Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Fool me three-hundred-fifty times, shame on me...

The GOP candidate for senator from Indiana, a man for whom I voted in the primary based on his seemingly outstanding job qualification of Not Being Dick Lugar, has been painted as a radical wookie-suiter in attack ads by his opponent. "He thinks Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional!" intones the voice-over.

"Yeah, and...?" chorus my roommate and I.

Unlike the GOP gubernatorial candidate in our fair state, Mourdock's own ads have been free of the sort of fundamentalist dogwhistles that leave you wondering whether the man is running for political office or head deacon.

Thus, it created something of a stir when Mourdock dropped this bomb during a debate last night when asked if he opposed abortion even when the pregnancy was the result of rape:
"I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that's something God intended to happen."
Oh, Republicans, you never fail to disappoint me.

Sure, you talk a good small government game, and then the minute you get into office it's all about the gays and the 'bortion and the flag-burnin' and drug warrin' and Family-Values-with-a-capital-KJV and next thing you know you're No Child Left Behindin' and Department of Homeland Securityin' and if I wanted all that snoopy government busibodiness I'd have voted for the Democrat in the first place.

This is the sort of thing that can cost you a tight race against an opponent who sports an NRA "A" rating of his own. I'm not going to vote for Donnelly, but I'll bet others are giving him a closer look right now.

I hope you don't mind that I consider myself released from my pledge to make my mark by your name on the ballot come November, Mr. Mourdock, but you're going to need to go womb patrollin' without me.

Fool me once, GOP, and shame on you...
.

92 comments:

Joseph said...

I don't know if I should repeat what I said aloud when I saw this on the morning news. It started with Mother and ended in Fucker though...

Talk about blasting yourself in the foot. Why any GOP candidate feels the need to pander to the religious sect at this point is baffling. Where exactly are the pearl-clutching Jesus freaks going to vote if not GOP? You think the Dems are suddenly gonna get the busy-body religious vote with their platform?

Tam said...

Joseph,

I don't for a moment believe that Mourdock was pandering. He was obviously and absolutely sincere.

And that's worse.

Abortion is as sincerely important an issue to him as keeping the nation solvent and preventing anarchy in the streets when the Free Money faucet gets shut off, and I can't allow a man with his priorities ordered like that anywhere near the levers of power at this juncture in our nation's history.

Don said...

Why is it pandering if that's what he really believes?

Anyway, as I said over at Bobbi's, I'm voting for Andy Horning.

Tam said...

(...and all this is leaving aside how shockingly tone-deaf and callous his "God intended rape" comment was. That may be the most effed-up thing I've ever heard come out of a politician's mouth on TV.)

DanH said...

I'm hearing the exact same commercials here in Missouri about the dumbass GOP candidate for senate. They are almost enough for me to give him a second look. But I guess having the dems on the ropes as much as they are makes these idiots think they can say what they actually believe. They deserve to be slapped down and hard. I can live with a dem controlled senate if we can vote out Obama.

Anonymous said...

The selection process for politicians guarantees this. Do you want to run for governor? Of course you don't, I don't either. It'd suck. You only run if you really, really want to tell people what to do. The rare person who loves freedom and actually wants to run is typically crazy (Ron Paul).

pdb said...

He certainly could have phrased it better, but that's a principled and brave stand to make. I certainly find it easier to respect that position than carving out rape and incest exceptions.

A human life is either worthy of the protection of the state or it is not. I don't have any easy answers or tidy solutions, but I think this guy's stand is at least consistent and honorable compared to some mealymouth trying to have it both ways.

Anonymous said...

Some may think it to be a reductio ad absurdum, but there can only be one logical outcome of defining human life as existing milliseconds after conception. It requires a pregnancy police to monitor every woman's uterus.

Many, many pregnancies end long before they are noticed. Cell division has begun, something goes wrong, and a particularly messy period ensues. According to the religious womb-police, this is now considered to be a homicide (of some type).
- Perhaps it was unknown, and no care was taken to preserve the proto-fetus (negligent homicide?).
- Perhaps it was known, but again no extreme care was taken (manslaughter?).
- Perhaps it was known, but unwanted, and a "morning after" pill taken to prevent embryo implantation (premeditated murder?).

The logical outcome is to patrol every woman's period, reporting all potentially impregnating sexual encounters, and analysis of every period's discharge.

Is this really where the Rep-wing wants to go?

staghounds said...

What gets me is that abortion is something they can't even influence!

First trimester abortion at will is in exactly the same position as interracial marriage- the Supreme Court has said that cannot be forbidden or hindered by law. Period.

Making a decision about a candidate based on what his opinion about abortion is, is as foolish as basing your choice on the candidate's opinion about the tides.

Basing the decision on whether the candidate is too stupid to keep his mouth shut, on the other hand...

staghounds said...

The Rs should copy what the Ds say to Catholic voters, that seems to be magic.

Like it or not, the law on abortion was settled in 1973. The "issue" of abortion, absent a constitutional amendment, is a non issue. There is a whole industry dedicated to polarizing us over abortion, using it to generate money and votes.

HONEST candidates should refuse to talk about things they cannot alter one way or the other, and they should explain why. Once.

Yrro said...

@Anonymous - do we launch a huge investigate for every old person who dies of natural causes? There's a very long, not so slippery slope between saying that intentional murder is not ok and monitoring every natural death in dangerous situations for negligence.

I'm pro-choice because I don't think that prohibiting it is going to make anything better, but there's a rational argument to be made there that *if* fetuses are human, that we should strongly discourage murdering them.

That said, @pdb, there is a separate principled stand to make regarding rape and incest. We as a society tend to take a strong stand on ownership of ourselves. That includes not being forced to use our bodies as life support systems. If someone abducts you against your will and sews you onto a dying man, to the point where removing you will kill him, most people would not consider themselves to have a legal or moral obligation to not be rescued.

That said, I think that argument fails as a justification for abortion in general, which is more similar to agreeing to be someone's life support, and then changing your mind.

I think the issue with abortion is that for anyone who strongly believes in life at conception, it's not just something you can set aside. I mean, if the US had a program to gas the Jews I can understand people putting genocide ahead of economic progress. "You know, I'm not in favor of Jew murderin', but Hitler's done wonderful things for the manufacturing sector..."

The issue being, that for those of us who don't consider abortion to be murder, that it seems like a really dumb social thing to be worrying about.

Jason said...

I'm about as pro-abortion as they come, but I'm also pro-diversity-in-candidates. If both Democrats and Republicans support exactly the same positions, what's the point in voting? You don't even have the illusion of choice. There are people who believe what this guy believes. There are people who believe in gun control. Everybody gets a chance to vote their favorite issue. Sometimes - usually - this results in combinations that are partly unpalatable for me as a voter, but I'd rather have it that way than to not have any choice at all.

korbin said...

"... Family-Values-with-a-capital-KJV..."

Tam, please be aware that the "family values" true believers have not used the KJV for decades, it being tainted by being commissioned by a gay person.

http://mphawaii.tripod.com/Religion/KingJamesBible.htm

Bram said...

I challenge Richard Mourdock to show me where in Article 1, Section 8 to find anything that talks about abortion. And explain to me how it jives with the 9th and 10th Amendments.

I have mixed feelings about abortion - somewhat okay early, bad late. But, unlike Mourdock, I'm all in with my Federalism.

Anonymous said...

@pdb and Staghounds...

Yes.

"There is a whole industry dedicated to polarizing us over abortion, using it to generate money and votes."

It's called MSM.

PB

Tam said...

"...there's a rational argument to be made there that *if* fetuses are human, that we should strongly discourage murdering them."

True, but unless the fetuses are on fed.gov property or are fed.gov employees or are taken across state lines to be killed, then killing them is not a federal matter.

For instance, it is not against federal law to kill me right now, nor should it be.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Uh, Tam, sorry, but it is against Federal Law to kill you. At least as far as the Universal Code of Military Justice goes, which last I heard, is still part of the Federal Gooberment.

As to Moredumb, he has an opponent that's NRA "A" rated?

If I was a Hoosier, I'd send that Deacon of Scudder's back to looking for another Job on Election Day.

Bram said...

Tam - I could not determine the context in the link. Was Mourdock simply explaining his personal opinion - or would he act on it as a Rep?

Ron Paul is a Christian and personally against abortion, but he believes that it is beyond the bounds of a limited federal government to restrict the practice. (pretty much my view as well)

Panamared said...

Bram
"I challenge Richard Mourdock to show me where in Article 1, Section 8 to find anything that talks about abortion. And explain to me how it jives with the 9th and 10th Amendments."

You are looking in the wrong place. The right to life groups that point to a Federal document use the Deceleration of Independents, that part that comes immediately after "that all men are created, by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among those are,". Since many people believe that the Constitution simply outlines a Government that upholds the principals outlined in the earlier document, there is at least some validation to the anti-abortion position.

Given all of that, no man is intelligent enough, with enough empathy to solve this problem.

All I ask for is that the Federal Government not fund abortion providers, or anti-abortionists either one.

Tam said...

Bubblehead Les,

"Uh, Tam, sorry, but it is against Federal Law to kill you. At least as far as the Universal Code of Military Justice goes..."

That's not Federal Law, that's a federal employee's handbook. ;)

jason said...

and the UCMJ throws an article in at the end that makes anything not covered illegal if they (unit commanders) decide it is. i'd rather not apply that to civilians.

mikee said...

Fortunately for Republicans, while the Dems demonize innocent unborns as deserving abortion, the Repubs add to their principled stand on rape the following: women should be allowed by the state to shoot would-be rapists using legal concealed handguns carried outside the home for self defense.

The Dems often don't like that idea.

Tam said...

mikee,

"The Dems often don't like that idea."

That dog won't hunt here, though. Did you happen to notice who Mourdock is running against?

Geodkyt said...

Well, I could make the case that by murdering you, I am violating you federally-protected civil rights.

;-P

rickn8or said...

Panamared, we're not governed by the Declaration of Independence. It's the document that we used to tell George III to "piss off, we'll run things over here."

Staghounds, exactly! We've had how many nominally Christian presidents since Roe v. Wade, and not a one of them has done anything to even begin to overturn it. Why? Because he's only the President, that's why! And there has been no real effort to pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion. Yet the issue-that's-not-an-issue keeps coming up in every election from dogcatcher to president.

I don't know what the answer to this issue is; there may not even be an answer. All I know is that it is neither my privilege nor my obligation to tell some woman she cannot have one. Nor can I demand that some third party else pay for it.

Maybe these concerned people need to STFU instead of sounding like a wounded yak every time some proposal is put forward to make safe contraception more readily available. Yannow, sort of like the pearl clutchers that go all apoplectic whenever there's a discussion regarding loosening weapon carry laws.

Scott_S said...

Well if they can't be trusted not to shoot themselves in the face with a comment like this then they can't be trusted not to put some wierd language in a bill.

And damnit I thought Todd Akin "legitimate"(r-ape)was the only candidit dumb enough to do this.

karrde said...

There's a very weak defense that would be possible if he had said "God allowed that rape-plus-conception to happen" rather than "God intended that rape-plus-conception to happen".

But then you get into theological arguments involving words like predestination, freewill, and such like.

Stupid guy.

If he really wants to argue against the rape-exception, he should start with the statement "We don't punish people for the sins of their parents. The only open question is whether the fetus is a person worthy of legal protection."

Odysseus said...

How hard is it to say, "I don't believe in executing a baby girl for the sins of her father, now I'm all for executing the rapist."

That came to mind less that 5 seconds after our Show-me-state Republican candidate stuck his foot even deeper into his mouth on this question.

Anonymous said...

Included in the constant (Ahhh! Make it stop!) barrage of out-of-context sound bites cum political commercials saturating us in teh fla right now is this:

Romney's voice: "...end Planned Parenthood...Planned Parenthood, gonna end that..."

Spliced from separate speeches and eliminating the half-billion taxpayer dollars that he actually said he wants to end...and then the voiceover:

"He wants to end us...and end your rights..."

And speaking of that "...whole industry dedicated to polarizing us..." there's also this one:

Sixty minutes "interviewer"..."So you made twenty million dollars last year in capital gains and paid 14%; a guy making fifty thousand pays a higher rate, do you think that's fair?"

R says yes, that's how you encourage growth and create jobs...

But the 60 min. drone didn't say, and R was edited to not say:

R paid 2.8 MILLION DOLLARS into the Treasury, the 50K guy (with two kids and a mortgage deduction) MIGHT pay 5 thousand...so which guys contribution benefits the nation most? Well, if you don't know, sixty minutes and their liberal overlords sure as hell ain't gonna tell ya.

PB

JohninMd(HELP?!) said...

Hey, Tam I love ya, babe, but clue me in--Just WHEN did abortion become the Atheist/Liberal sacrement? Does anybody really KNOW how many aborts are due to rape/incest? Do you really think Roe V. Wade is in any dangerof being overturned? Isn't this just another MSM 'gotcha' on a G.O.P. candidate? And, last but not least, is innocent human life worthy of protection, even if unborn? I'm not thinking this is a real game-changer.

Joseph said...

Somewhere Dick Lugar is very sad that he didn't bring this up when Murdock challenged him in the primaries. The thought of this makes me tingly.

As for Murdock's sincerity, I watched it again after being fully awake and Tam is absolutely correct, the man is sincere about this. Too bad really, I liked the thought of someone the Dems truly despised because of his "Extreme Tea Partier" status being in the Senate and coming from Indiana. So much so that most pro Donnelly ads looked like pro Murdock ads to me.

That's gonna change.

Ed said...

I am afraid that people again are arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a common pin.

A recent study shows that the presence of a male fetus imparts male DNA to the mother's brain DNA, crossing the blood-brain barrier that was thought to be impermeable to cells.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120926213103.htm

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/27/male_dna_found_in_female_brains/

So if you are female impregnated against your will, producing a male fertilized egg, do you want that DNA load in your brain for the rest of your life that comes with that package? Do you want to bear a child, male or female, with the DNA of someone who forcibly impregnated you? Do you want to potentially risk your health bearing that child?

Another issue is that not all fertilized eggs implant in the uterine wall. If "life" begins at conception when the egg is fertilized, then anything that results in anything but a full-term pregnancy can be legally considered as contributing to a "death". That menstruation might be something else, especially if it is at all irregular in cycle.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329135917AAGSsCt


Yrro said...

@Tam I totally agree with you, but I can understand why it's hard for people to let it go. Unfortunately, if you ever say "send it back to the states" people just laugh at you any more :(

Ed said...

If you do not like guns, do not buy one. That is your choice, but do not decide for me or anyone else.

If you do not believe in armed self defense, take that beating and possibly be killed. That is your choice, but do not decide for me or anyone else.

If you do not like abortion, do not have one. That is your choice, but do not decide for me or anyone else.

Bram said...

Ed - I'm not clear from the link if he is saying he doesn't like abortion - or if he actually wants it banned.

Sebastian said...

Talk about blasting yourself in the foot. Why any GOP candidate feels the need to pander to the religious sect at this point is baffling.

Because they vote, volunteer and donate in large numbers. Even here, if I had gone into a GOP phone bank and screamed, "If you're pro-choice and you know it clap your hands," it would be the mother of awkward moments.

My motivation is I want them to leave everyone alone, and thus me alone. That gets tiring. Being on a mission from God to make the Republic safe for fetuses is a mission you will never relent on.

I'm starting to believe the only way you can keep a country really free is by starting out with people who believe strongly in freedom, and restricting immigration to the hilt in terms of not letting anyone in who doesn't buy into the ideology. And even then, I'm not sure it works.

Freedom is not a natural state of man. That's the real problem. The number of people who believe in real freedom is vanishingly small. Most people give it lip service, but have no idea what it really means.

Sebastian said...

True, but unless the fetuses are on fed.gov property or are fed.gov employees or are taken across state lines to be killed, then killing them is not a federal matter.

