Richard Mourdock of Indiana

Discussion in 'America Attacks!' started by bibearman, Oct 24, 2012.

  1. Karen_J

    Karen_J Visitor

    I was mad at Mourdock for about fifteen seconds. Then I saw the good news in his statement, politically. I believe that more than a few Republicans think like him, and plenty of others tolerate him and his viewpoint. I hope that they all speak up about their radical views before election day. Maybe the voters will wake up before it's too late.

    Keep talking, Richard. Say it LOUDER. Pound the podium with your fist. Look into the camera, and make an angry face. Are we getting all this on video? Let all of America know what kind of a man you really are.

    Making a random young woman give birth to a violent criminal's baby is a moral crime and outrage against human civilization. Mourdock wants the government to be an accomplice to this crime, which is also an illegal act. He deserves to go to prison for this, and experience rape for himself. Maybe then he would have some compassion for the victims.

    I think it was Bill Maher who recently said, "If men could get pregnant, we would have abortion clinics on every street corner, like Starbucks." So true.
     
  2. rjhangover

    rjhangover Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,869
    Likes Received:
    529
    If men could get pregnant, that would mean we'd bleed five days a month. Then I'd be a bitch all the time.
     
  3. Tyrsonswood

    Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    33,284
    Likes Received:
    24,912
    Just to sum this rape issue up, here is a chart that clarifies the Republican viewpoint on the issue of rape.


    [​IMG]
     
  4. Spectacles

    Spectacles My life is a tapestry Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    4,013
    Likes Received:
    1,616
    If men got pregnant our laws would be so different.
     
  5. newo

    newo Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    8,579
    The Republican party needs to purge itself of such shit-for-brains before people stop voting Republican altogether.
     
  6. bibearman

    bibearman Member

    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    5
    Who knows...maybe that's what the WHOLE party thinks, they're just smart enough not to come out in the open about it. How can the repubs be "closing the gender gap" with comments like this?
     
  7. Nyxx

    Nyxx HELLO STALKER

    Messages:
    1,995
    Likes Received:
    5
    From: http://dissidentvoice.org/
    Reaping “Something Good” from the Act of Rape?

    by E.R. Bills / October 25th, 2012
    These days, it’s true. There’s no telling what might come out a Republican’s mouth.
    Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s recent suggestion that pregnancies resulting from rape should not be terminated because they comprise “something good that God intended to happen” says something really scary about a lot of Republicans and church folk.
    First, it’s blatantly insensitive. I wonder if Mourdock has daughters and how he would feel if his daughter was raped. I strain my brain to imagine reasonable words to console the poor girl and convince her to bring her assailant’s offspring to term. I can come up with none. Perhaps they offer a class for it at Mourdock’s church.
    Second, it reveals a man devoid of empathy. If Mourdock were a woman or, more specifically, a raped, suddenly pregnant woman, would he still defend this stance? If he were a raped high school girl, would he quit school or put it on the backburner to care for his rapist’s baby? If he were a raped college girl, would he drop some classes or take a few semesters off to care for his assailant’s child? If he were a woman who already had children and a husband, would he have the child and realistically be able to love it as much as the fruits of legitimate wedlock? And what kind of situation would it create for the estranged husband?
    And third, if God intended for Mourdock’s daughter or his granddaughter or his wife or his mother or his niece to be raped and have her attacker’s baby, how could this preordained act be considered a crime? God is, I’m told, incapable of evil. And if He intended for a woman to be raped, the rape must have been permitted or perpetuated with a greater good in mind. Would the rape be considered a benevolent assault?
    Family values folks stress two-parent households; perhaps a rapist should only be punished if the female aborts the fruit of the defilement. Would pro-life folks advocate freeing the rapist if a woman impregnated via rape carries the “good” resulting from the assault to term? So he could get a job to support it and teach it to play catch?
    Heck, regardless of whether the rapist is charged, convicted, acquitted or patted on the back for his role in this intended and therefore blessed pregnancy; the rapist would clearly be awarded standard parental and visitation rights–right?
    And if the government took up and legislated Mourdock’s morality in terms of rape, would then the government not be responsible for helping support the rapist’s offspring if he was convicted and sent to prison?
    I suppose there is a precedent for Mourdock’s stance in Christianity. The Virgin Mary probably set the proper example. Technically speaking, she wasn’t assaulted, but she was impregnated without consent. And she bore her impregnator’s Son without question or complaint. Should contemporary victims of rape look to the Virgin Mary’s example?
    I know God works in mysterious ways, but is the patriarchal, nonsensical gibberish the Republicans keep peddling really an example of God’s work or just the latest in their recent history of sexism and reproductive oppression?
    And speaking of ‘isms, does anyone really think the lily white mouthpieces for anti-abortion doctrines would really pitch such a fuss if most of the women having abortions were poor Hispanic or African-American females instead of white females? Women’s access to birth control and the resultant economic mobility have clearly curbed Caucasian propagation trends in this country. Is white population resurgence the dirty secret behind limiting reproductive freedoms?
    We all know the catchphrases.
    Trans-vaginal ultra-sounds.
    Just put an aspirin between your knees.
    No exceptions for the mother.
    No exceptions for rape.
    The female body is naturally capable of terminating unwanted pregnancies.
    The stuff coming out of many faithful Republican’s mouths these days is downright disturbing. Do they know what century it is? Are there any limits to their unabashed creepiness?
     
  8. Jackespeero123

    Jackespeero123 Guest

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Richard Earl Mourdock (born October 8, 1951) is the 53rd treasurer of the state of Indiana, serving since February 10, 2007.[1][3] Running with the support of the Tea Party movement, he defeated six-term incumbent U.S. Senator Richard Lugar in the May 2012 Republican primary election. He lost the November 6, 2012 general election for Lugar's seat to Democratic U. S. Representative Joe Donnelly.

    ------------
    classified website
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice