Yet Another Republican puts foot in mouth about Rape.

[Crossroads Inc.]

From the WashingtonPost

INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock refused to apologize Wednesday for saying that rape resulting in pregnancy is “something God intended.”

State Republicans and a few congressional leaders defended Mourdock, whose prospects of winning the seat long held by the GOP are unclear.
Mourdock already had problems with independent voters, and his comments Tuesday about rape and pregnancy aren't likely help.

But with women voters critical in the tight presidential race and other stalemated contests two weeks before Election Day, many in the party distanced themselves with varying levels of abruptness and clarity, underscoring the difficult nature of the uproar even among other anti-abortion Republicans.

Indiana gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence sought an apology from Murdock. Indiana House candidate Jackie Walorski, meanwhile, issued three statements Wednesday: two disagreeing with Mourdock and one suggesting Republicans get back to talking about President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

That didn’t happen Wednesday as the issue ricocheted around the nation’s political landscape, from the presidential contest on down.

Mourdock, meanwhile, dove into damage control Wednesday, explaining that he abhors violence of any kind and regrets that some may have misconstrued and “twisted” his comments. But he stood behind the original remark in Tuesday night’s debate.

“I spoke from my heart. And speaking from my heart, speaking from the deepest level of my faith, I would not apologize. I would be less than faithful if I said anything other than life is precious, I believe it’s a gift from God,” Mourdock said at a news conference Wednesday.

GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s campaign quickly said he disagrees with Mourdock, but did not cancel a television ad in which Romney endorses him. New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte canceled an event scheduled for Wednesday with Mourdock. But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Texas Sen. John Cornyn issued statements of support, acutely aware that Mourdock’s fortunes in Indiana could hold the key to winning control of the Senate. Republicans must gain four seats if President Barack Obama is re-elected, three if Romney prevails.

In Indiana, it wasn’t supposed to be this way. Mourdock’s upset of veteran Republican Sen. Richard Lugar in the May primary created an opening for Democrats looking to fight for what would have otherwise been a safe GOP seat. The surprisingly close race between Mourdock and Democrat Joe Donnelly has spurred national Republicans to send more money and national stars to Indiana recently in an attempt to hold the seat.

Ayotte cancelled plans to headline a fundraiser for Mourdock in Indianapolis, but the Indianapolis Republican Women Club pushed on with the fundraiser. Speaking inside the closed-door event, Indiana Republican Party Chairman Eric Holcomb declined to comment on Mourdock’s explanation Wednesday and said the loss of Ayotte from the trail Wednesday would not slow their efforts to elect Mourdock.

“I think we’re moving full steam ahead,” he said.

Mourdock’s rape comment seemed to fall a few steps short of Republican U.S. Rep. Todd Akin’s comment earlier this summer that a woman’s body would block against pregnancy in cases of “legitimate rape,” both in terms of the comment itself and its potential impact in the race.

Once again we have an issue of someone on the far right saying something were he claims it is "Taken out of context' and we are forced to ask, what the hell type of context was it meant for?

[Darth Lucifer]

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock refused to apologize Wednesday for saying that rape resulting in pregnancy is “something God intended.

It's a result of biology, God's got nothing to do with it. If you carry his fundie logic to it's ultimate conclusion that means God also intended for that woman to be raped as well. Probably for some archaic biblical transgression. I'd love to ask some follow up questions while he's in front of a camera sweating behind the podium.

This kind of statement displays a gross insensitivity to rape victims. Good thing for him I don't live in Indiana.

[Scrib]

Why would he apologize? It's perfectly in line with his religion. It's the pussies who tip toe around rape and try to have exceptions for people who are raped that are the traitors.If you believe that a fetus is a person why the fuck should the behavior of the mother be a justifiable excuse for homicide? If you're going to be odious, go all the way. Honestly, the idea that God intended rape is not that weird a position if you already believe in the concept of an omniscient sky-father that can do anything he pleases. It's insensitive sure, but it's par for the course, the problem of evil is older than balls.

I guess on some level I should be glad that people are striking out against hurtful religious statements but I don't see why this particular common comment is drawing heat.

[amigocabal]

Why would he apologize? It's perfectly in line with his religion. It's the pussies who tip toe around rape and try to have exceptions for people who are raped that are the traitors.If you believe that a fetus is a person why the fuck should the behavior of the mother be a justifiable excuse for homicide? If you're going to be odious, go all the way. Honestly, the idea that God intended rape is not that weird a position if you already believe in the concept of an omniscient sky-father that can do anything he pleases. It's insensitive sure, but it's par for the course, the problem of evil is older than balls.

Evil is the result of people disobeying God.

As for the idea of opposing abortion in cases of rape, it is perfectly consistent with unilateral pacifism, a belief shared by the Amish and Code Pink.

[Gandalf]

As for the idea of opposing abortion in cases of rape, it is perfectly consistent with unilateral pacifism, a belief shared by the Amish and Code Pink.

