Mourdock Doesn’t Deserve the Disapprobation
Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, when asked his view on abortion exceptions during his debate with Democrat Joe Donnelly on Tuesday night:
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.
Donnelly responded by saying it wasn’t possible that “my God, or any God, would intend that to happen.”
Of course, Mourdock was not saying that God intended rape to happen, even though Mr. Mourdock’s theological beliefs clearly include that as dogma — that rape, the death of son or daughter, a horrific accident were predestined from the beginning of time and are the result of a providential God guiding our lives. He was stating the widely held belief that God is in the driver’s seat and anything and everything that happens — the good and the bad — happens as part of God’s plan for us.
For some evangelical Christians, Mourdock’s awkwardness in stating his belief proved a little too much:
What Mourdock said “is offensive,” says Richard Lints, a theologian of the Reformed tradition, which has Calvinist roots, and dean at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Mass. “The clumsiness is [to] so align God with evil that God becomes a horrific figure. It’s contrary to anything you read in scripture, and it removes the human responsibility.”
By broadly hinting that God “condoned” rape by default rather than trying to understand His plan for all of us, sometimes without our glimpsing the whys and wherefores, Mourdock finds himself in a firestorm of controversy. He apologized the next day, saying he “regrets and apologizes” if there are those who took what he said to imply God condoned rape. He can be assured that those who took his statement the wrong way did so deliberately in order to score political points.
Mourdock was referring to the notion that God intended the pregnancy to result from the attack, and therefore, a rape victim getting an abortion would be acting against the will of God. The candidate may have gotten himself tangled up in the idea of an omniscient, providential God controlling events “intending” pregnancy from rape, but the idea that this, in some way, minimizes what rape victims go through is a stretch. Mourdock didn’t say that rape isn’t a heinous crime. He didn’t say that pregnancy from rape is what these women deserve. He didn’t say anything that a conservative Christian preacher wouldn’t tell a rape victim who discovered she was pregnant from the attack.
The damage is done. And you seem to not get what it is. It’s not about the will of god and confusing monotheist conundrums. It’s about yet another social conservative painting republicans in general as bible thumping whackjobs who are worrying more about religious themes than jobs, energy, and pretty much any and all topics related to why voters elect *anybody* to a Wash DC job.
Mourdock like Akin is tarnishing all republicans everywhere by confirming the worst suspicions of the undecided and otherwise playing right into the leftist stereotype of nutjobs focused on the wrong thing.
See this link:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/08/election-4/?page=2
I don’t agree with the writer’s politics but the observation is unassailable –
“In the elections of 2010, we were told that the Tea Party candidates arriving on the scene would eliminate the deficit and shrink the government, somehow. Other issues were set aside. Abortion, gay rights, religion in politics—those were all part of the old religious right, now supplanted by the deficit purists. But in a great bait and switch, the first thing the new people in Congress, the state houses, and state legislatures did was introduce a flood of bills to limit, stigmatize, or eliminate abortions, and the flood has not abated—944 provisions on abortion or contraception were still being introduced into state legislatures during the first three months of 2012.”
The greatest fear we have is that the social conservatives will yet find a way to snatch certain defeat from the jaws of imminent victory and help Obama get elected. Mourdock and Akin are gifts to the leftists.
Please go back to being a democrat. True conservatives are not double-minded. We believe in the inalienable right of life. All life. Don’t delude yourself into believing that you can be a fiscal conservative and be a conservative. You can’t. Your ethics will eventually do you in. So go back to the party of your beliefs and leave us alone.
Um, I think you were being told to go back to the party of YOUR beliefs and leave the libertarians and Tea Party voters alone.
Nora has said everything that is on her angry little mind.
Now it is down to repetition.
Go away, Nora. Everyone has heard what you have to say.
And many have found it, and you, distasteful and wanting in quality and quantity.
Be an Angry Woman elsewhere. And a Dried Up Old Maid if that is what you want to be.
No, Edward.
I’m neither angry, nor “dried up”, and I’m hardly an “old maid”.
But your language is quite telling. Add that to your insistence to women that bearing children is “worth the trauma of rape”, we all know exactly what and who you are now.
Ed, you are exactly why the Republicans will loose the presidential election. The sad thing you do not realize how misogynistic you sound.
I was wondering who would replace Cynical Wonder.
Still, Nora, you are a One Issue Troll, and it is an issue that will play itself out very quickly.
It is the polite thing to say that it was nice to know you, so I shall say that and be done with you (although I suspect you’ll sputter on a bit more here).
Nope, not a one issue “troll”, either. You keep getting it wrong, Edward. Why am I not surprised?
You’re done with me? Oh, good. Thank God.
Why do you want to disqualify a guy who believes life to be scared and that the weak and helpless deserve protection?
Or do you actually believe that Mourdouck was saying that rape is a good thing?
I’m not “disqualifying” anyone. I’m commenting on the hypocrisy of Scott telling Tea Partiers and Libertarians to “go back to the Democratic Party” because we don’t share the same conservative social issues as the Republican Party, or at least the conservative faction of the Republican Party. randomengineer made a very good point about the bait-and-switch, and how the religious right usurps any and all conservative movements. If anything, Scott is disqualifying anyone who doesn’t march in lockstep with him for not being conservative enough.
Bill,
He was saying rape is “God’s Will”. Even if he wasn’t, some on here are saying it. No one wants to see the Senate go Republican more than I do. But Mourdock has revealed himself as a clueless religious zealot. Even if I’m wrong about that, and he just misspoke, I have to think he is much too stupid to be elected to the U.S. Senate. He just turned that seat over to the Christian posing Christian hating Libs. The religious right needs to dummy up.
No Wayne, he was not saying rape is God’s will.
Democrats, however, are saying he said that.
If we cannot learn to defend our own when their (our) political opponents twist their words, you are not going to get your Republican senate.
Now, regarding him being “too stupid” to be a U.S. Senator — a point of fact I’d never concede, btw, on the basis of a single statement — let’s for the sake of argument presume that. Would you rather have a “stupid” senator who votes to repeal Obamacare, works to put our fiscal house in order and stops gutting our military, or would you rather have a Democrat?
I don’t care if Mourdock is as dumb as Biden, I’d still vote for him if I lived in Indiana.
I suspect that Mourdock’s belief in the sanctity of life, like so many of his mindset, ends both at the moment of birth and at America’s shores. I would bet that he opposes government subsidized child care, and programs such as Head Start and Food Stamps, and that he was among the loudest cheering on Bush’s bombing of Iraq which not only killed people of all ages, but thanks to the use of depleted uranium at the tips of bombs and shells, there are hundreds of malformed babies being born where the fighting was the fiercest. such as Fallujah. In other words, he is a hypocrite.
I suspect that Jeff’s belief in the sanctity of life, like so many of his mindset, ends with a defense of dictators, in-crowd denizens and the well-paid bureaucrats that manage government programs like Head Start and “food stamps”.
IOW pointing out that Head Start and SNAP are rife with waste, abuse and inefficiencies and that the funds they get would be better used elsewhere means you “hate” in Jeff’s world.
Frankly and ironically hate (or compassionless indifference) is failing to point out that these programs are filled with waste, abuse and inefficiency and opposing attempts to reform or even replace them.
scotth, I find it somewhat bemusing that you seem to think that god handed you the keys and you alone can define not only “True Conservatism” but also the notion of ethics itself. It’s rather astonishing, really. But let’s leave your silly complex aside for a moment and discuss something a little more to my original point.
In politics, the purpose of a party is to get your candidates elected so that your side has a say in the formulation of law and policy. The US electorate, whether you like ot or not, is roughly divided. That means that winning requires attracting a majority of votes, and by definition in a two party system, that also means votes from those who would otherwise be attracted to the other party.
The other party (Dem) gets a lot of votes that it didn’t so much as “attract” so much as “scare up” by painting the GOP candidates as nutbars with bibles. Their message to these voters is that while the Dems may not be one’s cup of tea at least the Dems are not attempting to re-create 15th century Europe and create law via religious fiat. The Dems don’t always attract votes TO their party, they paint the GOP such that voters vote AGAINST the GOP.
When the likes of Akin and Mourdock blather on as they do, the message the Dems repeat is that what these guys *really* want is to invoke a christian version of Sharia law; they’re uninterested in jobs, energy, and the practical issues that voters elect people to work on. Instead, the Dem message is that they’re focused on their own things for their own reasons, they’re running for office and LYING about why, they’re not running to do the bidding of the voters.
Now while you yourself may cheer Akin and Mourdock et al this serves no purpose. You’re going to vote for the GOP regardless. Making “the base” salivate is pointless. The goal is to win the undecideds, to not chase votes to the Dems by scaring them to vote AGAINST the GOP.
Do you think you can address my point now that I’ve outlined stuff in crayons?
To think that life begins at conception is silly. Its a clump of cells being baked in the mother oven. Now I will concede that late term abortions should be illegal with exception to serious medical issues there is nothing morally wrong with an early abortion. Lastly to imply one cannot be fiscally conservative and also be socially liberal is short sighted and not accurate.
Greg Garrison (WIBC and a former prosecutor) said this moring that the Mourdock firestorm has hurt the democrats. Mike Pence now looks to win governor by 10%. Mourdock will will win by 2%. Mourdock’s support has increased and became solid. Millions of dollars have come in since the debate with Mourdock now being a national name.
The dems are self destructing.
So … god intended the lass to get pregnant, but he didn’t care all that much about how it happened. The conception was his choice, but the mechanism … nyeah, not so fussed, whatever works.
So why do we prosecute rapists? God is, apparently, just fine with the results.
I think it’s time that maybe you stopped defending this “god” person, at least until he gets a grip on morality. Or at least stop using him as a justification for screwing women over. Twice.
Plus, many of these same men (Santorum, for example) think it’s a sin (and he would make it a crime if he could) to use contraception because women are thwarting the will of God. I mean, on the one hand, God can make a woman pregnant via rape if He so wills it, but on the other, this same weenie god they believe in can’t break through a condom or a few milligrams of synthetic hormones.
Also, funny how God has all these big plans for women to become pregnant via rape, but no plans to stop men from raping.
That’s a hell of a god these people have created (in their own image, obviously).
Prevenient Grace awaits you Nora.
You will not be the Angry & Bitter Woman you clearly are right now when you do.
I thought you were done with me?
Why am I not surprised you can’t even be honest with yourself?
I felt obliged to give you one last message of Hope. I have. Now I am truly done with you.
Go in Peace to Hate & Serve your own Twisted Ideology until you find yourself to Love & Serve a Faith that actually enriches your currently Sad & Bitter Life.
STILL not done with me…? LOL! Um, ok.
Hey, maybe you just want to stick around so you can get out your message about women being grateful for the trauma of rape if it results in a pregnancy one more time, right? Gotta groom your victims first, right, Eddie…?
That is how exactly how it is.
Conception is a Biological Process, a Gift given to us by God. How we go about making it happen is our business.
When you get down to it, a lot of people are conceived in what you might call Near-Rape. That is to say, with grudging consent by mothers who make poor choices in who they have sexual relations with.
God gives us a lot of Gifts. Including the gift of Free Will, Free Will to abuse those Gifts.
But to suggest that the Gifts are not Gifts and to not be honored and respected as such because we create circumstances that taint them is an insult to the Creator. Thankfully we are not allowed to absolutely negate the Gift of our own Life with the ease with which we can reject and negate the Lives God entrusts in our care. This leaves time for us to Repent and Redeem ourselves, and be better people.
“because we create circumstances that taint them”
That sounds an awful lot like asking a rape victim to carry the collective guilt for humankind not being perfect. Her free will has nothing to do with what is happening to her.
Following the plain sense of Mourdock’s words he said: ”when life begins . . . it is something that God intended to happen.” This is also the clear teaching of the Christian Scriptures. No life or existence is possible without God. Donnelly’s response was to twist Mourdock’s words to say that they referred to rape being God’s intention – but this is not the plain sense of the language. This is simply a disingenuous attempt to score political points and avoid facing the real implications of the whole answer.
While Rick Moran makes some valid points he also muddies the waters and quotes others who help him to keep them muddied. Christian teaching is clear: “we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him” (Romans 8:28). This is practically illustrated througout the Christian Scriptures. There is certainly no logical connection between this and the assertion that God is somehow responsible because he predestined bad things for good people. Actually the Scriptures teach something very different. Jesus said that God “causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:45). This is the providence of God. Moran is confused about what the Scriptures teach on the providence, predestination and sovereignty of an all powerful, just and loving God.
Rubin also distorts matters by speaking of monotheists believing that “God is unknowable to human minds.” The whole point of the Christian Scriptures is that God has made himself known and that is why these keep addressing the minds of people.
Finally, the comments of those who simply dismiss God are a contradiction. If there is no just and loving Creator then there is no basis for speaking of good and evil or reason for being upset by rape, abortion or any other inhumanity because then these are are simply part of the fabric of a meaningless and muddled existence. We have come from nowhere and going nowhere so nothing matters. All these political and social concerns are a total waste of time. However, if Mourdock is correct and there is a just God who always does what is right, this will have inescapable consequences for every single human being. Everyone will be called to account for his or her thoughts, words and actions.
Tehcno, people like you disgust me. You disgust me because you are not sincerely advocating against rapists: you are exploiting the subject for cheap political outrage.
I’ve sat in enough hearing rooms and legislative chambers and rape crisis center to speak with some authority when I say this: I’d rather belong to the Party that says insensitive things about rape while working to punish rapists than the Party that loudly claims to speak for all rape victims while opposing the very measures that would remove their offenders from society.
Conservatives, not liberals — not libertarians either — really advocate for crime victims, because they push the legislative measures that have resulted in impressive decreases in that crime. They do this in many cases in coalition with feminists and against the ACLU wing of the Dem Party, incidentally.
