GOP Mourdock stands by rape, abortion remark

Originally posted by Soothfast
Far more babies die in the U.S. for want of adequate health care than are ever aborted as fetuses. Republicans must either put their money where their mouths are or butt the hell out.

97.3% of all statistics you reference are made up on the spot.

Originally posted by sh76
97.3% of all statistics you reference are made up on the spot.

I am wondering where he got that figure. Nevertheless, even in the likely scenario that the number of aborted fetuses is smaller, there is a fair point in pointing out the hypocricy of preventing abortions but also doing everything you can to prevent people from getting health care for preventable illnesses.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Is it a point of view or is it a religious doctrine, because if it is the latter then surely his views do not come into it, you cannot compare the slavish adherence to dogma with an opinion based on experience and intellect.

This is nonsensical. A point of view can be based on many factors, including religious beliefs. I've already stated my opposition to his views, but I don't understand why you feel the need to attack them because you don't share his religious beliefs. Is it your contention that people who practice a religion don't have the intellect to make a decision? Perhaps people who practice a religion haven't had any life experience outside of their "slavish" observation of their doctrine?

Originally posted by dryhump
This is nonsensical. A point of view can be based on many factors, including religious beliefs. I've already stated my opposition to his views, but I don't understand why you feel the need to attack them because you don't share his religious beliefs. Is it your contention that people who practice a religion don't have the intellect to make a decision? Per ...[text shortened]... haven't had any life experience outside of their "slavish" observation of their doctrine?

No you are missing the point about this particular individual, He is the dragging God into it:-

"saying that when pregnancy results from rape then that is "something God intended.""

I am claiming that this is declaration of faith, not a considered opinion, if somebody tries to out gun the opposition by employing an omnipotent being as a consultant, then the opposition has every right to disregard the source of his opinion as a supernatural being who does not exist and therefor cannot produce a considered opinion.

Originally posted by dryhump
Are you just going to make an assertion like that and not back it up? Please, show me the stats.

I can.
You see... You can't abort a baby (well, unless you mean throwing a baby out of plane or something).

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Research indicates that 98% of all abortions are related to issues of “personal choice.”
The primary reasons women give for having an abortion include not feeling emotionally capable (32% ) or financially capable (25% ) of raising a child, and concern that having a child would drastically alter her life (16% ).

Sources: Guttmacher Institute. 2008 ...[text shortened]... abortions in the United States. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html.

Yes. And since it's a woman's bloody body it's her bloody choice.

And in truth, that's the end of it.
If your God disagrees... Let thT bloody God pass judgement.

Originally posted by moon1969

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock refused to apologize Wednesday for saying that when pregnancy results from rape then that is "something God intended." . . .

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Mourdock-criticized-over-rape-pregnancy-comments-3976341.php


Rape is the most debilitating and p ...[text shortened]... force a rape victim to share a birth with the rapist and to give birth to the rapist' child.

And Romney is dodging questions about his support ad for Mourdock.

Originally posted by Kewpie
Abortion isn't "killing a baby", it's "killing a collection of cells which could become a baby if a lot of other things go the way they should". Use of hysterical language to support pro-life arguments is far too common.

Sure sanitise it how you like, the fact remains, you are depriving someone of the
opportunity of life, whether they adhere to your definition of what constitutes a life or
not and its also a misleading and an inaccurate portrayal, not all abortions are carried
out upon a 'collection of cells'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sure sanitise it how you like, the fact remains, you are depriving someone of the opportunity of life...

Couldn't the same be said about someone refusing to raise a hand against violent aggressors or refusing to give a life-saving blood transfusion?

Originally posted by shavixmir
Yes. And since it's a woman's bloody body it's her bloody choice.

And in truth, that's the end of it.
If your God disagrees... Let thT bloody God pass judgement.

Theres the "God" talk again. Did I mention anything about God ? I don't think so.
And for the record , its about a living being inside the womans body. NOT the "womans bloody body" as you say.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
No you are missing the point about this particular individual, He is the dragging God into it:-

"saying that when pregnancy results from rape then that is "something God intended.""

I am claiming that this is declaration of faith, not a considered opinion, if somebody tries to out gun the opposition by employing an omnipotent being as a consultant, th ...[text shortened]... as a supernatural being who does not exist and therefor cannot produce a considered opinion.

I don't want this to devolve into a theological debate. You are judging his words and actions against you're belief system, which he doesn't subscribe to, rather than attempting to understand his belief system and judge him based on that. You've already dismissed his position as irrational, so how can you hope to understand it?

Originally posted by FMF
Couldn't the same be said about someone refusing to raise a hand against violent aggressors or refusing to give a life-saving blood transfusion?

What a sad and pathetic attempt to deflect. Tell the forum how being a conscientious
objector deprives someone else of the right to life? surely the whole point is that you
object to taking the life of another? Tell the forum how claiming the right to self
determination in the case of a medical procedure has any bearing on another persons
right to life, surely it has no bearing on depriving anyone of life. Did you really
think this through or are you simply intent on making the pond slimy here as you have
done in spirituality. Will you also claim here that murder and abduction are what
Christians believe constitute the good and greater will of God? Nice.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What a sad and pathetic attempt to deflect. Tell the forum how being a conscientious
objector deprives someone else of the right to life? surely the whole point is that you
object to taking the life of another? Tell the forum how claiming the right to self
determination in the case of a medical procedure has any bearing on another persons
ri ...[text shortened]... and abduction are what
Christians believe constitute the good and greater will of God? Nice.

"in the case of a medical procedure has any bearing on another persons
right to life, surely it has no bearing on depriving anyone else of life."

And you were doing so well.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
"in the case of a medical procedure has any bearing on another persons
right to life, surely it has no bearing on depriving anyone else of life."

And you were doing so well.

doing well??? I was doing awesome, but I see your point 😛

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Theres the "God" talk again. Did I mention anything about God ? I don't think so.
And for the record , its about a living being inside the womans body. NOT the "womans bloody body" as you say.

No it is not.
If that woman decides to kill herself, that little clump of cells goes with her.

It's the woman's body. She can do with it what she wants.