Republican Senate Nominee: "Legitimate" rape victims don't get pregnant

When are you saying human life begins and on what grounds?

when it come to men being force to assume the duty of support of children they did not wish to fathers by the state you had reply that is just too damn bad.

Why is that a problem? If Mourdock believes that there is a universal moral code based on biblical principles, then why shouldn't he want that code enforced through legislation?

You seem to believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion about abortion -- but that's just another way of saying that you want everyone to share and abide by your moral code. I don't see much difference between Mourdock and you, except maybe that Mourdock is being more honest about his position.

When are you saying human life begins and on what grounds?

The delusional thinking is that a fetus is a human being. A fetus is only a fetus and it cannot survive without its mother's body, which makes critical thinking on abortion simple: We own our bodies, and neither the government nor the church has any jurisdiction or say in what we do with it. Once it's breathing independently outside the mother's womb it has rights, but until a fetus becomes a human being, it is part of its mother's body.

The problem with people who argue against this is they are thinking through emotion instead of logic. Abortion is a sad but sometimes necessary event, but the mother should be free to choose what happens inside her own body. The fact is that the advent of contraception and legalized abortion has done more to liberate women than any two events in history, and the all-boys clubs of "women should be kept barefoot and pregnant" are none too pleased. Women have been controlled, bullied, and abused by men since the beginning of time, and maintaining control of their reproductive rights is one of the methods men have used to keep them from rising up in the world.

As long as a woman had to be home raising kids, she couldn't go out into the world and stake her own claim or make her own money. Men not only had a physical strength advantage over women, but they enjoyed absolute monetary power as well. It's hard to have equal rights with empty pockets, and unplanned pregnancy was the catalyst of inequality.

Birth control and abortion changed all that, and in the past 40 years we have witnessed the greatest emancipation of women in American history. Women now have the power to forge their own destiny, earn unlimited amounts of money, and challenge men for political power. This evolution would never have taken place in America without legalized abortion. Overturning Roe vs. Wade has never been about saving babies. It's about controlling women, and the religious extremists will continue masking this hidden agenda until they are exposed.

All a critical thinker has to do is read what the Bible says about women, which treats them as the property of men with about the same status as cattle. Here's what American social activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton said about the treatment of women in the Bible:

"The Bible teaches that women brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced. Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity and a period of suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on man's bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire."

It baffles me that any woman of even modest education can embrace a book that demeans them to this degree, yet this is the power of delusional thinking. Fortunately, millions of strong independent women refused to be subjected to the tyranny of ancient religious dogma and puritanical societal norms and are boldly creating their own futures. As women continue to gain more political power, social status and financial equality, they will make America a stronger, more prosperous country.

It's time for our leaders and future leaders from the right to get with the times and treat and support women the way they deserve to be treated.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-siebold/indiana-gop-candidate-mourdock_b_2008830.html

n a husband now have no legal say in his wife deciding to abort his child...

We own our bodies, and neither the government nor the church has any jurisdiction or say in what we do with it.

As women continue to gain more political power, social status and financial equality, they will make America a stronger, more prosperous country.

Because it violates the separation of church and state.

No, Mourdock is free to make personal decisions based on his own moral code, but not to impose his religious standards on anyone else's decisions.
I'm not dictating the decisions for anyone else, I want everyone to have the freedom to make such choices for themselves--without government interference in the matter.

Suppose Mourdock had said: "I believe that life begins at conception and that there should be no rape exception for abortion, but I am an atheist and I base my opinion solely on science." Would that be imposing his religious standards on anyone else's decisions?

The separation of church and state prohibits the state from mandating any adherence to a religious belief, not to passing a law that is informed by an ethical position that is, in turn, based on a religious belief.

Quote:

Suppose Mourdock had said: "I believe that life begins at conception and that there should be no rape exception for abortion, but I am an atheist and I base my opinion solely on science." Would that be imposing his religious standards on anyone else's decisions?

But that's not what he said, is it?

Then the ethical position should be stated in terms that do not refer to God, or the Bible, or any religious authority, in support of that position.

A non-viable fetus is not a human being, in fact it is not an independent being of any kind--it is a part of the woman's body.

If Congress passed a law that prohibited exceptions to abortion based on rape that was clearly secular in nature, would you have a problem with that?

I don't think such laws, prohibiting abortions, or restricting them to only exceptional cases, can be justified on a purely secular basis.

And it is not begging the question to state that a non-viable fetus is not a human being, and, in fact, it is not an independent being of any kind--that is a statement of fact.

passing a law that is informed by an ethical position that is, in turn, based on a religious belief.

When men are conscripted for war they don't have the rights over their own bodies that is being claimed here.

The "right" that's being discussed here is the right to make medical decisions regarding one's own body--and men, and women, in the military do retain that right

Wrong once more Firefly as people had been court martial for refusing to take the vaccines that the government judge is needed such as the one for anthrax.