Mourdock is an Idiot. Romney Supports him.

...but he may be backing off.

I rarely get too ramped up on a subject here. It's a waste of time after all.

However Richard Mourdock has come to the conclusion that if a woman becomes pregnant by rape she should have the child because that's what God intended.

Really. Screw him anally. He won't get pregnant. He won't go through 9 months of carrying a child incubated by force. He won't be asked to raise that child or put that child up for adoption.

He won't incur the expenses that go with such a horrific experience. He won't raise the child, feed the child, answer the questions the child might have later in life. That would be too much like reality.

I'm not a vindictive man but in cases like this a Richard Muordock should enjoy the "pleasures" of a "son" or "grandson" that is not a true member of the family due to rape.

See what the mother goes through. See what you would go through as the father.

Talk is indeed cheap. Name me a politician that raised a child born from rape of his wife because God intended it.

It's real easy as long as it's not you.

 

....and now he's whining that the polls are showing him 11 points back.

Gee,

I wonder why that would be?

 

He is only the third Repuke to echo such nonsense in the last couple of months. Listen to what they say even if they take it back. They mean what they say.

 

He lost.

It REALLY made my day!

Indiana leaned heavily Republican but it seems enough had the sense to realize a bona fide idiot is just that.
For now that is.

He replaced Lugar (R) whom I most likely would have voted for.

 

I have a deal for Richard Mourdock, if he allows his wife to get raped and does not abort the baby, I will give to a charity of his choice, feed the children, toys for tots, etc., a check immediately for 5 million dollars.​

 

Hey, are you really Donald Trump? LOL!

 

How far into the pregnancy does Mourdock's wife have until she can decide whether or not to abort?

 

She has no choice in the matter, because it is "something God intended."

 

Yeah, what would Jesus have done......2000 years ago? That is the question we really should be asking ourselves right?

 

Jesus would have prayed, right? How's the saying go again - "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man religion and he will die praying for a fish." Which I believe was said by the famous Mormon theologian and Mr. Potato-head incarnate Rush Limbaugh.

 

Why are you insulting Mr. Potato head?

 

I like that quote. Praying is just another way to take what is happening in your life good or bad and attribute to something that is nonexistent.

 

She has no choice in the matter? But, that goes against what the pro-abortionists think. In fact, according to them, ONLY the mother has the ability to make the choice.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say Mourdock makes the choice this time. Pregnancy begins at the moment of conception and ends at the moment of birth so how far into the pregnancy will Mourdock have to make his decision to abort? Time frame, please...

 

Does she have the ability to choose when she gets raped?

 

I was (obviously) quoting Mourdock, hence the quotation marks.

 

He can't abort if he wants the 5 million... Reading is a challenging activity for some I suppose...

 

My, aren't you a testy little. Here's your initial proposition:

​

Then you stated:

You used the conditional clause "if" which gives him the choice of allowing his wife to be raped and not abort the baby (in which case the charity gets the cash) OR (this is where it may get difficult for you) he can abort the baby (the charity gets nothing). So, we'll say he decides to abort the baby. I'll ask again (and perhaps you'll answer this time):

Pregnancy begins at the moment of conception and ends at the moment of birth so how far into the pregnancy will Mourdock have to make his decision to abort? Time frame, please...​

​

​

 

Does she have the ability to choose when she gets raped?

 

Nice and not even directed at me.
You're losing it Coin.

 

Actually, the if applies to the entire statement, not the second clause. Therefore, because the rape and the baby are products of the same action, they cannot be separated without a logical contradiction. Therefore, he cannot abort the baby, because in-so-doing he would have already rejected the offer of the rape. You're attempting to argue grammar with a man who has studied Attic Greek for 7 years.