Republican candidate says pregnancy from rape ‘something God intended’

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is trying to distance himself from comments made by Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who said, during a debate, that pregnancy resulting from rape was “something God intended.”

During the debate in Indiana Tuesday night, where Mourdock was up against Democratic Congressman Joe Donnelly, he said: “I struggled with myself for a long time but I came to realize life is that gift from God, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape. It is something that God intended to happen.”

In post-debate comments, Mourdock, who is backed by the Tea Party, stuck to his original comments, saying that women should only be allowed abortions if their life is in danger. He did, however, say that God does not want people to be raped.

“God creates life. We don’t make life in a machine. God creates all life. Does God want people raped? Of course not,” Mourdock said.

The comments come shortly after Romney released a video endorsing Mourdock, whose seat is seen as key to winning the balance of power. “This fall, I’m endorsing Richard Mourdock for Senate,” Romney says in the ad. “With so much at stake, I hope you’ll join me in supporting Richard Mourdock for Senate.”

Soon after Tuesday’s debate, Republican spokesperson Andrea Saul tried to distance Romney from the comments. In a statement released to CBS News she said: “Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views.”

This isn’t the first time the Republican camp has dealt with candidates speaking their views on rape and abortion. Notably, Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin told television station KTVI-TV earlier this year that pregnancies from rape were rare. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Akin said.

After Akin’s comments the Republicans released a statement distancing the presidential and vice-presidential candidates from Akin’s views. “Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape,” said the statement.

Democrats, meanwhile, are calling for the Republicans to pull Romney’s Mourdock endorsement ad off the air. Speaking to USA Today, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Mourdock’s comments were “outrageous and demeaning to women” and she said the ad had to go.




Browse

Republican candidate says pregnancy from rape ‘something God intended’

  1. Rightwingers are just plain crazy.

  2. There is actually no way for the current GOP to hide this story — these extreme position’s are the party’s platform. The Christianist Tea-Party led GOP wants the U.S. to become a theocracy.

  3. Unlike Akin’s comments, Richard Mourdock’s comments are perfectly possible for a person to defend.

    Yes, being raped and becoming pregnant from rape is a horrible burden to bear. But no, it doesn’t give you the right to kill somebody.

    • You’re as crazy as he is.

      • No, getting to the point where 100,000 human lives are snuffed out every year in our own country as being “normal” or “benevolent”… that’s crazy.

        You are not allowed to kill people. Not the sick, not the imprisoned, not the disabled and not the unborn. Period.

        • Biggest abortionist on the planet is your deity…women lose babies all the time through ‘spontaneous abortion’. We just call it miscarriage.

          18,000 children DO die on this planet every day from starvation….might be a good idea to save them instead of worrying about someone else’s fetus.

          Of course we’re ‘allowed’ to kill people…..it’s even encouraged, helped and rewarded. War is our biggest sport.

          What you are NOT allowed to do is push your beliefs on to other people, or interfere in their lives based on your religious beliefs.

          • Yep, car accidents kill people too, but that doesn’t mean that you get to run people over. Likewise, just as miscarriages happen, it doesn’t mean you have the right to induce one.

            Your specific contribution to humanity is hurling insults at people on a news magazine forum. That’s it. You are constantly on here, watching every single story, so that it is impossible that you can devote time to anything else. You simply don’t give yourself enough time to be productively employed or to devote time to charity. Being hateful on these forums is pretty much your entire life.

            I’m sorry, but I have just as much right to stand up for life “by imposing my beliefs on other people” as you do to spew hate and malice on these boards 24/7. You won’t let people rest from “imposing your beliefs” on them, so why should I blush if I comment once and awhile on how it isn’t right to kill people?

          • Actually I work online Yanni, and I pop in and out of here on breaks.

            Amazing how religious nuts just spew hated towards everyone that doesn’t believe as they do….and when an attempted conversion doesn’t work.

            Lots of lives you can stand up for…..those 18,000 kids that die of starvation every day for example…..but then that wouldn’t allow you to busy-body in other people’s lives and bedrooms would it…..

          • Emily, I am so with you on this one.

          • Yanni is that oxymoron, that contradiction in terms’…. an ‘Old Testament’ Christian. Very big on the smiting and authority and rules and minding everybody’s business….but no idea about anything Jesus said.

            Probably because what Jesus DIDN’T say was anything about abortion or gays…..or smiting [Well except for the money-changers]….yet every ‘Christian’ I’ve ever met ignores that philosophy, and basically just seems to hate. MInd you they’re all big on capitalism too, and Jesus certainly wasn’t.

            Never understood it, myself.

          • Patchouli, here are the facts of things. I do not need my Christian faith to tell me that abortion is evil. A person was alive, and then that life was violently ended. That’s all I need to know to understand that is wrong, because I’m not a sociopath. The idea that we owe nothing to our children as Thwim says is monstrously selfish. But that is pretty much the ideology of the left in a nutshell, we owe nothing individually and the state provides for all.

            Secondly. if you want to see a lack of compassion, look to the left. Their anti-capitalist ideologies have doomed millions to starvation and poverty, from the former Soviet states to First Nations reserves. Then they have the gall to accuse us on the right of being selfish, when every study shows we donate more time and money than they do to humanitarian and community causes.

            Sometimes I have to judge when evil is being done and speak out against it. Your ideology of anti-capitalism has done great evil. Your ideology that people are disposable if they are sick, disabled or unborn is evil. Your ideology that parents owe nothing to your children is evil. Those are simple facts.

            Oh, but I’m not allowed to say that bluntly because I have to be holier than thou right? I mean, you can call me vile, or evil, or selfish, but I can’t point out how your ideology brings suffering to millions because I have to act like a polite angel. Well, I’m not holier than thou, and I don’t play that sucker’s game.

          • A ‘person’?….no. Just a potential person…same as sperm is a potential person.

            And don’t confuse religion with your politics…you are always making up stories about the left. Leave the old ‘anti-commie’ propaganda to the Cold War….cuz it’s dead too.

            Also don’t confuse your religion, politics and economic systems….it simply won’t fly. Jesus was a socialist Simple fact. And he said to pay your taxes!

            ‘A sucker’s game…a polite angel’? Well that’s what Jesus told you to do….soft answers, turning the cheek, blessing people who do harm to you. Don’t you remember anything? I mean….beyond the smiting.

            You can SAY anything you want….what you can’t do is force your delusions on other people

            And they are delusions because you yourself don’t believe a word that Jesus said!

            A God powerful enoungh to create universes….apparently can’t handle the problem of abortion? And can’t do it without the help of puny protesters outside a clinic? Not much of a ‘God’. But then, as the churches keep telling us…God can’t handle money either. He always needs more….and there’s no Invisible Hand for God, when you’d think it was right up his alley.

            You, meanwhile, totally ignore the idea of giving up your riches and following Jesus….something he specifically commanded you to do! And you promote capitalism and ‘prosperity gospel’ crap….even though you know about the rich man, the camel and the eye of the needle.

            You can’t even stick to being ‘pro-life’…..18.000 children a day….dead of starvation….meantime you’re supposedly concerned about zygotes etc the size of this dot >>>>>>>>> . <<<<<<<<<

            Of course those 18,000 kids aren't dying in Canada….they are in Third World countries……brown and black people…..Hmmmm. Aren't they the people you don't mind bombing anyway?

            Stop trying to control women and mind your own business. If you don't like abortions….don't have one.

            Women meanwhile have always had abortions, and always will.

            You….we've discovered…..are not a Christian, but you are racist and sexist….and delusional.

            Like I said….haters gotta hate. Just keep it away from me.

          • Hmm… I must have missed the part where Jesus said that there should be centralized control of the means of production. That is where he would have become a socialist.

            As for the 18,000 people a day starving, which group do you think is trying to feed them, the religious pro-life or the secularists who donate almost no time or money to charity?

            More pertinent to this question, who do you think allows women who have had abortions (and miscarriages) to bury their child, grieve for them, and hear from another human being that they are forgiven? You guys just abandon women who were pressured into abortions by their parents or their partners.

            Also, I wish I could simply ignore abortion. But you see someday, my child or grandchild might find herself pregnant in a difficult circumstance, and people like you will pressure her to have one without bothering to inform me. While I would be happy to support my child and grandchild in any business or political ambitions she might have, giving her the money, time and power she is due as my heir, you will try to kill one of my kin.

            Then of course, there is the fact that I am the keeper of my fellow man. Which, btw, includes opposing both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It is quite depressing after all, that this culture of death that we have agrees that there is a certain time when it is okay to kill people, they just debate on the when and who.

          • Palestine didn’t have many factory workers….they were a primary resource economy….and Jesus told them to share everything with each other. Even food.

            Secularists are both religious and non-religious people….if you mean atheists they donate and do good in the world just as much as religious types….who cheat by claiming the tithing as ‘charity’. Biggest names in giving to charity are atheists in fact.

            ‘You guys’….who would that be? What fantasy group are you talking to now? And no group ‘allows’ women to do anything of the sort. When did they need permission?

            As to abortion…..when it’s your family, you can be a busybody….don’t do it otherwise….and nobody but the woman involves makes the decison

            What you are saying is that women are too dumb, too irresponsible and too emotional to decide these things for themselves….so you have to do it for them. Uh uh….doesn’t work that way. Sorry

            If you are ‘keeper of your fellow man’….bear in mind you need their permission…..and otherwise, go out and feed a few.

            Otherwise MYOB

            Christianity is a death cult….always has been, which is why it’s your belief, not mine..

          • Sorry, but someone who posts on Maclean’s 24/7 to the exclusion of everything else has no right to accuse someone else of not giving enough time to charity.

            It is also a fact that without the churches, the social assistance system in this country collapses, and aid to the poor in other parts of the world becomes practically non-existent. There are many non-governmental organizations that are ready to take over of course, which would be nice because as there are fewer active Christians around, we are coming under increasing amount of stress. So how about we both stop posting on Macleans for 6 months, and devote our time to charity? You can even do charity online during your breaks from your productive job doing… well I don’t really believe you have a productive job.

            Well, I’ll do it even if you don’t. See y’all! Stop treating people as disposable, and socialism leads to poverty and misery! Also, since most of you are government employees, get back to work or find a position where you have some actual responsibility.

          • Well here’s a thought…..your kids could get hurt in a car accident too….but you cannot ban all cars for everyone else.

            Same goes for everything else in Life. Raise your kids your way….but stop trying to get the world to conform to your beliefs. Won’t happen.

            The church has zik-all to do with our social system…what the hell do you think our taxes are for??? What is all this ‘socialism’ you’re talking about then?? Do you even know what the word means??

            The Vatican makes about 90B a year apparently……and Italy is finally, rightfully, taxing them.

            I don’t CARE what you believe, dude….that’s what I’ve been telling you!

            Nor am I interested in Socialism, or your wacky ideas about it. Not a govt employee either….don’t know anyone on here who is.

            Christians are not prosectuted or under stress….don’t be daft.

            This is just another way for you to try and weasel your way out of a debate YOU started, and that you feed everytime it comes up as a topic….and then run away from when you get your ass kicked.

        • After we’ve legislated forced birth and these children are born, should they need, say a kidney, should we legislate forced living organ donation?

          • All developed nations aside from Canada in the world have a cut-off time when abortion becomes illegal. It doesn’t seem to cause problems, and you indeed have the case where you have to support your own children in a womb for a few months until they are born. What’s your point?

          • Now you’re talking about a “cut off”, but above you said “not(kill) the unborn. Period.” Which is it?
            And what “case” are you talking about?

          • Lenny, it isn’t that hard. If you have the case that in all other countries where you don’t have abortion on demand for 9 months, but instead limit abortions to a set number of weeks, then the remaining weeks women are being “forced” to carry a child to term.

            We don’t call Scandinavia or Britain, or France repressive countries do we?

          • Some people certainly might. Regardless, it’s irrelevant what the laws are in other countries or what we call them.
            Why won’t you answer the questions – If you think women should be to forced to use their organs to save the “unborn” do you support forced living organ donation to save them after they’re born?

          • Eh, I’d give organs to any of my children that need them, because they come first. So if you did legislate donation of organs, it would matter little to me.

            But pregnancy is more like loaning organs, which with proper medical care carries an extremely low risk. If in the case where it becomes a life threatening risk, that is when you have an abortion. It doesn’t shorten your lifespan like organ donation, and you don’t have a reduced capacity to have a good quality of life through pregnancy.

            When it does, then you can have an abortion based on life-threatening risk. That’s a matter of self defense, rather than viewing a human life as disposable.

            .

          • It would matter little to you? I’d think you be passionately advocating forced kidney removal – it could save lives. Anyhow, I’m sure you’ve registered on the living donor list and are just waiting for the call.

            You’ll have to provide evidence that kidney donation shortens lifespan or reduces quality of life any more than carrying a pregnancy to term, which certainly does carry very real risks, including death.

    • No. It doesn’t.
      It also doesn’t change my right to not be forced to keep someone alive — especially by the use of my internal organs.

  4. My question is, why does he think abortion is OK if a woman’s life is in danger? I know why *I* think that’s OK, but I don’t see how it can possibly square with his reasoning. If pregnancy resulting from rape is what God intended, then why isn’t death by way of childbirth? Or does God only intend the sort of things Mr. Mourdock is comfortable with?

    • Yes, God only intends what we are comfortable with. The flourishing of good things.

  5. If pregnancy by rape is God’s intention, then surely abortion by medical assistance is also God’s intention. If it wasn’t.. it wouldn’t work, now would it?

    • Well, good is the flourishing of good things, while evil is the destruction or corruption of those good things. Evil you see, cannot exist on its own. God intends for a craftsman to create a baseball bat, but it is the evil of men, the absence of God, which makes someone turn a baseball bat into a violent weapon.

      A fetus is necessarily a good thing, because it is a human life. A criminal is a good thing, because it is a human life. It is not a good thing to end a human life. It is a good thing for a human life to grow and flourish as best it can.

      • Oh good grief. You start your argument with a circular tautology “Well, garblefunk is the flourishing of garblefunk things..” Yeah.. come back when you can say something that has an ounce of meaning to it.

        Then you go on to attempt to read God’s mind, without ever thinking that maybe God did intend on that baseball bat being used as a weapon. From what I remember, S/He/It never was very shy in the smiting department. Ask the folks of Sodom.. oh wait..

        From there, we move to baseless assertion: “A fetus is necessarily a good thing, because it is a human life.” I’n sorry, I seem to have missed the part where you prove that human life is a good thing. Hell, given your own definition, human life is root cause of all evil. If human life were not around, the “good things” would not be corrupted.

        Then a second baseless assertion, in which you essentially argue that God is a prick and shouldn’t be followed anyway. Because if it’s not a good thing to end a human life, the vast majority of human lives on earth are ended by God. Thus God does the most evil of absolutely anything.
        Beyond that, since humanity is responsible for the corruption of the “good things” that God creates, and God created humanity, there really isn’t anything good that God creates at all.
        Again, all using your own screwed up definitions.
        Care to play again?

        • Well, you can claim that a human life isn’t a good thing, but then you won’t be a humanist. I personally think human beings are wonderful, and I find it self-evidently so. I think every human being should be allowed to live from conception to natural death, and find it sociopathic to view any human life as an acceptable loss.

          Also, I’m not trying to convince you of the rightness or wrongness of the position that human beings are sacred, I’m trying to explain where the religious ideology comes from where human life is good and abortion is bad. God is love, all material things in the universe are good things, and evil is a corruption of those good things through evil intents and actions. You can take it or leave it as you wish, especially since I can’t prove that human souls are immortal, human life is sacred, and that eventually evil will be defeated. That is my own little folly preached by a executed Jew that I choose to believe, but I don’t require it to point out that treating human beings as disposable is evil.

          Also, you are confusing me with a biblical literalist. I accept the Bible as the writings of men inspired by a desire to understand God and their own culture and history. I accept that there is much truth in that amazing text, but not unreservedly so.

          But you asked a question, and I answered it. “If pregnancy is God’s intention, then abortion wouldn’t work would it?” There is your answer as Richard Mourduck (and myself) would believe it. Abortion is not God’s will because it ends a human life. Human life is God’s will, because human beings are good, even a product of rape.

          • So basically you’re saying you’ve got absolutely no logic behind your claims, just statements of belief that aren’t even internally consistent.

            You know, I wouldn’t even have a problem with that, if you weren’t using it to justify controlling who gets to use other people’s organs.

      • Does God intend “craftsmen” to create nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, napalm and landmines?

        • There is nothing wrong with nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, napalm and landmines in and of themselves. Sure they explode and set things on fire, but it is only when they armed and used against good things that they do evil.

          But nothing material is evil you see, evil does not have its own existence. Creation is necessarily good, which is why the Gnostics are wrong. I mean, without material existence we wouldn’t be able to experience time sequentially, wouldn’t be able to experience through our senses, wouldn’t love and laugh, and do all other of those human things. When is life bad? When things are destroyed or taken away from those that need them for a flourishing life.

          • I see. So god intends “craftsmen” to consume vast amounts of the world’s wealth and resources, which could otherwise be used to alleviate suffering and otherwise contribute to the welfare of mankind, to build such weapons – he just doesn’t intend them to be employed for their singular purpose. What a wise and compassionate god he is.

Sign in to comment.