Mourdock: 2+2=5

What the hell is wrong with you people?

1. Rape is bad.
2. All people have a right to life, even if conceived by rape (which, as aforementioned in 1, is bad).

Is it such an insanity for these two beliefs to coexist?

Would you tell a grown woman, who was conceived by rape, that her existence was an error and she doesn't deserve to live?
I think the problem with Mourdock's statement is that he thinks the conception of this child is something "God has intended to happen". I don't think you can separate this intention from the circumstances in which it took place.

For someone who is so upset about alleged strawmen, you're perfectly willing to jump to conclusions yourself, though. When has anyone here advocated that children conceived by rape don't deserve to live?

I don't see why a Christian has to think that it was God's intent that this child was conceived. I thought Christian morals are about free will? The free will of the rapist lead to the conception of this child, which would make his actions immoral, and the child in itself in no way different than a child conceived the "normal" way. Everything without God's intent entering into it.
 
I also love the fact that women are walking eggs by this logic, and of course no conservative is aware that this is shocking because it's what they already believe.
 
I also love the fact that women are walking eggs by this logic, and of course no conservative is aware that this is shocking because it's what they already believe.

I'm sorry, but my bullshat meter just doesn't read that high.
 
Dble post, my bad.
 
giSZO.jpg
>
images
 

Yup, she's most likely got eggs. Unless she's a pretty transvestite or transgender(possibly even fertilized!).

Would anything be gained by me posting a picture of a sperm and a dude? Or if we want to get all tritely cultural about it a picture of a dude an a wallet?
 
This really isn't going anywhere good, and I'm feeling really fond of Farm Boy because of another thread, so I'll just unilaterally walk away. :beer:
 
If life begins at conception, why only focus on post-conception? Is there not a responsibility to the baby pre-conception? Or can you selfishly deny the baby life based on the timeline of events?
 
Rape isn't even close to the worst sin in most religious thought. It's merely a man using the wrong woman without her father's permission.

Your compulsive need to spread misinformation about Christianity is getting old.

"Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2356)

And according to God, it is not in the top 10.

If you're referring to the Decalogue, then it falls under "coveting thy neighbor's wife". If you're referring to the Deadly Sins, it falls under luxuria. Not that either of those refer to the worst sins. Both the Decalogue and the Deadly Sins reference the fundamental sins, i.e. what all other sins spring from. They do not reference the worst of all sins, which as said before, are rape and blasphemy.
 
If you're referring to the Decalogue, then it falls under "coveting thy neighbor's wife".

So it's about as bad as coveting thy neighbor's house or ox. That doesn't seem too egregious.
 
So it's about as bad as coveting thy neighbor's house or ox. That doesn't seem too egregious.

Where is it said that all of the Ten Commandments are of equal necessity?

So we're:

1) Surrounded by evil ( or stuff that I would call evil, anyhow. )

2) In a universe created by some guy.

3) Guy says he made all of it, but claims he "didn't make the evil part."

Wow. I'm convinced.

I'm glad you've decided to tell me you know nothing about the theodicy.

If you actually care about the answer to this, as opposed to using this as a platform for snarks without substance, ask again. Otherwise quiet yourself.
 
That is pretty narrow (if you assume covet = rape). So if she isn't a wife, or isn't a neighbor, the rape falls out of the Top 10.

Why should I even entertain your silly arguments if you don't even read what I write?

I've already told you that the Decalogue is of special importance because it describes the fundamental sins, not because they're the ten most egregious sins.
 
Where is it said that all of the Ten Commandments are of equal necessity?

Where is it said that they aren't? You'd imagine mentioning things in one breath would be an indication of similarity. For example, if I told you "please don't steal my napkins or murder me," you might consider that a rather odd phrasing, and with good reason.

Why should I even entertain your silly arguments if you don't even read what I write?

How is rape accounted for in the Ten Commandments, outside of "covet thy neighbor's wife?"

What's the difference between egregious and fundamental sins?
 
They do not reference the worst of all sins, which as said before, are rape and blasphemy.
Really? I mean I'm seeking information here.

But I'd have thought that killing was substantially worse than rape. And as blasphemy hurts no one but the blasphemer - at least principally - I'd have thought it rated very low indeed.

But maybe my values are based on what I think as harming others, so maybe I'm just theologically naive.
 
Where is it said that they aren't? You'd imagine mentioning things in one breath would be an indication of similarity. For example, if I told you "please don't steal my napkins or murder me," you might consider that a rather odd phrasing, and with good reason.

The purpose of the Decalogue is to encompass all sins into a handful of imperatives. That's precisely why your phrasing sounds awkward; more accurately, it would be "do no evil against me or to your neighbor, which includes petty theft and murder."

How is rape accounted for in the Ten Commandments, outside of "covet thy neighbor's wife?"

"Covet thy neighbor's wife" is a general blanket way to say to remain sexually chaste except with marital conjugal relations. It's not restricted to men (women can commit adultery as well) and it's not restricted to someone else's spouse. It falls under an offense against chastity.
 
What the hell is wrong with you people?

1. Rape is bad.
2. All people have a right to life, even if conceived by rape (which, as aforementioned in 1, is bad).

Is it such an insanity for these two beliefs to coexist?

Would you tell a grown woman, who was conceived by rape, that her existence was an error and she doesn't deserve to live?


Unfortunately all sorts less than desirable beliefs do exist and sometimes reasonable beliefs are contradictory like in this case. It's the rape victim's right to decide if the pregnancy will be terminated or not. It doesn't make sense to ruin one life to produce an unwanted one so the victim's right to chose supersedes the unborn one's to live.

No one should tell a grown woman or man that (s)he doesn't deserve to live - the mother apparently decided years ago that they deserved to live. However, being a result of a rape is hardly news anyone would want to hear.

G
 
Back
Top Bottom