Pro-life vid of the day: Pro-life politician’s rape comment wildly and purposefully distorted
by LauraLoo and Kelli
During last night’s GOP Senate debate, Richard Mourdock said that the only abortion exception he believes in is to save the life of the mother. But it is his comments on pregnancies as a result of rape that have caused controversy.
Here are Mourdock’s comments, as quoted by FoxCarolina.com:
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.
After his comments were twisted by the liberal media and opportunistic politicians, Mourdock clarified:
Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don’t think that,” said Mourdock. “Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that’s not even close to what I said.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5n1KzTVXuA[/youtube]
I don’t believe it is God’s will for a woman to be raped, but I do believe He can take evil in this sin-sick world and turn it into something good.
Mitt Romney has already come out to say he disagrees with Mourdock’s remarks.
From an NRO article entitled, “The highjacking of Richard Mourdock”:
Nonetheless, it was clear what he was saying. For anyone possessed of even a passing familiarity with the argument against rape and incest exceptions, his point should not have been difficult to grasp. (Therein, one suspects, lies the problem.) To wit: If an unborn child is indeed a life, then how it became one – however ghastly that was – is rendered irrelevant. This position could be summed up by saying that “life is life is life,” and that its sanctity cannot be diminished by the circumstances of its creation. There are myriad philosophical and moral arguments to be offered on this question, but Richard Mourdock has made no secret about the position he takes. This is not news, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
Your thoughts?
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: 89 WLS Chicago]

Obama’s raping of women and nations is legitimate, and horrific.
• Ecuador – abortion was legalized after his visit
• Columbia – abortion was legalized after his visit.
• Mexico-Installing first Ever Planned Parenthood under the mantle of OLG Tilma, in Mexico City-an outrage. Click link to see a photo.
• Forcing Abortion illegally into Ireland, a country that has vigilantly and repeatedly defended it’s sovereign national right to be abortion free.
• Forcing Class One Carcinogens in the form of Birth control onto adult women and young young, voiding our Right To Know of the deadly effects of such said drugs, and of the death toll these drugs have had by causing, breast liver and ovarian cancer over the past 40 years.
• Changing the branding of the Breast Cancer pastel pink ribbon to the shade of the Planned Parenthood Fuschia pink which is also the same color as vicotias secret neon pink, tricking young women and giurls into thinking chemical birth control can allow for the ‘safe’ practice of recreational sex, and that is it liberating and not the deadly and enslaving practice that it is.
Obama is not a superhero. He is not a knight in Shining armor. Romney is.
Obama is a pimp. And Cecil Richards is a madame and they are both merchants of death.
Here is what I had to say about this….
http://prolifeintn.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-real-question-in-debate-should-be.html
I think I will send a another donation to Mourdock’s campaign today.
I sent not a dime to the Romney campaign because he threw Todd Akin under the bus. Now we see the same treatment of Richard Mourdock.
The Republican establishment leadership showed me their lack of gonads one too many times, and now I have no use for the party affiliation.
Romney’s response to Mourdock is expected. The only reason I will vote for Romney is to get rid of Obama, who is crazy for abortion.
Hopefully Mourdock will continue to stick to his guns with respect to this statement. A pregnancy from rape can produce as big a gift as any other kind of unplanned pregnancy.
Why have people become so offended by the idea that God decides the life and death matters?
The failed control freaks will be identifiable by their reaction to Mourdock’s statement.
Ugh. No matter what Romney might have said in response to this, it would have hurt him, but I wish he hadn’t so quickly publicly disagreed. Just like he did with Akin, Romney was way to quick to condemn Mourdock.
I wish he’d take the chance to clarify and stop the propaganda.
It was never going to be anything but a lose-lose with today’s media bias and hysterical feminism.
God’s plan is for Mourdock to lose.
Unlike Akin, I was proud to just donate to Mr. Mourdock. What a sad commentary on society when saying every human life is a gift from God is a scandal.
What Mourdock said was ambiguous – the “it” in the phrase “it is something that God intended to happen” refers to the life formed and not to rape. I’m just saddened that this statement was distorted by the media.
I just talked to another rape victim this morning who stated she had a Mourdock sign in her yard. She is now no longer voting for him.
then perhaps you should dissuade her from doing so, rape victim, since he obviously didn’t mean that he believes rape to be ordained by God, but that he believes new human lives are created by God, and changing your vote over someone’s words being twisted and used against them is foolish.
Mourdock’s words speak loudly and clearly. His words are not being “twisted”.
But, considering your first two comments on this thread, I doubt the veracity of your claim, anyway.
They speak loudly and clearly, alright.
”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.”
LIFE is what was intended to happen. LIFE. Not the rape itself. But I’d wager that’s not even really important to you, rape victim. You sound as if you’re lashing out at unrelated parties because of past actions, rape victim. So, I doubt you’re sympathetic to anyone’s Pro-Life position, anyway.
I think you also doubt my veracity of being raped.
No, I don’t. As someone who’s been raped herself, I’d never do such a thing. But I’ll take your attempt at a change of subject as a concession. Thanks for that.
OMG…if I have to have Joe Donnelly as a Senator after he got into office by proclaiming to be pro-life I’m going to be sick. He hobknobbed with my parish’s KofC and promised priests he would never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Just recently he said he was voting Obama. If Catholics would just consistantly vote prolife it would take two, maybe three election cycles and the parties would come back into balance in all other areas. LIFE is the moderating issue that protects from either extreme!
Wow, lot of pain in those few keystrokes. X, I’m so sorry, I didn’t know you had that unfortunate experience. Me too. More than 20 years ago. With that amount of time behind me, I can say to other women (and men) that it gets less painful to live with. The perp was in my social group and I cowardly didn’t press charges. He went after another gal in our social group and was finally arrested on the spot. I always felt bad because a friend of both us gals advised me in the most unpleasant fashion not to bother persuing the case legally. So, I hold her partly responsible for her friend being in danger because the second time he attacked, he brought a gun. Yep, lots of layers of unpleasantness there.
However, if a child is conceived in such a terrible situation, even though most people might jump quickly to the conclusion that abortion will fix it so the victim doesn’t have to be reminded, let’s be real.
Victim, are you not already reminded? Aren’t you reminded all the time by the details of daily life that crop up? Is the death of one innocent child going to make all that pain go away? It doesn’t, does it? It’s not the child’s fault. No matter how awful the perp is, how much HE deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law, the victim is not going to heal faster because of an abortion. Does an abortion make you more trusting? Does an abortion help you sleep better at night? Does an abortion make your friends and family more understanding? No. No. No. So what good is it to kill an innocent child?
What we need in this world is less PREGNANCY SHAMING. If a victim of assault decides to carry her child to term, everyone around her should just be helpful. Nobody should say, “Ewww, I could never do that..” Nobody should say, “Ewww, isn’t that fetus a creepy reminder?” I’m sorry for the pain of other victims of assault, but I’m more sorry that Rebecca Kiesling has to reveal her painful family history so that other children aren’t killed in utero. I hope our society can spend more time holding the perp accountable and less time pushing victims to abort their children.
Should the rapist have visitation rights to the child conceived in rape? Should the rapist pay child support?
ninek,
My rapist was my ex. He’s no longer in my life, but his two children are. Are they some sort of monsters that deserved death? No. They’re MY children.
Victim,
Rebecca Kiesling is a now-grown child who was conceived in rape. She is Pro-Life, like we are, and she is a lawyer. She is currently working to make sure that rapists don’t have rights to the children they create. Children who, by the way, are just as much victims of their father’s actions as their mothers are.
rape victim:
Over the years we have read about many people conceived in rape who were joyful that their mothers brought them into the world. This and nothing else is the context of Mourdock’s position. The fact that God can bring good out of an evil situation does not mean that God endorses evil.
The media’s obsession with rape-related abortion is really astonishing. A ban on abortion for rape has a zero percent chance of ever happening, and yet the media constantly wants to ask candidates about it. The purpose, of course, is rather obvious. The questions are asked in hope that someone like Akin or Mourdock will say something inelegant, and give voters like rape victim on this thread reason for outrage.
What’s baffling is why no one ever calls out the media for their wholly cynical exploitation of rape for political purposes. Why aren’t more rape victims angry that the media treats their trauma as nothing more than an easy vehicle to score cheap political points with voters?
rape victim, I’m sorry for what you’ve been through.
It might help to understand Mourdock’s comments to think of a less personal analogy. I know many people who suffered a miscarriage only to conceive, and bear, another child soon after. Soon enough after that the second pregnancy would have been impossible had the first continued. These people almost inevitably feel blessed and feel that the second pregnancy is a gift, and on occasion feel almost scared to think that they were so close to not having this specific child they have, but also paradoxically do not feel that the gift of the second pregnancy “justifies” or disregards the heartbreak of losing the first.
Likewise, I left college to care for my mother when she had cancer. Doing that changed the entire course of my life – I entered a different career than intended, moved to a different city than expected; I met and fell in love with someone I’d never have met had I stayed in college. My job, relationship, and life are awesome but that doesn’t mean that my mom having cancer was awesome. That part was horrible and awful, something I wish no one ever had to go through.
Rape is terrible. Life is not.
rape victim is an interesting troll.
Only a foolish person would believe that any Christian American could think that rape – or any violence against the innocent – is “God’s will.” (Radical muslims and their “honor rape” are a problem that is well beyond our scope here.)
And only a truly evil person would torture a good man’s name by insisting that he believes rape is God’s will.
But there are a lot of evil and foolish people in the world, so this story gets attention when it deserves only ridicule.
This is similar to the second presidential debate, when Romney explained how he searched diligently for qualified women to staff his Cabinet, and was fortunate to receive binders full of resumes. The attempt to turn “binders of women” into an insult was laughably lame.
So is this.
Rape related abortion just reminds me of the kind of thing that terrorists try to achieve when they use violence and fear to lord over their victims. It just seams that a rapist would take great pleasure from the fact that not only did they treat their victim like disposable tissue, but that their vicim was beaten into treating another person like disposable tissue.
That is what terrorists do. They tell us we are disposable. They are the same as rapists. If we agree that the defenseless are disposable and repeat their error, what does that make us?
You know, I think this comment is so much different than Akin’s. But it just goes to show that you can’t win in this climate of media attack dogs ready to pounce at the slightest provocation.
Mourdock said what he was supposed to – he focused on how the life of the child is always precious, and that the life shouldn’t be punished due to sins of the father. But apparently our culture has sunk so low that pointing out of the beauty of life, despite the circumstances of conception, is some kind of horrifying scandal. How very tragic. I only wish we could celebrate lives, new and old, and not condemn to death those weakest among us just because they were conceived in less than perfect circumstances. After all, so many beautiful people today, many of whom have had a profound impact on my life and the lives of countless others, were conceived in less than desirable circumstances.
I am not a troll………….I am a rape victim. I have been violated and my soul has been ripped to shreds.
A woman’s chances of getting raped decrease dramatically when she turns 50. But her chances of being murdered if she is raped go up dramatically.
Are rapists more apt to let the victim live if there is at least the possibility they have impregnated her?
So the mass media sensationalizes this stuff, but didn’t bat an eye when abortion proponents equated obstetric ultrasound with rape (or, in some cases, joined in on the fun). I’m really sick of the double standards.
rape victim says:
October 24, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Should the rapist have visitation rights to the child conceived in rape? Should the rapist pay child support?
(Denise) Rapists can be legally forced to pay child support.
Visitation rights are a fuzzier subject. I read of a rape victim who was raising the baby of the attack and didn’t want her real name or picture used in an article because her lawyer wasn’t able to assure her that he had no legal right to visitation. Of course, the law could compel child support and deny legal visitation in such circumstances.
Visitation should be decided on a case by case basis. For example, what if a rapist had a brain tumor at the time of the crime, but if he’d been healthy, he wouldn’t have committed the crime (stick with me, not as lame as the siamese violinist). If his doctors could prove he had no malice and the victim and her family would permit it, I can see a hypothetical situation where visitation could be granted.
However, I think in most cases the father’s rights would and should be terminated (his rights, not the child’s life!). Marital rape would probably be very sticky, especially if the new child has older siblings. Of course, a closed adoption could solve that problem.
Also, if abortion was deemed legal because of a woman’s right to medical privacy, why aren’t feminists simply using that privacy as a reason to prevent the perp from even knowing he’s become a father??? Why push for abortion when what the mother really needs is privacy and support??? Why? Because when “staunch” feminists use rape as a political tool, they prove that they are guilty of not caring about victims of assault except in so far as those victims are useful to forward their political agenda.
Ninek, I would say, by committing rape and forgoing the mother’s consent, the rapist forfeits any fatherly rights he would otherwise have. If the mother wants to allow visitation, fine. But he does not have the right to visitation.
ninek: Also, if abortion was deemed legal because of a woman’s right to medical privacy, why aren’t feminists simply using that privacy as a reason to prevent the perp from even knowing he’s become a father???
(Denise) If he can do arithmetic (and that is an IF as many rapists are none-too-bright), he might be able to figure out that he’s a likely father under some circumstances, particularly if he was caught or if acquainted with the victim.
In addition, the victim may not want him to visit the child but might want to sue for child support.
No, I don’t think its taken out of contex much. If God really is all-knowing and all-powerful, and he knew what would happen to each of us before we were born, then how can you say that he doesn’t will or plan for the terrible things to happen to us ? If he can stop it but doesnt then how is he not willing it? I really don’t see how this can be reconciled with a loving God, and it is one of my biggest problems with the thought of God. And how can he “take something bad and make something good out of it” when he was the one who allowed the bad thing to happen in the first place?
^I’m really not being smart there, I really wish someone could explain it in a way that makes sense to me. I’ve never been able to ignore that about God.
Andrew Ensley says:
October 24, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Ninek, I would say, by committing rape and forgoing the mother’s consent, the rapist forfeits any fatherly rights he would otherwise have. If the mother wants to allow visitation, fine. But he does not have the right to visitation.
(Denise) Would he have an obligation to pay child support?
Ugh, I wonder for how many days we’ll have to put up with hearing about this one.
