By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - US Senate candidate: Pregnancy from rape can be ‘something that God intended to happen’

killerzX on 25 October 2012
RolStoppable said:
killerzX said:

well im not religuous, but i am Christian (which is irrelevent here anyway), and i dont view women as inferior, nor does my Faith. but other religions certainly do.

and your quote is quite inacurate. people are saying, there were 2 victims here, you and your baby. both of you are innocent, especially the baby. So why would you punish the child for the crimes of its father. it would certainly make more sense to, you know, actually punish the rapist.

I would punish the child, because I wouldn't want to punish the mother. Aborting the child is the lesser evil here. A child brings a lot of responsibility with it and changes the lives of its parents completely. The issue here is that this child is not going to have a caring father and the mother will have to come up with the money to raise the child all by herself while also raising the child all by herself. Like I said earlier in this thread, if you were such a rape victim, what would you do? Would you carry out this child and raise it on your own or would you rather choose to abort it, because this child was not planned and certainly not with this father.

Punishing the rapist isn't really relevant to the issue here. Whether he gets caught by the police or not, whether he gets locked into jail for some years or not, there is still a pregnant rape victim in any case. How to handle the situation of the pregnant rape victim, that's the topic here.


i dont believe killing is the "lesser of 2 evils", when there are other options. The only time i would think killing the child would potentially be the "lesser of 2 evils" would be in the case of the life of the mother. which i think undoubtable is the much harder decision to make by a great magnatude.

the mother doesnt have to raise the child, she can give it up for adoption, there is no telling or not whether the child will have a caring father. Also im not saying it is an easy decision, but it is one that must be made. Killing the child is not the lesser of 2 evils. letting the child live, while the mother brings it to term is the lesser of 2 evils. becuase most likely the mother will endore emotional hardship, but there is no loss of life in this scenerio.

And this whole topic is about what this senate candadite said. Which when you actually here his words, and think about what he said, it certainly isnt crazy, and it certainly isnt worthy of this kind of back lash. Because where he is of the belief that life begins at conception. so regarldess of who its father is, there is a life. So therefore even in the horrible situation of rape, the baby is a life, and life is a gift. So his stance of abortion only in cases of the mothers health, and not in others like rape, is perfectly reasonable. Now you may disagree with his views on when life begins, but his stance is constistant and logical. 



Around the Network
killerzX on 25 October 2012
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:

 


that is an astonishingly arbitrary definition you have of what a human is.

i know what a fetus is, just as i know what a adult is. but what you are esentially saying is, im not a human, im an adult.

fetus= unborn baby human

baby= new born human

teen= young human

etc.

all human, all deserve to live.

Have you watched a woman give birth, and then watched the baby take their first breath and open their eyes for the first time? I have, and I can tell you that those moments represent a *huge* change.

Having witnessed that change, I believe that an unborn fetus is still a person-in-the-making, and that a born child is a person. I can understand how others might believe that personhood is achieved earlier, but I cannot understand how someone can believe that birth is just an "arbitrary" moment. It is a truly miraculous moment, and it's a huge change. Please tell me you understand that.

yes birth is miraculous, so is the child.

but you view is completely illogical.

baby exiting the birth canal, 1 millisecond away from being born = not human. therefore can be terminated, and discarded.

baby half way exits the birth-canal with head portruding = not human? half human? can be terminated and discarded.

baby has been born but hasnt taken its first breath and/or opened its eyes = ????



bluesinG on 25 October 2012
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:

 


that is an astonishingly arbitrary definition you have of what a human is.

i know what a fetus is, just as i know what a adult is. but what you are esentially saying is, im not a human, im an adult.

fetus= unborn baby human

baby= new born human

teen= young human

etc.

all human, all deserve to live.

Have you watched a woman give birth, and then watched the baby take their first breath and open their eyes for the first time? I have, and I can tell you that those moments represent a *huge* change.

