http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mourdock-god-work-rape-leads-pregnancy-17549526#.UIeES8XMieZ
QuoteIndiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday when a woman becomes pregnant during a rape, "that's something God intended."
Mourdock, who's been locked in one of the country's most watched Senate races, was asked during the final minutes of a debate with Democratic challenger Rep. Joe Donnelly whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said.
Mourdock became the second GOP Senate candidate to find himself on the defensive over comments about rape and pregnancy. Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin said during a television interview in August that women's bodies have ways of preventing pregnancy in cases of what he called "legitimate rape." Since his comment, Akin has repeatedly apologized but has refused to leave his race despite calls to do so by leaders of his own party, from GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on down.
It was not immediately clear what effect Mourdock's comments might have during the final two weeks before the Nov. 6 election. But they could prove problematic. Romney distanced himself from Mourdock on Tuesday night — a day after a television ad featuring the former Massachusetts governor supporting the GOP Senate candidate began airing in Indiana.
"Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock's comments, and they do not reflect his views," Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an email to The Associated Press. Romney aides would not say whether the ad would be pulled and if the Republican presidential nominee would continue to support Mourdock's Senate bid.
Other Republicans did not immediately weigh in. Indiana Republican Party spokesman Pete Seat referred comment to the Mourdock campaign. A spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and a spokeswoman for Romney did not immediately return a request for comment Tuesday night.
National Democrats quickly picked up on Mourdock's statement and used it as an opportunity to paint him as an extreme candidate, calling him a tea party "zealot." DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz described Mourdock's comments as "outrageous and demeaning to woman" and called on Romney to take his pro-Mourdock ad off the air.
Later Tuesday after the debate, Mourdock further explained he did not believe God intended the rape, but that God is the only one who can create life.
"Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don't think that," said Mourdock. "Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that's not even close to what I said."
In response, Donnelly said after the debate in southern Indiana that he doesn't believe "my God, or any God, would intend that to happen.".
Along with Romney's ad, top Republicans have been flocking to Indiana as part of an effort to break open the high-stakes race for the Senate seat, currently held by veteran GOP Sen. Richard Lugar who was defeated by Mourdock in the May primary. Republicans need to gain three seats, or four if President Barack Obama wins re-election, and seats that were predicted to remain or turn Republican have grown uncertain.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell came to Indianapolis for a fundraiser Monday, and Arizona Sen. John McCain and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham campaigned for Mourdock last week. New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte is due in the state Wednesday.
Romney's coattails carry special significance in deeply conservative Indiana, where Mourdock has underperformed Romney by 12 points in most public polls. Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS also has bought another $1 million of airtime in Indiana, making his group the biggest player in Indiana's Senate race. A message left for Crossroads GPS spokesman Nate Hodson was not immediately returned.
On second thought I should have titled the thread, "Pregnant from Rape? thank God!"
Provide free and immediate emergency contraception to rape victims, but I am leaning towards banning abortions in most cases after perhaps 6-10 weeks.
Quote from: Syt on October 24, 2012, 01:03:17 AM
"Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don't think that," said Mourdock. "Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that's not even close to what I said."
Damn dude, first you alienate women and touchy feely types and now Calvinists, at this rate you might lose to the Libertarian candidate. :ph34r:
Let's just allow infanticide up until the baby can say "please don't."
And you guys were under the impression that god was a nice guy.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 24, 2012, 07:01:51 AM
And you guys were under the impression that god was a nice guy.
Worked for Zeus.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 07:05:44 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 24, 2012, 07:01:51 AM
And you guys were under the impression that god was a nice guy.
Worked for Zeus.
Plus the greek god did their raping themselves. Christian god is a outsourcer.
What is everyone's favorite Zeus rape story?
Ganymede
Quote from: Phillip V on October 24, 2012, 07:08:05 AM
What is everyone's favorite Zeus rape story?
Golden shower.
Indiana. 'nuff said.
DEUS VULT
Well, whose work is it then? The only other candidate is Devil.
The problem with the "rape exception" is that it is either useless or a "free abortion" in disguise.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 24, 2012, 01:10:05 AM
Provide free and immediate emergency contraception to rape victims, but I am leaning towards banning abortions in most cases after perhaps 6-10 weeks.
Why 6-10 weeks and not at conception?
This guy's position is at least logical given what he believes. From the point of view who thinks that life begins at conception (i.e. what Romney and Ryan profess to believe) allowing abortions in the case of rape and incest makes no sense.
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2012, 08:20:49 AM
Well, whose work is it then? The only other candidate is Devil.
Or maybe, you know the rapist?
The seduction community.
Quote from: Kleves on October 24, 2012, 08:53:46 AM
This guy's position is at least logical given what he believes. From the point of view who thinks that life begins at conception (i.e. what Romney and Ryan profess to believe) allowing abortions in the case of rape and incest makes no sense.
This is true. If a fetus is a full human, allowing abortion in cases of rape etc. makes no more sense than allowing the mom to shoot the kid when s/he's 12 because s/he was the product of a rape.
This is all the work of the new giant robo-hug-jesus.
Quote from: Malthus on October 24, 2012, 09:04:41 AM
Quote from: Kleves on October 24, 2012, 08:53:46 AM
This guy's position is at least logical given what he believes. From the point of view who thinks that life begins at conception (i.e. what Romney and Ryan profess to believe) allowing abortions in the case of rape and incest makes no sense.
This is true. If a fetus is a full human, allowing abortion in cases of rape etc. makes no more sense than allowing the mom to shoot the kid when s/he's 12 because s/he was the product of a rape.
Hypocrisy is allowed in cases of political expediency.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 08:59:21 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2012, 08:20:49 AM
Well, whose work is it then? The only other candidate is Devil.
Or maybe, you know the rapist?
:hmm: That's an interesting way to look at it.
So one republican senate candidate believes women can not get pregnant through rape, while another believes god sees to it that women get pregnant from rape. The republicans are truly the big tent party.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 24, 2012, 09:33:33 AM
So one republican senate candidate believes women can not get pregnant through rape, while another believes god sees to it that women get pregnant from rape. The republicans are truly the big tent party.
Just don't go in that tent alone after dark. :ph34r:
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 08:07:28 AM
Quote from: Scipio on October 24, 2012, 07:35:32 AM
Indiana. 'nuff said.
Does MS have anywhere to talk?
No shit. Indiana? Then explain Mississippi, Missouri, Virginia and Kansas.
Quote from: Malthus on October 24, 2012, 09:34:57 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 24, 2012, 09:33:33 AM
So one republican senate candidate believes women can not get pregnant through rape, while another believes god sees to it that women get pregnant from rape. The republicans are truly the big tent party.
Just don't go in that tent alone after dark. :ph34r:
:D
As I said before (and had no time to develop), the "rape exception" is in my view an example of a compromise that does not really make sense (for the reasons mentioned by others) and does not really work in practice.
There are only two ways this could work - either the rape must be determined by the court in a criminal case - in which case it is unlikely to be done before the mother gives birth; or it's the woman has an unilateral right to claim the child is conceived by rape (e.g. by an unknown rapist), in which case it becomes a de facto unrestricted abortion.
At least this guy isn't the worst candidate in America. that honor goes to Mark Clayton:
QuoteWHITES CREEK, Tenn. — The Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee has no campaign headquarters, a fundraising drive stuck at $278 and one yard sign. Not one type of yard sign. One sign.
And with the election just days away, he has not actually put that sign in a yard. Instead, it resides inside candidate Mark Clayton's pickup. "VOTE FOR," the sign says. The rest is hidden by the seats.
"Jesus did not have a campaign staff. And he had the most successful campaign in human history," Clayton said recently, when asked if all this adds up to a winning run against incumbent Sen. Bob Corker (R). Jesus "didn't even have pictures or a Web site."
This may be America's worst candidate.
Clayton, 36, is a part-time flooring installer, an indulger in conspiracy theories — and for Democrats here, the living personification of rock bottom. In a state that produced Democratic icons including Andrew Jackson and both Al Gores, the party has fallen so far that it can't even run a good loser.