“(stick with me, not as lame as the siamese violinist)”
Well, obviously. I don’t think anything is quite as lame as the siamese violinist. :)
Thank you Jack Borsch. Your comment is the compassionate response I was hoping for. To be raped is to question God’s goodness. Rape questions your connection to the world. Thank you for being a person who allows God’s goodness to be questioned.
” To be raped is to question God’s goodness. Rape questions your connection to the world.”
Well… Not for everyone. Maybe for you, and maybe for me, but we can’t speak for everyone who went through something like that. I know some people who have told me that their horrible experiences drew them closer to God and that’s cool for them. I’m glad that they were able to find peace. Its never been like that for me though.
Rape Victim – First I want to say that I’m so sorry that you had to endure such a horrific experience. I hope that you are able to receive the support that you need to heal from that! I don’t know if you experienced a pregnancy (it would seem probably not because otherwise you probably would have mentioned it in your comment), but you have to see that getting an abortion would have not only continued the evil by victimizing another innocent person, but by also victimizing you all over again. All of the horrible side effects that women experience after abortion would have been present on top of the pain of the rape. You deserve better than that! If you don’t understand how much abortion hurts the mother, then look at the Silent No More website or the Rachel’s Vineyard website. You can also see the comments of post abortive mothers on many of the stories on this (Jill Stanek) website. Getting an abortion does not take the pain of rape away. It is a decision made out of fear, and it only adds to trauma that the rape victim has already experienced. Imagine the healing that could occur by doing something so beautiful and life affirming as giving another innocent being that gift (and their right) of life. If the mother is unable (understandably) to raise that child, imagine the further healing by watching the joy of blessing a family with that child. Negative violent acts are not going to bring about that healing.
It is understandable that you may be wanting to lash out right now. Know that you are loved, you will be prayed for, and that you will heal. I hope and pray that you aren’t having to heal from both rape and abortion.
You right, Jack! I can only speak for myself. Rape made me question God’s goodness. I don’t believe in “God” anymore.
Hi Jack,
I found this link and thought it was fairly interesting reading. Lots of other resources there, too, if you’re interested.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/evil.html
Jack Borsch and Rape Victim – God allows evil because He allows our free will. It is in His infinite goodness that He chooses to bring good out of a bad situation. Yes, innocent people suffer when other people sin, but God always gives us what we need to make it through that suffering. When we make it through suffering, we are better because of it. It is through suffering that we become stronger and ultimately closer to God. It is encouraging to keep in mind that Christ (Who is God) suffered more than any human being ever has or will suffer. God certainly does not expect more from us that He Himself went through. The happiest people that I have ever met or heard of are those that went through suffering and became stronger because of it. So, although He does not interfere with our free will, He is loving enough to realize that we need help afterward and is always, always there to help you when to allow Him to.
Some thought my asking if rapists ever become better people through relationships with their children was off-the-wall. However, it wasn’t long ago that authorities believed that child molesters were doomed to endless re-offend unless they were incarcerated. Recent studies show that many can learn to manage their urges. My article on pedophile rehabilitation is at http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/blog/article/treating-pedophiles-reasons-for-cautious-optimism/index.html
It seems at least possible that rapists might eventually be helped in similar ways to overcome their destructive tendencies.
There is nothing taken out of context here. Of course he was talking about God wanting creating the life, not God sanctioning the rape. Only good things are God’s will. But, it’s just as offensive they way he meant it, and he doesn’t see that.
Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people? Because God must know something we don’t. Jesus didn’t do anything to deserve death. He healed people, he was kind. Did he deserve crucifixion? Of course not. Did his mother deserve to witness it? Of course not. If you’re not Christian, my case is ridiculous. But if you’re Christian, then, you know that though the Blessed Mother’s heart was broken, a few days later she saw her boy again. Alive. Why? It’s a mystery to me, but what an awesome mystery. Somehow, his journey from life to death to life created a path that we can follow. It’s a crazy leap to believe in such a thing. A crazy leap of faith.
Great link, Kel, thanks!
There is nothing offensive about what he said. The intentional misinterpretation of his words – that rape is the will of God – is what is truly offensive, and a naked attempt by the media to help Democrats/Obama get some momentum while everything is going Romney’s way. Ridiculous and repugnant. But expected.
” It is in His infinite goodness that He chooses to bring good out of a bad situation. Yes, innocent people suffer when other people sin, but God always gives us what we need to make it through that suffering. When we make it through suffering, we are better because of it. It is through suffering that we become stronger and ultimately closer to God. It is encouraging to keep in mind that Christ (Who is God) suffered more than any human being ever has or will suffer. God certainly does not expect more from us that He Himself went through. The happiest people that I have ever met or heard of are those that went through suffering and became stronger because of it. So, although He does not interfere with our free will, He is loving enough to realize that we need help afterward and is always, always there to help you when to allow Him to. ”
At least you can admit that there are reasons that God would will suffering, instead of this tip-toeing around that I usually see people doing that drives me bonkers. Obviously, God can and does will terrible things to happen. Whether this is an expression of goodness or not is what my problem is. So you claim that it’s not wrong for God to allow suffering for two basic reasons that I can see, because he gave a free will to obey him and when we don’t suffering happens (whether it’s the sinner that suffers or some innocent), and that God is good because he will bring us through it and help us somehow. All right.
The free will thing… why would God create us with free will then? He knows who is going to choose wrong and who will choose to follow him, right? Way before we are born? So why in the world would he even create souls he knows that he is going to send to hell? Why would he create me knowing that the circumstances that he freaking put me in would mess me up enough that I can’t seem to buy into his goodness? Why create me in the first place if he knew that I would choose wrongly, and that he would have to send me to hell for it? That doesn’t make any sense to me, at all.
And saying that suffering improves you, and that God helps you through it… I really don’t think so. He didn’t help me, and none of my suffering has seemed to improved me at all. Left me a bit of a wreck actually, as evidenced by me hijacking some blog post to whine about my existential crisis.
Thanks for the link Kel, sorry I didn’t see it before. I am reading it now.
I am not a troll………….I am a rape victim. I have been violated and my soul has been ripped to shreds.
I hear you, and am sorry about your experience. My beloved daughter was raped at a very young age and though it was painful, she was able to get on with her life and today is happy and whole. I hope you are surrounded by people that love you and will help you heal, and I wish you the best.
“And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
Some of you can defend that statement? You are sicker than most people think. But, blame the media.
If God intends pregnancy through rape, then perhaps it makes sense that sick individuals worship a sicker almighty. No wonder child rapes are all but dismissed in the Catholic Church by those who attend each Sunday. It’s part of the mental illness.
Next thing you know some churches will consider rape as a sacrament.
Robert, you should apply to work for MSNBC. You’d fit in well.
No wonder child rapes are all but dismissed in the Catholic Church by those who attend each Sunday.
Proof, please.
Hello, Jack. I’ve asked some of the very same questions as you. Why on earth would God create suffering? How can you worship a God who allows horrible things to happen to innocent people?
All that I can say is, for me, in my faith, it comes down to viewing God as He is. His primary attribute is not love but holiness. And there are things about this world that I can’t understand. I believe that evil happens as a result of sin. And I believe that somehow, though I don’t know how, God allows it to happen as a part of the plan for the universe. And I also believe that God hates evil, especially when evil happens against innocents (such as how you were raised, rape victims, etc.).
God is also a God of hope (I’m going to stop putting “I believe” at the beginning of each sentence and trust you know that all following statements are my beliefs, flawed as they may be :)). And somehow, I think that though suffering happens in this world, the good that can sometimes come out of it means that truth will always triumph. Now, there are some situations that I simply can’t rectify. As a Christian, I accept those situations with faith. But sometimes, in the case of Mourdock’s statement, life resulting from the rape can be a way to heal for the woman. The rape wasn’t good. And I don’t think God made the woman get raped. But it did happen. And a baby was conceived. Even though it isn’t good that the woman was raped, it is good that a new life entered the world and that innocent baby shouldn’t be killed, nor should the woman be further punished by an abortion. (Though you know this – preachin’ to the choir).
Anyway. I hope my rambling wasn’t overbearing or preachy. I just wanted to let you know that even Christians who are sold out for Christ struggle with these questions. And there are answers out there that I don’t have the time nor the brilliance to explain. But you’re not alone in your questions. And hopefully I could give you a bit of my own perspective to maybe let you see why someone would still believe and worship a God who allows bad things to happen to innocents.
ANd rape victim, I am terribly sorry you were so brutally victimized. NO one here is trying to diminish that. We’re only trying to end the violence, and say that though the rape was horrible, the baby isn’t at fault. That’s all.
Jack,
“God’s ways are not our ways”
Well, that kind of cryptic statement does allow you to avoid responsibility for just about anything. I should start using that one. “Jess, why aren’t you paying your mortgage? Why don’t you have a job?” Oh, my ways are not your ways. Who’s going to argue with that? Now, that’s a rhetorical question – I know a lot of people would. But that kind of answer shows that I just don’t give a hoot how my actions (or inactions) affect others.
He didn’t help me, and none of my suffering has seemed to improved me at all. Left me a bit of a wreck actually
Yeah, me either. There was no transcendent joy at the end of it, it was just miserable until it gradually became less miserable. I’m definitely not a better person for having gone through it. It just . . . is what it is. But at least I no longer feel guilty because I didn’t “believe” enough. Trying to believe and expecting some sort of supernatural relief actually caused even more stress and pain.
Jack Borsch – Okay, first I have to say that I don’t feel at all qualified and I certainly don’t have all of the answers. This is just my personal understanding and it has certainly helped me in my life. First, I’m not sure why God gives us a free will. Honestly, I’m not God – that really is a question to ask Him. However, I have to say that if my children were to give me a gift, I would rather they give me that gift because they wanted to and not because my husband forced them to. Maybe it goes along the same type of reasoning? He wants us to choose Him, and He does not want to force us to love Him. He wants us to choose Heaven, not be forced there. Also, maybe it is because He loves us enough to want us to experience the joy of choosing Him? If we are forced and not allowed to choose Him, we miss out on the joy that we can experience when we do choose Him. I have to say, though, that I don’t think God wills sin – more that He allows it. Maybe it is just the understanding and our personal way of wording it – you choose to word it that He wills it – I choose to word it that He allows it.
As far as healing through suffering, I’m not sure that I want to comment on your own personal suffering. I don’t personally know you or know that suffering that you have experienced, and I don’t want to seem insensitive or that I am minimizing what you are going through. Is it possible that you are not healing because you are still holding onto that suffering? Are you not allowing God to help you? (Honestly, I’m asking – not accusing you.) I’m not accusing you in any way of causing your own suffering – I’m just remembering that some suffering in my life did not end until I allowed God in and allowed Him to heal me. God doesn’t force Himself upon us – we have to allow Him in (that whole free will thing). I know and believe that God does not allow us more than we can handle. Maybe if you were to realize your own strength you could see that God allowed that suffering for you because He sees you as you deserve to be seen. Whatever suffering you have gone through, you have obviously endured because you are still alive and well enough to be commenting on a blog post. Maybe you’re not through suffering yet, but you don’t have to suffer alone. Maybe you aren’t recognizing the help that God has or is trying to send you? Maybe you aren’t giving yourself enough credit? Would it be helpful for you to read the stories of some of the lives of the saints? (Honestly, I’m asking.) I have read some pretty incredible stories of suffering, and not all of the saints reacted very saintly in the beginning. However, once they were able to recognize the help God sent them, they grew tremendously and were so much more happy after they suffered.
I don’t know what religion you are (or if you are religious at all), and I don’t want to get into a religious debate. Since I am Catholic, I rely tremendously on the sacraments and the Mass to help me overcome suffering. I also rely on the spiritual direction of very holy and loving priests. I have not had the worst suffering in my life (there are certainly people who have suffered more), but I have definitely experienced tremendous suffering. I bring this up because I wanted to show you examples of the help that God can (and does) send.
May I suggest that you ask God some of these questions directly? If you are willing, say some prayers that He helps you to understand why you have gone through what you have. Also, know that you do have help – you have a Guardian Angel who is with you always, and you have all of the angels and the saints who love you from Heaven. More than once I have fought being lonely by picturing our Blessed Mother cradling me in her arms the way she used to cradle Christ. Most importantly, you have God always there, always holding you, always loving you with His infinite love that only He is capable of. When Christ was on the cross dying, He had you in His mind. He was doing what was necessary to give you what you needed for perfect happiness (in Heaven). He really, really, had you in His mind – your face, your name, your heart. He had you and He showed you how much He loves you by enduring the worst suffering ever endured and spreading His arms and dying for you. Whenever you are suffering, Christ is suffering with you. He really is.
Again, please don’t interpret what I am saying as an accusation. I am in no way saying that you caused your own suffering. I am just asking these things because in my own personal experience i suffered more until I realized some of the things that I mentioned. I have also seen people that I know suffer for the same reasons. I do know something for sure – no matter what suffering God has allowed in your life, He always gives you the help that you need, and you can always make it through and grow stronger because of it. God really does love us – He really does!
Robert says:
October 24, 2012 at 7:01 pm
“And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
Some of you can defend that statement? You are sicker than most people think. But, blame the media.
If God intends pregnancy through rape, then perhaps it makes sense that sick individuals worship a sicker almighty. No wonder child rapes are all but dismissed in the Catholic Church by those who attend each Sunday. It’s part of the mental illness.
Next thing you know some churches will consider rape as a sacrament.
===================================
Robert, it seems to me that you see the world like Obama does: You think that a child is a “punishment” or a penalty of some sort.
If a woman is raped, she deserves our special love and care.
If a child is conceived by that rape, the child also deserves our special love and care.
Every person is special and deserving of our love, especially if they have been victims of violence and misfortune.
God gives us the opportunity to bring a greater good from the acts of evil persons.
You have to have love in your heart to see it. If you hate women and children, and you don’t want to be responsible for their care, then you will push them into abortion.
And if you hate Catholics, you will say that Catholics “dismissed” the victims in our own midst.
