October 25th, 2012
06:00 AM ET

When ‘God’s will,’ rape and pregnancy collide

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

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Rape • Women

soundoff (4,449 Responses)
  1. gf

    Just an FYI ... the source that "TheVocalAtheist" quoted from a few posts below is from an online satirical site. TheVocalAtheist tried to pass that off as truth, as an actual quote. He/She might as well have been quoting from The Onion. If you present something here and take up so much posting space, don't try to pass something untruthful off as truth ... especially since it was meant as criticism. Perhaps the quote was only given in ignorance, and TheVocalAtheist never learned about finding credible sources ... in that case it can be overlooked. But was it intentional?

    Straight from their website: http://dailycurrant.com/about/:
    "Q. Are your newstories real?
    A. No. Our stories are purely fictional."

    October 25, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • Ann Coulter

      No one cares..retard.

      October 25, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      Of course it is satirical bonehead! If you know anything about satire you would know it is exaggerated humor that exposes the pure stupidity of something. This political figure represents a broad base of right wing fanatics and there are probably many within their circle that would find the quote as plausible.

      As far as me posting an untruth, well then, I guess I'm learning from the best from the Birther's, Tea Bagger's and what used to be just the far right but they have infiltrated the whole party side.

      Get a life and get real.

      October 25, 2012 at 8:36 pm |
    • Don

      Nice to see that you admit to posing untruths

      October 25, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Get a fvckin' life, gf. You couldn't post an intelligent message if your life depended on it.

      October 25, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
    • gf

      How apropos the responses – in the truest sense – with what I'd expect. A thirst for falsities purposed to profane with the "purest" example of libel. Quick descent into unwarranted name-calling (ie, bonehead, retard, etc) exemplifies to the fullest the problem with people here. TheVocalAtheist – I doubt you know what satire is, until you were reckoned with your lies you presented as truth. I don't mind a good intense verbal dialogue here and there, arguments presented are always welcomed – but ignorance is really shown when no words but lies can be spoken, or as the posters here who resorted to mere name-calling (quite like children do, actually, maybe they are children).

      The end of your post, after quoting everything before, and I quote your words:
      "Yes, you heard it right, from a man running for the Senate of the United States of America."

      It begs one to wonder where the so-called "satire" was in your post, other than you unknowingly read a satirical article (where you obviously get some of your "news") and re-posted that as an actual quote. I can see why you were so irate, hearing what he'd "said". I'd have been upset too, had those words actually been spoken. Only, it's like one of those stupid email forwards that doesn't make sense – immediately it sounded false. I'm surprised you hadn't noticed.

      Watch what you reference, give proper credit without plagiarizing, and stick with the truth when making an argument. It's much more of an adult thing to do.

      October 25, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
    • Cedar rapids

      "or as the posters here who resorted to mere name-calling (quite like children do, actually, maybe they are children)"

      Calling the posters children is also name calling of course.

      October 26, 2012 at 1:24 am |
    • TheVocalAtheist


      Hey Goofy Fu*ck! You don't have to look too far for that thirst of falsities or plagiarism as it is in your essence and belief system. The people that you admire are the most deceptive bunch of creeps in the universe and if you cannot handle what you give when it is given back and appreciate satire for what it is, its obvious you're an ignoramus that prides itself on being so damn mature and proper it wreaks of sociopath delusions. Wow, what a real moron with no life. I hope you have a great afterlife, NOT, BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY AFTERLIFE!

      October 26, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • gf

      You don't know what I believe or don't believe. Wait – are you coming up with something again? You accuse me of believing one thing or another because I pointed out your lies? I've never mentioned anything about my own personal beliefs on anything and really that's quite irrelevant here. I could be an agnostic. An ardent atheist. A Bible-carrying Christina. A gun-toting extremist. A general "spiritual thinker". My objection has nothing to do with what you do or don't believe or what I do or don't believe – I don't like attacks based on lies. It makes atheists look bad. Carry yourself well and with pride, but do it with honesty. All this would have taken would have been for you to say, "Look, Mourdock is a weirdo with prejudicial beliefs that attempt to control a woman's personal rights. And, I'm sorry to have misquoted him in an attempt to discredit him when really I should have just let his actual extreme and dogmatic words speak for themselves." Then, that would be agreed truth and we could have let this rest. But you just had to fight back, attack back, somehow defending the untruths you presented. That's a typical right-wing thing to do.

      October 26, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • gf

      @Cedar Rapids
      Yes, you are quite right. Alas, I did the same. Took the high-road, didn't I? About 75% of me "tried" to at least. The other "25%" wondered if I was discussing with actual children (as this place does not require an age-minimum to post). Some 13-year-old could have wandered in. Or would that technically be a teenager?

      October 26, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
  2. Bill G

    "How do you explain evil in a world where God is loving?"

    Easy, God doesn't exist. We (people) made him up because we are terrified of dying and of existing in world where there might not be any ultimate truth. Humans have to be there own source of strength because there is no supernatural presence looking out for us. When people finally start to accept this we'll all be better off.

    October 25, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
    • mike

      Nice to see that some people have the ability to use their mind.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • Evan

      Right-o...There is no God! No judgement day! No right and wrong! Why can't people see this? We are just animals like every other form of life on this inane planet! Religious right? Doesnt matter! Liberal left? Who cares! Nazi's? Not evil. Torture, serial killing, abortion...non of it is wrong! We are worthless! All is worthless!

      October 26, 2012 at 12:20 am |
    • Damocles


      It's funny that Ive never heard a non-believer say life is worthless. I have heard plenty of believers say that everyone is a sinner, that's all we will ever be, no hope in trying to be anything else, flog me some more oh loving deity.

      October 26, 2012 at 12:25 am |
  3. gager

    Brain dead evangelists have hi-jacked the republican party. Hey out there, some republicans are atheists.

    October 25, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • Bill G

      I hope your party wakes up, but the only way that's going to happen is if people like you change it from the inside. Republican's almost universally hate us "evil liberals" so the opinion of people like me certainly isn't going to change them. That said, the core of the party is a dying breed so I suppose some change will come from simple attrition.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
  4. Charles

    I wonder why these same "pro-life" candidates aren't trying to push legislation through forcing people to donate blood and organs? I mean, if they're actually all about saving lives...

    October 25, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • Don

      Charles, why are you against saving life? Wouldn't you like someone to save yours? Don't you suport laws that keep people from killing you?

      October 25, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
    • Charles

      My life is my own now, not my mother's decision anymore. If I were to become an invalid I wouldn't support anyone forcing her to take care of me for the rest of her life.

      If I needed a blood donation, bone marrow, or a new heart why should those people who have those things get away with keeping them from me? If they don't donate aren't they actually killing me?

      October 25, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • lbpaulina

      Beside the fact I think that donating an organ must be a free choice, I'm asking you to say the truth: are you scared to be still alive when they would take your organ off?

      October 25, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
    • Don

      You didnt answer my question...do you support laws that keep people from killing you? And you must have a very heartless mom if you think she would rather kill you than take care of you.

      October 25, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • Ann Coulter

      Hey Don – is Charles a little tasty unfeeling womb-morsel? If not, then it doesn't matter.

      October 25, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • Don

      Ann, I think your opinion that doesn't matter. You have admitted to eating children so you we know where you stand morally.

      October 25, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
    • Charles

      I support laws that keep people from killing me, and I also support laws that acknowledge that women have the right to control their reproductive lives. And I didn't say that my mom would kill me, just that she shouldn't be forced to take care of me for the rest of her life.

      October 26, 2012 at 12:48 am |
  5. Mike

    Throughout the ages, those who say they are quoting God's will are only quoting their own will

    October 25, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • Ben

      Every idea about what God wants is just a human opinion, even the Bible.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • Don

      Prove it

      October 25, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
  6. Innerspace is God's place while outerspace is for the human race

    Innerspace is God's place while outerspace is for the human race

    1Cr 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.

    Our bodies being but "buildings" in God's eyes should make it simple when considering an abortion then? Women are aborting God's buildings are they not? To God and God's Godly, it doesn't matter much if a building is built to term or destroyed before completion.

    October 25, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
  7. steve

    @aud , we do develop from eggs that are from a woman's ovary. Get an education idiot!

    October 25, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • ;p;

      Learn to use the reply link, idiot

      October 25, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
    • Snotty Know-It-All Teenager Jesus

      None of those atheist science lies and satanic truth stuff, boy-o!

      October 25, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Only if it's someone with a brain. You, Donny, are disqualified.

