• We are currently experiencing delays with our email service, which may affect logins and notifications. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience while we work to resolve the issue.

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

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
sack102612.jpg
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
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.

Out of context alert!!!

ALERT! The poster is being stupid on purpose and posting something out of context to lie about its meaning!

Out of context alert!!!
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
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.


Correct. If just a small amount of critical thinking is used, people would understand that. After God gave the Torah to the people, He told them to go and kill the inhabitants of an area and take possession of it.

Basic logic says the correct translation is murder.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Correct. If just a small amount of critical thinking is used, people would understand that. After God gave the Torah to the people, He told them to go and kill the inhabitants of an area and take possession of it.

It's kewl when someone tries to argue for "critical thinking" using an argument based on fairy tales.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Out of context alert!!!

ALERT! The poster is being stupid on purpose and posting something out of context to lie about its meaning!

Out of context alert!!!

The passage was pretty clear on who should be put to death.

If you want me to take it in context, then show me the entire passage that puts it in context (I don't mean you literally, but someone who posts a passage in support of something).

In addition, while I was not being stupid on purpose, when trying to adhere to a flawed system the results are often deeply flawed.
 

-Slacker-

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2010
1,563
0
76
Unless you feel it is justifiable to execute a human for the crimes committed by that human's father, you have to agree with me. So the question comes back to you, do you feel it is justifiable to execute a human for the crimes of that human's father?

Clever work on replacing "person" with "human", as it will be somewhat harder for people to argue that a clump of cells do not constitute a human, as opposed to a person - since, technically, that clump of cells do represent a human in the strictest biological sense.

Not so clever is the way you try to make it sound like the act of abortion after a rape is a sort of punishment for the fetus when, in fact, it has nothing to do with punishment or vengeance, but simply with not forcing a woman to go to the trauma and deep personal humiliation of delivering a baby conceived by her rapist against her own will.

No, wait ... on second thought, the first part isn't that clever either.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,688
6,739
126
Clever work on replacing "person" with "human", as it will be somewhat harder for people to argue that a clump of cells do not constitute a human, as opposed to a person - since, technically, that clump of cells do represent a human in the strictest biological sense.

Not so clever is the way you try to make it sound like the act of abortion after a rape is a sort of punishment for the fetus when, in fact, it has nothing to do with punishment or vengeance, but simply with not force a woman to go to the trauma and deep personal humiliation of delivering a baby conceived by her rapist against her own will.

No, wait ... on second thought, the first part isn't that clever either.

You have to understand that these assholes are worthless because of God's will. If scientists can invent a form of cancer, like the alien, that could feed off the bodies of pro life men and consume them, and women were given guns to so rape them, it would be no time at all before they called for the murder of these women and the cancers they cause. It's nothing but vicious filth that would enslave women because they do not believe as these demented assholes believe. These aren't people of God, they are people who worship their assholes.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
at least it's idealogically consistent.

I don't see how one can take the view that life begins at conception but be OK with abortion in the case of rape and incest. are those innocent babies lives worth less?

(side-note, that's not my personal belief; I'm in favor of any abortion rights outside of partial-birth/third trimester abortions)
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
You have to understand that these assholes are worthless because of God's will. If scientists can invent a form of cancer, like the alien, that could feed off the bodies of pro life men and consume them, and women were given guns to so rape them, it would be no time at all before they called for the murder of these women and the cancers they cause. It's nothing but vicious filth that would enslave women because they do not believe as these demented assholes believe. These aren't people of God, they are people who worship their assholes.

"Vicious filth" describes that paragraph pretty damned well.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,832
31,306
146
Out of context alert!!!

ALERT! The poster is being stupid on purpose and posting something out of context to lie about its meaning!

Out of context alert!!!

^that should actually be your perma-sig.


can we get a mod in on this?

:hmm:
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,688
6,739
126
"Vicious filth" describes that paragraph pretty damned well.

Vicious filth is what they are. What did you think they are, inept logicians? These are the worthless swine that will have women dying from coat hangers. Piss in there faces for me if you can, eh?
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Oh my goodness. What exactly is it that you guys don't understand about an omni present omnipotent God. God gave everyman free choice at the same time God knowing what those choices would be . Now knowing this and the title topic . Whats so hard to grasp about what these people believe. If God is omni present omni potent as I believe the True God is . Whats so hard to comprehind. If you don't believe in god thats your problem. If you follow another mans path to GOD you will not find God but a man. God resides inside of us each and everone. What You get from the God experiance is differant from Someone else receives. As we all have differant gifts from God. Its just that 99.999% of all people never realise there gifts .. Thats all about to change . Their is only 1 way forward. The awakening is upon you . When you understand it will break your heart . Their is only one way to remove evil from the world and it will be done . Those who go forward will have much blood on their hands . BUt it must be . Now the other team the bad guys . They already know this and have from time beginning. It just took all these years for them to gather enough willing spirits to put their plan into action. The damn fools actually think the eye is for them . LOL never ever the glass eye ye . The Eye of knowledge its not for them but those who come out of tribulation it is for. Tribulation starts either 12/21/12 or 12/21/13 Beginning of new age. Scarey isn't it . Adam Noah Moses and the Christ all brought in new ages . . Its impossiable to know what the HRCC did with that 1 year . The new age sign is the water bearer, or Aqaurious.
 
Last edited:

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
You guys are idiots seriously. He did not say anything condoning or changing the definition of rape, his stance is solely based on his position of abortion. If you think anything more of it than that, you are a fucking tool. Simple as fuck. He thinks rape is wrong, but he also thinks abortion is wrong regardless of how the baby got there. How does he come to that conclusion? Because to him, as defined to him by his "religion", all life is sacred. IMO he's an idiot and doesn't consider at all the womans rights and her right to life etc, so I disagree with him, but to attack him like he was marginalizing rape etc is patently false and a misrepresentation of his position.

I do not like this man, nor do I support him or his political party. It should be clear that I simply do not support this kind of character assassination simply because someone said something "harsh" and outside the "norm". PS this "norm" is only presented to us in the media, you go talk to a LOT of people and you'll see many people are just as confused when it comes to abortion. The average person has no clue what their position is because they don't really think about it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,688
6,739
126
You guys are idiots seriously. He did not say anything condoning or changing the definition of rape, his stance is solely based on his position of abortion. If you think anything more of it than that, you are a fucking tool. Simple as fuck. He thinks rape is wrong, but he also thinks abortion is wrong regardless of how the baby got there. How does he come to that conclusion? Because to him, as defined to him by his "religion", all life is sacred. IMO he's an idiot and doesn't consider at all the womans rights and her right to life etc, so I disagree with him, but to attack him like he was marginalizing rape etc is patently false and a misrepresentation of his position.

I do not like this man, nor do I support him or his political party. It should be clear that I simply do not support this kind of character assassination simply because someone said something "harsh" and outside the "norm". PS this "norm" is only presented to us in the media, you go talk to a LOT of people and you'll see many people are just as confused when it comes to abortion. The average person has no clue what their position is because they don't really think about it.

Now now, I know you're trying to be fair, but think a bit. If it's God's will that a child of rape be born then it has to be that the rape was God's will too. If you are a believer that thinks God knows and causes everything, there is no way out. As I said, the absolutists sets his trap when he says that life is absolutely sacred. If you are a relativist then you know that man can become a monster but if you are an absolutist you make God the monster. This is what happens to the mind that thinks lineally. You wind up in a box. Only a mind in loving modesty can navigate this mess.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Now now, I know you're trying to be fair, but think a bit. If it's God's will that a child of rape be born then it has to be that the rape was God's will too. If you are a believer that thinks God knows and causes everything, there is no way out. As I said, the absolutists sets his trap when he says that life is absolutely sacred. If you are a relativist then you know that man can become a monster but if you are an absolutist you make God the monster. This is what happens to the mind that thinks lineally. You wind up in a box. Only a mind in loving modesty can navigate this mess.

Not my problem, I'm not the one that believes in such an illogical assholish God. That's his issue and yours for perceiving it that way.
 

Tylanner

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2004
5,481
2
81
You guys are idiots seriously. He did not say anything condoning or changing the definition of rape, his stance is solely based on his position of abortion. If you think anything more of it than that, you are a fucking tool. Simple as fuck. He thinks rape is wrong, but he also thinks abortion is wrong regardless of how the baby got there. How does he come to that conclusion? Because to him, as defined to him by his "religion", all life is sacred. IMO he's an idiot and doesn't consider at all the womans rights and her right to life etc, so I disagree with him, but to attack him like he was marginalizing rape etc is patently false and a misrepresentation of his position.

I do not like this man, nor do I support him or his political party. It should be clear that I simply do not support this kind of character assassination simply because someone said something "harsh" and outside the "norm". PS this "norm" is only presented to us in the media, you go talk to a LOT of people and you'll see many people are just as confused when it comes to abortion. The average person has no clue what their position is because they don't really think about it.

People with such views should be belittled and shamed for as long as they hold any public office or intend to run for one. His statements show a clear and unmistakable devotion to ideals which would prove a detriment to basic societal decency and he apparently would apply them with reckless abandon. If you play out a situation where his type of thinking would apply, this is dangerous stuff. This is not a hypothetical discussion of extraordinary circumstances....
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I have to be so impressed with the logic of unerring pro life advocates. As only the human female egg cells with only half the chromosomes to create new human human life sacred, while male sperm cells in their retaliative millions are worth totally nothing.

And at the same time, should a female egg cell that basically drops once per month during the human females reproductive years, fail to achieve a meeting with a human males sperm cell, or subsequently fail to implant, its perfectly OK to naturally dispose of such a human female egg cell during the subsequent menstrual period. As such a egg cell simply goes down the toilet God's mission unfulfilled.

But if some EVIL EVIL human scientist harvests a human female egg cell, for even the reasons of invitro fertilization, to help a pregnancy challenged human female achieve a normal pregnancy, those Frankenstein experimentation may meet pro-lifer objections, but what about other eggs harvested as spares. Then it becomes horror horror, horror if such eggs cells are used to advance human stem cell research and not such given a full traditional Christian burial in a Christian woman's toilet. Horror horror horror, all those eggs that should have far more human rights than any living breathing human being. All that humanity, and stem cells that are sacred.

Then the pro pro lifers go one step better. As they thrill at any human pregnancy regardless if the cause is rape or incest, but after that the pro-lifers go missing in action. Because once such a child is born, the pro-lifers refuse to help such a child in anyway. And if such children end up being less than perfect, see the other pro-life doctrine, which is kill the damn lot of them when they sin. Instead of regarding every human child as being God's innocent gift to the larger nation or world. As any humane nation should regard every child born as their nation's legacy to the future and THEIR NATIONS RESPONSIBILITY.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,756
6,320
126
What does "God's Will" have to do with getting pregnant anyways? If that had anything to do with things, women would be getting pregnant all the time, Sex or not.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,688
6,739
126
It should be mandatory to have an abortion in the case of rape.

Please. Just because one side is totally insane doesn't mean you have to go full bore crazy the other way. Can't you see there may be women who could love a child no matter who the father is? You would just become another kind of monster if you took that away. This is totally an issue of the mother's choice and maintaining options either way.
 

Fatdog

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2000
1,001
0
76
Please. Just because one side is totally insane doesn't mean you have to go full bore crazy the other way. Can't you see there may be women who could love a child no matter who the father is? You would just become another kind of monster if you took that away. This is totally an issue of the mother's choice and maintaining options either way.

This is the best post in this thread. Especially the last line.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,198
32,625
136
People with such views should be belittled and shamed for as long as they hold any public office or intend to run for one. His statements show a clear and unmistakable devotion to ideals which would prove a detriment to basic societal decency and he apparently would apply them with reckless abandon. If you play out a situation where his type of thinking would apply, this is dangerous stuff. This is not a hypothetical discussion of extraordinary circumstances....

What we have here are legislators attempting to force their religious beliefs into law and therby compel the rest of the public to abide.

Sounds Sharia-like
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
What we have here are legislators attempting to force their religious beliefs into law and therby compel the rest of the public to abide.

Sounds Sharia-like

Why do liberals always act so shocked that Republicans would pass laws compelling people to act in a way consistent with their ideology.

How is it any different than what liberals do? *cough* ACA *cough*
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Please. Just because one side is totally insane doesn't mean you have to go full bore crazy the other way. Can't you see there may be women who could love a child no matter who the father is? You would just become another kind of monster if you took that away. This is totally an issue of the mother's choice and maintaining options either way.

Thank you. It's really nobody's business other than the woman's, and we should respect that.

Well, unless we take the Nehalem POV, or this satirical character's views-

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Why do liberals always act so shocked that Republicans would pass laws compelling people to act in a way consistent with their ideology.

How is it any different than what liberals do? *cough* ACA *cough*

The ACA is actually the embodiment of a conservative idea from 20 years ago proposed by the Heritage foundation, also embodied in Romney care in Massachusetts. It's not a liberal idea at all.