Pro-life means pro-life. This gotcha’ crap is the drivel of tiny minds. You don’t need to agree with the consistent pro-life stance in order to see beyond the media malestrom to the ethics of the belief. We are asking people to explain their faith in order to hold it up for ridicule. That is not the behavior of people who give a damn about women facing a pregnancy in the aftermath of a horrific crime.
The pro-choice stance is no less metaphysical, but the media does not question the metaphysics. I know very decent people on both sides of this issue. When we start behaving as if this is so, we can have a real conversation about it.
That said, I think Akin exploited the subject himself: his conduct was unserious and politicized. Not so Mourdock.
Thank you.
Well said
the more one throws in with these pigs the more stench one must try to obfuscate – good thing for the Repulicuns they have lotsa practice
Seems to me, all M had to say was, oops, that didn’t come out right, and I’m sorry for any misunderstanding. Here’s what I meant to say, so let’s see if the MSM can locate their long lost integrity and get the word out.
Kind of basic, isn’t it? Meanwhile, the unlucky voters of IN are in a spot not of their own making. You think those of us who weep in the presence of the Stupid Party are faking it? Many of you, it seems, do.
Well, personally, I don’t think Mourdock’s comments, nor the vapors its causing some people, is going to impact his race here in Indiana. I didn’t vote for him in the primaries (against Lugar,) based on his social issues, and I’m not going to not vote for him based on his social issues. Not as important as the economy right now (hmm, like Mitch has been saying since before the primary.)
I do believe most people in Indiana “got” what he was saying, and understand the ruckus is mostly political noise. If people really want a moral debate over God, his will and plans for us, feel free.
Ah, “President-elect Daniels”. SOME people in Indiana know what they’re doing,
A God who helps his children get through things makes a lot more sense to me than a God who controls everything, but that’s just me.
What we don’t want is a law that tells the mother that she MUST bear the rapist’s child. Was Mourdock, sincere as he was, stumbling in that direction?
I hope not.
I hope he was only stating what he believes.
Abortion (performed for whatever reason the mother decides to have one – and it is rarely because she was the victim of Rape or Incest) needs to be Legal and therefore Safe.
Illegal Abortions are too often Unsafe, and can cost the mothers their lives, or “merely” the opportunity to have a child later on in life.
But only the people who explicitly and with full knowledge of what they are doing should be involved in performing or peven just paying for the procedure.
Were the Pro-Choice crowd willing to accept those terms, the argument would be over.
Just as were all Same Sex Couples willing to accept that they can get Married at any City Hall or County Courthouse and have the same rights and privileges as Heterosexual Couples, but that Churches are free to refuse them the Sacrament of Holy Union (in exchange for losing all tax exempt status) … that argument would be over.
The spirit of compromise is accepting that no one gets everything they want, and that if you insist on getting everything you want, you often don’t get anything at all.
He deserves to be horsewhipped for what he said — and what he said is a reflection of what he thinks of God and women’s “place” in relation to men.
Even this: “Mourdock was referring to the notion that God intended the pregnancy to result from the attack, and therefore, a rape victim getting an abortion would be acting against the will of God. ” is too much. God does not _intend_ for pregnancy to come from rape any more than he _intends_ for someone else’s child to be killed by a drunk driver.
Mourdock went on to say he does indeed believe that God controls the universe and that biology cannot operate in an “uncontrollable” manner.
He absolutely, totally, really, deeply, truly believes that God intends some women to become pregnant by way of rape and that they have no business protecting themselves from further violation by seeking to terminate a pregnancy that would usurp their bodies for another nine months (not to mention the psychological trauma continuing the pregnancy may present for them, or the upheaval of their lives, their careers, their families if they’re already married and/or have children).
He and his other compadres in politics who see women as nothing but objects to be used for either pleasure or reproductive purposes need to be told point-blank that such thinking, much less such rhetoric, is absolutely unacceptable.
Mourdock and Akin and Napoli and Santorum and Walsh and Smith and their ilk are deeply disturbed men who don’t even see women as fully human as men. They’re not good and decent men. They may be big medalists in the Religious Olympics, but they do not know the will of God, and they have absolutely no right to enforce what they claim to be the will of God by insisting that women who have been brutally violated cannot protect themselves from further violation.
Women vote. Get used to it, boys. We vote, and we don’t vote for people who would force impregnation via brutal violence on women. A man who would insist a rape victim be forced by the state to continue a pregnancy imposed on her by a violent crime is no better than the rapist himself.
Your proposal fails on many levels, as many women would agree that a life is no less valuable if it was conceived through rape. Rape is still an evil act nevertheless.
And those woman may choose to continue the pregnancy, raise the child, or give the child up for adoption.
The point is that women in these situations should have the choice.
If rape is always an evil act, why does God not will it to stop? That’s the problem with going down the “it’s the will of God” route. Seems men think a lot of things that impact women by way of men are “the will of God”, but this “god” of theirs seems to be pretty much fine with whatever they want to do.
So your real problem is with the concept of an omniscient God?
Why didn’t you just say that?
No, my real problem is with men who claim they know the will of God, and especially as it has to do with women.
No one has full knowledge of the will, or mind, of God. No one.
Plus, I tend to be wary of people who are quick to blame things on either God or Satan.
God created us as free, autonomous individuals, and He is not the Great Puppet Master In The Sky.
It’s a small-minded, thoughtless, immature understanding of God, and more often than not, it’s used to abuse others, or justify absolutely appalling behavior.
For all that the men here who would force women to continue a pregnancy that is the result of a brutal crime, very few have any harsh words for the rapists themselves, other than some bland, obligatory “rape is bad” commentary.
In reading Nora, clearly her “real problem” would be that some claim to speak for the almighty and insist that their varying interpretations are superior by definition and therefore must be law as the result. You see this sort of thing all over this blog; the poster “scotth” insisted in reply to me that any other position than “social conservative” is one of no or poor ethics.
Extrapolating using the dark art of mathematics, apparently of the 6 billion+ on this planet it is only a tiny minority of fervent protestants who have proper ethics. The argument of “scotth” is that if you aren’t a social conservative christian god fearing type, you have poor ethics.
Imagine for a moment that you’re speaking to someone who believes in reincarnation and insists you can’t possibly have ethics if you want to eat beef. Clearly just because that person believes something — regardless of how fervently — doesn’t mean that it has anything to do with objective reality. It’s not belief in god that *anyone* ever objects to. It’s the insistence that this belief makes the believer superior.
r engineer: Nora’s only problem is to be over-endowed with patience. Most would be apoplectic by now. At the risk of sounding like a patronizing demi-god up on his little white cloud in Olympus, I think she’s also doing a good job of shoring up support among those resigned to vote for Romney — many of us regard the angry, befuddled religious right with unmixed horror, sulphurous emanations from the pit, as they might say, and we have to hold our noses and think of America before pulling the handle. Not hard, but it needs reinforcing for some.