      October 25, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
  8. Aud

    God intended women to have all the choices. If he didn't, humans would be born from eggs. Since the baby grows inside the mother, God put the decision to the mother.

    October 25, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • Donna

      I really want to know where you think a baby grows-where exactly?

      October 25, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • ;p;

      Laying eggs must suck

      October 25, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • Yuppy Puppy

      You mean scrambled eggs are . . . .babies?!?!?! Next thing you know, you'll be saying that soylent green is people.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Donna, honey... Take a class. You don't belong here.

      October 25, 2012 at 10:05 pm |
  9. steve

    So many brain washed idiots so little ammunition

    October 25, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
  10. truth

    I really want to support the Republican part, i really do, smaller government etc.. sounds nice and all. But wow, sure is hard when they are the same as the Taliban.

    October 25, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • Don

      Lol...Who murders people like the Taliban? The abortionists!

      October 25, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • sam stone

      don: nowhere in the united states is it murder.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • steve

      You're ignorant

      October 25, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • Don

      Well, in Afganistan what the Taliban do isn't murder either

      October 25, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • Romnesia

      Don. Are you under the impression that the Taliban is the government of Afghanistan?

      October 25, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      A fetus is not a person in the same way a microscopic ball of protein is not a wasp. Yes, the fetus and the tiny wasp egg will, under precise conditions, GROW into a person and a wasp, but that's not the same thing, is it?

      October 25, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • Don

      So the word murder has no objective meaning. Let me change that to the word Killing.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      well that depends if you have a "personhood" law on the books.

      😉 sorry, I couldn't help myself.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
    • itsallaloadofbollocks

      Don. What actions are you taking against other ways that people die? Drunk driving is against the law yet drunk drivers who kill are rarely prosecuted as first degree murderers. What about traffic safety in general. Food security. Food safety. Drug safety. Gun safety. Water safety. Preventable diseases. Suicide.
      Abortion is the least desirable form of birth control but it is legal, it happens even when it is not legal, and the folk that are anti-abortion are generally against providing financial support for the mother (when finance is the reason).

      October 25, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Don must be a Jain

      October 25, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
    • Don

      Uh oh...You used the word fetus...lets see...is a fetus a human being...FETUS is defined as An unborn offspring, from the embryo stage (the end of the eighth week after conception, when the major structures have formed) until birth. OFFSPRING is defined as 1. children or young of a particular parent or progenitor. 2. a child or animal in relation to its parent or parents.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      Use whatever label you want. I don't care if you want to call it fetus, child, baby or whatever, the crux of the discussion is:

      1) When are personhood rights attained?
      2) Why should the bodily autonomy rights (namely her body being used against her will as a life support system for a seperate entity, if you want to label it as a child from conception) of the mother trumped when this is not the case at any other point in a humans life?

      October 25, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      A fetus is a parasite that can't exist without its host being in fair health. God is the biggest abortionist, anyway, since almost a quarter of pregnancies end in miscarriage-–most of those without the mother even knowing she was ever pregnant. Why does god do so many things that his followers don't want us to do?

      October 25, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
    • Don

      itsallaloadofbollocks, There are laws to try to prevent deaths from all of those causes, just as there should be laws to try to prevent the deaths of unborn children. BTW, first degree murder means premeditated killing (can you say abortion? OIg should be first degree murder)

      October 25, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
    • GlendaK

      Are fetuses "people"? If they are then isn't freezing them in fertility labs also a no no? You can't freeze anybody without killing them, right?

      October 25, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
    • Don

      Moby Schtick, You should probably refrain from using the word parasite since there are many scientifically proven health benefits of pregnancy.

      October 25, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Don, you should probably look into the word "symbiotic." Plenty of parasites "are good" for the host. You have a few million in your intestines, right now. Without them, you'd die. But they're still parasites, and I'm not going to call you "immoral" next time you take a sh!t and kill a few million.

      October 25, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
    • Ann Coulter

      Don...you retard.

      October 25, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      Health Benefits? Such as?

      October 25, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • Don

      Lol...it's always funny to see people who have no logical rebuttal to an argument turn to name calling...

      October 25, 2012 at 7:50 pm |
    • Don

      If I prove to you there are health benefits to being pregnant will you concede your argument and admit that a fetus is not a parasite.

      October 25, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • Don

      Moby... I can't believe you just called an unborn child worth as much as s**t.

      October 25, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      I never said it was, I'm just interested in seeing you provide evidence for at least a single assertion you've made.

      October 25, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
    • Don

      The only assertion I have made is that there are health benefits to pregnancy. Here you go...relief from many other health problems (so pregnancy could even be called medicinal) psoriasis relief, crones disease relief...even rheumatoid arthritis relief. However there are scientific links showing that pregnancy greatly lowers the chance of getting several types of cancer. Do some research...a quick google search will suffice.

      October 25, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Don, you are a complete fraud. First off, you moron, it's not "crone's disease" you azzhole. It's CROHN'S disease. And pregnancy doesn't do a fvcking thing to "cure" it or ameliorate the symptoms, you fvcking sh!t-for-brains. I have a colleague who has TWO kids and is sicker NOW with Crohn's than she was before she had her children.

      Leave, you charlatan. You're a menace to people who have normal brains. In fact, just off yourself. Do the world a favor.

      October 25, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
    • Don

      Tom, i will try to ignore the hate and filth you use and just ask you why you refuse the proof of science? Do the research yourself. Even though they are facts, it is beside the point. Life has worth. Life has value. If it doesn't we are all in trouble.

      October 25, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Fvck you, Donny. The day your life has less worth than a tumor is the day I care about your crappy opinion. The day you prove you've adopted a kid from foster care is the day I give a crap about what you think about my life and my rights. The day I get to force you to give up a kidney, a lung, or a drop of blood for someone else is the day I care what your brain farts are. The day you grow a uterus and decide to allow a fetus to grow there is the day you get to tell me or any other woman what to do with their organs.

      Until then, dumbfvck? Nobody cares what you think. You don't do it very well or very often.

      October 25, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, yeah, and Donny, where's your evidence that pregnancy is a benefit to someone who has CROHN'S disease. you idiot? Why would ANYONE care what some idiot thinks about it when he's such a 'tard that he can't even figure out the correct SPELLING of the name of the disease he claims he knows all about?

      Are you a troll? If not, you should lobby for a brain transplant.

      October 25, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • Don

      Tom, you really have some serious issues. You just can't handle it when someone has a different opinion than you. Let me guess, you probably tout tolerance too, unless it's someone who disagrees with you.


      Can you have a discussion with someone without resorting to filth and personal attacks?

      October 25, 2012 at 10:14 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Donny the Dumbazz: you're posting a SEVEN-YEAR-OLD article as a source and you expect to be taken seriously??? AjhahhhahhhahhhhahhhaahhhahahhahhahhahahhahhahahhahhhahhhhhahhahahhahhbBWAHAHHHAhahhhhshhhahhhahhhahhahhahhahhahhahahhahwoihahoihjpao[pi[AjhahhhahhhahhhhahhhaahhhahahhahhahhahahhahhahahhahhhahhhhhahhahahhahhbBWAHAHHHAhahhhhshhhahhhahhhahhahhahhahhahhahahhahwoihahoihjpao[pi[AjhahhhahhhahhhhahhhaahhhahahhahhahhahahhahhahahhahhhahhhhhahhahahhahhbBWAHAHHHAhahhhhshhhahhhahhhahhahhahhahhahhahahhahwoihahoihjpao[pi[AjhahhhahhhahhhhahhhaahhhahahhahhahhahahhahhahahhahhhahhhhhahhahahhahhbBWAHAHHHAhahhhhshhhahhhahhhahhahhahhahhahhahahhahwoihahoihjpao[pi[AjhahhhahhhahhhhahhhaahhhahahhahhahhahahhahhahahhahhhahhhhhahhahahhahhbBWAHAHHHAhahhhhshhhahhhahhhahhahhahhahhahhahahhahwoihahoihjpao[pi[AjhahhhahhhahhhhahhhaahhhahahhahhahhahahhahhahahhahhhahhhhhahhahahhahhbBWAHAHHHAhahhhhshhhahhhahhhahhahhahhahhahhahahhahwoihahoihjpao[pi[AjhahhhahhhahhhhahhhaahhhahahhahhahhahahhahhahahhahhhahhhhhahhahahhahhbBWAHAHHHAhahhhhshhhahhhahhhahhahhahhahhahhahahhahwoihahoihjpao[pi[AjhahhhahhhahhhhahhhaahhhahahhahhahhahahhahhahahhahhhahhhhhahhahahhahhbBWAHAHHHAhahhhhshhhahhhahhhahhahhahhahhahhahahhahwoihahoihjpao[pi[AjhahhhahhhahhhhahhhaahhhahahhahhahhahahhahhahahhahhhahhhhhahhahahhahhbBWAHAHHHAhahhhhshhhahhhahhhahhahhahhahhahhahahhahwoihahoihjpao[pi[apiOOOOOOOOhahahhahhahhahha

