance policy is not.

FWIW, I realize the left is trying their hardest to frame Mitt Romney as an anti-aborition-no-matter-what conservative but that just is not true. My guess is he takes the softened stance of LDS leadership, just as he has said this entire campaign.
Click to expand...

Why is saying a child is a blessing from god the right thing? Why is it more acceptable than what the guy said? Neither should be accepted as a guideline for policy making.
 
SiroMar said:
Why is saying a child is a blessing from god the right thing?
Click to expand...

I think you might make PearlW's sig with that slip up. :)

Isn't this the guy who said children are a blessing from God and then equated that to an embryo while implying policy decisions??? or am I confusing two or three republican challengers?
 
franklin said:
I think you might make PearlW's sig with that slip up. :)

Isn't this the guy who said children are a blessing from God and then equated that to an embryo while implying policy decisions??? or am I confusing two or three republican challengers?
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less what that idiot thinks of me.

I don't know which Republican said what. Our rejection of what he said should be due to his invoking god as an ideological ally. Which is a nonsensical and irrelevant argument. The actual content of his statement is not shocking. It is philosophically consistent if you believe a human becomes so at conception. It is the use of god that invalidates the statement. Unless he can give us his deity's contact information so that we can discuss the subject like rational beings, that justification is irrelevant regardless of whether or not you agree with it.
 
I read this the other day and found it scathing, and right on point, satire at its finest. The manner in which politicians (and rapists) in this country seek control over women's bodies is appalling.
However, I feel Mourdock's stance is more intellectually honest than the stance that most prolifers take. Either all fetuses deserve protection or none of them do. From the point of view of the "innocent life," the manner in which it was conceived matters not.
 
What? There have been several controversial statements about women and abortion in the past few months, and I don't keep track of which politician said which statement. Are you criticizing me over such triviality?
 
SiroMar said:
What? There have been several controversial statements about women and abortion in the past few months, and I don't keep track of which politician said which statement. Are you criticizing me over such triviality?
Click to expand...

No. Is there a reason you feel I was?
 
franklin said:
No. Is there a reason you feel I was?
Click to expand...
Why did you quote that part of my comment? You cut it off in a way that makes it sound non-sequitur. But that isn't the case. The identities or affiliations of the politicians do not concern me, only the substance of what they said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top