I've always wondered why candidates for federal office just don't say abortion ought to be a state issue. That sounds to me like a sufficient dog whistle to the pro-lifers that you don't agree with Roe, and it doesn't offend me that greatly to suggest such a thing (because it shows you're a committed federalist).

But I suspect they don't because Roe is sacred text to the center-left (piss off independents) and James Madison's left toehair probably had stronger federalist instincts than most of the religious right does.

Armed Texan said...

Actually, Mourdock's statement should make you more likely to vote for him. It's a principled stand. Any one is pro-life but suddenly is OK in the case of rape or incest <*cough*>Romney<*cough*>Bush<*cough*> is unprincipled. If the life itself is sacred, then what circumstances can make it unsacred?

Now compare this to a politician who claims NRA endorsements and wraps himself in the second amendment but says that there is room for negotiating on an AWB. What I heard from Mourdock is there is no room for compromise on those things he hold sacred, whether that be life, small government, the second amendment, etc.

Also, you seemed to have heard something I didn't if your take-away is that his top priority after getting into office is to ban all abortion. One can hold the stance Mourdock has and still believe that there are higher priorities, if only because those are actually within reach while overturning Roe v. Wade is not.

Sailorcurt said...

A man responds to a question during a debate and from that you deduce that the question to which he responded is "as sincerely important an issue to him as keeping the nation solvent and preventing anarchy in the streets"?

I'm not following the logic here.

When the question was asked, should he have replied "that's not the most important issue in our country right now so I'm not going to answer"?

Not to mention the minor detail of twisting his words into something he plainly didn't say...which is no more becoming of you than it is the media or democrat bomb throwers.

His statement may have been a bit inarticulate but his meaning was clear to anyone who isn't inclined to instinctively vilify anyone they don't agree with. He did not say "God intended rape". He said God intended life. The fact that you heard what you heard, rather than what he actually said speaks more to your priorities than his.

staghounds said...

Sebastian, it WAS a State issue. Roe held that States could not prohibit or interfere with first trimester abortions, in essence finding that first trimester abortions were a civil right for anyone under Old Glory.

As they held for interracial marriage in Loving.

No case will ever get to the Court permitting an overturn.

Absent a constitutional amendment, that's the law of the land.

Now we will lose an otherwise good senator because he expressed an opinion about something he can't even change.

And be stuck with one who will screw us over with the things he can.

Sheesh. "I'm not talking about abortion, it is not part of my duties." How hard is that?


Sigivald said...

Yeah, that's usually my response to such exclamations - "Of course they're un-Constitutional. Do you see a God-damned Enumerated Power allowing them?"

There's this amazingly common belief that "Constitutional" and "good" are synonyms (bracketing the question, naturally, about whether such programs are "good" - the speakers believe them to be), which is ... baffling.

[As much as the contrary belief is, the same way. Constitutionality is a legal issue, not a moral one; there may well be excellent things that aren't Constitutional, just as there are awful ideas that are absolutely Constitutional.]

My position is that the people supporting such programs ought to be pushing for Amendments to make them unquestionably legitimate.

After all, the programs are so popular such an Amendment would be an easy pass... right?

Anonymous said...

I figure it should be easy to say that abortion is a bad thing, but that some things are worse. Rape followed by being forced to bear the rapist's child (and to have a continuing relationship with the rapist because of that child) being one of the things that is worse.

Kristophr said...

Can't be helped Tam.

The social conservatives are true believers, and will continue to try to take over the Republican Party, regardless of the fact that they are a small minority of Americans.

They are here because we don't kick them out of the party the way Democrats do to serious believers.

The only way to prevent these folks from turning the Republican Party into the Christian Party is to participate.

( note: The Conservative Party in Canada actively recruits libertarians, and uses them to ride herd on zealots. )

Anonymous said...

You libertarians are oh-so-tolerant of freedom of speech and religion, arentchya?

Heaven forbid that YOU tolerate somebody else saying something that offends you, right?

Vote for Obutthole then - just don't complain that you didn't have any options.

Sebastian said...

Sebastian, it WAS a State issue. Roe held that States could not prohibit or interfere with first trimester abortions, in essence finding that first trimester abortions were a civil right for anyone under Old Glory.

I can't find any reason why the current Interstate Commerce doctrine couldn't support a ban on abortion. The federal government has the power to outlaw all manner of unsafe medical procedures in the name of Interstate Commerce. Why would abortion be any different?

Sebastian said...

You libertarians are oh-so-tolerant of freedom of speech and religion, arentchya?

Heaven forbid that YOU tolerate somebody else saying something that offends you, right?


When did Tam become a government? I think you misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech a bit much.

Jeff said...

Same thing in vegas, "he wants to abolish the dept of education..." (woohoo!)

He claims SS is insolvent and needs to be gotten rid of.

He's an evil tea party republican.

something stupid about bortion...

Stoopid party is at it again...

LabRat said...

Much as the bedrock issue after you claw away all the associated bullshit for pro-lifers is "is the fetus a person or not", the bedrock issue for pro-choicers is "does a woman have the right to control her own body or not". Just like "are we talking about murder here" isn't a light issue you can just sweep off the board to talk about your preferred platform, "are we talking about legally enslaving people to be a human lifepod" isn't either. "Well what if most of the time it's not so bad" (usually not rape/incest, usually not late trimester) doesn't really make things better.

That's why it's upsetting when politicians decide to go down this rabbit hole with something as dumb as this- someone proving how little thought and empathy they've put into such a profound conflict should be disturbing. Rather moreso in a year when the GOP thought it was a good idea to make abortion and contraception talking points in the same election cycle.

Anonymous said...

You want to talk about industry??
Why not talk about the abortion industry?? When you get down to the basic facts, that is all it is. And, what about a woman's right to choose?? Did she not make her choice when she choose to have unprotected sex??? This country is morally bankrupt, not even considering the government, and if you don't want to follow the Biblical directives: 2 Chronicles 7:14, you should look at some of the historical about what happens to countries who allow abortion, among other things.

Anonymous said...

oops! that should read "historical accounts"

Rob K said...

Having watched it, he was absolutely not saying it was going to be a legislative priority. It was a general question about the candidates views on abortion.

Keep in mind that all three of the candidates on the stage, including Libertarian Andy Horning, said they're against abortion. Mourdocks's stated position on it is practically indistinguishable from Horning's and Donnelly's so to get all in a tizzy about Mourdock's poor wording is way overboard.

Yrro said...

Quick - explain your stance on a complex issue that philosophers can write entire books on. In less than 30 seconds, without using a phrase that will produce a horrible-sounding sound-bite!

Yay, politics!

Joe in PNG said...

Don't miss the dumb factor in this answer. If you're a politician, the 'bortion will get brought up in debates*. They should know this ahead of time, and should have thought of a good way to change the damn subject to something actually important.
Mourdock did not think of a good way to change the damn subject to something actually important.

*which is like asking a beauty pageant contestant how they plan on ending world hunger- mostly useless.

Anonymous said...

All the big "L" libertarians commenting here amaze me. You shout from the rooftops to not interfere with a woman's "right to choose", with no regard for the right of that unborn child to pursue "life, libery and the pusuit of happiness". That woman is not going to birth an iguana. It is a human being who's right should be equally protected. Otherwise, why don't we make it legal for a mother to off her 1 year old child, because she doesn't want to be a mother anymore, or off a 79 year old grandparent because I choose not to take care of them, as they have Alzheimer's or dementia or some other horrible disease and cannot care for themselves, same as the 1 or two year old, who cannot care for themselves. You can put whatever labels you want on the "unborn" to dehumanize them, but they are still people with heartbeats and souls. I for one find it refreshing to see someone running for office actually put words to their beliefs, and not cowtow to the electorate (as most are clueless sheep anyway).

unix-jedi said...

Sure, you talk a good small government game

I don't see where his answer changes that.

It might. But at best that's implied.

It might have been politically a bad move. But I personally would prefer someone telling me the truth of what they believe in than what they think I want to hear - we see what that got us 4 years ago - and it's what I've said for years and years I'd like to see.

As such, I can hardly fault him for saying what he thinks, and have to give him credit where credit is due there.

I don't know that he hasn't given this a lot of thought. I know a lot of people who have given it a lot of thought come to the same conclusion, and many of the people who disagree the most strongly have given it essentially none.

So my question would be "So what would you then DO as a result of that belief" and I don't think that was fleshed out at all. It might be implied, but given the choices between evils, I'll take that implication over the alternative.

Reno Sepulveda said...

Tam, when I saw it on the TV this morning I thought of you and the phrase "here comes the pain!"

Pakkinpoppa said...

I think that every time a moderator brings up 'bortion or gay marriage, the canned response should be,

Sixteen.
Trillion.
Dollars.

Let's discuss the merits pro and con of these other, peripheral arguments after we figure out this mess we're in.

Just my thought.

I'm not "pro abortion". But I'm a man, so I can't have one.

I would, for example, like at least a little input if some individual happened to be pregnant with my child and wanted to have a 'bortion. I'd even volunteer to raise said child by myself (like I'm doing now, different circumstances), but I cannot MAKE said other individual bear and birth my child. I hope to never be in that situation.

But again.

Sixteen.
Trillion.
Dollars.

If the slimeballs the stupid party nominates can't wrap their brain around that concept...but again, ponder who aspires to public office for the most part.

Patrick said...

Read the quote, checked the context - as several other people said, this is not a call for government interference, it's a statement of personal belief. Haven't we spent the last 24 years begging for politicians to be more straightforward and honest? He doesn't say "Nothing in the world could be more important to me than agitating to overthrow Roe vs Wade".

As Labrat put it so well, the reason there's a debate at all is that both sides have identified a bedrock principle that is prima facie something you'd support. It's not baby murderers versus woman oppressors, it's "I do not condone the deliberate killing of what I believe to be a human being" versus "I have a right to determine how I use my own body". Absent any political baggage, I'd agree with both of those statements. I think most of us would... I'd also be more comfortable supporting someone who was willing to be open about their beliefs than someone whose primary qualification for office was the ability to talk a lot without answering questions. We've just had one of those, didn't turn out so well, remember?

Robin said...

The full context reveals a far less controversial comment, as mentioned above.

Tam, come on - I know you are more libertarian than I but don't fall for the Democrats' "OMG YER LADYPARTS ARE IN DANGER!!ELEVENTY!!!" theme.

Anonymous said...

Tam,
Did he follow up his statement with "and my personal beliefs will move me to send minions to every rape victims house, strap them down, and force them to carry any such-conceived progeny to full term..."

Or is that wholly farcical conclusion possibly your own dog whistle?

