Huckabee: Always Look on the Bright Side of Rape!

[Leoreth]

Why on earth would it be sinful to have (consensual) sex, period?

And you seem to confuse immaculate conception with perpetual virginity. The former only means that Mary was free from original sin at the point of conception.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Wait, what?

Jesus most certainly had siblings, they are mentioned specifically in the Bible. Mary and Joseph were married, had sex, had babies.

I know, but Catholics argue they were Joseph's kids from a previous marriage, and so not really Jesus brothers... I consider that an absurd twisting of logic in order to justify the right of the Church to interpret scripture, but whatever.

Why on earth would it be sinful to have (consensual) sex, period?

Biblically it is wrong, although that is a complex case that is too involved to defend in this thread. You can ask in Ask an Evangelical if you'd like.

Its NOT Biblically wrong to have sex within marriage, which is why I see the twisting of Matthew 1:25 in this way to be pretty pointless. doable but pointless, so why not just take it at face value?

And you seem to confuse immaculate conception with perpetual virginity. The former only means that Mary was free from original sin at the point of conception

Nope, I meant immaculate conception. I don't get the logic of perpetual virginity, and assumed it might somehow be linked to the immaculate conception (She couldn't sin) but still, why is sex within marriage wrong? Basically I was saying "Even if Mary was supposedly sinless, why did that mean she couldn't sleep with her husband?" The concept makes little sense to me.

 

[Core Imposter]

You cannot achieve, in a multi-cultural, mult-religion nation, a legal code that satisfies all cultures and religious views.

As American democracy is clearly failing and the current republic is doomed to be replaced with another, I support a conservative Christian republic, but one of limited scope of government. Government that allows maximum freedom but protection of the rights of all. This is an ideal, a goal, but practical matters require sensible compromise. Government cannot require women to carry the child of a rapist and stand for long.

Neither can government allow the slaughter of innocent children in the womb in huge numbers and expect to retain the consent of the people. Thus it was with slavery, and so it will also be with abortion.

How long did it take the issue of slavery to bring the nation to and over the brink of war? Generations.

It has not been that long since Roe v. Wade. And yet one can see that our country is more polarized than ever. This is at its core the root problem. Most conservatives, and most Christians would be more than willing to compromise over a host of their differences with liberals if the abortion issue is resolved. If no compromise is forthcoming, a revolution and potential civil war is inevitable.

It is more likely however than fiscal collapse will bring this Republic to an end prior to the resolution of the abortion issue. And perhaps the next Republic will address abortion in its birth. In any case, there will be a reckoning.

 

[Crezth]

This assumes that potential future existing life = life. That's a pretty big leap of logic.

How do you figure? You assume a potential future existing person = person every time you argue that abortion is wrong.

It assumes that simply not having sex, or having safe sex, is the same thing as having sex, getting pregnant and killing the child. It assumes that, since neither is killing a person, it doesn't make any difference.

That's not the case, according to pro-life people at least.

A woman can simply not have sex, or she can have safe sex, and she's not doing anything wrong by choosing not to have a child (Catholics would argue that there is something wrong with birth control, but they still don't think its MURDEROUS and the rest of us don't generally have issue with it.)

Thus, there is no "Wrong" done by a woman not being raped in order to get her pregnant. In fact, it is only right that she will NOT be raped. There is no living child being criminalized by her not getting pregnant. (Not to mention the obvious issues.)

The case at hand is that pregnancy is a burden and that, in the case of rape, it is forced on the woman. You are happy to qualify that women can choose not to have sex, but upon doing so they must accept the responsibility for the life they helped create. They alone, mind - no such rhetoric about the man shouldering part of the burden. Not that he could as pregnancy is a road the woman must hoe alone.

But in the case of rape, the woman must shoulder the burden anyway - one which she did not choose to receive, but must carry with her anyway. She has done nothing wrong, and yet must carry the child anyway. Nevermind the psychological torment of bearing the rapist's child, nor the inordinate day-to-day inconvenience of what is essentially a parasite-caused sickness; life is a gift, and she serves no purpose but to be its vessel.

Once she is pregnant, at least according to pro-lifers, there is a life involved. Wrongly created, but it already exists, so you cannot at that point kill it or tell it it does not deserve to exist. THAT is what Huckabee was saying. That the child was a blessing, not the rape. But that's a nuance you might not be catching.

The child is not a blessing, to some. It is a curse.

Now, I have no expectation for the raped woman to raise the child. I'm sure she can find someone somewhere who would adopt the child.

You're aware that our adoption centers are overflowing with depressed, unwanted fodder? What a humanitarian proposition you have there.

 

[woody60707]

Once again, if rape creates human life, you can make a capable argument for saying that it is a good thing - or, at least, not a bad thing. Belittling rape as an aggressive act or attempting to justify it, either in accordance with some weird cosmic justice (God works in mysterious ways) or a general moral calculus (the woman's rights may have been abrogated, but a human life has been created; the one supersedes the other), is a common strategy of those who would see that women should serve as nothing but brood mares.

Furthermore, it is uniquely interesting that men are so adamant to propose that a child is always a reward, no matter what, because such is the nature of a child. But pregnant women are continually in a state of strife and suffer in the workplace and general society as well. Pregnancy requires a significant investment of work by the woman; it is a labor that we should not expect women to take on except with their permission. It is simply misogynist to propose that her wants and needs are secondary to the burden of pregnancy, one which may be forced on her at any time, and which she alone must reap the consequences of.

If I haven't meet people like you in real life, I would of never believed it. I personally just can not believe that any large group of people in America would honestly believe that "women should serve as nothing but brood mares". granted I've only seen Huckabee on TV, but he doesn't come off as a person that is on the evilness level of a Hardcore Nazi or something.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

If I haven't meet people like you in real life, I would of never believed it. I personally just can not believe that any large group of people in America would honestly believe that "women should serve as nothing but brood mares". granted I've only seen Huckabee on TV, but he doesn't come off as a person that is on the evilness level of a Hardcore Nazi or something.

Are you sure you quoted the right post? Because what Crezth said and what you think Crezth said aren't even in the same galaxy.

 

[woody60707]

Are you sure you quoted the right post? Because what Crezth said and what you think Crezth said aren't even in the same galaxy.

lol Did I hit the quote button wrong? I Bolded it. I am sorry if I didn't understand him correctly, but it sounded like he made the claim that "some people" who agree with what Huckabee said, think women should just make babies and in general hate women and the fact they have rights.

EDIT, I'm also pretty sure Froma is about to hit me over the head with a wall of text and links proving this very claim true.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's kinda stretching to insist that Jesus had siblings. The alternative, of a completely untainted marriage, is just as feasible.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

It's kinda stretching to insist that Jesus had siblings. The alternative, of a completely untainted marriage, is just as feasible.

Why would a marriage with sex be tainted? Isn't that, ya know, the whole point of marriage?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Are you sure you quoted the right post? Because what Crezth said and what you think Crezth said aren't even in the same galaxy.

Crezth essentially said that a fetus is a "Parasite born sickness." If anyone is the "Nazi" it is those who think so little of life or even the potential of life rather than Mike Huckabee who seems to feel that all deserve the right to life.

Woody might actaully be being a litte generous here.

Huckabee is saying what any reasonable person would think, that rape is a sin but that the children of rape are not of less worth because of the sins of the parents.

In fact, what Huckabee said has little to do with abortion at all, it has to do with the value of people. Nobody should have an issue with that message.

 

[Crezth]

lol Did I hit the quote button wrong? I Bolded it. I am sorry if I didn't understand him correctly, but it sounded like he made the claim that "some people" who agree with what Huckabee said, think women should just make babies and in general hate women and the fact they have rights.

Yes, people think this.

Huckabee is saying what any reasonable person would think, that rape is a sin but that the children of rape are not of less worth because of the sins of the parents.

Right, Mr. Misdirection, you continue to miss the point fabulously.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yes, people think this.

I think the number of people who hate women these days is MUCH lower than those who hate the unborn (Such as describing them as nothing more than a parasite as you did. And by the tone I know you weren't using that word in the literal, scientific sense, but comparing it to sickness.)

Right, Mr. Misdirection, you continue to miss the point fabulously.

No, Patroklos was right. The whole "Rape" thing is purely emotional and has no idea with the question of whether and when abortion is murder. And even if it were not, life is STILL a gift.

And yes, the children of rape ARE a gift, in spite of the fact that the rapists are guilty of a horiffic crime and should absolutely be executed.

I laugh at the people who will be the first to defend the horrible rapist's life but the last to defend the innocent children.

Its blatant illogic.

 

[Angst]

You cannot achieve, in a multi-cultural, mult-religion nation, a legal code that satisfies all cultures and religious views.

As American democracy is clearly failing and the current republic is doomed to be replaced with another, I support a conservative Christian republic, but one of limited scope of government. Government that allows maximum freedom but protection of the rights of all. This is an ideal, a goal, but practical matters require sensible compromise. Government cannot require women to carry the child of a rapist and stand for long.

Neither can government allow the slaughter of innocent children in the womb in huge numbers and expect to retain the consent of the people. Thus it was with slavery, and so it will also be with abortion.

How long did it take the issue of slavery to bring the nation to and over the brink of war? Generations.

It has not been that long since Roe v. Wade. And yet one can see that our country is more polarized than ever. This is at its core the root problem. Most conservatives, and most Christians would be more than willing to compromise over a host of their differences with liberals if the abortion issue is resolved. If no compromise is forthcoming, a revolution and potential civil war is inevitable.

It is more likely however than fiscal collapse will bring this Republic to an end prior to the resolution of the abortion issue. And perhaps the next Republic will address abortion in its birth. In any case, there will be a reckoning.

Uh. What forum do you get these insane ideas from? Abortion has nothing to do with slavery. You sound like an extremist holding a speech, hoping to grasp power.

 

[woody60707]

Yes, people think this.



Right, Mr. Misdirection, you continue to miss the point fabulously.

Are you sure you quoted the right post? Because what Crezth said and what you think Crezth said aren't even in the same galaxy.

See. I my self can not for the world of me believe these people are this evil.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Uh. What forum do you get these insane ideas from? Abortion has nothing to do with slavery. You sound like an extremist holding a speech, hoping to grasp power.

I know, you're right. Abortion is more like murder while slavery is more like kidnapping. Its a shame you would shame decent slavers who were indeed great sinners but would never have dreamed of killing in cold blood


(Posted so you understand WHY Pro-lifers make the comparison, not to get you to agree with it, and calling slavers "Decent" was satirical to make a point.)

See. I my self can not for the world of me believe these people are this evil.

Because we aren't and its a liberal strawman. Thankfully you see right through it.

 

[Angst]

I know, you're right. Abortion is more like murder while slavery is more like kidnapping. Its a shame you would shame decent slavers who were indeed great sinners but would never have dreamed of killing in cold blood

(Posted so you understand WHY Pro-lifers make the comparison, not to get you to agree with it, and calling slavers "Decent" was satirical to make a point.)

Just read through his post again, I think I was baffled by the extremism and misplaced the connection he tried to draw between the two things. I understand him now. But it's still insane to declare the US in the state of transition into chaos, and I woefully fear that you would ever become a "Christian republic". The things he typed seemed as if plucked right out of a neofacist site... :/

Another thing. Simply yelling killer or murderer at somebody will never have your point proven. Because, you know, we actually care about what the biologists say. People who know about and research life.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Just read through his post again, I think I was baffled by the extremism and misplaced the connection he tried to draw between the two things. I understand him now. But it's still insane to declare the US in the state of transition into chaos, and I woefully fear that you would ever become a "Christian republic". The things he typed seemed as if plucked right out of a neofacist site... :/

Another thing. Simply yelling killer or murderer at somebody will never have your point proven. Because, you know, we actually care about what the biologists say. People who know about and research life.

My post was not intended to get you to agree with me, but to illustrate WHY we make the comparison. I'm honestly not interested in getting into the nitty gritty of biology. Distinct human life is distinct human life. Full stop, at least for me.

That said, I don't necessarily agree with everything in that post, simply the anti-abortion stuff. I don't necessarily want a "Christian Republic." I'd rather see the Christian communities left alone and the liberal communities left alone. Let each community do what's best for itself. Rather than having the federal government decide just how much moral enforcement can be done on its whim. If that can't be done, maybe the more religious parts of the country SHOULD secede?

 

[Angst]

Because we aren't and its a liberal strawman. Thankfully you see right through it.

You're not a part of the group that Crezth is talking about. Some Liberals might think you are, but they're not very smart.

The thing is that some of the sentiment against abortion and indifference of rape roots in how one would view women, and there is a pretty hard American core of people who hold the view that a woman's purpose is to produce a baby, and that everything else is secondary; this reduction of a human being into a breeding machine leads them to producing propaganda or arguments for why women shouldn't abort. Because they talk of the issue that you, for example, believe strongly in, you will naturally borrow those arguments from that core, and the aforementioned stupid Liberals will group you with the hard core because you borrow from their arguments.

 

[Leonel]

Why didn't you say so? Here, this version is neither new nor international:

Ridiculous! Go to any motel in America and pull out a Bible. What language is it in? Check mate!

 

[Farm Boy]

You're aware that our adoption centers are overflowing with depressed, unwanted fodder? What a humanitarian proposition you have there.

I don't like this thread in general - but... if you are discussing the US of A(which I assume you are in the light of the politician at issue) this is flat incorrect.

Foster child systems are groaning under the weight of not enough adoptive parents. For those of you who have never researched the difference between types of adoption there are two main distinctions. Foster homes care for children who have been seized by the state from their parents. They are typically older children who come from bad family situations. Abortion doesn't play into this societal issue unless you want to argue that proactively encouraging abortion along socioeconomic lines is a good policy in the light of the issue's math. If you want to talk about adoption as it relates to abortion, ie adoption plans made for newborns when the decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy is relevant, then no, there is no "overflowing, depressed, unwanted fodder." It just doesn't exist. There are far more American families seeking to adopt than there are babies to actually adopt.