Posted on 10/24/2012 9:38:38 AM PDT by Altariel
Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock is standing by his statement that when a woman becomes pregnant during a rape "that's something God intended." He says some people have twisted his comment.
Mourdock said in a news conference Wednesday that he abhors any sexual violence and regrets it if his comment during a debate Tuesday night left another impression.
Mourdock, who's been locked in one of the country's most expensive and closely watched Senate races, was asked during the final minutes of the debate 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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Excellent defense of the truth. Very, very well put. I was going to post the very same examples, but you beat me to it.
Samuel’s mother was another incident that points to God opening the womb of a barren woman.
And how can I forget the way the good Lord opened the wombs of the Egyptian mid wife’s who refused to kill the newborn Israelite babies.
Oh yes, the pro-lie cause is getting a huge boost from such political whizkids as Joe Miller, Doug Hoffman, Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Ken Buck, JD Hayworth, soon to be joined by Todd Akin.
I will stand with winners such as Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, John Kasich, Rick Scott, Nikki Haley, Kelly Ayotte, Haley Barbour etc.
Mr Mourdock needs to resurrect his campaign with a clarification immediatelt. We can not afford to lose seat in Indiana.
That is essentially right out of the PP handbook.
What also isn't rocket science is that we are killing 1.5 million unborn children per year. If you believe they are persons with the right to life, what is more important than that? If it was 1.5 million born people being killed per year, would you say then that only the economy should be spoken on?
Honesty, the best policy.
“Perhaps not every instance is an intervention, but if you believe the Bible”
that’s where we sort of agree
but “we”, and the lives we are talking about are not, Leah, or Rachel, or Jacob, or Joseph, or Mary, or Elizabeth,
and yes, we are “comforted in our sorrows so that we will be able to comfort others with the same comfort we have received” - I said as much, but I also said that is based on our faith that G-d can provide those things for us.
“I realize how the loss of 2 children has shaped me to be able to minister to others who have experienced loss”
I believe it is your faith that has allowed you to use your loss that way, and it comes from your faith, not the loss itself, for by the same faith, the same relationship with G-d others have and do can come to the same understanding by which they provide the same comfort to others in these circumstances. Did G-d have a role in that? Yes, because you had a faith that was open to G-d helping you.
“We have no way of knowing or proving which instances are interventions and which not”
bingo, that’s what I said
“sometimes what seems terrible to us is part of a bigger plan”
and sometimes it’s just ‘cause sh&^%$t happens
“There is no human being who can diminish our real human dignity and worth. No human being who has the power to destroy our life. Nobody can do to us anything except what the Lord allows. It’s usually not what He WANTS”
no people can murder us, or worse, and it has nothing to do with what G-d “wants” or what G-d “allows”, sometimes sh&*^%$t happens
and where IS G-d - He is there for us, always, even when sh&^%t happens, even when sh%^$#t happens He CAN provide comfort, strength and peace, but providing all that for us is not necessarily saying he “wanted” or “allowed” it to happen
It met their purposes perfectly giving the enemy more ammo to use against the Right. They could not have scripted it more perfectly for their purposes.
For the GOP it destroys the carefully negated “War on Women” BS with one sentence. Outsmarted yet again.
This has nothing to do with “spine” just intelligence.
“For the GOP it destroys the carefully negated “War on Women” BS with one sentence. Outsmarted yet again.”
I remember a passage where David is instructed to take only those men who did not rest a knee when they drank water. This has the same effect, for the same reason.
Congratulations ... you fell into their trap.
Yeah, sure.
Hardly, I would vote for the fool had I the chance. I don’t care about this remark but that isn’t the point. There is a large minority of voters which this will turn away from a good vote. The whole thing is TOTALLY unnecessary.
After he loses he can sit back and pat himself on the back and think about how pious he is while the Left continues to rampage, laughing its ass off.
0bama thanks you for your support.
You’re a fool.
“All a man can do is put his sperm in a position to fertilize an egg; whether it does or doesn’t is beyond his control.”
The “all a man can do is put his sperm in a position to fertilize an egg” in this instance presumably being by forcing his sperm into an entirely unwilling, screaming woman? Is that the “all” you’re referring to? As for whether the poor woman becomes pregnant through being raped being somehow “beyond his control”, one absolutely sure fire way of avoiding any chance of pregnancy is by him not raping her in the first bloody place.
As I Brit I ultimately / obviously don’t have a dog in any of the US political races, however I do find it rather bizarre that part of the defence of this guy’s comments seems to be that the rape victim should apparently see rape-induced pregnancy as being the silver lining to the unfortunate and somewhat waved-away initial rape cloud, what with it apparently being God’s will for her to get pregnant (but not for her to be raped in the first place, obviously).
This really is a classic question of Theodicy, and I find it a really, really difficult one to answer satisfactorily.
But since you apparently need a pat on the head... yes, you're so right. Rape is bad. Rapists shouldn't do that.
There, feel better? Now, do you care to comment on the actual content of the discussion - whether Mourdock's comment was actually insensitive and worth of the media's attack on him? Most rational folk believe that his comment indicates that he believes that God is the author of life in the womb, and if He chooses to start life inside a womb (even one that was violated), then He has a reason for it. (If you bother to read Mourdock's actual comment, his words were "in that horrible situation of rape".) Most hysterical folk seem to run with the notion that since he made a comment about rape, and it included God, then Mourdock must be a jackass. Which side do you take?
“Where exactly does anyone’s comment condone the rape?”
I’ve no idea - where have I said that anyone has “condoned” rape?
*Strawman Detector needle twitches*
“whether Mourdock’s comment was actually insensitive”
Since you’re asking a simple question: yes, massively so. It might - just possibly, maybe - seem somewhat insensitive / callous for someone to maintain that it was divine will for a woman to become pregnant after having been raped. Hence my “hey, every cloud!” comment.
If this is the case, then should the poor woman also ask herself whether the rape itself was also the result of divine will? Could that not cause err “some” emotional upset?
Bottom line, he’s a professional politician - and he should know better than to publically phrase his beliefs in such an utterly ham-fisted way. It’s going to be too easy for his (and Romney’s) opponents to spin this to their advantage.
Your entitled to your opinion as I am mine. For a woman to carry and nurture the baby of a rapist is beyond comprehension. And I doubt very much that the good Lord would cast her into hell if she didn’t carry the b aby.
You seem to be missing my point, which is that though a man can control who he puts his sperm into, he cannot create life. Only God can create life, and though the rapist may intend harm and evil through the rape, the creation of life is the work of God whose purposes are always good. He has promised that all things work for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purposes, and that we will never be given more than we can bear. If He allows a child to be conceived, He will somehow work that out for good.
That doesn’t diminish the horrible-ness of what the rapist did. It does, however, limit the ability of that rapist to destroy a woman’s life. He doesn’t have that power.
Have you ever experienced loss or hardship?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.