GOP Senate Candidate Declares Pregnancy From Rape Is "Something God Intended"

[Thump553]

I was watching CNN last night and they had Santorum on giving a fairly heartful and sincere defense of what this guy said and totally agreeing with it, basically arguing the sancitity of life is inviolate. Even when asked if this happened to one of his daughters, he stuck by his guns.

Then Santorum totally jumped the tracks, claiming the Supreme Court was immoral because it outlawed the death penalty for rapists.

Far too often these more pious than thou types are just projecting selective and highly subjective codes of ethics.

BTW I also some stats on TV-88% of Americans think abortion should be legal to protect the mother's health and 83% think it should be legal in cases of rape. If the GOP wants to be an ultra fringe party fine with me, but I greatly resent Romney's hypocrisy in pretending otherwise.

 

[GMC12]

Well it does logically follow from the belief that God is omnipotent and micromanages everything.

Statement that was made by GOP rape is something god intended the. guy is wrong. The bible says John 10:10 the Devil cometh not but off to steal,and to kill,and destroy:the devil come to destroy people's lives and put them to shame.the man is wrong . Wrong man for the job. Gmc12

 

[Moonbeam]

You first.

Right, you'll hang on till the bitter end, even if you cost the system millions.

 

[quest55720]

The crazy social conservatives back in the news. They are the reason I will never support the GOP. I can't believe that these guys can't keep their mouths shut. It really sucks that a socially moderate/fiscally conservative person has no party to call home. This is why I say grid lock is best for the country right now. It keeps the crazies on both sides from implementing their agendas.

 

[QuantumPion]

I was watching CNN last night and they had Santorum on giving a fairly heartful and sincere defense of what this guy said and totally agreeing with it, basically arguing the sancitity of life is inviolate. Even when asked if this happened to one of his daughters, he stuck by his guns.

Then Santorum totally jumped the tracks, claiming the Supreme Court was immoral because it outlawed the death penalty for rapists.

Far too often these more pious than thou types are just projecting selective and highly subjective codes of ethics.

BTW I also some stats on TV-88% of Americans think abortion should be legal to protect the mother's health and 83% think it should be legal in cases of rape. If the GOP wants to be an ultra fringe party fine with me, but I greatly resent Romney's hypocrisy in pretending otherwise.

The death penalty is an affirmation of life. It puts a high value on taking someone else's life. Life is so sacred that if you desecrate it, the penalty is your own life. If there was no punishment for taking someone elses life, that would mean life is not sacred, but cheap.

Trying to morally equate an innocent baby to a murderer - even if you have no moral standards yourself - is ludicrous.

As to your last point, I already addressed that a couple pages ago. 90% of abortions are for convenience and it is politically much more likely to be able abolish those. Once 90% of the abortions are stopped we can argue about the last 10% later. It's a matter of triage.

 

[Thump553]

The death penalty is an affirmation of life. It puts a high value on taking someone else's life. Life is so sacred that if you desecrate it, the penalty is your own life. If there was no punishment for taking someone elses life, that would mean life is not sacred, but cheap.

Trying to morally equate an innocent baby to a murderer - even if you have no moral standards yourself - is ludicrous.

As to your last point, I already addressed that a couple pages ago. 90% of abortions are for convenience and it is politically much more likely to be able abolish those. Once 90% of the abortions are stopped we can argue about the last 10% later. It's a matter of triage.

"Thou shall not kill" seemed pretty clear to me. Organized religion always creates loopholes to acheive their desired outcomes.

 

[nehalem256]

"Thou shall not kill" seemed pretty clear to me. Organized religion always creates loopholes to acheive their desired outcomes.

(1) It is "Thou shall not murder"

(2) I believe the bible explicitly demands that murderers be put to death.

EDIT: http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Numbers 35:16-21;&version=NIV;

If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at him intentionally so that he dies or if in hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.

Clear enough for you?

