Posted on 10/24/2012 9:38:38 AM PDT by Altariel
For a woman to carry and nurture the baby of a terrorist is beyond comprehension. For a woman to carry and nurture the baby of a drug dealer is beyond comprehension. For a woman to carry and nurture the baby of a two-timing ex-husband who 2 days after impregnating her ditched her for another woman is beyond comprehension. Never mind that the child she carries is also HER child, and that even the child’s no-good father didn’t kill somebody.
I could go on all day. If we’re looking for reasons to hate and kill a child we can find all kinds of reasons. And not just women either. I remember reading a story about a guy in western Nebraska who killed his girlfriend’s 4-year-old son, cut him into pieces, and put part of the pieces in the deep freeze and part he fed to the dog.... because that child was a reminder that his girlfriend had been with another guy. For him to nurture the son of some other guy was “beyond comprehension”. So he tore the kid limb from limb and threw the bones away. Just like abortion.
Do you have any problem with that? With what he did? Who could ever ask him to tolerate the existence of a child whose father was less than perfect?
As to the going to Hell part, this isn’t about that. God has already paid the death penalty for all sin. The bloody, excruciating, unjust death of His own Son was used by God to satisfy the death warrant out on each one of us for our sin. That’s what God does: He takes bad stuff and works it out for good, because He loves us. There is nothing that can separate us from His love. Not even rape, and not even abortion. Not cutting up a 4-year-old and feeding him to the dog.
But when we’ve got Someone who loves us and will give us everything we need, why would we ever cut up a 4-year-old and feed him to the dog? There is absolutely no need for that. But that’s what our human “solutions” are like: stupid, selfish, hurtful, and senseless. When we concentrate on vengeance and our own right to never have hardships, those are the kinds of “solutions” we will always come up with. They lead to death - whether inwardly or outwardly.
The woman who was raped - or anybody who has been wronged in any way, or faces any hardship - has 2 choices: they can desperately grab for their own preservation and damn whoever stands in their way, or they can trust God to get them through. Which option leads to life and health?
Are you helping the people to vote for Mourdock, or are you helping them turn away from him?
I don’t live in Indiana and have said I would vote for him if I did. Any problems he faces is because of his stupid mouth giving the enemy ammunition to whack him with FOR NO GOOD REASON, it has nothing to do with me recognizing the stupidity.
He could have said exactly what he meant without being stupid.
My question remains: Is what you’re doing right here right now helping Mourdock get more votes, or costing him votes?
“For a woman to carry and nurture the baby of a terrorist is beyond comprehension. For a woman to carry and nurture the baby of a drug dealer is beyond comprehension. For a woman to carry and nurture the baby of a two-timing ex-husband who 2 days after impregnating her ditched her for another woman is beyond comprehension. Never mind that the child she carries is also HER child, and that even the child’s no-good father didn’t kill somebody.
I could go on all day. If we’re looking for reasons to hate and kill a child we can find all kinds of reasons. And not just women either. I remember reading a story about a guy in western Nebraska who killed his girlfriend’s 4-year-old son, cut him into pieces, and put part of the pieces in the deep freeze and part he fed to the dog.... because that child was a reminder that his girlfriend had been with another guy. For him to nurture the son of some other guy was “beyond comprehension”. So he tore the kid limb from limb and threw the bones away. Just like abortion.
Do you have any problem with that? With what he did? Who could ever ask him to tolerate the existence of a child whose father was less than perfect”
Sorry your emotional rant has nothing to do with a forcible rape impregnating an innocent victim.
My pointing out the stupidity and pointlessness of his comment is having no impact.
But what is funny is that you believe MY remarks are damaging but HIS remark is “telling the truth” and excused. Hilarious stuff.
You believe HIS boneheaded move will not hurt and cost votes but my pointing to its absurdity will.
Nice dodge.
The democrats are counting on most people being unwilling to think deeply about this issue. Unfortunately, they probably have the general public pegged pretty well.
You spouting the media’s logic has no effect?
Then why do you believe that this whole issue has any effect? If joining the media bandwagon against Mourdock has no effect, then who exactly does the media bandwagon affect?
People seem to be afraid that these comments will impact undecided voters. If so, then the thing that will stem the loss of undecided voters is pointing out why the media is misrepresenting what Mourdock said and/or meant. They’re trying to make it appear that Mourdock said women should be glad they were raped because God willed it, and you’re saying how stupid it was for Mourdock to say what he did. What does that do to help?
I’m saying that Mourdock never said that rape is fine, or that women should be glad if they were raped because it is God’s will. I’m saying that Mourdock said God is the author of life and that He works to bring good out of bad - which means that nothing bad that is done to us can destroy us, because we have Somebody working it out for good.
I’ve also challenged the idea that it’s OK to hate and destroy a child for the crime of his father. I’ve challenged the idea that we are guaranteed to be able to control everything about our life, or that if we are hurt we can pass that hurt on to somebody else just to be “fair”. I’ve challenged the idea that one innocent person’s right to say “no” legally trumps another innocent person’s very life (Does a homeowner have the right to knowingly kill and remove the body of a person who was kidnapped and placed within their home?)
Your venting about how stupid Mourdock is makes a net gain of zero at best. Makes you feel better, maybe. At worst it reinforces the very arguments being made by the media, which you claim to lament - and will lead undecided voters to vote against Mourdock and depress the vote of those who intended to vote for Mourdock but now believe it is hopeless.
Does feeling good about showing how stupid Mourdock is compared to you, arrogantsob, justify the potential harm you’re doing to Mourdock and conservatism?
I have reservations about Mitt Romney. I’ve written a letter to the editor opposing Mitt Romney in the primary because of his forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Now that Romney is the candidate, I want him to win because he’s the lesser of the 2 evils, but I can’t put a Romney sign in my yard. What I CAN do is argue the points I can in good conscience make, to fight against Obama and those who think like him. If/when Romney is elected I can then try to deal with his wrong stuff, but right now is not the time for that because there is a worse enemy we have to fight. I am choosing to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Which are you? Don’t answer here if you don’t want to. This isn’t to put you or anybody else on the spot publicly, but to get each one of us to think about the impact we are having, compared to the impact we intend to have.
And yes, I do believe he told the truth. God IS the author of life, God does bring good even out of bad situations, and He has promised that we will not be given more than we can bear.
Very, very important truths that have been made very, very real to me over the course of my life and that can mean life and hope to ANYBODY in a crisis situation.
I’m sad for you if you don’t believe those things are true.
I wish he had said what he meant in a way that would not be distorted as easily. But the best I can do is to affirm what he said and not the distortions that the media is presenting.
Why do I believe this will have a negative effect? I have watched for 40 yrs as the media takes comments by the Right and turn them into weapons to be used by the Left. It happens over and over and still these guys go out of their way to stick their feet in their mouths and to give the Left all it needs to beat them.
Had he said something like “As you know, I am Pro-Life so I would consul any woman who is pregnant to have the child. BUT it is NOT my decision to make.” There would have been no controversy or harm to his chances. Nor would he have lied or ditched his principles.
The media does not even HAVE to distort his comments. He shot himself in the foot. Our people must be CONSTANTLY aware of these traps the media set for us. He blundered blindly right into it. This should have been foreseen and properly prepared for.
Unlike the Democrat voters, Republicans cannot be afraid to tell the truth about their candidates as you propose. We have a higher standard than that.
Me having to call Mourdock’s comment “stupid” does not make me feel good at all. I hate seeing things like that giving aid and comfort to our enemies. But there is no way to avoid telling the truth about it.
No one is talking about abortion per se, the sanctity of life or the “father” but about the use his comments will be put to by the Left. Are you utterly blind to this reality? What have you been watching for the last half century?
Conservatism is not harmed in any way by me but it is harmed by blindly excusing mistakes and blunders on our guys’ part.
“At worst it reinforces the very arguments being made by the media, which you claim to lament - and will lead undecided voters to vote against Mourdock and depress the vote of those who intended to vote for Mourdock but now believe it is hopeless.” This is PRECISELY what I am saying and why it was such a totally bone-headed statement.
Romney was never my candidate but I have to say he has run a brilliant campaign mainly because he has NOT let his mouth run ahead of his brain. Mourdock would now be absolutely dead in just about any other state but Indiana. He might still win but he made it MUCH harder for himself and for the GOP throughout the country.
THAT is the damage to conservatism.
You’re still not addressing the question. You are not in charge of what Mourdock says or does. You can only control what you do.
What are you doing to help get Mourdock elected?
God does not make his intentions known to mere humans.
His Book does tell us what things we should avoid and how we should approach Him and life.
Within that Book are many warnings about an uncontrolled tongue, Mourdock would be advised to pay careful attention to them as well as to the warnings about how and where Evil sets the snare for the unaware.
I believe Islam to be a corruption of Christian and Jewish beliefs, Mad Mo to be a lunatic, fraud and murderous pedophile who brought almost nothing positive to the world.
HOWEVER, I am not going to immediately launch into those truths if I am talking to a muslim neighbor or running for office. But will have to approach them in a much more circumspect manner, diplomatically and kindly.
I do not live in Indiana so my efforts will be to attack the enemy on all fronts.
If what you’re saying here about Mourdock will at best have no effect, then maybe other efforts would be more productive.
If I was going to talk about Islam with Muslim neighbors I would probably try to engage them, to find out what they believe and why, and help them critically analyze their own beliefs. What Mourdock did could have opened dialog regarding important issues - including the issue raised in our own Declaration of Independence: that the inalienable rights are endowed by our CREATOR. If someone has been conceived they have a Creator. What Mourdock said fits hand in hand with the country’s founding document. And that was an opening for dialog.
But this country doesn’t want dialog. They want to rush headlong into destruction. And THAT will be what kills us. Not somebody who makes the mistake of trying to engage in dialog.
So how do you ever get good results with a people who won’t engage in dialog or facts, but only want to go on a media-induced rampage to destruction? If we keep on just dumbing everything down we’re only delaying the inevitable. Eventually the people of this country have to be more than media-manipulated air-heads, or we are doomed anyway. Would you agree?
I do not blame the faults of this nation on Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Jews, Moslems, Atheists or Christians but on the PEOPLE as a whole. ALL the above have abrogated their duties as citizens and simply refuse to educate themselves about the realities of politics. What percentage of people have read even ONE book the last year? How many have read a SERIOUS book, not one assigned in a course, in the last year, ten years, EVER?
Until the mass of the people are weaned from the media liars, the movie perverts and freaks and the vacuous Know-Nothings (Oprah, The View, etc) there is small chance that the greatest nation in history can prevail.
Our Founders deliberately did not establish a Democracy and for good reason. It also appears that extending the vote to women greatly increased the bias in the electorate towards socialistic policies which makes it difficult to regain our original vision.
How do we raise the dialog and stop the dumbing-down of everything?
Anything we say that contradicts the media will be fodder for ridicule and have big political consequences because there are large numbers of voters who hear nothing except what the dumbed-down media spoon-feeds them. Seems like the only other option is to contradict the media’s dumbed-down blather and hope that amidst the inevitable ridicule there will also be the chance to actually engage with the deeper issues and facts.
I don’t know if there’s any way to get dialog without first causing some kind of outrage. Anything else is just smoothing things over for the time, so that people can overlook the issue. Know what I mean?
Since the media sells evil it will always be popular, mankind loves evil doing (BTW it has always been this way even at the Founding). My idea is to attack that media mind control first. Only by destroying its influence in serious matters can we most effectively attack the other problem areas: leftist control of education, religion, institutions.
There is no problem with a media reporting the gaffes of politicians but it cannot just report those of ONE side. If they actually gave the RATs as much attention for their stupidity this statement would not be important.
I used to religiously read newspapers and watch the news shows. Now I never buy a paper unless the White Sox win the World Series or the Bears the Super Bowl. I never watch the news shows (other than sports). Many others are doing the same, as the circulation and viewer figures show.
As you may have noticed I do not shirk controversy and can be abrasive, but in person I am as smooth as silk and make sure that I do not provoke people unnecessarily. Here I will draw them out into indefensible positions.
Changing minds is not easy: people get defensive, they are born into certain beliefs (political and religious), they are confused, they don’t put things into proper perspective, they see things which are not there, their interests (or perceived interests) negate their reasoning.
But, I generally can talk to anyone about anything in a civil manner if they are willing to do so. My sister-in-law is a raving Lib but she is still a wonderful person whom I lovely dearly. We can talk politics until she realizes that I can refute all her beliefs then she “doesn’t want to talk about it anymore.”
We can really only reach those around us and hope for the best. My sons never showed any real interest in serious things when teenagers (unlike me who was an old man before my time) but now they are serious men. Their mom would be immensely proud of them. I have no friends who are not involved in things requiring thought and study.
We actually sound a lot alike, AS.
I think people are drawn to blogs or places like Free Republic because we CAN speak our minds and hash things out without jeopardizing the close relationships or social acquaintances in our “real lives”. This is a good place to get into the controversies, and even the people who only lurk can hear the sides while having time to think and process.
The difficult part is the segment of society that is never exposed to viewpoints other than what the media gives them. I think they probably usually surround themselves with people who are similar to them, which would be no problem if they all just refrained from voting. But that is the democrat voting base, and they are dangerous.
Maybe the stuff the media considers an “outrage” can be an inroads to those people though, too, because they may think that everybody is so entrenched in that view that they make some sarcastic or cryptic remark - say, about pregnancy after rape being God’s will - and that can open the door for the people in their REAL life to ask probing questions about who is the author of life and when the inalienable rights are endowed, etc. Or they could give them facts that have been misreported.
A situation like that occurred when one of the girls at the after-school program in the middle school where I work acted out Romney in the first debate. She was supposed to act out something to do with America, and when we couldn’t guess what it was she started talking about Romney. A lot of the kids are Hispanic and they said that Romney doesn’t want them to be able to live in America, and that’s why Obama is so great. I mentioned Fast & Furious, and one of the girls said that those guns had chips in them. I said that when the Bush Administration did gun-running they had chips in them but the Obama people removed the chips. She asked why they would do that. I said they won’t answer that question, which has led a lot of people to believe they intended those guns to be found at murder scenes in Mexico so that everybody would say Americans shouldn’t be able to sell guns.
The girls got very quiet and the ringleader said, “I don’t like him any more.”
Kids are smarter than adults sometimes. At that point they knew that Obama is a bullsh!tter, to use his own language.
But that opportunity opened up because the kids were so sure that everybody there knew what a terrible person Romney is because he doesn’t want Mexicans to live in the US. They had no idea of the facts or the deeper issues. And those are the kinds of openings we get, if we’re ready for them.
Those are reasons why I really want to address the deeper issues with what Mourdock said, instead of just being frustrated with him saying it the way he did. Yes, our politicians need to be ready to give smart answers. I hear what you’re saying on that and agree with it. But even when they don’t, the “outrage” that is generated can actually be a blessing in disguise because it can open up opportunities for non-thinking people to start discussions where they are given some new perspectives or facts - if we’re ready when the openings arise. And that’s what I want to help people with. I want to help them think it through for themselves so they can be ready when somebody in their life parrots the media line.
Two of my kids don’t like to get into anything very serious but the other 2 are constantly asking my thoughts and asking for facts about what is going on in the world. My son because he is a deep thinker, and my daughter because she loves to process things with her friends. She is confident, outgoing, and able to engage people in a good way.
I get the sense that your wife must have been a deep thinker as well, and her sons are a good part of her legacy.
My wife was a do’er. She was an art teacher by profession and was on a campaign to make the world more beautiful. Of course, she did that just showing her beautiful, sweet face.
She was mechanically inclined, kinda Tom-boyish and gorgeous at the same time and loved the flower beds and improving her home. I, on the other hand, was terrible at most all that. She was a highly energetic girl and a terrific wife and incredible mother. Our boys show her drive and ambition.
When one wants to discuss God it must always be remembered that it will be reflected in news bites which cannot reproduce the thought involved. There is a good reason that there have been millions of books have been written on the subject. Having the media illustrate religious thought is like a comic book trying to reproduce the Sisten Chapel.
Generate all the “outrage” you like - next month.
I am sure we could get along fine and hash out any apparent differences. I want to agree with all patriots.
Don’t cast your pearls before swine; they will only trample it under. As long as the media are swine, politicians dare not give anything but canned answers.
There are so many things wrong with our system, I don’t know if it’s even possible for this country to be sane again.
Sounds like you knew how to choose a good wife. I’m glad you can see her life reflected in the lives of your sons. You probably don’t see it, but I suspect that the people who knew you both also saw yourself reflected in her life; her life was shaped to fit with yours, and your appreciation for who she was had to have been a source of encouragement and strength for her.
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.