• Republican Richard Mourdock: God intends rape pregnancies

     

    Another Republican mess. Over to CBS:

     

     

    Richard Mourdock: Even pregnancy from rape something “God intended”

    In a Tuesday night debate with his Democratic rival and a Libertarian candidate for one of Indiana’s U.S. Senate seats, Republican candidate Richard Mourdock suggested that pregnancies resulting from rape are “something that God intended to happen,” despite the “horrible situation” from which they derived.

    Mourdock, a Tea Party-backed candidate who beat longtime moderate Senator Richard Lugar in the state’s Republican nominating contest earlier this year, expressed his view that “life begins at conception” and that he would only allow abortions in circumstances in which the mother’s life was in danger.

    “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said. “And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

    Democrats immediately pounced on his comments, and Donnelly — who is also pro-life but who supports exceptions for rape and incest — released a statement questioning the notion that God would “intend for rape to happen.”

    “The God I believe in and the God I know most Hoosiers believe in, does not intend for rape to happen — ever,” Donnelly said. “What Mr. Mourdock said is shocking, and it is stunning that he would be so disrespectful to survivors of rape.”

    Mourdock, seeking to clarify his comments in a press conference following the debate, said he had intended to say that “God creates life,” and that any interpretation of his comments to mean God “pre-ordained rape” were “sick” and “twisted.”

    “What I said was, in answering the question form my position of faith, I said I believe that God creates life. I believe that as wholly and as fully as I can believe it. That God creates life,” Mourdock said. “Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think that God pre-ordained rape? No, I don’t think that. That’s sick. Twisted. That’s not even close to what I said. What I said is that God creates life.”

    While to the right on Lugar with regard to issues relating both to reproductive rights and others, Mourdock’s stance on abortion is hardly an anomaly in the Republican party. His comments echo similar remarks made by former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, a staunch pro-life social conservative, while he was still in the midst of a bid for the White House.

    “I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you,” Santorum told CNN’s Piers Morgan in January. “We have to make the best of a bad situation.”

    At the GOP convention in Tampa this year, the party approved a platform with language calling for a constitutional amendment banning abortion. The language, which is the same as in the party’s 2004 and 2008 platform, did not provide exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

    Mourdock isn’t the first Republican Senate candidate this cycle to inspire headlines about comments relating to rape and abortion. Todd Akin, Missouri’s embattled Republican Senate candidate, was rebuked even by his own party when he suggested that pregnancies resulting from what he called“legitimate rape” were “really rare.”

    Akin’s comments were roundly decried by Democrats and Republicans alike, and a spokesperson for the Romney campaign said that Romney and Ryan “disagree”with Akin’s statement.

    Romney, who has endorsed Mourdock, recently appeared in a campaign video on behalf of Mourdock, and campaigned with him in Evansville, Indiana, on Aug. 4. Paul Ryan, who, like Mourdock, opposes all abortions except to save the life of the mother, appeared at an open press funder with him on Sept. 17. Romney opposes abortion with exceptions for the victims of rape and incest and if the life of the mother is at risk.

    In a statement released Tuesday night, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul said Mourdock’s remarks were not in line with Romney’s views.

    “Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views,” Saul said.

    Category: Politics

    Tags:

    Article by: Jonathan MS Pearce

    2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

    • Pingback: CONFIRMED: God is the asshole we always knew | No Cross No Crescent()

    • JohnM

      The type of explanations that people resort to, in order to deny “Evil god’s” exsistance…

    • Your god is quite evil JohnM

      1. God drowns the whole earth. In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and perhaps unicorns.
      Only a single family survives. In Matthew 24:37-42, gentle Jesus approves of this genocide and plans to repeat it when he returns.

      2. God kills half a million people.
      In 2 Chronicles 13:15-18, God helps the men of Judah kill 500,000 of their fellow Israelites.

      3. God slaughters all Egyptian firstborn.
      In Exodus 12:29, God the baby-killer slaughters all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn.

      4. God kills 14,000 people for complaining that God keeps killing them .
      In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.

      5. Genocide after genocide after genocide.
      In Joshua 6:20-21, God helps the Israelites destroy Jericho, killing “men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” In Deuteronomy 2:32-35, God has the Israelites kill everyone in Heshbon, including children. In Deuteronomy 3:3-7, God has the Israelites do the same to the people of Bashan. In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they take as spoils of war. In 1 Samuel 15:1-9, God tells the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites – men, women, children, infants, and their cattle – for something the Amalekites’ ancestors had done 400 years earlier.

      6. God kills 50,000 people for curiosity.
      In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant. (Newer cosmetic translations count only 70 deaths, but their text notes admit that the best and earliest manuscripts put the number at 50,070.)

      7. 3,000 Israelites killed for inventing a god.
      In Exodus 32, Moses has climbed Mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments. The Israelites are bored, so they invent a golden calf god. Moses comes back and God commands him: “Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.” About 3,000 people died.

      8. The Amorites destroyed by sword and by God’s rocks.
      In Joshua 10:10-11, God helps the Israelites slaughter the Amorites by sword, then finishes them off with rocks from the sky.

      9. God burns two cities to death.
      In Genesis 19:24, God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from the sky. Then God kills Lot’s wife for looking back at her burning home.

      10. God has 42 children mauled by bears.
      In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them. (Newer cosmetic translations say the bears “maul” the children, but the original Hebrew, baqa, means “to tear apart.”)

      11. A tribe slaughtered and their virgins raped for not showing up at roll call.
      In Judges 21:1-23, a tribe of Israelites misses roll call, so the other Israelites kill them all except for the virgins, which they take for themselves. Still not happy, they hide in vineyards and pounce on dancing women from Shiloh to take them for themselves.

      12. 3,000 crushed to death.
      In Judges 16:27-30, God gives Samson strength to bring down a building to crush 3,000 members of a rival tribe.

      13. A concubine raped and dismembered.
      In Judges 19:22-29, a mob demands to rape a godly master’s guest. The master offers his daughter and a concubine to them instead. They take the concubine and gang-raped her all night. The master finds her on his doorstep in the morning, cuts her into 12 pieces, and ships the pieces around the country.

      14. Child sacrifice.
      In Judges 11:30-39, Jephthah burns his daughter alive as a sacrificial offering for God’s favor in killing the Ammonites.

      15. God helps Samson kill 30 men because he lost a bet.
      In Judges 14:11-19, Samson loses a bet for 30 sets of clothes. The spirit of God comes upon him and he kills 30 men to steal their clothes and pay off the debt.

      16. God demands you kill your wife and children for worshiping other gods.
      In Deuteronomy 13:6-10, God commands that you must kill your wife, children, brother, and friend if they worship other gods.

      17. God incinerates 51 men to make a point.
      In 2 Kings 1:9-10, Elijah gets God to burn 51 men with fire from heaven to prove he is God.

      18. God kills a man for not impregnating his brother’s widow.
      In Genesis 38:9-10, God kills a man for refusing to impregnate his brother’s widow.

      19. God threatens forced cannibalism.
      In Leviticus 26:27-29 and Jeremiah 19:9, God threatens to punish the Israelites by making them eat their own children.

      20. The coming slaughter.
      According to Revelation 9:7-19, God’s got more evil coming. God will make horse-like locusts with human heads and scorpion tails, who torture people for 5 months. Then some angels will kill a third of the earth’s population. If he came today, that would be 2 billion people.

      • Andy_Schueler

        God will make horse-like locusts with human heads and scorpion tails, who torture people for 5 months.

        The book of revelation has got to be one of the weirdest pieces of literature that has ever been written. The author claimed that he was on the island of Patmos when he “heard a great voice” instructing him to write the book – an island that´s well known for hallucinogenic mushrooms…

      • JohnM

        John Grove:

        God drowns the whole earth. In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and perhaps unicorns. Only a single family survives. In Matthew 24:37-42, gentle Jesus approves of this genocide and plans to repeat it when he returns.

        Yes. God did judge the wicked sinful world before the flood. Just as this world will be judged.

        But I don’t see how that makes him evil.

        In my view, it makes him a Just God, that punish the wicked according to their actions.

        • Andy_Schueler

          Yes. God did judge the wicked sinful world before the flood. Just as this world will be judged.
          But I don’t see how that makes him evil.
          In my view, it makes him a Just God, that punish the wicked according to their actions.

          Assuming that the Noachian flood did indeed happen (which it didn´t this is quite literally as certain as the earth not being a flat disc):
          1. Causing the violent death of all animals except for 2 / 7 of each species was both completely unnecessary and downright vicious.
          2. Causing the violent death of small children and infants, who could not possibly have done anything wicked (yet) was both completely unnecessary and downright vicious.
          3. The “wickedness” of the world that God objected to was his creation, he created human beings of which he knew in advance that they would do things he´d object to, he could have avoided this by creating humans that would freely chose to follow his commands – he did not. If Genesis is true, God is like a mad scientist who creates a monster, knowing in advance that it would go on a murderous rampage, and who blames the monster for murdering people instead of acknowledging that he fucked up big time. 

    • JohnM

      Once again you are approaching the issues from your own pagan perspective, not the framework of Christianity. God is the giver of Life. He has every right to also take life. And God did not create this world. He created the garden of Eden. But we have been there, done that, like 5 times by now.

      • Andy_Schueler

        Once again you are approaching the issues from your own pagan perspective, not the framework of Christianity.

        Nope, my “pagan perspective” is that Genesis is an exceptionally silly fairy tale. I was actually looking at the story with the assumption that it is true, that is not the “pagan perspective”.

        God is the giver of Life. He has every right to also take life. 

        Well, if you believe that might makes right, then yes. Although I´ve asked you previously what you would think of a thought experiment, in which a scientist creates intelligent life in the lab – do you actually think that such a scientist, as the “giver of life” has every right to do whatever he wants with his creation ? For example torturing it with fire when his creation does things he objects to ? I would say that such a hypothetical scientist would be a sadistic monster, on par with Josef Mengele. What would you say ? 

        And God did not create this world. He created the garden of Eden.

        And if he was omniscient, he would have known exactly what Adam & Eve would do, and if he was omnipotent, he could have avoided it without violating anyone´s free will. But he didn´t.

        But we have been there, done that, like 5 times by now.

        Yup, and you´re still not getting it.

        • i have to concur with Andy, @disqus_VpcCfzNZjQ:disqus , it does not seem like you get the idea of divine foreknowledge and God actualising THIS world out of an infinite array of possible worlds, with full knowledge of all counterfactuals in all worlds.

      • SmilodonsRetreat

         Do you have the right to murder your own child?  Not “is it legal”, but do you, as the creator of the life of that child, have the right to remove that life?

        Now, what if God came down from on high and told you to sacrifice your child to him.  Right now.  Kill your child with this knife or I will torture you for eternity.  What do you do?

        • The problem also presupposes that rights (objectively) exist, which is highly doubtful.

          See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/oct/20/human-rights-exist

    • Pingback: Legitimate Gifts from a Loving God | Background Probability()

    • JohnM

      I really don’t see “the problem of foreknowledge”. When God looks into the future, he sees the free choices, that you and I will make. And God knowing the future, does not change the fact, that we’re the ones making the choices. In the end, everything works out for a greater good. The bad guys get their punishment. The good guys get their reward. And everyone rides into the sunset, with justice having been done.

      • Can you explain how God knowing the future – the one path of action (since an agent cannot do A and not A in the causal circumstance C) – allows for free will?

        I would like to see you explain philosophically how this works.

      • Andy_Schueler

        I really don’t see “the problem of foreknowledge”. When God looks into the future, he sees the free choices, that you and I will make. And God knowing the future, does not change the fact, that we’re the ones making the choices.

        But instead of creating Adam & Eve, of which he knew in advance that they would not obey his orders (at least not one particularly silly order about eating fruits from a magic tree) he could have easily created another couple of humans that would have freely chosen to obey his orders. 

        In the end, everything works out for a greater good. The bad guys get their punishment. The good guys get their reward. And everyone rides into the sunset, with justice having been done.

        1. There would be a much simpler solution: don´t create bad guys.
        2. It´s actually not about “good” or “bad” guys, it´s about believing in a ridiculous fairy tale or not, there is nothing “good” or “bad” about (not) believing in a fairy tale. 
        3. You have an extremely weird view of what “justice” is…  I´ll just repeat my previous question: 
        “What you would think of a thought experiment, in which a scientist creates intelligent life in the lab – do you actually think that such a scientist, as the “giver of life” has every right to do whatever he wants with his creation ? For example torturing it with fire when his creation does things he objects to ? I would say that such a hypothetical scientist would be a sadistic monster, on par with Josef Mengele. What would you say ? “

    • JohnM

      If you choose left, then that is what God has seen. If you choose right, then is what God has seen. That God has seen the choices of the future, does not change the fact, that it’s your choices, in the future, that he has seen.

      So in that way, the future is already fixed, by the choices that we are going to make. But its our choices, that fixes the future.

      • Andy_Schueler

        If you choose left, then that is what God has seen. If you choose right, then is what God has seen. That God has seen the choices of the future, does not change the fact, that it’s your choices, in the future, that he has seen.So in that way, the future is already fixed, by the choices that we are going to make. But its our choices, that fixes the future.

        Again, he knew what Adam & Eve would do and he could have created a different couple of humans who would have freely chosen to not eat the magic apple. But he didn´t. Which means that his creation was broken by design. 

      • You ned to explain how God can get around the grounding objections/ wiki:

        “The argument claims that there are no metaphysical grounds for the truthfulness of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. As Hugh J. McCann puts it, “Perhaps the most serious objection against it is that there does not appear to be any way God could come by such knowledge. Knowledge, as we have seen, is not merely a matter of conceiving a proposition and correctly believing it to be true. It requires justification: one must have good reasons for believing. But what justification could God have for believing the propositions that are supposed to constitute middle knowledge? The truth of subjunctives of freedom cannot be discerned a priori, for they are contingent. It is not a necessary truth that if placed in circumstances C, I will decide to attend the concert tonight. Nor can we allow that God might learn the truth of C from my actual behavior — that is, by observing that I actually do, in circumstances C, decide to attend the concert. For God could not make observations like this without also finding out what creative decisions he is actually going to make, which would destroy the whole purpose of middle knowledge.”[15] Thus, there are no “truth makers” that ground counterfactuals. Opponents to middle knowledge claim that the historical antecedent of any possible world does not determine the truthfulness of a counterfactual for a creature, if that creature is free in the libertarian sense.”

        What this means, essentially, is that in C, agent A cannot do X and not X as this would defy the law of non-contradiction.

        Therefore, if God knows this would happen in C, what grounds that truth value?

        In other words, there must be grounding reasons in order to differentiate what would happen from what would not happen.

        ie determinism.

        In a nutshell.

    • JohnM

       Andy_Schueler :

      But instead of creating Adam & Eve, of which he knew in advance that they would not obey his orders (at least not one particularly silly order about eating fruits from a magic tree) he could have easily created another couple of humans that would have freely chosen to obey his orders.

      That’s just an assertion. You have no clue if that’s even possible. Or if that’s compatible with the goal that God had in mind with his creation.

      There would be a much simpler solution: don´t create bad guys.

      That would be pre-judgement. Judging people, for something that they hadn’t done yet. In a sense, punishing them, for something that they were innocent of. That would be unjust.  It’s simply not an option to a Just God. Your objection is invalid.

      • Andy_Schueler

        That’s just an assertion. You have no clue if that’s even possible.

        If God is omnipotent, then it is possible by definition. Do you want to argue that God is not omnipotent.  

         

        Or if that’s compatible with the goal that God had in mind with his creation.

        It is of course possible that God simply enjoys torturing people, like the scientist in my thought experiment from a previous comment. Do you want to argue that God is not omnibenevolent ? 

        That would be pre-judgement.

        Nope. He created Adam & Eve, and by doing that instead of creating you & Ann Coulter (for example), he did not “pre-judge” anyone by creating a particular couple of humans instead of an arbitrary other couple. 

        Judging people, for something that they hadn’t done yet. In a sense, punishing them, for something that they were innocent of. That would be unjust.  It’s simply not an option to a Just God. Your objection is invalid.

        So you really think it is better to create Hitler and judge him afterwards instead of just not creating him ? (assuming of course that you knew exactly what Hitler would do in advance). 
        This is an absurd position. And I already explained to you why it is absurd with the Frankenstein thought experiment in another thread (which you never answered btw):
        If I could create a new life form (like Dr. Frankenstein) and knew in advance that it would go on a murderous rampage and that I would have to hunt it down before it could cause any more harm. Would it be an immoral prejudgment of mine to simply not create the monster ? 

        • JohnM

          Andy_Schueler:

          It is of course possible that God simply enjoys torturing people, like the scientist in my thought experiment from a previous comment. Do you want to argue that God is not omnibenevolent ?

          The existence of evil and suffering, says nothing about Gods nature. Even doctors cut and saw in panties, in an attempt to try and save them. It’s a matter of having a sufficient reason.

          So you really think it is better to create Hitler and judge him afterwards instead of just not creating him ?

          So you really think, that Hitler was some kind of finished packaged, that God dropped on earth?

          God Created Adam and Eve. And Adam and Eve gave birth to the rest of humanity. Some, the children of God. Some, the children of the Devil. And all of them, responsible for their all actions. Accountable to God. Not the other way around.

          If God is omnipotent, then it is possible by definition.

          No… there are limits to even omnipotent gods. For example creating round squares and married bachelors. You can’t just close your eyes and say “everything is possible”. You have to deal with it, in a serious manner.

          • Andy_Schueler

            The existence of evil and suffering, says nothing about Gods nature. Even doctors cut and saw in panties, in an attempt to try and save them. It’s a matter of having a sufficient reason.

            No, but the evil that God directly causes according to the Bible says a lot about his nature. And since you believe in a literal hell, what is the “sufficient reason” for eternal torture ? 

            So you really think, that Hitler was some kind of finished packaged, that God dropped on earth?

            If God was omniscient, he knew in advance everything that Hitler would do.

            No… there are limits to even omnipotent gods. For example creating round squares and married bachelors. You can’t just close your eyes and say “everything is possible”. You have to deal with it, in a serious manner.

            p1: God can create human beings with free will.
            p2: God is omniscient and knows everything about his creation in advance. 
            p3: There are potential human beings that would freely choose to obey all of Gods commands. 
            Conclusion from p1-3: God could easily create only those human beings that would freely choose to obey his commands.

    • JohnM

      How does God know the future?

      Well he looks into the future, to see what you are going to freely choose, in the future.

    • JohnM

      Andy_Schueler:

      No, but the evil that God directly causes according to the Bible says a lot about his nature.

      God brings destruction, but causes no evil. It’s holy wrath upon the wicked, also know as justice.

      Conclusion from p1-3: God could easily create only those human beings that would freely choose to obey his commands

      No. That would be pre judgement, which goes against the Character of God. Your objection is invalid. How many times do I have to say it?

      Go and watch Minority report. Maybe you’ll get it.

      • Andy_Schueler

        God brings destruction, but causes no evil. It’s holy wrath upon the wicked, also know as justice.

        So, all infants and small children who lived during Noah´s time were so “wicked” that the only “just” thing to do was violently drown them together with all animals except for 2 / 7 of each kind ? 
        Please explain this – what does a toddler have to do so that the only “just” response would be drowning him (and his pet hamster as well) ? 

        No. That would be pre judgement, which goes against the Character of God. Your objection is invalid. How many times do I have to say it?

        You are just repeating this “pre-judgment” nonsense ad nauseam and ignore all objections to it.
        So I´ll just quote myself:
        Objection 1:
        He created Adam & Eve, and by doing that instead of creating you & Ann Coulter (for example), he did not “pre-judge” anyone by creating a particular couple of humans instead of an arbitrary other couple. 
        Objection 2:
        This is an absurd position. And I already explained to you why it is absurd with the Frankenstein thought experiment in another thread (which you never answered btw):
        If I could create a new life form (like Dr. Frankenstein) and knew in advance that it would go on a murderous rampage and that I would have to hunt it down before it could cause any more harm, would it be an immoral prejudgment of mine to simply not create the monster ?

        We wouldn´t turn in circles if you would actually respond to objections instead of merely repeating the same statement over and over again.

    • [[Well he looks into the future, to see what you are going to freely choose, in the future.]]

      THIS is NOT what foreknowledge means in the Bible. This is typical Arminianism BS.

      “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be
      conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among
      many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also
      called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified,
      these He also glorified”

      Note the order of events in the passage. Foreknowledge—>predestination—>calling—>justification—>glorification.

      If God’s predestination is based on his foreknowledge of how people will
      respond to the outward call of the gospel, how is it that only some of
      the predestined are even called? It would demand that God predestines some who are not called. If some of the predestined are predestined without being called, then
      God would not be basing his predestination on a prior knowledge of their
      response to his call. They could have no response to a call they never
      receive. God cannot have foreknowledge of a person’s non-answer to a
      non-call.

      Think it through dude.

      • JohnM

         John Grove :

        If God’s predestination is…

        Predestination is Calvinism. A doctrine rejected by the majority of Christians.

        • That is NOT a rebuttal. It should be noted that just because most people believe something to be true doesn’t mean that it is (a fallacy sometimes called “argumentum ad populum”).

          [[Predestination is Calvinism]]

          Predestination IS Bible teaching.

    • JohnM

      You are just repeating this “pre-judgment” nonsense ad nauseam and ignore all objections to it.

      Yes… Because you objection is invalid.

      • Andy_Schueler

        Yes… Because you objection is invalid.

        I gave you two objections, you ignored both, and now you say they are invalid without giving any explanation for why that is – are you lying or lazy ? 

    • JohnM

      John Grove:

      Predestination IS Bible teaching.

      If I wanted an atheists opinion on that, I would have asked.

    • Are you here to discuss things or here for a monologue?