He was clearly not saying that it was God’s will for a woman to be raped by anyone with any common sense. This is just another example of the liberal media twisting someones comments to mean something completely opposite of what they said for their own purpose which is to further their liberal agenda. God NEVER wants anything evil like rape to happen. But when men who commit this abominable act do rape women and they conceive it’s not the child’s fault. The child is completely innocent of everything just like the mother and should not be killed because of the sin of it’s father. Mourdock only meant that in those cases when women are raped that the life of the CHILD was a gift from God and that it shouldn’t be aborted because of how it was conceived. MANY children that were the result of rape have helped to heal their mother from the rape not made her life worse. A child is not something evil it’s a gift of God for good and shouldn’t be thrown away EVER for any reason.
https://www.facebook.com/avoiceforhope
http://voiceforhope.blogspot.com/
One more thing after reading some of the other comments. Of course there is no reason to feel guilty or that you are suffering because you didn’t believe enough. I think it is just interpreting what growing stronger means? It may still hurt, and you may still feel weak. That doesn’t mean you aren’t stronger. You have the knowledge that you suffered and you survived – that in and of itself makes you stronger. Although sometimes some people suffer for things that are their fault, many, many times people suffer from things that are not their fault. There is no reason to feel guilt over that – I think the person who said it is what it is was right. Guilt is not going to help you heal. Embracing the suffering and then moving on will. Accepting whatever help you are given will. Recognizing your own worth and your own strength will. Knowing that you are loved will.
I just wanted to re-iterate and make sure that my comments did not make you feel judged at all – I really did not intend that (and I don’t judge you). Not only is it not my place to judge you, it just simply is not fair. I would definitely need to turn my judgements on my own (sinful) self if I felt so inclined as to judge.
If you go back far enough, it is likely that each of us has an ancestor conceived and born from rape.
It is also likely that we have ancestors conceived in negative but less heinous manners such as prostitution and adultery.
None of the above is justified but we perhaps should remember that a rapist is probably in every person’s ancestry.
Another pro-life idiot male pounding a nail in the pro-life coffin. What Mourdock implied was that God wanted this woman to be raped because He intended the pregnancy. It does not matter what he said-all that matters is what was perceived and it was lousy. Unfortunately, we pro-lifers are never given the benefit of any doubt-that is just the reality. This man came across as an arrogant, pompous ass. That is the reality. Please stop telling rape victims what to do-if you have not been in that situatiopn, you really need to shut up.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82812_Page2.html
Since the controversy here is the result of machinations by the “liberal media” to “wildly and purposefully distort” what he said, one wonders why rock-ribbed conservatives like Mike Pence and Kelly Ayotte, to name a few examples, are going to such lengths to distance themselves from his comments.
They are pansies.
MYSTERY SOLVED!
joan
Did Democrats and feminists go to any great lengths to distance themselves from Bill Clinton when he was accused of everything from exposing himself to rape? Is he forced to hide in shame and embarasment? Did feminists express an iota of outrage when his accusers were attacked as liars, bimbos, and psychotics by Clinton’s toadies?
Oh, and what about Democrat Senator Al Franken’s rape fantasy that you shrugged off as an “indelicate joke”?
Rather than reject God for the evil things done by men, perhaps it would be more logical to reject men. After all, they are the ones actively doing the evil things. Blaming God is misguided. Blaming rapists for rape is just. And if you want to blame a criminal justice system that hasn’t gotten this under control, be my guest. Or you can ponder the reasons that so many men are acting out aggressions against women.
I thank God for the good men.
rape victim says: October 24, 2012 at 1:22 pm “I just talked to another rape victim this morning…”
rv,
Please clarify.
Was this ‘legitimate rape’ or
morning after regret rape or
whoopi goldberg something else not really rape rape or
Eleanor Clift great leaders have great libido so it can’t be rape or
female teacher on adolescent male rape.
all sex with men is rape….. rape?
Gonna reply to the comments to me in a minute but I just had to say first. Ken, really, that’s was a disgusting comment, even by your standards. What in the hell was the point of that?
“What in the hell was the point of that?”
I think he wanted to top his infamous comment about Gloria Allred.
susan d
You might want to refer to my 8:41PM post.
Are you aware that Evangelist Billy Graham excused Bill Clinton’s lewd behavior saying that the man just couldn’t help himself. He is so handsome and virile and the girls are just “wild” about him.
Let’s see, a man can’t be held accountable for his behavior, and women are just “asking” for it. Now where have we heard that before?
Interesting double standard, ya think?
rape victim says: October 24, 2012 at 4:23 pm
“I have been violated and my soul has been ripped to shreds.”
rv,
I have yet to meet a single solitary soul who has not ‘been violated’ in one way or another?
If they haven’t ‘been violated’, then they will be eventually unless they die quickly of natural causes.
So God, who is supposedly all-powerful, can’t seem to put a particular human life on earth without a) a woman being raped, and b) lots of misogynists and their legislators forcing her to continue the pregnancy and bear her rapist’s baby, and c) having the woman work out custody & visitation arrangements with her rapist for 18 years.
What a swell deity Richard Mourdock has! And what a great legislator, who can help that deity with his excellent work!
JDC, I think you may be right. He seems to be going for the “insensitive asshole of the century award” today, and his Allred comments just weren’t nasty enough to win, or something.
Just keep on going Ken, I have a puke bucket handy!
I think we have to distinguish between what God ordains and what he permits. God permits torture and rape and murder and all kinds of outrages. Because of free will he allows people to act in ways that are totally against his ordaining will, even in ways that make Him very angry. But Jesus allowed Himself to be scourged and crucified in order to bring about our salvation. I don’t know why He allows such extreme suffering, but I do know that He wouldn’t allow it if He didn’t intend to bring some greater good out of it. I know that from His suffering for us on the cross.
Don’t doubt God’s goodness because of the actions of a bad man. Jesus loved you so much he suffered crucifixion for you. Doubt people all you like, but God’s love was proved to us long ago.
Ken, 9:21PM
You know I like you but this post is appalling.
AA 9:23PM,
Care to comment on my 8:41PM post to joan? You got to admit, there’s a real double standard out there.
“You know I like you but this post is appalling.”
Eh, he’s just going to come back with some long-winded, “amusing” post about how it’s fine and we are all wrong or some crap. That’s what he always does, like when you call him on his gross comments about Gloria Allred not being hot enough to rape or whether women are stupid for letting themselves get raped if they “put themselves in a situation” that he doesn’t personally approve of.
Okay, LibertyBelle and Pro-Life Catholic, thank you for the posts. I do appreciate the responses. I still don’t understand how you guys can believe how you do but I do thank you for explaining it, I see what you are saying. And Pro-Life Catholic, most of my suffering in life has been my fault, and I have tried to let it go but I’m obviously not doing it right. It’s all good though, I appreciate the advice and explanations.
joan and AnnaAnastasia
Perhaps you would like to comment on this article. Keep in mind the man presently sits in the United States Senate as a Democrat. joan referred to this sick fantasy as an “indelicate joke”. What would you call it AA?
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/senator-famous-for-rape-jokes-stumps-for-obama/
Paula Jones
by
Denise Noe
The Demo in me wants to say it isn’t so
dismiss her as a right-wing tool
or publicity-hungry fool
but truth resounds in my bones
and I believe Paula Jones.
She went to see the Governor
and saw more than she bargained for.
Our feminist Prez has got a sexist streak,
which will not be dismissed by taking a tweak
at Paula Jones’s background or her big hair,
if she’s honest about the great non-affair.
AA and joan
What do you think of Franken stumping for Obama?
Ah yes, Gloriously Allred.
She has been divorced from mr. Allred for decades.
Don’t you think it’s time for her to give mr. Allred his name back?
He financed her time in law school. I do believe she should at least go with with the hypenated last name.
This is the woman who claimed she was raped, then conceived a child as a result of the rape, then conspired with an assassin to murder the child and then when complications developed she had to seek medical attention to save her life.
But she kept all this hidden for more than 20 years until there were hearings in the California legislature about elective abortions and Gloriously showed up to testify as a representative of the California chapter of the National Oganization of some liberal Women. She was the quintessential ‘unassailable victim’. Who would dare question the veractiy of this ‘victim’?
To do so would be to invite a vitriolic avelange of scorn. But the facts are the facts and the truth is the truth, and no one has yet to ask the name of the hospital where she was treated, much less the corrobrorating records.
All we have is the word of Gloriously Allred. [I did not have sex with that woman….ms Lewinski.]
As a wise man once said, “Trust, but verify.” [Especially when you are dealing with known liars.]
I would ask you guys the opposite question. Does a child conceived in rape deserve to die? Does he bear the guilt for the crimes of his father? Does God hate a child conceived in rape? Or does God love the child, just as God loves all people? If you believe that God loves all people, how can you say that God wills the abortion of a child conceived through rape, or that God simply does not care whether that child lives or dies? And, if you believe as I do that God is a being of infinite love, mercy and compassion who does not will the fall of any man and rejoices in the salvation of sinners, then how can you disagree with what Mourdock said?
Hi Ken,
I no less question the “illegal abortions” of women like Whoopi Goldberg who somehow survived “coathanger abortions” totally unscathed. No medical records of treatment are ever produced. We get only their word that they aborted themselves as teenagers.
That’s not the point here. People lie about being victims of any number of crimes and injustices, but that does not take away from the fact there are people who are indeed victims.
We do not trivialize the horror of rape because some people lie or do not produce evidence.
Mary,
Your observation is duly noted. I appreciate your input. Thank you and good night.
Lol, oh Ken. You know very well the problem with your comments about Allred that I took issue with had much less to do with the fact you accuse her of lying than the fact that you come up with stuff like this:
“Even rapists have standards. What man would risk it all in exchange for engaging in sexual congress with a woman like Gloria Allred? I know, ‘lust is blind’, but it does not destroy the sense of hearing and, most especially, the sense of smell.”
and
“while i agree that beauty/desirability are ,subjective, and i understand that all the gals get prettier at closing time, especially to drunk rapists, a woman’like Gloria Allred, who is more like Fran Drescher than Fran, would be too ob-noxious.”
On this thread: http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/08/pro-life-video-of-the-day-opposing-views-on-abortion-after-rape/comment-page-1/#comment-421143
So, seriously, just shut up already. You’re offensive and just being gross, every time you mention rape it’s just disgusting. Just, seriously cut it out already.
Jack,
“The Problem of Evil”. Really? How much time do we have? ;)
I would say the bigger question is The Problem of Good. Ever since we grabbed for that first toy it’s been “me, me, me”. Free will does make some sense to me. How much of a pain would it be for someone’s Mom to shadow him constantly - prevent every skinned knee? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t much like being tasered by God every time I made a wrong move.
Let it just be said that I believe this Life is like boot camp. Try as we might, we can only “see through a glass darkly” what it all means and where it’s leading us.
That’s enough for now, so my brain doesn’t hurt.
I have yet to meet a single solitary soul who has not ‘been violated’ in one way or another?
Yeah, it took me years before I could discuss with anyone the fact that my Twinkie was stolen from my lunch box back in the third grade. I’m sure that’s what led to my diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and is the reason I keep a gun next to my bed.
Anna Anastasia, I already wrote this earlier, but I will re-post since you seem to be having trouble comprehending the “paternal rights” thing:
Rebecca Kiesling is a now-grown child who was conceived in rape. She is Pro-Life, like we are, and she is a lawyer. She is currently working to make sure that rapists don’t have rights to the children they create. Children who, by the way, are just as much victims of their father’s actions as their mothers are.
There are a lot of things I disagree with Christianity about. But I still understand WHY Christians would/could have such a view, and I don’t think they deserve to be taken to task personally for what their religion dictates.
” Let it just be said that I believe this Life is like boot camp. Try as we might, we can only “see through a glass darkly” what it all means and where it’s leading us.”
Honestly this viewpoint does actually make sense to me, I just don’t like it and I don’t think I would worship a God who would set up the world like that. Not trying to be awful, just being honest. And really, if this is true I must have been going to be a terrible person or something so I needed it beaten out of me early or something? I mean, I don’t try to compare my life to other people’s because that’s stupid and everyone has their own problems. But when someone like my ex-wife tells me her biggest time of suffering was when her grandma died of old age… when mine lasted 17 years and was a bit more intense, I just really wonder what I needed to be punished for so young.
“Honestly this viewpoint does actually make sense to me, I just don’t like it and I don’t think I would worship a God who would set up the world like that. Not trying to be awful, just being honest. And really, if this is true I must have been going to be a terrible person or something so I needed it beaten out of me early or something? I mean, I don’t try to compare my life to other people’s because that’s stupid and everyone has their own problems. But when someone like my ex-wife tells me her biggest time of suffering was when her grandma died of old age… when mine lasted 17 years and was a bit more intense, I just really wonder what I needed to be punished for so young.”
Life isn’t fair, but any amount of suffering would be worth it if you got to spend eternity in Heaven.
However, it should be said that Christians don’t believe all suffering is a punishment. Job wasn’t being punished, and neither was the man born blind. Sorry you suffered for a long time. You’re not alone. Take care.
Jack,
I don’t believe God is punishing us. He’s like a referee letting us beat our brains out. After six thousand years, I think he’ll step in and break up the fight. Even that sounds cruel, but maybe we need to prove to ourselves what dopes we really are as a race.
And I’m one of the few who don’t believe in a Punishment in the Next Life either. He’ll just “switch off” those who don’t want to work right. He is the owner of the House, after all.
God set up the world to allow free will. God allows men to do terrible things because He allows free will.’Free will is what defines human beings as autonomous beings in His likeness and image.
When we choose governments or to invite other people to make our choices for us or we choose to impose on the free will of others, we are imposing on that free will and reducing our dignity as human beings, and sinning against eachother, (hurting eachother) and it is stinky and offensive to God. He wants us to be free.
God doesn’t like what the rapist does.
He wants beautiful healing to come out of that. A baby is beautiful and a baby needs nurturing. Nurturing a baby can heal a wounded rape victim. Women release hormones when they are nurturing a baby that soothes them from the inside out. It is scientifically proven that babies nurture mothers back.
When an abortionist is hired to invade a womans womb, the baby in the womb chooses to avoid the tools of the aboritonist. The abortionist does something worse than rape to the baby. The abortionist can be seen hunting the baby on the ultrasound screen, because often times, even at the embryotic stage, the baby will instinctively run for it’s life away from the very unnatural invasive tools of the aboritonist.