You want fiscal conservatives who're social liberals, find them and vote for them in numbers sufficient to carry the race. But fer pete's sake qwitcherbitchen just because someone who honestly believes life begins at conception actually stands up for the principle.
Last I looked, neither Reagan nor two Bushes had undone Roe v. Wade, and even President DNA On The Dress said publicly and more than once that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. NOW really raked him over hot coals for that one...wait, no, that never happened.

When you find someone supposedly arguing limited goverment, but that advocates that his personal beliefs trump your civil right to chose, and willing to throw the power of the state behind his opinion, give a holler. I suspect pigs will fly and circles will have corners before you can find one.
Best Regards,
-Aesop

Joe in PNG said...

Can't we just talk about 9mm vs .45acp vs 10mm? Glock v 1911? Howabout best gun for bears?

Joe in PNG said...

Joel vs Mike on MST3k?

Robin said...

Sheesh, that's easy. Mike.

Fiftycal said...

If the need for an instantaneous abortion is at the top of your mind awareness, I suggest you keep a stock of RU 486 on hand. Mourdock is a fool and if he loses and leaves the Senate in the hands of the socialists and we are burdened with obamacare forever, I guess it is "gods" will. On the other hand, this one fool cannot get a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Roe V Wade. Currently there is NO WAY abortion should even be an issue. That the fool doesn't know how to dodge the issue is too bad. But his religious superstition does not overcome the reality that IF he loses, the country, every single person in it, will SUFFER!

Anonymous said...

Sorry fiftycal, he spoke his belief, which I wish more of. You call his belief a superstition, but at least he had the gonads to speak it. If that doesn't count for something in this yellow spined mealy mouthed world, then so be it for the sheeple. At the very least, he's not out there shooting girls in the head, because they believe they need an education, but hey, why not, as they're not people with God given rights either. Call it superstition all you want, but the world revolves around these superstitions, like it or not. Wish it was not that way, but here we are. Blasting someone for what they believe isn't going to solve anything. There is no current cure.

Longbeardeast

Joe in PNG said...

Robin- while Mike may be the better at riffing, Joel had the best episodes.

The Freeholder said...

Sorry, but I see no issue here to fume over. The guy seems serious in his belief, and I applaud him for having the nads to put it out there. If he's worth a damn as a politician, he knows that this question is coming--it always does. He would have considered his answer and the implications of it. And when it inevitably came, he simply and succinctly stated his beliefs. As far as I can tell, he never said anything about forcing those beliefs on anyone else.

So as I said, I'm not seeing a problem here. I can't vote for the guy, but I'd damned near be inclined to simply because he will speak the truth as he sees it on a hot-button issue.

Hell, he may well be the first principled politician I've ever seen.

Tam said...

Anonymouse 2:01,

(And I'm using "Anonymouse" because gutless motherfucking coward who doesn't have the stones to use his own name lest I feed his dentures down his cakehole...)

"You libertarians are oh-so-tolerant of freedom of speech and religion, arentchya?

Heaven forbid that YOU tolerate somebody else saying something that offends you, right?

Vote for Obutthole then - just don't complain that you didn't have any options.
"

1) Not a libertarian, so go fuck yourself with a saguaro.

2) Don't give a shit what someone says, unless they're threatening to fuck around with the laws, so go fuck yourself with a saguaro.

3) "Obutthole", as your little kindergarten pottymouth puts it, is not running against Mourdock for US senator from Indiana, so go fuck yourself with a saguaro.

In short: Feel absolutely free to go fuck yourself with a saguaro, never read this blog again so as to keep from getting your widdwe feewings hurt, and go fuck yourself with a saguaro.

Tam said...

Aesop,

"You want fiscal conservatives who're social liberals, find them and vote for them in numbers sufficient to carry the race. But fer pete's sake qwitcherbitchen just blahblahblah..."

No.

I want a guy who has the stones to talk about Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution as regards Medicare and Social Security and who doesn't have a sudden attack of amnesia about Article 1, Section 8 when it comes to his own pet foibles.

And don't give me that "well at least he's sincere" thing, because the only place to go from there involves invoking Godwin's Law...

rickn8or said...

staghounds said:
"Now we will lose an otherwise good senator because he expressed an opinion about something he can't even change.

And be stuck with one who will screw us over with the things he can."


Exactly. And that is how the R's have been played ever since Roe v. Wade came down. Abortion as an issue in an election is a surprise to them. Every time.

And I hate seeing good people fall for the same trap every time.

Joseph said...

Under present law, pregnant women have the legal power of life and death over their fetuses. That makes them very local governments. It is consistent for someone to want to restrict governments and to restrict abortion.

Roadkill said...

I personally believe that the abortion of rape induced pregnancy falls under self-defense. Pregnancy, as it always has been, is one of the most physically and financially risky things a woman will experience. Especially in the case of physically immature mothers. The fetus is literally an intruder though through no fault of its own. Like with any intruder in your home, competent or not, the would be baby is endangering life and property and thus is tragically subject to the mother defending herself with lethal force.

Kristophr said...

Joseph:

Having the power to decide what use your body is going to be put to is not in any way shape or form a "government".

Regardless of how I feel about when sentient life starts ( and the number of weeks would surprise most folks that know me ), I am unwilling to give the government the powers needed to prevent abortions.

These powers would have to include investigating all miscarriages as possible murders, and the power to jail pregnant women to prevent them from driving to Canada to get an abortion.

The Prussian government had similar views to you on the matter ... they made women log their menstruation cycles with the local police.

Preventing women from making these decisions about whether or not they are going to be used as a breeding machine will require regimentation that no one who calls themselves a small government advocate will stand for.

But then you knew that. Social "conservatives" are always willing to pass more laws to force Jesus on people.

There was a reason Barry Goldwater did not like or trust "the preachers" as he referred to the religious wing of the Republican Party.


The current Republican Party platform is that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and that the party supports the law. The party is also against government payments for ANY elective procedures, which includes abortion and contraception.

Romney re-iterated his support of the party platform after Mourdock was suckered into wandering off-platform.

Anonymous said...

I see why you skipped the dog whistle question; pity, that.

So since No-Longer-Your-Guy *did* say he'd limit government in one place, but evidently gave absolutely no indication he'd extend his personal beliefs into the force of law in another, he's unacceptable?

Let us know how that NRA "A" rated Democrat turns out. I hear Nevada's got a senator like that too...Harry Somethingorother...

I wonder how those NRA "A" types feel about Supreme Court justices, and how future Heller and Obamacare cases will go with a few more Sotomayors on the Court. But hey, at least Roe is safe right?

Maybe you could straighten Mr. Mordor out if you could show him "trimester" in the Bill of Rights somewhere.

Best wishes on your electoral dilemma,
-Aesop

Matt G said...

When is this nation going to elect a guy who says "Don't joggle my elbow about God and stuff; I'm trying to balance the budget and stay out of good citizens' lives."?

Scott J said...

When does life end? I'd say it's when the CNS ceases to make the heart beat.

If that's the yardstick then life begins when the baby has its own CNS making its heart beat.

I don't know why we don't just prescribe RDU486 as a matter of course when treating rape victims.

One of my Facebook friends just posted about some friends of his whose child passed in the womb three days before the due date. I can assure you that if such had happened to either of my children I would have mourned their loss just as much as if they'd died in my arms as an infant.

As others have said this is an extremely complex issue that doesn't fit into small sound bites so the politicos would be better to just leave it alone.

Kristophr said...

Scott J: The current line is active brain activity, and not just the Medula Oblongata still waving the conductor's baton.

Penn Jillette had a good youtube rant on the subject. You may want to look it up.

Sebastian said...

I want a guy who has the stones to talk about Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution as regards Medicare and Social Security and who doesn't have a sudden attack of amnesia about Article 1, Section 8 when it comes to his own pet foibles.

The reason politics today sucks so bad is because you have maybe 1/3rd of the population who believes in federalist principles, and a strong constitution. You have 1/3rd of the population who considers the constitution an outdated obstacle to turning the US into a European-style social democracy. Then you have 1/3rd that never really read the constitution, don't think much about it, and barely pay attention to what's going on in the world of politics.

As long as politics is about capturing that middle 1/3rd, things are going to suck, because you can't appeal to them with ideology.

Anonymous said...

But you have a good percentage of folks out here who will call your BS on liberties. No matter what the cause, we are discussing two lives here, and if the big "L's" can't recognize that, then there is no discussion. That human, not a gerbil, hampster, iguana, beagle, should be afforded the same liberties as anyone else, that is granted by the BOR, DOC and the Constitution. Just as we love to parrot that gun rights are given at birth or by God, so do that child's rights exist and to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why are panties in such a wad over a person answering a "question he was asked". If he had dismissed the question, he would have been skewered likewise. Personally, I appreciate the candor, vs. the mealy mouth, lying that typically takes place. Grow Some!!!

Longbeardeast!!

Tam said...

" Just as we love to parrot that gun rights are given at birth..."

You said it, Brainiac, not me.

Anonymous said...

According to said Constitution,and parroted by the 2A folks, they are. Pretty hard for a non-born person to carry a Glock on their side. The right exists nonetheless, although that would be pretty cool to see a birth and a carrier at the same time..no need to get ugly. I guess we tend to see birth (conception), (beginning of life) differently. All cool with me, I just believe in everyone's right's. Like I stated, not a hampster, iguana, beagle....a human being. If you're willing to ignore those right's, then that's on you. Seen one born 2nd trimester, Dr. tried talking into that alternative...I know what I saw and what "it" is. As I stated before, I will not toss a 1 year old out on the sidewalk, nor an 80 year old grandparent suffering from some ungodly disease, out on the sidewalk. No difference in my mind...They cannot fend or take care of themselves. If you can, so be it, you have to answer for that, not I.

Longbeardeast...

PS...Love the typical liberal attack of "Brainiac"...Yeah, your blog, but great welcome sign out front...I don't think any of my post's contained any of the venom you spewed in your responses. I just tried to add to the conversation, but as usual, it's only granted a seal of approval if it follow's a certain narrative. Spew forth, just remember, there are two liberties involved in the discussion, not just the woman's. Love what you write, however.

Longbeardeast, again..

Anonymous said...

"I do not believe in the deliberate killing of a human being..." unless they are a Muslim living in Yemen, Sudan, Swat Valley about whom rumours have been spread.

Joseph said...

"The current line is active brain activity, and not just the Medula Oblongata still waving the conductor's baton."

IIRC, when the idea of "brain death" was invented, it meant lack of any brain function. IOW, the goalposts have been moved sometime in the past few decades.

Anonymous said...

Just to continue your conversation, "I don't for a moment believe that Mourdock was pandering. He was obviously and absolutely sincere.

