Republican Senate hopeful Richard Mourdock in rape row

Feb 2012
536
6
England
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.
On Wednesday, he told reporters 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.
"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 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.
The Indiana seat was held safely at the last election by veteran Senator Richard Lugar, but he was ousted by voters in a Republican primary in May.
Mr Mourdock is backed by conservative groups, including the Tea Party, and has pledged no compromise with Democrats if he is elected.
Romney press secretary Andrea Saul said on Wednesday: "Governor Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock, and Mr Mourdock's comments do not reflect Governor Romney's views.
"We disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest, but still support him."
The Romney campaign says his administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.
But Democrats have pounced on Mr Mourdock's comments.
The Democratic National Committee has released an ad reminding voters of Mr Romney's recent endorsement of Mr Mourdock.
Indiana party chairman Dan Parker, quoted by AFP news agency, said: "As a pro-life Catholic, I'm stunned and ashamed that Richard Mourdock believes God intended rape."
In August, Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin almost derailed his own campaign when he said that in cases of "legitimate" rape, "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down" and avert pregnancy.
At the time, Mr Romney and other senior Republicans urged Mr Akin to stand aside, but he refused, saying he had misspoken and asking to be forgiven.
Mr Akin lost millions of dollars of funding as a result of the gaffe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20054737
So he believes that God advocates rapists?
He might get into 'power' might he?
Sometimes I despair of politicians, any party, yours or ours.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
Okay, I'm going to have to jump in and point out he qualified that statement condemning the act of rape. Basically he was saying an abortion after rape was an unjust punishment for the child. If that 'legitimate rape' BS had never happened nobody (except the hardline pro-choice types) would be up in arms over his statement.
 
Feb 2012
536
6
England
Okay, I'm going to have to jump in and point out he qualified that statement condemning the act of rape. Basically he was saying an abortion after rape was an unjust punishment for the child. If that 'legitimate rape' BS had never happened nobody (except the hardline pro-choice types) would be up in arms over his statement.


So in other words he is against it. ie God gives life and life is sacred etc. Isnt this another case of religion intruding into politics and also that if those in power share the view then laws will reflect 'their' opinion?
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
So in other words he is against it. ie God gives life and life is sacred etc. Isnt this another case of religion intruding into politics and also that if those in power share the view then laws will reflect 'their' opinion?

Well stated, the separation of church and state in this country has become a bit grey.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
So in other words he is against it. ie God gives life and life is sacred etc. Isnt this another case of religion intruding into politics and also that if those in power share the view then laws will reflect 'their' opinion?

You could say that but I could (and do when appropriate) make his point in a secular way. Basically it boils down to the child being innocent yet facing execution. As I said before, if that 'legitimate rape' BS never happened, only the pro-life side (and only the most passionate of them) would be complaining about this. The guy flat out said he wasn't condoning rape when he made this comment and he was speaking to pro-lifers when he said it.
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
You could say that but I could (and do when appropriate) make his point in a secular way. Basically it boils down to the child being innocent yet facing execution. ...snip....

Versus the woman being innocent yet facing a possibly ruined life.

If she wants to birth and raise the child of the S.O.B. that raped her...that should be her choice, and if she does not, equally so.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
Versus the woman being innocent yet facing a possibly ruined life.

If she wants to birth and raise the child of the S.O.B. that raped her...that should be her choice, and if she does not, equally so.

But how is that different then any other pro-life vs. pro-choice debate? This guy isn't condoning rape, he's being consistent. ;)
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
But how is that different then any other pro-life vs. pro-choice debate? This guy isn't condoning rape, he's being consistent. ;)

That IS the Debate....in a nutshell.

One side decides for a person, the limits of what they can do with themselves.

The other side knows it has no right to do so.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
That IS the Debate....in a nutshell.

One side decides for a person, the limits of what they can do with another person.

The other side knows it has no right to do so.

Fixed that for you. If you're going to describe the sides, best to actually state their positions.
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
That IS the Debate....in a nutshell.

One side decides for a person, the limits of what they can do with themselves.

The other side knows it has no right to do so.

That is a pro choice opinion in a nutshell. The pro life argument would say you are not giving the baby a choice. so that is not the argument. I must side with David on this.

The rape argument is a complete red herring in this argument. Most aborted babies are aborted because there is some financial issue or social issue. I don't imagine the majority of aborted babies are aborted because they are the product of rape.

I think it is absurd to use such a red herring to argue pro choice. I am pro life but in the case of this circumstance I would say it should be okay to have an abortion.

Beside the notion that life should not be treated as if it was a malfunctioning organ, the argument for pro life is not that we wasn't to restrict peoples rights, that is absurd.
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
....snip....

I think it is absurd to use such a red herring to argue pro choice. I am pro life but in the case of this circumstance I would say it should be okay to have an abortion.

