Indiana Senate Debate

[Blackhawk2001]

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.

Not if you have any theological instruction beyond "Sunday School". Treading on thin ice here, but Roman Catholic doctrine is that while God is Omnipotent and Omnipresent, he leaves us with our own will. Doctrine says He only wants what is best for us, but we have the capacity to do good or evil without His hindrance. Once a life is conceived - no matter how it happens - that life is separate from the circumstances of its conception.

Having heard Murdoch make his views known before this, I understood completely what he was saying, and he said it in a way that was understandable to anyone who has the least bit of knowledge about doctrine and the Pro-Life position on the subject. Leave it to the MSM to twist his - perfectly acceptable - words into a "story" and the Donnelly campaign - who should know better since Donnelly bills himself as a practicing Catholic piled on.

Give Andy Hornung accolades for his statement about the whole thing as well. HE wasn't confused by Murdoch's statement, either.

 

[jamil]

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.

Huh? Are you saying that free-will believers don't get to believe that God creates life? I've read Calvin, I've read his dissenters. That God creates life is a nearly universal belief among Evangelicals, even the non-Calvinist ones. Again, please don't impose the logic of your beliefs onto the beliefs of others. And please don't make this into a religious discussion. My post was about what Mourdock said, and what the context shows that he meant. To make it into something HE didn't mean is either a mistake, or intellectually dishonest.

 

[Trooper]

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.

That is because children born of rape or incest are evil and must be destroyed.

 

[ghuns]

And please don't make this into a religious discussion. My post was about what Mourdock said, and what the context shows that he meant. To make it into something HE didn't mean is either a mistake, or intellectually dishonest.

Richard Mourdock turned this into a religious discussion. We will be shut down way before we reach any agreement as to the validity of his comments.

Treading on thin ice here

You and me both...

Once a life is conceived - no matter how it happens - that life is separate from the circumstances of its conception.

I understand that is the position of the Catholic Church. And the Pope himself can try to explain it to every rape victim who ever has to make the decision, that doesn't make it right.

Look, I'm just poking around with a pointy stick and seeing who jumps. I don't like Mourdock, nothing he says is likely to change that. What Richard Mourdock said, meant, did, didn't say is mute. Perception is reality in today's politics. The perception that his words created is that he is a far right religious fanatic who's position on abortion is much more extreme than the average voter. For a politician, expounding too much on one's religious beliefs in a public setting, especially a political debate is foolish. Not saying it's a good thing, just how it is.

 

[Trooper]

I'm kind of shocked there was no thread about this yet...

Figured there were be more chatter about this debate since the race seems close.

I missed it. How did Andrew Horning do?

He did well. And this morning went to the defense of Murdock, expressing that he had similar beliefs. Nor does he want those to vote for him merely because of this event.

 

[jamil]

Richard Mourdock turned this into a religious discussion. We will be shut down way before we reach any agreement as to the validity of his comments.

His comments reflect his beliefs. Belief is neither valid, nor invalid. Though a belief has a truth value, that value is either knowable, or not. At least that's my belief.

And, this doesn't have to be a religious discussion to understand what he was saying. But I think you've nailed why it's playing the way it is to his opponents. If you hate him, why wouldn't you choose the worst narrative to believe?

I'm going to vote for Mourdock. I don't care for his social platform, but I like his fiscal platform a lot better than I like Donnelly's.

 

[level.eleven]

Huh? Are you saying that free-will believers don't get to believe that God creates life? I've read Calvin, I've read his dissenters. That God creates life is a nearly universal belief among Evangelicals, even the non-Calvinist ones. Again, please don't impose the logic of your beliefs onto the beliefs of others. And please don't make this into a religious discussion. My post was about what Mourdock said, and what the context shows that he meant. To make it into something HE didn't mean is either a mistake, or intellectually dishonest.

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

The logical conclusion from the exact words are predetermined rape. No imposition necessary. Logic exists in a singular form. There is no concept of competing logic. That specific sperm contacting that specific egg at that exact time - intentional, intended via rape. I contend that is a wicked position to present to a rape victim. Of course he had to walk that statement back.

The rest of conversation will likely lead to trouble.

 

[hornadylnl]

Lead story on the channel 13 5:00 news. Listening to mourdock for 30 seconds about put me to sleep.

 

[HICKMAN]

Horning sounded the best out of all of them.

Too bad more Hoosiers didn't see more of him a year ago.

 

[Shelly1582]

I don't think abortion should even be a subject of debates. The government should have no part in it. I do NOT believe in abortion. I also don't believe I have the right to force my beliefs upon someone else. We all have to try to make decisions that we can live with. It would take a very self righteous individual to tell an 11 year old little girl pregnant by her child molesting father, uncle, etc. that she had to put herself at further risk by carrying the pregnancy to term.

 

[foszoe]

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.

Yeah last thing we need is someone who stands on principles and says so. Better to remain in hiding!

 

[bwframe]

Mourdock will win if he doesn't waver. The only people talking about this are those who wouldn't have voted for him in the first place. Those that have nothing to run on but silly wording issues. You know, the "binder"/ "Romeysia" people.

This race isn't about Mourdock. It's about Harry Reid. Take your pick...

 

[level.eleven]

Are you willing to deny an adolescent rape victim being treated in an ER for her attack an abortifacient? These are the scenarios with which I struggle against the absolutist viewpoint.

 

[hornadylnl]

Mourdock will win if he doesn't waver. The only people talking about this are those who wouldn't have voted for him in the first place. Those that have nothing to run on but silly wording issues. You know, the "binder"/ "Romeysia" people.

This race isn't about Mourdock. It's about Harry Reid. Take your pick...

If the repubs actually gave us someone to vote for, voting against someone else wouldn't be an issue.

 

[bwframe]

If the repubs actually gave us someone to vote for, voting against someone else wouldn't be an issue.

You go ahead and take care of that next time.

 

[hornadylnl]

You go ahead and take care of that next time.

The repubs have made it quite clear that my kind are not welcome in their party. They can rot.

 

[bwframe]

The repubs have made it quite clear that my kind are not welcome in their party. They can rot.

Ah, gotcha. Well get your party going and get us someone to vote for.

 

[cqcn88]

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.

Ha, I didn't make any claims about my own intelligence. That been said I do understand english well enough understand what another english speaker is communicating in the majority of instances. I don't even need to argue. Please, just listen to the "damning evidence" and let me know what you think. I claim he does not believe rape is intended by God and as such would not have communicated this in the most important debate of his life.

 

[hornadylnl]

Ah, gotcha. Well get your party going and get us someone to vote for.

Zombies love the taste of rot.

 

[mrjarrell]

Ah, gotcha. Well get your party going and get us someone to vote for.

Already got one and he, unlike Mourdock, rocked his debate performance. Why are you choosing to waste your vote?