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’

Kasz216 said:
bluesinG said:
Kasz216 said:
bluesinG said:
 

Kasz, you clearly value intellectual consistency, and believe that people *shouldn't* compromise their principles in order to support "the lesser of two evils". So, in your view, if Romney strongly disagrees with the position that God intends some rapes to result in pregnancy, don't you think that he *should* withdraw his support for Mourdock?

Edit: Here's the new top headline on Google: "Romney campaign stands by Mourdock".

I don't actually have any problem with the "Lesser of two evils" move.  It's why I voted for Obama instead of McCain... since both of them wanted the bailouts, and their positions were nearly identical on basically everything, but Obama was slightly more socially liberal and his election would mean a lot to a small portion of the country.  Hell i'll probably vote Gary Johnson... and he's still a lesser of three evils at that point.  He still has a lot of flaws.

I just believe that after a certain point, the lesser of two evils statment kinda loses it's point after a while when the evil becomes to heinous.

To use a crude analaogy that i think would apply to anybody... if i lived in Nazi Germany and I could vote for Hitler, or Super Hitler who believed in everything hitler did but that the jews should be killed in a more painful way....

I still couldn't vote for Hitler.

As for if romney should remove his support?  I think that would largely depend on if he critisized someone else for standing by someone who committed a lesser offense.

About the validity of choosing between the "lesser of two evils": Fair enough.

But I disagree that Mourdock's view--that God intends for some women to become pregnant through rape--constitutes a small evil. He had clearly thought a lot about the issue before expressing his view, he's stood by his comments today, and if elected he would support legislation banning abortion even in the case of rape. What bigger evil is Joe Donnelly (Mourdock's opponent) guilty of, that Mourdock isn't also guilty of? I'm guessing that Mourdock supports drone strikes or indefinite detention.

See.. what your conflating here now... is your (and my) view of evil, with Mitt Romney's and Mourdocks.

Sure based on what you or I know about the election... we'd vote donnelly however...

Mitt Romney doesn't see Drone strikes as evil, and i don't know his opinion on the NDAA.  So such things would be irrelevent on if he should remove his support.  The reference was just showing that to most democrats, even things that bad, that generally fly against most liberals (all?) beliefs aren't enough to shake support.

Mitt Romney, at the moment is at least positioning himself as Pro Life.  Whether this is actually the case or not i'm unsure based on his past history.

Assuming he is telling the truth though... generally the Pro Life position tends to be "A fetus = a baby."

So if I were to critisize Mitt Romney for anything.  It would be that he WASN'T supporting Mourdocks comments... and that if you see a fetus as a babies it's pretty henious to support legislation that allows the killing of some babies based on their heritage.   I don't see it that way, but as far as I can tell... his positions come to that conclusion.

Makes sense to me.

/argument



Around the Network

What this candidate said is intolerably cruel, insensitive, and barbaric. These aren't the words of a particularly decent individual, or a altogether bright one for that matter. We as a society have rejected such blanket justifications, and he does nobody any favors with such comments. Not only does it hurt obvious victims, but it casts his god is the most hideous of lights. Were that not enough to give him pause this kind of blanket justification is a nihilistic paradox at the very core of Christianity that places the whole faith in doubt as to its validity.

If you accept predetermination then the concepts of good and evil lose all meaning. Any act or consequence can be attributed solely to god, and thus any perpetrator must be innocent. You don't even have to incarcerate them, If they continue on committing crimes then that is gods will too. You can basically justify all the most sadistic acts by saying it is gods will. This isn't just some meandering extrapolation on my part. This is the story of history. God has continuously been used as a blanket justification for pure fucking evil.

This kind of logic has no place in our society, or in the leadership of our society. The mind so brazen to say such a thing in public. Is the same kind of mind that can send millions to their deaths in concentration camps. This in the end isn't a discussion about a paradox involving god. This is a discussion about what kind of outlook you have to have to be capable of the most heinously calculated evil. This person flat out scares me, because he represents a world view with no objective sense of right or wrong.

There is such a thing as a objective right and wrong as far as society is concerned. Do we really want the kind of leadership this man represents. He doesn't seem to be the kind of person that would have any problem at all with stripping people of all their rights.

I have to add this though. Why is it that we have people that believe in a predetermined existence governed by a omnipotent being of supernatural ability, but they don't seem to give that being much credit. It stands to reason that a soul would be a product of supernatural forces rather then mere biology. So there shouldn't be any real conflict at all about abortion. God knows in advance which babies will make it, and which won't. It seems to me that they give their god very little credit when it comes to the brains department.

Anyway I doubt most Americans believe this nonsense, and I doubt most Christians do either, because to do so is to accept that ones life is meaningless, pointless, or worthless. Most probably view the bad things in our lives as being a product of the fact that we have free will, and aren't having things forced upon us by a higher power. Am I wrong, or isn't that what the whole garden of Eden story was all about. The fact that human beings were always of a right to do something against gods wishes.

Anyway he deserves to get ripped a new one, and he isn't worthy of the job he desires. Further more the party he represents is definitely on the wrong course. These kinds of comments aren't altogether uncommon, and they do seem to be honest. I just can't imagine the more moderate members of the party tolerating this all indefinitely. In the end they are going to sour of the middle of the electorate. The same would hold true if the democrats had started promoting a state ownership agenda, or started promoting mandatory public education. This isn't just pro christian ideals anymore. This is getting into promoting a very specific brand of Christianity.



He probably just lost alot of support because of this.



Dodece said:
It stands to reason that a soul would be a product of supernatural forces rather then than mere biology.

I don't normally read wall of text. Yours was worth it.



that's what a huge percentage of christians believe though, that everything that happens is part of god's plan. It's not as evil as it sounds, i don't have a problem with you believing that. The problem is when you pass legislation to force people to do something just because that's your religious belief. That's wrong.



currently playing: Skyward Sword, Mario Sunshine, Xenoblade Chronicles X

Around the Network
johnsobas said:
that's what a huge percentage of christians believe though, that everything that happens is part of god's plan. It's not as evil as it sounds, i don't have a problem with you believing that. The problem is when you pass legislation to force people to do something just because that's your religious belief. That's wrong.



There is nothing wrong with it. People basing their views on things other than the bible are using equally as flawed methods.



spurgeonryan said:
So then does he believe that god intended for the jews to be killed off in Ww2 as well? Would only make sence for him to believe that as well.



Not necessarily...



i'm not sure this man thought much about what he was saying...



Two days later, Mitt Romney *still* refuses to answer reporters' questions about Mourdock's comments, withdraw his endorsement of Mourdock, or ask Mourdock to stop airing the campaign ad that Romney filmed for him. Ugh.

Mitt Romney Refuses To Answer Questions About Richard Mourdock At Campaign Stop In Cincinnati
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/mitt-romney-richard-mourdock_n_2016236.html



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.