Abortion is a crime worse than rape, because the babies are not only killed, but they are also tortured. Many states are required to offer the mother the option of anesthsing their preborn before the abortion doctor they hire kills it.
Let’s slow it down a little bit.
A rape motivated abortion is a horrible, nasty, ugly tragedy, inspired by an ugly tragedy.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. When you are assualted, make sure you blame the person who assualted you. God let’s bad things happen, but if you pray and if you sacrifice your ‘needs’ or wants for him, you will be awstruck at how He comes back at you. I can’t believe the miracles I have had in my life. But they are proof that He not only loves us, but hunt us in order to redeem us and have us rejoice in that redemtion. But you have to trust, that God can work with what bad men do, and make it not only right, but an incident that leaves you with twice as much as you had before it. Read the book of Job. You’ll see!
That is a deep pain, the pain of being sexually assaulted, and rarely do church ministry groups address that in ministry. As Catholics we defended our Church, which was the right thing to do, but in the same turn, we should have sen it as a syndrome. If it has been happening in the Church with the Priests, then how much more has it happened in other sectors of society that specialize in child mentoring?? Especially institutions where children may be even more exposed or isolated with predators, and especially in which those institutions are much less monitored and open than the Catholic Church..??
I knew it was happening in the boy scouts as well, but then it came on the news that it was not being addressed, and was still going on, and alot of these other institutions don’t have such a clear window into their workings as the church so they are much more likely to go unchecked. The Larry Sandusky incident was just one. And the victim, though he was touted as a heroe later as well he is a hero, was initially persecuted further for speaking out, which is so often times the case in this highly sexualized culture. But how many more are speaking out right now, against sexual assualt, and are not being heard? I mean, if it’s going on in the Church’s then you can bet it’s three times as bad every where else, where the authority figures are much more likely to deal in corruption, especially in areas that victims have good cause to fear repercussions, and where civic leaders may get involved as well in order to prevent shame and embarassment. If you look where the Planned Parenthood is in your town, you can see how accepted perversion is in that community. It is a strong barometer if a Planned Parenthood is in the center of town, that you will see sexual harassment, rape cases that go regularly undocumented by local authorities, even a satanic spirit of harlotry may have cast it’s shadow on the nearby religious institutions.
Remember to pray now for the victims of sexual assault (including the predators who may at one time have been victims). Prayer is powerful!
Abortion not only accepts and tolerates rape. Abortion endorses rape. Because a predator off on victimizing, and abortion increases the despair, and the evil goes unchecked and is doubly loaded from the sexual thrill and the thrill of the murder. I tell you it’s phsychotic, and the so called rape exception has cost this country 54 million citizens, and on top of that, the citizens those citizens would have bore. Rape is no exception for murder. I know that rape victims are robbed of their sanity, so the fact that abortion is legal for that circumstance is not justified. Rape victims need alot of encouragement, because that is your sence of justice that has just been robbed and it is hard to get out of bed or not turn to drugs when you have had your basic humanity ripped to shred. But a baby can bring that back very quickly, and I think that God does use that as a device for healing, not just for the raped individual but for the community that also feels at a loss. The community feels the impact of molestation. That is why Church’s should be in the center of town, and not Planned Parenthoods.
Bearing a child of rape doesn’t necessarily bring “healing.” When she was 14, Aileen Wuornos bore a baby as a result of rape and placed the baby for adoption.
Yes, she had prior and later problems but this doesn’t appear to have provided healing. Wuornos committed a series of murders. She originally claimed self-defense. Later, she recanted and said, “It was raining. The rain made me so nasty looking I couldn’t make any money as a prostitute so I just shot them and took the money.”
Hi Praxedes,
On a happier note, I am happy to report to you that my nephew is making progress. His mother says it is still one day at a time, but isn’t it always with children? He is making progress with counseling, has become absolutely fixated on sports, great for teamwork and socializing, and even lets his ugly old aunt give him a hug and kiss, a real sacrifice for a 7y/o boy!
I am thankful there are people like you who help troubled children. If you get around to reading the book I recommended you will find how decades ago parents of troubled children were so often left floundering, assuming anyone even took their concerns seriously. Thankfully, because of people like you, parents and children have more options today.
As I said, despite our differences of opinion, nothing has ever diminished my respect for you and the work you do.
I still have concerns, but if this ugly old auntie winds up with a huge ostrich egg on her face and is ultimately proven wrong, no one will be happier than me!
Concerning your post, thank you. My heart goes out to you and my thoughts and best wishes are with you.
Hi peoples,
I’m afraid I must apologize for not reading all the posts on this topic but because I do read slowly 93 posts will take me some hours …. I wish first to address Jack and rapevictim because in your anger, you ‘blame’ an all-powerful God. Why didn’t He prevent it?
The answer is far more complex and long than the question. I have a friend who is the former Archbishop of Ottawa, Canada. During his tenure there he had a special Mass-gathering for all those kids-now-adults who had been abused by the clergy. During his homily, he formally apologized but he left little doubt that when confronting the mystery of evil sometimes you are left speechless and dumbfounded in trying to explain. He said that victims can be comforted in the knowledge that Christ entered heaven with all His wounds. { far from being perfect]
Such a strange thing to say! But I know (from experience) that reaching out to God as-He-is and just-as-you-are brings healing – not better/more understanding healing. Remember the mystery of evil comes in because this happened/happens to God’s beloved Son.
perhaps we can best understand the violence if we think of it as an act of dominance. Being from a rather large(7 sibs) family, there were many, many times to wish-to-dominate. [The one/One on-top doesn’t feel pain????] We learn …..
Perhaps one thing we did learn – as adults we are precious … all of us … too precious to dominate. When we begin our posts with a moniker like: rapevictim the rapist-wins because you constantly are ‘victim’ to his morbid-dominance-game.
Hi Ken
I just read JackBorsch’s 10:48PM post and can only ask if you wear a mammoth hide and carry a club. I’m especially troubled because you are someone I like.
I’m sorry to say Ken but you put yourself in the same category as the Clinton toadies who attacked his accusers and the feminists who turned a blind eye to the ridicule and belittlement of his accusers. You’re right up there with ”Rev.” Graham who ”understands” that men cannot be expected to exercise self control, especially when it come to sex starved bimboes who are “wild” about him. Behind every man’s fall and failing is a conniving female.
You have no idea Ken how sorry I am to have to acknowledge this about you. Its right there with my being forced to acknowledge that a long time friend and co worker is a sociopath.
“rv,
Please clarify.
Was this ‘legitimate rape’ or
morning after regret rape or
whoopi goldberg something else not really rape rape or
Eleanor Clift great leaders have great libido so it can’t be rape or
female teacher on adolescent male rape.
all sex with men is rape….. rape?”
Ken,
Rape is a crime……….you can’t put conditions or qualifiers on rape.
Does anyone ever wonder why rape victims are hesitant to press charges? It is comments like the above in quotes that re-traumatizes the victim.
Are you a Christian, Ken?
Ken is a Christian, rape victim.
I wasn’t around for most of yesterday but in response to you thanking Jack for daring to question the goodness of god, I thought I should at least note that the only reason I don’t question the goodness of god is because I don’t believe in god. What is there to question? Some people believe, fine, I’m sure that they have their explanations and that those explanations make sense – I understand them when I listen – but they are irrelevant to me, or at least too irrelevant to bother questioning outright.
This politician can say that life is a gift from god and it doesn’t offend me despite my not believing in god, because the crux of what he is saying is the same as the reality I know to be true – that good and bad exist in the same world and do not negate each other – that one thing being good does not mean the thing that led to it was good. etc.
This is for Jack and “rape victim”…
I am sorry bad things have happened to you, whether your “fault” or not…I have also had bad things happen to me, from sexual abuse to rape to abortion to… I was also mad at God for “allowing” these things to take place…so mad about it that I let Him know in no uncertain terms how I felt about them, and about Him…
I am also not Catholic, and perhaps there are those on this forum who would not agree with me, but maybe…just maybe…telling Him (right before you completely write Him off as “not good” and/or “non-existent”) for once your complete complaints may prove to be helpful.
God is a good God who planned for His only begotten Son to be brutally murdered for me…it is to Him that I am praying for you both…
Peace
Alexandra ,
“because the crux of what he is saying is the same as the reality I know to be true – that good and bad exist in the same world and do not negate each other – that one thing being good does not mean the thing that led to it was good. etc”
Are you saying two wrongs don’t make a right?
“…….the reality I know to be true” is your reality, not my reality.
You can be pro-life and be an atheist. That’s not a problem. People have different opinions on the pro-life debate. You can be atheist, Christian,Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or whatever is your religious or non-religous beliefs.
The reason I asked Ken if he was a Christian, is I find his remarks about rape as inconsistent with what I perceive is a Christian response to someone who has been raped.
I appreciate everyone’s comments on this discussion.
I think you are all over-reacting by attacking Ken. I got from his post that he was being “tongue in cheek”. It was the liberal Whoopi Goldberg who defended a child rapist Roman Polanski saying it wasn’t rape rape. Okay?
As to AnnaAnastasia, I was thinking of different tragedies in history such as ships sinking, buildings burning, wars starting and yet men and women have met because of these tragedies and fallen in love. Would you say “What? Couldn’t an all powerful God have brought these men and women together to meet and fall in-love without a ship sinking?” Yes. He could have. But isn’t it wonderful that God can bring good out of the midst or tragedy?
Alexandra at October 25, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Hear, hear! Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Are you saying two wrongs don’t make a right?
Not really, although that is certainly true as well, and applicable to rape and abortion. I am saying that like the things I mentioned above – like my life turning out the way it did (awesomely!) due in part to my mom getting cancer and forcing me to leave college (horrible) – that recognizing good things that have come about explicitly as a result of bad things, that would not have been possible without the bad things, is not an endorsement of the horrible things. Or a negating of them. So if someone says that life is always a gift, even when it results from rape, that does not mean that he is endorsing rape, any more than I’m saying that my mom having cancer was super-awesome.
“…….the reality I know to be true” is your reality, not my reality.
Do you think that there is more than one reality? People’s experiences and biases color their perception of reality but I do believe that we should always strive to perceive reality as it actually is rather than to accept our own biases as reality on their own. It’s not always an easy thing to do, especially when you have something to lose by doing it – that’s a general ‘you’ (me included!) not a specific you, by the way.
Ken’s comments rarely seem like an appropriate response, Christian or otherwise, to me, but I can’t really answer for him.
Lest anyone think that rape is the victim’s” fault”, it is the rapist who is responsible, not the victim.
Hi Sydney M 12:47PM
Sorry, but some of his comments on rape, especially concerning Allred, are beyond the pale. Do we make tongue in cheek comments about child sexual abuse and genocide? Some people do, and I, and I am sure you, would call these comments out for what they are.
Yes I recall Whoopi Goldberg excusing Roman Polanski, like I recall feminists turning a blind eye to Clinton’s sexual abuses and his goon squads who attack these women. Sadly, we are still in the Dark Ages where sexual assault is concerned and this mentality is not confined to one gender only.
Hi rv, 1:04PM
You need only read my posts to know how much I agree with you.
Hi Alexandra,
I think of the Adam Walsh case, the little boy who was kidnapped and murdered. His father is John Walsh, a great crusader for children and crime victims, and famous as the host of America’s Most Wanted.
Does anyone suggest the murder of his son was something good? Absolutely not. What we do see is the Walshes taking a horrific tragedy and turning it into something positive for so many people.
I suspect that Mourdock meant the same thing. The life resulting from the crime of rape may bring joy to a childless couple, may grow to be a productive and great human being, or may be a source of joy and comfort to the woman who was victimized. I personally know of one such situation. This is NO way suggests rape is anything other than a horrorific crime, as is the kidnap and brutal murder of an innocent child.
Hi, Mary, Thank you for your comments on rape and sexual assault.
RV, if your comment about rape victims never being at fault was because of LS’s comment:
“I am sorry bad things have happened to you, whether your “fault” or not…”
Then know that part of her comment was directed at me because I said most of my suffering in life was my fault. I don’t think she/he was trying to insinuate anything about rape with that.
Good comments Mary, cheers.
http://www.rainn.org/statistics
Just some info on rape ….Thanks for reading.
Sorry, Sydney, but questioning the validity of a rape victim’s claim in such a manner is beyond distasteful and disrespectful. It is never appropriate to address a victim about their rape in a “tongue in cheek” manner. If you want to discuss Whoppie Goldberg and her flippant treatment of a rape victim, fine, but do it somewhere else and not by flippantly insulting another rape victim in the process.
Calling Ken out on that was in no way overreacting.
RV,
JackBorsch is correct. My comment was not meant to say that you were, in any way, responsible for what happened to you. I was not only referring to his comment, but thinking about how different choices on my part could have prevented what happened to me…that being said, the assaulter is always and ultimately responsible for their actions.
Thank you, JackBorsch.
Peace
LS,
Thank you for clarifying. From one rape victim to another, please don’t blame yourself for”different choices” you could have, should have made. We think , erroneously, “if I only had not done this, or done that”, it would have never happened. We never take the blame for rape. You understand that the rapist, assaulter is where the responsibility is placed. The choices one makes has nothing to do with the assault or rape. When we blame our choices we are assigning to ourselves the responsibility of the rape or assault. We do not assume that responsibility which squarely belongs to the rapist.
JackBorsch – I wanted to comment on you saying that your sufferings were your “fault.” If I look back on my life, I could probably say that very many of my sufferings were my fault. However, lots of those actions were because I reacted naturally to circumstances that were out of my control. I hadn’t yet grown enough to recognize the suffering I would experience by not reacting in an “extraordinary” manner (being more in control of my actions – choosing my actions rather than reacting). Is it possible that it is the same with you?
Regardless, I agree with the person who said you should ask God these questions – give Him a chance before you give up on Him. I hope and pray that you are able to find some of the answers that you are searching for. I do know what it is like to deal with pain, and I know the difference in dealing with that pain on my own versus dealing with it with the help of God and my Faith. I don’t ever want to go through that type of suffering all alone again, and my heart goes out to you if you are.
Thank you Jack(1:45PM), I appreciate that.
By January 20, 2017, five million more U.S. women will have chosen abortion, and you zealots will still be moaning and groaning here.
This is your OCD life.
Rudolfo, I have to wonder if there were any nasty, sarcastic pro-slavery people back in the day. I can see your brethren walking up to John Adams or William Wilberforce and laughing, asking them what they think of the fact that more African slaves are on their way in ships “and there’s nothing you can do about it, zealots!”
Thanks for your kind comments, Mary. Great to hear your nephew is making progress!
When the topic of rape comes up, Ken seems to be under the impression it’s either no big deal or the survivor must have done something to deserve it. As you said, “Do we make tongue in cheek comments about child sexual abuse and genocide?”
Maybe Ken can answer if he would make comments like, “ I have yet to meet a single solitary soul who has not ‘been violated’ in one way or another” to a child raped by their father or to someone who lost their whole family in an attack.
Ken, how have you ‘been violated’?
” Maybe Ken can answer if he would make comments like, “ I have yet to meet a single solitary soul who has not ‘been violated’ in one way or another” to a child raped by their father or to someone who lost their whole family in an attack.”
He might not specifically, but he does tell me that any offense I take to his offensive comments is because I allow my emotions to rule me and let myself be a victim and blah blah blah. So I don’t think it’s just female rape survivors (though that does seem to be his main issue with being a jerk), he seems to have a problem with anyone who expects him to conduct himself with a modicum of respect/sensitivity/tact/etc.
To JackBorsch at:
October 24, 2012 at 9:45 pm
“… most of my suffering in life has been my fault, and I have tried to let it go but I’m obviously not doing it right…”
-and to RV at
October 25, 2012 at 2:37 pm
…the thing that restored and maintains my sanity is the forgiveness Jesus bought for me with His death. Yes, the rapist is guilty for what he did, but the choices I made which put me in a position so he could get to me were mine, and I had to own that. I am not blaming myself or accepting the guilt for what someone else did. But getting away from my culpability for that situation—as well as other irreconcilable/irreparable regrets—was impossible, until I realized that the forgiveness God extended to me was not only for every ungodly choice against others, but also choices that turned out to be against myself. I took it…
…only after that did I begin to realize I could extend this forgiveness to others—present and/or alive or not. Finally, a very wise friend let me know I could break the last link in the chain of everlasting remorse by asking God to bless everyone who had hurt me, because this releases them to Him so He can be their just and righteous Judge instead of me…
RV, thank you for your compassionate reaching out;
JackBorsch, thank you for always being honest…
I really do intend to extend goodness to you both, and it is not my desire to force a belief system on you that you can’t accept. The memories may be too raw and painful now (this is the maddening thing…seems like they would go away after awhile…), but perhaps there is hope for you in knowing that there can be both freedom, and…
Peace
I’m so comforted that as a woman in this country, I can be sexually violated, then used to grow a baby so that a happy rich white heterosexual married couple can have an offspring!
And here I thought The Handmaid’s Tale was science fiction!
Thanks, Richard Mourdock! And make sure to thank God on my behalf, too!
I am NOT comforted that in this country, I can be sexually violated and then violated again by having someone invade my body and murder my child through abortion. Then I would be left dealing with the emotional scars and physical scars that go along with both the rape AND abortion. Not only would I be a rape victim, but then I would also be a mother of a murdered child. I am also not comforted by the fact that anyone in their right mind would think that it is at all healing or helping me to invade my body and commit more violence.
AA,
Please tell us what you think of Democrat Senator Al Franken’s sick rape fantasy, the one where he ties up a prominent woman journalist, drugs and rapes her and then take pictures of her in various positions while she is confined to a closet. You can google it, but I did provide a link at 9:50PM on Oct. 24. Also, what do you think of this guy stumping for Obama? I asked you this previously and for some strange reason you haven’t yet responded.
Because, Mary, that’s just “indelicate”, not horrifying and disturbing. /sarcasm.
The lesson from all of this Akin/Mourdock/Franken stuff is that supporting abortion means you can get away with about anything. But if dare to oppose it, all comments with be picked over with a fine tooth come and be given insanely disproportionate media coverage. Double standards are fun.
Sorry I missed this directed to me:
“If I look back on my life, I could probably say that very many of my sufferings were my fault. However, lots of those actions were because I reacted naturally to circumstances that were out of my control. I hadn’t yet grown enough to recognize the suffering I would experience by not reacting in an “extraordinary” manner (being more in control of my actions – choosing my actions rather than reacting). Is it possible that it is the same with you? ”
Maybe for some things. But other things I really have no excuse for. I should have left home earlier when I was a kid, shouldn’t have started doing drugs so young, should have done better in my marriage etc etc etc. Millions of things I really have no excuse for. But it’s in the past now and I deal with it. Honestly, I was just trying to figure out how you all have so much peace even out of terrible circumstances. It’s admirable.
I am NOT comforted that in this country, I can be sexually violated and then violated again by having someone invade my body and murder my child through abortion.
I think you’ve described a situation in which a woman is forced to have an abortion against her will. It is laudable that you are against women being forced to do things with their bodies that they don’t want to do. Like being forced to be pregnant.
(PS I think the other posts on this site about forced abortions in China are rather ironic, considering that this site is pro-forced pregnancy, including in cases of rape. Both deny women’s agency. Pot, meet kettle.)
“Please tell us what you think of Democrat Senator Al Franken’s sick rape fantasy, the one where he ties up a prominent woman journalist, drugs and rapes her and then take pictures of her in various positions while she is confined to a closet.”
Gosh, I thought this thread was about Mourdock. What were we talking about? Oh, yeah, the subject was changed to Franken for some reason.
I read the WND blurb. (BTW, what a swell and totally unbiased and not at all lying resource!) I saw four sentences quoted from a 17 year old magazine article, and an analysis that wasn’t much longer. I tried to access the original article, but it wasn’t available, hence no context. In other words, I guessing the WND blurb is a load of crap consisting of an out of context quote and very little analysis that blatantly mischaracterizes the situation. But that’s just my guess, based on the little they used to back up their accusations.
But let’s say it’s not. Let’s give WND the benefit of good faith (which they don’t deserve given their evidence as well as their past “reporting” record, but ok). Let’s say that Franken thinks that rape is funny – not in a way that critiques rape culture and other misogyny, but in a way that’s harmful or triggering to rape victims and their allies, and/or to women in general. Let’s say he made that joke in that spirit, and that it’s hurtful. If he did do that, he would be wrong for doing so. (And again, to clarify, I do not believe this is the case without context.)
My question is: and…? So? It’s completely possible for someone to think that Mourdock is wrong, and that Franken would be wrong too. In fact, it’s possible to think that Mourdock is worse, because he’s currently seeking to harm rape victims by by controlling their bodies. (Just like as a rapist does.) Franken at least supports rape victims by letting them decide how they want to proceed after they’ve been attacked – not by telling them they have an obligation to birth a baby for the State. This stance wouldn’t excuse him making harmful rape jokes, but his harmful rape jokes also aren’t something new. (I mean, if we want to dig up politicians who make harmful rape jokes, I think you’d find the list pretty tiresome to go through.)
This thread is about Mourdock, and rightfully so. Mourdock’s words happened this week and indicate his current policy priorities, while Franken’s words were 17 years ago and didn’t even happen in the context of his Senatorial duties. Franken’s words certainly don’t indicate that he’d violate rape victims by taking away their bodily autonomy.
If there was a post about Franken, it sounds like you’d like to comment on the accusations as outlined in that thread. Perhaps you can suggest that a post should be created. But that isn’t this post.
Now, can we talk about Mourdock? Or is there so little to defend his actions that there’s no point?
I was not describing a forced abortion – unless of course you would describe a forced abortion taking a woman who is hurting and vulnerable and convincing her that abortion is “best.” This is leaving her with a situation where she is dealing with both the effects of the rape and the abortion. No matter how much you want to deny it, a child is always killed in an abortion, and the mother is always dealing with the effects of that. It doesn’t matter if that child is “wanted” or not – it is a child being murdered. Murder is wrong, and no matter how you want to spin it with wording, when you do (or allow) something wrong you are always going to deal with the devastating effects of that. Committing further violence is not going to help that mother.
But don’t take my word for it. Why don’t you ask the opinion of this woman :
http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/index.html . Do you think her mother would have been better off if she had aborted her? Why don’t you tell her that to her face.
AA,
Another issue was also brought up on this thread. Double standards. You have done a masterful job of displaying yours. Darn, if only Franken was a Republican!
AA,
Let me help you. Google “Al Franken jokes about rape victime”. I found all sorts of articles and I’m sure you can find them too.
BTW, what do you think of this guy stumping for Obama?
I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but I feel that this point needs to be made.
It seems to me that instead of trying to justify killing an innocent child in the name of “compassion” for women, we should rather focus on promoting a society where rape is less likely to happen. Why don’t we try to encourage women to be viewed as ones to be cherished. Rather than focusing on placing all of her worth in how sexually “pleasing” she is, why don’t we, as a society, focus on viewing the true beauty and dignity that every woman possesses. Lets try to make a trend in society where a woman’s fertility is viewed as a gift to be treasured rather than thinking of it as a disease to be prevented. We could have a society that sees how absolutely beautiful motherhood is and that the bond between mother and child is something that cannot be replicated. Women are to be revered, respected, and protected – not used, maimed (as in her fertility), and disdained. If we could get our society back on the right track as far as how women are viewed, it would seem that there would be fewer men who make women into objects to be taken advantage of and raped. Yes, there will always be sick individuals who will try such awful acts as rape, but they may be less likely to try it if they know that they live in a society where most other men respect the women so much that the would be rapist would be afraid for his life for attempting such an abominable act. Chivalrous men who defend the honor of a woman will not stand for rapists.
Abortion is not going to promote a society such as this. Abortion is not only taking an innocent life, but it is also adding to the further degradation of women as a whole.
Mary – I already read your cited materials, which were poorly researched and off topic for this post. I didn’t know I needed to do an entire (off topic) research project, too. Again, this is off the topic of Mourdock, so I’m assuming there is no excuse for Mourdock’s behavior.
PLC:
” I was not describing a forced abortion – unless of course you would describe a forced abortion taking a woman who is hurting and vulnerable and convincing her that abortion is “best.”
If you’re using “convinced” in the sense that someone is pressuring abortion when it’s not desired, that’s a forced abortion. That is wrong, because it is coercive, as much as compulsory pregnancy would also be coercive.
If you’re using “convinced” in the sense of helping the pregnant person clarify her choices and decide what she herself wants to do, then act on her own desires, then that is not forced abortion.
No matter how much you want to deny it, a child is always killed in an abortion, and the mother is always dealing with the effects of that. It doesn’t matter if that child is “wanted” or not – it is a child being murdered. Murder is wrong, and no matter how you want to spin it with wording, when you do (or allow) something wrong you are always going to deal with the devastating effects of that. Committing further violence is not going to help that mother.
You are making claims as to whether abortion is “murder” as if all people, including all rape victims, believe as you do AND come to the same conclusions based on those beliefs. They don’t.
In fact, there are some pregnant rape victims who believe as you do and fully acknowledge that they believe they’re carrying a human life, yet they also agree that terminating the pregnancy is the best option. Some think that it’s murder, and they do it anyway, because although they wish they didn’t have to, they feel that it was the least worst of all their options. Some think that the embryo or fetus is a human life yet don’t think abortion is murder, any more than not giving up a kidney to save a dying stranger isn’t murder. They don’t think they have an obligation to serve as life support to a human being without consent.
The point is, saying that a fetus or embryo is a human life is irrelevant. Even if rape victims had a consensus on such a thing, it is still possible for them to fully acknowledge the humanity of an embryo or fetus and get an abortion anyway, without thinking that this threatens their beliefs. In fact, this position is common. (There are plenty of anti-abortion protesters who stop protesting long enough to obtain abortions, and then continue to protest the very facilities where they just obtained abortions. They obviously find a way to deal with the contradiction. Why wouldn’t a rape victim?)
Regardless, if your concern is the “devastating effects” of these choices, then it would be most useful to help rape victims clarify what they want to do, then support their decision. Even if rape victims don’t like any of their options, at least they will know that the decision was theirs. If they aren’t allowed to decide (either to get an abortion or continue the pregnancy), it is violence to take away their choice, just as it is violence that they were raped in the first place.
AA,
So all 137,000 google results for “Al Franken jokes about rape victims” are poorly researched. You must have been one very busy lady checking out all those articles.
Many variations on the subject of rape have been covered here, including double standards. You, like so many liberal women, have only been too ready and able to turn a blind eye, i.e. Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Bill Maher, when it has come to protecting your poitical interests.
Mary – please read my posts again. Seriously, read them, or please don’t further direct comments at me.
Now that you’ve done so, I assume you’ve comprehended my points:
1. This thread is about Mourdock. If there are posts on this thread only about “double standards” (whatever that means – liberal vs. conservative? Democrat vs. Republican? Men vs. women? Elected officials vs. celebrities? What are you TALKING about?), then the “double standard” posts are pretty much giving up on talking about Mourdock. Which makes it sound like there is not an excuse for Mourdock’s actions, so the only way anyone can defend Mourdock’s actions is to point to incidents and claim that they’re as bad. (Spoiler alert: they’re not, and even if they were, that doesn’t mean Mourdock’s words aren’t deplorable.)
2. No one here is paid to be your research assistant. Asking people to do extra research so you can make your point is a rather exceptional expectation, at best. However, even though your post was off-topic, I kindly read the materials you cited. They were poor. Please don’t turn them in for your research paper in English class.
3. Also, even though your research materials were poor, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. Even if they’re true, they make no difference to the point that Mourdock’s words were deplorable. However, if your point is that there is a double standard between Republican politicians and Democrat politicians who were entertainers at the time of their supposed bad behavior…nope. I outlined the difference between Franken’s words (if that characterization of them is even true), and Mourdock’s words AND PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION. Feel free to read that part again for clarification, if you aren’t sure that I said it.
4. We’re still not talking about Mourdock. Can anyone here give a defense of Mourdock? No? Then let’s all agree he’s a jerk and unfit for office, and move on.
Then let’s all agree he’s a jerk and unfit for office, and move on.