Instead, it has this guy. In Tennessee, Clayton's unlikely run is providing an absurdist coda to a long Democratic disaster. Something like falling down a flight of stairs onto a whoopee cushion.
"It's pretty sad. I mean, when your nomination is not worth having, that's embarrassing," said Will T. Cheek, a Nashville investor who has been a member of the state Democratic Party's executive committee since 1970. "That would appear to be where we are."
Every election, of course, is crowded with losers: the sacrificial lambs, the one-issue zealots, the novelty name-changers (Thomas Jefferson, of Kansas, is running for Congress. Santa Claus, of Nevada, is running for president).
But Clayton stands out. Nobody who has the opportunity he has — a major-party nomination for the Senate in a nail-biter election in which every Senate race has outsize importance — has so little chance of taking advantage of it.
In Wyoming, Democratic challenger Tim Chesnut is a long shot; his actual slogan is "Chesnut is the best nut for Senate." But he at least has his party behind him. In Washington, Republican challenger Michael Baumgartner recently told a reporter to "go [expletive] yourself." But he at least has raised nearly $1 million.
In Tennessee, Clayton's policy ideas set him apart from many other Democrats: He is unusual in opposing abortion rights and same-sex marriage, but he's downright exceptional in saying that the Transportation Security Administration "mandates [transsexuals] and homosexuals grabbing children in their stranger-danger zones."
He has been a volunteer for Public Advocate of the United States, a Falls Church-based organization that was branded a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its anti-gay rhetoric.
During Clayton's failed Senate run in 2008, his Web site suggested that the U.S. government might be replaced with a "North American Union" and that Google was working against him at the behest of the Chinese government.
But his ideas about campaigning itself might be even more unorthodox. Almost everything other candidates do, Clayton said, is wrong.
"There's other people who have gone out and put signs all over, and gone and talked to people," he said on the phone. "And they get less votes. They go down."
He explained that "a lot of people don't have time to take off work and [from paying] their bills to go and stage a campaign rally to make it look like something's happening. . . . That's the news media's problem" if there aren't rallies to cover, he said.
"If there are people out here who don't understand that there's a different way of doing things, then that's their problem. We won the primary."
The son of an activist who lobbied Congress on behalf of Christian schools, Clayton does little campaigning in the physical world. He focuses on his Facebook page (382 "likes") and Web site.
When a reporter asked about upcoming rallies or public events, Clayton declined to name any. One evening last week, a visit to an address listed for his campaign led to Clayton's 92-year-old farmhouse outside Nashville.
The one sign was in the truck. The truck was in the driveway. The candidate was coming out to get his mail. Was he confident that he would beat Corker?
"Of course," Clayton said. He is a youthful-looking Army Reserve veteran and was wearing a plaid flannel shirt and slightly long sideburns. How could he be so sure he'd win?
Clayton turned and walked away. "I don't know why you're here," he said, having reached the porch. "I don't come to your house."
A party's fall
The last time Corker ran for Senate, in 2006, Tennessee Democrats nominated Harold Ford Jr., a centrist congressman and the son of a congressman. Ford came within three percentage points of becoming the first black man elected to the Senate from the South since Reconstruction.
After that, things fell apart.
Tennessee Democrats, who'd watched their conservative voters drift to the GOP, finally lost the state House in 2010. That had been a financial lifeline for Democrats, since the legislature has broad powers over patronage.
"That pretty much was the end," said Cheek, the executive committee member. "Because we have nothing left. In the other low points, we had the Election Commission, we had the Building Commission. . . . If you wanted to get state deposits into your bank, those were all ours. And that's where you'd raise your money."
Losing those powers "really kicked the props out from under the financing of the party," Cheek said.
This year, the cash-poor party faced a rematch with Corker, now a popular incumbent with $14 million to spend. It went looking for a candidate who could run on the cheap, and they thought they'd found someone in Park Overall.
"I said to him that night on the phone, 'Ain't you got anybody — g-----n it, Chip — to run?' And he said no," recalled Overall, an actress best known for playing the sassy nurse Laverne on the 1990s sitcom "Empty Nest."
