Its starting to get a bit old. You would think they would learn SOMETHING from the mistakes of others even if all they learn is how to hide what they really think until after election day.
“Richard Mourdock, running for U.S. Senate in Indiana, said at a debate Tuesday that pregnancies resulting from rape are intended by God.”
Its starting to get a bit old. You would think they would learn SOMETHING from the mistakes of others even if all they learn is how to hide what they really think until after election day.
“Richard Mourdock, running for U.S. Senate in Indiana, said at a debate Tuesday that pregnancies resulting from rape are intended by God.”
In explanation, he said, “I think that God can see beauty in every life,” Mourdock said. “Certainly, I did not intend to suggest that God wants rape, that God pushes people to rape, that God wants to support or condone evil in any way.”
So, I guess, from this line of thinking, that a woman who gets raped, and becomes pregnant, has the consolation prize of bearing her and her rapist’s child. As the god intended for the woman to bear this gift of life.
And yet there is a realistic chance that they could control all 3 branches of government very soon. It sickens me to think that so many of my fellow Americans are so warped as to potentially make this happen.
And yet there is a realistic chance that they could control all 3 branches of government very soon. It sickens me to think that so many of my fellow Americans are so warped as to potentially make this happen.
It doesn’t sicken me. It scares the hell out of me, because women might end up as second-class citizens the way they talk.
And yet there is a realistic chance that they could control all 3 branches of government very soon. It sickens me to think that so many of my fellow Americans are so warped as to potentially make this happen.
It doesn’t sicken me. It scares the hell out of me, because women might end up as second-class citizens the way they talk.
Women have made some hard earned gains, (some of which will very likely be lost) if Romney wins. But I don’t know that women have ever made it to the status of “1st class” citizens. I mean it’s frikkin’ 2012, and women still don’t have equal pay for equal work. The Lily Ledbetter Act likely won’t functionally survive 4 to 8 years of Republican rule right now. And Republican Supreme Court appointments could well result in a turnover of Roe vs. Wade. Yet Romney is not far behind Obama in support by women. How can so many of your gender be so out of touch with their own self interests?
I agree, Macgyver, but what really distresses me is the large number of people who believe those idiotic statements.
Occam
What distresses me more are the people who will still vote for people like this, knowing this stance is against their health and well being, and that of their families.
And yet there is a realistic chance that they could control all 3 branches of government very soon. It sickens me to think that so many of my fellow Americans are so warped as to potentially make this happen.
It doesn’t sicken me. It scares the hell out of me, because women will end up as second-class citizens the way they talk.
What distresses me is the degree to which some people attribute the inane ravings of a few individuals to reflect the values of a significant chunk of our society.
And yet there is a realistic chance that they could control all 3 branches of government very soon. It sickens me to think that so many of my fellow Americans are so warped as to potentially make this happen.
It doesn’t sicken me. It scares the hell out of me, because women will end up as second-class citizens the way they talk.
I corrected your statement for you…
I agree, but I didn’t want anyone arguing about the word “will”. You know how many skeptics are about such words. However, I think in this case such arguments would come from the rare atheist and skeptical die-hard Repug… er Republican. I don’t know if we have any on the forum or not.
What distresses me is the degree to which some people attribute the inane ravings of a few individuals to reflect the values of a significant chunk of our society.
You’re saying the Repugs… I mean Republicans are not all like that?
I agree, Macgyver, but what really distresses me is the large number of people who believe those idiotic statements.
Occam
What distresses me more are the people who will still vote for people like this, knowing this stance is against their health and well being, and that of their families.
I don’t think that people would vote for people like this if they truly did believe that the person’s stance is against their well-being. Its called being deceived. The truth is that they really don’t know.
These are largely uneducated people who listen to mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, CNBC, etc.) They are still living under the delusion that the press is still free and not owned by private corporate interest groups. They don’t know better.
There’s a long tradition is Judaism and Christianity in recognizing the existence of soething called God’s “sovereign will.” Those groups recognize that everything that happens, good or evil, is permitted by God but that God works things out for the good in the end. Mourdock’s statement was probably his attempt to express that idea. People in the press are largely ignorant of religion, so they make a big deal about it (it just makes the press look biased to religious Jews and Christians).
Taking Mourdock’s statement and trying to get it to mean something about policy change with respect to women’s position in society or even to abortion is silly. Use Mourdock’s position on those issues to judge him, not a statement about God’s sovereignty (unless, of course, the desire to paint Mourdock as a crank for the sake of the election is more important than the truth).
There’s a long tradition is Judaism and Christianity in recognizing the existence of soething called God’s “sovereign will.” Those groups recognize that everything that happens, good or evil, is permitted by God but that God works things out for the good in the end. Mourdock’s statement was probably his attempt to express that idea. People in the press are largely ignorant of religion, so they make a big deal about it (it just makes the press look biased to religious Jews and Christians).
Taking Mourdock’s statement and trying to get it to mean something about policy change with respect to women’s position in society or even to abortion is silly. Use Mourdock’s position on those issues to judge him, not a statement about God’s sovereignty (unless, of course, the desire to paint Mourdock as a crank for the sake of the election is more important than the truth).
How could you claim it has nothing to do with policy change. Mourdock’s sentiments are pretty clear . Were he to have the chance he would outlaw abortion or limit it in any way he legally could.
Basically he believes that god does not encourage rape but if it happens he sometimes blesses the victim with a lovely parting gift from the rapist