      October 25, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      I could only confirm from multiple sources (most actual scientific and from doctors) that both ovarian and breast cancer risk is reduced during and some time after pregnancy. As for your link, it's from a freaking news site with absolutely no study citations for the Crohn's part, which is hardly compelling evidence. In fact, if you actually look at your own article cited, the one doctor they have making a statement (which would merely amount to his own experience, hardly a scientific study) it goes as such:

      "At one end of the spectrum, pregnancy can provide a glowing "moisturiser" for dry skin or a stimulant that causes thin hair to take on glossy volume. At the other end, pregnancy results in a welcome break from psoriasis or the distressing symptoms of Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. It can even bring relief from asthma, says Patrick O'Brien, consultant obstetrician at University College London Hospitals (UCLH).

      "About one third of women get better, one third stay the same, and, inexplicably, the symptoms of another third are worse."

      Some women with multiple sclerosis experience a decline in symptoms during the last three months of pregnancy, followed by a flare-up during the three months after birth. Working mothers sometimes say that, for all their tiredness, pregnancy is the calmest and healthiest time of their lives."

      Try actual science journals, or perhaps cite some studies before you make wild assertions from a single source. The only study cited is from the Arthritis Research Campaign and is still in the testing stage without even a preliminary set of data to report on.

      October 25, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The REAL issue is this: The "benefits of pregnancy", no matter what they may or may not be, have NOTHING to do with a woman's rights to decide FOR HERSELF, what is BEST FOR HER, Donny the Dolt.

      October 25, 2012 at 10:32 pm |
    • Don

      Parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.

      October 25, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      Could you actually address the problems pointed out in your post instead of jumping around from topic to topic?

      October 25, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Don ain't too bright if he can't figure out that a fetus, before viability outside the uterus, is indeed, parasitical.

      October 25, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      I'll gladly, for the sake of the discussion, grant non-parasitical, and life at conception is a fucking duh. I will repost this again since Don has ignored it twice now.


      Use whatever label you want. I don't care if you want to call it fetus, child, baby or whatever, the crux of the discussion is:

      1) When are personhood rights attained?
      2) Why should the bodily autonomy rights (namely her body being used against her will as a life support system for a seperate entity, if you want to label it as a child from conception) of the mother trumped when this is not the case at any other point in a humans life?

      October 25, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
    • Don

      Parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host. Please note the "different species". What species is a fetus? A baby? Achild, teen or adult? All human.

      October 25, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
    • truth be told

      Hey – pets are people too! I've had a pet tapeworm for a year now – I named her Edna. She and I are like one. She don't care for mac and cheese or too many soft drinks, tho.

      October 25, 2012 at 11:48 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      Wow you really can't answer my questions can you? That's three times you've ignored it, and twice that you've responded with something completely irrelevant to what is actually being discussed. Go back to church and reinforce your preconceptions. That's all you seem to be good at, because thinking for yourself sure isn't something you're good at.

      October 26, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
  11. gf

    I personally don't know and have never met any of these "60%" that's spoken of in this article. Their's is the life that stood to be most affected by all this. I wonder how they're affected by it. It's horrible what happened to bring them into the world, but still remarkable that they themselves do not have to be defined by something so terrible.

    October 25, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
  12. left hook

    OK MSM – And you too CNN...Where's the coverage of this!

    A pro Romney firm – H.I.G. Capital – purchased Hart Intercivic, a company exclusively in the business of manufacturing AND PROGRAMING voting systems!

    These machines have been placed in swing states and not one news organization has even had a reporter look into much less run a story asking questions about the potential for having rigged voting machines in these states!

    COME ON MSM...Start doin' your job!

    October 25, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @left hook,

      what's MSM?

      Do you have an on-line source for us?

      October 25, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
    • itsallaloadofbollocks


      October 25, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      So HIG Capital was founded by Tony Tamer, previously a partner at Bain & Company in 1993.

      Is there any other connection to Romney – other than his partner Tony and the fact that this, like Bain Capital, is a private equity company? Bain Capital was spun out of Bain and Company in 1984.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @itsallaload etc

      According to the Post:

      "Hart’s footprint in Ohio is modest. While Hamilton, the state’s third-most-populous county (833,000), is a critical spot — Barack Obama carried it in 2008 — the only other jurisdiction that uses Hart products is tiny Williams County (39,000) in the rural northwest corner of the state."

      This looks like it is worth monitoring, but not likely to change the outcome – not as much as the Diebold story in the article.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
  13. Baby Jesus

    Do you think I come to bring peace? I bring the sword. Verily, verily, I also come to rpe!

    October 25, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Snotty Know-It-All Teenager Jesus

      Yeah, I love people, so I am going to kill them off and send most of them to my eternal torture chamber of love.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
    • Don

      God doesnt send anyone to Hell. The people who go there choose to go there by doing evil in Gods sight and refusing to accept his grace and love.

      October 25, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
    • Cedar rapids

      "God doesnt send anyone to Hell"

      Oh so there is no judgement then? No standing before god after death to be judged?

      October 26, 2012 at 1:28 am |
    • Cedar rapids

      "The people who go there choose to go there by doing evil in Gods sight and refusing to accept his grace and love."

      Had to chuckle of the image of god going "I am going to condemn you to burn and be tortured for eternity if you dont accept my grace and love damnit!"

      October 26, 2012 at 1:31 am |
  14. How NOT to handle a political blunder

    Well, that's two seats the Republicans have lost to astounding stupidity in the last couple weeks.

    And leading Republicans are, very strangely, rallying aroung Mourdock. Romney is continuing to support him.

    As a campaign strategy, siding with the religious froot loop who sees God's hand in rape might just ever so slightly be a really dumb thing for Romney to do, especially since he is trailing Obama with women voters – the demographic both sides are after right now.

    Some election. Obama is mediocre, and Romney is a whack. The only good news is that, either way, the Religious Right will hate the outcome.

    October 25, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
  15. Anybody know how to read?

    Waiver, waiver everywhere, but not a drop to drink.

    October 25, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
  16. Ray

    I wonder if some rapist out there thinks "I'm just doing the work of God."

    October 25, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • Yar

      Murderers think that all the time. Why shouldn't rapists?

      October 25, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
  17. Lily

    You have to go out of our way to be offended by what Mourdock has said. Also, taking comments out of context is dishonest. Some people will never change.

    October 25, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • Jaimie

      Are you on crack? Dropped on your head when you were a baby ?

      Or just plain stupid?

      October 25, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      well seeing as even repubs like McCain are calling this guy out dont you think that maybe you are in the wrong here by seeing nothing wrong with what the guy said?

      October 25, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
    • Right On

      I think you are starting to get it. Taking comments out of context is what the fabricators of god's word, the bible, is what christians have been doing for 2100 years. Mourdock is just the latest in a long line of fools that believe this crap.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • ME II

      If the result of an act is 'willed by God,' then it is not much of a leap to infer that the act that produced the result was also willed by God.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Adam Williamson

      Really? Are you going to call up the 12-year old girl in the story and tell her the baby her own father implanted in her after hooking her on heroin is a 'gift from God'? Do you think she would appreciate that message?

      October 25, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      Lily: You'd be singing a different tune if it were you being raped and forced due to belief, to carry that child.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • Charles

      You have to go out of your way not to be offended by what Mourdock said, unless you're completely heartless to begin with, I suppose?

      October 25, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
    • Romnesia

      Silly Lily

      October 25, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
    • Don

      Why would you take offence that somebody said the life of a child was in God's will? You are being disingenuous when you twist his meaning to say that he meant God's will is that women should be r*aped.

      October 25, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The day you morons allow a tumor to grow in YOUR body and have no say about its removal is the day I'll pay attention to your idiotic swill.

      October 25, 2012 at 9:52 pm |
    • Don

      Lol...A human life is not a tumor...your analogy doesn't work.

      October 25, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yeah, Don the Dumbbell, it does. Look up the definition of a 'tumor' and you might figure it out. You might not, either. Based on the stupidity you've displayed thus far, I'm betting you'll fail to grasp the analogy and its validity. You'd fail to grasp the concept of stairs, Donny Dumbsh1t.

      October 25, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
    • Don

      Nope, your argument is invalid. A tumor is a group of cells in a persons body, that's part of the person's body, with the same DNA, that has mutated. A fetus has it's own DNA, seperate from it's mother's. A tumor will NEVER be born and grow into an adult. It's further apart than Apples and Oranges.

      October 25, 2012 at 11:48 pm |
  18. Julie

    Take it to the streets, along with your bible......I say spread your word!!!
    Only kidding, but really...just go

    October 25, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
  19. jj

    OK, the Tea Party GOPers really believe this nonsense. Vote Obama/Biden 2012! Rmoney 1916.....

    October 25, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • ME II

      Rmoney/Ryan 1912!

      Love it.

      October 25, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • Charles

      ME II
      The Romney/Ryan ticket would have still been behind the times in 1812.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
  20. TheVocalAtheist

    Anyone with one iota of sensibility should speak very loudly to everyone they know about people like this bat sh*it crazy Mourdock and his backers. What in the world is going on? Honestly, there isn't one thing that cannot get my ire up any easier or more profoundly then the nature of Mourdock's belief system. Yeah, yeah sure everyone has the right to free speech but this is just blatantly illustrating the crazed insolence towards our species and it needs to stop. This has gone way too far in the wrong direction. I really don't know what to say in light of the amount of people that agree with this idiot. Are we actually heading down this path? Is this what we have to look forward to pas*sing-on to future generations?

    I don't know if anyone has posted this and if they have I apologize for the repet*ition but I think it bears a second read:

    "Personally I think that the closer you are to God, the less likely you are to run into something like that," Mourdock responded, "Some of these women – if they had been more faithful to the Lord, if they had just prayed a little harder – then they wouldn't have found themselves in that situation."

    "I've seen marriages break up and friendships drift apart because someone wasn't right with the Lord. I think the same is true in any situation. With Jesus Christ on your side, only good things will come."

    He then went on to propose a unique anti-ra*pe measure:

    "And in the case of ra*pe Christ has a specific remedy. Studies have shown that if you pray for at least 20 minutes before any big date, your partner is 93% less likely to ra*pe you."

    "Scientists say prayer can create a 'ra*pe halo' around a woman's body which instantly renders a potential ra*pist impotent. I'm not sure how it works exactly. I think its pheromones."

    "So I don't think God wants a woman to get ra*ped. He offers her a choice. The ra*pe halo is only a prayer away. If she's too lazy to get on her knees and ask for it, that's her fault. "

    Yes, you heard it right, from a man running for the Senate of the United States of America.

    October 25, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • Julie

      Please God...make him go away

      October 25, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • getmeinhere

      That is a fake quote from a satirical website.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • Jaimie

      I'm glad I wasn't born 400 years ago or so. You know when the church burned Opium to recruit more followers.

      And drowned women they thought were witches.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      no matter. The man's recorded words speak for themselves – just like his buddy US Rep. Todd Akin, also running for senate but in Missouri (Mr. Legitimate râpe.)

      October 25, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • getmeinhere

      I fully agree, not a GOPer. Mourdocks actual words are disgusting enough. Even worse are the actions he wants to take if elected. The speech of these religious extremists is dangerous, but more dangerous is their agenda, which they're actively working to achieve.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
    • gf

      Yeah, I don't think that's what he said. Please provide a reference from a credible source ... I never heard much of that and it seems you're deliberately lying for some end purpose, or are woefully ignorant.

      October 25, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Dick Mourdock's bio says:

      "Richard is a licensed professional geologist, a former two-term County Commissioner for Vanderburgh County, and holds a Master’s Degree in Geology from Ball State University and a Bachelor’s Degree from Defiance College. He has been active in Christian Missions in Bolivia."

      As a geologist, I wonder if he agrees with US Rep. Paul Broun that "the earth is but 9,000 years old"

      October 25, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • Don

      Nice try VocalAtheist! Got caught posting lies and then to cover yourself you call it satire. You didnt post where you got the "quotes" from and then said, " Yes, you heard it right, from a man running for the Senate of the United States of America."

      October 25, 2012 at 9:39 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist


      I guess I'll need to watch what I say and how I word it 'cause I forgot there were mind readers here and I'll get "caught posting lies" and then "covering myself and call it satire".

      Sound kind of familiar, the motive of operation? The right wing?

      I'm sure you know what God is thinking, right?

      October 26, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      This is the intersection of Poe's Law and truthiness.

      When fundies (Mourdock etc) actually make statements that are so outrageous they beggar belief, satire becomes plausible since it satisfies the requirment to be 'truthy'.

      It may be inaccurate, but it nevertheless feels true. This is the consequence of the deluge of spin that we live in. Both sides are of course guilty of spin but the right handed spin is the most egregious.

      Remember during the Bush administration: "dissent is unpatriotic"
      Now what?
      Fox spews dissent 24×7

      Remember during the 2010 midterms: "The left are intellectual east-coast elitists"
      Now what?
      Since Mittens has exactly THE SAME law degree as the President, we don't hear any more about intellectual elitists. (Excepting from dummy Santorum who missed the memo.)

      Remember global warming? Even Mittens is on record as saying it was a serious problem that needed to be addressed.
      Now what?
      The Koch Brothers funded Americans For Prosperity have won. They have eliminated this issue from the political agenda. Coal is wrapped up as "clean coal" (Nixon and the EPA required low sulphur coal "clean coal" back in the 1970s to stop acid rain) and and hydraulic fracking is being masked where companies like ExxonMobil run internet ads about only drilling 'right'.

      Spin is evil. I recall a commandment about false witness.

      October 26, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist


      I really wish I had your cool, calm and collect in all this profound ignorance and insanity. On top of it you're pretty bright. Me on the other hand, coming closer to the end of life and just recently being awakened to reality, I find myself just as intolerant as those I am beginning to hate. I have never hated anything so much in my life and please allow me to point-out it is not the people that I despise it is what they carry inside of them, the untruths, the lies and deceptions towards our species. Their beliefs are way beyond anything evil could imagine, beyond the sickest joke that could be played, below being human or a lack thereof. My hate had turned to passion for the ignorant at first and still lives there for the truly ignorant BUT for those that knowingly perpetuate inhumanity for the sakes of themselves there is something very deep inside of me that screams for justice, its so deep its primal, it is an anger that longs for what is right.

      Your posts ground me and I want to thank you for that! I do love life and I am in total awareness of how really short it is and the wonder of it all, the beauty as well as the harsh realities of nature. We don't need ideologies that screw with this very, very short time we have to experience this awesome existence.

      October 26, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV


      the problem is that people see what they want to see. Perception is reality.

      I do respect people who accept their faith as a gift for themselves but don't proselytize. I don't respect people who deliberately distort and misrepresent.

      It all comes down to trust. Everbody, believers and unbelievers alike will accept an explanation from someone they trust, though I will say that believers (almost by definition) are less skeptical. This makes them vulnerable to distortions. Is this their fault?

      Arguably, it not fair to attack someone who believes something simply because they do not possess, or are simply unwilling to exercise, the critical thinking required to see that what they were told is a sham. Faith can be a warm fuzzy blue blankie of denial – it's nice in there and people aren't necessarily 'bad' for wanting that sense of security.

      The real evil is from those who deliberately distort to create, or align with, a power base:

      – People like Franklin Graham who cashed in his father's legacy of non-partisan evangelism to shill for Mitt, presumably with Koch brothers SuperPAC money.

      – People who deliberately distort science so polluters can contine to pollute with impunity. (Koch brothers again via their Americans For Prosperity group.)

      – People (like David Barton) who deliberately distory history by whitewashing the enlightenment thinkers who gave us a Const;tution without any reference to God, into God fearing Protestant Evangelists.

      – People who deliberately distort science by creating canards like "Intelligent Design" the whole purpose of which is to defend religious fundamentalism.

      It is these people who are the problem, not those that uncritically cling to their blue blankie of belief. Only by exposing an evidence-based viewpoint (what I prefer to think of as reality) and by education can we hope they might open their eyes.

      The idea that God gave humans the 'gift' of free will is completely contradictory to the notion of "God's will" and the 'elect'.

      The occasionalism thinking of Al-Ghazali, the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present Will of God, may have destroyed Muslim science in the 12th century.

      Neil De Grasse Tyson has a great lecture where he makes the warning that the rise of Christian Fundamentalism could do to western science what the rise of Muslim Fundamentalism did to the golden age of Muslim science.

      This is thought-provoking.


      October 26, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Ooops – "distory history" should be "distort history"

      October 26, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
About this blog

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.