I’ll agree with Anna Anastasia that Mourdock is a jerk only if I can add that she is a bigger one.
Move on Anna.
AA,
My apologies that I did not make it simple enough for you to verify a sitting Democrat United States Senator’s fantasy about raping a prominent female journalist. Googling is hardly the level of a research assistant.
Pro-Life Catholic:
Rather than focusing on placing all of her worth in how sexually “pleasing” she is
(Denise) I have a male boss who has never expressed one iota of sexual interest in me. What he is interested in are my abilities as a researcher and writer. He also values my ability to proofread others’ work on occasion. Of course, I’m 55 years old. I don’t dress provocatively or even pay much attention to dress except to make sure I’m decently covered.
My best friend is a gay man who has zero sexual interest in me. We often have interesting conversations that are without the slightest flirtation.
It is quite possible for women to be valued for non-sexual reasons.
Remember, kids: some anti-choicers think it’s worse to call out poor reasoning skills than to force a rape victim to stay pregnant for nine months, give birth, and raise a child or give it up for adoption.
So, when someone you love gets pregnant by rape, just remember: while you might decide to continually traumatize her by taking away her bodily autonomy by any means necessary (including the threat of imprisonment), at least you never critiqued her poor ability to make a point.
AA,
‘
Say what???
So it is ok to abort if the mother’s life is in danger? What about a 13 year old victim of incest, is that ok? You can’t have things both ways, if the conception of a child is God’s will and should be blessed, then that means in all cases of conception. I am sick of people saying it is ok in this instance but not ok in another. If you believe that conception is God’s will then that is the case in all conceptions. I am pro-choice. I personcally would never have an abortion and that is what I will teach my children, but I do believe that is the right for each woman to decide for herself…free will and all.
Mary @ 1:02 a.m.
LOL. I was going to ask AA the same question. I’ve read her last post several times now. I’d read it one more time but I can’t afford to lose any more brain cells.
AA, the term is pro-lifers, not anti-choicers. I suspect you’ve been involved in these arguments long enough to learn the proper terminology.
My best guess is that AA was somehow referring to Praxedes stating that she is a bigger jerk than Mourdock. Other than that I can make no sense of it. but let’s be honest here. Mourdock is not a jerk, just a politician who happens to support the right position on abortion. I respect him greatly for actually being brave enough to oppose rape exceptions, which is a politically safer if intellectually inconsistent position.
AnnaAnastasia says:
October 27, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Remember, kids: some anti-choicers think it’s worse to call out poor reasoning skills than to force a rape victim to stay pregnant for nine months, give birth, and raise a child or give it up for adoption.
(Denise) Are you aware of the negatives associated with adoption? I’ve posted them several times. Adoptees are 2-3% of the population. They are 16% of serial murderers. Adoptees are also 15 times more likely than other people to kill one or both parents.
Serial murder is not very common and neither is parricide. However, the fact that adoption is so strongly associated with both should give people pause.
And another good reason to work to reduce pregnancies among those women who do not want to become mothers.
I think Newt summed up this stupid tempest in a tea pot pretty well:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/newt-gingrich-says-dems-need-to-get-over-mourdocks-rape-remark-he-said-what-virtually-every-catholic-in-the-country-believes/
@Kim
“So it is ok to abort if the mother’s life is in danger?”
I have never heard of such a case.
“What about a 13 year old victim of incest, is that ok?”
Nope.
“You can’t have things both ways”
I agree.
I would never personally rape a woman, and i will teach my kids to never rape women, but i do believe it is every man’s right to choose for himself, free will as you say.
Denise, must every thread become about your pet issues?
The answer to that seems to be YES.
Pro-Life Catholic says:
October 26, 2012 at 7:22 pm
I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but I feel that this point needs to be made. It seems to me that instead of trying to justify killing an innocent child in the name of “compassion” for women, we should rather focus on promoting a society where rape is less likely to happen.
(Denise) Most criminals don’t commit sex crimes. But most people who commit sex crimes also commit other crimes. To a large extent, decreasing rape is about decreasing crimes overall. It is about supporting good law enforcement.
JDC says:
October 28, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Denise, must every thread become about your pet issues?
(Denise) I am a true crime writer. I just want people to be aware of the negatives associated with adoption. Perhaps awareness is the first step toward helping change those negatives.
I recently wrote to adoptee-serial murderer Lawrence Bittaker and asked him if he believes his being adopted contributed to his ending up on California’s death row. He wrote back that he doesn’t know what the percentage is but “a disproportionate number of people here are adopted.” However, he disagrees with me that it is the adoption itself that causes the problem. He suggests, “Perhaps adopters are just less likely to be successful parents than other people.” I don’t think this is likely since they must go through a screening process in order to adopt. But I am giving you his opinion which must be considered since he is an adopted serial murderer. He believes there might be genetic factors that contributed to his criminality. He also thinks that if he adoptive parents had been “affectionate and demonstrative” he would have turned out better but believes that was “beyond their capabilities.” Some people just aren’t affectionate. He believes adoption is a factor in his horrible screw-up but only one. The prison system also contributed. He was originally imprisoned for thefts. Imprisonment “did no good and may have made things worse.”
My best guess is that AA was somehow referring to Praxedes stating that she is a bigger jerk than Mourdock.
That’s a correct guess. I seriously can’t believe that the people here would think that calling Mary out for poor research are rhetoric is worse than forcing a rape victim through pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption/raising a child. And if the people here actually think that my words are worse than committing violence against a rape victim, then heaven help you all.
Mourdock is not a jerk, just a politician who happens to support the right position on abortion. I respect him greatly for actually being brave enough to oppose rape exceptions, which is a politically safer if intellectually inconsistent position.
Again – supporting violence against and coercion of rape victims makes you much more than a jerk, but I’d start with jerk and move from there. Although you’re right about one thing – forcing rape victims to give birth is intellectually consistent with anti-choice views. So perhaps that’s something to think about – that even the “good” women who didn’t choose to have sex can get caught up and forced to have children under anti-choice laws. Sorta takes away the “should have kept her legs closed” argument.
JDC: “AA, the term is pro-lifers, not anti-choicers. I suspect you’ve been involved in these arguments long enough to learn the proper terminology. “
Actually, I’m using the terms “anti-choice” and “forced pregnancy advocates” intentionally, because that’s the goal of the movement. To ensure that the “right” women get pregnant and stay pregnant, without a choice. Not the poor women, or the gay women, or the women with physical challenges (hence all the articles on this site against health care and assisted reproduction, and advocating for adoption except by gay people). However, the women who are wealthy, white, heterosexual, and hopefully religious (except Muslims) should be having babies, as many as possible (birth control is an evil carcinogen!). And certainly they should do it without any assistance from the community, because those kids are their parents’ problem – until we need them to go to war, of course. Then, thanks for birthing them, mom!
You’re not pro-life if you’re not in favor of ensuring that the government provide poor children and their families with adequate food, medical care and education. You’re not pro-life if you think a doctor should have to have a judicial waiver stating a pregnant person will bleed out and die if she doesn’t get an abortion. You’re not pro-life if you’d rather see a kid in an orphanage than in the home of a loving gay couple. And you’re certainly not pro-life if you cheer the birth of a baby girl, only to see her grow up and get raped, then used as an incubator against her consent. That’s not life – that’s a horror film.
U-104: “‘So it is ok to abort if the mother’s life is in danger?’
‘I have never heard of such a case.'”
You’re very, very lucky.
” Actually, I’m using the terms “anti-choice” and “forced pregnancy advocates” intentionally, because that’s the goal of the movement. To ensure that the “right” women get pregnant and stay pregnant, without a choice. Not the poor women, or the gay women, or the women with physical challenges (hence all the articles on this site against health care and assisted reproduction, and advocating for adoption except by gay people). However, the women who are wealthy, white, heterosexual, and hopefully religious (except Muslims) should be having babies, as many as possible (birth control is an evil carcinogen!). And certainly they should do it without any assistance from the community, because those kids are their parents’ problem – until we need them to go to war, of course. Then, thanks for birthing them, mom!”
Well that’s a nice conspiracy theory. If you would really believe that pro-lifers have this racist, classist conspiracy to get rich white married women pregnant as much as possible and cull out the herd of the great unwashed (um, how exactly?) then you are either hopeless to have a discussion with or you haven’t studied the movement much!
If I didn’t know any better, I would say a certain alliteratively named friend of ours wasn’t actually looking for a serious discussion, but instead just enjoys ranting.
JDC, I already did AnnaAnastasia on another thread. Big fun. Though I think I’ve had enough fun for about a century.
Then again, I could stand to watch if she went one-on-one with Danny…
“Then again, I could stand to watch if she went one-on-one with Danny…”
Same here. I expect it would be the funniest thing to ever happen on this blog.
“I expect it would be the funniest thing to ever happen on this blog. ”
No, nothing could ever be funnier than Bruce telling me I had gay orgies with my ex-wife since we used condoms lolol. I have that thread bookmarked because it was so funny haha.
“No, nothing could ever be funnier than Bruce telling me I had gay orgies with my ex-wife since we used condoms lolol.”
I stand corrected.
“If I didn’t know any better, I would say a certain alliteratively named friend of ours wasn’t actually looking for a serious discussion, but instead just enjoys ranting. “
If I didn’t know better, I would say you (do I need to be cutesy with the “certain friend of ours” deal?) weren’t interested in defending Mourdock, but more interested in in-jokes, high-fiving, electing any Republican with a pulse, and acting as if you actually care about women who were raped. But again, it’s more important to use rhetoric than to actually explain how it’s humane to force women to be pregnant when they don’t want to be.
If that’s what stands for discussion on this topic, then congratulations! You win! I’ll be sure to make a printout and show the next rape victim I talk to who’s in labor against her will. She’ll be THRILLED!
“JDC, I already did AnnaAnastasia on another thread. Big fun. Though I think I’ve had enough fun for about a century.”
Hey! More high-fiving! Swell! You win, too! Although…how did you find time to comment, what with all the diaper drives and food pantries you’re surely running to help care for the babies conceived by rape who need taking care of?
“If I didn’t know better, I would say you (do I need to be cutesy with the “certain friend of ours” deal?) weren’t interested in defending Mourdock, but more interested in in-jokes, high-fiving, electing any Republican with a pulse, and acting as if you actually care about women who were raped. But again, it’s more important to use rhetoric than to actually explain how it’s humane to force women to be pregnant when they don’t want to be.”
Do you really think that no one who has commented on this thread (besides rape victim, obviously) has been raped and doesn’t know how horrifying it is? You want an explanation for why it’s hunky dory for a rape victim to have to carry her attacker’s baby? Well, you won’t get one from me. Because it’s not okay, it sucks. It’s a horrible, horrible situation. There are about a million different terrible things that can happen when you are raped, and a pregnancy that you didn’t want or plan is one that female victims might have to deal with. And I hate that. But those are the facts, that sometimes rape victims get pregnant, and they are pregnant with a human being. We can’t kill one innocent live to try to heal the rape victim, we can’t see that as humane. I am sorry there aren’t really good answers here, but one answer that’s unacceptable to pro-lifers is the death of the fetus conceived in rape.
AnnaAnastasia says: You’re not pro-life if you’re not in favor of ensuring that the government provide poor children and their families with adequate food, medical care and education.
So. much. wrong. with that statement.
Help your neighbors and those in need AA, don’t wait for the “government” to do it for crying out loud! YOU and I and EVERYONE have the responsibility to help others. And we can’t wait for some poorly run, expensive bureaucratic government program! People are hungry and hurting RIGHT NOW! Every day there are pro-life people that FEED the poor, CARE for the sick even when they can’t pay for that care, EDUCATE the poor, TRANSLATE and ADVOCATE for poor families to help them through all that bureaucratic red-tape filled “help” you’re so fond of. How easy it must be to sit back and watch people suffer while complaining that those people who are actually helping RIGHT NOW and aren’t in favor of government mucking up what’s working are not pro-life. Thank God I get to fill bags with groceries and give money to the poor for utility bills and medical expenses and school supplies using purely PRIVATE DONATIONS without having to involve the government! How wonderful it is to give aid immediately when it’s needed. Yeah, too bad I’m not pro-life.
@AnnaAnastasia
“You’re very, very lucky.”
No i’m just very, very informed.
My head is spinning after coming across this article and reading all of the comments. Anna Anastasia tried to encourage other commentators to focus on Richard Mourdock’s comments (since that was the subject of the initial article). In her many posts, she also brought in many other issues. Maybe so many things are tied together in life that it is impossible to just comment about Richard Mourdock’s interview responses without going off on tangents.
I follow your reasoning, AA, about the importance of free will and the disservice of forcing women to either have an abortion or not have an abortion. However, it would be difficult to live in a society if we were allowed to do anything that we freely chose, especially if our action would harm another. If we were all actualized, wise, all-loving human beings, there would be no need for societal or government laws. But, we are not, and every society has determined that laws are needed. The question becomes what laws should we have. For example, a law against murder, the purposeful taking of innocent life exists in most societies. If you, without the coersion of anyone else, have decided it is the right decision to murder me, I would hope that the society in which we live would have made a law to try to prevent you from exercising your free will in this matter and would bring negative ramifications to you if you were successful.
Richard Mourdock’s words have been twisted. To believe that human life is sacred and should be protected in a society is a noble mindset. To see that our right to life is not predicated on the circumstances of our conception is to value human beings. Our value is not ascribed to us by our mothers. It is inherent and endowed by our Creator. A society that tries to protect its most vulnerable members will be a life-giving culture. A society that decides that certain members are disposable will be the opposite. Therefore, truly trying to stay on the topic of Richard Mourdock’s comments, I find them admirable.
“No i’m just very, very informed.”
Not by medical professionals, I trust. Or personal experience with many actual pregnant people.
“There are about a million different terrible things that can happen when you are raped, and a pregnancy that you didn’t want or plan is one that female victims might have to deal with. And I hate that. But those are the facts, that sometimes rape victims get pregnant, and they are pregnant with a human being. We can’t kill one innocent live to try to heal the rape victim, we can’t see that as humane. ”
Actually, female rape victims DO deal with unwanted pregnancy from rape. Some choose to go through with it. Some choose abortion. If they don’t want an abortion, great – all support should be given so that the pregnancy, birth, and subsequent raising of that child should be as easy as possible. If they do want abortion, they are choosing it – “we” aren’t doing anything to them. They will not be healed by being forced to be pregnant. They will be healed by having control over their lives, and that starts with the decision about whether their bodies will be used for pregnancy or not.
“Help your neighbors and those in need AA, don’t wait for the “government” to do it for crying out loud!…How easy it must be to sit back and watch people suffer while complaining that those people who are actually helping RIGHT NOW and aren’t in favor of government mucking up what’s working are not pro-life. “
I’m not sure why government assistance to the poor would stop you OR Richard Mourdock from bagging up groceries, collecting diapers, or doing whatever needs to be done to help people in need. But you’re saying that your organization, church, or charity can help everyone in this country? Why no – everyone should help! So, what happens when they don’t? Yeah…children starve. If assistance to feed, educate, house, and give medical attention to children isn’t guaranteed in this country, how can this country be pro-life? When children die from lack of medical care, how is that pro-life? Does your charity offer chemotherapy? Organ transplants? Or even enough food for all the needy in this country to meet their nutritional needs? No? Then perhaps there should be an infrastructure to offer that. (At least everyone seems to agree on that point for our bloated national defense.)
How easy it must be to preach the virtues of ”life” when it’s some pregnant person doing all the work to care for a fetus, but when it’s born, it’s offered the luck of the draw by a society that refuses any responsibility for it. I do find it amazing that people like Mourdock are appalled by the thought that they must pay taxes for the benefit of society (unless it’s for bombs, of course), but they have no problem with the State using a woman’s body against her will.
“ For example, a law against murder, the purposeful taking of innocent life exists in most societies. If you, without the coersion of anyone else, have decided it is the right decision to murder me, I would hope that the society in which we live would have made a law to try to prevent you from exercising your free will in this matter and would bring negative ramifications to you if you were successful. ”
And if I was in need of a kidney, I would hope that the law wouldn’t allow me to commandeer one of yours for my use without your consent. The only case in which the anti-abortion movement insists that someone use their body against their consent is in the case of pregnant women. If a child is born and in need of bone marrow, and his father is a match, the father isn’t legally obligated to do a thing, even if the child dies. That father cannot be jailed for murder, and I don’t see any anti-abortion folks advocating that he should be.
The fundamental right to the use of one’s own body isn’t comprehensible by the anti-abortion movement if it concerns women, especially those who have had sex, especially those who have had sex willingly. It’s just a little more shocking when people like Mourdock play out the inevitable conclusion where it regards rape: that when women cannot legally choose to use their bodies as they see fit, those bodies can be first used by a rapist, and then be used just as intimately by the State.
“Actually, female rape victims DO deal with unwanted pregnancy from rape. Some choose to go through with it. Some choose abortion. If they don’t want an abortion, great – all support should be given so that the pregnancy, birth, and subsequent raising of that child should be as easy as possible. If they do want abortion, they are choosing it – “we” aren’t doing anything to them. They will not be healed by being forced to be pregnant. They will be healed by having control over their lives, and that starts with the decision about whether their bodies will be used for pregnancy or not.”
I really do see what you are saying. And I agree with some of it honestly. I don’t think carrying the baby to term is some magic bullet that guarantees better healing. Still, it doesn’t change the fact that she’s carrying a human fetus, and how she feels about it doesn’t mean that the fetus is less deserving of legal protection. We can’t legislate based on how people feel about things, that would be a disaster. And yes, before you go there, I know it sounds cold and heartless to basically say “she has to carry a baby she doesn’t want after being attacked so viciously” but it’s really the only way to consistently protect fetal humans. Pro-lifers can’t really say “all human life is worthy of legal protection… except if they are conceived by rape. Then they can die”. It’s just not consistent at all. Believe me, I’ve tried to make a rape exception work in a pro-life ethic but I can’t.
“If assistance to feed, educate, house, and give medical attention to children isn’t guaranteed in this country, how can this country be pro-life? When children die from lack of medical care, how is that pro-life? Does your charity offer chemotherapy? Organ transplants? Or even enough food for all the needy in this country to meet their nutritional needs? No? Then perhaps there should be an infrastructure to offer that. (At least everyone seems to agree on that point for our bloated national defense.) ”
Yes, we do need infrastructure to protect lower income children and families. Of course. I also think that we need a completely different military spending plan but that’s beside the point. The thing is, not everyone agrees on the best way to help lower income people. Conservatives have their views, liberals have theirs. It’s a complete distraction to somehow tie people’s views on economics to whether they are allowed to be pro-life.
Thought experiment: Say that infanticide was legal (just bear with me, I know you don’t think that a fetus is equal to a born infant but we do, I am just trying to help you understand where we come from). Say it was legal to kill your infant up to six months of age if you didn’t want to parent, thought it was an undue burden, etc etc etc. So you start working to change these laws to protect infants from this human rights violation. Would you consider it a valid criticism if people told you that unless you support this economic program, unless you are going to adopt all these unwanted infants that are going to be killed, that you couldn’t be truly anti-infanticide? Of course it wouldn’t be a valid criticism. You would be right to oppose infanticide even if every single other view of yours was way off-base.
“And if I was in need of a kidney, I would hope that the law wouldn’t allow me to commandeer one of yours for my use without your consent. The only case in which the anti-abortion movement insists that someone use their body against their consent is in the case of pregnant women. If a child is born and in need of bone marrow, and his father is a match, the father isn’t legally obligated to do a thing, even if the child dies. That father cannot be jailed for murder, and I don’t see any anti-abortion folks advocating that he should be.”
Actually, the kidney analogy kinda fails. The father in your example isn’t smothering the kid with a pillow or something to prevent his body being used. In abortion, the fetus is deliberately killed to prevent the mother’s body from being used. There’s a difference between deliberately killing someone and letting them die when you might be able to prevent it. Especially when the fetus is in the exact place that every single fetus starts out at, you’re basically killing it for doing what comes naturally. It’s not ill, most of the time it wouldn’t die naturally.
Honestly I don’t think I would be too unhappy about a law requiring people to donate organs (barring health reasons that would make it impossible) to their minor kids. It would probably never pass but I think someone who wouldn’t donate to their dying child is a terrible human being.
“The fundamental right to the use of one’s own body isn’t comprehensible by the anti-abortion movement if it concerns women, especially those who have had sex, especially those who have had sex willingly. It’s just a little more shocking when people like Mourdock play out the inevitable conclusion where it regards rape: that when women cannot legally choose to use their bodies as they see fit, those bodies can be first used by a rapist, and then be used just as intimately by the State.”
Good lord, no one can use their body as they see fit in all circumstances ever. We all, even us dastardly men, have our freedoms of using our bodies curtailed in circumstances that it harms another person. I can’t even go smoke a joint right now because the government has decided that I can’t use my body to smoke pot, lol. And that doesn’t hurt anyone but me (if it hurts anyone at all, which I don’t think it does). Women aren’t being picked on here, we all have our freedom to do as we please restricted out of regard for the rights of others.
Well-said, Jack!
And I fully endorse all he has said, AA, as a woman who has been pregnant, given birth twice, and been raped. (Just so you don’t shrug off all he has said simply because of his gender. :3 )
AnnaAnastasia, why do you keep forgetting that there are two human beings involved when a woman is pregnant? I see that you are trying to be a strong advocate for the one to exercise her free will without constraints in order to empower her. But why aren’t you an advocate for the second human being in the equation? Why isn’t her life merit your crusading spirit? Where is your concern and mercy to the child conceived in rape? Do you really believe that she deserves a cruel death? Where is her choice?
It seems that the root of a raping mentality is a view that a woman is an object to be used as the rapist sees fit instead of the recognition that a woman is a sacred person. The abortion mentality is no different. An innocent child is objectified and her sacred essense is denied. Does it truly empower a rapist to exercise his free will and hurt his victim? No, that is not real empowerment. Does it truly empower a woman to kill her child, even if it is her free-will choice? No, it is not real empowerment. Making choices that either maim or destroy the life of another is never empowering, nor will it heal the traumas of our past.
I too agree with Jack’s last point: our freedom to do as we please needs to be restricted out of regard for the rights of others. It is why we have laws against rape. It is why we need to have laws against abortion.
(Sorry I haven’t been able to reply – I haven’t been ignoring it, it’s just that things are very hectic here, and this will probably be my last comment on this post, although I’m sure that similar issues will come up in other posts. Thanks for your patience.)
Jack – first, I want to thank you for your thoughtful and civil reply. As you said to me, I do understand where you’re coming from. I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to explain your thoughts, even though we still don’t see eye to eye.
“Pro-lifers can’t really say “all human life is worthy of legal protection… except if they are conceived by rape. Then they can die”. It’s just not consistent at all. Believe me, I’ve tried to make a rape exception work in a pro-life ethic but I can’t. “
I agree with you. If a person is against abortion, then it would be consistent to say that there aren’t any exceptions that would allow abortion – in fact, I’m surprised that so many people are surprised when people like Mourdock express this logical consistency. I think the people who are most surprised by Mourdock are those who have a knee-jerk belief that they don’t think abortion should be legal, but they haven’t followed that line of thought to its logical conclusion. When the logical conclusion is expressed by people like Mourdock, the casual anti-abortion advocates hopefully reevaluate their beliefs, in light of their real-world effects.
“Would you consider it a valid criticism if people told you that unless you support this economic program, unless you are going to adopt all these unwanted infants that are going to be killed, that you couldn’t be truly anti-infanticide? Of course it wouldn’t be a valid criticism. You would be right to oppose infanticide even if every single other view of yours was way off-base.”
And here again, I truly understand what you’re saying. Every person who opposes abortion can’t adopt every child in the world, obviously. And that is actually the cornerstone of what I’m saying. We live in a country where children aren’t always cared for, and individuals alone are powerless to change that – including the people who are pregnant.
But I’m not talking about a specific “economic program.” What I’m saying that most anti-abortion advocates don’t even agree with the concept that we, as a society, are responsible for children.
Hear me out: I’m NOT saying that anti-abortion advocates don’t theoretically agree that all children should be cared for, or that they don’t make individual efforts to care for children (although given the zealousness of their beliefs, a lot of them could stand to do more). But a certain portion of anti-abortion activists (and from what I’ve seen, it’s a large majority), don’t see universal care of children as a societal goal. They’ll organize the local churches to do food drives, or they’ll donate to a collection jar for a child’s leukemia treatment. But if a child grows up in a community that doesn’t have a network of church food pantries, or if that collection jar doesn’t pay for the leukemia treatment? They shrug their shoulders and accept that the patchwork quilt can’t cover everybody. They certainly don’t think more comprehensive solutions should happen. The poor will always be with us, etc etc.
Within the anti-abortion movement, there’s plenty of opposition to programs like CHIP, WIC, and Head Start – not opposition to the methods or particulars of those programs, but opposition to the basic idea that there it is a mandatory responsibility that we all must keep children from living in poverty, hunger, and ignorance no matter what we think of their parents. In fact, Mourdock is a perfect example of opposition to welfare, food stamps, and education for children, simply because he thinks it shouldn’t be done.
Again, we’re not talking about objections to waste or administrative incompetence in the execution of government programs. We’re talking about allowing children to starve because we don’t want to force taxpaying adults to support needy children (often using the excuse that the children’s parents are lazy or incompetent, never minding that no matter what, the child suffers). Meanwhile, the same people who object to the safety net wonder why a person would choose not to bring a child into a society that doesn’t have an adequate safety net, when that person knows her eventual child won’t be cared for.
“Actually, the kidney analogy kinda fails. The father in your example isn’t smothering the kid with a pillow or something to prevent his body being used. In abortion, the fetus is deliberately killed to prevent the mother’s body from being used. There’s a difference between deliberately killing someone and letting them die when you might be able to prevent it. Especially when the fetus is in the exact place that every single fetus starts out at, you’re basically killing it for doing what comes naturally. It’s not ill, most of the time it wouldn’t die naturally.”
This is something that I’ve pointed out in other threads, and I’ve been struggling with a way to explain it that makes sense. Pregnancy is not passive. I’ve seen lots of people talk about the fetus “doing what comes naturally.” But a fetus isn’t a seed that’s planted into the unfeeling ground. A fetus grows inside a person, and that person isn’t just hanging out, waiting for a baby to fall from her uterus like a tupperware container that’s been popped open. Even in the best of circumstances, pregnancy requires significant effort. And frequently, it involves putting the pregnant person’s life on the line (certain comments on this thread notwithstanding). A fetus will literally take nutrients from the very bones of the pregnant person if it needs to do that. A fetus will rip open the the skin and muscle between the vagina and anus if it needs to get out. Pregnancy isn’t a disease, but it’s not a casual project either. It’s work, and iust because someone isn’t cutting into the pregnant person’s back and extracting a kidney (although they might cut into her uterus) doesn’t mean that pregnancy doesn’t have serious and lasting consequences in basically all cases. It is a serious decision to remain pregnant. And just as we legally allow parents to decide whether to use their bodies to save the lives of their born children when those children need bodily support, it’s no different to allow a pregnant person to decide whether her body will be used so that a child can be born. (Especially bearing in mind that, at least for now, the fetus is not considered a person.) If a parent doesn’t give a kidney to his child, or if a pregnancy doesn’t come to term, or even if two people don’t have sex - either way, a child doesn’t live. And in this society, we allow people to make the choice whether to have sex, whether to maintain a pregnancy, and whether to give up a kidney, because we recognize that it’s a different scenario than actively smothering a person with a pillow.
“It would probably never pass but I think someone who wouldn’t donate to their dying child is a terrible human being. “
I’m not prepared to step into someone else’s shoes, but I’d imagine that most parents would be willing to make bodily sacrifices for their kids. The difference is, we don’t legislate it. We see a difference between killing someone and not making a heroic effort to save them, and we trust people to know whether they are in a position to make a heroic effort.
Bottom line, women don’t choose to abort because they feel like eating raw sushi for dinner that week. Most women who abort already have children whom they struggle to care for. Many will lose their jobs if it’s discovered they are pregnant or take time to give birth (and certainly if they need accommodations if they choose to raise the child themselves). Some will be thrown out of high school, or will suffer abuse or homelessness. Reducing abortions doesn’t happen when abortion is illegal. Reducing abortions happens when these conditions are reduced.
Why would we trust a parent to know if they can give a kidney to their born kid, but we won’t trust a pregnant person to know if she can give her body to her future kid, given the circumstances she’s faced with?
“Good lord, no one can use their body as they see fit in all circumstances ever. We all, even us dastardly men, have our freedoms of using our bodies curtailed in circumstances that it harms another person…Women aren’t being picked on here, we all have our freedom to do as we please restricted out of regard for the rights of others.”
First, I’m not sure what the “dastardly men” thing is about. I think highly of men, because I believe that most of them can understand the dignity and work of pregnancy. Decent men would not want to live in a world where their sisters, mothers, wives, girlfriends, friends, and co-workers could be attacked and then forced through pregnancy. They’d weep right along with women to see pregnancy occur literally at the point of a gun and the threat of imprisonment, because it makes pregnant people less than human.
As far as the laws you cite, they apply to everyone, not just men. But are men expected to keep people alive through the unwilling use of their bodies? If not, then pregnancy is most certainly a case where people are being more than “picked on”.
And of course, the next step is that it leads to other avenues of being “picked on.” People like Mourdock may think that God needs rape to accomplish pregnancies. But they also turn around and use inevitable pregnancy as an excuse of why it’s not worth it to educate women, hire women, recruit women for government or military service, etc. etc. It’s a handy system for him, because it eliminates a lot of competition for his job.
xalisae:
“And I fully endorse all he has said, AA, as a woman who has been pregnant, given birth twice, and been raped. (Just so you don’t shrug off all he has said simply because of his gender. :3 )”
I do offer my sincere deepest sympathy that you have been raped – truly. I wish there was something more profound I could offer, but I hope you will accept my wishes for your continued peace and healing, despite our differences and the discussions we’ve had.
And if I was staying on this thread longer, I’d be curious to know as a woman who has had the experience of choosing to give birth twice, how you think that experience would have differed if you weren’t given a choice of doing so. I assume it would have been devastating if you were forced to have abortions, and rightly so – it’s an invasion of your privacy and your values. And if that abortion had been forced on you by the government after you were raped, it would have been even more unconscionable, if that’s even possible. I’d be the first to stand up to such government tyranny, and to offer you support.
And again, something I’ve said on other threads is that forced abortion is the other side of the coin from forced pregnancy. Forced abortion (whether it’s coerced by the government, family/friends, or tragic circumstances) is another way of forcing women to do things with their body that they don’t want to do, just as forced pregnancy is. If a pregnant person wants to remain pregnant, all support should be given to her. In fact, plenty of reproductive rights activists point out that poor women, women of color, and women with disabilities are often discouraged from having children. Pressuring these women NOT to have children when they want to is just as wrong as forcing a woman to have a child when she doesn’t want to.
When the logical conclusion is expressed by people like Mourdock, the casual anti-abortion advocates hopefully reevaluate their beliefs, in light of their real-world effects.
Yes, and you’ll find that most come around to the “no exceptions” line of thinking, as I used to be a “with rape exceptions” kind of person, and Jack stated he originally was a “with rape exceptions” kinda guy, too. If lives deserve to be protected, that stands even for the biological children of rapists.
EVERYTHING in your second section there was you combating a strawman, and had nothing to do with the abortion debate. Unless you really think killing the impoverished should be seen as a legitimate course of action as an alternative to the government programs already in use that provide the basics for the poor. Because they DO exist, and nobody is against those basic programs, but take issue with their execution or the fact that the country is being mismanaged in such a way that business and our citizens are struggling to the extent they are so that so many of us NEED such programs.
Even in the best of circumstances, pregnancy requires significant effort.
No, it really doesn’t. It required no great amount of effort or concentration on my part to remain pregnant. I didn’t have to will my children to stay up in my uterus. I could and did literally do it in my sleep. It took nutrients, but so does caring for my children now that they’re born. Every serving of food I put on THEIR plates is one less helping of nutrients for ME. Where those nutrients come from and how they are delivered really isn’t relevant, and if anything, it was easier for me to give them to my kids when they were gestating, since I was already eating the food for myself, anyway.
And frequently, it involves putting the pregnant person’s life on the line (certain comments on this thread notwithstanding).
When you look at the sheer numbers of pregnancies and births even on a daily basis in the world, no, it’s not really frequent at all. And, continuing the pregnancy is actually less hazardous than making the decision to intervene, prematurely stop the pregnancy and kill the child. (David C. Reardon and Priscilla K. Coleman, Short and long term mortality rates associate with first pregnancy outcome: Population register based study for Denmark 1980-2004, 18(9) Medical Science Monitor, 71-76 September 1, 2012)
Women are not tupperware containers, but (common, healthy) pregnancy doesn’t require active intervention to CONTINUE, only to END.
And just as we legally allow parents to decide whether to use their bodies to save the lives of their born children when those children need bodily support, it’s no different to allow a pregnant person to decide whether her body will be used so that a child can be born.
I don’t think so. I think that the only reason it isn’t currently mandated that parents must provide medically necessary, non-life-threatening aid to their children currently is because (and I think this is evidenced by us basically unanimously agreeing that any parent who would refuse such a thing is not just a bad parent but a terrible human being) it’s not needed. It’s not as if we have a rash of parents refusing transfusions, bone marrow transplants, or even some organs and tissues to their children. Abortion, for some reason, is one of the only instances in which basic care being withheld by a parent (or active harm inflicted for that matter-but we’ll get into that more later) to a child is seen on a large scale as socially-acceptable, and that’s one reason why the Pro-Life movement is gaining steam. It is a consistent worldview. It is a consistent ethic. It is uniform treatment for a child pre-birth as would be expected for a child post-birth.
If a parent doesn’t give a kidney to his child, or if a pregnancy doesn’t come to term, or even if two people don’t have sex - either way, a child doesn’t live. And in this society, we allow people to make the choice whether to have sex, whether to maintain a pregnancy, and whether to give up a kidney, because we recognize that it’s a different scenario than actively smothering a person with a pillow.
And here is where you come right off the tracks. If a parent doesn’t give a kidney to their child, that’s deplorable, but not (yet?) prosecutable. That’s DEATH through INaction. If a pregnancy doesn’t come to term (for the case of miscarriage), that is (unavoidable? natural?) DEATH through INaction. And I think you might be trying to equate natural death-miscarriage-with active killing-abortion-here by stating “if a pregnancy doesn’t come to term” without a reason, so let me just clarify, because elective abortion and miscarriage are two different beasts. If a pregnancy doesn’t come to term due to elective abortion, then someone has ACTIVELY intervened in the pregnancy, thus ending the gestating child’s life. That is DEATH through ACTION. And then you try to equate something completely different!!! at the end here: If two people don’t have sex, no child is created, so no child lives or was alive in the first place, so no child DIES. You’re trying to equate killing/death/dying with never having lived at all, and that just doesn’t work.
Most women who abort already have children whom they struggle to care for. Many will lose their jobs if it’s discovered they are pregnant or take time to give birth (and certainly if they need accommodations if they choose to raise the child themselves). Some will be thrown out of high school, or will suffer abuse or homelessness. Reducing abortions doesn’t happen when abortion is illegal. Reducing abortions happens when these conditions are reduced.
This is an argument similar to the one about WIC and assistance earlier. If women abort because of such circumstances, we should be trying to change the circumstances, not campaigning to make it legal to kill the child. If shooting an infant in the face isn’t an acceptable alternative to signing up for WIC, then killing that same child a few months earlier in utero shouldn’t be seen as an acceptable alternative to adequate maternal leave. Would you be campaigning for reducing animal abuse solely by being an activist for more and improved access to mental health treatment for abusers and seeing that as an alternative to making animal abuse illegal, or would you ALSO support animal welfare laws?
Why would we trust a parent to know if they can give a kidney to their born kid, but we won’t trust a pregnant person to know if she can give her body to her future kid, given the circumstances she’s faced with?
1.) I still have my own body. I’ve given birth twice. Required giving zero kidneys away. Giving a kidney would’ve been far more of a burden on me. Society would still expect me to give a kidney to either one of my kids should they need one of mine, or else they’d think I was a crappy parent and a generally terrible human being. I don’t understand why society expects less of me just because I happen to be pregnant with a child rather than parenting a born child.
2.) Not “future kid”. Actual, current kid. A cervix is not a time machine. The vaginal canal is not a time tunnel. The uterus is not a TARDIS. The life cycle of sexually-reproducing organisms begins at amphimixis. The offspring of sexually-reproducing organisms is the biological child of those parents.
First, I’m not sure what the “dastardly men” thing is about. I think highly of men, because I believe that most of them can understand the dignity and work of pregnancy. Decent men would not want to live in a world where their sisters, mothers, wives, girlfriends, friends, and co-workers could be attacked and then forced through pregnancy. They’d weep right along with women to see pregnancy occur literally at the point of a gun and the threat of imprisonment, because it makes pregnant people less than human.
Nice veiled insult to Jack, there. But, he not only understands the “dignity and work of pregnancy”, but also the dignity and inherent worth of children, at every age and stage of life. Therefore, these sisters, mothers, wives, girlfriends, friends, and co-workers are not “forced through pregnancy”, they’ve simply become parents, and that stands regardless of their feelings towards being pregnant, and that stands regardless of their feelings towards their children. I can’t wait to live in a world where the killing of one’s child bears the threat of imprisonment at the least! And I’m a woman! That doesn’t make me “less than human”, it makes me a parent, and one who understands the intrinsic worth of my children and every child like them-even when they are young enough to be gestating within their mothers.
But are men expected to keep people alive through the unwilling use of their bodies? If not, then pregnancy is most certainly a case where people are being more than “picked on”.
If their salaries are being garnished for child support, you bet your galoshes, sweetheart. Don’t worry, nobody’s trying to pick on us poor wittoo girls. It’s just about time that we’re held to the same standards of caring for our children that men are, and our children’s lives are no longer just an option for us. Maybe you didn’t get the memo, but there is no choice for a man in “Pro-Choice”. My fiance didn’t get one when his ex killed his child. My ex didn’t get a choice when he wanted me to have our daughter killed in an abortion, either. And for the record, neither child involved in that situation had a choice, either. As it stands, we women are getting preferential treatment, seeing as how we’re the only ones with the CHOICE to kill legally, at this point.
People like Mourdock may think that God needs rape to accomplish pregnancies. But they also turn around and use inevitable pregnancy as an excuse of why it’s not worth it to educate women, hire women, recruit women for government or military service, etc. etc. It’s a handy system for him, because it eliminates a lot of competition for his job.
(Insert reference to “binders full of women” hysteria here)
I do offer my sincere deepest sympathy that you have been raped – truly. I wish there was something more profound I could offer, but I hope you will accept my wishes for your continued peace and healing, despite our differences and the discussions we’ve had.
Save it. I’m done with him and those like him. I should’ve known better from the start, honestly. Anyone who could view his own child as a disposable byproduct of his sexual desire couldn’t possibly have had much respect for me. I’m on to bigger and much better things these days. ;)
And if I was staying on this thread longer, I’d be curious to know as a woman who has had the experience of choosing to give birth twice, how you think that experience would have differed if you weren’t given a choice of doing so. I assume it would have been devastating if you were forced to have abortions, and rightly so – it’s an invasion of your privacy and your values. And if that abortion had been forced on you by the government after you were raped, it would have been even more unconscionable, if that’s even possible. I’d be the first to stand up to such government tyranny, and to offer you support.
Simple: I didn’t choose. I DEFINITELY didn’t choose to get pregnant with and birth my first child, that’s for certain. Trust me, I had different things I would’ve preferred to have invested my time and effort in back then. This has nothing to do with anything about ME. ME, ME, ME, MINE, MINE, MINE, MY PRIVACY, MY VALUES, MEEEEEE! Nope. Never even looked at it from that point of view at all. It’d be devastating, alright, but not for anything that has to do with ME. It’d be devastating because a freaking child would be killed, that’s why. Only bonus horrifying points granted because it would’ve been MY child (and that’s the only place where “ME, MY” comes in, frankly). So please, if you want to stand against government tyranny, forget I exist for a minute and go fight for basic human rights for everyone with my now 10 year old daughter and tell her what an atrocity it was that it would’ve been legal for me to have had her killed back then just because of her age and location. Otherwise, please don’t do us any favors.
Pressuring these women NOT to have children when they want to is just as wrong as forcing a woman to have a child when she doesn’t want to.
Except to all those evil children who were “forced” on their Blessed Queen of the Universe Gaia Earth Goddess Mothers.
P.S.
I hate formatting here.
^ Yes.
Wow, x and Jack. I would like to congratulate both on the amount of pwnage you two are achieving this thread.
Great. Another post that will most likely never be answered. *sigh*
It may never be answered but it is being read. Love Jack and X!
susan d, 10/24 8:01 pm:
I can’t stand when intelligent people act as though they are dumb. I don’t mean you. I mean a lot of the people flipping out over this remark as if they didn’t have the reading comprehension of a fifth grader. I agree that perception matters, but their perception is flat-out wrong and, I believe, disingenuous. But you have to expect that when you tell the truth in the midst of lies. It doesn’t mean you stop telling it, or dumb it down for people who really ought to know better. It is not by any means a nail in any “pro-life coffin.” You know the opposition’s grasping at stuff like this reeks of desperation. Whatever setbacks we encounter we will soldier on like we always do.
AA: abortion doesn’t just make one un-pregnant. It is a fatal solution to a temporary problem. I am trying to imagine a world where this twisted sympathy is extended to crime victims in general, being given license to kill even the innocent. Perhaps it’s my upbringing but I just cannot comprehend a mentality that because something terrible happens to me, I am thereby automatically set free of the restrictions on killing that attend everyone else. I can’t comprehend how nine months living my life the way I prefer justifies killing.
Denise: asking a criminal what he thinks about jail, or anything that might have ‘contributed’ to his being there is…well…asking for it. Sorry.