Why does God get blamed when evil things occur – like rape?
Mankind has free will and often does evil things with it. But since a life is valuable no matter how it is conceived – that nullifies the “choice” argument.
No, it doesn’t “nullify” the choice argument.
The life that is lost by an abortion obtained after rape is on the rapist, not the woman.
The rape is evil. The rape is the crime. Full stop. That any woman is faced with this choice at all is evil and is a crime. But the choice to continue that pregnancy — a pregnancy she had no say in, a pregnancy created by an evil act, a brutal, violent act, perpetrated by a man who believes he has the right to use any woman as he will for any purpose — belongs to her.
Why don’t you use your energy to focus on preventing rape instead of condemning women who’ve already been violated?
When men like Mourdock say that children of rape are part of God’s plan, his words reach the minds of men who already have a twisted, sick view of women, and his words — and the words of creatures like “Edward” here, and the words of Akin, Napoli, et al. — justify his evil and sick inclinations.
Words matter. Words spoken in the public square matter. When a politician — not the first, and not likely to be the last — stands up and utters words like this, they need to be called on it.
Re: “A life is always valuable” … that is, until it grows up to become a rapist!!!
Or is living in the same region as one of our nation’s enemies…or has the wrong skin color and is wearing a hoodie…or was wrongly convicted of a capital offense before DNA science was available to free him…
The issue here is that G-d is viewed as an extension of man in the form of a male. And since in most monotheistic religions G-d is the supreme being, then men extrapolate that whatever G-d does men can do no matter how disgusting the act would be toward a woman.
There is more to life than being pregnant. What is never addressed by the pro-life side is what happens to these unwanted kids. Some how they think that it will take of itself. In reality, unwanted kids end up in a living hell. Adoption is pain and very difficult. My wife and I tried to adopt twice and we were treated like lepers in each case.
G-d’s will??? Horse hockey. It is the arrogance of men against women. Fortunately, I am not one of those males, but a male that believes that a woman should have dominion over her body and what happens to it.
Utter drivel. Next?
It is entirely possible that the Pro-Choice Movement will lose all the gains they have made, including Roe Vs. Wade by reacting to anything anyone says disagreeing with them with this level of hysteria and hyberbole, and contemptuous rejection of anything anyone says against them.
People like me, who are happy to let women choose abortion and get one that safely allows them to move on with their lives without any severe side effects other than the guilt arising from it (and that guilt is very very real) so long as I am kept out of the process will turn on you.
You want the Sun, the Moon and all the Stars in the sky, and you would deny people like me the pleasure or use of them.
So people like me will decide that you get nothing. And you will deserve to get nothing. Because you would take everything from me and people like me, including the right to state my beliefs without being called a Fascist.
You are the Fascists in the room. And if you keep this up, I would unhappily but without further reservation go Bomber Harrison on you and carpet bomb you into Hell.
You’re insane.
What’s really crazy is that you and I actually agree on this issue, but somehow I’m evil and you’re holy for it.
Like I said, you are completely insane.
Replying to you here since I can’t do so above.
If all life is valuable, that nullifies the choice argument. No amount of objection can disrupt that truth.
You have some comments on how I use my energy. Since your arguments have no basis in truth your next tactic is to make personal comments. I won’t take those seriously.
Mourdock was careful to say that all children conceived deserve protection. Anything else…is what you’ve added to it.
Well, if all life is valuable, thereby nullifying the killing of anyone, collateral damage during war or killing for self defense is equally as indefensible as abortion in cases of rape. If you’re willing to agree that war is wrong, the death penalty is wrong, and killing in self-defense is wrong, then I’ll accept your position. But until then, no dice. When men have to live with the same restrictions they put on female rape victims, fine. But if you get to defend your life or protect your power or money or agenda or egos or desire for revenge by killing, then you really don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to criminalizing abortion in cases of rape.
Actually, it is important to point out that more energy is spent by men like Mourdock (who said a lot more than you’re admitting to, both in his original comments and his follow-up comments) in talking about female rape victims than speaking out against rape and setting an example for would-be rapists. Mourdock’s comments — his thoughtless, stupid, knee-jerk, mindless comments — are heard by men who are already screwed up in the head (see Edward’s really disturbing comments on the other thread about how grateful women who have been impregnated by rape should be) and lend credence to their already messed up, violent, mentally ill worldviews.
Well said, Edward Smith. We can be against killing baby humans in all cases while knowing that is the law of the land, and that others will opt to kill their babies for reasons of their own, be it rape, expediency or poverty, or whatever.
We as opponents of killing baby humans should not be forced to particpate, as the current HHS mandate is requiring.
How I long for the days when abortion was considered a moral judgment on the part of an individual. I don’t think a woman is an evil person if she considers an abortion under whatever extreme circumstances she finds herself in. That should be between her and her God. I object to abortion being used as birth control.
Except that moral judgements aren’t made in a vacuum. A decision to keep – or not – a slave is a moral judgement. The slave, of course, gets no say. Any evil may be perpetrated by people making moral judgements. The problem isn’t making a judgement, even the lowest reprobate does that; it’s making the correct moral judgement.
So says the Buddha.
How does one know what is correct? Aye – there’s the rub.
Now we can discuss metaphysics. Until then all this discussion is crickets chirping in the dark. Lots of noise and no understanding.
A decision to keep – or not – a slave is a moral judgement. The slave, of course, gets no say.
This is an interesting statement since slavery of women is precisely the position you’re advocating.
Whether rape, broken condom, poor pill formulation, slipped IUD, whatever, you’re saying that at that point a pregnant woman who didn’t want to be pregnant is a walking incubator; essentially a slave against her will.
I suppose at this point you will claim some sort of superior position by reason of biblical fiat (i.e. you believe ‘X’ and by virtue of this belief this alone makes yours the superior position, as if mere belief somehow magically lends authority.) I have to admit a sort of jealousy of your binary world; I imagine life is probably much simpler when thought is optional.
And where have I advocated slavery for women? The fact that abortion is a poor moral choice in any circumstance doesn’t mean a woman is a slave if she carries a baby to term, no more is parent a slave who rears a child.
Try again.
Back atcha:
I suppose at this point you will claim some sort of superior position by reason of whatever belief system allows you to hold your position; i.e. you believe ‘X’ and by virtue of this belief this alone makes yours the superior position, as if mere belief somehow magically lends authority.)
I’ll note the only moral authority I’ve cited so far in this discussion is the Buddha, and, if you can take your blinders off, you’ll note it was citation on the need to make correct moral judgements, not specifically related to abortion.
My position on abortion is my own, unsupported any Biblical authority. Reason and logic only, my judgemental friend.
“I have to admit a sort of jealousy of your binary world; I imagine life is probably much simpler when thought is optional.”
You, of course, would know.
The tragic truth is, I fear with all my heart, that Abortion is rapidly becoming today is what Slavery was by 1850: the likely cause for a civil war.