Overall, 55, had returned to her native Tennessee as a well-known liberal. She was talking to the state Democratic chairman, Chip Forrester.
She resisted. For a while.
"Then, he caught me drinking one night," Overall recounted in a phone interview. "And I said: 'Aw, hellfire. Let's just do it.' "
It didn't go well. Overall refused to spend more than $100 of her own money on the campaign ("I was a big actress years ago. Money goes."). She said the party wasn't much help, either: It loaned her a book called "Deer Hunting With Jesus" to help reach religious voters. Overall was also sidelined for weeks by illness.
When the primary arrived on Aug. 2, she came in third, with 24,000 votes. In second place was Gary Gene Davis, a Chattanooga man who spent less than $100 ("And that was in gas," Davis said).
.In first place was Clayton, with 48,000 votes. He had spent just $65 to get them. But, state Democratic officials said, Clayton had a crucial advantage: The ballot was alphabetical.
"Many Democrats in Tennessee knew nothing about any of the candidates in the race, so they voted for the person at the top of the ticket," the party said in a statement the next day. Because of his ties to Public Advocate of the United States, the statement said, "the Tennessee Democratic Party disavows his candidacy [and] will not do anything to promote or support him in any way."
A quiet campaign
Today, it's easy to visit Tennessee and not realize that there's a Senate campaign going on.
At Corker's headquarters in Nashville, the campaign hasn't even bothered with a sign out front.
Clayton, for his part, has released a few online ads and a revamped Web site. But a recent drive to raise $450 in donations has stalled south of $300.
It's clear, however, that he is savoring a victory already — over the rest of Tennessee's Democrats.
"If there are people who don't believe that there's a campaign here, then guess what? They can come to Tennessee, if they're a voter, and they can see Mark E. Clayton, and next to Mark E. Clayton there's going to be a 'D,' " he said on the phone. "Like it or not, Mark Clayton is the Democratic nominee in Tennessee."
Among others in his party, there's hope that this is really the bottom. They're encouraged by a new crop of Democratic mayors in the state's big cities. And they're trying to figure out a screening test that will keep people like Clayton off the Democratic ballot in the future.
But it's hard to find a definition of "Democrat" that everyone here likes.
"We have a large segment of our party that's pro-life. . . . And you know, a lot of us have guns," said Jim Bilbo, an executive committee member from Cleveland, Tenn. "We're not going to come up with language saying, you know, 'We believe in a woman's right to choose,' and all that stuff.
"All of the suggestions that I have seen have been so broad that they're almost meaningless," Bilbo said. "Like, 'Stand up for the principles of the Democratic Party.' Well, what are those principles?"
In this election, Democrats have told their voters just to write in a name instead of voting for Clayton. But at this low ebb, they don't have another name to suggest.
Just pick somebody, voters are told. Word is, a lot of early voters used "Big Bird."
Though I do applaud his suspicion of China. :hmm:
the Mark Clayton thing is incredible; they had a competitive election for the same seat just six years ago.
So I don't really think that what Mourdock said was that bad. It seems like just saying "it was all part of God's plan," not condoning rape.
Quote from: Count on October 24, 2012, 12:51:51 PM
So I don't really think that what Mourdock said was that bad. It seems like just saying "it was all part of God's plan," not condoning rape.
Most people don't like the suggestion that God's plan includes getting raped.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 12:57:39 PM
Most people don't like the suggestion that God's plan includes getting raped.
:rolleyes:
That's not what he is saying. He is saying that God's plan is "Oh damn, that lady got raped due to that guy's free will. I will make it better by giving her a baby!"
Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2012, 08:20:49 AM
Well, whose work is it then? The only other candidate is Devil.
That's one of the fundamental flaws of monotheism right? God is omnipotent, so the rape could not possibly have happened unless he was okay with it.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 12:57:39 PM
Quote from: Count on October 24, 2012, 12:51:51 PM
So I don't really think that what Mourdock said was that bad. It seems like just saying "it was all part of God's plan," not condoning rape.
