STFU victimized Jezebels, you be doing God’s work:
Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday when a woman is impregnated during a rape, “it’s something God intended.”
Mourdock, who’s been locked in a tight race with Democratic challenger Rep. Joe Donnelly, was asked during the final minutes of a debate whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.
“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize 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 happened,” Mourdock said.
The race between Mourdock and Donnelly has been one of the nation’s most expensive — and most watched — Senate races since the Republican unseated veteran U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar in May’s GOP primary. Mourdock’s comments come two months after embattled Missouri GOP Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin said during a television interview that women’s bodies have ways of preventing pregnancy in cases of what he called “legitimate rape.”
Just be quiet about your horrible rape and get to work squeezing out that Jeebus baby, you harlots. You probably were wearing a short skirt and had it coming anyway.
BTW- should I ever kick Mourdock in the junk, would God have intended that?
Voncey
Hello Senator Donnelly!
karl
Yes, because God could make you miss if She wanted you to.
SFAW
It’s almost as if Mourdock is trolling his own supporters. Which leads me to wonder: has anyone ever seen Mourdock and DougJ in the same room at the same time? Because, if not ….
El Cid
So, would this make God an accessory? Obviously at the very least a criminal conspiracy, seeing as He had set up the rape in the first place.
Forum Transmitted Disease
A vision of the future? How about a boot stomping on Mr. Mourdock’s junk. Forever.
El Cid
What happens when a US citizen rapes an illegal immigrant lady-type? Does this mean that God intended for her to get an anchor baby? I must know!
These questions must not merely be limited to 4th century Church councils!
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
I am pretty sure God intends for me to hold him while you kick him in the junk.
PeakVT
What an awful waste of space Mourdock is.
arguingwithsignposts
@El Cid:
As I discussed two threads down, it takes A LOT of handwaving to excuse an omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving god from culpability in the sufferings of this world. Whatever else he is (major douchebag), the candidate is being consistent on this one thing.
When you break it all down, god is an accessory to everything.
PeakVT
BTW – should I ever kick Mourdock in the junk, would God have intended that?
I think if you make him sterile then the answer would be yes.
JCT
I think by this point steel-toed boots to the junk (repeatedly) would just be the warmup to what this asshole truly deserved.
Women are no more than brood mares to these knuckle-draggers.
YellowJournalism
@PeakVT: I guess that’s where the phrase “God willing” came from.
Corner Stone
I just can’t give a shit about any poutrage d’jour associated with these guys anymore.
Everyone knows who they are voting for if the pull the R lever.
General Stuck
Not unusual for wingnuts to talk like this, in general. It is unusual to do it during a televised political debate.
fleeting expletive
What part of Mr. Mourdock, sir, it’s none of your damn business what any woman decides to do about a pregnancy, do you not understand? You struggled with this for a long time? Yeah? Like it’s up to you? It ain’t your business!
gex
So we’ve decided that some rapes aren’t rapes. Also, the Supreme Court ruled that handicapped woman couldn’t have been raped because she was too handicapped to say no. (I guess you get to fuck whatever woman you want unless she can stop you. She never has to consent.)
Then they go after birth control.
They want abortion banned.
Their policy towards women is this: “Bitch, if I want you to have my baby, YOU’LL HAVE MY BABY!”
piratedan
if only there was a way to have the topic of the previous thread be the solution for the problem in this thread
fuckwit
You know, there’s no War on Women. That’s just a hysterical fantasy of a bunch of silly caterpillars, or something. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
Quincy
I wish media coverage better reflected that this isn’t in any way a gaffe, just an accurate statement of barbaric beliefs. Mourdock is dumb and stubborn enough not to apologize. Good for him. Rather than have a fake controversy over inarticulate language I hope he owns this and makes clear to the people of Indiana that one of their senate candidates proudly believes stupid awful things. I worry that a majority agree with him, but at least it will be out in the open.
amk
I thought 2010 election of teabagging racist nuts had the world pointing and laughing at us of a. I was wrong.
PsiFighter37
I know the whole Tea Party thing was supposed to be all about economics and whatnot, but it turns out their politicians are absolute fringe lunatics when it comes to social issues. Pretty sure that this is going to get picked up and Mourdock is going to get hammered a la Todd Akin. And the fool opened his trap with 2 weeks to go – what a maroon. Basically pulled a Peyton Manning to Tracy Porter…
Richard Lugar has got to be either laughing his ass off or wondering how the shit he managed to lose to this fool by 22 points in the primary.
dance around in your bones
Repeating my comment from a previous thread”
That is all. Except we have some REALLY stupid people in our House and Senate.
Our President rocks, however! Ok, Obot.
Nemo_N
Only if Mourdock were a muslim.
mak
So in other words, according to Mourdock, “that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” Interesting.
El Cid
@arguingwithsignposts: Well it’s a different discussion when one discussant has postulated that God intended for this rape pregnancy to happen, which is meaningless without the immediate predicate that God intended for this rape to happen, unless God’s role is one in which given that the rape happened and the victim became pregnant, then His role was merely in helping the fetus to proceed with some degree of healthfulness toward birth.
cbear
I dunno, but he/she and the state of W.V. would probably be okay with you luring him to your garage and popping a cap in his ass.
1badbaba3
@karl: Hey! Who says God is a “She”?
ArchPundit
It’s not just bad politics, it’s bad theology–as per usual fundie batshit nutters. That whole free will thing–kind of removes that God intended a person would do bad things to you. Fucking Christ on a stick these assholes are morons.
? Martin
We need to introduce a law like the Hyde Amendment that hands financial responsibility for any unwanted pregnancies personally to the lawmakers that pass anti-abortion laws.
If God intends them to not go bankrupt supporting all of those kids, I’m sure He will provide for them.
BruceFromOhio
Let me know how that works out for you when its your daughter, and your grandchild.
El Cid
Maybe God intended for this poor raped woman to have safe and legal access to abortion.
JoyceH
If Mourdock believes that we shouldn’t interfere with God’s work, I assume he also believes that we shouldn’t cure people when they get cancer? Because God must have meant for that to happen too.
David in NY
It has occurred to me that these idiots have two main problems. First, they assume, committing the sin of pride, that they know what God intends for each conception. Second, they assume, without evidence, that that intention is that every conception is intended to become a person.
But if God knows, as an omniscient God must, that the conception is due to rape, and s/he also knows that the woman will not allow such a conception to become a person but will abort it, is that not what s/he must intend? Or will s/he not allow the conception to occur.
And anyway, God apparently does not demand that all conceptions turn into people, since s/he allows miscarriages to occur in 20% to 50% of conceptions. So their whole premise is wrong.
So there.
El Cid
@JoyceH: Cancer cells also spontaneously divide reproduce; they’re really just like human fetuses, only different.
The Dangerman
@ArchPundit:
This.
Through this assholes simplistic reasoning, God wanted the Aurora shooter to kill the people. Assinine (misspelled on purpose).
Narcissus
@El Cid: It’s the miracle of life
kay
It’s scary how they’ve dropped “health of the mother” and that doesn’t even draw comment anymore. It was a big deal when McCain said the mother actually had to be dying, and that was 4 short years ago.
Permanent disability, serious illness, FINE, now. Mother has to be dying. Near death.
4 years from now, that “exception” will be gone too. Not that anyone should trust them on “life of the mother”, whether they admit it just yet or not.
Felanius Kootea
He struggled with it? I think there should be a rule that if it is not possible for you to get pregnant from rape, you don’t get to lecture the rest of us about what to do about that scenario.
By all means get all choked up in private about your hypotheticals but don’t try to turn your madness into law and make others suffer for your twisted ends.
Do these men (Akin, Mourdock, etc.) have no mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, aunts, nieces, or female cousins? Were they raised by sociopaths (his god sure sounds like one)? What the hell is going on?
burnspbesq
Of course not! Every sperm is sacred, haven’t you heard?
David in NY
@gex:
They did? Whose Supreme Court?
Hill Dweller
@kay: Romney will say abortions should be illegal, with exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. But his campaign will immediately walk back the health of the mother exception. The media never says a word.
El Cid
@David in NY:
Connecticut.
Roger Moore
@El Cid:
Of course not. God never wanted the Fourteenth Amendment in the first place, which is why it wasn’t in the Constitution he handed down from Mount Sinai. Besides, everyone knows the Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t intended to let illegals pop out anchor babies here; that’s purely a result of activist judges.
pseudonymous in nc
@? Martin:
Or impose a theology tax on churches to cover the cost.
metalgirl
Mourdock is an oxygen robber. Period.
El Cid
@Roger Moore: So, in this case, God was in favor of the rape and of the pregnancy, but not the citizenship.
Geoduck
@David in NY:
Connecticut’s, but I see it’s already been answered.
Bokonon
At least Mourdock is being forthright about his personal and political views, instead of … I dunno … having a secret agenda and lying his ass off to the public.
He is honest at least. And that’s a lot healthier for democracy and public discourse than the alternative.
ArchPundit
@David in NY:
As I mentioned elsewhere: God: The Great Abortionist in the Sky. Mention this to dumb fundies (okay redundant) and they just start talking in tongues and say that is the answer.
SRW1
So, if a, well, let’s call it an encounter ends in a pregnancy, that is incontrovertible proof that it wasn’t rape. Firstly, because God wanted it, and God would never want anything as ugly as rape. Secondly, because the innate mechanism to repel rape sperm didn’t kick in.
Come to think of it, there’s no reason why this shouldn’t apply to incest as well.
Brachiator
So, if rapists are doing the Lord’s work, then I presume that a duly elected Senator Murdock is going to introduce a bill seeking to repeal all rape laws, at least the ones having to do with heterosexual rape.
There is a reverse Willie Horton ad here just aching to be born: “Richard Murdock believes that rapists and sexual predators are not criminals who deserve to be locked up. They are just doing God’s work.”
Onward Christian Soldiers, marching off to war against women.
Jarret R.
In Indiana politics, this kind of remark generally leads to a long, successful career as a state GOP kingmaker.
ArchPundit
@The Dangerman:
He works in mysterious ways you know.
Since I go to a church were the actual ministers have PhDs and are Biblical scholars–not just random assholes who can barely read let alone interpret a complicated piece of literature, I’ve never had my minister say that. At least not without laughing.
Interrobang
@Geoduck: Speaking as someone with cerebral palsy, I’ve never seen a more compelling argument for requiring affirmative consent in my life.
I hate to slippery-slope here, but if a state supreme court can affirm that a woman who is basically paralysed and has the intellect of a toddler can consent to sex, that means nothing but badness for the rest of us…and really doesn’t speak highly of their opinion of women generally, to be honest.
Roger Moore
@El Cid:
Exactly.
Roger Moore
@Brachiator:
Only if they result in pregnancy. If the woman doesn’t become pregnant, that’s proof that God didn’t approve of the rape.
amk
@Bokonon: freepersville ======> that way
Bokonon
@Roger Moore: Citizenship!?! Come on! Questions about citizenship are determined by the political process! Questions about health care and who-what-when you can have children or not belong to GOD, and people have no legitimate personal or moral decisions that they can make on their own! And that’s why abortion should be … um … decided by politicians divining God’s will. Because it is religious … um … not political.
Darn.
Narcissus
What could possibly make so many men hate women so much
I just don’t understand it
pseudonymous in nc
@Bokonon:
This heads me off towards Godwin Boulevard, but I’m not sure how healthy it is for honest expositions of utterly abhorrent political positions to be part of electoral contests, given the way that elections appeal to tribalism and have zero-sum outcomes.
That’s to say, if Mourdock wins (and the race in Indiana is a coin-toss right now) his victory becomes a tacit popular endorsement of “God moves in rapey ways”, even if the people who show up to vote for him are doing it because of the [R] next to his name or Teh Defuhssit or whatever. You vote for the whole package, and the whole package gets validated by victory, because there’s not a place on the ballot paper to put an asterisk and a footnote.
So I actually prefer secret agendas in politics (only just) because it’s pretty hard to execute them in secret. You can have all the secret agendas you like as long as you keep them strictly to yourself, and if you’re afraid to endorse a belief or policy in public, then you’re probably going to keep holding it privately, which makes it impotent.
This theory applies only to teabaggers, of course; Dems who make non-centrist arguments and win elections are told by the touch-football tyre-swingers to reach across the aisle as soon as they’re sworn in. It is also subject to a fairly stern test by the Rmoney Bullshit Blizzard, where it is clear that the man has absolutely no core beliefs.
General Stuck
For me it is now including cases of incest to be included in God’s will. Which peeled away via real life circumstance, usually means a very young girl being forced to bir th her fathers child. I don’t know what kind of pathos can justify that, religious or not, and what that says about the nature of the god these folks worship, or use to condone almost anything to control others.
El Cid
@Roger Moore: So if there’s a pregnancy it marks it as Holy or Anointed Rape, right?
Bokonon
@amk: No thanks. Those Freeper people banned me. They don’t like backtalk much
I am drawing a distinction between Mourdock and his bestest pal Mitt Romney (who seems to have the same views – but just smiles and lies and evades, and makes plans).
It is a lot healthier for our political system if candidates tell you what they stand for. So you can make informed choices (as opposed to getting fooled and bumfuzzled, and then screwed over – something the American public seems to excel at where reproductive rights comes into play).
Brachiator
@Roger Moore:
RE: So, if rapists are doing the Lord’s work, then I presume that a duly elected Senator Murdock is going to introduce a bill seeking to repeal all rape laws, at least the ones having to do with heterosexual rape.
Or the woman wasn’t trying hard enough to becaome a vessel for the Deity’s will. Great example of Salem Witch Trial logic.
gex
@David in NY: Lemme go find that.
ETA: Here it is
ETA2: Should have waited to go looking, figuring others would have covered it while I was gone.
cmorenc
So God intended that the victim be raped in order that she could become pregnant at that moment by the rapist, rather than at another moment of her choosing with a man of her choosing.
If instead, he had simply said in effect that two wrongs (rape, killing of the fetus) don’t make a right, I would view that as an unacceptably extreme moral viewpoint, but accord him a certain respect for at least having a certain integrity in it, even while being unacceptably narrow. However, his viewpoint of God is theologically monstrous in presuming a positive divine purpose in women suffering being raped by vicious men.
Xenos
@Brachiator: Under modern law, Mary had no capacity to consent to impregnation from the holy spirit. Not much different Europa or Persophone, really.
Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.)
Yes.
Mnemosyne
@Xenos:
I dunno. As I understand it, Mary was legally old enough to enter into a marriage contract, which by definition would make her at or above the age of consent.
To make that argument, you would first have to claim that there’s a uniform, recognized age of consent, and there is not, at least in the United States, and our age of consent seems to fall a bit higher than in other nations.
If Mary was in Mexico instead of the United States, that angel would have been home free, because their age of consent is 12.
ETA: As I recall the story from Catholic school, the angel said, “Hey, God wants to impregnate you with His son, is that cool?” and Mary said, “Yeah, no prob.” I don’t know if the Protestant story is the same. Europa and Persephone were physically abducted and never given a choice.
Spaghetti Lee
This race is very winnable for Donnelly already-it feels like one of about 10 senate races the GOP has pissed away by running lunatic candidates.
McCaskill went from 10 down to (at one point) 10 up after Akin’s assholish comments, and I think these are worse. Interesting to see how this race will go.
muddy
FYWP just eated my post about a relative’s kids in Catholic school (the public school is too blah). They sent the kids home with baby bottles that they were supposed to fill with money and bring back to prevent abortions. So they got to discuss abortion with 7 year olds. That’s bullshit.
When my kid was 7, he had to walk past an abortion protest group every day, the ones with the disgusting images in front of an OBGYN office that didn’t even do abortions. You couldn’t really see them driving by, but the little kids on foot had it shoved in their faces. My kid got nightmares. I called the cops, they said as long as they kept to the sidewalk there was nothing they could do.
There was something I could do though. My son and I put on camo and went into the little wood between our house and that office and then we shot at their signs with BB guns. Okay, I shot a few people too. Sue me. My kid had no more nightmares after that. We actually did it several times, and they never got a clue what was up. Aaaah, bees!.
El Cid
@Mnemosyne: Yes, but I wonder if the cross-species nature of the relationship might cause questions. Can one truly be said to consent by free will to an angel of the Lord? (I mean, presuming this wasn’t Mary’s parlance for ‘some guy I’m calling an angel of the Lord’.)
muddy
@El Cid: If she said no, I bet the angel would have raped her anyway.
El Cid
@muddy: Maybe the angel couldn’t really interpret her mere human babble as indicating a lack of consent.
notoriousJRT
God’s will she gets pregnant; God’s will that she terminates the pregnancy. And I am certain it shall be God’s will whatever violence befalls the junk of this puke.
muddy
@El Cid: Well it’s pretty shitty to ask someone a question that you know they can’t intelligibly answer. Be like interrogating a cat. Anyway, can’t god know her answer in her mind?
Felonius Monk
Hey Cole — I just had a one-on-one with G*d and He said “Right on,Bro. Stomp that f*ckr’s junk and then stomp it again.”
Mnemosyne
@El Cid:
Oh, please, like that wasn’t the reason women used the “sexy swan” excuse in ancient Greece.
(I had to search for a while to find a link that didn’t have super-creepy pictures of Leda doin’ it with a swan. Wikipedia, I will have nightmares tonight!)
pseudonymous in nc
The polling on IN seems to have settled around 40R/40D with ~7% to a libertarian candidate and a heap of “dunnos” who’ll decide it. I don’t know whether that’s a good thing, because the “dunnos” may be exposed to the whole Our God Is A Rapey God thing, or whether they’re just going to show up on the day and vote for whoever has the right letter next to their name or who has the nicest hair.
MacKenna
So God “intended the rape”… is there no end to the horror that is the Republican male?
SRW1
I don’t understand why Mourdock thinks his god would need to make rape am acceptable way to get the womenz folk pregnant. Isn’t his god supposed to have mastered the virgin birth technique?
Joey Maloney
@Geoduck: Read Popehat on this. tl;dr, the prosecutor charged under the wrong section of the law because it carried a stiffer penalty than the one which the defendant was clearly guilty of. No one disputes that the victim was incapable of giving meaningful consent, but idiot prosecutor charged under a section which pertains ONLY to a victim who is drugged, unconscious, or restrained in some way.
Popehat, by the way, is one of the best and funniest legal blogs I’ve found.
Ash Can
Richard Murdock has no junk.
Todd
“Our God is an Asshole God” has a much better ring to it, and fits right in to the meter of the song.
The Other Bob
This is a problem with any religious person who believes God controls or influences all our actions and the universe. People (including Christians) are getting outraged because Mourdock is pointing out a major problem with the way these types of people think.
If God controls everything, he is starving children, committing atrocities, enabling rapists and is otherwise responsible for not just the good, but the horrible of the world. Who wants to admit they believe in a god that does all that? Mourdock just pointed out the obvious.
indycat
@JoyceH: actually he does believe that. He has said it would be OK for an employer to deny insurance coverage for cancer treatments.
John PM
If this is God’s plan, doesn’t it logically follow that the rapist should not be punished because he is doing God’s work?
Howlin Wolfe
As John implied in his question re: his foot and Mourdock’s junk, a statement like Mourdock’s is philosophically self-negating. If you buy his argument, it renders the whole concept of “God’s” intentions meaningless (which I believe is nonsense, anyway). If that is God’s intent, so is every other fucking think that happens in the universe (which is way more complex than any religion’s god, but nobody can tell god botherers that).
brantl
I think God intended that we form a never-ending conga line to kick him in the junk.
Betsy
So if the fetus is aborted, didn’t God see that coming, too? Isn’t the fetus’ soul up in heaven, rejoicing for eternity? Where is the problem with this for fundamentalist nutjobs?
Oh, I know. The problem is that the woman has the choice of whether to abort.
RedKitten
Do not underestimate just how batshit-insane and hateful these people are when it comes to women. About 3-4 years ago, just for shits and giggles, I got into a discussion about abortion on RedState. (I know, masochistic, right?)
Anyway, before I got banned, I was in a rather heated discussion with one fine fellow. His firm opinion was that choosing to save my own life ahead of the life of my theoretical fetus was “selfish”, and that if God wanted me to live through the pregnancy and childbirth, I would. But that if I didn’t, then I shouldn’t be so selfish and stubborn and just accept God’s will.
Seriously. THAT is where these people are coming from. What do you even say to someone who genuinely believes that it is the height of selfishness for a woman to want to live?
The Golux
In a better world, Mourdock would be sentenced to be raped daily until he became pregnant.
redshirt
Since every soul is evil upon birth, shouldn’t the Fundies want abortions so the untouched souls can go straight to Heeee-aven?
Amalia T.
@Mnemosyne:
Yeah, you gotta google Leda and the Swan at your own risk. There is a LOT of strange imagery! (But I’m glad you found my blogpost!)
Comrade Dread
@El Cid:
How the hell did this happen? Isn’t the point of consent laws and an age of consent is that children don’t have the mental capacity to say yes to sexual activity?
How is a woman with the mental capacity of a three year old able to give that consent?
@redshirt:
Under original sin, every soul is evil from conception.
Presumably, this is why Catholics oppose abortion to save the life of the mother. The mother presumably is Catholic and has been baptized and is under grace, so if she dies, she will eventually get to heaven. The child is not baptized, and therefore will not ever have a chance to go to heaven, but will spend eternity in Limbo, not really suffering, but not really happy either.
Darkrose
@muddy:
I had a similar experience. I took piano lessons at the American Conservatory of Music in Chicago, which was in the same building as a Planned Parenthood office. Every Saturday, there were people with pictures of dead fetuses on signs outside. Occasionally, they’d shove literature into my 8-year-old hands. I used to have horrible nightmares.
TenguPhule
Easy, “If my angry sky god can knock up the ho’s and get off scott free, so should I!”
Tone In DC
@brantl:
LULz.
Dance all night, like Ric Ocasek said.
Darkrose
I’m pretty confident of the opposite, but then, I’ve actually read the Bible.
lolas
So it’s the will of God that a women who gets raped gets pregnant and must carry the pregnancy to term.
It must also be the will of God that a 12 year old who gets raped by her father and gets pregnant must carry the pregnancy to term.
And it must also be the will of God that a woman who will die if she carries a pregnancy to term must die, right?
Or does Mourdock believe in only following the will of God SOMETIMES, with exceptions, based on his own interpretation of scripture?
Isn’t that a just a wee bit inconsistent?