RAPE PREGNANCIES 'SOMETHING THAT GOD INTENDED'

pandora

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

romney is to control the direction of this party. it is his job to rebuke idiots like this guy.

i don't see romney demanding that the ad that he did be pulled...

You think the ad should be pulled?
Why?

gimmesometruth27

pandora wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

romney is to control the direction of this party. it is his job to rebuke idiots like this guy.

i don't see romney demanding that the ad that he did be pulled...

You think the ad should be pulled?
Why?

because your nominee is on record supporting this guy, and if enough indiana voters see that add they could turn not only on the politician in question, but on romney himself.

this ad could be politically damaging to romney.

Who Princess

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Well, you pose a good question and that is why I think there is still value in the discussion. Perhaps even if it is murder, it is not as bad as the emotional stress, physical stress and the possibility of basically ruining more lives and even suicide as you mention.

But I also think there is value in the discussion because the laws should reflect society and we need all opinions. And in reality we should be more focused on how we stop these pregnancies so we have less and less to argue about.

ya ... i pretty much feel like the abortion debate is futile ... there just simply isn't enough "facts" that opposing viewpoints can agree upon to formulate a discussion ...

I don't know that it's completely futile. But I think the difficulty in discussing it is that it's a much more complicated issue than most of us want to admit. I think there are more people who struggle with the nuances of it than there are people who feel rigidly (on one side or the other). The rigid people just tend to be more vocal.

I think I'm just more disturbed by the trend of making this a political issue. It's been going on since the 90s, which is interesting because abortion was legalized throughout the U.S. in 1973. It took a couple of decades for people to start screaming about it.

BinFrog

Who Princess wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Well, you pose a good question and that is why I think there is still value in the discussion. Perhaps even if it is murder, it is not as bad as the emotional stress, physical stress and the possibility of basically ruining more lives and even suicide as you mention.

But I also think there is value in the discussion because the laws should reflect society and we need all opinions. And in reality we should be more focused on how we stop these pregnancies so we have less and less to argue about.

ya ... i pretty much feel like the abortion debate is futile ... there just simply isn't enough "facts" that opposing viewpoints can agree upon to formulate a discussion ...

I don't know that it's completely futile. But I think the difficulty in discussing it is that it's a much more complicated issue than most of us want to admit. I think there are more people who struggle with the nuances of it than there are people who feel rigidly (on one side or the other). The rigid people just tend to be more vocal.

I think I'm just more disturbed by the trend of making this a political issue. It's been going on since the 90s, which is interesting because abortion was legalized throughout the U.S. in 1973. It took a couple of decades for people to start screaming about it.

I think it is definitely futile. It is entirely based on ones sense of morality and emotions.

Who Princess

BinFrog wrote:

I think it is definitely futile. It is entirely based on ones sense of morality and emotions.

I have a friend who was very active in the pro-life movement. Bumper stickers on her car, picketing clinics, volunteering at the thrift shop for women with problem pregnancies. I never discussed it with her. That was important to her and I respected that, even though I'd never do it.

Abortion was still illegal when I was a teenager. When I was 17 my best friend had an abortion. It was pretty horrible. I stayed angry about that for a long time. I didn't understand about the politics or whatever, I just knew my friend shouldn't have had to go through that. It also really shook me up and made me think about abortion in a concrete way. So I think abortion is terrible, yet I think it should be safe, legal, and available--and rarely needed.

I was also a rape crisis volunteer in the 80s. One year, 3 young women killed themselves after becoming pregnant by their rapist. Each of them came from very religious families who felt that abortion wasn't an option. Their deaths made me angry and sad.

My friend who was pro-life changed her views somewhere along the way. She came to see other people in the movement as strident and forcing their ways on others. I don't know if you'd call her pro-choice now, but she feels like reasonable, intelligent people can hold differing viewpoints and still get along. I think that's awesome.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

romney cut an ad in support of this man monday afternoon. now he is trying to distance himself from it. romney campaign has not commented on this guy one way or another and it is unclear whether or not romney still supports him... imagine that. romney will do whatever is politically expedient.

Not to mention you are wrong, didn;t you read it?

"UPDATE: 10:20 p.m. -- GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who has endorsed Mourdock and supports him in a campaign ad that began running in Indiana on Tuesday, took issue with Mourdock's abortion comments, a spokeswoman said.

"Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock's comments, and they do not reflect his views," Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said."

romney is to control the direction of this party. it is his job to rebuke idiots like this guy.

i don't see romney demanding that the ad that he did be pulled...

Man, this is sad and why their is no discussion and only blame throwing. You say something, and it sounds bad, but if you think about it, it's not that bad just said poorly. And gimme thinks you should be gone! Sad indeed.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

put this in context folks. The guy is a theist. He believes all life comes from God. He said:

"I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Why would he think life created in a rape came from the devil? At the very least he's being consistent in his theological viewpoint.

The title of the thread is misleading, formed in a way that makes this guy sound like he believes God made someone rape someone else. that's not what he said and you all know it.

polaris_x

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

The title of the thread is misleading, formed in a way that makes this guy sound like he believes God made someone rape someone else. that's not what he said and you all know it.

i don't think too many people think this guy says it's ok to rape ... i think most people are offended at the notion that religion/god is the premise by which he wants to prevent a woman from getting an abortion ...

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

The title of the thread is misleading, formed in a way that makes this guy sound like he believes God made someone rape someone else. that's not what he said and you all know it.

i don't think too many people think this guy says it's ok to rape ... i think most people are offended at the notion that religion/god is the premise by which he wants to prevent a woman from getting an abortion ...

The one thing that gets glossed over is that his Democratic opponent shares the same view regarding abortion but didn't stick his foot in his mouth.

But to get all that information out there would go over our 144 character attention span. :fp:

gimmesometruth27

polaris_x wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

The title of the thread is misleading, formed in a way that makes this guy sound like he believes God made someone rape someone else. that's not what he said and you all know it.

i don't think too many people think this guy says it's ok to rape ... i think most people are offended at the notion that religion/god is the premise by which he wants to prevent a woman from getting an abortion ...

i know he did not say that it is ok to rape. but i have a hard time believing that anyone would agree that it is god's will for a woman to raise the child of someone who raped her. to raise a kid who will never know his dad, only that he is the product of a violent act, is not the idea of a gift to me. how is the kid supposed to feel about that? i don't think it is cool to have god "give" a child to someone who might not have even wanted to have kids in the first place. that is kind of a dick move by god, don't you think?

polaris_x

Jason P wrote:

The one thing that gets glossed over is that his Democratic opponent shares the same view regarding abortion but didn't stick his foot in his mouth.

But to get all that information out there would go over our 144 character attention span. :fp:

in so much as they are both pro-life ... but i believe the democrat believes in abortions in cases of rape ...

polaris_x

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i know he did not say that it is ok to rape. but i have a hard time believing that anyone would agree that it is god's will for a woman to raise the child of someone who raped her. to raise a kid who will never know his dad, only that he is the product of a violent act, is not the idea of a gift to me. how is the kid supposed to feel about that? i don't think it is cool to have god "give" a child to someone who might not have even wanted to have kids in the first place. that is kind of a dick move by god, don't you think?

i'm agnostic so anyone who uses god as a foundation to espouse his/her beliefs has lost me ...

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

Jason P wrote:

The one thing that gets glossed over is that his Democratic opponent shares the same view regarding abortion but didn't stick his foot in his mouth.

But to get all that information out there would go over our 144 character attention span. :fp:

in so much as they are both pro-life ... but i believe the democrat believes in abortions in cases of rape ...

Yeah, it looks like Donnelly is for exemptions on rape, incest, and fear of the mother dying while Mourdock is only in favor if the mother may die.

It's not like their opinions really matter except to pander to an audience or to say something that can backfire on themselves. That's why Mourdock should have had a carefully crafted response ready from his handlers for this question. Dumb.

polaris_x

Jason P wrote:

Yeah, it looks like Donnelly is for exemptions on rape, incest, and fear of the mother dying while Mourdock is only in favor if the mother may die.

