Plan B Forum

mix well, stand back, and wait for a stupidity explosion

Republican US Senate hopeful Richard Mourdock has expressed regret a day after suggesting pregnancies caused by rape were God's plan.

The Indiana candidate made the remarks while debating his Democratic opponent.

He told reporters on Wednesday he "abhors" rape and that if anyone "came away with any impression other than that, I regret it".

Mitt Romney's presidential campaign said he still backed Mr Mourdock, although he disagreed with his views.

Mr Mourdock's comments come two months after another Republican candidate caused a furious backlash when he said women's bodies had ways of preventing pregnancy after rape.

Mr Romney and President Barack Obama are campaigning hard for the 6 November US presidential election, in which women's votes could prove crucial.

During Tuesday night's debate with his Democratic challenger Joe Donnelly, Mr Mourdock was asked whether he believed abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

Richard Mourdock: "Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, it is something God intended to happen"

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realise that life is that gift from God," he said.

"And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

At a press conference on Wednesday, Mr Mourdock said he had been "humbled" by the reaction to his comments.

"If, because of the lack of clarity in my words, that they came away with an impression other than... life is precious and that I abhor violence and I'm confident that God abhors violence and rape... I truly regret it."

Mr Mourdock, a geologist by trade and the current Indiana state treasurer, said others were trying to "twist" his comments.

There are 33 Senate seats up for grabs in next month's elections, and the Republicans are hoping to win control of the chamber.

Seriously, where the fuck do they find these candidates?

This is another one of those lovely Senate nominees brought to us courtesy of The Tea Party....

Their slogan must be:

"We're The Tea party; proudly doing everything we can to prevent a GOP Senate majority since 2010"....

Lord Jim wrote:This is another one of those lovely Senate nominees brought to us courtesy of The Tea Party....

Their slogan must be:

"We're The Tea party; proudly doing everything we can to prevent a GOP Senate majority since 2010"....

And this is the turd they rolled in to replace Dick Lugar. Nose, spite, face.

Hang about though... Isn't, "It's all part of God's plan", a fairly standard response from religious types to shitty situations?

Sean wrote:Hang about though... Isn't, "It's all part of God's plan", a fairly standard response from religious types to shitty situations?

That would be, but he's not actually taking that position.

He's trying to say, Your brutal rape was not part of God's plan (because free will of the rapist, I guess? And why would God do that to you? Good questions!). But the baby conceived from that rape is a precious little gift from God, because that's His Divine Plan to burden you with an unwanted child from the absolute worst moment of your life! And you therefore must be prevented from exercising your own free will to abort that jolly blastocyst because, um something something something God's plan for you to have a rape-baby.

There is no pit of Hell deep enough for this asshole.

Gob wrote:Seriously, where the fuck do they find these candidates?

Well this year we thought it would be fun to find our candidates by turning over rocks.

Sean wrote:Hang about though... Isn't, "It's all part of God's plan", a fairly standard response from religious types to shitty situations?

I think I'd go with Sue's explanation as to parsing this idiot's "thought". In the wider context though Sean, you correctly identify a quite common misunderstanding. The orthodox (not Orthodox necessarily) Christian worldview is that God created all things from nothing, including creatures that may choose to love and obey Him or not.

Humankind chose "not" and by so doing created an unbridgeable (by us) gulf between God and man. All acts of evil arise from the free choices and actions of humans. Nevertheless, God chose to sacrifice Himself (at the hands of man) to absorb the punishment that rightly belongs to and is deserved by all humans. All humans have the opportunity to believe that He did so, to turn to Him in repentance and to be transformed throughout their lives on earth to conform once again to the image and likeness of God.

Nothing that happens on earth - nothing done by men - can deflect that plan of salvation. Just as God "would" that all men believed, so too God "would" that men did not commit the sins that we do. But he does not prevent the free choices that men make because that would remove from us what makes us human and distinguishes us from pets.

So, in that sense everything must be part of "God's plan" since everything is God's. Although God does not "plan" for evil to occur, since He created all things He readily agrees that He is in that sense responsible for all things that result. AFAIUI

Meade

I've trying to understand how someone can believe that a human sperm fusing with a human ova is solely under the control of god while the same biological act for any other animal or plant does not require such mediation. And if it is that way, why would god not know that he was going to kill one out of six of them even with all the support human medical science can provide? It seems to me that if god was solely in charge of fusing sperm and ova (human variety) that he would have a better track record than that.

yrs,
rubato

POLITICAL WHACK-A-MOLE

A large plurality of Americans - certainly a number approaching a hundred million souls, if not more - believe that an embryo/fetus is human, and has a right not to be killed in the womb, or otherwise. This belief is generally described as "pro-life." There is nothing surprising about this, and this belief has prevailed in this country for at least the past hundred years. Indeed, most of us were alive when performing an abortion was a felony, for just that reason.

For those who hold this belief, it really doesn't matter how the embryo came into existence. Whether by marital intercourse, casual sex between strangers, incest, or rape, the EMBRYO's right to existence is not contingent on the circumstances of its creation. Just as a PERSON's right to exist is independent of that person's origins.

The political Left, in this election season, has made an arcade game of searching out various articulations by Republicans of this completely-reasonable and prevalent philosophy, and, one by one, pronouncing them OUTRAGEOUS(!), insensitive, out-of-touch, and so on.

In this particular case, the pro-life politician also believes (as do the majority of Americans) that, basically, nothing happens that is not part of God's plan. Including the fertilization of an egg during rape. We humans cannot fully understand God's plan, but we accept that God is not surprised or "blindsided" by events that occur on earth.

This belief is held by a majority of Christians of all faiths, Muslims, Mormons, and so on (Jews, maybe not). It is neither outrageous nor insensitive, nor part of the fictitious "Republican War on Women."

The reaction to this candidates expression of belief is nothing more than one more episode of the MSM's game of whack-a-mole - all in support of President Obama's increasingly feeble prospects for re-election.

At least we know when it will end. Thank God.

dgs49 wrote:A large plurality of Americans - certainly a number approaching a hundred million souls, if not more - believe that an embryo/fetus is human, and has a right not to be killed in the womb, or otherwise. This belief is generally described as "pro-life." There is nothing surprising about this, and this belief has prevailed in this country for at least the past hundred years. Indeed, most of us were alive when performing an abortion was a felony, for just that reason.

Do you ever stop talking out your ass? In fact, an overwhelming majority of Americans -- ranging from 75% to 84% over the last 37 years of polling -- believe abortion should be legal. Only a minority, ranging variously from 12% to 22% during that same period, believes abortion should be illegal.

dgs49 wrote:For those who hold this belief, it really doesn't matter how the embryo came into existence. Whether by marital intercourse, casual sex between strangers, incest, or rape, the EMBRYO's right to existence is not contingent on the circumstances of its creation. Just as a PERSON's right to exist is independent of that person's origins.

An embryo's existence is ENTIRELY dependent on the life, health and circumstances of the woman in whom it resides. And for those of us who don't think a jumble of cells is yet a "person," let alone a "person" with "rights" that supersede the rights of an actual livng breathing autonomous woman, its continued existence is solely a matter of that woman's right to control her own body.

dgs49 wrote:The political Left, in this election season, has made an arcade game of searching out various articulations by Republicans of this completely-reasonable and prevalent philosophy, and, one by one, pronouncing them OUTRAGEOUS(!), insensitive, out-of-touch, and so on.

Yes, "'legitimate' rape cannot result in pregnancy" is a completely reasonable and prevalent philosophy. And every reasonable person believes it is wrong for you to terminate your pregancy resulting from rape because you must not interefere in God's rapey plan for you.

dgs49 wrote:In this particular case, the pro-life politician also believes (as do the majority of Americans) that, basically, nothing happens that is not part of God's plan. Including the fertilization of an egg during rape. We humans cannot fully understand God's plan, but we accept that God is not surprised or "blindsided" by events that occur on earth.

Please do not presume that "the majority of Americans" believes any such twaddle.

dgs49 wrote:This belief is held by a majority of Christians of all faiths, Muslims, Mormons, and so on (Jews, maybe not). It is neither outrageous nor insensitive, nor part of the fictitious "Republican War on Women."

It has previously been pointed out to you that Jews and Muslims do not consider a fetus a "person," and abortion is broadly permissible -- and sometimes mandatory -- under their religious doctrines. Abortion is also permissible under the doctrines of numerous Protestant Christian sects. But regardless, no such religious doctrine can be properly imposed as a law of the purposefully secular government of this nation. No one is forcing anyone who objects to abortion to have one. But those who object cannot be permitted to use the government to impose their religious doctrine on what is a personal decision for each woman -- including women whose own religious faith may counsel otherwise.

dgs49 wrote:The reaction to this candidates expression of belief is nothing more than one more episode of the MSM's game of whack-a-mole - all in support of President Obama's increasingly feeble prospects for re-election.

It's all a Democrat plot! That must be it!

Sue U wrote:Yes, "'legitimate' rape cannot result in pregnancy" is a completely reasonable and prevalent philosophy. And every reasonable person believes it is wrong for you to terminate your pregancy resulting from rape because you must not interefere in God's rapey plan for you.

Don't forget that the GOP platform calls for a ban on all abortions with no exceptions for any reason.

This has been a difficult time to live in Indiana. I always thought of myself as more right of center on most political opinions. But now I don't know who these rabid, slobbering bastards are who call themselves conservative. I sure as heck don't want to be associated in any way with the likes of Murdock.

Where did the reasonable, thoughtful conservatives take off to?

It's like a bad acid trip. (What I feel a bad acid trip would be like anyway.)

Ignore the rabid, slobbering, mysogynistic, "conservative" post above (since Sue has quite nicely skewered his "argument") and instead, please read this recent piece from Salon.com, about what "health of the mother" really means and why the GOP platform on this point is just plain bad for people, regardless of gender.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/24/what_he ... her_means/

Excerpt:

Twelve weeks into my pregnancy, my spouse and I were delighted to see our “bean” on ultrasound. We thrilled to the sight of a four-chambered squeezing heart, an enormous head, and tiny, thrashing limbs. When the technician glimpsed an unusual growth on my ovary, we barely paid attention. Only a biopsy could determine what those bulbous shadows in the ultrasound were, but the doctor explained it was either a benign cyst (very likely) or cancer (very unlikely). The chances that the biopsy would result in miscarriage were slightly greater than the odds that the growth would threaten my health if left alone. Buoyed by the doctor’s assurances that the baby looked great, we decided the biopsy was a bad bet.

At the ultrasound eight weeks later, we laughed when we found out the baby was a girl. Her older sister was vibrating in anticipation of learning her sibling’s gender and entirely unprepared to accept the possibility of a little brother. The ultrasound technician found nothing troubling when she scanned the baby’s anatomy. Turning her attention to my ovaries, though, she saw a black circle that she couldn’t interpret. When they told me I could get dressed before the doctor came to talk to us, my spouse and I exchanged an anxious look: They never let you put your pants back on. The cyst on my ovary had grown significantly, it seemed, and now they thought they saw another growth on the other ovary, developments that could put my health and the baby’s at risk

Dear Sue U: It is amazing that you took the time to respond in detail, but forgot to do any advance or concurrent thinking.

(1) Your percentages are absolutely preposterous. Find a single reputable poll that backs your numbers. Do you even know what the word, "plurality" means? Has it occurred to you that a large number of Americans believe that a fetus is human, and yet still are willing to tolerate abortions FOR OTHERS? I believe at least one Left Wing Extremist (Mario Cuomo) wrote a fucking treatise on this very point. Hello? Hello? Is anyone home in that head of yours?

(2) Your "arguments" are totally unrelated to the second point. I wrote that the circumstances of conception were irrelevant to the humanity of the embryo. Your points have nothing to do with the circumstances of conception, but rather health issues (I suppose). Are you familiar with the concept of "relevance"?

(3) Every cogent human who was paying attention to the dustup about "legitimate" rape is aware that the actual discussion was about "legitimate" CLAIMS of rape, in a theoretical jurisdiction which would allow abortions only in cases of rape or incest. But of course Liberals are not necessarily a part of the subgroup, "cogent humans," a fact which you have demonstrated with great clarity.

(4) Let's see, 75% of Americans believe in God...I claim that more than half believe that everything that happens is part of God's plan. Since I'm aware of what the concept of God is, I stand by what I wrote. You...not so much.

(5) The words, "this belief," referred to the aforementioned divine plan, not to whether a fetus is a "person." Did you bother to read my post before you started typing?

(6) "...no such religious doctrine [prohibition of abortion?] can be properly imposed as a law of the purposefully secular government of this nation." Who told you that? A prohibition against killing babies is a "religious doctrine"?

You need to to back to your parents and sue them for malpractice. Sue U indeed.

dgs49 wrote:Your percentages are absolutely preposterous. Find a single reputable poll that backs your numbers.

I'll give you five polls, all of which back up what Sue has said completely.

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 8-12, 2012. N=1,301 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
"Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."

Generally available 42%
Available under stricter limits 35%
Not permitted 20%
Unsure 3%


CNN/ORC Poll. Aug. 22-23, 2012. N=1,055 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
"Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

Always legal 35%
Sometimes legal 47%
Always illegal 15%
Unsure 2%

"Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" If "legal under only certain circumstances": "Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only a few circumstances?" Combined responses

Always legal 35%
Legal in most circumstances 9%
Legal in a few circumstances 37%
Always illegal 15%
Unsure 3%

"Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. . . ."

"When the woman's life is endangered"
Legal 88%
Illegal 9%
Depends 1%
Unsure 2%

"When the woman's physical health is endangered"
Legal 83%
Illegal 12%
Depends 2%
Unsure 2%

"When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest"
Legal 83%
Illegal 14%
Depends 1%
Unsure 3%


Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation Poll. July 25-Aug. 5, 2012. N=3,130 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.
"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

Legal in all cases 19%
Legal in most cases 36%
Illegal in most cases 25%
Illegal in all cases 17%
Unsure 3%

Gallup Poll. May 3-6, 2012. N=1,024 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.
"Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

Always legal 25%
Sometimes legal 52%
Always illegal 20%
Unsure 3%


Pew Research Center. April 4-15, 2012. N=1,494 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

Legal in all cases 23%
Legal in most cases 31%
Illegal in most cases 23%
Illegal in all cases 16%
Unsure/refused 7%

Any polling to support your position, Dave?

Didn't think so.

Do you even know what the word, "plurality" means?

Apparently you are getting your definition of plurality from the same dictionary used by rubato to define "affluent".

Has it occurred to you that a large number of Americans believe that a fetus is human, and yet still are willing to tolerate abortions FOR OTHERS?

That may well be true, if only it bore the slightest resemblance to what you said.

Every cogent human who was paying attention to the dustup about "legitimate" rape is aware that the actual discussion was about "legitimate" CLAIMS of rape, in a theoretical jurisdiction which would allow abortions only in cases of rape or incest.

Akin's claim was that pregnancy was a physical impossibility in cases of so-called "legitimate rape". IOW, he is saying that any women who claims to have become pregnant due to rape is lying about having been raped, your repeated attempts to sanitize his comments notwithstanding.

dgs49 wrote:in a theoretical jurisdiction which would allow abortions only in cases of rape or incest.

And again, the Republican Party platform calls for a ban on all abortions, with no exceptions for anybody. This shows a complete disdain for half of the population in this country from the highest levels of one of the two major political parties.

Mitty's 'moral flexibility' is illustrated by the difference between the party platform he approved of when he wanted the party's approval and the position he now has when running for office.


yrs,
rubato

dgs49 wrote:Dear Sue U: It is amazing that you took the time to respond in detail, but forgot to do any advance or concurrent thinking.

Really? I think it's amazing that you apparently have no comprehension of what comes dribbling out of your keyboard.

dgs49 wrote:(1) Your percentages are absolutely preposterous. Find a single reputable poll that backs your numbers.

Scooter has already cited several curent polls. I relied on results from the Gallup Poll in surveys from 1975 through the present. What contrary evidence do you have? So far, that would be -- none.

dgs49 wrote: Do you even know what the word, "plurality" means?

Yes, but you apparently don't. Because when 75-84% believe abortion should be legal, it is impossible to have a "plurality" for any other view.

dgs49 wrote: Has it occurred to you that a large number of Americans believe that a fetus is human, and yet still are willing to tolerate abortions FOR OTHERS?

Whether or not that is true, it is patently not what you wrote. Let's review. You wrote: "A large plurality of Americans . . . believe that an embryo/fetus is human, and has a right not to be killed in the womb." However, because an overwhelming majority of Americans in fact believe abortion should be legal, your assertion is simply wrong. Moreover, to the point raised by this thread, the politicians in question would seek to impose a total ban on abortion, which represents the view of only a 12-22% minority. And in fact, those who believe abortion should be available under any circumstance wthout any restriction at all have consistently outnumbered this rabid anti-abortion minority, ranging from about 20% to 34% of the population over the last 37 years.

dgs49 wrote:(2) Your "arguments" are totally unrelated to the second point. I wrote that the circumstances of conception were irrelevant to the humanity of the embryo. Your points have nothing to do with the circumstances of conception, but rather health issues (I suppose). Are you familiar with the concept of "relevance"?

Apparently, in addition to Torts and Con Law, you also skipped that class in law school where they taught about relevance. Again, what you actually wrote was: "[T]he EMBRYO's right to existence is not contingent on the circumstances of its creation. Just as a PERSON's right to exist is independent of that person's origins." You were obviously attempting to make an argument for an embryo's "right" to exist. Directly to that point, my response was that an embryo's "right" to exist is totally dependent on the circumstances of the woman in whom it resides, and it can have no "right" that supersedes the right of an actual autonomous person to control her own body.

dgs49 wrote:(3) Every cogent human who was paying attention to the dustup about "legitimate" rape is aware that the actual discussion was about "legitimate" CLAIMS of rape, in a theoretical jurisdiction which would allow abortions only in cases of rape or incest. But of course Liberals are not necessarily a part of the subgroup, "cogent humans," a fact which you have demonstrated with great clarity.

I will defer to Scooter's succinct and accurate assessment of this bit of bullshit.

dgs49 wrote:(4) Let's see, 75% of Americans believe in God...I claim that more than half believe that everything that happens is part of God's plan. Since I'm aware of what the concept of God is, I stand by what I wrote. You...not so much.

MajGenl.Meade has already put the lie to this in his post above.

dgs49 wrote:(5) The words, "this belief," referred to the aforementioned divine plan, not to whether a fetus is a "person." Did you bother to read my post before you started typing?

Do you bother to think before you type, or read what you wrote before hitting the submit button?

dgs49 wrote:(6) "...no such religious doctrine [prohibition of abortion?] can be properly imposed as a law of the purposefully secular government of this nation." Who told you that?

Tom Jefferson and Jimmy Madison. And the last 125 years of Constitutional jurisprudence.

dgs49 wrote:A prohibition against killing babies is a "religious doctrine"?

A fertilized egg is not a baby. A ball of cells is not a baby. A blastocyst is not a baby. An embryo is not a baby. It is only your religious doctrine that says they are. And keep your dogma out of my government.

dgs49 wrote:(6) "...no such religious doctrine [prohibition of abortion?] can be properly imposed as a law of the purposefully secular government of this nation." Who told you that?

Tom Jefferson and Jimmy Madison. And the last 125 years of Constitutional jurisprudence.

Sue--I'm not sure what you mean here; yes, I agree that a secular state should not impose religious beiefs by law on a populace, but are you saying those beliefs should have no seat at the table discussing laws to be enacted? I can't agree with that; our secular state has always had laws which were (at least primarily) inspired by religious/moral belifs, from the ban on prostitution and gambling to the enactment of relgious holidays (christmas, e.g.) as national ones. Yes, the religious viewpoint must not dictate secular policy, but, e.g., my opposition to capital punishment is based primarily on moral grounds (which stem back to my religious education and understanding)--and please, let's not turn this thread into one debating capital punishment, start a new one if you really want to discuss it. Like it or not (and I have a significant problem with this position sometimes as well), laws cannot be enacted solely on a utilitarian basis, morality also comes into play, and this includes religious viewpoints. I'm certain that Jefferson, Madison, and most previous USSC majoritites would have no problem with permitting this.