So life begins at conception and is inviolable, unless you're the product of rape?

[amigocabal]

As for the idea of opposing abortion in cases of rape, it is perfectly consistent with unilateral pacifism, a belief shared by the Amish and Code Pink.

So life begins at conception and is inviolable, unless you're the product of rape?

For the Amish and the Code Pink crowd, no to the second.

[Gandalf]

Sorry, I misread your post.

Ugh, long day.

[KlavoHunter]

I suppose at this point it should be standard procedure to ask what kinds of rape GOP political candidates support?

[Scrib]

Why would he apologize? It's perfectly in line with his religion. It's the pussies who tip toe around rape and try to have exceptions for people who are raped that are the traitors.If you believe that a fetus is a person why the fuck should the behavior of the mother be a justifiable excuse for homicide? If you're going to be odious, go all the way. Honestly, the idea that God intended rape is not that weird a position if you already believe in the concept of an omniscient sky-father that can do anything he pleases. It's insensitive sure, but it's par for the course, the problem of evil is older than balls.

Evil is the result of people disobeying God.

As for the idea of opposing abortion in cases of rape, it is perfectly consistent with unilateral pacifism, a belief shared by the Amish and Code Pink.

People doing evil doesn't change the fundamental nature of the problem of evil. God must either be omnipotent and omniscient and everything is in his plan including rape, or God isn't omnipotent or omniscient. The only middle ground comes when you cop out and do some "free will is unknowable" bullshit, in which case, see the last part of the previous statement.

So, as far as I can tell this person is consistent in his beliefs.

[PeZook]

The idea that horrible things happen to people because God has a special plan for them/they are sinful/they disobeyed God and must be punished is actually extremely common.

Except a whole lot of people make exceptions, and only think bad things are a sign of God being angry, rather than HORRIBLE THINGS. So if your house burned down, it was God punishing you for something you did ; If your wife was raped, it is Man's sinful nature and the rapist should be punished, etc.

But it's not a huge leap to go from the "weaker" position to the extreme one ; Once you believe God knows all, sees all and has a plan for everybody...the only thing stopping you from telling the victim of rape that God wanted it that way is common empathy.

And to make things even more deranged, some victims are actually comforted by hearing this, because then they can think the horrible, traumatic thing that happened to them had a higher purpose. Accepting the fact something like that might be just random chance and/or human malice is really hard.

[Simon_Jester]

A lot of people who think as you say, PeZook, will draw a line between natural events ("acts of God") and things with a clearcut human cause. Within the Christian framework, for people who aren't being staggeringly ignorant, it's very natural to say that people doing bad things is them sinning against you. And it's a standard religious principle that God does not prevent people from sinning against each other, for whatever reason.

But when something happens that wasn't under human control, or didn't seem to be (car accident when both parties were sober, house struck by lightning, hurricane), that is when you see relatively normal Christians saying "will of God."

I think it's more that than "only bad things are a sign of God being angry, rather than HORRIBLE THINGS."

[PeZook]

True, the human factor is probably more important than "horribleness", that wasn't very well tought out by me.

[Simon_Jester]

"Hurricane hits Cityburg" is an act of God (though it may not be explicitly pitched as a punishment. That attitude is old and common enough that even the insurance companies use it. Even from a religion-neutral point of view, if you've got any poetry in you, "act of God" is a pretty good term for an event so obviously outside human control that there's no question of fault or responsibility.

"Bob kills Joe" is not an act of God, it's an act of Bob.

People who can't tell the difference are either really stunningly bad at moral philosophy, or just plain jerks.

[PeZook]

"Bob kills Joe" is not an act of God, it's an act of Bob.

People who can't tell the difference are either really stunningly bad at moral philosophy, or just plain jerks.

Still, it's comforting for a lot of people if the Act Of Bob is framed as being Part Of God's Grand Plan, even if official doctrine says it was an Act Of Bob and nobody else. Thing is, it's easy to go from "God has a plan for you, my child, and your suffering is part of it" to "God must've obviously thought you deserved it, you slut!"

Frighteningly easy, even.

[Broomstick]

Look, if someone truly believes humanity begins at conception and that killing humans at any point during their lifespan is wrong then not allowing abortion for rape is an entirely consistent position. I do not agree with that, but even if I think the belief is wrong I have some respect for the consistency shown and do not have a problem with such a person stating their belief. That doesn't make them inherently evil.

I do have a problem with people who are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.

The Republican in the OP is, regrettably, from my own state. Yes, we have such people living here. I may not agree with them, I may think their religion is stupid and/or cruel, but nonetheless they're here and those of us with differing opinions have to live with them. Personally, I am thrilled this guy stood up and spoke his true feelings on this. That way, I know where he stands. This is much easier for me to deal with than the assholes who say one thing, believe another, and do a third.

As I am one of the few people on this board who will have the option of actually voting for or against this yahoo I am really happy he spouted this prior to my actual vote, as it pretty much seals my decision in that particular race. (It's also why I vote even when some races are a foregone conclusion - election day in the US isn't about just one race for one office, and the more local the race the more impact my vote has)

I'm also pleased at how this has pissed off some of the local Republicans I deal with daily who have been voting party line without much thought about the matter. It's about damn time they actually started researching who their party is putting on the ballot. (Yes, there are moderate Republicans. You don't hear much about them because they aren't prone to being controversial asshats.)

[amigocabal]

I suppose at this point it should be standard procedure to ask what kinds of rape GOP political candidates support?

Have you heard of statutory rape?

[KlavoHunter]

Have you heard of statutory rape?

Why, no, goon sir, tell me more about this thing I've never heard of before.

Please quit posting just because you have to say something. Post when you have something to say.

[Scrib]

Have you heard of statutory rape?

Why, no, goon sir, tell me more about this thing I've never heard of before.

Please quit posting just because you have to say something. Post when you have something to say.

I think that his point is that the forcible rape distinction is not a new one.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

(Yes, there are moderate Republicans. You don't hear much about them because they aren't prone to being controversial asshats.)

As someone else on Reddit mentioned once, I don't have a problem with reasonable and intelligent Republicans. I have a problem with how (seemingly) few of them there are.

[Darth Lucifer]

I can interpret his statements in one of two ways, and each option is utterly disgusting to me.

If Mourdock is talking about how it's a gift to be alive and come into the world, he's implying a baby is getting this awesome gift (considering the state of the world sometimes, that's debatable). The disgusting part is that in order for the baby to get said awesome gift, the mother must not only endure the pain and humiliation of being raped she must suffer through a pregnancy, which can difficult even at the best of times and when it's planned. I can only speculate how much harder it would be when you're still dealing with the trauma of being sexually assaulted AND when you're pregnant against your will.

If Mr. Mourdock means to imply that the product of the rape is a gift to the victim from God, then by his retarded fundie logic the man who raped her is an instrument of God. It's really not much different than saying "Your rapist gave you a gift!" I am incapable of adequately expressing how abhorrent and sickening that is.

[Darth Lucifer]

Ghetto edit:

...he's implying a rape victim's baby is getting this awesome gift...

[UnderAGreySky]

(Yes, there are moderate Republicans. You don't hear much about them because they aren't prone to being controversial asshats.)

As someone else on Reddit mentioned once, I don't have a problem with reasonable and intelligent Republicans. I have a problem with how (seemingly) few of them there are.

More than that, I have a problem with how few of them have dared to speak ANYTHING against the hardliners. These are the people who stayed silent when the party apologised to Rush Limbaugh, when Donald Trump was doing his shtick, when complete idiots like Herman Cain went so far ahead.

In my opinion the "moderate" Republicans don't deserve talking to unless they decide to speak out first.

[Broomstick]

Darth Lucifer, these people almost always refer to the gift of the baby's life, NOT rape being some sort of twisted "gift" to the mother.

I've known a few women who became pregnant as a result of rape. One of them had an abortion and never looked back. One was a pretty devout right-to-life Christian and went ahead and had the kid and seemed OK with having the child though of course the rape part of it totally sucked. I know another devout right-to-lifer who allowed herself to be talked into an abortion after a rape pregnancy and was totally devastated by it, regarding herself as a murderer and was in therapy (and an emotionally abusive relationship in my opinion that her self-loathing both led her into and kept her in) when I knew her.

Even more so than for pregnancies not involving rape, deciding whether or not to continue a pregnancy caused by rape really should be left to the women and what's best both physically and emotionally for her.

[amigocabal]

Have you heard of statutory rape?

Why, no, goon sir, tell me more about this thing I've never heard of before.

Please quit posting just because you have to say something. Post when you have something to say.

I think that his point is that the forcible rape distinction is not a new one.

I find it disturbing that the word "rape" can be used to describe the act of a male forcing his penis into a 15-year-old girl's vagina, and a 15-year-old girl sharing her vagina with her 15-year-old boyfriend. Yes, in some jurisdictions, a boy would be guilty of statutory rape if he had consensual sex with a girl born on the same day he was. See Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464 at 476 (1981) (plurality) (noting that the petitioner, challenging a prosecution for statutory rape, was also under the age of consent) See also Michael M., 25 Ca.3d 608 at 621n.4 (1979) (Mosk, J., dissenting) (noting that the appellant and the complaining witness were "virtually the same age")

Ron Paul and Paul Ryan understand this.

A different term should be used to describe consensual sex with underage persons, perhaps something like "unlawful carnal knowledge" or "wrongful sexual contact with a minor".

[Dark Hellion]

Amigo, you are elevating a semantic difference above the actual substance of what is being said by these candidates. Yes, there are a lot of oddities and straight up stupidities in the way that the justice system deals with sex crimes but thinking these have to do with the way the word rape is used and not with deeper underlying problems with the way we define and categorize sexual assaults in legal contexts is an unbelievably superficial examination of the problem.