Um....You just used such a red herring to argue pro choice.

Beside the notion that life should not be treated as if it was a malfunctioning organ, the argument for pro life is not that we wasn't to restrict peoples rights, that is absurd.

The pro-life stance may not "Want" to restrict peoples rights, yet that is exactly what they would be doing. As for treating the fetus as a malfunctioning organ...I do not see the comparison.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
The pro-life stance may not "Want" to restrict peoples rights, yet that is exactly what they would be doing. As for treating the fetus as a malfunctioning organ...I do not see the comparison.

And the pro-life side want's to execute babies. Don't ty to sit on a moral high horse, it won't end well.
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
And the pro-life side want's to execute babies. Don't ty to sit on a moral high horse, it won't end well.

I think you mean the Pro-Choice side.

No one executes babies...the emotional hyperbole version of this argument does not lead to debate, as it tends to distract from the realities of abortion.

Just as most pregnancies do not involve rape, most abortions do not involve anything close to a Baby. Nevertheless, I do not agree with abortion for me and mine...that does not give me the right to force my opinion on others, anymore than allowing me to tell someone they cannot get a boob job.
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
The pro-life stance may not "Want" to restrict peoples rights, yet that is exactly what they would be doing. As for treating the fetus as a malfunctioning organ...I do not see the comparison.

Pro abortion if restricting the most basic right of the most innocent form of life. The right to exist. simply for the mothers choice.

It really all depends on your perspective. But you are incapable of seeing the other aside of the argument. I am very torn on this, I can see both sides, I don't know which side is right, both sides have very good points.

I say I an pro life because I couldn't kill a baby, but is it my place to tell others not to? Is just because the baby is not born reason to say it is not worth existing? But on the other hand is it right for people to tell women they must care for a baby they may not have intended on having?

I have not been swayed either way, and the pure arrogance on either side does little to sway me.

Try thinking for yourself rather than repeating propaganda talking points.
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
I think you mean the Pro-Choice side.

No one executes babies...the emotional hyperbole version of this argument does not lead to debate, as it tends to distract from the realities of abortion.

Just as most pregnancies do not involve rape, most abortions do not involve anything close to a Baby. Nevertheless, I do not agree with abortion for me and mine...that does not give me the right to force my opinion on others, anymore than allowing me to tell someone they cannot get a boob job.

Abortion is killing a baby in the womb, one may say it is terminating a fetus, but it is all jargan. It all means the same thing. One version of this phrase has an emotional stigma, being that we are emotional creatures it is valid, the other scrubs out emotion by using synonyms.

Fetus is a synonym for unborn baby
Terminate is a synonym for kill.

It's a war of words but I am not that foolish.
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
Pro abortion if restricting the most basic right of the most innocent form of life. The right to exist. simply for the mothers choice.

It really all depends on your perspective. But you are incapable of seeing the other aside of the argument. I am very torn on this, I can see both sides, I don't know which side is right, both sides have very good points.

I say I an pro life because I couldn't kill a baby, but is it my place to tell others not to? Is just because the baby is not born reason to say it is not worth existing? But on the other hand is it right for people to tell women they must care for a baby they may not have intended on having?

I have not been swayed either way, and the pure arrogance on either side does little to sway me.

Try thinking for yourself rather than repeating propaganda talking points.

Is there a reason you feel capable of not only evaluating my stance, but stating your opinion of it in such an unpleasant way?
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas
Is there a reason you feel capable of not only evaluating my stance, but stating your opinion of it in such an unpleasant way?

I am sorry you took that personally, it was an evaluation of your "opinion". It sounds just like the propaganda that I hear in support of in womb termination.

My opinion is my own, this posturing is not swaying me either. You stated a flawed argument. You seem to be of the mindset that only people on the pro life side want to restrict rights. But what of the most basic right? One we afford to lower life forms, the right to exist. A right, and an individual that has no voice.

Now one may say it is not my business that pregnant mothers terminate (kill) their fetuses (unborn babies) but perhaps it is, if one person doesn't value human life then perhaps they are not the proper arbitrator. But them again the unborn baby (fetus) in question is not depending on my body, I don't have the pain, our the responsibility to raise said child. So, I am perplexed.

Persuade me, explain why I should vote pro choice, don't use the garbage argument that was generated by politicians. Use common sense
 
May 2012
215
37
The motherland
Mourdock is a Tea Party candidate who defeated Lugar in the GOP primary in Indiana but Tea Party candidates tend to ruin their chances to win a race by making inappropriate comments as was the case with Christine O'Donnell and what Mourdock really meant was that abortion should not be condoned even for rape victims to emphasise his pro-life stance but he obviously misstated it by calling rape God's plan and perhaps he was too eager to prove his conservative credentials.
 
Last edited:
Top