Having witnessed that change, I believe that an unborn fetus is still a person-in-the-making, and that a born child is a person. I can understand how others might believe that personhood is achieved earlier, but I cannot understand how someone can believe that birth is just an "arbitrary" moment. It is a truly miraculous moment, and it's a huge change. Please tell me you understand that.

yes birth is miraculous, so is the child.

but you view is completely illogical.

baby exiting the birth canal, 1 millisecond away from being born = not human. therefore can be terminated, and discarded.

baby half way exits the birth-canal with head portruding = not human? half human? can be terminated and discarded.

baby has been born but hasnt taken its first breath and/or opened its eyes = ????

I'm glad we agree that birth is miraculous. Having watched my daughter's birth, I believe those moments are when she changed from a person-in-the-making to a person.

Have you watched a child's birth?



kain_kusanagi on 25 October 2012
bluesinG said:
kain_kusanagi said:
bluesinG said:
kain_kusanagi said:
bluesinG said:
kain_kusanagi said:

You guys all need to calm down. It's clear that the act of rape is not what he was talking about. What he was talking about was the gift of life. That something as wonderful as a child can result from such a terrible thing as rape was his point. Rape is a horrible thing, but the life that is created is innocent and pure. The child concieved should not be regarded as a byproduct to discard, but instead loved as any other unborn child deserves.

Anyone that thinks the man believes God likes rape is either an idiot or a full on hate troll.

I don't think that Mourdock believes God likes rape. I think he believes that when a rape results in pregnancy, that pregnancy is "part of God's plan". That's what he said, and he's stood by that comment.

I disagree with Mourdock about that; I don't think that God intends women to become pregnant as the result of rape. Do you?

No I don't and that's not what he said. He didn't say it's God's plan. Here's his full quote: "I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God," Mourdock said. "And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

It is perfectly clear to me that Mourdock is saying the life created from the rape is sacred, not the act of rape.

He said it badly, but Let's break it down:

"life is that gift from God"

"horrible situation of rape"

"when life begins"

"God intended to happen."

What's he is saying is life is a gift from God even when it comes from rape. He's not saying God puts rapists in the path of women to create life, and he isn't saying that God's plan is for women to be raped. He is only talking about what God intents for the child. God loves all children regardless of how they were conceived.

Here is his explanation:

"What I said was, in answering the question form my position of faith, I said I believe that God creates life. I believe that as wholly and as fully as I can believe it. That God creates life," Mourdock said. "Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think that God pre-ordained rape? No, I don't think that. That's sick. Twisted. That's not even close to what I said. What I said is that God creates life."

People are taking this man's words and extrapolating negative intent for political ends. In my opinion they are intentionally misrepresenting him, while knowing what he meant isn't even news worthy.

Again, I don't think Mourdock is saying "God intends rapes to happen." I think he's saying "given that a rape has happened, if the woman gets pregnant from that rape, then God intended that pregnancy to happen." In other words, God doesn't have control over whether the rape happens, but He does have control over whether the woman gets pregnant.

I strongly disagree with that position, because I can't imagine that God intends for 30,000 raped women to become impregnated each year, in the USA alone. Do you really believe He intends for all of those raped women to become impregnated?


No I don't and that's not what he said.

But that *is* what he said. That God doesn't decide whether the rapes happen, but God does decide whether the woman gets pregnant from the rape.

That's what Mourdock elieves, and I disagree with him.

No, that is NOT what he said.

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God," Mourdock said. "And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

"What I said was, in answering the question form my position of faith, I said I believe that God creates life. I believe that as wholly and as fully as I can believe it. That God creates life," Mourdock said. "Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think that God pre-ordained rape? No, I don't think that. That's sick. Twisted. That's not even close to what I said. What I said is that God creates life."

 

He is obviously talking about life in general. When sperm and egg meet. He is saying that God gives life. He is not saying that God gives life to rape victims specifically. He is saying that life from rape is worth no less than life from love. It's so obvious to me that the man meant nothing more than to express his respect for all unborn life, but people have taken his poorly phrased statements in completely the wrong direction.



gergroy on 25 October 2012

This is a very interesting thread. I'm pretty pro choice, I believe women should have control of their bodies. However, even I have to accept that after a certain point in the pregnancy, women should not be allowed to abort a baby unless it is endangering her life. I'm sorry, late term abortions are the same as murder in my eyes.



Around the Network
killerzX on 25 October 2012
RolStoppable said:
killerzX said:

i dont believe killing is the "lesser of 2 evils", when there are other options. The only time i would think killing the child would potentially be the "lesser of 2 evils" would be in the case of the life of the mother. which i think undoubtable is the much harder decision to make by a great magnatude.

the mother doesnt have to raise the child, she can give it up for adoption, there is no telling or not whether the child will have a caring father. Also im not saying it is an easy decision, but it is one that must be made. Killing the child is not the lesser of 2 evils. letting the child live, while the mother brings it to term is the lesser of 2 evils. becuase most likely the mother will endore emotional hardship, but there is no loss of life in this scenerio.

And this whole topic is about what this senate candadite said. Which when you actually here his words, and think about what he said, it certainly isnt crazy, and it certainly isnt worthy of this kind of back lash. Because where he is of the belief that life begins at conception. so regarldess of who its father is, there is a life. So therefore even in the horrible situation of rape, the baby is a life, and life is a gift. So his stance of abortion only in cases of the mothers health, and not in others like rape, is perfectly reasonable. Now you may disagree with his views on when life begins, but his stance is constistant and logical. 

You didn't answer my question: What would you do?

Everything you said, as well as what this senator said, is easy to say when you are a man and thus will never have to go through such a situation in your life.

sorry, forgot about your question.

obviously since i am a man, and havent been raped, and cant get pregrent my view answer is only specualtion. But at this point in time i have absolute certainty that i would bring the baby to term. im not sure if i would give it up for adoption, but i dont think i would.

but like you said it is easy to say that as a man, but if you actually watch the video, the senator was reletively emotional while speaking about the topic, he admitted to strugling with it.

also perhaps a slightly more important opinion, would be my sister, a woman. She and I are extremely pro-life i we talk about his topic often. She wouldnt dream of aborting her baby even if she was raped.



appolose on 25 October 2012
Torillian said:
appolose said:

Sorry, I mean that, if she pursues activities that she knows usually end up terminating a pregnancy, that seems to be effectively the same as terminating.

As for the argument here on who should give up rights, I posit that it makes more sense for her to give up her rights than for her to take someone else rights, being as they are not her rights.

But the fetus would be taking her rights as well in that scenario so it seems like an endless cycle on that one.

his isn't a woman giving up her rights, that's what she might do if given the choice, this is a governing body taking away her rights.  What she should do is different to what we should force her to do.  


The fetus isn't actively doing anything, however.  That, I think, is the critical difference.  The mother has to act in order to violate its rights, whereas the fetus can't do anything at all.

But perhaps I'm getting off my initial point.  I'm attempting to demonstrate that a pro-lifer could sincerely hold this line of reasoning, not so much if it's actually correct or not.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
bluesinG on 25 October 2012
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:

 


that is an astonishingly arbitrary definition you have of what a human is.

i know what a fetus is, just as i know what a adult is. but what you are esentially saying is, im not a human, im an adult.

fetus= unborn baby human

baby= new born human

teen= young human

etc.

all human, all deserve to live.

Have you watched a woman give birth, and then watched the baby take their first breath and open their eyes for the first time? I have, and I can tell you that those moments represent a *huge* change.

Having witnessed that change, I believe that an unborn fetus is still a person-in-the-making, and that a born child is a person. I can understand how others might believe that personhood is achieved earlier, but I cannot understand how someone can believe that birth is just an "arbitrary" moment. It is a truly miraculous moment, and it's a huge change. Please tell me you understand that.

yes birth is miraculous, so is the child.

but you view is completely illogical.

baby exiting the birth canal, 1 millisecond away from being born = not human. therefore can be terminated, and discarded.

baby half way exits the birth-canal with head portruding = not human? half human? can be terminated and discarded.

baby has been born but hasnt taken its first breath and/or opened its eyes = ????

I'm glad we agree that birth is miraculous. Having watched my daughter's birth, I believe those moments are when she changed from a person-in-the-making to a person.

Have you watched a child's birth?

I'm assuming that your silence means you have never actually witnessed a birth.

In that case, allow me to make a prediction: After you watch the birth of your first child, you will no longer feel that the distinction between before birth and after birth is "arbitrary". You will think that it is a big change.

I don't expect you to suddenly think that change represents the transition to personhood, but I hope you will understand how some pople (like me) can believe that it does.



Max King of the Wild on 26 October 2012
bluesinG said:
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:
bluesinG said:
killerzX said:

 


that is an astonishingly arbitrary definition you have of what a human is.

i know what a fetus is, just as i know what a adult is. but what you are esentially saying is, im not a human, im an adult.

fetus= unborn baby human

baby= new born human

teen= young human

etc.

all human, all deserve to live.

Have you watched a woman give birth, and then watched the baby take their first breath and open their eyes for the first time? I have, and I can tell you that those moments represent a *huge* change.

Having witnessed that change, I believe that an unborn fetus is still a person-in-the-making, and that a born child is a person. I can understand how others might believe that personhood is achieved earlier, but I cannot understand how someone can believe that birth is just an "arbitrary" moment. It is a truly miraculous moment, and it's a huge change. Please tell me you understand that.

yes birth is miraculous, so is the child.

but you view is completely illogical.

baby exiting the birth canal, 1 millisecond away from being born = not human. therefore can be terminated, and discarded.

baby half way exits the birth-canal with head portruding = not human? half human? can be terminated and discarded.

baby has been born but hasnt taken its first breath and/or opened its eyes = ????

I'm glad we agree that birth is miraculous. Having watched my daughter's birth, I believe those moments are when she changed from a person-in-the-making to a person.

Have you watched a child's birth?

I'm assuming that your silence means you have never actually witnessed a birth.

In that case, allow me to make a prediction: After you watch the birth of your first child, you will no longer feel that the distinction between before birth and after birth is "arbitrary". You will think that it is a big change.

I don't expect you to suddenly think that change represents the transition to personhood, but I hope you will understand how some pople (like me) can believe that it does.



I have a 2 year old. I saw him as a human long before birth. I saw his spine, legs, head, eyes, heart, toes, fingers, penis. And I knew that what was inside would be out soon the exact same way that he was when I saw a picture using sound waves. I felt his kicks. Only thing I didn't know was his personality... was he noisy or quiet. Was he goofy or shy... But since the brain was there I knew it was there also

As for your source a while back, much much much better. Yet the math doesn't add up. Especially since the rapes in US only add up to 80k a year according to the FBI... Sure the hell no 600k



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 26 October 2012
ninetailschris said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

Hi there, ninetailschris. Dodging a ban?

*ahem*

Bolded: Are you saying that God has no free will? Are you saying that God is not willing to help victims as things occur? I'm not saying that God has to stop anyone from being raped or killed, I just find it weird that he doesn't. If I had a rat farm, or just a regular farm for that matter, and saw one animal attacking another animal I would do something to stop it, not just stand there and watch things escalate. Just saying.

In conclusion.

God does something in the long-term which justfies both parties involved. The wrong party if God deems him to hell forever in toment based on everything the person did in his life then woman can rest knowing justice is coming. If the woman lived a life  that God deem for her to go to heaven on judgement day then everything she has problems with will be lifed from her. Finally all of this keeping intact free-will has this people choose to live they way they did and got judge for it when it's all over(judgement day). Judgement day will be the final court date forever one  and got has done as he promised since day one.

 


We could always ask Torillian whether you dodged your ban or not.

...

In further conclusion: God will not interfere with our world because then he would mess with our free will (i.e. he will let shit happen to us so that we can be free).

In that case, may I ask why he flooded the entire world, thus killing all but extremely few humans? Why not wait until judgement day and allow them to keep raping, stealing and killing each other? Why not give everyone an uninterrupted lifetime to make choices, and perhaps regret their actions in their final days? Why interfere with their free will before they have been given a chance to live their full lives? And, assuming shortening their lifetimes actually is an option, why would he not "flood" criminals of today?

My answer to these questions is simple: God doesn't make any sense. Nor does the Bible.

 

What's your answer?