 

[Mursilis]

The death penalty is an affirmation of life. It puts a high value on taking someone else's life. Life is so sacred that if you desecrate it, the penalty is your own life. If there was no punishment for taking someone elses life, that would mean life is not sacred, but cheap.

There's a huge gulf between the death penalty and no penalty. There's a strong case to be made on a practical basis against the death penalty, given the many documented errors in the prosecution of death penalty cases, but on a moral basis, if you're going to argue the "sacredness" of life, I think it's a stronger position to say life is so sacred, no one, not even the gov't, can take it from another, other than for self-defense. I oppose the death penalty on both bases. I do, however, support a sentence of life without parole for some offenses.

 

[actuarial]

Clear enough for you?

But who puts that murderer to death?

The executioner better not strike him with an iron object, else:

If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.

Better not use an iron object in self defense either.

 

[dank69]

Wow. Alright I didn't take into account the fact that you have no clue how social security and medicare work. You better hold on to your pants because this is going to be a shocker that you've never heard before...

There is no SS trust fund. SS is not a retirement program. Never has been, never will be. It is a wealth transfer program.

Social security is a simple pyramid scheme that transfers wealth from the working to the retired. People that retired 20 years ago were high on the pyramid and got more back in benefits than they paid in. People retiring today may break even. But younger folks are on the bottom of the pyramid. We will not get back in benefits as much as we pay in. The same is true for medicare. These programs are by definition welfare.

This is completely off topic and besides the point. I said I would trade paying taxes for programs that benefit people that chose not to work, save for retirement, or buy their own medical insurance in return for paying taxes to pay for babies that have no choice of whether they are born or not up until they are 18. On these terms, do we have a deal?

Depending on when you began receiving benefits and how much you paid in, you may receive far more in SS and Medicare benefits than you ever paid in, even factoring in a reasonable rate of return. Some think tank (the Urban Institute?) did a great breakdown of the numbers a few months back. Large numbers of current SS/Medicare recipients paid in far less than they're reaping now. After the paid-back point, it's welfare.

Found the study: http://www.urban.org/publications/412660.html

The numbers are rather shocking.

Educate yourselves

 

[nehalem256]

But who puts that murderer to death?

The executioner better not strike him with an iron object, else:



Better not use an iron object in self defense either.

The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death.

I would recommend some form of laser.

EDIT: Actually it would seem that the best method would be death by starvation. If the man is truly innocent then God will surely provide him with mana to sustain him.

 

[BoberFett]

Small government "conservatives" trusting the government to be a trustworthy arbiter of life and death is a strange dichotomy. The same holds true of war. War is the ultimate in big government power, yet "conservatives" have no trouble declaring that we ought to invade some little country or nuke somebody they don't like.

 

[Thump553]

(1) It is "Thou shall not murder"

(2) I believe the bible explicitly demands that murderers be put to death.

EDIT: http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Numbers 35:16-21;&version=NIV;


Clear enough for you?

Neither the Torah nor the Bible was originally written in English, there are plenty of translations which state the sixth commandment as "thou shall not kill" including the version of the Bible I was taught as a youth. IMO substitution of "murder" for "kill" is to permit state sponsored killing.

 

[nehalem256]

Small government "conservatives" trusting the government to be a trustworthy arbiter of life and death is a strange dichotomy. The same holds true of war. War is the ultimate in big government power, yet "conservatives" have no trouble declaring that we ought to invade some little country or nuke somebody they don't like.

War is a power that must belong to the government. Are you suggesting we privatize the military? :hmm:

 

[Mursilis]

Wow, get a clue. SS and medicare don't qualify as welfare. You pay for it and you receive benefits when you retire.

Educate yourselves

From your article:

To give it a more realistic feel, change the numbers from 7 workers and 3 retirees to 70 million and 30 million. Now what to do? Even if we have unanimous agreement on our plan, how can we make sure that retirees get their cut if it is no longer as easy as picking three fish from a basket full of ten? The most obvious and straightforward means is this: set a tax of 30% on the salaries of existing workers and give it directly to the retirees–right now, today, immediately. Have the money come straight out of your paycheck and right into your grandmother’s bank account. This accomplishes the goal neatly and directly–and it’s exactly what we do in real life. This is how Social Security actually operates. As you can see, this needs no prior financing or savings, nor would that appear to be particularly helpful. At the national level, maintaining a class of retirees (whether via Social Security or private pensions) means redistributing existing output, not putting money under your mattress. Although you can run out of money for retirement, we, as a nation, cannot.

First you say SS/Medicare isn't welfare, and then you suggest it is, at least partly (which is the factual truth - today's retirees paid in, but at a rate far less than they're taking out benefits).

 

[BoberFett]

War is a power that must belong to the government. Are you suggesting we privatize the military? :hmm:

Reading and comprehension are powers that should belong to you. Sadly they do not.

 

[emperus]

(1) It is "Thou shall not murder"

(2) I believe the bible explicitly demands that murderers be put to death.

EDIT: http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Numbers%2035%3A16-21;&version=NIV;


Clear enough for you?

I don't think you can interpret one verse without contextualizing the whole bible. Especially since the new testament is the authority in which to interpret the old testament.

Here are some versus from the Gospels

Matthew 5:38-39 ESV / 7 helpful votes
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 18:21-22 ESV / 15 helpful votes
Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.

Matthew 6:14-15 ESV / 32 helpful votes
For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

I really wish people would read the WHOLE bible.

 

[dank69]

From your article:

To give it a more realistic feel, change the numbers from 7 workers and 3 retirees to 70 million and 30 million. Now what to do? Even if we have unanimous agreement on our plan, how can we make sure that retirees get their cut if it is no longer as easy as picking three fish from a basket full of ten? The most obvious and straightforward means is this: set a tax of 30% on the salaries of existing workers and give it directly to the retirees–right now, today, immediately. Have the money come straight out of your paycheck and right into your grandmother’s bank account. This accomplishes the goal neatly and directly–and it’s exactly what we do in real life. This is how Social Security actually operates. As you can see, this needs no prior financing or savings, nor would that appear to be particularly helpful. At the national level, maintaining a class of retirees (whether via Social Security or private pensions) means redistributing existing output, not putting money under your mattress. Although you can run out of money for retirement, we, as a nation, cannot.

First you say SS/Medicare isn't welfare, and then you suggest it is, at least partly (which is the factual truth - today's retirees paid in, but at a rate far less than they're taking out benefits).

Read the whole article. Inflation is your clue.

The point is you pay into the system while you are working and then receive the benefits when you retire. You paid for it, it is not welfare. The people that paid in during the 60s get more than they paid in only if you ignore inflation.

 

[Mursilis]

Read the whole article. Inflation is your clue.

The point is you pay into the system while you are working and then receive the benefits when you retire. You paid for it, it is not welfare. The people that paid in during the 60s get more than they paid in only if you ignore inflation.

Not true. The Urban Institute study adjusted for that.

 

[actuarial]

EDIT: Actually it would seem that the best method would be death by starvation. If the man is truly innocent then God will surely provide him with mana to sustain him.

So then a chip clip is a bible approved form of abortion!

 

[dank69]

Not true. The Urban Institute study adjusted for that.

It adjusted for inflation but it didn't adjust for increases in productivity.

 

[soulcougher73]

I really wish people would NOT read the bible.

FTFY

 

[soulcougher73]

Read the whole article. Inflation is your clue.

The point is you pay into the system while you are working and then receive the benefits when you retire. You paid for it, it is not welfare. The people that paid in during the 60s get more than they paid in only if you ignore inflation.

Plus you have to start somewhere. The early adaptors get more benefit as its a new program and they didnt pay in their entire working lives.

 

[emperus]

FTFY

You shouldn't be improperly quoting people.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Americans keep electing these religious wackos and wonder why our nation is going down the tubes.