Mourdock says pregnancy from rape is "something that God intended to happen"

[Azdgari]

No..what I am saying is Nam (and most atheist) believe the story of the "virgin" birth to be a myth..So how can they believe it to be a "rape" if it is false?

Yes, it is a myth.  A myth is a story.  It being a myth, or story, does not negate that rape might be a component of the story.

What's so hard about that?

[madeline]

I'm not lying..I'm sorry you feel that way..I'm sorry I engaged you..I had no idea of your issues..it's all good Nam..you are right..Thank you for all you have taught me..

[jetson]

Let's all go back to the topic.  Otherwise it gets locked.

[madeline]

Seriously? A fake story? with a fake rape? Yet you want me to consider it as real? What the fuck am I missing here?

[Nam]

No..what I am saying is Nam (and most atheist) believe the story of the "virgin" birth to be a myth..So how can they believe it to be a "rape" if it is false?

That's irrelevant. This entire conversation is in context to Mourdock's belief as a Christian. The Bible is his scripture. He believes what he does based on what the Bible says. The Bible says that Biblegod impregnated Mary and John the Baptist's mother. So, in that context Mary was raped (by Biblegod placing life into her womb) by Biblegod.

You dismissed that for a number of reasons[1], which you have a right to do but stuck with the "Nam doesn't believe in Biblegod or the stories in the Bible and therefore it isn't actually rape.". But that is irrelevant since I am speaking in context of the story based off what Mourdock stated (and that it implies it, in general).

You dismiss that as nonsense based solely on the premise of "But Nam knows it is fiction." Which is also irrelevant.

Do you understand now?

-Nam

1.	some contradictory

[Azdgari]

No, it's not real.  Not to me.  Not to you.  Not to Nam.  But it is real to the dipshit in the OP.  From his point of view, he is reasoning as though it's real.  From his point of view, it's not a myth.  When analyzing his point of view, that should be taken into account.

Which was Nam's point.

[madeline]

Fine..Whatever..I didn't realize this board realized shit as fact..again my fuckin bad..

[Nam]

None of us stated it was fact. At least I didn't. I stated in context of the story based on what Mourdock said. How are you not getting this?

-Nam

[madeline]

A fuckin fake story..with a fuckin fake rape...we are going to compare to what our daughters might face in real life? Now I am really scared..

[Azdgari]

I know how it feels to have one's back up in an argument.  Nam's especially good at generating bad blood.  He even takes pride in it.  And I've been in your shoes plenty of times.  So believe me, I understand the attitude you're feeling right now.

It's not a condusive attitude to resolving this issue.  Nam's an incorrigible asshole[1], which is part of why I'm not bothering to talk to him here, only to you.  The other reason, though, is that in this case he's right.  He's not "taking shit as fact".  He's just talking about what it must be like for the dipshit in the OP to think about the issue (or at least he was, originally, before the pissing contest).

Nam doesn't need to simmer, because he does this all the time and seems to enjoy it.  But you do, because you've let him get to you, and it's affecting your posts.

1.	He's the first to admit it.

[Nam]

You're making that comparison, as I stated to you before: WE ARE NOT.

-Nam

[madeline]

I am getting it fine Nam..you compare a story which you know is not fuckin true to a real life rape..you have to be a monster to compare the two..honestly I feel sick right now..to know my daughter is in the hands of these sick mofo's that think like you..

[Azdgari]

As an aside, the topic of discussion going on right now between us has nothing to do with rape per se.  We could use any event happening in a story that someone believes as the example to demonstrate the point under discussion.  Would it help if rape was not the example being used?  What if 6-day creation was the example?

EDIT:  Here, I'll go first.  A man sees a picture of Saturn and automatically concludes that it was created from nothing in a few days by a deity.  He believes in a 6-day creation of everything, per the Bible.  His conclusion about Saturn makes sense in the context of what he already believes.  Is his belief a load of shit?  Absolutely.  But the critically flawed belief isn't the one about Saturn.  It's the one about deities creating planets in the first place.  It's the one where he believes the story in the first place.  That's the error.

Given that error, however, it makes sense for him to think that Saturn was poofed into existence somehow.  His mistake was in buying the story to begin with.

The same goes for the man in the OP.  His mistake was in believing the story to begin with, not so much with his reasoning past that point.  Aside from his PR skills, I mean.

[Nam]

Azdgari,

She doesn't get it. She made the comparison and is projecting it on me. She thinks I think like Mourdock, which I don't. And, I think everyone here who knows me knows that. Even the ones that don't like me.

You don't have to respond, I understand. But thanks for backing me up.

-Nam

[madeline]

we are talking about rape? rape? I am done.

[Emily]

A fuckin fake story..with a fuckin fake rape...we are going to compare to what our daughters might face in real life? Now I am really scared..

Not all rape uses violence, struggle, etc. I am not a parent but being female I know how guys try to get into girls' pants.

If a 13 year old girl has sex with a 30 year old man it's still rape even if she consents to it.

If a girl has sex with him because he promises she will give birth to the savior of humanity who will promise his followers eternal life (a fake, impossible story) it's still rape by deception. This guy uses some bullshit story to get into her panties, in which without that story the girl would probably say no. The term immaculate conception is just a pretty term for an 'unholy fuck'

And madeline, you seem to be getting pretty worked up. Relax a bit.

-M

[MadBunny]

I'd have thought that, even if their ideas haven't gotten any smarter, these far right candidates might at least have learned which ones to not advertise during a campaign after that "legitimate rape" flap. But here's Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock proving otherwise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/23/mourdock-god-intended-for-babies-to-result-from-rape/

This is just the logical extension of the anti-abortion argument.

In a way, being a fundy type of argument it's stronger for being inflexible.  I would speculate that what's happened is that the religious conservatives have finally realized that by carving out exceptions to their doctrine they're essentially saying that their doctrine is unnecessary.

Let me digress with an example; Baptism.  Is water baptism absolutely 100% required for a person to get into their heaven?  Some say yes, but then when you ask about other cultures, babies, abortions, pre-Jesus or even some of the disciples then they get squidgy.  If it's not an absolute requirement, then it's not a requirement, it's a strong suggestion.

Abortion works much the same way.  Either they accept that it's ok sometimes, or they reject it regardless of any pan and suffering issues at play.

The problem here is that people buy into the emotional argument about abortion.  In the vast majority of cases abortion consists of 'curretage' which functionally is just a long spoon, or loop that the doctor uses to lightly scrape the walls of the uterus.  The material being removed may not even be visible to the naked eye, or at most would be about the size of a period.

---------------------------->   .   <--------------------------------------

That big.
They also ignore the very high percentage of natural abortions, or simply 'pregnancies that don't attach.

The real problem as I see it isn't that they have a problem with abortion.  They don't have to get one if they don't want one.
Even most 'pro-choice' people don't *like* abortions, that's stupid. It's a medical procedure, what's to like about it?


The real problem is that they want to decide whether others are allowed to use their constitutionally protected right to choose for themselves.

[Nam]

Madbunny,

What about 3rd term abortions, is that just "scrapings against the wall"?

-Nam

[Garja]

^

In the vast majority of cases abortion consists... to lightly scrape the walls of the uterus.

[Nam]

Yeah, I read that. But I have also read about a lot of 3rd term, 2nd term abortions. And though most are 1st term, I think the phrasing he used was a tad innapropriate.

I know, who knew I would show such empathy?

-Nam

[jetson]

We could look up some actual stats.  I thought the majority are from the pill, essentially a period.  I read that on the Planned Parenthood site.

[Garja]

Yeah, I read that. But I have also read about a lot of 3rd term, 2nd term abortions. And though most are 1st term, I think the phrasing he used was a tad innapropriate.

I know, who knew I would show such empathy?

-Nam

Shocking!

[screwtape]

Madbunny,

What about 3rd term abortions, is that just "scrapings against the wall"?

-Nam

Of course it's not.  WTF is your point?

I get that you are bored and need something to occupy your time.  However, this is lazy and pedantic and looks like you are just making a post to make a post.  It borders on trolling. 

And while you may "read a lot" about abortions that are not first term, you either did not absorb much of it or you were reading unreliable sources.

