Raw Story: GOP Senate nominee: Women don’t get pregnant from ‘legitimate’ rapes

[alexey]

Could you expand on that distinction? If I were to ask a Muslim or Jew why they refuse my offering them a pork sandwich is it your position that they could not present their faith as a reason?

It would be a reason, but a different kind of reason... it is a difficult distinction to make, linguistically. How about, it wouldn't really be a reason-reason but a faith-reason.

And it's not like there is something fundamentally wrong with faith-reasons. Even reason-reasons are probably based on faith-reasons in the end (a.k.a. assumptions, axioms, etc). If one keeps asking why-why-why, at some point we'd have to go in circles or say well, I just think that way.

I think we should keep these faith-reasons to a minimum - simple, straightforward, clearly understandable, and something everybody would agree with (except maybe psychopaths).

We are bound to run into all kinds of problems if we start basing our faith-reasons on dogmas, particular books, or pronouncements by other humans.

[twa]

I think that it is immoral to force rape victims to bear children of their rapists. I disagree with people who think that rape victims must not be allowed to terminate pregnancies started as a result of rape.

"moral superiority" is a tricky term. In some ways it applies here and in some ways it does not.

One thing for sure - I am not claiming that my positions are based on a moral authority. They are my positions. I have reasons for them. Bearing a child is a significant investment by the mother. I do not think she should be forced to make it against her will.

I'm gonna agree, and also say it is a bad Idea for elected officials to volunteer their opinion of God's will ect. unless solicited.

that said, the man is certainly entitled to his beliefs and to express them.

I also feel society has a obligation to protect innocent life(which even a fetus from rape is imo)

reconciling the two is near impossible and someone is going to pay.

If a raped woman feels the pregnancy is a continuation of the sexual assault I cannot condemn them for defending themselves.

[Predicto]

---------- Post added October-24th-2012 at 12:35 PM ----------

I'm gonna agree, and also say it is a bad Idea for elected officials to volunteer their opinion of God's will ect. unless solicited.

that said, the man is certainly entitled to his beliefs and to express them.
I also feel society has a obligation to protect innocent life(which even a fetus from rape is imo)
reconciling the two is near impossible and someone is going to pay.
If a raped woman feels the pregnancy is a continuation of the sexual assault I cannot condemn them for defending themselves.

This may be the most substance filled post you have made in the past 2 years. I'm impressed.

[alexey]

I think the point of distinction is caused less by the splitting of moral hairs and more by the opinion of when exactly a person becomes a person. The ProLife movement appears to have mostly accepted the idea that a fertilized egg is a full fledged person. If one accepts that premise, than any abortion would be the killing of an entirely innocent person and abortion which most people identify as generally being unacceptable behavior.

Fertilized egg is not a fully fledged person. Neither are children, and neither are many adults. These are complex issues.

Polk psychology and traditional understanding of free will is pretty much all wrong. Our justice system sucks and so does our approach to a host of other issues. We can and should do better, and I think religion stands in the way.

[DjTj]

I think that it is immoral to force rape victims to bear children of their rapists. I disagree with people who think that rape victims must not be allowed to terminate pregnancies started as a result of rape.

"moral superiority" is a tricky term. In some ways it applies here and in some ways it does not.

One thing for sure - I am not claiming that my positions are based on a moral authority. They are my positions. I have reasons for them. Bearing a child is a significant investment by the mother. I do not think she should be forced to make it against her will.

I would also say that from the perspective of the best interests of the child, it cannot be good public policy to force an unwilling mother to carry a pregnancy to term. I don't want a mother carrying a child that she does not have an interest in, and this is much more likely in the case of rape. How are we going to stop a mother from smoking or drinking (or getting an abortion through illegal means) if she really doesn't want the baby? It just seems like a very difficult place to try to legislate.

[Koolblue13]

Ovulation moment caught on camera

A human egg has been filmed in close-up emerging from the ovary for the first time, captured by chance during a routine operation.

Fertile women release one or more eggs every month, but until now, only animal ovulation has been recorded in detail.

Gynaecologist Dr Jacques Donnez spotted it in progress during a hysterectomy.

[twa]

I would also say that from the perspective of the best interests of the child, it cannot be good public policy to force an unwilling mother to carry a pregnancy to term. .

how is it good policy to terminate the life of the person who's interests you are obligated to represent though?(if you are talking intervention by a 3rd party)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Not yet unbeliever... not yet.

I love it!

"You're free to base your principles and morals off anything you choose just so long as alexey approves." :rotflmao:

[Jumbo]

Not yet unbeliever... not yet.

On the other side of this, the unbeliever may feel that the believers have long has ability to make the rules for their lives, which sits just fine with the believers, when neither camp has a lock on any positive or negative behavior solely by virtue of membership in that camp. Just having fun with thoughts and words.

---------- Post added October-24th-2012 at 01:00 PM ----------

Polk psychology and traditional understanding of free will is pretty much all wrong. Our justice system sucks and so does our approach to a host of other issues. We can and should do better, and I think religion stands in the way.

I have a niece that drives kinda like this...she'll be going along perfectly fine, if a little eccentric for the norm, and then she'll just swerve crazily for no legitimate reason. Usually it's an interesting ride. :pfft:

We do face a lot of issues in our development of course, and in the end all institutions are simply reflections of our humanity in all its traits. Hopefully, what we usually regard as advancing of the human condition will continue, however erratically, non-linearly, slowly, and painfully.

I think in societal functioning, cooperation and mutual respect (with discernment and education) as priorities are more helpful (rare though it may be) than other approaches.

The hubris (since I was talking about it earlier) I see in some of your posts reminds me of the same in a regular sparring partner of yours, ASF, and can be notable at times. He'll get me back for that, I'm sure.

Hubris is only one of my many handicaps.

---------- Post added October-24th-2012 at 01:27 PM ----------

how is it good policy to terminate the life of the person who's interests you are obligated to represent though?(if you are talking intervention by a 3rd party)

Tragic as the alternative may be, when a pregnancy is forced against one's will in an illegal act, mandating it be taken to a birthing against the impregnated person's will is my idea of sinful as well as a pathetic expression of a moral or ethical argument on respect for a life. That's the short version.

And here's a rather "out there" yet pertinent scenario. Let's say it was legislated that such a pregnancy must be seen to delivery. What would stop sickos who can't get a mate, yet like the idea of perpetuating their "self", from committing a rape they otherwise might not think of doing, knowing that an actual "fruit of their loins", their own child, would be the forced result (thus, delusionally, giving a purpose to their having existed) ?

It's just something I've wondered about in the past, even if it seems a bit outlandish. Professionally, I can assure it's less unlikely than some may think, but I don't mean it as some serious aspect---more a part of the complexity of the matter and food for thought.

Less hypothetically remote, yet on a similar track, what of dysfunctional relationships of all sorts where if it would be known that a woman of target forcibly impregnated against her will would have to deliver? I have known some very dysfunctional matings and even marriages where if a pregnancy unwanted by the woman could be forced to delivery, there would likely have been anything from chicanery with birth control to worse.

While I find abortion a tragic event, I can't see how we hugely oppress those already alive and vital in this world in service to "respect for life", in these kind of matters.

Any pregnancy that occurred from sexual acts or from other manipulations against the impregnated woman's will should not be legislated in a just society (IMV), even if some people claim their religion calls for doing so.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The hubris (since I was talking about it earlier) I see in some of your posts reminds me of the same in a regular sparring partner of yours, ASF, and can be notable at times. He'll get me back for that, I'm sure.

It isn't hubris if God told me it's true. :pfft:

[The Evil Genius]

From a political standpoint, I'm not sure what % of the population these jerkwads (like Akin or Mourdock) are trying to capture with these comments.

Seems to me that it does more damage than good.

Why even open your mouth about it and prove everyone right?

[Predicto]

It isn't hubris if God told me it's true. :pfft:

Well said... Joseph Smith.

[Jumbo]

It isn't hubris if God told me it's true. :pfft:

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well said... Joseph Smith.

That's why it's called faith brother, you either place your faith in Joseph's testimony or not. Alexey et al would say I'm not allowed to allow my faith to guide my morality with no other rationale than we trust that God has revealed that certain behaviors are against the divine will and purposes for the human life.

[twa]

Any pregnancy that occurred from sexual acts or from other manipulations against the impregnated woman's will should not be legislated in a just society (IMV), even if some people claim their religion calls for doing so.

I agree....just don't try to sell it to me as in the child's best interests

I have no trouble assigning the fault to the rapist for yet another victim

[Jumbo]

I agree....just don't try to sell it to me as in the child's best interests

I have no trouble assigning the fault to the rapist for yet another victim

I am with you, and I meant to include that latter concept, too.

I would welcome an added murder charge of some degree for any abortion as a result of any rape.

[alexey]

That's why it's called faith brother, you either place your faith in Joseph's testimony or not. Alexey et al would say I'm not allowed to allow my faith to guide my morality with no other rationale than we trust that God has revealed that certain behaviors are against the divine will and purposes for the human life.

I would say that you are allowed to derive your morality from whatever sources you like.

I just want to try and make sure that other people do not give much weight to the "God has revealed it" rationale. God has not been very consistent in revealing things to people. We do not want the kind of wild moral relativism a dogmatic God offers.

Let's agree to go with the moral sense that God gave us rather than books he supposedly authorized.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I think that it is immoral to force rape victims to bear children of their rapists. I disagree with people who think that rape victims must not be allowed to terminate pregnancies started as a result of rape.

"moral superiority" is a tricky term. In some ways it applies here and in some ways it does not.

One thing for sure - I am not claiming that my positions are based on a moral authority. They are my positions. I have reasons for them. Bearing a child is a significant investment by the mother. I do not think she should be forced to make it against her will.

I just think you are judging someone's else's morals and accusing them of the same.

I certainly can appreciate the moral dilemma here. I hope you can too, without claiming to have "the right answer."

[LadySkinsFan]

All this talk about "free will". What happens to a woman's free will if she's forced to become a walking, talking incubator against her will?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

All this talk about "free will". What happens to a woman's free will if she's forced to become a walking, talking incubator against her will?

That's certainly one way to look at it.

[twa]

All this talk about "free will". What happens to a woman's free will if she's forced to become a walking, talking incubator against her will?

That is why it is a crime

[Predicto]

All this talk about "free will". What happens to a woman's free will if she's forced to become a walking, talking incubator against her will?

And this is the dilemma. Too many people can't see the other side of the coin on this issue.

Pro life people and pro choice people are both absolutely sincere in their views, and both are absolutely correct from their own point of view. That's why it is the most difficult ethical dilemma of our time.

[alexey]

I just think you are judging someone's else's morals and accusing them of the same.

I certainly can appreciate the moral dilemma here. I hope you can too, without claiming to have "the right answer."

I appreciate the moral dilemma in case of a consensual intercourse, but not in case of rape. Rape cannot be morally allowed to be a viable procreation strategy against the will of the woman.

This is my position on the issue. There can be several viable positions on some moral issues, but I feel strongly about this one and I cannot think of a viable argument that would argue for morality of forcing a woman to carry a baby of her rapist. However, I am not presenting this to be an objective ultimate right answer. I do not have access to objective ultimate information and neither does any other human.

[AsburySkinsFan]

God has not been very consistent in revealing things to people.

Some (I being one) might be inclined to argue tha God's revelation is quite consistent in its revelation, it is we who have perverted it to our own ends.

We do not want the kind of wild moral relativism a dogmatic God offers.

See above.

Let's agree to go with the moral sense that God gave us rather than books he supposedly authorized.

Sure, just so long as we hold right in front of us the unchanging revealed Word of God in front of us so our morality will not devolve into moral relativism. BTW, I am firm believer in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, I'll not move an inch from that position.

[alexey]

Some (I being one) might be inclined to argue tha God's revelation is quite consistent in its revelation, it is we who have perverted it to our own ends.

There is no way of knowing whether inconsistencies come from the revelation or perversion. It's a matter of faith. I can only observe the fact of resulting inconsistencies and note that the approach of relying on God's revelation does not reliably result in people following a good stable morality.

It's one of those "true by definition" things. This is similar to a claim of God being a kind/loving father figure type. I try to be a kind/loving father and I regardless of what my children do, I think it would be extremely unkind and unloving for me to drown them, for example. Some might be inclined to disagree with me. I do not think a good argument can be made here, so again it's a matter of faith.

Or maybe this is not similar at all. Maybe I'm pulling off another one of those wild swerve-y things like Jumbo's niece Hopefully the ride is still interesting. :pfft:

Sure, just so long as we hold right in front of us the unchanging revealed Word of God in front of us so our morality will not devolve into moral relativism. BTW, I am firm believer in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, I'll not move an inch from that position.

I happen to very strongly disagree with an approach that places authority of a book written by humans over our God-given moral compass.

It is strange that you would consider a moral compass that was definitely given to us by God as something that will lead to moral relativism.