Senate candidate Mourdock offends with rape comment
Barb ShellyAnother GOP Senate candidate is in hot water for an offensive comment about rape.
Indiana hopeful Richard Mourdock didn’t defy medical science the way Missouri candidate Todd Akin did with his “legitimate rape” remark. But Mourdock showed he is willing to impose his personal religious beliefs on rape victims.
At a debate Tuesday night, the tea party-backed candidate answered a question on whether abortion should be permitted in cases of rape or incest this way:
“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
There are plenty of women out there who are pretty sure that God did not intend them to get pregnant from a rape, and who want the choice of terminating that pregnancy.
That the question of permitting abortion following rape has even become an issue in Senate races shows the power of interest-group politics.
Anti-abortion groups have found numerous ways to restrict abortions over the years. They’ve convinced states to require parental consent for minors, to impose burdensome regulations on clinics and to require intrusive procedures before women are able to obtain an abortion. But it’s never enough, and now we’re witnessing the ultimate invasion of privacy – men like Akin and Mourdock grasping for reasons to prevent women from terminating pregnancies resulting from rape.
Mourdock’s remarks are awkward, to say the least, for Mitt Romney, who is appearing in ads in Indiana endorsing Mourdock. Romney has said he disagrees with Mourdock’s remarks but hasn’t yet asked Mourdock to pull the ads.
The problem for Romney is that his running mate, Paul Ryan, is on record supporting legislation that would ban all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. And, as candidates are finding out, it’s very hard to articulate a rationale to justify that position.
Mark Hastert
6 months, 3 weeks agoYou can’t accuse Mourdock, Akin, or Paul Ryan of not being frank about it….but wrong about it, yes.
Mark Robertson
6 months, 3 weeks agoWhat’s the problem? Why would Romney want Mourdock to pull his ads? As you mention, Paul Ryan also has a true pro-life stance of supporting life in virtually all cases. That’s the consistent position. It’s not hard at all “to articulate a rationale to justify that position.” Life is life, period. There are a lot of people though who are “imposing their religious beliefs” on women and men in the womb or nearly out of the womb, or in the case of Obama, totally out of the womb. And, having an abortion is much more traumatic than having a child conceived by rape. There are so many instances of women so thankful that they gave birth to their child conceived in rape. And there are thousands,(if not millions) of women who regret and are suffering the physical, psychological and spiritual consequences of killing their children.(See the group Silent No More.) Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
Mark Robertson
6 months, 3 weeks agoAnd Barb, your world is upside down. Defending life in the womb can be “offensive” to you, yet slaughtering that same child is evidently the norm, and not offensive to you. Thank you. Mark Roberson Independence
Mark Hastert
6 months, 3 weeks agoLet’s please honor the 1st amendment. Don’t impose your religious interpretation of when life begins on the rest of us. It’s a religious issue not universally held by all religions or even all Christians. So by all means believe what you wish, live your life accordingly and let others live by their own beliefs (or non-beliefs) too.
Phil Cardarella
6 months, 3 weeks agoThe reason that remarks like Akin’s and Mourdock’s are so significant is because it truly does open a window to their minds that the GOP would like to whitewash over.
You see, I doubt ther are any folks who are “pro-abortion”. Those of us who feel that it should be a woman’s choice, not a crime for which she and her doctor can go to prison consider it to be a serious decision. We think it is a decision to be made by the woman involved, not a bunch of legislators.
But, the guys who call themselves “pro-life” do not wish to argue their point. They want to use cops and guns and prisons to impose their view.
And, their wiew has been getting nuttier and nuttier. When you say that a person — for purposes of the law — begins at conception (as Paul Ryan and the GOP plaqtform hold), you are saying that a single-celled fertilized egg has superior rights to the woman whose body is involved. You are not only saying that abortion must be criminal EVEN for rape and incest, but also banning the Morning After Pill and nearly all forms of effective birth control other than the condom.
These people are not outliers. They ARE the post-modern GOP.
Now, guys like Romney don’t really care about this. They would happily sacrifice toddlers on the alter of Baal if that were necessary to keep their taxes low. But, they are also cynically willing to turn over the women of America to the American Ayatollahs to achieve that goal.
Romney’s mother — a pricipled, pro-choice Republican — would be so proud. Not.
George Hunsucker
Northland
6 months, 3 weeks agoLet’s see who wins IN libs…. hint, it is not you libs…..
George Hunsucker
Northland
6 months, 3 weeks agoWhere are all the posts on how the big 0 lied to the American people about Benghazi-gate? I thought you libs were all for transparency and honesty in government?
OH, my bad, I forgot this was jimmy II doing the lying, never mind libs….
Mark Hastert
6 months, 3 weeks agoLet me see if I can follow Mourdock’s reasoning. If the pregnancy was God’s will was the rape God’s will too? Since there was a pregnancy was it a legitimate rape? If it wasn’t a legitimate rape than should the rapist go free? After all he was doing God’s will? Somebody call Todd Akin and Paul Ryan to ‘splain it all.
Johnathon Busby
6 months, 3 weeks agoThat’s the socially conservative movement; they want to ensure you have no choice in your own body. They deny there’s such a thing as legitimate rape (see Akin), suggesting women’s bodies can fend off such a pregnancy. They deny health of the mother, as Joe (forget last name) recently claimed. In short, social conservatives want to control your decisions, because they don’t think you can make your own choices.
But wait, there’s more! As they mandate your sexual activities and reproductive decisions, the other side of their forked tongues spill lies about small government and minimum interference in the lives of private citizens!
Social conservatives; an utterly worthless batch of hypocrites.
Johnathon Busby
6 months, 3 weeks agoHeck, by Mourdock’s reasoning, it must be God’s will when a child is molested. After all, it happened, and if it wasn’t God’s will, God would have prevented it. Sick people, social conservatives.
JR Beillenhouser
6 months, 3 weeks agoSo Johnathon, how do you then explain Obamacare or Michelles food for public schools, or 16 oz slurpees in NY city, or any assortment of laws put forth by liberals to control what people can eat, drink, say, etc,
The real party that doesn’t want to let you have a choice with your body is the Dems. You libs cry and complain about social conservatives who from what I see want to control one decision, that is totally free access to abortions at anytime in a pregnancy. And why would that be?…because that fetus is a human as well, just in an early form. It is not cut and dry as you seem to think it is. Abortion involves two humans, not one, and one cannot speak for themselves.
As far as sexual activities or reproductive decisions that have nothing to do with abortion, please tell me one bit of legislation put forward by Congress that deals with taking away contraception or limits sexual activities? This is your chance, put up now or shut up. (And the Health Mandate has nothing to do with this as contraception is readily available, the only question is who pays for it). Well, I won’t hear from you about that, because there aren’t any.
Now on the other hand, for someone who claims to really be concerned about choice and what you can do with your body, you really have no problem with the govt knowing everything about you, determining what care you are to receive or not receive, what you can drink. You might like big brother watching over you, but social conservatives don’t.
So, if we had a scorecard it would look like this: Social Conservatives want limits on abortion and government, Liberals want no limits on abortion and government. And who are the stupid ones? Who are the ones who are worthless hypocrites?
Now, it is obvious that abortion is a hot topic, and frankly is worshipped like a god by liberals. I can even understand your argument regarding it, I don’t agree with it, but I get it. What I don’t get is this idea that social conservatives want to control the sexual activities of the population. That is nothing but hyperbole. Then you even take it a step further and claim that they want to control other’s lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. That argument is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black.
Mark Hastert
6 months, 3 weeks agoTell you what. You conservatives can have all the 48 oz slurpys you want. Just honor the 1st amendment and get your religious beliefs out of everybody’s face. Believe what you want, practice your faith but don’t try to legislate your religion into the lives of everyone else. Don’t use your freedoms to infringe on mine.
Johnathon Busby
6 months, 3 weeks agoI didn’t bring up NY’s ban on big drinks.
As for teh conservative need to control the human sexual activity, there are still 3 states where sodomy is illegal (including Ks).
My claim isn’t that one side really loves individual choice; but I cannot stand, cannot abide, when the social conservatives lie through their teeth and claim they stand for a minimum of government while mandating rape via ultrasound want, as in tx.
So yes. Social conservatives represent the very height being a hypocrite. They lie about individual choices and freedoms, then force an ultrasound up you “for your own good”. Social conservatives are, indeed, sick hypocrites.
Johnathon Busby
6 months, 3 weeks ago1) Exactly. YOU brought it up. I’m not arguing for Bloomberg.
2) Because social conservatives made those laws, and social conservatives have stopped any and all effort to remove those laws.
3) Don’t think I made a claim that congress was trying to restrict sex, I stated the fact that social conservatives would put their views into law if the good people of the world are fooled into letting them.
JR Beillenhouser
6 months, 3 weeks agoAs noted, liberals create laws to take away freedom.
Those laws, like many on the books, are not even enforced. (See Obama about the non enforcement of laws)
“In short, social conservatives want to control your decisions, because they don’t think you can make your own choices.
But wait, there’s more! As they mandate your sexual activities and reproductive decisions, the other side of their forked tongues spill lies about small government and minimum interference in the lives of private citizens!”
You did. And I asked for specific legislation that has been proposed or was pending to provide facts. You provided none.
JR Beillenhouser
6 months, 3 weeks agoAlso -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SodomylawsintheUnited_States
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/04/map-has-your-state-banned-sodomy
Just to show that you have a problem with facts, as in you just make up whatever suits you.
Mark Hastert
6 months, 3 weeks agoOur conservative friends must have been really good in Kindergarten. cut-paste cut-paste, cut-paste.
Practice your religion your way. I will honor that. Please honor other’s.