Republicans, rape and abortion

October 25th, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The are doing their best to allow the Democrats to hold onto the Senate. To follow up Todd Akin, we have:

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock is standing by his statement that when a woman becomes pregnant during a rape “that’s something God intended.”

Mourdock, who has been locked in one of the country’s most expensive and closely watched Senate races, was asked during the final minutes of a debate Tuesday night whether should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realise 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,” Mourdock said.

Mourdock maintained at the news conference that he was misunderstood.

“I think that God can see beauty in every life,” Mourdock said. “Certainly, I did not intend to suggest that God wants rape, that God pushes people to rape, that God wants to support or condone evil in any way.”

How do such idiots become candidates for high office. Even if you agree with their viewpoint on not allowing abortion for rape victims, there are non-moronic ways to express that view. Here’s how they should answer the question:

  1. Don’t mention God at all. You’re standing for the Senate, not for Iman or Cardinal.
  2. Empathise with all women who have been raped and say it is a terrible crime, and some never recover from being violated. Get in a quick plug about how you support longer sentences for rapists.
  3. Say it is a terrible dilemma about what to do in such a situation, and how you don’t want rape victims re-victimised
  4. However say that two wrongs don’t make a right, and as much as your heart goes out to victims of rape, you don’t think killing an unborn child is ever justified, and you hope victims of rape will show the love and tolerance they did not receive, and allow the child to be born

Now I don’t agree with the above. I think it is appalling to not support exemptions for rape victims, and in fact I support abortion being a decision in all cases for the pregnant woman, not the state, so long as the fetus is not viable. However if a candidate said something along the lines of the above to justify their view, they at least wouldn’t come across as a lunatic who implies God condones rape. I know that isn’t what he meant, but his choice of words was so appalling, it was open to that interpretation.

A candidate for even a junior office, should have a prepared response on major issues memorised off by heart. To have Senate candidates shoot themselves in the foot so badly, is woeful amateur hour.

Tags: ,

88 Responses to “Republicans, rape and abortion”

  1. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    And then there is this guy:
    http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-calls-evolution-lie-pit-hell-175514039.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. tvb (4,418 comments) says:

    And the woman who gives birth to a child conceived through rape has to stare at her child and see the rapist in its eyes. If god had intended the child to be conceived then God must have condoned the rape.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    You’re standing for the Senate, not for Iman

    I didn’t realise that David Bowie’s job was up for grabs!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    Don’t forget, there’s also no need for exceptions to abortion bans that allow for cases where the health or life of the mother is in danger because, according to Republican Joe Walsh, modern medical science means there are no such situations anymore…
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/joe-walsh-abortion-exception_n_1983701.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    He may be standing for civil office but in the US visibly showing and discussing your faith in God is an absolute requirement for any national politician. Atheists are among the least trusted people in America. A gay person, a Muslim or a Scientologist are more likely to win an election than an atheist. Just look at how often candidates in both parties reference their absolute faith in God. Even Biden said his faith defined him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. georgebolwing (846 comments) says:

    This is another example of the results of the increasing polarisation of views in US politics. The two sides of the debate of pushed each other into extreme corners and then use extreme examples to keep them there.

    The pro-choice lobby has pushed the pro-life group into having to defend ridiculous absolutist positions, like not permitting abortions in cases of rape, incest, clear maternal risk.

    Likewise, the pro-life lobby has pushed the pro-choice group into having to defend ridiculous absolutist positions, like partial-birth and late-term abortions.

    And all the while, the majority of the US population supports Bill Clinton’s formula that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Andrei (2,644 comments) says:

    I don’t know why you are looking to obscure American politicians for “bizarre” beliefs when we have a parliament of our own filled with people with wacko ideas, for example there are those who seriously believe that two men can marry one another and then there is the really odd idea that New Zealand’s dairy cows are melting the North Pole and so forth.

    The joke is on us of course, we allow these Ripley’s believe or not nutcases to dictate how we live

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    With both Akin and Broun on the house Science Committee it’s little wonder that there’s fear that anti-science beliefs jeopardise US democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    NDAA

    Time to stop NDAA locally like Michigan did.. The US government black bagging Americans and locking them up indefinitely or assassinating them has got to be stopped. How in the world is it acceptable to pick people up, no proof, no court, no nothing to be taken off, locked up, tortured and even assassinated. For no formal crime whatsoever? This is not a government action, its a mafia crime family action.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    If god had intended the child to be conceived then God must have condoned the rape.

    One can only assume that he does condone rape in view of the fact that he impregnated Mary with Jesus without her consent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Don the Kiwi (1,750 comments) says:

    Get another grip, Scott, and re-read Luke’s gospel. Air head.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    scott chris is soooooooooo clever

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Atheists are among the least trusted people in America. A gay person, a Muslim or a Scientologist are more likely to win an election than an atheist.

    I’ve certainly had the impression that dollops of God are essentiasl for poiltical success in the US, but I thought it was worth checking out. After extensive research – I found a topic in Wikipedia – there have been some successes, but they are few.

    List of atheists in politics and law

    United States – 14 listed, including one senator, one governor and one congressman.
    Compared to:
    United Kingdom – 49 listed, including a number of MPs.
    New Zealand – 2 listed, an MP and a mayor.

    It may be that some atheists just don’t broadcast the fact. Best to promote what you believe in rather than what you don’t believe in.

    In the US “15% of the adult population identified as having no religious affiliation” – who represents them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    Air head.

    LoL @ the irony. I was being facetious you fool. So how did Mary get pregnant? Magic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    Rape Advisory Chart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Scott

    Let’s not forget that (according to the fundies) the world is only six thousand years old. For roughly four thousand years ‘God’ sat up there watching death, destruction, pestilence, plague, famine and the like before deciding “enough is enough, I better send my son down to sort this mess out”.

    Only a ‘God’ with a sick mind would subject his people to that sort of life. As you say Scott, that type of ‘God’ would think nothing of rape.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. anonymouse (715 comments) says:

    Don’t mention God at all. You’re standing for the Senate,

    David have been to the mid-west,

    This is serious middle america,

    Its not New York or California Hipster, .com, atheist, liberals

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    An own-goal from Mourdock to be sure, but three points:

    1) What he actually said was not as bad as what Democrats have inferred from it. The rape is not the baby’s fault, and if you believe abortion is morally wrong because of the humanity of the foetus, exceptions for rape are silly. Every child is a child of God, loved by God, planned by God and wanted by God. His position, while ineloquently stated, is completely defensible;

    2) This is nothing like what Akin said, and not comparable to it. Akin was a genuine moron in imagining that ovum are resistant to rape-sperm, and his stupidity was inexcusable. Mourdock, by contrast, said nothing unscientific, naive, or insulting to women, or at least nothing insulting to any women who wasn’t already against abortion. Democratic Party women, and the Sandra Flukes of this world will hate it, but they can go jump;

    3) This is Indiana, a very conservative state. If he’d said it in New Jersey or Massachusetts, he might be in trouble, but hell, Mourdock’s opponent is touting his pro-life credentials! Indiana is a pro-life state, end of story. If it turns off any voters, it will be because they feel Mourdock was embarrassing, not because of the substance of what he said.

    While abortion is an emotional issue, people need to avoid giving it any more weight than it deserves. There is a massive 16 trillion dollar debt right now in the US that somehow my daughters’ generation are going to have to pay off. I’d rather have a guy like Mourdock in there putting the squeeze on government and being dubious on one issue, than Lugar being there instead and voting for fresh taxes, more bailouts, more debt, and impending economic collapse. Legal abortion is an academic issue without a job, a roof over your head, food and clothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Griff (7,689 comments) says:

    SC of course it was magic
    Some Nutters believe so any way

    Me I look at human nature and say well father, brother, relative, family friend whatever someone did “it” and Mary mother of Jesus lied.

    Simple reality

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    God Bless America!

    And then they wonder why other mad theocracies want to put a bomb under their arse… :roll:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Every child is a child of God, loved by God, planned by God and wanted by God.

    I did my own family planning along with a bit of biologicial roulette. No god involvement.

    But I can see how those who believe the above statement may put their belief in their god as taking precedent over rights of rape victims. A problem with patriarchal religion where god/men think they have all the rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    these nutjobs are invariably Republican, yet DPF claims to support that party. DPF also claims to be a fan of the Daily Show and Colbert. Go figure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Fletch (6,384 comments) says:

    It’s take-a-potshot-at-Republicans day ey?

    Well what about this Democrat Congressman who wrote a novel with a graphic rape scene, and has one of the characters saying that rape is evolutionary and”prevents inbreeding”?

    Democrat Congressman Jerry McNerney was elected to Congress in the Democrat wave year of 2006. Prior to serving in Congress, representing California’s Central Valley, he was an engineer working in the energy field. He was also an aspiring novelist. 

    His single work, “Terrorism and Fear: Enter the Third Level,” was published in 1994 and paints a dystopian vision of nuclear war and its aftermath. At a critical point in the novel, one of the lead characters, a college student named Sandra, is brutally raped and murdered. But that isn’t the most disturbing part.
     
    In the aftermath of the attack, a neighbor of Sandra’s struggles to understand the events that have just unfolded. An authority figure, a veteran police detective weirdly opines on evolution and rape. 

    The officer answered, “I’m not convinced that’s the real reason [to hunt and fight] men are stronger. Look, how come a man has enough strength to force a woman into have sex? I believed men evolved enough strength precisely so that a man could take a woman against her will. In hunter gatherer societies, men from one group would steal a woman from another group and you can bet she wouldn’t willingly submit, at least at first. It was a way to help insure that that small groups wouldn’t become inbred. And, in fact, if the propagation of the species depended on the willing participation of both parties, you would have fewer species around today.”

    Kind of odd, isn’t it? I had never before heard the theory that man evolved for the express purpose of raping women. Nor had I heard the notion that rape was critical to the survival of our, and presumably other, species. And this theory isn’t advanced by some crank character but a character with authority, a homicide detective with 25 years experience.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/24/dem-rep-pens-novel-with-graphic-rape-scene-says-rape-prevents-inbreeding

    So, no fair aiming at Republicans, when Democrats can say things that are just as weird.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Fletch (6,384 comments) says:

    ps, notice that the Democrat in my last comment doesn’t invoke God; he invokes evolution as a reason.
    That’s Democrats all over, isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “Democrat in my last comment doesn’t invoke God; he invokes evolution as a reason.”

    believing in evolution =/= disbelieving in God

    (seemed to be what you were implying)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. tom hunter (4,826 comments) says:

    … these nutjobs are invariably Republican,

    Apparently the many hardline supporters of partial-birth abortion in the Democrat party – including President Obama – don’t count as “extremists” or “nutters” – and I say that as an atheist.

    Ho hum – the usual scream about Republicans, while shit like this goes unreported from nearby Ohio (and apologies if you’ve seen this in the GD thread):

    As far as I can tell, not one news entity in Ohio has picked up the story about revelations of spousal abuse by Rep. Charlie Wilson in his divorce papers.

    Not a one.

    In fact, the only news groups that have even mentioned the story are Townhall.com, our old friend David Freddoso in the Washington Examiner, and here and a few other blogs.

    This portion of Charlie Wilson’s divorce records is unsealed; they’ve been sitting in an Ohio courthouse for two decades. It’s rather striking that this is the first time anyone thought to look at them.

    There is no disputing that grabbing your wife by the neck and throwing her against the refrigerator, punching and kicking her, and leaving her covered in bruises is a violent crime and a felony. The only reason Charlie Wilson never wore handcuffs was because his wife didn’t file charges.

    It is hard to believe that this open piece of information has not been picked up by the MSM, but as the writer says:

    We don’t have a news business. We have a narrative-reinforcement business, and they do a strikingly effective job of collectively averting their eyes from information that hurts their preferred cause. For Pete’s sake, this is wife-beating we’re talking about, and it is admitted in a public record. How is this not news? How is this not something that the voters in Ohio’s 6th congressional district ought to know about before they cast their vote?

    This, in part, is what this election is about. The double standard is now so large you can’t get your head around it. We cannot have a healthy democracy where those whose job is to inform the public see their first duty as protecting the reputations of their preferred incumbents.

    The title of the article is: Apparently Wife-Beating Isn’t Big News in Ohio. Well, it isn’t if you’re an Ohioan who still reads nothing but the newspapers and watches the local affiliate TV stations.

    I forgot to add that Wilson is a Democrat, and I’ll bet the local chapter of NOW will be more than happy to support a wife-beater so long as he supports abortion. I’ll also bet that you’ll never see this report in Stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Blair: Well, that was a pretty good go at justifying such a comment, I have to give you that…

    Gives a whole new meaning to the old “every sperm is sacred”…is that a “meme” chaps? Or just a plain old aphorism?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    Looks like Barry was right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    I heard this reported breathlessly on the news this morning.

    They didn’t cover whether the sky was blue or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Reminds me of the whole thing with Chick-Fil-A: ask a conservative christian businessman what he thinks of gay marriage then pretend to be outraged at his answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Flyingkiwi9 (54 comments) says:

    God doesn’t exist.

    Now lets ignore the Cult of Christianity and start thinking with our 21st century knowledge and understanding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    But I can see how those who believe the above statement may put their belief in their god as taking precedent over rights of rape victims

    If that’s your reading of it, you’re missing the point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Griff (7,689 comments) says:

    Thanks for the link cha
    Had this on the site may explain why red does not answer questions :twisted:
    http://www.panderingpoliticians.com/2012/04/iq-and-political-orientation.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    The guy is a flake. he is a republican which probably explains why he is a flake but FFS what sort of nutjob is going to put this comment out there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Mark (1,488 comments) says:

    Flyingkiwi9 (19) Says:
    October 25th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
    God doesn’t exist.

    And you have proof of this bold statement. 21st Century knowledge and understanding is what exactly. One expects science has much proof that God does not exist as those who say he or she does exist.

    You might have us believe irrefutably in the infinitesimal odds that DNA just happened by accident but science has proved what per chance. So far science has speculated based upon probabilities not proof. At some point the scientists might get there but statements made by the athiests that God does not exist rely on the sort of faith that theists use to argue that God does exist. So far no one has proven anything either way.

    Just sayin :)

    Doesnt change the fact that this republican senator is a nutter

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Andrei (2,644 comments) says:

    Jeepers Griff, all that link demonstrates is how stupid, arrogant and closed minded Liberals really are.

    The designers of the study are, by their own definition, intelligent ergo those who do not subscribe to their ideology are less intelligent because the determination of “intelligence” deployed will mirror the designers own prejudices and interests.

    Its like the old reading tests they used to use to stop people considered undesirable at the Australian border – it wouldn’t matter how educated and smart you were they’d give you a paper in something like Mandarin Chinese and if you couldn’t read it you were too dumb to come to Australia

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Griff (7,689 comments) says:

    Actually Andrei there are many studies that come to a similar conclusion. That you dont like it does not surprise me That it is true does not surprise me either. :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Lucia Maria (2,427 comments) says:

    It’s a particularly male point of view that women who get raped must have the “choice” of being able to kill their own child, no matter how he or she was conceived. Not all men, thank God, but many have this inbuilt instinctive thang that if it ain’t mine, I’m not looking after it, translating into the idea that women must feel the same. Except every child a woman conceives is always hers.

    So many rape victims who conceive choose to keep their babies (shock, horror!) because it’s not their child’s fault as to how they were made, and many consider those children to be a blessing – good coming out of evil, so to speak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Lucia

    If you had the power would you take away the right for women to have an abortion if they had been raped and found themselves pregnant?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. tom hunter (4,826 comments) says:

    Sheesh – Obama has not yet lost the election and already people as prominent as Clive Crook are already bagging him for the great political sin of abandoning the political center to the extremists.

    How did this happen you may ask? Why did the great unifier drift to the clairion call of the extremist nutters in the far-left of the Democrat Party?

    The president’s error wasn’t that he refused to compromise. It was that he compromised so reluctantly, denying himself ownership of his own policies and making every accomplishment seem like a defeat.

    Awwww. In other words the extreme Far-Left and the Democratic Party nutters condemned him not just for those compromises but that he looked weak in compromising.

    Democrats are correct to say that Republicans in Congress have moved far to the right. They are also correct that the country has taken note and doesn’t like it. Somehow they failed to notice the obvious implication. This vacating of the center gave Obama a historic opportunity to broaden the appeal of his party — over its activists’ hysterical objections, but so what? — and lock in a second term. He blew it, and an election he should have won easily will go down to the wire.

    Let’s ignore those dubious assumptions and admit that the Democratic Party Extremists and Far-Left Nutters (TM) complicated Obama’s decisions: waaaaaaaa.

    So – did I mention the words “nutters” and “extremists” enough?

    Is it important to do this all the way down here in NZ where few can vote in the US elections?

    Would I be able to obtain a NZ political advantage by labeling the Democrats as the party of Extremists and Nutters (TM), so that any ideas that emerge from them in the future to make their way to NZ can be instantly dismissed with no need for rational argument, merely by uttering the words: “The idea comes from the Democrats who are the party of Extremists and Nutters (TM).

    Is there any other reason as to why NZ media would be so far in the tank for a far-away party they can’t support?

    Do I need to add the /sarc tag?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Reid (16,447 comments) says:

    Frankly I don’t understand how any man let alone a senior US senator can calculate a good political outcome may come about if he raises the subjects of rape and abortion at the same time. I’m not sure if I, even if I were on telly, would ever think that was a really good idea, so why did he?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    On the news tonight 39% of women in 12 key states rate access to abortion as their number one election issue. Jeez and I’ve spent a lot of time defending the intelligence of the American voter? What a pack of tossers – more money than sense perhaps?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Andrei (2,644 comments) says:

    Frankly I don’t understand how any man let alone a senior US senator can calculate a good political outcome may come about if he raises the subjects of rape and abortion at the same time.

    He didn’t raise it, a debate moderator, serving the DNC’s purpose raised it, knowing that it presents a pitfall for people of integrity and that despite abortion not being on the agenda it serves as a distraction from the hopeless Obama’s failings

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Nigel Kearney (1,012 comments) says:

    We have known for a long time that many people in the US and elsewhere believe a foetus has the same moral status as any other human being, and therefore abortion is equivalent to murder. I would be more concerned about the sanity of the people who think murder should be legal if and only if the killer was raped recently. That is the only truly indefensible position on the issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Just what are Yahweh’s instructions concerning rape?

    http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

    In a nutshell, the more the merrier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Fletch:notice that the Democrat in my last comment doesn’t invoke God; he invokes evolution as a reason

    Actually he didn’t. A character in his novel advanced it. Characters in a novel don’t always believe what the author does, and there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that the author does or doesn’t share this belief.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Lucia Maria (2,427 comments) says:

    Why on earth would I bother answering a person who routinely insults and derides me?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    I think it is appalling to not support exemptions for rape victims,

    I think it’s appalling you’d support the dismemberment, suctioning & chemical burning of babies. Twisted liberal nutjob…having his “outraged” wankfest along with all the other moral degenerates.

    [DPF: If you can't discuss the issues with a bit more restraint, then maybe you should go elsewhere]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Reid (16,447 comments) says:

    He didn’t raise it, a debate moderator, serving the DNC’s purpose raised it, knowing that it presents a pitfall for people of integrity and that despite abortion not being on the agenda it serves as a distraction from the hopeless Obama’s failings

    IMO if he goes into a TV interview on the election trail he has to have thought about all sorts of prepared diversions to questions like these, and if he hasn’t, then he’s not very good at his job.

    And IMO they’re both hopeless. They really are. Both of them. It’s a poisoned chalice. It’s like choosing between Pol Pot and Kim Jong-il.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Lucia

    Because you deserve it.

    However, it was a simple question and I would have thought that a committed catholic like yourself would be happy to state your position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Griff (7,689 comments) says:

    dismemberment, suctioning & chemical burning of babies

    I thought I was reading the bible for a moment

    They will fall by the sword;
    their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
    their pregnant women ripped open

    or

    At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women.

    or late term abortion

    Happy is the one who seizes your infants
    and dashes them against the rocks.

    Abortion is ok its in gods book after all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Lucia Maria (2,427 comments) says:

    BB, and you deserve, at the very least, to be ignored.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Do as you wish Lucia.

    However, I will keep pointing out the evils of your church and your religion.

    People need to be aware of just how dangerous you lot are and how you are seeking to control everybody’s lives because of the words in a work of fiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Reid (16,447 comments) says:

    People need to be aware of just how dangerous you lot are and how you are seeking to control everybody’s lives because of the words in a work of fiction.

    Which billions of people no doubt have studied collectively for trillions of hours over the centuries since it was promulgated.

    Many people who deny the veracity, the wisdom, the life lessons in the Bible BB, don’t even know it. And I mean, they’ve never, ever not once, post childhood, every tried to decipher all the “whys” and “wherefores” and they didn’t keep trying.

    That wasn’t my experience BTW BB, I gave it up for many years. But when coming back to it as an adult, all the “whys” and “wherefores” were transparent and it started speaking to me. That’s the key with the Bible, BB. You need to come to it when you’re ready and open your heart to it, otherwise, it doesn’t and never will, work not only for, but with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    “Characters in a novel don’t always believe what the author does, and there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that the author does or doesn’t share this belief.”

    A fairly obvious contention, you’d have thought. But then logical thought has never been a strong point of the extreme right. I suspect few of them would have studied any of the sciences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    “Apparently the many hardline supporters of partial-birth abortion in the Democrat party – including President Obama – don’t count as “extremists” or “nutters” – and I say that as an atheist.”

    heh. Not sure how your atheism has any relevance to the topic. Are you implying it gives your remarks extra weight? I’d have thought your own ignorance of the topic would have more relevancy then your atheism, but then what would I know?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. tom hunter (4,826 comments) says:

    Not sure how your atheism has any relevance to the topic.

    I thought it would be obvious to sharp-witted people that I was preempting the usual dreary stereotyping from pea-brained leftists, that such opposition could only arise from religious people.

    Looks like it worked, with the added bonus that you didn’t understand why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    “Looks like it worked, with the added bonus that you didn’t understand why.”

    hmm.. oh I see tom, you were being clever. But it didn’t really work then, did it tom? Given that I was genuinely flummoxed as to why you would think it relevant to mention. BTW tom, I have absolutely no interest in your religious persuasion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Aredhel777 (290 comments) says:

    Why would viability make the slightest difference to whether an entity is human? When a child becomes viable is arbitrary and dependent on the development of technology. Medical technology today can sustain human life outside of the womb from a much earlier stage in pregnancy than in say, the 1970s. Even in 2012, different countries have different technologies available to them. So, for example, if you had a child in the womb who was viable in the United States and you got a flight off to Congo, would the child suddenly cease to be human? Of course not.

    And anyway, whether an entity is viable in a particular environment is not a good indication of whether they are human. For example, an adult human being isn’t viable naked on the North Pole, or on the moon without oxygen.

    As for rape, would it be ok to kill a sixteen-year-old child because he or she reminded the mother of the rapist? Of course not. Thus, the mere fact that an entity has been conceived in rape doesn’t justify killing it. That depends on the nature of the entity in the womb. Thus, whether an entity is conceived in rape makes absolutely no difference to whether it’s right or wrong to kill it. You need to argue that it is ok to kill an unborn child who is not conceived in rape in order to justify it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    Amusing to see so many people get so indignant about hypothetical individuals.

    I thought this article was interesting. Why is there so much scrutiny of what Republicans think, and almost none of the inconsistencies of Democrats? There has been almost zero mainstream scrutiny of Obama for example, who twice voted to allow infanticide in the case of botched late term abortions when a State Senator in Illinois:

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/10/24/10-questions-a-pro-choice-candidate-is-never-asked-by-the-media/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Scott1 (550 comments) says:

    amateur hour indeed and yet to me when i first heard this I inferred what he meant (although my own philosophy would differ from his) and figured the outrage was actually the public indicating it had no ability to understand philosophy or any sort of nuanced argument, and the media indicating it intended to encourage that failing.

    I wonder what this “dumbest interpretation of everything you say” principle does to political discourse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Unfortunately, though, the Republican Party has long been taken over by what we would consider sectarian extremist religious social conservatives. While there are pro-choice Republicans and Libertarian Party members on the centre-right, there doesn’t seem to be any equivalent of the British centre-right pro-choice group, Tories for a Free Choice. And let me disabuse anti-abortion commentators here of an illusion. Not all pro-choicers are centre-leftists- just as not all opponents of abortion are religious social conservatives (although most are). Not all pro-choicers are nontheists, either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. tom hunter (4,826 comments) says:

    The point you make is probably true – except that it pales in comparison to the takeover of the Democrat Party by the pro-abortion lobby – another example of the polarisation that commentator georgebolwing pointed out earlier.

    Even twenty years ago Democrat stalwarts like Robert Casey Junior – the son of the popular anti-abortion Pennsylvania governor – was dissed by Bill Clinton at the 1992 convention and spoke not one word about the subject during his convention address, a clear sign that he’d been knobbled in being allowed to speak.

    But that was long ago and judging by this year’s convention I don’t think they’re even pretending any longer. If you’re a Democrat and anti-abortion, the only thing the party wants from you is a repeat of the Casey performance – the ability to sucker right-wingers into voting for you as a “Blue Dog Democrat” and then toe the party line in D.C. But I think the Obamacare votes – where such people got rolled – and the decimation of the Blue Dogs in the following 2010 election may have destroyed that strategy for good. I’ve not followed this race but I’d be surprised if Mourdock did not hammer his opponent on this angle.

    And once again the important point to note is that in the media, including here in NZ, that aspect of the Democrats will never be associated with the word “extremist”. Propaganda 101.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Griff (7,689 comments) says:

    Natural result of the two-party fptp system how else are things to be voted on in the black and white system the USA has
    The Liberal conservative and socialist capitalist axis are not catered for in the two-party system This blog is liberal right hence the ongoing discourse between conservative liberal on gay drug abortion etc even though most commentators are firmly right

    Tom It actually surprises me that you are becoming more strident in you conservatism to champion your capitalist beliefs due to your identification as a republican

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    ” If god had intended the child to be conceived then God must have condoned the rape.

    One can only assume that he does condone rape in view of the fact that he impregnated Mary with Jesus without her consent.”

    Mary was given the promise of giving birth to the Messiah. Every Jewish woman in history has wanted that promise. Jews are still waiting for the Messiah. They think the promise is still available.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    The notion that a ‘pro-abortion lobby’ has ‘taken over’ the DemocratIc Party is just nuts. The reality is that the majority of Democrat legislators support Roe vs Wade, which is the only legal protection US women have for the protection of their right to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

    On the other hand, on this issue as on many others, the Republican Party has moved to the extremes of the debate, as is well evidenced in this election cycle. And flip/flop Romney is Exhibit No 1.

    The most important aspect of this election for US women, given the tweedledee/tweedledumanddummer economic policies of both parties, is the next appointment to the Supreme Court bench. If Romney wins, Roe vs Wade will be overturned, the US women will be facing a talibanic onslaught from the fundamentalists.

    As for Blue Dogs toeing the party line, that again ignores reality. The Blue dogs were the primary cause of Obama not being able to pass some sorely needed progressive legislation early in his term. But they got steam rollered by even more extreme Republicans in the mid-terms as the Republican strategy of ‘Obstruct Obama and to hell with the country’ held sway over an electorate scared and confused by the mess left by yet another Republican administration who took the economy from a position of economic strength to one mired in debt and scandal.

    Contrast Hoover with FDR; Reagan/Bush 1 with Clinton; Clinton with Bush 2.

    Just follow the money!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. tom hunter (4,826 comments) says:

    Tom It actually surprises me …

    What does not surprise me is that you make a comment about the pigeon-holing resulting from a two-party system – and then attempt to pigeon-hole me! Particularly after you’ve often seen me express my rather low opinion of Romney and the GOP.

    I don’t attend to most of the social conservative arguments on this blog because I think they’re a waste of time. But I thought it would do no harm to say something about what I think of partial-birth abortion given the thread topic and that it would only be left-wing nutters who might jump on me – their idea of nuance being that one is either 100% pro-abortion or 100% anti-abortion.

    You’re more subtle than that, yes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Look, I have no objection whatsoever to breaking bread with centre-right social liberals when it comes to issues like marriage equality and women’s reproductive freedom. I have good friends who are pro-choice and supporters of marriage equality who are also devout classical liberals, neoliberals, libertarians, call them what you will. There are also people within the Labour Party who are social conservatives whom I deeply distrust and I would never campaign for-just as there are individuals within the National Party and ACT who I regard as decent, honourable people and respect as allies when it comes to the pro-choice and marriage equality causes. We don’t have to agree on other issues, just these ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Griff (7,689 comments) says:

    It is not only your stance as published on this post it has been noted else were of late
    Trying to portray the democrats as extreme nutters when a proportion of the Republican candidates are what in new Zealand would be considered extreme fundamentalist Christians with stated policy of creation as science in schools and other toxic fun-die nonsense

    The toxic USA political system is running the country to the ground. They have lost 5% on the their standard of living and will need to lose at least 10% more before they can start to breath once again. Nether party is addressing this. Debt is growing with no hope of stooping. All Both the party’s are doing is promising more debt to pork barrel their way to power

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    unfairly maligned comic genius with some good advice

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. tom hunter (4,826 comments) says:

    Trying to portray the democrats as extreme nutters …

    You really have just completely missed the point I was making – especially in this comment, to which I even added the /sarc tag.

    No? You still don’t get the point?

    The point is that the Democrats do not get portrayed as “nutters” or “extremists” by the MSM, no matter what nutty, extremist positions they hold – ever. As BlairM pointed out above, Mourdock’s opponent is also “pro-life”, a position that could easily be defined in the public eye as nutty and extreme were he running in California or New York. And it also changes over time, and I’ll use another comment of yours to make that point:

    Nether party is addressing this. Debt is growing with no hope of stooping.

    I’m well aware of the failures of the 2001-2006 GOP in dealing to spending growth – as were a lot of Republicans. But setting aside for the moment that argument on point, what I would note is that for most of the last twenty years lofty left-wing critics attacked the Republican party for playing “culture wars” on topics like abortion so that they could avoid talking about talking about the economic problems “created” by their ideas. This was the whole point of the book What’s the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, which lamented how successful the strategy had been and what Democrats could do about it. There were elements (but only elements) of truth in that accusation – but it became a standard line of attack, spreading all the way to bloggers and commentators here in NZ.

    Yet what have we seen in this US election? A Democrat party that is just gagging to talk about “culture war” issues because the last thing they want to talk about is the shitty economy. It’s actually the reason for this thread’s existence, as what the US MSM chooses to cover magically becomes what the NZ MSM wants to cover. Amazing is it not?

    Yet the “theory” of culture wars as a basis for electoral success has been almost absent from the commentary, leaving merely the banal observation that Obama has nothing else to use. Which simply brings me back to my original point: why is it that this narrative is applied when it’s Republicans doing it, but not when it’s Democrats? Why is it Republicans who are labeled – acceptably labled – as “extremists”.

    Moreover, what US group has actually pushed the hardest for spending cuts and reining in government? What group has actually been addressing out-of-control government spending and debt? The Tea Party. And how have they been portrayed Griff? As “extremists” and “nutters”.

    It’s called debate framing and as a former ACT party supporter I would have thought you’d be wide-awake to this by now, as it was used very effectively to help destroy your party.

    Do you get it now? No? Okay – I’ll lay it out without nuance: I don’t think the Democrats are any more nutty than the GOP, but since there are any number of little leftists who constantly hammer that theme I thought I would have a bit of fun with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Yes, Tom, and of course, the Bush presidency was completely blameless when it came to creating the mess that Obama inherited. Yeah, right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. tom hunter (4,826 comments) says:

    Yes, Tom, and of course, the Bush presidency was completely blameless when it came to creating the mess that Obama inherited. Yeah, right.

    Sheesh what is this? Apply a straw man argument day?

    But since we’ve branched out from abortion, you might like to note that drone kill lists, rendition, Guantanamo Bay – and all the other things that the Left and the MSM screamed their guts out about – they’re now completely silent on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Yeah, and you’ll note that I don’t exactly approve of that either. Or Bradley Manning’s continuing mistreatment, come to that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    the problem for Republicans is all the self-righteous preaching, and then getting caught soliciting gay sex in public lavatories. It’s the hypocrisy that results in the mirth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Kea (12,817 comments) says:

    Richard Mourdock is simply standing by his Christian beliefs. His view is consistent with the bible.

    Those Christians who try to distance themselves from his comments (& the bible) are lacking in integrity. Don’t try, on one hand, to appeal to modern Western Liberal sensibilities and on the other hand support your belief in that desert cult.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. tom hunter (4,826 comments) says:

    It’s the hypocrisy that results in the mirth.

    But even that does not work as a refutation of the media’s debate framing – because of it were true then Democrats would be judged on matters of hypocrisy and double standards in terms of their self-righteous preaching about feminism and the treatment of woman ….

    “I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

    That’s Nina Burleigh, former Time magazine contributor and White House correspondent, reflecting on Bill Clinton, he of Juanita Broderick fame – and it’s probably the reason that her fellow MSM journalists are still ignoring Charlie Wilson’s brutal treatment of his ex-wife: Eyes on the prize and all that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. tom hunter (4,826 comments) says:

    As an addendum to the comments of ChardonnayGuy – your opposition to those things duly noted – here’s Wired magazine on the campaign of Drone Assassination. I was especially interested in this little tidbit:

    Micah Zenko at the Council on Foreign Relations writes that Obama’s predecessors in the Bush administration “were actually much more conscious and thoughtful about the long-term implications of targeted killings,” because they feared the political consequences that might come when the U.S. embraces something at least superficially similar to assassination. Whomever follows Obama in the Oval Office can thank him for proving those consequences don’t meaningfully exist — as he or she reviews the backlog of names on the Disposition Matrix.

    Wired has a decent online presence and as much as I disagree with Glenn Greenwald, he has at least been consistent in strongly attacking this feature of the US government.

    But the MSM? I predict these “fears” will manifest themselves after January 13, 2013 if Romney wins the election and they will do their damnedest to insure that there are “consequences”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. jasonh (19 comments) says:

    Talking to some of the more “fundamental” members of the GoP is a bit like talking to the 14th Century.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    “I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

    Nope, tom, I’m not following. While your level of knowledge, and quick recall is impressive, you seem to lack insight. As I am not a mind reader I can only guess as to what your objection to this remark of Burleigh is. So, at a guess, you believe it to be offensive to women, and you are hence riling against what you perceive as a double standard? However, I’m not really seeing it. While the comment is crass, it was clearly (to most anyway) said in a certain context. Is the sarcasm behind the remark really not that obvious to you? Perhaps this lack in “social intelligence”, for want of a better description, might somewhat explain why you are so often in a state of bewilderment? You do have a lot to say tom, and while your prose is impressive, there’s a little less there than you think. You expect the points you are trying to make (in your mind at least) to be obvious to the reader. But quite often they are not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. tom hunter (4,826 comments) says:

    As I am not a mind reader I can only guess as to what your objection to this remark of Burleigh is

    Really? Okay, if you wish to play that dumb I’ll lay it out for you more clearly. She’s a reporter who was covering Clinton in the 1990’s. That quote was from a 1998 interview with the Washington Post, following a piece she wrote for a magazine where she openly admitted she’d have been happy to have an affair with Clinton. If you want more context, she discussed how, after flirting with the President on Air Force One during a game of “Hearts”:

    “If he had asked me to continue the game of Hearts back in his room at the Jasper Holiday Inn, I would have been happy to go there and see what happened.”

    It’s actually so simple even you should be able to figure it out: she’s so far in the tank for Clinton that she’ll do anything with and for him – because he supports abortion. And since she’s a reporter that would include covering for him while he treats other women as disposable objects – rather like Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, John Edwards,…. The Great Supporter of Feminism is cut a huge break on treating females like crap because he’s pro-abortion. Hypocrisy and double standards.

    Of course I don’t really think you’re that stupid so allow me to applaud the rest of your comment as a nice combination of insults and deflection away from defending the indefensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. tom hunter (4,826 comments) says:

    By the way, over on the GD thread I’ve just posted a link to one of Obama’s Advertisements, where hip, young star Lena Dunham speaks from her heart about the election:

    “Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody. You want to do it with a great guy,”

    Yeah – that’s what forty years of feminism in the Democrat Party has achieved.

    She’s speaking to you Dean!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    Thanks tom, but I was able to work out who the reporter is. And yup, she is obviously a fan of Clinton. But so what? I’m still struggling to see what this great big decisive point is you think you’re making. All wind and no sail, tom, that’s your problem. But I do apologise if my previous remarks caused offense. But at least you have kiwiblog as an outlet for your frustrations. It might be a trite observation, but the phrase “not as clever as he thinks he is” certainly does apply to you, tom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Dean Papa – having read through this post it’s clear you’ve been bested by Tom Hunter all day. You’ve posted no substantive argument, and then have the gall to accuse Tom of being all wind and no sail, and ‘not as clever as he thinks he is’.
    You’re a laugh(ing stock) – keep it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    Words versus deeds:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/25/flashback-obama-broke-with-colleagues-voted-against-protecting-rape-victims-in-99-state-senate-vote/

    Not one to talk really is he?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Dean is either an idiot or believes that if he keeps says “you’re not actually making a point” it might come true. The latter makes him an idiot too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    Oh dear. Republicans can’t seem to keep foot out of mouth. Once more they reveal true selves.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/john-sununu-colin-powell-endorsement_n_2020735.html

    @RightNow -clever moniker, I like it.

    @East Wellington Superhero -you got me dude!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Griff (7,689 comments) says:

    fair enough
    Tom you have assured me that you are not going to the dark side or far outer nutvile
    The tea party policy’s you linked to are not as reported in the NZ msm and I would support them except for the Christian moral majority rubbish.
    I still believe that their system is corrupt and will not solve their problems and the debate with you has increased my support for the potential spectrum of representation given by our MMP system

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote