Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 03:22 PM Oct 2012

The other gaping hole in Mourdock's logic [View all]

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Logic is not compatible with religion WestCoastLib Oct 2012 #1
Religion seldom survives encounters with logic Kelvin Mace Oct 2012 #3
Contraception vs. the pill VespaMapper Oct 2012 #2
He has studiously avoided answering this question Kelvin Mace Oct 2012 #4
I think it's a very important question VespaMapper Oct 2012 #5
Oh, I agree completely Kelvin Mace Oct 2012 #6
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The other gaping hole in ...»Reply #0