Any 10-year-old of average intellingence could understand what he meant. If one actually listens to the quote, it's clear he meant that God's intention was for a life to be created. He did not mean God's intention was for a woman to be raped.
His phrasing was simply awkward. We've all phrased things awkwardly while speaking, and we've all heard the same, but we are able to discern the real meaning of what someone says. There is no reason what he said should've gotten the amount of media coverage it did, nor for anyone to condemn what he said. Oh wait, there is one reason. People, in general, have stopped thinking clearly and just want to be entertained.
His phrasing was simply awkward. We've all phrased things awkwardly while speaking, and we've all heard the same, but we are able to discern the real meaning of what someone says. There is no reason what he said should've gotten the amount of media coverage it did, nor for anyone to condemn what he said. Oh wait, there is one reason. People, in general, have stopped thinking clearly and just want to be entertained.
Ergo intending a pregnancy intends its cause, be it rape or any other. If God intended a woman to get pregnant, but did NOT intend her rape, He would cause her pregnancy another way (He does, after all, have well documented unlimited means to do so.) Saying He intended pregnancy from rape means just that.
Not that letting Mourdock off the hook would let Akin off the hook for denying rape CAN cause pregnancy, or Ryan and King for co-sponsoring Akins bill declaring fetuses people on that basis, or Berg for insisting women bear their rapists children or go to prison, or McMahon for saying taxpayer funded religious hospitals can deny rape victims morning after pills, or Romney for trying to force a woman to continue a pregnancy that threatened her life. Again, the Republican Partys epidemic of saying, "yes, but..." about congressman after congressmans supporting abortion bans with NO exceptions highlights rather than obscures the party-wide support for banning abortion with NO exceptions. It is painfully clear a vote for a Republican Congressman, Senator, Vice President or President is a vote for the federal government outlawing all abortion, regardless of reason.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
God Distances Self From Christian Right
- 26/10/2012 01:56:18 PM
1308 Views
Do you really think God would condone abortion? *NM*
- 26/10/2012 03:28:25 PM
385 Views
Depends on when a fetus is a being, which the GOP contends is "at the moment of fertilization."
- 26/10/2012 03:57:44 PM
617 Views
Actually, I don't see any place in the Bible where God is....
- 26/10/2012 04:00:19 PM
800 Views
Where did I say one word about God accommodating our sin?
- 26/10/2012 05:55:52 PM
658 Views
You're technically right, Joel, but...
- 26/10/2012 07:32:10 PM
635 Views
Almost may count in hand grenades, but definitely not in canon. 
- 26/10/2012 10:28:57 PM
713 Views
- 26/10/2012 10:28:57 PM
713 Views
Your lack of scientific understanding is everything in this instance.
- 26/10/2012 10:44:05 PM
648 Views
Because whether God intends rape is aaaall about science, right?
- 26/10/2012 11:08:16 PM
571 Views
You're getting rather emphatic.
- 26/10/2012 11:27:07 PM
627 Views
Broad fundamental change to US law by controlling all three branches of government provokes that.
- 27/10/2012 12:44:59 AM
636 Views
Condemn women to die? What a strange way to look at this.
- 26/10/2012 07:17:16 PM
682 Views
women *did* die before abortion was legalized, there should be no dispute of this aspect
- 26/10/2012 07:27:28 PM
712 Views
So we legalize an illegal act because some are willing to harm themselves to do it? *NM*
- 26/10/2012 10:02:37 PM
352 Views
no, we legalize the act so that it can be performed safely without killing both mother *and* child *NM*
- 26/10/2012 11:08:52 PM
365 Views
Very good point, but that was not (at least soley) what I meant, no.
- 26/10/2012 11:12:32 PM
635 Views
If something should be illegal in its own right, it is nonsense to legalize it because criminals
- 26/10/2012 11:40:41 PM
665 Views
If banning it saves no lives but inevitably takes more, the ban is counterproductive.
- 27/10/2012 12:48:51 AM
672 Views
That is absolutely absurd. It saves the lives of all...
- 27/10/2012 12:59:16 AM
698 Views
you're still missing the point that abortions will still be performed if it were illegal
- 27/10/2012 01:02:57 AM
606 Views
I'm not missing the point, you are.
- 27/10/2012 01:21:39 AM
758 Views
This isn't necessarily true, though it is often due to other factors.
