Indiana Senate Debate

[Expat]

https://www.facebook.com/HorningForSenate/posts/486947168005555

I think Andy's statement was pretty interesting given some of the ranting and raving above...

I should probably just shut up about Mourdock's Moment and let votes come my way without standing in the way. I have nothing to gain and at least a little to lose by speaking my mind.
But I'd be a lousy man and I wouldn't sleep tonight if I were to withhold my thoughts on this.
So, I must defend Mr. Mourdock, at least in this one little way.
You probably don't know how hard it is to stand up before cameras in this tense situation and try to say what you mean, and not say anything stupid. To do this with a clock ticking, and only a minute to be specific, clear and intelligible, is apparently impossible.
All of us slipped now and then.
God Knows that I certainly said things I wish I could retract, and didn't say much of what I'd meant to. In a minute, I could only formulate a thought and start to articulate it before the timekeeper's red STOP sign came up.
I want people to vote for me, of course. But I sure don't want anybody to vote for me based upon Mourdock's supposed gaffe for at least a couple of reasons:
1. That sort of hair-trigger reactive politics is a fair-sized chunk of flaw in human behavior that makes politics so inevitable, ugly and dangerous.
2. I understand what he meant, and...well...
I personally know women who'd been raped, and had abortions. While I don't personally know any women who'd been raped and bore the child, I've certainly heard plenty of stories of such women. And the only regrets I've heard are from the former group. I know many women who didn't have abortions were blessed beyond their hopes by their beautiful child – a child who was, after all, innocent of the brutality of her or his conception.
Everybody who knows me knows that my core philosophy of anti-aggression flows into a pro-life stance as well. While I insist upon constitutionality in my politics, and understand that most of the abortion debate should properly be argued at the state level, my personal feelings are far more like...
Mr. Mourdock's.
While I would not unconstitutionally craft federal policy in this matter, I do agree with Mr. Mourdock that, if you have any notion of a deity at all, then God's Mercy could be seen in the birth of a child. No matter what else may have happened up to that point.
I'm sorry if that offends people who might have come my way by way of Mourdock's words. But I don't want anybody to vote for me under false premises or hasty judgments.
I've got to stand on my principles; which means I've got to defend my principles all the time. No matter how those chips may fall.

 

[ghunter]

Is there a correct answer to any loaded question about abortion? Any answer given will tick off half the people who hear it. I understand wanting to protect the unborn. I suggest that the woman carry the baby to term. Let the child live and choose a better life. I have to admit that this is easy for me to say, since I don't have a rapist's child growing in my belly.

One thing I wish someone would say about the rape/ abortion question: Why are we giving our rapists short sentences, then throwing them back into circulation?

 

[rat-man]

I couldn't vote for Murdock just because he pronounces "Washington" as "WORSHington."

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

It's the headline story on yahoo news and was on the cafeteria tv at work. It's a national story.

It's also on the front page of bbc.co.uk with the article title of "Fury at US candidate rape comment" and RT.com has it on their front page slider as "GOP candidate's abortion gaffe: Pregnancy from rape "intended by God"...

While not quite as amazing as Akin's comments, it looks like this will draw a fair amount of attention.

With Pence and Romney and others tossing Mourdock under the bus, I don't see how this gets better soon for Mourdock.

https://www.facebook.com/HorningForSenate/posts/486947168005555

I think Andy's statement was pretty interesting given some of the ranting and raving above...

What's more amazing about Andy's statement is that he gives Mourdock (Andy's opponent in the race) the benefit of the doubt while Pence and Romney join in the finger wagging. How are the comments here any worse than Pence or Team Romney? Or are the republicans who have hung Mourdock out to dry in the clear on doing so because they are just trying to pander/secure votes by pretending to be centrists?

If you believe that Mourdock said nothing wrong, are you impressed with the example of leadership shown by Pence/Romney/others?

 

[Stickfight]

You probably don't know how hard it is to stand up before cameras in this tense situation and try to say what you mean, and not say anything stupid.

I don't care at all how hard it is. If it is too hard for someone, quit.

Conception is an easily observable, well studied and documented biological process. If we were all living in caves and hadn't figured out where babies come from maybe it would be acceptable to elect leaders who voodoo magic is involved. It isn't.

 

[ghuns]

We are all judged by the words we use. As for Horning's statement, it's noble. Taking the high road, if you will. If Mourdock wants to run with the big dogs he better bring his A-game. We have created a ruling class of career politicians in this country and their words are held to a higher standard than the bagger at your local grocery store. Just as a pro athlete is one play away from a career ending injury, every politician, who is not a Democrat, is one foot-to-mouth incident away from a job in the private sector. Not saying it's right or fair, just the way it is.

 

[R.G.Gray]

The good news is, Indiana voters will decide if Mourdock is to be our next Senator, not the rest of the country or the mainstream media.

 

[cqcn88]

It's interesting that I understood what he was saying. I wonder if this means I'm delusional, wicked and mentally ill? I have never understood murdering a child, which had nothing to do with the way he/she was conceived, over the actions of his/her father. This seems kind of backwards to me.

Me too. I'm not even a big republican fan and I understood what he was saying. There is more to communication than the exact words one says. It never even occurred to me that he was saying rape is the intention of God and anyone who can sit here and honestly claim that was what Mourdock was saying is either not a native english speaker or they are not very intelligent. Yeah I said it, you have to be a few bananas shy to truly believe Mourdock thinks rape is intended by God. The media is garbage. NPR this morning, they played the recording of Mourdock right up to the point where he was about to say the bit about rape and they stopped, the radio anchor finished for him... They can't actually let what he said be heard or everyone would realize they are full of crap and he didn't say what they are trying to make it sound like.

 

[SERparacord]

Mourdock by a landslide.

 

[indiucky]

Whether ones roots stem from Africa, Western Europe, Spain, or nearly anywhere else in the world there is a good chance that "Conception from Rape" is in each of our family trees.

One doesn't have to look hard at a Spaniard and not see a shade of Moor nor an Irishman without seeing a hint of the Norsemen. I would love to think all of these different strands of DNA came from Fairy Tale Romances (Your Great-Great-Great Grandpappy was just Sooooo Handsome with those blues eyes and that cool helmet with the cow horns on it I just knew he was the one!!!!) but reality gets in the way of fairy tales when it comes to the history of the world.

Here in America we have various religous view points. The great Stonewall Jackson had a notorious disregard for his own safety and his men were constantly looking out for him. He would never duck or flinch (and was eventually mistakenly shot by his own men). Once when confronted by his men regarding the disregard for his own safety Jackson stated "God already has my name on the bullet that will get me." I know there are many Atheists who would scoff at this line of thinking (Blessed be The Saints, Darwin, Hitchens, Mahar, and Dawkins) but many people adhere to it.

It is not unreasonable to think that there are politicans who are not Atheist who may also adhere to this line of thinking. What is interesting is seeing them persecuted for stating their religous beliefs. IMHO.

 

[ghuns]

Me too. I'm not even a big republican fan and I understood what he was saying. There is more to communication than the exact words one says. It never even occurred to me that he was saying rape is the intention of God and anyone who can sit here and honestly claim that was what Mourdock was saying is either not a native english speaker or they are not very intelligent. Yeah I said it, you have to be a few bananas shy to truly believe Mourdock thinks rape is intended by God. The media is garbage. NPR this morning, they played the recording of Mourdock right up to the point where he was about to say the bit about rape and they stopped, the radio anchor finished for him... They can't actually let what he said be heard or everyone would realize they are full of crap and he didn't say what they are trying to make it sound like.