This talk of Rape & Incest as a way to avoid discussing the Sanctity of Life (and the failure to discuss Late term Abortion and its very ugly implications) is comparable to how people who justified slavery would trot out the story of Noah and his son Ham.
I do not want to live to hear these words sung except as a leisure activity, but I fear I shall:
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
If this makes me insane, then I embrace insanity, rather than the True Madness of the Cult of Science & Unlimited Rights.
Yeah, so sorry we want to take away your God-given right to rape women into pregnancies they should be grateful for, Eddie. Beleive me, we’re all aware that you embraced insanity a long, long time ago and haven’t been back on your meds since.
#12 Edward Smith: “…..likely cause for a civil war…….” I agree that a “civil war” may be in the future, especially if Romney loses the election. That civil war will be within the Republican party as fiscal conservatives go after the religious statists who insist on religious litmus tests for candidates. 8 months ago, our party had a great shot at re-taking the US Senate this election. Now it appears that, like in 2010, we will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I think it’s funny how so-called social “conservatives” give only lip service to the US Constitution. If you don’t understand this, go back and read Article VI. That article also quickly dismisses the notion that the USA somehow is a Christian nation.
Hang in there, Nora.
Edward: you state in #10 that women have guilt after having an abortion and it’s very real (paraphrased). So, you base this statement on what? How many post-abortion women have you personally interviewed to arrive at this conclusion, and over what period of time?
Oh, Steve. You are another lost cause. Prevenient Grace awaits you as well. Embrace it, and you will find yourself becoming a better person than you appear to be right now.
There’s plenty of evidence of the guilt associated with Abortion, felt even by Rape Victims, out there. Were you inclined to look for it, and you clearly are not, you would find it.
So I’ll not do you work for you.
I seem to have distracted two Pit Vipers away from the crowd. Linger here, both of you, and you’ll receive the treatment that sent Cynical Wonder whimpering away. Linger here, both of you, and you will deserve what happens to you.
My work is done here.
Yep. Full-on cray-cray. :~D
Why should I go looking for evidence? You made the statement about “guilt.” You’re the one who apparently can’t back up his opinion.
–Linger here, both of you, and you will deserve what happens to you.–
First of all, this is merely one of several direct threats of violence you’ve made against me and others, and secondly, me and everyone else at the Irish Times are laughing our asses off at you.
Just sayin’.
:~D
After reading all of these comments I decided not to speak to the issue. As a lifelong agnostic I might not get the nuances of what God does or doesn’t do.
I will say how sick I am of this. Abortion, abortion abortion. I hear it from Republicans in the House who introduced more bills against abortion than they did against unemployment and the deficit.
I am also sick of the Democrats on abortion. I want to hear real solutions for the deficit crises. But all the Democrats seem to say is “Vote for us, the other guys say crazy things about abortion.”
Look, I don’t think that either Romney or Obama, or their respective parties, really care about the deficit. Both sides agree that the things they happen not to like should be killed in the name of fiscal responsibility, but they won’t touch the things that like.
If I ever heard a Democrat suggest cutting social spending to reduce the deficit I’d start listening. If a Republican said that cuts to the military or tax increases could be considered I’d listen too. I’m voting for Romney because there is a chance… a slight chance sure, but a small chance he’d try a little bit to perhaps let the deficit increase a bit more slowly than Obama would.
I’d like to know more, but all I hear about is abortion.
Mourdock just needs to be consistent. If the pregnancy is the will of God, so must be the rape. What, did God look the other way until the sperm met up with the egg? Some God that one.
Mourdock and Akins are the Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle of this election cycle, candidates without the good sense to keep their more goofy beliefs to themselves until they get elected.
Brutus,
I do have to agree with you.
Mourdock was clumsy, which everyone is prone to be, including people in politics. People in politics, however, need to be aware that they live in a fish bowl, and can less afford to be clumsy than the rest of the population.
Northern Light, this comment was about Abortion, and how no matter what you say about it, you are stepping in fresh dog doo doo.
Is Abortion less of an issue than the Deficit? Ask the Chinese, who, with their One Child Policy, have reduced themselves to sending teams of White Slavers out to kidnap or buy other countries’ daughters. They do a brisk business drawing in North Korean women.
Ask Japan, which has a population that is more Older than Younger, straining their retirement pension system.
Or look to the United States, where in 1946 there were 15 working age people supporting 1 retired person on Social Security (the Trust Fund was designed with that in mind, then began it’s jump off the rails when Congress decided to raid it around the same year). Now we are down to 3 or 4 working age people per 1 retired person.
Zygotes and Fetuses butchered in the womb do not grow up to do a lot of things, including contribute to society and maybe even help reduce the Deficit.
Which Deficit is worse: Children or Money? I think the answer is Children.
“Northern Light, this comment was about abortion, and no matter what you say about it, you are stepping in fresh dog doo doo”
Alright, if you want a comment about abortion that really steps in it, try this.
Many years ago health food faddists decided that fertilized hen’s eggs were healthier than unfertilized eggs (they might still believe this, I don’t keep up with food faddism).
People sold fertilized hen’s eggs. They were sold as eggs because a fertilized hen’s egg is not a chicken.
Enough about fertilized eggs, let’s move on to something important.
I do want to thank Rick Moran for starting this most invigorating conversation about an issue (two, really but they fold into one in the end) that is genuinely vital to the health of any nation.
It has drawn people of lesser and greater power of intellect with a lesser and greater sense that Intellectuals who live in their Minds do so at the expense of their Souls (the downfall of Solomon, who sought, gained, then ultimately lost Wisdom – costing his heirs the kingdom his father David had won for him).
And it has helped clarify where the Battle Lines are, and that they are in fact Battle Lines.
As Thomas Jefferson, another man who ultimately lost the battle between Mind and Soul, but nonetheless got enough spot-on in his day to justify his place among the Founding Fathers, put it:
“What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
I should like not to spill the blood of the Sophisticated Pseudo-Intellectuals, but put to the test, I will. They are a danger to everyone, including, ultimately, themselves.
What a loon you are…and a dangerous loon, to boot. You’re a danger to women everywhere with your creepy nonsense about how hard it is to conceive a child so women damn well ought to get down on their knees and thank their maker (and rapist) for being made pregnant by rape.
Now go down with your creepy ship full of out-of-tune misogynistic men who see women as receptacles for their sperm and babies when, where and how THEY see fit.
Also, the sad yet laughable truth about pansies like you, Eddie, is that you run away at the first sign of any real conflict — after you piss yourself, that is. I’m guessin’ you’re another of those lank-haired, slope-shouldered, pot-bellied, soft-handed weenies living in mamma’s basement (and in your case, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if mamma, or what’s left of her, is in the deep-freeze) and pounding out your lunatic rhetoric on your old desktop PC. Ugh. The good news, I suppose, is that either a)no woman has ever let you come near her body or b) you’re shootin’ blanks in every sense of the term, therefore your DNA stops with you. Ugh.
That’s enough, Nora.
