Mourdock Implodes

hazlnut said:
Romney is still supporting this guy.

I say again, Mitt Romney is still supporting this guy.

I guess 'moderate Mitt' was just a put on.
Click to expand...

Mourdock is a Republican running for Senate. Romney will need Republicans in the Senate to pass his legislation. Why wouldn't he support the Republican candidate for Senate in Indiana? Because Liberals trumped up a load of horse shit and threw it at Mourdock? Because Liberals decided to condemn the man for his religious beliefs? IF Romney had rescinded his support for Mourdock on the basis of this ginned up, trumped up load of bullshit, I would have to rethink my support of Romney for president. We just don't throw people under the bus because we don't like their religious viewpoints.
 
Dixie said:
You know, if Mourdock had come out and said that he wanted to pass a law prohibiting rape victims from getting an abortion, because he thought it was God's Will for them to bear child, I would be right on board with the condemnation of Mourdock. That's just not what the man said. He was expressing a Christian-based opinion which opposes abortion even in the case of rape, which I disagree with, along with many others. I oppose abortion-on-demand, for the sake of vanity, convenience, or birth control. I am tolerant of keeping abortion as a legal medical option with restrictions and limitations. But this is not about what I believe or want. The man has the right to express his opinion, even if it's an opinion you disagree with and I disagree with. He doesn't deserve to be crucified and smeared over it, and the national GOP certainly bears no responsibility for HIS opinion, but that seems to be what the left wants to infer. THAT is what I am speaking out against.
Click to expand...

He is definitely entitled to his opinion. Politically it was a fvcking stupid thing to say. There is no other way around it.
 
cawacko said:
He is definitely entitled to his opinion. Politically it was a fvcking stupid thing to say. There is no other way around it.
Click to expand...

I agree it was a stupid thing to say. Pro-life candidates need to be aware, whenever they are asked questions about abortion, the person asking the question is NOT THEIR FRIEND! Still, his comments were taken grossly out of context here, and have been completely distorted by the left to score political points. He merely gave a Christian-based explanation for why his pro-life stance included rape victims. I can respect his opinion but still disagree with him.
 
Socrtease said:
Melisa Holmes, an ob-gyn in South Carolina, led a study on pregnancies from rape through the National Crime Victims Center. Holmes's study, which was published in 1996, found that 5 percent of rapes in females of reproductive age resulted in pregnancy, amounting to an estimated 32,101 rape-related pregnancies per year in the U.S. Even that astounding number was a "significant underestimation," she says, because so many rapes go unreported.
More recently, in 2003, husband-and-wife team Jonathan and Tiffani Gottschall, then at St. Lawrence University, identified even higher rape-related pregnancy rates. Analyzing survey results from 8,000 women around the country, they determined that 6.4 percent of rapes in women of childbearing age resulted in pregnancy. In cases where no birth control was used, the rate increased to 8 percent.
Meanwhile, a CDC report released last November concluded that 1 in 5 women have been raped, with 1.3 million women age 18 and up raped in 2010 alone. Doing the math, allowing for the use of birth control, and only including adults, the most recent data suggests that more than 83,000 women became pregnant by a man who raped them in 2010.
Jonathan Gottschall recognizes that there's some "squishiness" in all of these numbers because they're based on self-reported data. Still, he says, "the available data give us no reason to think that conception from rape is rare, or even that it is less rare than conception from consensual intercourse. If anything, the data suggest that things go the other way around." Indeed, a 2001 study out of Princeton and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences found the rate of pregnancy from consensual, unprotected sex to be just 3.1 percent.
Rapists subsconsciously target victims based on their likelihood of conception.No one is sure why forced sex is statistically a more successful reproductive strategy than consensual sex. "We think it might be because rapists tend to target young women at peak fertility," Gottschall says. Holmes confirms that most rapes occur in women under 25, and pre-pubescent girls, post-menopausal women and visibly pregnant women are statistically underrepresented among female rape victims, according to Gordon Gallup, an evolutionary psychologist at SUNY-Albany who wrote about rape-related pregnancy in The Oxford Handbook of Sexual Conflict in Humans.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-08/rape-results-more-pregnancies-not-less
Click to expand...


This is a very handy site for gathering facts in one place. It is a little surprising, to me anyway, that two-thirds of all abortions are amongst never-married women.




http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904509.html
 
Last edited:
What I can't get over is the idea that he was choking back tears as he was talking about this. That indicates that he was quite moved by the thought of divinely inspired rape and/or apparently thought it was an appropriate time to show he is a compassionate conservative.
 
nWPBk.gif
 
Dixie said:
He never said rape was divinely inspired. STOP LYING!
Click to expand...

And Obama never said small business owners dident build there businesses! Gore never said he invented the Internet, and palin never said she could see Russia from her house.
 
this is why religion is a disease guys. And for you fence sitters that believe in some type of watered down god that is touchy feely and you just ignore things like him destroying whole cities, flooding the earth, and sending bears to maul children because they teased someone, you are just cowardly enablers, and give the adults that believe in fantasy undue respect for their myths.
 
If 5% of rapes in the US result in over 32,000 pregnancies, then there is a lit of raping going on. Time to break out castration or bring back capital status, eh?
 
Dixie said:
I agree it was a stupid thing to say. Pro-life candidates need to be aware, whenever they are asked questions about abortion, the person asking the question is NOT THEIR FRIEND! Still, his comments were taken grossly out of context here, and have been completely distorted by the left to score political points. He merely gave a Christian-based explanation for why his pro-life stance included rape victims. I can respect his opinion but still disagree with him.
Click to expand...

So pro-lifers should treat anyone that asks them a question as the enemy? Do you ever consider how crazy you sound? The thing is this is your position on just about everything. Anybody that asks you anything is suspected of being up to something.

Nothing was taken out of context. You clearly don't know what that means. To you it seems to mean someone that does not know the secret handshake heard you say it. Maybe Mitt can teach Mourdock how to lie and be distrustful of others like you are.

Mourdock's position is the result of a philosophy that says life begins at conception and must be protected from that point forward.

Pro-life candidates, at least those arguing that life begins at conception, need to be aware that their position is stupid, that demanding the intrusion of state force would create an absurd burden on the state and dramatically limit a woman's rights to control her own body.
 
Dixie said:
He never said rape was divinely inspired. STOP LYING!
Click to expand...

He said that it was "something that God intended to happen." Maybe, I am taking it out of context and God only gets involved after the money shot? Really, I am not sure where such perverts think God takes over and you are a bit closer to it than me, so please feel free to explain how it works.
 
Q _ Q said:
this is why religion is a disease guys. And for you fence sitters that believe in some type of watered down god that is touchy feely and you just ignore things like him destroying whole cities, flooding the earth, and sending bears to maul children because they teased someone, you are just cowardly enablers, and give the adults that believe in fantasy undue respect for their myths.
Click to expand...

this is not about religion, this is about one asshole's warped views
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
So pro-lifers should treat anyone that asks them a question as the enemy? Do you ever consider how crazy you sound? The thing is this is your position on just about everything. Anybody that asks you anything is suspected of being up to something.

Nothing was taken out of context. You clearly don't know what that means. To you it seems to mean someone that does not know the secret handshake heard you say it. Maybe Mitt can teach Mourdock how to lie and be distrustful of others like you are.

Mourdock's position is the result of a philosophy that says life begins at conception and must be protected from that point forward.

Pro-life candidates, at least those arguing that life begins at conception, need to be aware that their position is stupid, that demanding the intrusion of state force would create an absurd burden on the state and dramatically limit a woman's rights to control her own body.
Click to expand...

Maybe I sound crazy because you simply hear me saying things I did not say?

Yes, his comments were indeed taken way out of context, and continue to be.

It doesn't matter what Pro-lifer's opinions are, they are entitled to them, entitled to speak them, entitled to advocate for politicians who support them. If you don't like that, move to Russia, where opinions are suppressed by the Government, or to China, where opinions are buried in mass graves. Here in America, we have the right to express our opinions and seek redress of our grievances, even when those grievances don't jibe with what the liberal loony left believe.

No one is trying to control what women do with their bodies. Pro-lifer's are trying to control the senseless killing of a million lives per year for the sake of vanity and convenience, under the guise of it being some sort of "women's right." Most of us are reasonable and rational about this, and willing to find some amicable compromise, where people who really do want to have an abortion, can do so. But, you want to sensationalize the issue for political gain, and accuse people of things they never said, and continue to insist that murdering people as they come out of the womb, is a "right" retained by women.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
He said that it was "something that God intended to happen." Maybe, I am taking it out of context and God only gets involved after the money shot? Really, I am not sure where such perverts think God takes over and you are a bit closer to it than me, so please feel free to explain how it works.
Click to expand...

No he didn't say that either. He is making the argument that rape and other bad things that happen, are part of free will, and God doesn't prevent free will. Life is precious, and he believes God creates it. That's his opinion, and many Christians share it. I don't have to defend that position because I don't share it. But the man has a right to express it, and people have the right to support him (or not) because of it. To attempt destroying him politically by taking his comments out of context and trying to then apply it to the GOP, is just not cool with me. I stand for his right to have his opinion and articulate it, and for the right of his supporters to support him. You don't have to agree, you just have to TOLERATE!
 
you republicans deserve this, its exactly the same as claiming Gore said he invented the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top