I understand the point that someone (Paul?) made, that if you believe God gets involved and babies are always gifts, you can't really explain that away because of how it got there. Unfortunately, it doesn't have a place in the govt I want - babies are conceived because our bodies are made to do that. Even if they want to claim it isn't, saying a rape baby is what God intended IS saying that God planned for the rape. Otherwise the baby wouldn't be there at all. *shrug*
But I think Mourdock's inherent point that a fetus conceived through rape is just as much of a fetus as one conceived in a loving relationship, and if brought to term can be just as cute a baby or just as wonderful a person, is entirely valid. Of course I believe that the woman's right to get rid of this additional violation of her body, if that's how she perceives it, should take preference, and in that I strongly differ from Mourdock.
I agree that that is what he's saying, just disagree that he is right to stick god in the middle of it. I am not making my decision about him because of some psycho comment, BECAUSE I don't think it's psycho. I do agree that it's just a sideshow, and that your last point is the real topic.
I do not agree that "saying a rape baby is what God intended IS saying that God planned for the rape". I'm not actually sure (no, Joel, that is not an invitation to come and explain me your view on it again) if there's any logically consistent way in which one can reconcile the notion of a God who interferes in any way in the human world, with the existence of "evil" (however one wants to define "evil", let's not get into too many philosophical debates at the same time here...); you always end up with arbitrary judgements of what you believe God is involved in, and what not, and any beneficial act that you believe God is involved in may ultimately have negative consequences that you presumably do not believe God intended. In short, there's always contradictions, or at least that's how it seems to me as a non-believer.
We will have to disagree on this bit, though I understand why one might feel that it isn't the same thing. You are right that it will be arbitrary, necessarily, and I regret that I have no patience for the entire notion. IMO, you don't get to claim that god only causes the good things, but didn't get there through the bad. The Old Testament is full of him causing pain, usually for some good later outcome (depending on your side), so I do think people need to be extremely careful throwing around what he is and is not responsible for, because the meaning will always be murky. Especially politicians, who shouldn't be using him as a basis for most any judgment.
But taking it as a given that Mourdock, like tons and tons of other people, does have such a belief in God, it seems quite obvious to me that he *would* believe in God intending the conception, but not the rape; in other words, that he believes God decided to make the evil act of rape have some (potentially, depending on your viewpoint) positive consequence.
He probably does. I don't think he is crazy or bad. I just think it's fair to call bullshit on the content of the statement.
I mean, honestly, people. Does anyone seriously think Mourdock is some kind of psychopath who gets off on the thought of women being raped, and would claim that such a thing is divinely sanctioned? I don't think I'm assuming much when I answer my own question with a resounding no. Then what is all the outcry even about? His stance on abortion in case of rape is absolutely problematic, and people should absolutely vote against him for propagating that stance. But they should not vote against him for this statement, nor for some stupid delusion that he supposedly would have suggested that rape is good or acceptable. He didn't.
My personal stance is explained above, re: political stupidity and that I think god needs to be left out of most of it, but that is not what I'll be judging him by.
God Distances Self From Christian Right
- 26/10/2012 01:56:18 PM
1407 Views
Do you really think God would condone abortion? *NM*
- 26/10/2012 03:28:25 PM
425 Views
Depends on when a fetus is a being, which the GOP contends is "at the moment of fertilization."
- 26/10/2012 03:57:44 PM
703 Views
Actually, I don't see any place in the Bible where God is....
- 26/10/2012 04:00:19 PM
899 Views
Where did I say one word about God accommodating our sin?
- 26/10/2012 05:55:52 PM
744 Views
You're technically right, Joel, but...
- 26/10/2012 07:32:10 PM
735 Views
Almost may count in hand grenades, but definitely not in canon. 
- 26/10/2012 10:28:57 PM
800 Views
- 26/10/2012 10:28:57 PM
800 Views
Your lack of scientific understanding is everything in this instance.
- 26/10/2012 10:44:05 PM
750 Views
Because whether God intends rape is aaaall about science, right?
- 26/10/2012 11:08:16 PM
652 Views
You're getting rather emphatic.
- 26/10/2012 11:27:07 PM
708 Views
Broad fundamental change to US law by controlling all three branches of government provokes that.
- 27/10/2012 12:44:59 AM
730 Views
Condemn women to die? What a strange way to look at this.
- 26/10/2012 07:17:16 PM
769 Views
women *did* die before abortion was legalized, there should be no dispute of this aspect
- 26/10/2012 07:27:28 PM
802 Views
So we legalize an illegal act because some are willing to harm themselves to do it? *NM*
- 26/10/2012 10:02:37 PM
410 Views
no, we legalize the act so that it can be performed safely without killing both mother *and* child *NM*
- 26/10/2012 11:08:52 PM
400 Views
Very good point, but that was not (at least soley) what I meant, no.
- 26/10/2012 11:12:32 PM
719 Views
If something should be illegal in its own right, it is nonsense to legalize it because criminals
- 26/10/2012 11:40:41 PM
744 Views
If banning it saves no lives but inevitably takes more, the ban is counterproductive.
- 27/10/2012 12:48:51 AM
782 Views
That is absolutely absurd. It saves the lives of all...
- 27/10/2012 12:59:16 AM
784 Views
you're still missing the point that abortions will still be performed if it were illegal
- 27/10/2012 01:02:57 AM
720 Views
I'm not missing the point, you are.
- 27/10/2012 01:21:39 AM
846 Views
This isn't necessarily true, though it is often due to other factors.
- 27/10/2012 02:48:00 PM
744 Views
People who want abortions badly enough to have one will, whether or not law makes it "convenient."
- 27/10/2012 02:58:52 AM
697 Views
Telling a woman whose life was in danger not to save it with abortion condemned her to die
- 26/10/2012 10:48:53 PM
698 Views
There is no proof that you would accept that a fetus is a child.
- 26/10/2012 11:31:50 PM
683 Views
Fantastic question.
- 26/10/2012 11:43:51 PM
710 Views
No, I would err on the side of caution; have often said as much in just those words.
- 27/10/2012 01:18:19 AM
702 Views
Sure there is; show me a fetus acting indepedently and consciously.
- 27/10/2012 01:15:00 AM
765 Views
Perfect example of media sensationalism
- 26/10/2012 04:13:41 PM
794 Views
I agree with your larger point and am not trying to be argumentative
- 26/10/2012 04:29:23 PM
759 Views
yeah, but what do women know about women's issues? this is man talk time!
- 26/10/2012 05:01:58 PM
740 Views
THAT is the whole problem with his comment.
- 26/10/2012 05:59:40 PM
699 Views
Or it could mean....
- 26/10/2012 11:50:53 PM
738 Views
Having addressed this in response to Legolas in moondogs thread on Mourdock, I will just link that.
- 27/10/2012 01:43:48 AM
741 Views
I agree
- 26/10/2012 07:27:21 PM
778 Views
It's always a slippery slope, talking about what God did and did not intend.
- 27/10/2012 12:06:22 AM
735 Views
Yes
- 27/10/2012 02:20:46 AM
781 Views
There is a logically consistent way; you did not ask for it, so I will be brief.
- 27/10/2012 02:53:09 AM
748 Views
Pregnancy cannot be separated from its cause.
- 26/10/2012 05:51:28 PM
739 Views
God intends everything.
- 27/10/2012 04:40:58 PM
813 Views
"Intends" is a big word.
- 27/10/2012 09:23:13 PM
732 Views
It is sad that this is getting more press than the Bengazi scandal *NM*
- 26/10/2012 05:58:22 PM
385 Views
that's probably because it's more relevant to most people's lives *NM*
- 26/10/2012 06:06:10 PM
396 Views
This entire scandal really speaks to the Calvinist heresy in particular.
- 26/10/2012 07:10:38 PM
705 Views
I was trying REALLY hard to avoid putting it in precisely those terms. 
- 26/10/2012 10:12:17 PM
756 Views
- 26/10/2012 10:12:17 PM
756 Views
Well, but really, the fundamental crux of the issue is precisely that.
- 27/10/2012 01:03:26 AM
716 Views
True, but disputing founding articles of faith benefits from tact.
- 27/10/2012 02:02:48 AM
671 Views
Come on, Tom.
- 27/10/2012 03:29:39 AM
718 Views
I believe HE grasps the difference between predestination and determinism well.
- 27/10/2012 09:33:14 PM
757 Views
The comment that sparked this was moronic even to the vast majority of religious conservatives. *NM*
- 26/10/2012 09:42:51 PM
385 Views
Yet its author remains the only Senate nominee for whom Romney is running ads.
- 26/10/2012 10:53:37 PM
703 Views
Is the senator's comment more disgusting to you than the President's vote against the
- 26/10/2012 11:54:55 PM
715 Views
how does one vote against a bill which passed by unanimous consent?
- 27/10/2012 12:11:37 AM
701 Views
As a state senator in 2001 in illinois he was the sole opponent to the aforementioned bill. *NM*
- 27/10/2012 12:14:08 AM
389 Views
[citation needed]
- 27/10/2012 12:15:41 AM
669 Views
It was an illinois state bill. *NM*
- 27/10/2012 12:23:12 AM
396 Views
yes, i finally found *something* regarding a state bill which he did oppose
- 27/10/2012 12:34:40 AM
737 Views
The BAIPA became federal law 2 years before Obamas Senate win; he says he would have voted for it.
- 27/10/2012 02:33:26 AM
697 Views
Once he started taking fire for it he said he would have voted for it? Well that clears that up.
- 27/10/2012 07:09:21 AM
886 Views
He "took fire" for a federal law passed before he was in Congress?
- 27/10/2012 04:08:25 PM
792 Views
amazing
- 28/10/2012 05:04:21 AM
843 Views
Women are certainly encouraged to weigh in, but everyone is entitled to thoughts on the matter
- 28/10/2012 02:22:55 PM
705 Views