Not only are "most" abortions done in the first trimester, the actual number is around 90%.  Of thost that are not, about 99% of them are in the second trimester.  Something like 1000 third term abortions are performed every year in the US, out of like 1.6 million.  That would be less than .1%.  Look it up at guttmacher.
 

[MadBunny]

Yeah, I read that. But I have also read about a lot of 3rd term, 2nd term abortions. And though most are 1st term, I think the phrasing he used was a tad inappropriate.

The term I used was accurate.
The vast majority of abortions are first trimester, and are done through curettage.
The smaller percentage of late term abortions, obviously use a different technique.

The use of 'appropriate' implies that you're trying to moralize the issue, which I think is a mistake.
The fact of the matter is, women have a constitutionally protected right to choose whether to have an abortion.  I support their right to choose.  It literally does not matter whether I think she should get an abortion or not, it isn't my decision.  My input on the matter is only relevant if she wants it.

Not if I'm the father, not if I'm a congressman, not if I'm the husband.

Mourdock's own religious choices are even less relevant to her decision.
It has no more bearing on her constitutional right to make her own decision than does whether or not he chooses to eat pork for breakfast.

[Nam]

Woah, woah, woah. What the hell? I think I was tired last night, and waking up this morning I think I just misread it. I wasn't trying to be confrontational. What reason would I have to be, screwtape?

I didn't read your entire comment, I stopped by the accusation. It doesn't matter what I say, in the end, you're always going to see me as being one thing; perhaps that's my fault but I would rather be honest and be me, than lie and not be me.

My apologies Madbunny if I misread your comment.

-Nam

[screwtape]

I wasn't trying to be confrontational. What reason would I have to be, screwtape?

What, besides the fact that you're frequently confrontational, argumentative, and consider yourself to be an asshole?  No reason at all. 

But I can understand posting while sleepy and not fully understanding what another poster meant.  Worse crimes have been committed.  Not a big deal.

[Nam]

I am not arguing with you, man. You want to sit there and say whatever: be my guest.

I apologized to Madbunny. The only person I see who is being argumenative and confrontational is you.

I thought about it after I logged off yesterday, I think Garja was correct. I read it (which I note) but I think I just misread it, or misinterpreted it, or something.

I apologized, I am done.

-Nam

[nogodsforme]

I appreciate your clarification altho I Don't see the "biblegod rape" as a true rape as we know it today..Mourdock would never view Mary's conception as rape to him it was immaculate conception.

Immaculate conception does not refer to how Jesus was made. It refers to the idea that Mary herself was conceived immaculately. That is, she was the only human born without original sin and therefore worthy of giving birth to Jesus. So it means that she was perfect. At least that is the Catholic doctrine. I am not sure if they think her parents never did the nasty and she just popped out and started singing Ave Maria one day, or what.

And besides all that, god could not have raped Mary. Because rape is wrong and a crime. God can do no wrong. To paraphrase Richard Nixon, if god does it, it is not illegal. If you think that god did something wrong, it is only because you can't see the larger picture. Like the fact that 2000 years later,  entire cities in China would have economies based on manufacturing ceramic statues of the not-raped Mary Mother of Jesus to be sold in gift shoppes all over Latin America.

Begs a whole lotta questions, like: How did god decide that Mary was the lucky winner of the magic anti-Adam and Eve-special god ray? You can imagine how her sisters felt. Like Jan and Cindy Brady-- always Marcia, Marcia, The Virgin Marcia.

And the whole virgin thing was a mistranslation anyway. Mary was just supposed to be some young woman, not a virgin. She could have been the ultimate town bad girl-- since she had no original sin she would have to make up all new ones.

If god could take the original sin off of Mary, why not just take it off of everyone and avoid the entire Jesus-torture-crucifixion-rebirth go forth and preach and gain heaven or hell rigamarole?

And if Mary statues are made by atheist Buddhist communists, can they still heal people's Shrinking Penis Syndrome and Jumping Frenchmen of Maine Disorder?

And doesn't the Lady Gaga song take on new meaning if "born this way" applied to Immaculate conception?

[Nam]

I don't have "shrinking penis syndrome". Unless it's really cold.

-Nam