How to silence Richard Mourdock

Post Reply New Topic

Excess demand for babies to adopt would put upward pressure on prices. If more people were willing to pay a sufficient amount of money, to compensate women for their time, effort and services, then more women would be breeding babies to sell to prospective adoptive parents.

I hate it when these Pro-Life Republicans call me on the phone and proudly declare themselves to be Pro-Life. I respond to them and ask them since they are Pro-Life does that mean I will get more welfare If I decide to keep the baby. They tell me NO and I slam the phone on them.

Yes and yes. People can sue the government under certain circumstances though suing on the federal level is VERY, very difficult.




Now I biffed about the preamble of the constitution. The bold text actually comes from the Declaration of Independence but the way the 5th amendment is interpreted it is regarded as protecting the right to life of innocent persons and for a government official to deny this to somebody is interpreted as an infringement on their rights. That is why American Law Enforcement cannot legally carry out extrajudicial executions against a murder suspect who cooperates without losing their jobs and possible criminal charges. Cops can only shoot a suspect and get away with it if they have reasonable fear that the suspect intends to kill them. But that is a whole nother kettle of fish and the fact that they may get away with it does not imply that it is necessarily legal.

The real question about abortion ethics is whether or not a human embryo can be regarded as a person under the law, not whether the US government is obliged to protect innocent life.

You know what? f**k it... Just keep arguing, guys...


I wish I would have been f*****g aborted so I wouldn't have to share my existence with these moronic earth creatures called humans.

You make it sound as if people just go in for an abortion willy-nilly, as if its no big deal. I've known women who have had an abortion - I assure you, none of them took that decision lightly, none of them were not emotionally traumatized to one degree or another by their decision, and from what I could tell, not one of them would ever want to have to be in a similar situation again.

When you say "unplanned accident that interferes with school or work", that's exactly the point - Now mom and maybe dad cannot focus on school or their career, and as a result they tend to be worse off economically (never mind having to take on the expense of raising a child) than they otherwise would be.



There's a couple of problems with this line of reasoning. First, its not as if orphanages are devoid of unwanted children today - despite this supposed overwhelming demand to adopt. This is true not just in the US, but in Africa, China, etc.

Second, we get back to exactly who owns a woman's body? In your scenario above, a woman is forced to use her body to play host to what will end up being someone else's child for 9 months (which, by the way, in and of itself tends to be disruptive to work and school).

We should replace orphanages with hippie communes.

Then cite your precedent. I have no doubt that people can sue--but I have grave doubts that anyone can successfully sue the government for a failure to protect a person's life on the basis of a general obligation, not expressly set out in statute or at Common Law.

I won't say you are wrong--but I will say that you haven't proved your case.



I will grant you that the Fifth Amendment does prevent government from imposing the death penalty on an individual without due process. That is abundantly clear. But that is a very different thing from a positive obligation on government to preserve life.

Why does government allow life support equipment to be unplugged? Why does government allow withholding of life-saving therapies? Why does government permit the use of deadly force in self-defence or the defence of property? These are all circumstances in which a government that was under a positive duty to protect life would be obliged to restrict.

And I disagree with your last paragraph--in part. Certainly, the positive duty is Inuyasha's lame argument--you've just supported its existence.

But I cannot agree that defining an embryo as a person with crystalised legal rights is determinative of the larger question. An embryo is clearly and unambiguously alive, human and distinct from its mother. Even if all of these aspects were brought together to betoken recognition as a legal person with crystalized rights, there is still a conflict of rights with the mother's right to security of the person. In that circumstance there is no hierarchy of rights that would guarantee that an embryo's right to life (were such a thing to exist) prevail over a mother's right to security of her person.

I have always acknowledge that a foetus is a human being, and that abortion extinguishes that human being's life. And in the face of that acknowledgement, I continue to support access to abortion on-demand up until the 20th week of gestational age. I view that wholly and entirely as a decision to be made by a woman, in consultation with her doctor. She may, in her absolute discretion, consult with the father, her family or anyone else, but ultimately the decision is hers.

Last edited by visagrunt on 30 Oct 2012, 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There's also the fact that if she was raped, there's that constant reminder for 9 months, if not longer. No, the child isn't at fault for the rape, but I don't think it's right for her to be FORCED to give up her body to the child of a rapist either.

I just thought of something else too. Just because an egg gets fertilized, that doesn't mean it gets implanted in the uterus. Sometimes they get flushed out with the period along with all the blood and everything else. So by the logic of a lot of people in this thread, technically in those cases, a woman aborted her pregnancy, even though it wasn't by choice whatsoever. How do you feel about that, and what does your god have to say about it?

That doesn't exuse all the things that the Republican Party has done in the past.

A lot of things that people say on Fox News are true. George Soros does support the Democrats. Unfortuantely the Republicans are supported by billionares too.

Fox News is trying to make the Republicans look bad but they are really just making democracy look bad.
"Democracy" is a system where the people with the most money control everything. That isn't freedom.

You sure did.



It says specifically "men." Not women, not boys, not zygotes, and not fetuses. Just men.
And, the signers quite specifically had in mind "Free White Men." A lot of them owned slaves, whom they could freely rape, and could sell their own children.




Ain't nuthin' there about protecting the right to life of innocent persons. And, nothing about abortion.


In some situations, a human embryo can be regarded as a person under the law. A person who assaults a woman and causes her to miscarry would be guilty of a crime akin to murder. But, you can't claim a tax deduction for a human embryo until after a live birth has occurred.

Most of it is garbage. It does keep persons of a certain intellectual level entertained.


The billionaires who support the Republicans just happen to be evil.


The Republicans are bad. Fox News actually tries to cover for them most of the time.

While that is a true statement, BOTH political parties are bad.

For a Fox News viewer, the world is divided between Good and Evil. "Conservatives", "Republicans" and Rupert Murdoch stand for all that is wholesome and awesome in the universe. "Liberals" and "Democrats" represent all that is rotten. There is no deviating from this basic chimeral story line, no matter what actually happens, nor where the truth truly lies.*


* I'm awaiting kudos for my clever play on words.

So are you trying to tell me that liberal democrats don't see themselves as good OR see conservative republicans as war mongering, evil, oppressive, controlling people? Both sides see each other as the good side and see the other side as the bad side.

If I may, here is a quote from Squall Leonhart of FF8: "Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just 2 sides holding different views."

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you on Fox News, but I see the same exact thing coming from both sides. Whatever the republicans say is evil, the democrats say is good, and vice versa.

Conservative Republicans certainly are as you described. Conservative Republicans themselves would agree that they fit your description. Perhaps they would choose specific terms that appeared on the surface to be more laudatory than that. But, that is them.



There really isn't anything as blatantly nauseating as Fox News. Pravda during the old USSR may come close.

Last edited by ArrantPariah on 31 Oct 2012, 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

By the way, there used to be some moderate Republicans, who would at least be willing to work with the Democrats on important issues. Mitt Romney's father would have been considered quite moderate.

There even used to be some liberal Republicans, and, dare I say, some Republicans who were quite progressive.

It all started to ravel away with President Harding, and came to a screeching halt with Romping Rabies.

Now, there is no such thing as a moderate Republican. They are all quite radical, and march in lock step, pretty much resembling a goose step.

"Obamacare" is basically a Republican plan. Now, the Repugs want nothing more than to tear it apart, and to bring America down with more deficits, lower taxes for the wealthy, and more military spending. One would think that, at some point, taxes for the wealthy would be low enough to satisfy everyone, and military spending would be enough to satiate everyone. But, no. Every election season, they want more tax cuts for the rich, more military spending, and much bigger deficits. This never seems to get old for them.