- 27/10/2012 02:48:00 PM
660 Views
People who want abortions badly enough to have one will, whether or not law makes it "convenient."
- 27/10/2012 02:58:52 AM
591 Views
Telling a woman whose life was in danger not to save it with abortion condemned her to die
- 26/10/2012 10:48:53 PM
602 Views
There is no proof that you would accept that a fetus is a child.
- 26/10/2012 11:31:50 PM
606 Views
Fantastic question.
- 26/10/2012 11:43:51 PM
637 Views
No, I would err on the side of caution; have often said as much in just those words.
- 27/10/2012 01:18:19 AM
617 Views
Sure there is; show me a fetus acting indepedently and consciously.
- 27/10/2012 01:15:00 AM
626 Views
Perfect example of media sensationalism
- 26/10/2012 04:13:41 PM
710 Views
I agree with your larger point and am not trying to be argumentative
- 26/10/2012 04:29:23 PM
675 Views
yeah, but what do women know about women's issues? this is man talk time!
- 26/10/2012 05:01:58 PM
636 Views
THAT is the whole problem with his comment.
- 26/10/2012 05:59:40 PM
602 Views
Or it could mean....
- 26/10/2012 11:50:53 PM
655 Views
Having addressed this in response to Legolas in moondogs thread on Mourdock, I will just link that.
- 27/10/2012 01:43:48 AM
659 Views
I agree
- 26/10/2012 07:27:21 PM
697 Views
It's always a slippery slope, talking about what God did and did not intend.
- 27/10/2012 12:06:22 AM
654 Views
There is a logically consistent way; you did not ask for it, so I will be brief.
- 27/10/2012 02:53:09 AM
637 Views
Pregnancy cannot be separated from its cause.
- 26/10/2012 05:51:28 PM
659 Views
God intends everything.
- 27/10/2012 04:40:58 PM
733 Views
"Intends" is a big word.
- 27/10/2012 09:23:13 PM
651 Views
It is sad that this is getting more press than the Bengazi scandal *NM*
- 26/10/2012 05:58:22 PM
340 Views
that's probably because it's more relevant to most people's lives *NM*
- 26/10/2012 06:06:10 PM
360 Views
This entire scandal really speaks to the Calvinist heresy in particular.
- 26/10/2012 07:10:38 PM
627 Views
I was trying REALLY hard to avoid putting it in precisely those terms. 
- 26/10/2012 10:12:17 PM
672 Views
- 26/10/2012 10:12:17 PM
672 Views
Well, but really, the fundamental crux of the issue is precisely that.
- 27/10/2012 01:03:26 AM
636 Views
True, but disputing founding articles of faith benefits from tact.
- 27/10/2012 02:02:48 AM
577 Views
Come on, Tom.
- 27/10/2012 03:29:39 AM
608 Views
I believe HE grasps the difference between predestination and determinism well.
- 27/10/2012 09:33:14 PM
674 Views
The comment that sparked this was moronic even to the vast majority of religious conservatives. *NM*
- 26/10/2012 09:42:51 PM
353 Views
Yet its author remains the only Senate nominee for whom Romney is running ads.
- 26/10/2012 10:53:37 PM
620 Views
Is the senator's comment more disgusting to you than the President's vote against the
- 26/10/2012 11:54:55 PM
628 Views
how does one vote against a bill which passed by unanimous consent?
- 27/10/2012 12:11:37 AM
623 Views
As a state senator in 2001 in illinois he was the sole opponent to the aforementioned bill. *NM*
- 27/10/2012 12:14:08 AM
355 Views
[citation needed]
- 27/10/2012 12:15:41 AM
586 Views
It was an illinois state bill. *NM*
- 27/10/2012 12:23:12 AM
335 Views
yes, i finally found *something* regarding a state bill which he did oppose
- 27/10/2012 12:34:40 AM
630 Views
The BAIPA became federal law 2 years before Obamas Senate win; he says he would have voted for it.
- 27/10/2012 02:33:26 AM
611 Views
Once he started taking fire for it he said he would have voted for it? Well that clears that up.
- 27/10/2012 07:09:21 AM
804 Views
He "took fire" for a federal law passed before he was in Congress?
- 27/10/2012 04:08:25 PM
689 Views
amazing
- 28/10/2012 05:04:21 AM
742 Views
Women are certainly encouraged to weigh in, but everyone is entitled to thoughts on the matter
- 28/10/2012 02:22:55 PM
623 Views