And you must be an Uber-intelligent mind reader to know exactly what he meant, in spite of what he said. I will give you the benefit of the doubt as I have only read it in transcripts and not actually heard the audio. Maybe his tone, inflections, and cadence make it sound better than it looks on paper.
We all "hear" things subject to our own personal experiences and biases. My bias is that I think Mourdock is a jerk. I will judge him more harshly as a result. Another problem I have is ultra-religious people telling me what God's will is, but that's a debate we are forbidden from having round here.
As to my level of intelligence, well, opinions vary.

 

[jamil]

Romney distanced himself from Mourdock's comments. Does that mean Romney has no interest in honest politicians?

Mourdock said implied that those who see his statement any other way than just saying life is a gift from God are sick and twisting his words. Does that include Romney (and other republicans who have spoken out against Mourdock's words)?

First, I'm an agnostic. I don't favor legislation to make abortion illegal, so don't conclude that I'm taking this position because of religious agreement. It has more to do with the language.

It doesn't bother me that someone believes that his God creates life. Fine. Most people in the US think that on some level. I don't own the content of your belief. You do. So, it doesn't bother me, if someone believes that even in the case of rape, when a child is conceived, his or her God created that life. Fine, believe that all you want. It's your right.

However, if the person is saying, "even in the case of rape, God caused the rape to happen just so he could create a life from it", I find that offensive, because it sort of excuses the rape.

So the question I ask myself is, which way did Mourdock mean it?

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

In his statement to which noun does "it" refer? It's either "life", or "rape". If it's the latter, yeah, rape as "something god intended to happen" sounds pretty offensive. I could see why people would be upset with that. But because the context is God creating life, it is obvious the focus is the life created. That someone might believe the sentiment that life "is something god intended to happen" regardless of circumstances, is not all that newsworthy.

So, Romney. Yeah, now he must distance himself from Mourdock because Mourdock is now associated with narrative his opponents assigned. Not to distance himself makes it even easier for opponents to distort that than the original statement. Mourdock's political mistake was 1) giving more detail than the situation required, and 2) since he gave that detail, phrasing it ambiguously enough that makes distorting his words too easy.

 

[SERparacord]

I'd still take him over someone who voted for every stimulus/bailout there was.

 

[ghuns]

So the question I ask myself is, which way did Mourdock mean it?

In his statement to which noun does "it" refer? It's either "life", or "rape". If it's the latter, yeah, rape as "something god intended to happen" sounds pretty offensive. I could see why people would be upset with that. But because the context is God creating life, it is obvious the focus is the life created. That someone might believe the sentiment that life "is something god intended to happen" regardless of circumstances, is not all that newsworthy.

No matter which noun "it" refers to, the end result is the same. A woman was raped and is now pregnant. If you believe it was God's will for this life to be created, then you must believe that it was his will for the rape to occur.

BTW, it is in no way "religious persecution" to criticize this line of reasoning.

 

[hornadylnl]

https://www.facebook.com/HorningForSenate/posts/486947168005555

I think Andy's statement was pretty interesting given some of the ranting and raving above...

Imagine that. One of his political opponents goes to bat for him and his own party is throwing him under the bus.

 

[hornadylnl]

First, I'm an agnostic. I don't favor legislation to make abortion illegal, so don't conclude that I'm taking this position because of religious agreement. It has more to do with the language.

It doesn't bother me that someone believes that his God creates life. Fine. Most people in the US think that on some level. I don't own the content of your belief. You do. So, it doesn't bother me, if someone believes that even in the case of rape, when a child is conceived, his or her God created that life. Fine, believe that all you want. It's your right.

However, if the person is saying, "even in the case of rape, God caused the rape to happen just so he could create a life from it", I find that offensive, because it sort of excuses the rape.

So the question I ask myself is, which way did Mourdock mean it?

In his statement to which noun does "it" refer? It's either "life", or "rape". If it's the latter, yeah, rape as "something god intended to happen" sounds pretty offensive. I could see why people would be upset with that. But because the context is God creating life, it is obvious the focus is the life created. That someone might believe the sentiment that life "is something god intended to happen" regardless of circumstances, is not all that newsworthy.

So, Romney. Yeah, now he must distance himself from Mourdock because Mourdock is now associated with narrative his opponents assigned. Not to distance himself makes it even easier for opponents to distort that than the original statement. Mourdock's political mistake was 1) giving more detail than the situation required, and 2) since he gave that detail, phrasing it ambiguously enough that makes distorting his words too easy.

I have no doubt that he meant life and not rape. But if he's not any smarter than to open that can of worms in a national debate in a close, race, he's an idiot.

Donnely probably already has the commercials on air.

 

[jamil]

No matter which noun "it" refers to, the end result is the same. A woman was raped and is now pregnant. If you believe it was God's will for this life to be created, then you must believe that it was his will for the rape to occur.

BTW, it is in no way "religious persecution" to criticize this line of reasoning.

As a non-believer I disagree that the one belief must follow the other. It is inaccurate to impose the logic of your beliefs onto the beliefs of others. Many "free-will" christians would disagree with what you said.

In any case, I think you'd have to want to believe the most negative things about a person to believe the most negative meaning about what Mourdock said.

 

[jamil]

I have no doubt that he meant life and not rape. But if he's not any smarter than to open that can of worms in a national debate in a close, race, he's an idiot.

Donnely probably already has the commercials on air.

Mourdock isn't an idiot, generally. But yeah, that was politically stupid. He didn't need that kind of detail to answer the question.

 

[level.eleven]

. Many "free-will" christians would disagree with what you said.

Well then they would have to disagree with Murdock's statements. Melding free will and predestination/determinism is impossible. Read any of the refutations of Calvanism.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

First, I'm an agnostic. I don't favor legislation to make abortion illegal, so don't conclude that I'm taking this position because of religious agreement. It has more to do with the language.

It doesn't bother me that someone believes that his God creates life. Fine. Most people in the US think that on some level. I don't own the content of your belief. You do. So, it doesn't bother me, if someone believes that even in the case of rape, when a child is conceived, his or her God created that life. Fine, believe that all you want. It's your right.

However, if the person is saying, "even in the case of rape, God caused the rape to happen just so he could create a life from it", I find that offensive, because it sort of excuses the rape.

So the question I ask myself is, which way did Mourdock mean it?

In his statement to which noun does "it" refer? It's either "life", or "rape". If it's the latter, yeah, rape as "something god intended to happen" sounds pretty offensive. I could see why people would be upset with that. But because the context is God creating life, it is obvious the focus is the life created. That someone might believe the sentiment that life "is something god intended to happen" regardless of circumstances, is not all that newsworthy.

So, Romney. Yeah, now he must distance himself from Mourdock because Mourdock is now associated with narrative his opponents assigned. Not to distance himself makes it even easier for opponents to distort that than the original statement. Mourdock's political mistake was 1) giving more detail than the situation required, and 2) since he gave that detail, phrasing it ambiguously enough that makes distorting his words too easy.

Does Romney (or Pence or whoever) have to distance himself?

Why could they not have just said something like:

"While we may not agree with Mourdock on the idea of making abortion illegal in cases of incest and rape, we respect his beliefs and opinion. What we do not respect is our opponent's cheap attempt at taking a statement that was poorly crafted and trying to imply some insidious meaning to it in hopes of scoring cheap and easy points."

Instead, Team Romney and Indiana candidate for governor ran from it and joined their opponents. That leaves me with two options (one that you alluded to):

1. They believe that Mourdock meant that it is God's intention that people get raped.

2. They believe (as Mourdock's opponent Andrew Horning does) that Mourdock tripped over his tongue but (unlike Horning) demonized Mourdock for his comments so they could play to voters. Personally, I believe framing yourself in the narrative created by your opponents demonstrates a lack integrity and **** poor leadership.

The Akin comments were different because his statements were about science (and incorrect) as opposed to Mourdock's statements about faith. There are others who ran from Akin who are still supporting Mourdock.