Some advice. If you are going to flail around here lashing out at others for their purported cowardice, why don”t you sign your name? And don’t bother whining that you have some fear for your safety. That’s merely self-serving.
References to the Irish Times aren’t tantalizing. If you are so concerned about equality, grow a spine and a last name and then rejoin the conversation. Or perhaps you’re simply tired of having your tush handed to you by some of the truly talented writers there.
I don’t think everyone needs to name themselves, especially if they feel the need to share something personal for illustration, but those who climb to this level of contentiousness certainly ought to prove their point by doing so.
Really? Most of the people around here do not use first and last name.
Most of the people here don’t go off on people in deeply personal ways while claiming some particular status. That, I think, requires the courtesy of a real name.
I do. And this is my real name. It’s common enough, but read what I post and you can figure out how to find me.
I dislike people who hide behind Pseudonyms to talk trash about other people. They are Crass & they are Cowards.
Oh please. So everyone here who doesn’t post using their full name is ‘C’rass and ‘C’owardly? How about ee let the site admins decide who has to use whatever name, ‘k?
So Jeanette is a ‘C’rass ‘C’oward for talking trash abput me anonomously? You hear that Jeanette? Better post your full name and location!
Uh…what special status have I claimed…? Nora is my name, and my last name is part of my email address, so the owners of this site have my full name. Do you really think “Edward Smith” (Captain of the Titanic) is really Edward Smith’s real name?
I’ve only gotten personal with people who decided to go off on me on a personal level. For the most part, I’ve stuck to the issue in spite of Jeanette and Edward and various other posters’ really nasty personal attacks and insinuations.
Who the hell are you to tell me what I may and may not post here, and that I and I alone have to use my full name publicly? You don’t even know me, nor do you know what my personal experiences have been. Some supposed “rape counselor” you must be.
That post is mine — the fields clear every so often.
Oh…and why do I have to use my full name, but “Jeanette” doesn’t have to use hers, or any number of other commenters, for that matter?
You have one hell of a nerve, you ridiculous, self-important female.
Um, it’s a bar, dummy. What did you think I meant?
No one’s “handed me my tush” (what are you, four? Say ass if you mean ass).
Edward has written some revolting things about women and about me.
Go be his mommy if you have a mommy complex.
You don’t pay attention much. Battle lines were drawn in the 60′s and the far right lost the culture war shortly thereafter. They have been nattering at the fringes since then raging on as if the culture war is still happening. It’s only in their minds. It’s over. The war was lost by the anti-abortion forces. Deal.
The far right imagines it can use “new” lines of argument with a new generation, e.g. in this era there’s a lot of nonsense about states rights bandied about in conjunction with the tea party neo-constitutionalist stance. But abortion is still a losing proposition and will always be so.
Why, you might ask? Simple. Jet aircraft. Easy to board. Cheap. Lots cheaper than having kids. And regular flights to civilised places on the planet where procedures and pills and so on are supported. Even if the far right “wins” it’s not a win. Nothing changes. It’s like manufacturing is being done but now in China — abortion would still be commonplace, just not here. So what. The purpose of the argument was to change behaviours, to stop it. And it doesn’t do either, even if by magic the far right “wins.”
You’re vapid enough to be frothing at the mouth at imaginary battle lines that you perceive as new or somehow different. You lost already. 40 years back. And you can’t win. EVER. Go home. Concentrate on something useful. Take up guitar or sewing.
John Frame, a highly regarded theologian of the reformed tradition, has written on this subject in his book, “The Doctrine of God.” Frame discusses God’s decretive will: that is what God decrees, that which will happen. It is absolute and determined. There is also God’s preceptive will. That is the ought to aspect of His will, the things that we ought to or ought not to do. Though shalt not directives. They define what is the right thing to do in accordance with God’s will. It is the area where man has freedom to do or not to do. God did not decree this to happen, man in his freedom, violated God’s preceptive will, and the end result is a rape and a pregnanancy. What the Christian believer is to do in this, abort or not abort, is part of God’s preceptive will. God did not decree it, man in his freedom broke from God’s preceptive will, and the results are before us. What the Christian is to do in this type of situation is by faith believe that God will work all things together for good. This is, in present day reality, the story of Joseph in the Book of Genesis. Joseph’s understanding of it is what the Christian is supposed to do in this situation,which is to believe by faith that “What man intended for evil, God will use for good.” That is what biblical faith is, as difficult as it may be for the septic (oops, I meant skeptic.
Mourdoch did not say “Rape is God’s will” what he said was ALL life is precious no matter how it was begotten.
personally I believe the government should stay out of it and let people make their own decisions, but Mourdoch has a right to his opinion and his opinion is shared by lots of people out there, it’s not right to silence them or pretend they don’t exist.
I appreciated Mr. Mourdock’s honesty but was nevertheless frustrated at the ease with which the Left lures Republicans into traps they should be prepared for. You’d think by now there’d be a playbook…and where, might I ask, is (my) Catholic Church?
I lost count a long time ago of how many Left-Leaning Liberals I have met over the years in Catholic congregations. The Church and its members have surrendered so much of their charitable works over to the Government that Obama was able to ambush them this year.
It is only recently that Church leaders have begun to wake up to the situation. Church members are another story. That said, many of those Left Leaning Liberal Catholics are graying out, and their children have not followed them into a Church that they made no effort to persuade them was worth attending.
Newer Catholics where I live are less affluent, but more Socially Conservative. The parishes are struggling financially, but the Faith is growing stronger.
As to Mourdock’s honesty, well, Honesty is a Conservative trait. Ask us a question and we answer it, and we don’t get all fancy on you either. Unless we try to be clever and cite Science that is not only dodgy but that we don’t fully understand, the way Todd Akin did.
Then again, everyone seems to think that the answer is not valid unless you can back it up with some kind of study or other, and a full page of Footnotes and a Bibliography on top of that.
I might now have a thriving (after a fashion – academia does not pay as well as it used to … it is rather like the National Hockey League these days and it is my fervent hope that the National Hockey League sees better days but that Academia continues to decline the way the League has) Academic, but I got tired of the bullshit early on in the game. People who ask for Citations, Footnotes & Bibliographies are more often just trying to waste your time than actually listening to you.
Then again, I am an Impotent, Women-Hating Loon who lives in his mother’s basement – so, Susan, what would I know.
Speaking as a Tea Partier, Social Conservatives remain the #1 threat to Conservatism. Their wedge issues don’t belong in politics.
We’d have every election everywhere tied up if SC’s learned to separate church and state. When we lose, it’s because of guys like Mourdoch and Akin. Face it.
Social issues are practically the only Lib lever against us, as we know. Every Lib argument I’ve ever had is won immediately on fiscal and economic issues, and I find myself apologizing for the bible-thumpers on my team.
They have every right to their beliefs, and I have every right to a Republican party without them.
I don’t go along with everything the Bible Thumpers say.
And I have met enough to know they can be dead wrong – I met a member of a mostly Australian Ex-Pat congregation who was convinced that Homosexuality can be cured.
