What's new
By:
Filters

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.
 
candrew said:
Then he intended the rape to happen too?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Everyone keeps going back to that. The answer is irrelevant. People are outraged because he committed a social faux pas. He publicly stated an unpopular opinion. Had he said "I believe god gave women the right to choose to have an abortion in cases of rape", then very few would have objected. But the problem is still present in both cases; he is using his opinion on his deity's take on an issue to justify policy. That is what we should be concerned about. Policies based on a stinking pile of unjustified ******** being imposed on us. Not just sound bites that we find mean-spirited.
 
If he's using his "deity's take on an issue to justify policy" then that take should be subject to examination. Logic doesn't occur in a vacuum. If he feels pregnancy due to a rape is God's will then it's a perfectly appropriate question to ask if God intended for the rape to happen as well. That's why "everyone keeps going back to that".
 
candrew said:
If he's using his "deity's take on an issue to justify policy" then that take should be subject to examination. Logic doesn't occur in a vacuum. If he feels pregnancy due to a rape is God's will then it's a perfectly appropriate question to ask if God intended for the rape to happen as well. That's why "everyone keeps going back to that".
Click to expand...

Why do you want to legitimize his role of God in public policy which controls you instead of Siromar's marginalizing stance?
 
candrew said:
If he's using his "deity's take on an issue to justify policy" then that take should be subject to examination. Logic doesn't occur in a vacuum. If he feels pregnancy due to a rape is God's will then it's a perfectly appropriate question to ask if God intended for the rape to happen as well. That's why "everyone keeps going back to that".
Click to expand...

I don't think so. People go back to that question because they are not happy with the possibility. But no rational discussion can be had. Just a bunch of people expressing how god REALLY is and what the Bible/whatever REALLY says. Not only can those opinions not be verified, the statements themselves are utterly meaningless. If you have a direct line to some supernatural cosmic encyclopedia of omniscience, then I'd like to take a look. I won't take your word for it whether it is "god is love" or "god wants us to kill redheads". Neither is more logical than the other. They are both based on some ethereal concept of "faith" that is, by definition, personal. Trying to justify policy using unverifiable access to privileged information is unacceptable. Regardless of whether we are in agreement.

Long story short, the discussion of god's intentions is pointless and counterproductive. The fact is, his invocation of god's alleged will would have been acceptable had it been more aligned with the zeitgeist. And that is the problem.

Edit: And one more thing. Unlike most atheists, I have absolutely no problem with politicians expressing their religious beliefs in public. I do not see it as a violation of the separation of church and state. The president can begin each speech with a Catholic Mass or a Druidic sex ritual for all I care. I am simply interested in using religion to justify human law.
 
There is no facepalm hard enough for all this fail:

https://preliatorcausa.blogspot.com/2012/10/27-vox-day-co-dont-get-satire-or-basic-decency-3892.html

I suppose a double facepalm will have to do:

doublefacepalmqbd.jpg
 
AtheistPreacher said:
Hmm. I'm guessing there's supposed to be a "not" in there somewhere? :)
Click to expand...

Is being completely blind to the logically obvious a pre-requisite at liberal humanities colleges?

I thought everyone here knows what religion SiroMar prefers, and the general political situation in countries where the people believe that their religion should be the whole purpose of their law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top