posted at 10/24/2012 3:40 PM EDT
In response to skeeter20's comment:
In response to DamainAllen's comment:
Lets not move the goalposts, because your position is important and hiding behind the bible is not satisfactory.
The bible is not the law of the land.
The laws of the land have clearly stated that abortion is legal, i.e. women have a choice with respect to terminating a pregnancy.
So for Mourdock to state rape that results in a pregnancy is god's will is a matter of his personal faith and interpretation of his religion. For him to apply that standard, potentially, to the laws of the land is a different matter altogether and netiher his opinion on the matter nor his reasons for forming that opinion are out of bounds.
None of which changes the fact that apparently many of you feel the same way and would apparently advise female friends and loved ones to carry a baby to term despite the fact that some waste of life assaulted her and one of his sperm was able to reach one of her eggs. That she did nothing to ask for that baby is irrelevant. That she may have been powerless to prevent the act of violence against her is irrelevant. The only thing you...people...care about is that a sperm and egg came together and as a result that union should be protected by the force of the state even if it is against the individual's wishes.
Individual liberty, right guys?
Yeah, so when I say that anyone who carries these beliefs are Talibanesque I am not saying it for effect. When I say that anyone who carries these beliefs are really just advocates for a theocratic system of laws, like Sharia, I am not saying it for hyperbole. And when I say that anyone who holds these beliefs are just a notch above those that would stone a woman for being raped, I beleive I am telling the truth. Hide behind your bible all you want boys, but the truth is you aren't any better than the backwards cave dwelling would be theocrats in Afganistan, or the hills of Pakistan, or any other jihadist hotbed. You are literally the American Taliban when it comes to womens reproductive rights.
So you have that going for you. Which is...something.
You are correct that abortion is the law of the land. I must respect that, but, must I also agree is is correct?
This is the new left: Agree with our political philosophy or we will bring the house down on top of you.
As far as the bible, I'm not hiding behind anything, including the bible. Your arbritray assignment of the life of a product of rape as unworthy of existence does not stand the thinnest of moral judgements.
So, you stand behind an arbritrary, unscientific definition of life. That's hideous.
The issue isn't about whether you (or anyone else) agrees with me. This is about level setting some basics and establishing a floor for discussion. Abortion is legal, and opponents of abortion are entitled to their opinion regarding abortion.
My anger has to do solely with the idea espoused by men like Todd Akin and this Mourdock fellow is the idea that the state has an obligation to adhere to an interpretation of christian faith and that the state as represented by these would be legislators could utlize its power to prevent a woman from obtaining a legal medical procedure even in the case of rape or incest. I don't care about your or their religious underpinnings and morals and as far as I am concerned you all will sort out your successes and failings with your maker should you ever meet him/her/it.
But for the time being we all occupy a very tanglible hunk of rock and in our little subdivision of that hunk of rock, the people have set up standards to determine how society should behave and the consequences for behavior outside drifts outside of those norms. Those standards are enforced by regular people, some who wear uniforms, some who wear robes, and some who sit in judgement of those who violate those standards. Those judgments are made based on a very particular sets of "laws" that have been and continue to be written by people who in their infinite wisdom may have drawn a good deal of influence from whatever deity they worship on Sundays, but still had the foresight not to make the book of their faith the law of the land.
Quibbling over whatever it is you think I beleive about the origins of life, or when life begins...thats hiding behind your morality. Well, your morality means nothing to me, so why not instead of distorting, obsfuscating, and trying to make it seem like you have no choice but to carry a value system that more is line with nomadic tribesmen or violent woman subjugating cultures, why don't you just come out and argue the logical conclusion to your line of reasoning with respect to womens reproductive rights? You don't believe in womens reproductive rights. The woman's womb is subject to the laws of god, the state, and whatever the whims are of the legislative body that happens to be in power at that moment. That's basically what this boils down to isn't it? In a perfect conservative world there is no abortion issue because abortion doesn't exist. Rape may very well be legitimate so why make an exception for abortion? A father raping his daughter? Who cares! Women have special powers in their hootnannies that can kill off any invading swimmers! But most importantly...and don't forget this one...its the will of god when a man takes a woman against her will and forcibily rapes her.
I mean, why even have laws against rape? And I don't care if I am strawmanning this argument to death. These are the things your fellow conservatives are saying. These are the platforms they are running on. Its 2012, in America, and this is the best we got in terms candidates to run our country? These are the people you will vote for?
We should all be outraged. And you are fraud for continuing to bob and weave and duck the issue being discussed.