HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » The other gaping hole in ...

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 02:22 PM

 

The other gaping hole in Mourdock's logic

As vile as Mourdock's statement is, it seems he is being granted a pass by his GOP brethren through the simple mechanism of twisting the very definition of words and their context out of this space/time continuum into a completely new dimension.

But, even if we were to accept this "clarification" as logically coherent, there is still an even bigger psycho than Mourdock in the room: Mourdock's "God of peace".

Let's go back to the instant replay of the original foul, shall we?

"The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother," Mourdock said. "I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something God intended to happen."

If life is a "gift from God", then that would mean that "God" creates some life with the intent of killing women. Mourdock accepts the need for abortion when the mother's life is at risk, oblivious to the fact that his "God" willfully allowed a pregnancy to happen so as to place the mother in a position of choosing between her own life or that of her child.

Aside from being something that only a sadistic psychopath would do, it is logically incompatible with Mourdock's reasons for allowing abortion in this instance.

The unwilling rape victim was given the unwanted "gift" of pregnancy, and this gift may not be revoked. However, the wanted, but fatal "gift" given to to the willing mother may be refused?

Huh?

It would seem to me that if an unwilling rape victim may not refuse the "gift", a woman who wanted the "gift" has ZERO grounds for refusal. After all, she set about getting pregnant fully aware of the risks, with the express intent of becoming pregnant.

If we accept Mourdock's rational, then we can only conclude that Mourdock's "God" is truly a malevolent entity. After all, this "God" is prepared to kill women outright, which Mourdock makes allowances for, while not making allowances for women his "God" is prepared to victimize in a less than lethal manner.

Actually, the more we examine the man's logic, the more obvious it becomes that Mourdock is a religiously insane, misogynistic asshole.

Yeah, that is the far more reasonable conclusion.

6 replies, 1325 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply The other gaping hole in Mourdock's logic (Original post)
Kelvin Mace Oct 2012 OP
WestCoastLib Oct 2012 #1
Kelvin Mace Oct 2012 #3
VespaMapper Oct 2012 #2
Kelvin Mace Oct 2012 #4
VespaMapper Oct 2012 #5
Kelvin Mace Oct 2012 #6

Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 02:26 PM

1. Logic is not compatible with religion

I appreciate (and agree with) your argument, but logic is simply not compatible with religion, so you can't win arguments with people of faith using logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WestCoastLib (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 02:33 PM

3. Religion seldom survives encounters with logic

 

this is why the zealots really can't stand science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Original post)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 02:33 PM

2. Contraception vs. the pill

I would like to know where Mitt Romney stands on a woman's right to use birth control pills. He is very careful to always use the term "contraception", which is the prevention of a egg from being fertilized. But it is my understanding that one of the ways a birth control pill works is by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. Wouldn't Romney consider this the termination of life, since the egg is already fertilized? Is Romney against women using the pill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VespaMapper (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 02:34 PM

4. He has studiously avoided answering this question

 

on the very rare instances anything like it was asked.

Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #4)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 03:15 PM

5. I think it's a very important question

and could impact how millions of women vote!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VespaMapper (Reply #5)

Thu Oct 25, 2012, 04:59 PM

6. Oh, I agree completely

 

which is why he won't answer it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread