DiscussMormonism.com

With this whole Richard Mourdock thing in the news right now, this has become something of a political football.

While talking about abortion, he said that he believes life is a precious gift from God, begins at conception, etc. Then he says that "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Since that life is God's will, you shouldn't abort it, obviously. We know this is exactly what he meant, because he would ban abortion even in the case of pregnancy through rape, and the clip of his that's currently under fire is from his explanation and justification for this stance.

Now he's downplaying it, saying that he's being misunderstood, his words are being twisted, etc. He asks how anyone could take anything from his comments besides rape being horrible.

I do agree that he didn't necessarily mean that God intended the rape to happen. That's not what he said, anyway. So anyone saying Mourdock thinks God sometimes intends for a woman to be raped is indeed twisting his words. But he did say that when a woman gets pregnant through rape, God did in fact intend that pregnancy to occur. So I think he's splitting hairs here.

I mean, maybe God doesn't intend for the woman to be raped. But hey, she's being raped anyway, so why not take advantage of this fact and grant her the "gift" of a rape baby? Yeah, that's the ticket.

So some 15 year old child gets raped by her dad, uncle, neighbor, etc. and gets pregnant. Yeah, God wanted that to happen. Some married, 23 year old woman is jogging down a road and gets mugged and raped by some heroin addict and gets pregnant by him (not her own husband). Yeah, God wanted that to happen.

It's pretty despicable, but it's really the only logical conclusion he can reach, given that Republicans seem to have forgotten all about biology, and turned sex and pregnancy into magic that happens because God reaches his omnipotent hand down and makes it happen. If every pregnancy is a "gift of God" rather than the natural result of a human sperm being put into close proximity with a viable human egg in the fallopian tubes of a woman hormonally prepared to become pregnant, this is the kind of twisted logic that falls out of that.

Pray tell, you life-begins-at-conception types out there. If pregnancy is only ever a gift of God, rather than the natural result of biology, how is pregnancy through rape not likewise a "gift" from God?

Also, a closer consideration of the logic of these people reveals some pretty sharp inconsistencies. Romney, for instance, seems to support a ban on abortions except to save the life of the mother, or if the pregnancy occurs through rape or incest. If each pregnancy is a gift from God, and a complete human life that started at the instant of conception, then how is a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother not a gift of God? How is a pregnancy that occurs through rape or incest not a gift of God? Are we to reject the gifts of God in these circumstances, but required to accept them, gratefully, when it's convenient to us?

Anyhow, the Republicans are too close to the finish line in this election to dump Mourdock overboard wholesale like they tried to do with Rep. Akin. They're doubling down and trying to spin this as Democrats just trying to twist his words around to make him wrong for something he didn't actually mean. I think a close consideration of his words, and the intellectual framework from which his words emerged, show that he said exactly what he meant, and that what he said is repugnant to a great many voters, as it (IMHO) should be.

Sethbag wrote: I think a close consideration of his words, and the intellectual framework from which his words emerged, show that he said exactly what he meant, and that what he said is repugnant to a great many voters, as it (IMHO) should be.

I agree that it should be repugnant. This is definitely a hot button issue. I am a Pro-choice Republican. I do not think that a woman should go to jail because she has an abortion, and, the fact that rape and incest does occur in this world, there should be laws protecting women against, not only the violent act of rape, but of having to allow her body to go through the changes of pregnancy, and be reminded every day that the cause of a violent act is what is making her sick, and will cause her to go through the greatest amount of pain she will ever experience in her life during the delivery process. It turns a very joyous occasion into a nightmare, and, in my opinion, mocks what is normally viewed as a blessing.

Philosophically speaking, if God's omnipotent, isn't everything that happens his will?

Also, a closer consideration of the logic of these people reveals some pretty sharp inconsistencies. Romney, for instance, seems to support a ban on abortions except to save the life of the mother, or if the pregnancy occurs through rape or incest. If each pregnancy is a gift from God, and a complete human life that started at the instant of conception, then how is a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother not a gift of God? How is a pregnancy that occurs through rape or incest not a gift of God?

I've been pondering this, too.

What it says to me is that God is one of the worst abortionists out there. If women get pregnant only due to his will it stands to reason that women have miscarriages also due to his will. Estimates vary, but some say as many as 40-50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Around 15-25% of KNOWN pregnancies end in miscarriage.

Wiki shows us that there is a very big list of children who have gotten pregnant (from daddy, brother, boyfriend, etc). The risk to an 8 year old giving birth is huge! Why would God do that?

I guess we can also logically conclude that when a woman dies from complications of pregnancy or childbirth that that was God's will, too. So, if a woman's life is threatened by the pregnancy, maybe we should let her die and try to save the fetus. God's will and all...

And when a baby is born with some crazy awful disease or deformity, is that God's will? Spinabifida? Or any one of these horrendous defects? Why would God do that?

His ways are not our ways.

That God.... such a corker.

Spencer Kimball - "The Miracle of Forgiveness":

"Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."

Somebody get Mourdock this book because according to this dead Mormon Prophet, raped women are better off dead.

Infymus wrote:

Spencer Kimball in 'The Miracle of Forgiveness' wrote:Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."

Somebody get Mourdock this book because according to this dead Mormon Prophet, raped women are better off dead.

It gets even more despicable, but makes so much more "sense" too - this woman didn't die trying to prevent her rape, which makes her somewhat culpable (as per Spencer Kimball), so maybe God grants her the "gift" of a rape baby in order to give focus to her contemplation of her mistakes for the rest of her life*. Sort of like how LDS bishops grant sinners the "gift" of excommunication in order to give them the space to work out their repentance, and to grant a focus to their efforts to get back right with God.

The BS just gets deeper and deeper with these people.

Anyhow, I hope women voters think long and hard about this Richard Mourdock flap. It's very revealing of the mindset his side of the aisle has towards women, and their rational approach to biology and human ethics and morality.

*not saying Richard Mourdock would agree with this fuller explanation - I'm just piecing together a logical corollary to the views he did express, as a sort of melange between LDS traditionalist (ie: Kimball, McConkie, etc.) beliefs and the whole "rape babies are God's gift to the rape victim" mentality of their kindred spirits on the evangelical right wing.

If God intended the pregnancy, and rape was the only way for that pregnancy, why did God not will the rape?

3sheets2thewind wrote:If God intended the pregnancy, and rape was the only way for that pregnancy, why did God not will the rape?

It was the free will act of the rapist. God just knew it was going to happen, didn't stop it, and decided to take advantage of the rape to bestow the blessing of pregnancy on the victim. But don't blame God. Blame the rapist. God's only responsible for the pregnancy, not the rape.

But if the pregnancy only occurs because God wills it, then God is inflicting pregnancy and all that that entails on this rape victim. Since God hates single mothers, this seems very out of character. Isn't God supposed to only support families that have a loving mother and father, married to each other, to raise that child? Why the “F” is God sending babies to single mothers, some of who are still children themselves, who are impregnated by rape? This is just another way in which that whole belief system leads to absurd and ridiculous conclusions.

Mourdock is really being slammed on the airwaves here. Wonder if it will translate to voters or if low information voters will see the magic (R-Indiana) and vote for him anyway.

Also:

http://www.dayswithoutagoprapemention.com/