I also worked with a Gay Furniture salesman who brought only his aesthetic sense (and that is not, contrary to the cliches, a Gay trait) to the job. It is all about where you are, what you are there to do, and do you bring what you need to the job or bar or party what is needed.
But that said, people need a reason to save money and work hard. Governments need a reason to be prudent. We need Values & Beliefs. We are not machines. Older people living alone are likelier to keep the heat on rather than scrimp on it when they have pets to take care of. People work harder at jobs that can be very dull when they have families to support. And a well fed person with a hungry Soul often takes up nasty habits.
But quoting someone who imagines herself to be infinitely more intelligent and spiritually aware than I am, I am just a “creepy ship full of out-of-tune misogynistic” man who wants to use her as a receptacle for my sperm (given what she has written her, I find the thought of even brushing against her in a crowd utterly abhorrent).
So don’t take my word for it.
I called you a ship…? :~D
Is this the “treatment that sent Cynical Wonder limping away”…?
Seriously, dude, calm the hell down. You are making a complete ass out of yourself, with your creepy insinuations about rape and pregnancy and the gratitude of women who find themselves pregnant by rape, with your threats about those of us who dare to “linger” here (are you going to beat us into submission with your bizarre capitalization patterns?), and your pansy-assed passive aggression.
Guess you won’t be seeing the Duluth Ballroom jeans under the Christmas tree this year, will ya? ;~D
Oh no, my dear. There are people here who will plant a starving flea in your ear. I assure you, darling, I am being an absolute gentleman compared to some here.
And I cut and pasted your own words.
What the hell does that even mean…?
You should’ve read the whole sentence before you cut and pasted.
Um, so now I’m supposed to be all scared because a bunch of people on teh interwebs are gonna call me names? Really? Oh noes!
Are you kidding me?!
Re: “Legitimate” rape?!
Both predestination (“will of god, inshallah!”) and “holy” rape itself are might-makes-right, moslem memes! See the Qur’an, Sura 18:65-82 (just for starters) as a good example of this vile, idolatrous excuse for negligence doctrine!
How can this Mourdock tard want the right to be a legislator, when he abdicates his responsibility to protect his citizens by refusing to make laws that would allow them to limit the damage done to them by criminals?!
After all, he’s pretending the will of the rapist IS the will of god, and so there’s no way he’d want to infringe on that right – like, say by making a law that allows the woman VICTIM to choose whether – or NOT – to keep the rapist’s un-asked-for spawn!
Hands-off, delinquent negligence like he’s advocating for, would only end up populating our Western world with the spawn of rapists – sort of like the moslems have inflicted on the middle east for the last 1,400 years!
So you are happy for the innocent baby to be murdered but to have the rapist locked up and looked after for the next 25 years?
So you are happy to keep making the raped woman and her family help pay for the rapist’s incarceration through their tax contributions?
I think Mourdock and those who share his concern for life would like to see brutal rapists being treated as responsible human beings – not dangerous wild animals – and given the death sentence without delay. It is not the innocent baby who should be given the death sentence – except perhaps in your warped thinking. Sadly our Western society is much more concerned about the rights of the rapist than about concern for a powerless and innocent baby – what a perversion of justice!
Actually, at one time(up till 1861) rape was a capital offence in England, and may well have been in some other European countries. It was also for a time in much of your Deep South—but only if the victim was white and the rapist black. Even that assumed he would get anything resembling a fair trial. In Muslim countries the rape of a Muslim woman is often pubished with death, and in some the woman is also killed, in the name of “family honour”.
My apologies to anyone who came here for a serious discussion for taking swipes at the Lady (If That Is What She Is).
She came here to take Sophisticated Snarky swipes at an Honest Man (who happens to be something of a Fool) and those who would defend him, and therefore deserves a few back.
I do thank the Lady(???). I used to be like her, and conversing with her here has clarified for me that I can no longer pretend that I have not taken a side, or that I can ever go back to being as Clever as I used to be.
Clever is often just Stupid Done With Style.
Intentions matter. If a women’s health is in danger due to pregnancy, including extreme mental anguish due to rape, labor can be induced to save the mother’s life and an effort should be made to save the child’s life. Obviously during the earlier stages of pregnancy that is not possible. During late term pregnancy, the difference between induced labor and abortion is the intention to kill the baby. Obama voted to let born babies die. Who is extreme?
Mormons, some Christian denominations, some Catholics, Amish and a few others have a strong birthrate and generally don’t have abortions. Somehow these groups have managed to avoid this as a big problem, because they believe in their word. This is how you solve the problem. Self proclaimed conservatives will realize one day, that the government is not going to be able to pull our chestnuts out of the fire. It’s up to private individuals to make that happen.
Conservatives have used it as a wedge issue for far too long. It’s time to drop it as a public policy argument. Leave it to the churches and private individuals.
Except that we’re forced to pay for abortions and every other stupid social policy they come up with. If liberals really want conservatives to “stfu” about abortions, they should keep their ovaries out of our wallets (which is where we keep our rosaries).
Do you actually think we want liberals to procreate??! It occurs to me that if Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Richard Mellon Scaife all got together at the Eeeevil Republican Hotel and held a conference on how to make sure that liberals completely died out, they’d come up with policies identical to the Democratic Party platform. Gay marriage? (no more baby liberals) Check! Contraceptives on demand? (no more baby liberals, and the ones who do come into being, aren’t allowed to implant on their mothers’ uterine walls) Check! Abortion? (dead baby liberals, with infertile liberal women as a frequent side effect) Check! ESCR? (embryonic vivisection, dead embryos) Check! Euthanasia? (dead old liberals) Check! The only anti-dead-liberal platform policy they have is gun control, so that conservative law-abiding citizens can’t kill liberal criminals directly.
Jeanette is right.
I have strong feelings about Alcohol Abuse (and it is different from being an Alcoholic), Recreational Drug Use (which is different from being a Drug Addict), and Gambling – as well as Abortion.
But I am willing to overlook these vices and that Sin because they are Personal Choices. Take a cab to the bar and back, and pay the cabbie extra for vomiting all over his back seat, and I’ll leave you alone. I’ll just make my bedroom the one that doesn’t face the street so I don’t have to hear you.
Pay for your own Abortion, or turn to people willing to pay for it knowing what it is, to people willing to perform it knowing what they are doing.
I am judging. Yes, I am judging Abortion and those who participate in it. But I leave the punishing up to God, who usually does not have to punish the people involved in the Abortion. the Shame and Guilt catch up with them, or trying to ignore it makes them cold and inhuman, the same way persistent stealing makes a thief disinclined to trust anyone.
Just don’t involve me in your Sin, and don’t insult me by suggesting I have no right to object to something you yourself cannot talk about openly because you are already so filled with shame that you can only talk about it with rage and vitriol spewing from your lips.
You are a sick, sick individual and wouldn’t know God if he smacked you upside the head with a two-by-four.
Um, I have stated over and over again, quite openly, what my position is. I haven’t wavered from it once. What the hell is wrong with you?
Why am I not surprised you’re Catholic? You can always tell by the sheer nastiness and hate.
Yes, Nora, I’m Catholic. I haven’t made any secret of it, but your gotcha tone indicates it’s news to you. My faith does have a strong effect on my opinions. Some other things that have affected me strongly that you may or may not know:
Like you, I was molested by a priest as a child. I was a little younger, though. I also may or may not have had an NDE in purgatory (could have merely been the activity of a concussion on the left side of my head, but my companions have said I appeared to be dead). I didn’t go to heaven, as you claimed elsewhere; it was made very clear to me exactly how wonderful I was lol. Afterward, I had to walk on a broken hip so now my right leg is a little shorter than my left, and I can give weather reports since I was 22. I’ve had to sell plasma for groceries so I’m familiar with being poor. I have eight children so I know about having kids and unplanned pregnancies. I’ve had a minor but significant role in helping to shut down a powerful, evil, pervert-worshipping cult that’s been masquerading as a Catholic order for the past seventy years; as a result, there was a very strong effort made to sue me. Due to that last part, I’m very reluctant to post with my last name. Of course, there are also unhinged liberals who don’t like what I post, so that’s another reason to stick with my first name only. Doesn’t bother me in the slightest that you use only one name. Recently, I’ve been made aware of Bella Dodd and Operation Outstretched Hand. I plan to learn more, to try to determine if this had something to do with the Church’s horrible turn since the 1950′s, if this is what Our Lady of Fatima meant when she said that “Russia will spread Her errors” and what Paul VI meant when he said that “the smoke of Satan has reached the sanctuary”. So, these are the other things besides my Catholicism that influence my posts.
I get bitter with the Church too, and I’ve had one leg over the rail on the Barque of Peter for a while now. But I stay for the Eucharist. I know, as you do, that sustaining a child for her first year or so of life through your own body and blood, is a powerful act of love. And I know that any act we do, any love we commit, is only a pale imitation of Christ’s infinite love for each of us so that when He feeds us His Body and Blood, it’s with a love beyond my ability to imagine. God promises in Ezekiel 34 that He will bind our wounds and chastise the “shepherds who pasture themselves”.
I think a few times in these recent articles, you’ve gotten me a little confused with some of the other posters. It’s difficult to keep track, I know, because there are several people replying to your posts.
No, I haven’t gotten you confused with anyone. It’s not confusing for those of us who can follow staggered threads such as these. Others may have formatting issues based on how they’re viewing this page. Not me.
My comment is sarcastic in nature.
I find it hilarious and actually quite un-surprising that you’re Catholic, yet are deeply, truly a hateful, nasty, ugly-minded witch-with-a-b. No surprises there at all, actually, lol.
Catholicism is a sicko cult for crazy people. I’m done with that forever. So spare me your Catholic resume. I don’t give a rat’s ass about Catholics, Catholicism, or anything having to do with that drivel until the Church starts to play politics. Then it’s open season on Catholic as far as I’m concerned.
What is your goal on these abortion articles over the past week or so? If it’s anything more than expressing rage at everything to do with social conservatism, I don’t think you’re accomplishing it. I’m really sorry you don’t have peace. The rage and bitterness eat you up until you do more damage to yourself than that South American priest ever did, do you see that? He wins.
Had you bothered to read anything I actually wrote instead of deciding to make up lies about my position, you wouldn’t have to ask that question. But nice attempt to misrepresent my position once again.
My position has been clear from the get-go. Go back and read it.
My “goal” is that of everyone else here — to express my opinion.
My “peace” is not your business, Jeannette. You’re a crazy old woman who flits from one cult to another, mostly because you’re the sort of typical self-important fool that is easily sucked into “special” movements and groups and sub-sects, etc.
You can’t spew the pure nastiness you’ve spewed towards me merely because I don’t agree with your position on one factor of one issue and then expect me to give a hot damn about you or what you have to say regarding, well, anything. The deliberate dishonesty on your part makes you untrustworthy anyway. Not to mention a sinner, by your own standards, but I suspect your “Catholicism” is merely a weapon you wield, or an excuse for bad behavior, or a justification for being such a shrill, hate-filled creature.
Jeanette, that’s a red herring. Very little money is spent on abortion by federal or state govt. I am glad it sounds like you see the light on conservatives worrying about liberals procreating. Let them go extinct, who cares.
What William of Bedford said.
Or as someone else said. If you don’t like abortions, don’t get one.
You’ll outbreed the ones that do, eventually.
And quite frankly, if you believe in a god (note the small g) who punishes innocents for the sins of their parents…I’m sorry, but that god is evil, IMO.
The reason people like Nora and RandomEngineer lapse so easily into offensive language is that they know in their hearts they are trying the Defend that which is Indefensible, to Justify that which has no Justification, only Mitigating Circumstances which do not, can not, and will never erase this simple fact of that which they advocate: The Murder of Children.
Better they should call themseves Pro-Abortion rather than Pro-Choice. But then again, that would be admitting that what they are advocating doing is Wrong.
And yes, this is my name, and I live in New York City.
I think Nora and Random engineer should keep writing as much as they want. I’d like them to spew their words out until every decent lurker is completely repulsed by them. They’re probably not causing any undecided voters _here_ to change their votes, but that Lena creature is giving voters everywhere a clear view of what the Democrat party looks like. Unborn children are “intruders” and it’s all about us paying for their recreational equipment’s upkeep. I’d like to see Code Pink dress up like vaginas a few more times before the election. (I mean, *I* don’t want to see them having to batten down the labia due to hurricane-force winds again of course)
Oh piss off already Eddie. You feeling all manly now you’re hiding behind some bull dyke’s skirts…err, polyester pantsuit?
Jeanette, what’s your full name and address? Don’t you realize what a ‘C’rass ‘C’oward you are for personally attacking me just using your first name? My words are all still there. You can tell all the deliberate lies you like but I’m not a Democrat, I not only don’t want anyone to pay for any kind of ‘upkeep’ for any of my body parts, I don’t want to have to pay for anyone else’s, and unlike you and Tina, I have no interest in viewing other women’s genitalia. So sorry to disappoint. But, hey, maybe you and Tina can check out each other’s, ah, labia while Eddie watches, eh?
I suggest you stop, or the moderator needs to stop you.
And I suggest you stop threatening me. You picked this fight. You back off if you don’t like it.
I did not suggest that you post your last name, Nora.
Never said you did. Just holding you to the same standard Eddie and Tina insist should exist for me. You got personal and ugly first, yet because you agree with those two fools, you get a free pass. Since I disagree, these two losers insist I have to post my full name. Because I guess everyone at PJMedia died and made them boss. Or something.
Ed, in communist China women are told by their government that if they become pregnant after the birth of their first child they must abort. Therefore, they have no choice.By your logic you are telling women they must have any child they conceive, regardless of the mode of conception. Does this not make you a communist?