Most people don't like the suggestion that God's plan includes getting raped.
right, but to me it sounds the same as someone saying "it was all part of God's plan" after a family tragedy. it's not that they're happy about mom getting cancer and dying
for example, I was randomly reading this article (someone linked it on facebook):
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/10/autumn_pasquale_death_2_teen_b.html
which is about a horrible crime. The murdered girl's great-uncle: "We believe she is where God wanted her to be," Spadafora said. "So the ending here is sad, but for the relatives that have greeted her in Heaven, it's a happy day."
Quote from: PDH on October 24, 2012, 01:03:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 12:57:39 PM
Most people don't like the suggestion that God's plan includes getting raped.
:rolleyes:
That's not what he is saying. He is saying that God's plan is "Oh damn, that lady got raped due to that guy's free will. I will make it better by giving her a baby!"
Oh, okay. :D
Quote from: Count on October 24, 2012, 01:15:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 12:57:39 PM
Quote from: Count on October 24, 2012, 12:51:51 PM
So I don't really think that what Mourdock said was that bad. It seems like just saying "it was all part of God's plan," not condoning rape.
Most people don't like the suggestion that God's plan includes getting raped.
right, but to me it sounds the same as someone saying "it was all part of God's plan" after a family tragedy. it's not that they're happy about mom getting cancer and dying
People don't generally use the latter to justify whether or not a person should have their actions restricted (in this case - God intended for you to have the baby so no rights for you!).
Quote from: Count on October 24, 2012, 01:20:48 PM
for example, I was randomly reading this article (someone linked it on facebook):
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/10/autumn_pasquale_death_2_teen_b.html
which is about a horrible crime. The murdered girl's great-uncle: "We believe she is where God wanted her to be," Spadafora said. "So the ending here is sad, but for the relatives that have greeted her in Heaven, it's a happy day."
I think it'd be similar if say that was used as justification for why the murder should get to profit from book sales about the crime.
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 01:22:51 PM
Quote from: PDH on October 24, 2012, 01:03:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 12:57:39 PM
Most people don't like the suggestion that God's plan includes getting raped.
:rolleyes:
That's not what he is saying. He is saying that God's plan is "Oh damn, that lady got raped due to that guy's free will. I will make it better by giving her a baby!"
Oh, okay. :D
I liked your version better. Old Testamenty fresh.
I'd have voted for Park Overall. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 01:26:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 01:22:51 PM
Quote from: PDH on October 24, 2012, 01:03:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 24, 2012, 12:57:39 PM
Most people don't like the suggestion that God's plan includes getting raped.
:rolleyes:
That's not what he is saying. He is saying that God's plan is "Oh damn, that lady got raped due to that guy's free will. I will make it better by giving her a baby!"
Oh, okay. :D
I liked your version better. Old Testamenty fresh.
My response to PDH was more laughing at home absurd that is. :D
Quote from: PDH on October 24, 2012, 01:03:01 PM
That's not what he is saying. He is saying that God's plan is "Oh damn, that lady got raped due to that guy's free will. I will make it better by giving her a baby!"
Tha New Yorker agrees. :P
QuoteIs Mourdock's God an absent-minded God, who allows rapes to occur when he is looking in the other direction, and then rushes in to make the best of it? Mourdock almost suggest that he is a God with narrow powers, a sort of fertility deity conjured up by the circumstances of conception, who either does or doesn't make it happen. The logical extensions lead nowhere. How do we know that it wasn't God's will that the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade the way it did? The national discussion on a woman's right to choose has arrived at the level of kindergarten theodicy.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/10/richard-mourdock-god-and-rape.html#ixzz2AFLurnmA
Romney still endorses the guy, but really, what else can he do? If he wants to take the Senate, this imbecile will help get him there.
QuoteRepublican Mitt Romney's campaign says he still supports Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock after Mourdock said "God intended" pregnancies that result from rape. The campaign has not asked Mourdock to pull a TV ad featuring Romney.
Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Wednesday Romney disagrees with Mourdock's opposition to abortion in cases of rape and incest. But she says Romney still supports Mourdock's bid. Romney himself has not commented.
