Again?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Again?

    Indiana Senate Candidate Draws Fire for Rape Comments

    The delicate issue of pregnancies resulting from rape rattled another campaign for the Senate Tuesday when Indiana’s Republican Senate nominee, Richard Mourdock, said a life conceived by rape “is something that God intended to happen” and must be protected.

    The comments came during a debate with Mr. Mourdock, the state treasurer; the Libertarian candidate Andrew Horning; and Representative Joe Donnelly, the Democrat locked in an unexpectedly tight contest for the seat now held by the Republican Senator Richard Lugar. All three were trying to distinguish themselves, since they all are identified as opposing abortion.

    “I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” Mr. Mourdock said. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

    --------------------

    If God intended the pregnancy from a rape to happen, doesn't that mean God intended the rape to happen?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Again?

    Wow....unbelievable. This view by the extreme right is scary..and it seems more and more old men are coming out with statements like this.

    He is a hypocrite to his own religion. Mitt Romney endorsed this guy in a television ad last week. Now, the Romney campaign is distancing themselves from Mourdock..saying that they disagree with his comments. I think Romney needs to go further. I think he needs to go on TV and formally withdraw his endorsement of Mourdock. If Romney does this today..I will vote for him without question..because those are the kind of leadership qualities I want.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     I think he needs to go on TV and formally withdraw his endorsement of Mourdock. If Romney does this today..I will vote for him without question..because those are the kind of leadership qualities I want.

    [/QUOTE]

    Fat chance.  His own running mate and the GOP party platform share this view with Mourdock.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Again?

    Life apparently is an inconvienent truth for the left.  Life is what they decide it is, not what science tells you it is.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Life apparently is an inconvienent truth for the left.  Life is what they decide it is, not what science tells you it is.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Call me crazy, but maybe a woman shouldn't be forced to bear the child of the drunk uncle that raped her?

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to chiefhowie's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Life begins, who ever you want to believe started it. It's still a persons life at 12 wks.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well that settles everything.  I am sure your personal opinion on this divisive issue will convince everybody...

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from cookie-rojas. Show cookie-rojas's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Life apparently is an inconvienent truth for the left.  Life is what they decide it is, not what science tells you it is.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Call me crazy, but maybe a woman shouldn't be forced to bear the child of the drunk uncle that raped her?

    [/QUOTE]


    did I just wake up in bizzaro-land?

    Has President Romney already repealed R v W while I was sleeping?

    Second term battle even if he wants to do it at all.  First term is to fix the economy stupid!

    Listen, Romney needs to get two of the USSC justices to retire, then lay the ground work, and then he'll need to use up a lot of his political captital just to get it on the bench.

    That stuff takes a lot of time, especially when it's not the #1 priority, it is probably #8 or so.

    Kepp in mind, that whatever happens in two weeks, Hillary is running in 2016, it will be on her agenda no matter what.  Romney won't touch it if he's smart, so that means it won't even be on the radar for about six years.

    Lighten-up Francis!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: Again?

    Of course, whatever God stands for, the Catholic Church would not baptize a "rape baby" that was conceived in sin.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to cookie-rojas's comment:
    [/QUOTE]


    did I just wake up in bizzaro-land?

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes....and its the same place you went to bed.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from cookie-rojas. Show cookie-rojas's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to cookie-rojas's comment:
    [/QUOTE]


    did I just wake up in bizzaro-land?

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes....and its the same place you went to bed.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Captain Deflection strikes again!

    It must really suk to be supporting a guy that's going to lose (40) states and by 8 points!

    Don't forget, the Donald has big new today!

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Life apparently is an inconvienent truth for the left.  Life is what they decide it is, not what science tells you it is.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Call me crazy, but maybe a woman shouldn't be forced to bear the child of the drunk uncle that raped her?

    [/QUOTE]


    Nobody`s saying she should "bear the child" dummy.

    [/QUOTE]


    Well.. several GOP senators who vote on Supreme Court justices are saying it.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Life apparently is an inconvienent truth for the left.  Life is what they decide it is, not what science tells you it is.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You really think a woman should have to give birth to a baby conceived via rape? If I were a woman there is no way in hell I could ever give birth to a baby conceived that way. If someone CHOOSES to then that is THEIR choice...but no woman should be FORCED to.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No, not saying that.  But, this is not as clear cut as the left wants to make it.  For example:  should the baby pay the price for the sin of the father?  The answer to that might be interesting.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to cookie-rojas' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName99's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Life apparently is an inconvienent truth for the left.  Life is what they decide it is, not what science tells you it is.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Call me crazy, but maybe a woman shouldn't be forced to bear the child of the drunk uncle that raped her?

    [/QUOTE]


    did I just wake up in bizzaro-land?

    Has President Romney already repealed R v W while I was sleeping?

    Second term battle even if he wants to do it at all.  First term is to fix the economy stupid!

    Listen, Romney needs to get two of the USSC justices to retire, then lay the ground work, and then he'll need to use up a lot of his political captital just to get it on the bench.

    That stuff takes a lot of time, especially when it's not the #1 priority, it is probably #8 or so.

    Kepp in mind, that whatever happens in two weeks, Hillary is running in 2016, it will be on her agenda no matter what.  Romney won't touch it if he's smart, so that means it won't even be on the radar for about six years.

    Lighten-up Francis!

    [/QUOTE]

    It's priority #3,000 for conservatives.  It is just that it is priority #1 for democrats, so we are all talking about the rare case, and dumped on if we don't respond with complete affirmation of the baby-killing democrat perspective on this.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Again?

    When Todd Akin made his comments regarding legitimate rape the Romney campaign asked that he drop from the race.  Will that be the case with Mourdock as well?  I would hope so, considering Romney endorsed his candidacy and Paul made a contribution to his election efforts.  Not asking the same of Mourdock would be a huge flip flop especially as Romney is trying to make a case to female voters. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Again?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Life apparently is an inconvienent truth for the left.  Life is what they decide it is, not what science tells you it is.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You really think a woman should have to give birth to a baby conceived via rape? If I were a woman there is no way in hell I could ever give birth to a baby conceived that way. If someone CHOOSES to then that is THEIR choice...but no woman should be FORCED to.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No, not saying that.  But, this is not as clear cut as the left wants to make it.  For example:  should the baby pay the price for the sin of the father?  The answer to that might be interesting.

    [/QUOTE]

    Is the fetus aware of a price being paid? I'm pretty sure it's not.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm pretty sure that's besides the point.  Read up on some of the people who were conceived in rape, targetted for abortion, but not.  Are you saying these people should be killed immediately?  After all, you failed to kill them before they were born.

    http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html

    The left tries, no, the left NEEDS to make this clear cut, as it is the only way it can fit their overall narrative that babies are worthless, and can be dispensed with like a mole or a scab.

    My only borad point is that this is not as clear cut as the left claims.  Agree?

     

Share