It's not like their opinions really matter except to pander to an audience or to say something that can backfire on themselves. That's why Mourdock should have had a carefully crafted response ready from his handlers for this question. Dumb.

the thing that should be most troubling is the exploitation of god and religion ... it's like - everything is justifiable if you just say god says its ok ... like - what the cuss? ...

Hugh Freaking Dillon

polaris_x wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

The title of the thread is misleading, formed in a way that makes this guy sound like he believes God made someone rape someone else. that's not what he said and you all know it.

i don't think too many people think this guy says it's ok to rape ... i think most people are offended at the notion that religion/god is the premise by which he wants to prevent a woman from getting an abortion ...

He believes all life is sacred. Period. I can't fault the guy for that.

I believe in the seperation of church and state, and obviously the right of a woman to make decisions of her own body/life on her own.

But how can someone be reasonably expected to go against what they believe in order to serve the people?

polaris_x

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

He believes all life is sacred. Period. I can't fault the guy for that.

I believe in the seperation of church and state, and obviously the right of a woman to make decisions of her own body/life on her own.

But how can someone be reasonably expected to go against what they believe in order to serve the people?

really!?? ... what's his stance on iran and the israeli-palestinian conflict!? ... i doubt he believes all life is sacred ...

we are all hypocritical ... but to use god as a reason why a woman should be denied access to an abortion when she is impregnated during rape is exploitative and is based on faith ... a faith that more and more people do not subscribe to ...

so, in essence he is going to impose his religious beliefs standards on everyone ... how is that right?

comebackgirl

Who Princess wrote:

I don't know that it's completely futile. But I think the difficulty in discussing it is that it's a much more complicated issue than most of us want to admit. I think there are more people who struggle with the nuances of it than there are people who feel rigidly (on one side or the other). The rigid people just tend to be more vocal.

I think I'm just more disturbed by the trend of making this a political issue. It's been going on since the 90s, which is interesting because abortion was legalized throughout the U.S. in 1973. It took a couple of decades for people to start screaming about it.

I just wanted to echo this sentiment. I'm really sick of it being used a weapon in the political debate.

tybird

BinFrog wrote:

Romney can try and distance himself from this stuff as much as possible: this is what he and his tea-party-hijacked Republican party believe. This party has turned into a holier than thou, pious bunch of sub-intellectual bigots. It's disgusting.

well said

Hugh Freaking Dillon

polaris_x wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

He believes all life is sacred. Period. I can't fault the guy for that.

I believe in the seperation of church and state, and obviously the right of a woman to make decisions of her own body/life on her own.

But how can someone be reasonably expected to go against what they believe in order to serve the people?

really!?? ... what's his stance on iran and the israeli-palestinian conflict!? ... i doubt he believes all life is sacred ...

we are all hypocritical ... but to use god as a reason why a woman should be denied access to an abortion when she is impregnated during rape is exploitative and is based on faith ... a faith that more and more people do not subscribe to ...

so, in essence he is going to impose his religious beliefs standards on everyone ... how is that right?

it's not right, polaris. I said I don't believe in spiritual beliefs interfering with law-making. All I'm saying is it would be just as difficult for his beliefs not to get in the way of how he conducts himself as it would be for you or I to suppress ours.

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat wrote:

It is certainly an uncomfortable debate topic.

But if you truly believe that it is a life...and you believe abortion is murder...while rape is bad, murder is worse. So I understand the sentiment.

I've thought about these situations for some time. Life of the mother at risk? That's an easy one. Up to her. Rape and incest are far more difficult. It most certainly puts emotional and physical stress on a woman if abortion is not an option. But on the other hand, why punish someone that is innocent for the crimes of another? That same statement could probably be argued effectively by both sides actually.

But, I do think the immediate "outrage" and backlash from some stifle the discussion which is very important. It's far better to use soundbites and take comments out of context to win your election then it is to have a serious discussion about the issues.

When it comes down to it I flip-flop on my position from time to time. Right now, I'd say that I would not fight against abortion being legal in case where the mother's life is at risk, rape, or incest. But it is still a struggle to come to terms with that for me. Kinda feels hypocritical.

A women can do whatever she wants with her own body, including choosing whether or not she wants something growing in it. Period.