I kind of feel like Mourdock is keeping with his view of his religion. I really can't fault him for that. What bothers me about it is that by trying to force his vision into law, he's trying to force me into abiding by the laws of HIS religion with no regard for my own beliefs. I'm fairly certain the Bill of Rights strictly prohibits that. I don't understand how Romney - someone who claims to believe in the Constitution above all else - clears that with his conscience.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 04:25:36 PM
Romney still endorses the guy, but really, what else can he do? If he wants to take the Senate, this imbecile will help get him there.
QuoteRepublican Mitt Romney's campaign says he still supports Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock after Mourdock said "God intended" pregnancies that result from rape. The campaign has not asked Mourdock to pull a TV ad featuring Romney.
Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Wednesday Romney disagrees with Mourdock's opposition to abortion in cases of rape and incest. But she says Romney still supports Mourdock's bid. Romney himself has not commented.
I kind of feel like Mourdock is keeping with his view of his religion. I really can't fault him for that. What bothers me about it is that by trying to force his vision into law, he's trying to force me into abiding by the laws of HIS religion with no regard for my own beliefs. I'm fairly certain the Bill of Rights strictly prohibits that. I don't understand how Romney - someone who claims to believe in the Constitution above all else - clears that with his conscience.
In keeping with his views allowing you or some other chick to murder a kid would make him an accessory to murder.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 24, 2012, 04:27:35 PM
In keeping with his views allowing you or some other chick to murder a kid would make him an accessory to murder.
Then he shouldn't be in politics in the United States. The Constitution does not allow for his beliefs to trump mine. Period. It's actually one of the few things that are clearly written out in the doc.
QuoteFirst Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;....
Do you support legalizing prostitution, Meri? That is a much clearer instance of laws based on morality rather than rights.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2012, 04:34:19 PM
Do you support legalizing prostitution, Meri? That is a much clearer instance of laws based on morality rather than rights.
I have never understood making prostitution illegal. When I was in Junior High, I caused a scandal by writing an essay for legalizing it. I still believe that it should be legal, for a whole host of reasons, but starting with the fact that the body belongs to the self, and therefore should be allowed to be used in whatever fashion the self determines is acceptable.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 04:38:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2012, 04:34:19 PM
Do you support legalizing prostitution, Meri? That is a much clearer instance of laws based on morality rather than rights.
I have never understood making prostitution illegal. When I was in Junior High, I caused a scandal by writing an essay for legalizing it. I still believe that it should be legal, for a whole host of reasons, but starting with the fact that the body belongs to the self, and therefore should be allowed to be used in whatever fashion the self determines is acceptable.
Did your body tell you that? :P
Ok, good, your position is consistent.
However, if you take the proposition that the fetus is a human life, which this fellow has, it opens the door for banning abortion on the basis of rights rather than morality. You don't ban abortion because it's wrong, but because it hurts another person. Same reason you outlaw murder, theft, and rape.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 04:38:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2012, 04:34:19 PM
Do you support legalizing prostitution, Meri? That is a much clearer instance of laws based on morality rather than rights.
I have never understood making prostitution illegal. When I was in Junior High, I caused a scandal by writing an essay for legalizing it. I still believe that it should be legal, for a whole host of reasons, but starting with the fact that the body belongs to the self, and therefore should be allowed to be used in whatever fashion the self determines is acceptable.
Partly because the large numbers of young people who are forced into selling their bodies. For every Hooker With A Heart of Gold there is probably a thousand drugged up desperate children who are whored out by their families or ganglord.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 24, 2012, 04:54:49 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 04:38:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2012, 04:34:19 PM
Do you support legalizing prostitution, Meri? That is a much clearer instance of laws based on morality rather than rights.
I have never understood making prostitution illegal. When I was in Junior High, I caused a scandal by writing an essay for legalizing it. I still believe that it should be legal, for a whole host of reasons, but starting with the fact that the body belongs to the self, and therefore should be allowed to be used in whatever fashion the self determines is acceptable.
Partly because the large numbers of young people who are forced into selling their bodies. For every Hooker With A Heart of Gold there is probably a thousand drugged up desperate children who are whored out by their families or ganglord.
And how do prohibitions on prostitution stop that? Seems like it'd be easier to have laws (as I believe we do) that you can't force someone to sell themselves for sex.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2012, 04:54:21 PM
Ok, good, your position is consistent.
However, if you take the proposition that the fetus is a human life, which this fellow has, it opens the door for banning abortion on the basis of rights rather than morality. You don't ban abortion because it's wrong, but because it hurts another person. Same reason you outlaw murder, theft, and rape.
Except that he's invoked his religion to support his claim.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 24, 2012, 04:54:49 PM
Partly because the large numbers of young people who are forced into selling their bodies. For every Hooker With A Heart of Gold there is probably a thousand drugged up desperate children who are whored out by their families or ganglord.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. My point is that a person should be allowed to do with their own body what they want. That is not the same as it being legal to coerce another, which is what you're describing. What you're talking about is already illegal, especially when you're talking about children.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 05:00:17 PM
Except that he's invoked his religion to support his claim.
Non-religious folks also frequently base their political beliefs on their sense of morality, one needs to either divorce the process from morality altogether or accept that religion will influence it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2012, 05:10:24 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2012, 05:00:17 PM
Except that he's invoked his religion to support his claim.
Non-religious folks also frequently base their political beliefs on their sense of morality, one needs to either divorce the process from morality altogether or accept that religion will influence it.
The thing is, I could decide that it is part of my religious faith that only women have the moral capacity to make a decision regarding their own bodies, including and especially during pregnancy. I could find passages in the Bible to support it (because you can find passages in the Bible to support just about anything), I could find followers to support it, and I could even write a book explaining why I believe what I believe.
Anyone can decide on any morals they want, use religion to justify it, and so long as they have enough people willing to back them, it can become law. That doesn't make it right. That doesn't mean that it won't infringe on another person's religion.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 24, 2012, 04:54:49 PM
Partly because the large numbers of young people who are forced into selling their bodies. For every Hooker With A Heart of Gold there is probably a thousand drugged up desperate children who are whored out by their families or ganglord.
It's not clear at all to me that prohibition makes the situation better. In fact, it usually makes such matters worse. Once you put something that's in demand outside of law, you're giving advantage to organized crime.
Quote from: Fate on October 24, 2012, 08:43:01 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on October 24, 2012, 01:10:05 AM
Provide free and immediate emergency contraception to rape victims, but I am leaning towards banning abortions in most cases after perhaps 6-10 weeks.
Why 6-10 weeks and not at conception?
Many eggs do not survive after being fertilized. They are "naturally" aborted. But 6-10 weeks after conception, the fetus is likely to progress to live birth. Thus, that seems like a reasonable cutoff point to me. IMO, an induced abortion after that time period is killing a person, i.e. preventing a statistically likely live birth.
Well, to be honest, the entire Christian faith is built on the premise of an involuntary sex with a 13 y.o. girl. The Original Rape, if you will.
Speaking of which, if God has always been the Holy Trinity, does it mean Mary was gang-raped by her own son?
Theology makes my head hurt.
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2012, 12:52:06 AM
Well, to be honest, the entire Christian faith is built on the premise of an involuntary sex with a 13 y.o. girl. The Original Rape, if you will.
Speaking of which, if God has always been the Holy Trinity, does it mean Mary was gang-raped by her own son?
Theology makes my head hurt.
Draw a picture and post it here.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 25, 2012, 01:01:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2012, 12:52:06 AM
Well, to be honest, the entire Christian faith is built on the premise of an involuntary sex with a 13 y.o. girl. The Original Rape, if you will.
Speaking of which, if God has always been the Holy Trinity, does it mean Mary was gang-raped by her own son?
Theology makes my head hurt.
Draw a picture and post it here.
Ewww, pervert. :yuk:
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2012, 12:52:06 AM
Theology makes my head hurt.
Thanks for coming clean on that.
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2012, 12:52:06 AM
Well, to be honest, the entire Christian faith is built on the premise of an involuntary sex with a 13 y.o. girl. The Original Rape, if you will.
Speaking of which, if God has always been the Holy Trinity, does it mean Mary was gang-raped by her own son?
Theology makes my head hurt.
Are you sure you're not thinking of phrenology there? :hmm: