By Wayne Drash, CNN
(CNN) - The pregnant 12-year-old girl was strung out on heroin and looked like a walking skeleton when she arrived at the hospital. The conversation that followed, said Phoenix police chaplain John South, has stuck with him ever since.
“Do you know who the father is?” South recalled asking her.
“She said, ‘Yes, it’s my biological father. He’s the one who hooked me on heroin so he could continue to rape me whenever he wanted to.’ ”
The Protestant chaplain has consoled about 50 pregnant rape victims - typically girls raped by their fathers - in his years working with the Phoenix Police Department.
South describes himself as “pro-life,” but when it comes to dealing with a girl or woman impregnated by a rapist, he keeps his personal views to himself.
“I don’t give them a lecture or preach at them,” South said. “I’ve seen crimes beyond comprehension.”
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock stirred controversy during a debate in Indiana Tuesday when he said pregnancies from rape are “something that God intended to happen.” The instant reaction in political circles was predictable: Democrats decried him, and many conservative Republicans defended his position as steadfastly “pro-life.”
But theologians were quick with a more nuanced approach, saying the issue of pregnancies from rape strikes at the core of a timeless question: How do you explain evil in a world where God is loving?
That said, many expressed outright dismay by Mourdock’s remarks.
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
South wanted to know what Bible Mourdock reads because “what he’s saying is absolutely wrong. It’s not biblical.”
The police chaplain said pregnancies from rape aren’t meant to be politicized and said the victims suffer from physical and mental wounds and are often suicidal. About 60% of the time, South surmised from his experience, the women or girls choose to give the baby up for adoption, as long as they never see the child at birth.
“I hurt for these kids,” he said. “Rape is evil.”
Rabbi Harold Kushner, author of the best-selling book “When Bad Things Happen to Good People,” said Mourdock’s remarks were off-base: “He’s invoking the will of God where it is not appropriate."
People “should have compassion for the person whose life is messed up by this and not make her an instrument for our idiosyncratic, theological commitment,” Kushner said.
“If you believe she has no right to terminate that pregnancy, you're free to believe that,” Kushner said. “But for you to write your preferences into law and compel another person to mess her life up because of what you believe, I think you're going too far.”
“I continue to be bemused by the ultraconservative lawmakers who say they want smaller government and less government intrusion into people’s lives, except when it comes to who you can marry and how many children you should have.”
Plenty of liberal Christians bemoaned how Mourdock was being perceived by some as the face of American Christianity.
"Once again, expressions of Christian faith that honor the rights of women to choose their own health care options and what happens to their bodies are not seen or heard," wrote the Rev. Barbara Kershner Daniel, who pastors the Evangelical Reformed United Church of Christ of Frederick, Maryland, in a message that she circulated via email.
"The lack of another voice, another perspective, another vision from the Christian community leaves an impression that all Christians share this single perspective about pregnancy through rape," she wrote.
Father Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said he found Mourdock’s comments troubling from a Catholic perspective because “God does not want rape to happen.”
“Someone getting pregnant through rape simply means biology continues to function,” Reese said. “That doesn’t mean God wills it.
“If we look at the Scriptures, we see a God who weeps with those going through pain, who is compassionate for those who suffer and condemns those who do injustice,” Reese said
During the Tuesday debate, Mourdock was explaining his opposition to abortion in cases of rape or incest when he made his remark. “I came to realize life is a 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,” said Mourdock, the Indiana state treasurer.
Amid the uproar Wednesday, Mourdock sought to clarify his comments, saying he was sorry if he offended anyone but said his comments were twisted and distorted for political gain. “The God that I worship would never, ever want to see evil done,” he said.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
Paul Root Wolpe, the director for the Center of Ethics at Emory University, said Mourdock’s comments were the equivalent “of saying you shouldn't pull people out of the rubble because God intended the earthquake to happen or we shouldn't try to cure disease because it's God who gave us the disease,” Wolpe said.
"That perspective was theologically rejected by virtually every major religion a long, long time ago,” Wolpe added.
Mourdock has been an active member of Christian Fellowship Church in Evansville, Indiana, for nearly two decades, according to Mike Deeg, the executive pastor of the 2,000-plus member nondenominational evangelical church.
Mourdock has gone on missions trips with a group connected to the church to Bolivia and is well-regarded among congregants Deeg said.
Deeg says the church tries to remain largely out of politics. “We don’t think God is Republican or a Democrat,” he said by phone from Evansville, noting they encourage members to vote, the church just doesn’t say for whom.
The pastor said of what he has read about Mourdock’s remarks, they largely lined up with the church’s teachings on the sanctity of life and their belief that life begins at conception.
“I think rape is a horrible thing, and I think God would condemn rape as horrible,” Deeg said. “I think we’re made in the image of God regardless,” he added, “I don’t think the circumstances dictate whether God knows us and loves us, regardless of how our conception comes about.”
South, the chaplain in Phoenix, said the 12-year-old girl he met years ago opted for an abortion and her father was ultimately convicted of rape. He said he grappled often with “why she was subjected to such horrendous pain and torture, mentally, physically and emotionally.”
“Did it shake my faith? No,” South said. “Did I ask God why? Of course.”
CNN’s Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report
“This is exactly why you don’t want a bunch of politicians, mostly male, making decisions about women’s health care decisions. Women are capable of making these decisions in consultation with their partners, with their doctors, and for politicians to want to intrude in this stuff, often times without any information, is a huge problem.”
– Barack Obama on the Tonight Show last night.
I'm impressed that he knows to respect women highly enough to leave the decision to them. He has my vote for that reason and many others. The voice of reason: Obama.
I don't see what the big stink is about. Mourdock simply said what most Republicans think. At least he had the sack to say what he really thinks.....I have to give credit to Akin as well, oh yes and then there is Joe Walsh, mustn't forget him.......
the funny part of this is they say they oppose abortion because they are Christians, then want to elect a non Christian cult member for president. How many voices do you people have in your heads?
Hey, what are you doing? Are you pointing out the White Elephant in the room to these folks? That some guy in America came along and revised the Bible?
The guy who started Mormonism was a polygamist. Had he not been allowed to have more than one wife, he might have r-aped someone. So, maybe Mitt has some sort of secret. I'm onto something, perhaps!
Let it be up to the conscience of the woman. The issue is far too difficult. If it were easy, like murder of a birthed child, we'd all have nothing to argue about. But, the point is that there is too much ambiguity about the definition of life, soul, etc. when we're talking about a few cells. Some will say that it is not alive until it can survive without a host or hospital equipment. Some will say that it's a person as soon as the zygote is formed. Some will say that the soul enters later and it's not a person until then. Nobody has proof of anything or we'd never be arguing about this. So, let it be up to the woman's conscience. Men should never have a say on this topic.
NO! ONLY OLD WHITE GUYS GET TO DECIDE ! ! ! ! !
@RUSH .... lol, very funny.
Spoken like a girly-man. Now get back to your real business. Gwow, gwow, gwow the Beast, gently down the drain.
Usurpation to the uttermost for those with a gubmint god led by a gubmint mob.
If women get an abortion, then God is bad with that.
If God causes the abortion and she miscarries, that is okay.
I guess the real issue for Christians is killing is okay if God does it.
The BIble never evens mentions abortion, but many Christians like to fantasize that it does.
Killing babies is nothing new for God. It's okay though because he's God.
It was prophecied 1947 years ago by a former Roman official turned Christian, that the end-times would be very difficult to cope with because people would be selfish, materialistic, arrogant, blasphemous, disobediant to parents, ungrateful, without honor, lacking natural affection towards others, not open to agreement, slanderous, lacking self-control, aggressive, no appreciation for what is good, traitorous, addicted to pleasure and forsaking God.
The only issue a True Christian faces is to remain seperate in this conformist Society so as to not be counted among these aforemenioned (@ 2 Tim. 3:1-4)
Actually will I think it was 1945 years ago, or was it 1897?
The end is coming, the end is coming......as it has been for apparently close to 2000 years.
English class: I'm sorry. I just realized that you were sparring over the grammar in the original post in this stream. The correct answer is: 'her and I'. Again, instead of trying to remember rules from 5th grade, test this out by stating the sentence twice using the objects separately. Original sentence: "...do you really expect she and I to sit around for 9 months..." becomes, in the 'test', ".... do you really expect she to sit around ...." and " .... do you really expect I to sit around ...." . Neither of these sounds correct once you separate them, so you will find your error quickly. The correction is to use 'her and me'. Yet, the posting person's point is excellent despite the grammar.
Just went tap dancing into the minefield, didn't you?
When you do . . . , it's three periods separated by a space between each, not four all together.
Periods go inside of quotation marks, not ooutside of them.
Are we having fun yet?
My grammar is excellent. I purposely chose to use odd punctuation to help make the answers stand out better. There is no ability to use color or varying fonts. Perhaps I could have been a bit more creative.
you can use italics and bold
Oh c'mon, admit it: you messed up but your ego is saying "I meant to do that!"
Notice how the exclamation mark went inside the quotation mark?
You have to realize that this place is much more like a midget-tossing contest than a real exchange of ideas.
Lighten up, laugh at yourself, nobody really cares about thegrammar. We are just trying to needle each other.
This place is entertainment, not true debate. Nobody has EVEN changed their opinions (yes, I know "their opinions" is incorrect, but I don't care to go sexist on you) due to anything said here, so it is only the shadow of true argumentation.
Welcome to fight club. Learn to laugh or you will get too angry.
What is up. But in the first part of your post you said the correct answer is "her and I"' which would obviously be incorrect under any circumstance. I assume this was a typo. There's no need for any tricks here. It's either subjective or objective. It appears many don't know the difference. Shame on our schools.
You do know that your first three words make no sense when you follow them with a period, don't you. Almost like you are a grammar hypocrite, accusing others of mistakes you yourself do.
You are one spiteful and resentful piece of work.
"What is up" was the truncated name of the poster I was addressing my reply to. Is this too profound for you to comprehend?
And you do know you should have ended your first sentence with a question mark, don't you?
If a woman got an abortion and said it was god's will that made her do it, would you be ok with that?
Why is it I can't tell you what color to paint your house, but you can tell a woman what to do with her body? This is America. you've heard of freedom, right?
Donner I think you missed the point.
Here's the point. If you interfere in my personal life, you will have problem. And clearly, that's where this is headed. My god, America truly is a gigantic trailer park. Thanks, Fox Fake News
Al is right, you missed the point, but that's ok.
No problem with the woman getting an abortion. Blaming the decision on some imaginary god would be dishonest.
Maybe my point went over people's heads?
What I am asking is if the believers are so ready to believe in a deity's will, are they willing to accept that as the woman's answer on why she chose to have an abortion?
I completely understood your point.
If the r-aped woman truly believed that her maker told her to abort the fetus and she said so, I would accept that she said that her maker had said this. I would accept that she felt that it was His will. I would never know if it was truly His will or if it was her imagination or a psychological reaction (defense mechanism) due to the r-ape. However, I would have to respect that it was her experience and her choice. In fact, I'd never even ask her since it is her own private business anyway.
Hence, I'm an atheist. Who can believe in a "loving" god that would allow such things? There's no LOVE there.
The truth is that there is just enough love in this world to keep us here, hopeful – but more than enough evil to make you think and feel that we have no creator. What you call reality is the great deception – faith is a choice and is the only way your eyes can ever see the truth. Trying to explain what it's like to people who can't comprehend is the same as a parent trying to explain parental love to those who've never had kids of their own. It's ok because putting your hope in these corrupt politicians is far more sensible right?
The reason God does not intervene is because he is giving man exactly what they want and need. Freedom to spread their wings and see if they are ready to fly on their own... once humanity learns it's painful lesson through their pride arrogance and ignorance the hard way, then they will change their tune. It is my sincere hope that when that time comes, God's grace, and mercy may still find you.
True Christians are saddened that lying politicians use their platform to usher in this anti-christ mentality in these end-times, because things will only get worse and people will need faith and their savior more than ever. My prayers are for us all. Be patient my brothers and sisters and persevere in the faith.
And to the elite of the world... take more care or there will not be any lions left to throw me too ;-)
"....once humanity learns it's painful lesson through their pride arrogance and ignorance..."
as opposed to those who purport to speak for god through translated, edited, iron age hearsay?
here's how f-cked up Republicans are. They scream that you can't force them to buy insurance, but they can force you to give birth to a r-pists child. Care to join me in a bloody coup?
Actually, I don't think a right-wing coup if Obama wins again is entirely out of the question. They are so nutty on the far right that they might do it . . . especially if they lose the Senate too (which Mourdock is nicely helping them do).
It would fail, but I still think they are dumb enough and crazy enough to try it.
No kidding, huh? Sometimes I think the same thing.
Does the tiny child, with her heart beating, with her own unique DNA, with her tiny body developing at every second... does that tiny child have no "rights"? Does it deserve no more protection than a piece of garbage?
Do children of rapists have no right to live?
No one even mentions that question.
60% of children of rapists are brought to term. Can we say that they shouldn't be here? That they are subhuman because of what their father did?
Abortion is not a "personal, medical decision" because there are two persons involved, and the one of them we like to pretend doesn't exist, but he/she does exist.
If a fetus is a true person, then all miscarriages should be investigated as possible homicides and all deformed children should be checked to see if the mother should be charged with child abuse.
The flip side of that is can a woman sue her own fetus/child for damages in the event of a difficult pregnancy? Can a father bring a child to court for murder if its birth resulted in the mother's death?
Those are good points that the anti-Choice crowd probably never thought through.
Reading the posts of this dumb, uneducated trailer trash leads me to believe that America is headed towards civil conflict. Because clearly the herd needs to be thinned.
Chris Rowland said –
"Does the tiny child, with her heart beating, with her own unique DNA, with her tiny body developing at every second... does that tiny child have no "rights"?"
No. Until it's out of the mommy, it's not a child. Even Mr. Paul Ryan said his kid was a bean before it came out.
Yeah, I've brought up questions like that before and haven't gotten a response. Kinda odd.
It sounds like you and I have the worst luck. We ask questions JUST AS people are leaving and unable to answer them. If we could turn that negative luck into positive luck, we'd probably win the lottery.
Yeah it is strange how that'll happen.
Tell ya what, if either of us has a change of luck, we split the winnings between us, deal?
i just want to know, if life begins at conception, does that mean a sperm is not alive? yet it's ok to kill thousands of them?
and: if life begins at conception, does the pregnant woman get an extra deduction for tax purposes? does a miscarriage result in a death that must be reported and recorded? maybe even investigated?
query: what if the mother's body simply resorbs the fetus- such that it merely goes away, no miscarriage or anything else? (yes, it happens and more often that you might think) . hmmmm, figure out what to call that... magic?
who here thinks they really have the right to decide what is best for someone else, or even what is reasonable. As the original saying goes, if you don't like abortion, don't have one.... but leave it to a woman to decide what she needs for herself. women are not idiots– they think things through and take such decisions very seriously, including the consequences.
@Chris Rowland. Please read my earlier posts about how badly the child of a r-apist messed up my life and many other lives. Read about the qEEG of the grandson which shows lack of oxygen going to the 'seat of empathy' portion of the brain. This is commonly found on brain scans of criminals as well. It gives pause to think about how different all of these lives would have been had the mother chosen to prevent it. Now, there are 2 generations beyond the offender who are almost as equally offensive. It's a cancer. The sperm of a rapist is like cancer cells. Do you think that people who have cancer should not be allowed to kill those cancer cells?
You've got a deal, but I'm afraid it's going to leave you ten cents short of a dime.
I"m also waiting for Palin's attack on Ann Coulter and the sun to cool.
@reasonablebe Exactly. Women take the concept of life very seriously and are not idiots. Let the conscience of the woman be her driver on this issue. Men can have an opinion on this, but the person who is pregnant is the one whose body is affected. As long as she is of adult age, let her conscience be her guide. In all of history, women are not the ones who start wars, fist fights, or perform hate crimes. It is almost always men. So, what makes anyone think that women would enter into such a decision without the same sort of reservation? Women are quite wise and, in general, love their children intensely. Unless she's on crack, she's not going to make the decision blindly or hastily. Really, men, support women and respect them as the wise, capable human beings that they are. They can handle this and will ask your opinion if they need it. In the meantime, step aside. You cannot relate if you don't have the right body parts. Besides, she has to live with the consequence of the decision, not you.
This guy should be put in a high security prison where the other inmates know what he said. It's OK, we won't know until we know if he is pregnant or not whether it was 'gods will'.
Final msg: so, I hate to say this, but I wish that my ex's biological mother would have undid the damage and saved us future women a lot of heartache. I really hate to say it, but she should have had a choice.
I feel for you. I've seen a situation roughly similar, and it is very hard and stressful, and it goes on for years.
All the best.
Most rapists have some form of venereal disease and other diseases. Do Republicans think it's God's will for women and their children to be infected with VD?
That wouldn't surprise me.
Mr. Mourdock represents the bottom of the barrel of Christian idiocy in the U.S. And it is a sad state of affairs when a man like that is encouraged to run for public office.
Christians are experts in telling others that they are sinners or telling each other they are "not the right kind of Christian" in one way or the other. This has always been the case. Different Christian sects were even feuding and persecuting each other around the time of the founding of the U.S. in several states (or soon-to-be states). Because this feuding between these sects annoyed our founders so greatly, they made it a top priority to establish the separation of church and state (and to make it Amendment #1 of our Constitution). This is also reflected in what they had to say on the matter:
James Madison (our 4th President, was the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution):
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
(A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, 1785)
and then ten years later:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?
(A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of VA, 1795)
Thomas Jefferson (our 3rd President, was the key author of the Declaration of Independence)
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
(Letter (as POTUS) to the Virginia Baptists (1808))
and then of course we have clarifying moments in history such as:
President John Adams and the U.S. Senate on behalf of the U.S.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
(from Article 11 of the U.S. treaty ratified with Tripoli in 1797)
Senator John F Kennedy said on Sept. 12, 1960, just prior to his winning the Presidential election:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.
Man, O, Man, I wish we could clone some of our Founding Fathers like Madison, Jefferson and Adams so they could return and bring back to this country what they so intelligently and thoughtfully put into it. But I fear if the originals were alive today to observe the U.S.A. now, they'd probably be shocked to the core to see in what absurd directions those supposedly practicing democracy have professed to lead us.
Msg#4, story continued .... ok, I typed up a lot and lost it. They auto-delete emails that have the word r-a-p–E So, anyway, my ex doesn't know that he is the product of said rapist. His family told me after the divorce, but I have kept it a secret. He was adopted and raised by a very religious, nice family. Yet, he is still a sociopath who has ruined my life. Furthermore, qEEGs show that my son (his son) cannot use the part of the brain where the seat of 'empathy' is. Coincidence? I doubt it. I'll bet his dad and his r-a-p-i-s-t biological grandfather had the same brain problem. This has been proven with prisoners in brain scans. So, a woman who gets abused on the street by a r-a-p-i-ss-t should be allowed to choose if she wants to keep that sort of DNA from spreading into the world for many generations to come or not. This guy has ruined my life, his 1st wife's life (well, she didn't have kids with hiim, so she has re-married), and we are watching victim#3. I worry that my son, who seems even more mean than his dad, will be as bad as his biological grandfather. And, none of them know the truth about the grandfather. I can only pray about it at this point, but sure wish I had never met my children's father. And, in the late 60s, I have no idea what the law was for a woman who was forced in a bedroom.
I think Richard Mourdock meant to say God "allowed" or "permitted" a new human being coming into existence in the situation; unfortunately, he used the wrong word, "intended" :-(.
Mourdock said exactly what he meant and meant exactly what he said. He is a dbag and will lose
He's had his chance to "correct it" like you say and didn't. Try again.
Sorry for confusing you with someone else.
chien: what makes you believe he meant something other than what he said?
here is my question. If my wife is r-ped, do you really expect she and I to sit around for 9 months waiting for the child of a r-pist to be born?
. . . then spending the next 18 years raising it?
The Republicans expect you to do that. They then expect you to sit around while the rapist takes you and your wife to court for visitation rights.
Again that argument is flawed because you can not hold a child responsible for what you think it MAY turn out to be.
The Republicans, at least too many of them, do. I expect you to take whatever action you think is right for you, her and your family.
And not knowing it's "her and me", not "she and I"?
Her and me? There's mobile homes out your window, right?
There's mobile homes?
Oh he's just bitter that the vast majority of incredibly mangled posts here ae religious, usually Christian, so he is taking his spiteful, angry revenge by jumping on every tiny boo-boo of the atheists. He must have been busted on this a lot, and now he is resentful and vengeful and angry.
Notice he rarely has much to work with, just a misspelling here and a "me-not-I" there, instead of "AFEEISTZSTS HAATES GODD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"her and me" is the objective case and is correct. Check your fifth grader's English text.
You make some excellent points. I have my real life sob story of being divorced from the child of a r-apist and how many lives his DNA has ruined. Your points are may be even better.
Half of the baby's DNA is of the mother's; in other words, half of the baby's flesh and blood are of your wife's flesh and blood. All babies are innocent, helpless, and defenseless, at the mercy of their own mother and father. Adoption is an option, if you do not want to keep and raise the baby.
You have to capitalize first word in sentences, Dipshit. It would properly be:
"Her and me . . . "
I am tired of fighting with the CNN filter. So I will just say this: if I was ra.ped, I would carry that innocent baby until birth. I would expect my husband to support me in that decision. There is always adoption, after all. If anyone actually cares about learning more and/or being well educated on the issues of abortion and women, there are plenty of resources on google. But most people here have already made up their minds on this issue. Regardless, let's respectfully agree to disagree. Hopefully this will post, because I am not trying to fight the CNN filter again.
The mortality rate for abortions are much LOWER than that for having a baby.
Deciding how much to risk your life should be an option for the mother.
If you are a good christian you would. Other wise you must just be a heathen and an immoral baby killer. (sarcasm intended)
I have to jump in on the English class here. Correct: "I expect you to take whatever action you think is right for you, her and your family." You can easily figure this out by trying all three objects of the preposition out by themselves. Example: "....action you think is right for you." ".... whatever action you think is right for her." "....whatever action you think is right for your family." The next problem was a common error made when using contractions. The correct way is "There are trailer homes near you." as opposed to "There's trailer homes ...." which is "There is trailer homes." So, both sparring writers had grammatical errors.
Mirror mirror, you left the word "the" out of your sentence. Please try harder.
"...do you really expect she and I to sit around for 9 months..."
Say them separately:
"do you really expect her to sit around..."
-and: "do you really expect me to sit around..."
-then- put them back together - "do you really expect her and me to sit around..."
This works anytime that you might have a problem deciding which pronoun to use.
But a clump of cells is not a baby or a child...
All y'all dontz speak Southernese, a-cuz weeza goys lotsa variashuns down hereabouts. Tsall good down ere.
Pro, that would be a good decision for you. Why should any other woman be forced to do the same?
what is up here,
Yes. I didn't mean to repeat your tip, but I was still typing when yours posted.
I kind of thought being bitter and resentful and spiteful would be mire fun. Maybe if I try harder, the fun will start.
Hey, you finally posted it on the right thread! Good for you. Second time's the charm.
And it makes no sense, because I didn't write my name like that but you did.
Your mommy is calling. She says it is bedtime for Bozo, so off you go! Nighty night!
You can all argue all you want, but in the cold hard light of an early November dawn, there isn't going to be a Senator Akin or a Senator Mourdock, and nothing you say or do will change that.
True and very true
Watching the Republicans reveal their true beliefs is like watching the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad in action.
The really tragic thing is the fact that Akins and Mourdock will still receive several hundred thousand votes. I would love to see some decent reporting on this. Someone needs to ask Republican women, on camera, why they support these people. Love to hear their answers. And guess what, folks. these issues will never be solved at the ballot box. The kooks are too far gone. Yeah, that's what I'm implying.
Yes, I too, would LOVE to see some decent reporting on this issue. I would love for the media to REALLY get the Republican voice out there, to stop twisting and spinning articles towards the liberal agenda, and to start reporting on the facts that the pro-women, pro-life movement has always triumphed all along.
So, donner, ask your questions. I will be your 'sample' Romney voter.
Fact: Romney is not doing well with gettting women's votes.
An interesting note: only about 1% of the over 1 million abortions each year occur because of ra-pe. And even less than that for the life of the mother.
But 70+% are had by believers. Abortion is largely a believer, not a political, problem. If the various cults and gods could actually control their members, most abortions would not be performed.
The pro-choice argument is that abortion should be legal for these few and rare circu.mstances. If they really meant that, then we should have the number of abortions decreasing in our country and this statistic should be closer to around 90-95%.
That is only one reason, hardly the only reason. The real question is whether a woman has the right to choose when it is her own body, or whether the state has the right to intervene on personal medical matters. Oddly, republicans go for the socialist side of this one, and the liberals for for the "no state intervention" position.
"The pro-choice argument is that abortion should be legal for these few and rare circu.mstances."
You don't know what "pro-chioice" means, apparently. CHOICE.
Ok, continuing .... msg#3: my ex was the product of a rapist (I can't say r-a-p-e because the message gets blocked). So, he emotionally abused his first wife. I was wife#2. He begged for children. Very charming yet awfully pushy about it. I couldn't shake my bad feelings about it because he seemed nice. After begging for children, and pushing me hard for the 2nd child (I wasn't wanting one because of his behaviors), he suddenly left me for wife#3 (victim#3). Our youngest (girl) had just been diagnosed with a very serious congenital brain disorder and he still didn't seem to care. He became very mean after he moved out and lied to get his way, legally. He has made my life hell. I can tell you that his son has, surprisingly, turned into a huge pathological liar, too, and zero conscience about it despite my years of raising both of my kids religiously with much emphasis on faith. Zero empathy from the boy and his father. It has been proven via qEEGs that sociopaths, i.e. the rapist grandfather, are not using the 'empathy' part of the brain. My son has had a qEEG and it shows the same problem. My son has caused me a lot of problems in recent years - things I would have never imagined kids would do or say to their parents. More on next msg (msg#4).
Maybe your problem was raising your children religiously. That can really fuck up a kid's mind.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.