And that's worse.

Abortion is as sincerely important an issue to him as keeping the nation solvent and preventing anarchy in the streets when the Free Money faucet gets shut off, and I can't allow a man with his priorities ordered like that anywhere near the levers of power at this juncture in our nation's history."

He was asked a question. Was he not to respond? Was he to lie or at least waffle, as most of our rep's do? Again I ask, peacefully this evening, at what point do the big "L" libertarians stand up for that "unborn" child's rights to life, libery and the pursuit of happiness as outlined in the DOI?Christian beliefs or not... The big "L's" like to spout liberty when it comes to 1A, 2A, 4A and 10A and such, but not so much for those that cannot speak for themselves. When I read your commentary yesterday evening, I thought you're were auditioning for a pro "O" ad as a 21st century Paul Revere..."The Republicans are coming, the Republicans are coming...hide your female parts as that is what they're coming for". Really!!! Like I stated, grow some and admit that you're only concerned with your rights, not that other "person's", the not quite there yet, or unborn, or incapable of tending for themselves. As a libertarian, I'm concerned with their granted at birth rights also.

Longbeardeast, again..

Tam said...

Longbeardeast,

"Again I ask, peacefully this evening, at what point do the big "L" libertarians stand up for that "unborn" child's rights to life..."

1) You'll have to go find a 'big "L" libertarian' and ask them, I guess.

2) For myself? A zygote is not a child. Nor is a blastocyst nor an embryo. Somewhere in the fetal stage is where an intelligent compromise would be drawn, were the two sides not arguing from passionate religious positions on which there can be no compromise.

Kristophr said...

Longbeardeast:

The big "L" libertarians are as divided as everyone else on this.

The only thing they agree on is that the government should not be funding it.

Kristophr said...

Joseph: That was my personal opinion.

Yes, procedures that are pretty much infanticide ( partial birth ) are legalized because a lot of folks don't trust religious folks with any say in the matter because of their own inflexibility ( "life begins at conception" ).

When you refuse to even acknowledge the other sides opinions as being anything but pure evil, they return the favor.

Anonymous said...

Here's where the rubber meet's the road in my mind...You see Tam's use of the great and above everyone else's terms of "A zygote is not a child. Nor is a blastocyst nor an embryo." My argument is that once a heartbeat or brainwave's are established, there is no argument as to what "it" is. Again, just for fun, not a gerbil, a hamster, an iguana or a bunny rabbit. This, in my mind, doesn't have anything to do with "OMG "religion, wherever or whenever it originates. It has to do with protecting a "person's" freedoms. I consider a heartbeating, brain active, child as someone who needs their rights protected also, as speeled out in the DOI. You see, everyone deflects from that point. A one year old cannot fend for themselves. An 80 yr. old grandparent, with advanced Alzheimer's or dementia, cannot fend or take care of themselves...The issue is the same. Should I tote them out to the sidewalk, and put the bullet through their brains? Rights are rights, and they are sometime difficult...Where do we draw the line? We as a country have a ton of blood on our hands. Where do we draw the lines? I've been there and done that on both sides of this spectrum. Tell me I'm wrong for standing up for everyone's rights, including your 1 or 2 year old, or your 80+ year old grandparent who cannot communicate or take care of themselves day to day. When you solve those issues, consider yourself a god...then we can talk. Until then, we have only to lean on supposed protections of those "right's" listed in the DOI, The Constitution and various amendments. Those rights aren't granted by those documents, but are supposed to protectedby our government. They have failed miserably. Please take pictures of slaughters of the "least among us" and keep us aprised of your "humanity".

Longbeardeast, again and again....

"The blood's on your hands, not mine"

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the misspellings..wish they had spell check on these, but whatever, seem's you consider me as a bible-thumping southern, unedumacated redneck anyway. Great for your conversations, but at least I don't carry the water for the "talking points". Great to see how many folks actually believe in personal liberty. Our founding "fathers" would be proud. I would bet everything I have, based on their writings,that even the federalists vs. non-federalists would as a group orgy, be rolling in their graves since 1973, possibly before that, when we had a collective orgasm as a society and became "enlightened". Like I said, I've been there and done that on both sides. Not my decision, or my "choice". Hope the blood washes off well.

Longbeardeast, again and again and again.

Anonymous said...

Just as an afterthought, and this is for Tam or all the OB/GYN wannabe's out there...has a woman,or man for that matter or any human being, ever given birth to anything other than a human being? I'll leave with that thought. Please give answers other than provided by the National Enquirer. I would to expect to hear the crickets again, but I welcome the response.

Longbeardeast, again and again and again. Just though you do not think I'm responding as an anon.

Tam said...

Longbeardeast,

"Just as an afterthought, and this is for Tam or all the OB/GYN wannabe's..."

1) The plural does not require an apostrophe. (To quote Dave Barry, an apostrophe does not mean "Look out! Here comes an 'S'!"

2) And you did your OB/GYN residency where, again?

3) Women give birth to blastocysts and zygotes every day, which then die in their thousands. Should these women be prosecuted?

perlhaqr said...

Krstpher: Regardless of how I feel about when sentient life starts ( and the number of weeks would surprise most folks that know me ), I am unwilling to give the government the powers needed to prevent abortions.

I'm about settled in on week 1600, but sometimes sentience hasn't appeared even by that point. Of course, if it hasn't, it probably never will.