As I’ve mentioned a number of times, I’m a collection attorney. When I drag a person to court, it’s not pleasant for them. I’m making them go to court and answer my questions so I can take their stuff from them. From time to time during these discussions, some folks will, for whatever reason, try to soften my role in the unpleasantness. “I know you’re just doing your job,” they’ll say. Usually I’ll respond along the lines of “I appreciate what you’re saying, but I could choose another job, so you don’t have to go easy on me on account of that.” It is a job, and it’s not personal to them. I have my reasons for my actions, and I think they are good and sufficient reasons. But I still bear responsibility for my actions, and it would be a cop out if I pretended otherwise.
The other day, I wrote a blog post about Biblical interpretation entitled “It’s Us. Only Us.” One of my points was that I think people should take personal responsibility for the moral positions they adopt. It’s not enough to say that you’re against marriage equality because the Bible tells you homosexuality is a sin. I think that’s a cop out; an effort to shove responsibility for your moral positions onto the authors of the Bible instead of standing up, explaining your reasons, and owning them.
So too do I think Richard Mourdock’s latest statement on abortions and rape is a cop out.
Life is that gift from god. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.
This, of course, is at odds with another Senate candidate’s contention that a woman’s body will “shut that whole thing down” if she’s been legitimately raped; posing the question of whether these children of rape are God’s plan or a medical impossibility.
I actually think Mourdock’s position on abortion is the one with the most internally consistent logic. He’s for making abortion against the law except when the mother’s life is in danger. Now, if you believe (and I do not) that, at the moment sperm hits egg, you have a fully human life, entitled to the same protections as all of us, then the sins of that child’s father don’t matter and abortion is exactly the same as walking into a first grade class and putting a bullet in the head of your kid. If both the child and the mother’s lives are on the line, then maybe you have to choose.
But, if as a lawmaker, you decide not only for yourself but for all women everywhere that the wrath of the government will come down on her if she tries to remove the growing child of her rapist from her uterus, don’t hide behind the “will of God.” You are choosing the job and you are choosing the policy that forces her to use her body in this fashion. God didn’t choose the rape. God didn’t mandate that the sperm combine with the egg. And God doesn’t vote in Congress. It’s us, only us.
Well, at least I won’t have to suffer the fools who were ready to declare on Nov 7 that the Libertarians cost Mourdock the election. It is 100% on him.
Why wouldn’t Libertarians support Richard Mourdock? After all, they hate freedom just as much as he does.
Libertarians hate freedom? Are you trying to compete with Mourdock for the most batshit crazy statement of the night?
Do they or do they not advocate capitalism? Because capitalism is only freedom in a vulgar, decontextualized, intellectually vacuous sense. It is the opposite of real freedom. It has about as much to do with real freedom as does the “freedom” to hold a roomful of people hostage at gunpoint, and for basically the same reasons.
I made a prediction to friends a month or so ago that it was only a matter of time before Richard Mourdock would say something equally as stupid and offensive as Todd Akin.
You gottta admit that the teabaggers have helped out democrats significantly. And I love the irony of unintended consequences.
As a Lugar Republican, watching the replacement candidate shoot himself in the foot right before the election brings a big smile to my face.
And as Mike Kole said, if Mourdock loses, it’s now 100% on him. I hope he does so that the Indiana Republican Party learns something.
“I actually think Mourdock’s position on abortion is the one with the most internally consistent logic.”
In the sense that if you believe, as supporters of the “personhood” amendment insist, a full human being with all 14th Amendment rights is present from the moment of conception, then you’re right. (I suppose one explains the “life of the mother” exception, which would appear to declare her a little more of a person than her offspring, to perhaps be a “self-defense” exception.)
But ask Mourdock if he thinks it’s God’s will that if a woman procures an abortion, SHE should be convicted of homicide or some participation in it. I’ll bet he runs away from that one just like most of his ideological colleagues do because it’s not politically wise to say so.
I actually think Mourdock’s position on abortion is the one with the most internally consistent logic.
The one with more internal consistency than Todd Akin’s “God will let you get raped, but His merciful benevolence will always provide a way for me personally to escape tricky moral problems,” perhaps.
But then Akin’s position is more consistent with the magical thinking of their shared belief system.
And instead of legislators hiding behind the “will of God” I think it’s time the Supreme Diety moved front and center, and explained why He’s a single-issue voter.
We could just go back to worshipping the old gods.
Vote Cthulu: Why pick the lesser evil?
I’m prolife and don’t think abortion is birth control but these batshit comments by Aiken, Mourdock and their ilk both infuriate and amuse me at the same time. The debate last night at IUSE has received a lot of coverage on the Louisville television stations and there was a good article in this morning’s Louisville Courier-Journal about it as well. I wish I was still an Indiana resident so I could vote for Joe Donnelly in the senate race. Any family who has had to go through the trauma of deciding to terminate a pregnancy has no doubt gone through enough anguish without these asinine comments, go Joe Donnelly, I hope you win on November 6.
So you support a woman’s unrestricted right to abort and are in favor of measures to make abortions easier to access? Because that’s the only position that can rationally be considered “pro-life” in any internally consistent, meaningful, real-world situation. The anti-abortion position is pro-death.
To anyone that shares Mourdock’s belief on “God’s intent”:
If your daughter is ever impregnated from an attack and you want to look her in the eye and tell her “it is gods intent” – I won’t intervene.
All I ask is for the same “small government”, non-interventionist courtesy. Don’t make me tell her that your God intended this.
And furthermore, if the rapist is convicted who pays child support? The same MEN that want to force incubation are the first to yank any kind of safety net from these kids. Or do we have a new “rape baby” benefit that the child can be stigmatized with?
Exactly. If Mourdock were a Christian, he’d recognize the absurdity and moral indefensibility of his position.
But he’s not a Christian, so he doesn’t.
I am not sure you adequately grasp the issues Tori.
Regarding your first paragraph, if you believe in God, you generally believe all actions are “God’s intent”. War is “God’s intent.” Famine is God’s intent. Genocide is “God’s intent.” Compared to those global travesties, having to bring up a “rape baby” is rather small.
You asked a question in the second paragraph. Allow me to answer it. Nobody. This is the same answer as if the father is dead. It isn’t fair to the mother in any way, but to suggest any other answer is ludicrous. We should not punish rapists so they can pay child support? That’s going to be a beneficial policy to society (sarcasm).
At it’s heart, this is just theodicy:
This wasn’t a problem for the old gods since they were openly imperfect. As the new gods came along, with claims to perfection, the existence of evil became a thorny issue.
The most common justification for human-induced evil is that it’s the by-product of free will; but that free will generates more good than bad in the final calculation.
That still doesn’t get Mourdock off the hook. Free will makes it his responsibility to justify the notion that it’s overall a better outcome to have the government force a woman to gestate her rapists child for 9 months than to allow her to abort the fetus rather than to have her body used in that fashion. You can’t just wave your hands and say “God’s will.”
The answer that gets Murdock off the hook is best done in two sentences:
Since our seperation from England with the Declaration of Independence, we have always recognized the three inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.
There is a reason these inalienable rights are listed in that order, as Life > Liberty (and Liberty is most likely > Pursuit of Happiness).
It’s not quite that simple. The real answer is that fertilized eggs aren’t properly regarded as the equivalent of fully developed humans.
But, if you want to have fun with it, my right to life doesn’t mean that, if I’m starving, my family is forbidden from taking measures to stop me when I try to sustain my life by cannibalizing them. Even if I do it in a non-life threatening way.
You’re absolutely right that it’s not simple. As your response indicates, there are necessarily limits on our liberties. Specifically, and generally, my rights end when my exercise of liberty interferes with someone else’s exercise or their very life.
You are also correct that fertilized eggs are not legally recognized as humans with all of the rights and liberties that go along with such recognition. My belief is that they should be at some point prior to birth. My belief is also that, in the absence of a definitive answer of when life “begins”, we should err on the side of caution and prioritize the life over other liberties.
But I’ll also acknowledge these things: (a) there’s no proof of these things and there are a litany of philosophical and pragmatic problems attendant to this issue that I don’t have answers for; (b) Mourdock is a tool; and (c) I am a white, middle class asshole.
Excellent post. Personally, I agree with all but (b).
That being said, it is easy to obtain a negative opinion of Murdock after all the mudslinging (and his reactions to it) which have occurred in the past year. While Murdock is an honest, stand-up guy, he probably does not speak delicately enough to be considered a nice guy.
And furthermore, if the rapist is convicted who pays child support?
You asked a question in the second paragraph. Allow me to answer it. Nobody.
Got it. Now how does the rape baby eat and how is the rape baby clothed and who pays for the medical care if “nobody” pays child support?
“Compared to those global travesties, having to bring up a “rape baby” is rather small.”
Let me guess. White male middle class asshole?
Regarding yoru first question. … do you have a better answer than incarcerating rapists? Furthermore, you appear to be blissfully (moronicly?) unaware of the concept of adoption. That would probably be my choice if I were put in this unenviable situation.
And if you want to make ad hominem attacks of others, I suggest you go somewhere else.
“Regarding yoru first question. … do you have a better answer than incarcerating rapists?”
Yes, put the rapists in prison and have the taxpayers pay for the support of the child instead of “nobody” paying child support.
“Furthermore, you appear to be blissfully (moronicly?) unaware of the concept of adoption. That would probably be my choice if I were put in this unenviable situation. ”
Are you aware of the glut of children looking for a home? And until you carry a pregnancy to term your opinion means nothing to me.
“And until you carry a pregnancy to term your opinion means nothing to me.”
Are you always an ass, or just online?
To answer your question… my understanding is that the waiting period for newborn children to be adopted is non-existent. If you disagree, please provide data.
“To answer your question… my understanding is that the waiting period for newborn children to be adopted is non-existent. If you disagree, please provide data.”
Busy and can’t give you a proper answer but I’ll offer this.
For a healthy white baby there is high demand an no trouble finding them a home.
Minorities and not so healthy children? Not so much.
So I guess long as the rape victims give birth to healthy white children your plan is solid.
http://www.adoptpakids.org/faq.aspx
2. Are there many children with special needs who are waiting to be adopted?
Most children who are available for adoption in the foster care system are considered to have special needs. Currently, Pennsylvania has more than 800 children waiting for an adoptive family to be identified.
Even if there is a waiting list, do birth mothers not have the right to give the child to the state if they wish in most states?
Just out of curiosity, how many (1) minority, (2) special needs, (3) children of rape; (4) mother wanting to give up for adoption babies are we talking about here?
Leave aside what Mourdock said. You can agree, you can disagree. I honestly don’t think that matters.
To me, the larger point is that a man who wants to be a SENATOR representing the state of Indiana lacked the common sense, the ability to know better to kick over this hornet’s nest, two weeks before a close election. He may as well decide this week is the right one to file for divorce from his wife and act surprised that it would be mentioned.
All this tells me he would be a supremely poor representative for the state of Indiana as one of their two senators elected for a SIX year term. If he can’t make it through election season without shooting himself in the foot, what’s he going to do when in office?
For me, I would be represented by someone competent I disagree with… than be represented by a fool I agree with. I know that apparently isn’t the position of the Indiana Republican voter in the primary, but I hope it’s how the undecided voters feel in the general election.
Mourdock has taken a right-to-life position that is more rigid than most in the anti-abortion universe. There is a consistency in the position if one positis that life begins at conception and all life is “sacred.” But it is an extremist view that few support because the thought of forcing a rape or incest version carrying the spawn of a criminal to term is very troubling. Less probelmatic for Republican males than other social groups, but still problematic politically.
Perhaps the wooden stake has finally been driven through the heart of the Black Prince.
I think Joe has defined Mourdock as well as anyone. He is gaffe engine, possess no political, little financial or economic skill, and lacks judgement making such a statement on the debate stage. And a political extremist that is beyond the bonds of what a democracy should tolerate.
I suggest a three part process to this discussion:
1) all male politicians who bloviate and romanticize how rape should be handled (and others who are cutting them slack or making purely intellectual arguments) read up on rape, you could start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
2) imagine how this information could apply to your daughters or granddaughters in the real world,
3) and then report back to us.
Somehow I feel we will get the added bonus of pulling in another hot topic, but I’ll wait and see about that.
Looks like you’re getting crickets in response, Mary. Mourdock and his ilk are pro-life until their mistresses or children become pregnant.
Well stated Mary and Pila. Colbert has his usual slashing satire of Mourdock, King of Iowa and Todd Akin.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/colbert-mourdock-rape-god.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
For a minute there, I thought Iowa had a king. :)
Can we please stop calling the woman-haters “pro-life”? They’re anything but. The anti-abortion position is most decidedly pro-death.
I don’t see any way that this follows logically. Death of who?
Most of the arguments against killing fetuses would apply equally to killing tumors, which means that there people must be against killing tumors, which means they’re pro-cancer, which means they’re pro-death.
If the fetus is left alone, it becomes a human that lives along with its mother.
If cancer is left alone, it becomes more cancer & kills the host.
I have not heard of someone pro-life being opposed to abortion to prevent the mother from dying.
I think that your sarcasm font must not be working well.
For me anyway, the adoption thing is a bit of a red herring. To me the egregious part is the notion of the State commandeering a woman’s body for nine months by compelling her to incubate the child of her rapist against her will. That’s a remarkable thing.
I agree, Doug. Adopting out a child as opposed to aborting a fetus is far preferable, but abortion is legally available.
But in the situation of rape or incest, the trauma of the heinous act is probably greatly amplified by forcing a woman to carry to term.
But on a private and anecdotal note, I have a friend in New Mexico that was raped and impregnated. She kept the child and the girl is now a scholarship track athlete at Texas Tech. She is a beautiful and intelligent young woman. FWIW.
I wonder if it would be easier to disassociate the child from the rape if sex weren’t so often associated with shame in our culture.
Just a thought.
Paul C October 26, 2012 at 8:54 +00006
Even if there is a waiting list, do birth mothers not have the right to give the child to the state if they wish in most states?
Just out of curiosity, how many (1) minority, (2) special needs, (3) children of rape; (4) mother wanting to give up for adoption babies are we talking about here?
#################################
You asked for evidence of children waiting to be adopted. I showed that in Pennsylvania alone there are 800.
And you spin this into “do birth mothers not have the right to give the child to the state if they wish in most states?”
And you accuse me of being an ass?
Go fuck yourself pal. And your friend Mourdock is going to lose.
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2012/10/dueling-polls-i-1.php
Dueling polls. A Mourdock poll has the race tied. A Donelly poll shows him up by 7.
Let’s hope god is good to Indiana on election day.
Nothing like this type of issue to cause the number of comments to Masson’s Blog to start stacking on top of one another. Up to 42 now. Doug, have you kept track of what the record is?
I have not. Seems like it’s gotten up to 100 once or twice.
I got on the Indianapolis Star Website this morning and they are endorsing Joe Donnelly for the senate. The Louisville Courier-Journal has endorsed him as well. In an interview a few days ago Mourdock claims the abortion contoversary has gained him votes. I guess we shall see on November 6 if that is the case. Only nine days to go!! I got a chance to see The Colbert Report clip also, it’s hilarious. I wonder if the people Mourdock has allegedly picked up votes from are the same people who think the uterus has a brainpan and “can shut that whole thing down, in the case of ‘legitimate rape'”.
The Indianapolis Star endorses Joe Donnelly.