GOP Senate candidate: Pregnancy from rape "a gift from God"

cyberhog

October 24, 2012 4:43 PM

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock ignited a firestorm in the campaign when he suggest that a pregnancy resulting from rape was "a gift from God." As Wyatt Andrews reports, Mourdock complained that critics were twisting his views but has since apologized.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133817n

Man, these Republicans are freaks! the rubbish they come out with make the Taliban look normal. Honestly, I don't know how Americans can put up with such retarded politicians?

poeticseraphim

I wanted to get in before the thread gets closed.

Look by this reasoning....if pregnancy by rape is god's will then the cause of that pregany is also 'God's will or gift' therefore wouldn't rape be god's will??? He seems to be suggesting by default that if a pregnany results from rape then that incident of rape could be 'god's will or gift'.

It is quite digusting and although i am not christian..christianity does not deserve to be so maligned

God is not that sick one hopes.

Minors can become pregnant from rape..the Miss X case here involved a girl who had been raped at 12 and became pregnant at 13....by default this belief leaves itself opn to justifying some rather sick behavouirs...which i think woman are starting to think the GOP could actually really start to justify. So is peadophilia god's will if it results in pregnancy?

What is the mainstream GOP reaction to this??

I hope decent christians are outraged with this....honestly....they have enough guilt by association with regards to disgusting behavouir of religious men.

Maybe this attitude explains a lot.

Akrasia

This kind of statement is the logical progression of the Pro-life position.

It is hard to be opposed to abortion for religious reasons (as many are) and not agree with the position that pregnancy, even from rape, is gods will and unless you believe that god would use a pregnancy as some kind of punishment or a test of faith, then this pregnancy is no less of a gift than a planned pregnancy.

The outrage here is that the politician stated this publically, when this kind of belief is supposed to be hidden and not talked about.

Can anyone who is of a pro-life pursuasion come on here and explain how Richard Murdock's statement is not consistent with the pro-life position?

Carcharodon

As outlandish as it is and obviously plain wrong, I think it would be unfair to portray all the GOP as this extreme although they should really get their house in order.
I think it was Colbert that did a great piece on them the last night, the "rape pack" or something, their has been at least half a dozen cases of GOP politicians saying crazy things about rape...

Akrasia

Carcharodon wrote: »

As outlandish as it is and obviously plain wrong, I think it would be unfair to portray all the GOP as this extreme although they should really get their house in order.
I think it was Colbert that did a great piece on them the last night, the "rape pack" or something, their has been at least half a dozen cases of GOP politicians saying crazy things about rape...

The Crazies have been saying a lot of ridiculous stuff lately, like when they were talking about 'legitimate rape' and how the human body won't allow a baby to be concieved in the case of rape. Completely unacceptable rhetoric that suggests that victims of rape secretly wanted to be raped.

However the comment about a baby from a rape being a 'gift from god' is perfectly consistent with the pro-life position. Given that being pro-life for religious reasons is a perfectly mainstream position in Ireland and in the US, I would like to hear how someone from this perspective can argue that Mr Murdock's comments were wrong.


I'll say it again, if you believe that human life is precious and a gift from god then it shouldn't matter that the baby was concieved through rape.

For people who don't believe that human life is a gift from god, then clearly, getting impregnated as a result of a rape is not a gift at all, it is a horrific situation to find oneself in and one that deserves our compassion and understanding (and the victim should of course, have the option not to carry that baby to term)

Ozymandius2011

Yet more evidence after the Akin remarks of the GOP's 1950's attitude to women.

Denerick

And yet there are enough stupid women in American to give Romney a majority. God, sometimes I really doubt if our species will survive the 21st century.

southsiderosie

Akrasia wrote: »

This kind of statement is the logical progression of the Pro-life position.

It is hard to be opposed to abortion for religious reasons (as many are) and not agree with the position that pregnancy, even from rape, is gods will and unless you believe that god would use a pregnancy as some kind of punishment or a test of faith, then this pregnancy is no less of a gift than a planned pregnancy.

The outrage here is that the politician stated this publically, when this kind of belief is supposed to be hidden and not talked about.

Can anyone who is of a pro-life pursuasion come on here and explain how Richard Murdock's statement is not consistent with the pro-life position?

The no abortion under any circumstances position is actually more logically consistent and in some ways less insulting than the 'only in cases of rape and incest' argument. Because the former is consistently pro-life, while the latter suggests that if it wasn't your fault then ok, but if you actually decided to have sex and became pregnant (even if you took precautions), well too bad for you - you should have kept your legs closed.

Wildlife Actor

southsiderosie wrote: »

The no abortion under any circumstances position is actually more logically consistent and in some ways less insulting than the 'only in cases of rape and incest' argument. Because the former is consistently pro-life, while the latter suggests that if it wasn't your fault then ok, but if you actually decided to have sex and became pregnant (even if you took precautions), well too bad for you - you should have kept your legs closed.

Agreed, but it is equally logical to say no abortion under any circumstances (except extreme medical risk) after X weeks, and no restriction on abortion at all before x weeks. That is a consistent pro life position imo. There's too much focus (from both sides) on the 'worthiness' of the mother, which makes it more emotive and ignores the child/not child, who in fairness has the ultimate price at stake. Before it's conscious (a date we must do our best to work out with the help of science) it is merely a bundle of potential. If, afterwards, it is sufficiently human to be protected, it's protection should neither be increased nor reduced by reference to the moral circumstances of its conception.

These GOP nuts haven't a shred of logic, still less common decency, to support their claptrap. If it was their own daughter, they'd adopt a different rule and probably go back out the next day and tell everyone else that fairy tale crap.

Manach

Perhaps the mainstream GOP has old fashion values like the value of all human life, including the child in the womb, and is willing to have a principled stand on the matter.

jank

Denerick wrote: »

And yet there are enough stupid women in American to give Romney a majority. God, sometimes I really doubt if our species will survive the 21st century.

Well, we have survived now for neigh on 200,000 years, I am sure we can last another 88, regardless on what some GOP senator thinks.:rolleyes:

Ozymandius2011

Reports internal Dem polls have Mourdock 7% behind but GOP ones have the race tied since the comments.