How to silence Richard Mourdock

Post Reply New Topic

The life of the fetus may be ordained from God but it is not the will of God to force a rape victim to carry the child to term. In these cases a surrogate Mother should be found and there should be plenty of volunteers from the Pro-life movement.

I don't understand how the mother's rights go out the window as soon as she is pregnant. The unborn child is a life, but it is dependent on the mother and she doesn't lose the right to control her own body because there is another life inside her. It's like her pregnancy takes away her personhood and she becomes a petri dish.
I can't believe someone would take away a woman's right to control her own body after she has already been violated this way by her rapist. What does Mourdock think women are?

I CAN believe it, especially when, as we speak there are survivors of rape being punished for their victimhood. There are lots of people that don't see us as fully human.

Taking funding away from his program would help. Though everyone is entitled to speak their mind (as long as it doesn't constitute a threat, "hate speech," a rule that has already seemed to have been discarded with the Supreme Court decision in support of vitriol-spewing hatemongers such as the Westboro Baptist Church or otherwise violate the law), that does not mean that they cannot be silenced by having private entities pull funding.

His election campaign, do you mean?

I'm not sure that we can consider Romney to have "distanced himself from the man" when Mitt has refused to withdraw his endorsement of "the man" even after the sick comment in question.

Its worse than that - in their eyes the mother's rights went out the window the moment the mother was born.

Consider what life would be like for women in if Republicans had their way on these issues:

Want to have sex? Yes? Great! No? Too bad for you. I mean, what, do you really think its your own body? Look at all the things society considers to be rape that some of us don't - marital rape? Hey, if she married him, she consented! Date rape? If she got drugged, its not like she said "no", now is it? Forced sex to help you overcome that little lesbian problem you've been having? Hey, its for your own good!

Want to prevent a pregnancy? Sorry, not allowed, we don't like birth control. Oh, and by the way, if you really were raped, your body would have rejected the pregnancy. So take that "I was raped! Boo Hoo!" s**t somewhere else!

Want to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Sorry, not allowed, we abhor abortion even if your life is in danger or if, by some extreme improbability, the child was conceived through our very narrow definition of rape and despite that your body didn't reject the pregnancy on its own, as it will usually do for any "legitimate" rape.

Want help raising the child born from the pregnancy that you wanted to avoid? Have your husband / boyfriend help. Of course, if he's not around because he's a deadbeat or because he got killed fighting in some unnecessary war that we started, too bad for you!

Ok, no man in the picture. Want help from society? Sorry, no, we're against welfare, you lazy-ass welfare-mom baby machine!

Oh, but you're willing to work. Cool. Need an education? Want job training? Oh, too bad, we don't want to help you with those things either.

Oh, so that means you and your child might end up in poverty, despite the fact neither you nor he/she did anything wrong? Too bad for you.

Think that, maybe, after all that, the least we could do for you now that you're working two jobs and raising a child by yourself would be to shift the tax burden just a little bit away from people who find themselves in your financial situation or similarly poor financial situations, and towards those who have more money than they or their heirs will ever be able to spend? Stop! We're laughing so hard we're crying in our 150 year old cognac!

By the way, we want to commend you on your bravery for having sex to begin with, because, I mean, with our policy of outlawing an abortion even if it were a medical certainty that you'd die if your pregnancy were carried to term, well, gee, when you had sex (you naughty, non-consenting girl, you!) you literally took your life into your own hands!

Hey, just one more thing before we go. We want to congratulate you on your daughter. She clearly has such a bright future ahead of her!

Last edited by ScrewyWabbit on 26 Oct 2012, 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ScrewyWabbit said it all.

What we have here is a left wing media smear. Murdoch was talking about the fact that the child in the womb is still a "child of god," like any other child, even though it was the result of rape.

The media twisted what he said to make it look like he was saying "God wanted women to be raped," when that wasn't what he was saying.

For reference:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4vpLzxiRpc[/youtube]

I'm aware of the fact what he said came out wrong, Mr. Mourdock had a Joe Biden moment and he said things wrong.

It isn't hard to figure out what he actually meant to say, people are just making a big deal because:
1. He's pro-life.
2. He's a Republican

I've got plenty to throw right back in people's face on this including a Democrat Congresswoman calling a baby a disease...

I think "came out wrong" is being somewhat generous, but it's more or less part of the self-serving drivel I expected to see.
Also, I didn't post the video for your benefit.

I personally don't think he was trying to say that God somehow wants rape to occur. That would of course be highly offensive if that's what he meant, but I don't think that was it.

What he does seem to be saying is that a pregnancy or a life resulting from rape is something that god wanted to occur, even if god did not want the rape itself to occur.

And, frankly, one is only slightly less bad than the other. Its offensive to think of god wanting women to get raped. But its also offensive to think of god wanting women who have been raped to not only have to endure that horrible experience, but also to have to carry within their body the child of a man who forced himself upon her. And, if Murdoch's belief's are to be fulfilled, on top of that having to carry the fetus to term and then have to go through the emotionally traumatic experience of either giving the infant up for adoption, or even worse, raising it and then suffering a daily reminder of the rape, probably for the rest of her life.

Bottom line is, I think you'd be hard pressed to find very many woman who if they knew they'd be raped one way or the other, would want a pregnancy to result from it. And certainly the way I chose to see god, I don't think a kind and just god would want that either.

Not hard at all.

A woman's rights don't go out the window when she gets pregnant, but the men's do. The man has absolutely no input on the scenario. If a woman wants to absolve herself of the responsibility of raising a child, so should a man. If it's yours to terminate, it's your to raise. There needs to be "choice" for men as well. A man should have the right to disown any unborn child, to absolve himself of any responsibility of it, just like the woman, and not be held in bondage to the woman's unilateral decision. Choice should work both ways. Why should only women have the right to be irresponsible?

I don't disagree with you, but what you've brought up is not relevant to this thread.