Rape is God’s Way of Saying You Should Be Pregnant

Thaddeus Howze is disgusted with the GOP candidates who seem to justify rape as being part of God’s plan.

As we enter the final stretch to the elections I am of a mind to speak truth to power: If you are a believer in the current information about the GOP and its latest “RAPE is God’s work” rants, you might not want to read this. You have been warned!

Even Rod Serling, in all of his insane genius, couldn’t have imagined something as crazy as this. Can you hear him saying: “Picture if you will, a government representative who has completely run off the rails. He is advocating the very concept that rape could have a good consequence. This could only happen in: The Twilight Zone.”

 

Indiana GOP U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock declared Tuesday night he opposes aborting pregnancies conceived in rape because “it is something that God intended to happen.”

Debating Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) in their final Senate race showdown, a questioner asked them and Libertarian candidate Andrew Horning to explain their views on abortion.

All three said they were anti-abortion. But Mourdock went further, putting himself in territory near Missouri GOP Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin, the anti-abortion congressman who infamously asserted that women don’t get pregnant from “legitimate rape.”

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

RAPE IS GOD’S WAY OF SAYING YOU SHOULD BE PREGNANT! (Are you fucking kidding me?)

We are in the home stretch of the elections. Now, the most horrifying, the most reprehensible ideas will fly free in face of an Obama re-election. We hear him being called every name possible, retard, illegal, communist. We hear threats against women becoming a fact of normal life, being supported by crazed representatives as if no one should question the very ideas being represented: rape is God’s work, women’s bodies can prevent pregnancy using magical powers, women deserve less pay for the same work, hell, women should just stay out of the electoral process and let men do all of the voting in the future.

Left to the insane people who are seeking office today:

Our children would work in factories and forgo education. They would be given a bible they could carry at lunch and be given religious indoctrination instead of education. After all, we know Jesus and the dinosaurs played together, he had a pet raptor and there is an entire museum, 70,000 square feet, attesting to this.

Women would NOT vote, shop, leave home, be able to wear shoes, have jobs, or do anything without the express permission of men. EVER. They would be expected to stay pregnant, no matter who impregnated them; father, cousin, uncle, brother, NO MATTER. It’s God’s will.

Minorities would be shuffled off to prison as fast as vehicles could carry them. If there were borders they could be shuffled back across, they would be shipped post haste, no matter how long their families might have lived in this nation. If you LOOK like a minority, you ARE one and good riddance to you. I said, Good Day.

This would go back to being a GOOD CHRISTIAN NATION of xenophobes, racists, bigots and assholes who believe their religion gives them the right to oppress whoever doesn’t believe in it. That science is just a group of opinions that don’t matter even if our entire technological infrastructure might be based in it, when it comes to ideas like global warming or toxic environmental conditions due to manufacturing; it’s just conjecture, having no basis in fact.

Don’t bother me, I am busy oppressing people and while I am at it, pass my i-Gadget please, I want to surf the net and masturbate, but don’t tell my mistress or my wife, because I am going to the men’s-only golf club later to check out the newest glory holes…right after I head out to N*ggerhead and hang the Blacks we keep in prison for our latest installment of the WAR ON DRUGS.

The only problem I have with this rant is I simply don’t go far enough. There are far too many in this nation whom are in positions of power who have been caught doing nearly all of these things and more and yet WE KEEP VOTING THEM INTO OFFICE.

“A nation gets the government it deserves.” What the hell does that say about the United States when we would accept representatives who believe RAPE IS AN ACT OF GOD, and the homeless should inherit the Earth?

 

This post was brought to you by your “Rape Representatives” in the Republican Party.

  • U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock (R-IN), in a debate last night: “Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”1
  • Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), to reporters last week: “With modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” of an abortion necessary to save a woman’s life. “There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing.”2
  • Vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), mocking women’s issues to a group of conservative donors: “Now it’s a war on women; tomorrow it’s going to be a war on left-handed Irishmen or something like that.”3
  • Presidential candidate, Gov. Mitt Romney, asked earlier this month whether insurance companies should be required to cover contraception: “Well it’s a question as to, should you get a car painted, you know, red or blue. I mean you can decide which you’d like.”4

1 Indiana Senate Candidate Richard Mourdock: Pregnancy From Rape ‘Something God Intended’ — ABC News, October 24
2 Rep. Joe Walsh: Abortion never necessary to save women’s lives — The Hill, October 19
3 At Fla. fundraiser, Paul Ryan mocks ‘war on women’ — The Washington Post, October 18
4 Mitt Romney’s Contraception Strategy: Change The Subject — The Huffington Post, October 17

 

 Main image: AP Photo

Chart: found, source

 

NOW TRENDING ON GMP TV

Super Villain or Not, Parenting Paranoia Ensues
The Garbage Man Explains Happiness
How To Not Suck At Dating

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Thaddeus Howze

Thaddeus Howze was a New York native and found his way to the West Coast as a consequence of his military service. He's a California-based technology executive and author whose non-fiction and online journalism has appeared in publications such as The Enemy, Black Enterprise Online, Urban Times, the Good Men Project, and Astronaut.com. Thaddeus Howze has published two books, Hayward's Reach (2011) and Broken Glass (2013). He maintains a nonfiction blog on science and technology at A Matter of Scale (bit.ly/matterofscale). He writes speculative fiction at hubcityblues.com.

Comments

  1. As A None Voter in the US elections – and looking at it all from the other side of the pond – I have to wonder if Abortion and views of Legitimate rape is the ONLY issues that are being covered in the 2012 US Election?

    Is the male role in US politics reduced to being either PRO God or Anti Bible – Pro Women and choices or Against them?

    If that’s the case, it’s time to close up shop and open up the Good Pet Project! Men evidently have no role in American Politics any more.

    • Men certainly have few good role models in government and no good examples of how compassion and freedom of choice should work. Everyone of these politicians is quite happy to promote HIS right and entitlement to nearly anything he wants, guns, drugs, money, and power, just to name a few. But if you consider telling them they can’t have guns because they are a danger to society as a whole, they rant and rave and say you are abridging their Second Amendment rights. Regulate business so they can be more responsible to their clients and constituents and they will rant about how deregulation is good for business (and mostly for them, to hell with the consequences for anyone else, as long as I get rich.)

      Hence the reason I wrote this article to explain everyone who sees these atrocities, that everyone does not agree with them. And that we should fight ANYONE who says this is the way its supposed to be because it is GOD’S will. I simply reject that thinking and choose to err on the side of compassion for women and families who are/will be affected by this primitive thinking process.

      • Men certainly have few good role models in government ….

        Few? Sorry, but I’m so cynical I make Diogenes look like a Toy Poodle. P^)

        “Few” is magnitudes too high! Looking for role models in government and politics in general is definitely a task for Diogenes and his lamp!

  2. wellokaythen says:

    Allow me the voice of self-righteous agnosticism here:

    This is the danger in believing in an omnipotent being who has a plan for the universe, or really any belief that there is a higher power that has created a plan for your life. If everything happens according to God’s plan, and there is nothing that can stand in the way of God’s plan, then logically everything good and bad that happens to you is part of a plan. If you believe in an omnipotent being, then it’s pretty logical to conclude that rape is part of the plan, because everything else is part of the plan. (The rapist may have prayed to God to help commit the rape – are we saying that praying to God doesn’t work?) If we’re saying that humans can thwart God’s plan, then that’s not a very powerful god, is it?

    Mourdock is just taking a faulty assumption out to its naturally absurd conclusion.

    This is not just a religious problem, though. It’s no different from the bumper-sticker-level feel-good baloney that says “everything happens for a reason.” Obviously that statement is not true.

  3. Hey Theodore- I’m conservative. I am pro-life (my position comes from strictly rational reasoning). I don’t think employers should be forced to provide contraception within their set of benefits.

    Are you telling me I want to put women in the kitchen and want to imprison minorities?

    • First of all, my name is Thaddeus. If you are going to be difficult or pose questions that have nothing to to with the article, please get my name right.

      Let’s take this little quiz, shall we?:
      1. Are you a politician?
      2. Are you in a senatorial, congressional or lobbyist role in our government?
      3. Are you technically able to create and pass legislation which prevents women from having complete control over their bodies without the government criminalizing their choices of whether to have a child under ANY circumstances?
      4. Are you an advocate for smaller government “a government so small we can drown it in the bathtub” but still large enough to fit in the uterus and private business (via legislation regarding contraception, birth control, or abortion) of every woman of child-bearing age in this nation?

      If you are any of 1-3, this letter is for you. You are in a position to affect the lives of millions and you simply decide that YOUR way trumps any woman’s individual rights. Your ability to affect my choices when they have nothing to do with you, should stop at my door. If it doesn’t you have too much power and that balance needs to be re-addressed

      If number 4 applies to you, remember this: Every stupid law you make about contraception come with its attendant lives. Yes, I said lives. There will be women affected on either end of the spectrum. They will either have children they cannot afford and stay poor (which is part of the GOP plan anyway) or they will have abortions with doctors with potentially questionable skills or under poor sanitation risking life and limb. Roe vs. Wade changed that but you cannot be bothered to understand that empowering women and giving them choices allows them to be the best they can be as member of our society.

      Either way, please don’t respond, because you didn’t understand the message, so I suspect my words will fall upon deaf ears.

      Good day to you.

      • Thaddeus you’re the shiz!

      • I apologize for misspelling your name. No insult intended.

        I asked you the question because around these parts people tend to demonize others who dont believe as they do. Usually its conservatives who get lambasted here in a manner that a liberal Rush Limbaugh would love.

        I am not a politician however I am prolife. If you consider that I believe a unborn child to be equally human and alive to you and I then surely you can see the incredible irony about lecturing me about laws that cost lives.

        When one views this websites stated mission in lieu of the political bent of the vast majority of its writers and editors one must begin to question whether the collective Good Men Project believes that conservative men are BAD men or at least incapable of being “good”.

        • I am forever mystified as to why my replies which tend to scrupulously avoid personal attacks or profanity are constantly in moderation.

          • wellokaythen says:

            I think sometimes it’s because of the length of the piece, the frequency that the author has written in, or the presence of certain “buzzwords” in the text. It’s not necessarily a function of political correctness or editorial censorship.

      • Texpat, if you don’t agree with abortions, then don’t get one. Isn’t that logical? Every sperm isn’t sacred and not everyone believes that life begins when a sperm hits an egg.

        • If someone believed minorities were subhuman should they be allowed to treat them as such? “If you don’t like slavery, don’t get one. Isn’t that logical?”

          Or, should we, as a society, strive to legislate justly for all people. Its not like pro-life people are an insignificant minority.

  4. This is all fuckery. Biden put it best (I paraphrase): I’m Catholic, I value human life, but it’s not my job to impose my religion on others.

    Why it’s any more complicated than this–ever–is so far beyond me. Even further beyond me is why we have a bunch of men who, needless to say, don’t have a vagina, don’t know what it’s like to carry something in you for 9 months, don’t know the pains of childbirth, aren’t part of a group which is generally left with the bulk of childcare, etc., ALL weighing in on how THEY would control abortion.

    The First Amendment in the US Constitution people: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” So what’s the problem. GOP douchers, you guys can have your beliefs and religion, that’s great. But revisit the First Amendment–especially if you’re running for office–before you impose your imaginary definitions of “__________ rape” on the rest of society.

    • Indeed. Thanks so much for this article. More is at stake than I think anyone realizes. It’s a world view of dominance and religiosity and it’s aim is currently focused on women, not that it couldn’t be focused on others.

    • Many people who are pro-life take that position, not through religious dogma, but rather through a rational thought process.

    • Kaleb Blake: “Biden put it best (I paraphrase): I’m Catholic, I value human life, but it’s not my job to impose my religion on others.”

      Yeah, except he also said that his Catholic faith tells him to help the poor (he may have called them social teachings, I forget), yet, he gives a pittance to charity and then, through his political power, imposes those social responsibilities on the taxpayer.

      Biden’s whole statement, at best, lacked circumspection and, at worst, was downright hypocritical. He LOVES imposing his charitable religious values on society through the taxing and spending function of the state.

      -Jut

      • Jut,

        I often having feelings that seem to come close to yours (though not quite).

        I’m not going to comment on someone else’s religion, that’s up to the faithful, so I have no reason to believe that Biden is being a hypocrite.

        However, I do believe that much of the current Democratic Party platform is simply legislated morality, and that this is not sufficiently recognized. For example, I personally oppose affirmative action as an inefficient system. Democrats have a tendency to support it for morality-based reasons. From my standpoint, this is little different from an attempt to allow prayer in public schools: in both instances there is a set of moral values that is being imposed upon others. It’s shocking how often this goes unnoticed by people who self-identify as progressive, but I guess it’s true to say that we’re all blind to our own biases.

        With respect to this piece, I’m personally upset that there is no recognition of the role the Democrats have played in allowing GOP candidates like this to come to power.

        There are a great deal of people who tend to be fiscally conservative and are really uncomfortable with these sorts of politicians (myself included). Yet we’re given no choice because the Democrats have never acknowledged our concerns as genuine.

        We need medicare reform, and we need it now. We need social security reform, and we also need it now. We need to control the federal deficit.

        If the Democrats would run a politician who was willing to espouse some of these views AND support abortion rights, I can guarantee that a large number voters would happily vote democrat.

        But it’s easier to just assume (incorrectly) that I’m lying and I’m a closet racist, instead of someone who genuinely believes that the future of social security and medicare bear directly on his future (I’m in my 20s and have a hard time believing that I will ever see the benefits of these programs, but to read the pieces on the GMP apparently this concern is “made up” and a cover for secret racism).

  5. Thaddeus, I love you!

  6. You could have made the same point without the snark about religion and the “insane” comment.

    • All this article proves is that both sides of the fence dearly love to muck about in the lower forms of discourse while decrying the asshattery of the other side. My favorite comments are the ones that excuse crappy behavior with “well they did it first!”

      Contrary to many people’s beliefs one does not need to be religious to be an asshole; one merely needs to act, or write, like one.

  7. wellokaythen says:

    Come to think of it, maybe we shouldn’t dismiss Mourdock’s argument just yet, because it works just as well for a pro-choice argument:

    If God didn’t want you to have an abortion, then abortion wouldn’t be available. The fact that God let you have an abortion is a message that God did not want you to be pregnant. That’s perfectly logical to me.

    This is the great thing about the “God’s plan” rationalization. You can defend anything and everything with it….

  8. John Anderson says:

    I think part of the confusion is that people are assuming he is saying that the rape is God’s will. They also look at the biology of pregnancy and assume that God has nothing to do with it. A religious person might believe that humans have a non-biological part called a soul. That soul comes from God so therefore unless the baby is born soulless, which is something that believers will not accept; the conception was an act of God.

    I’m not saying this is what I believe. I’m explaining how a religious person may see this.

  9. Valter Viglietti says:

    Richard Mourdock: “Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

    Well, the same could be said if someone would violate Mourdock’s ass with a baseball bat: if it would happen, then it would mean God intended it to happen.
    But I’m pretty sure Mourdock would quickly change his idea about God plans in that case… :cool:

    • There are plenty of very religious people out there who have endured horrific experiences yet maintained and even strengthened their faith through adversity. Look up St. Maximilian Kolbe.

      • Valter Viglietti says:

        Texpat, I agree with your point when it’s about saints or mystics.

        But people like Mourdock are neither: they’re just horribly insensitive individuals who don’t give a shit about other people’s suffering or misfortunes. They are heartless scum, with no empathy or compassion.
        The existence of people like that is proof that God doesn’t care much for mankind.

        • Valter,

          That is a really disappointing view to take.

          You cannot possibly know Mourdock and whatever his personal demons and experiences are, so you just assume the worst.

          This is the major problem with the US right now: it’s easier to assume your opponents are “heartless scum” than to accept that these might be their actual, well-thought-out viewpoints, and then attempt to engage them in productive dialogue.

          It’s understandable tat words like Mourdock’s will unleash some anger, but when you turn that anger into an attempt to dehumanize, then we all lose.

          • Valter Viglietti says:

            @Mike L: “You cannot possibly know Mourdock and whatever his personal demons and experiences are, so you just assume the worst”

            Of course I don’t personally know Mourdock, but oftentimes facts speak for themselves.
            I don’t personally know my ex-prime minister SIlvio Berlusconi either (I’m Italian), but facts have widely proved he was an awful person and a crooked politician.
            Do I have to know Stalin to consider him a monster? No, him killing millions of russian people is proof enough.

            I consider any adult responsible of his words and actions – regardless of their personal demons and experiences (we all have our burden, but that doesn’t justify us; we’re still responsible).
            And this is especially true when it’s about a public figure.

  10. Any politician of any level of power should be stripped of their job if it’s proven they made policy decisions based on their faith. This was laid down by those before us, but nowadays we just blatantly ignore it. Journalists need to strengthen their resolve and start calling out people for it on a large scale, or nothing will ever change. We see constant articles complaining about the views hyper-conservative religious members hold and yet almost never is the separation of church and state even mentioned. I’m not saying being religious is in any way something that should be condemned, but we have to distinguish somewhere between the honestly held views of the individual and the archaic views held by the organisation to which they subscribe.

    • Jake,

      Would you also support removing politicians from power when they take moral positions that cannot be justified by empirical evidence, such as quota based affirmative action or closed-shop union provisions?

      Or is it only “faith” when it’s someone else’s morality?

      • Ultimately all governance should be done using knowledge known to be fact, so of course if something is proved not to work then those politicians that hold it as true should be held to task for it. We have far too much tolerance for people believing complete falsehoods at the moment.

    • Valter Viglietti says:

      @Jake: “Any politician of any level of power should be stripped of their job if it’s proven they made policy decisions based on their faith”

      Agreed.
      And it doesn’t work just for politicians. Take a medic, for example: if he’s a Jeovah Witness (and him being one is not a problem in itself), his faith says he doesn’t approve of blood transfusions. Should he be allowed to refuse blood transfusion to a patient because of his faith? Of course that would be unacceptable.

      Faith is a private matter; it should not interfere with public duties involving other people.
      If your faith is interfering with your public duty, then you aren’t suitable for that job.

    • A government based strictly on rational observation and testable hypotheses would be amusing at best- at least for the few days it would function… Think that through to a logical conclusion. All of us – including the most rabid atheists make conclusions based on beliefs that cannot be measured or tested or against standards that aren’t purely rational.

      OR

      is it just the tenets of other people’s faiths that bother you?

      • No, your faith is your own. Keep it that way. Keep your belief systems OUT of my government, out of my system where the ability to distinguish between fact and fantasy are an absolute must. You are free to believe whatever makes you happy. Don’t confuse that with the facts of any particular argument. The fact we have so many avowed “no abortion, no matter what” advocates indicates these people live in a world far removed from my own. This Huffington Post article indicates Richard Mourdock is not alone in his beliefs, he is simply one of many in the Republican Party: http://huff.to/TKnRx4

        Just because YOU believe it, doesn’t make it right, true, or necessary for the PUBLIC good. When you are in office, it is the public good you are supposed to be serving. If you can’t do that, you shouldn’t be in PUBLIC office. Go run a church instead.

        • Thaddeus,
          ” Keep it that way. Keep your belief systems OUT of my government, out of my system where the ability to distinguish between fact and fantasy are an absolute must.”
          Could you tell me one fact, which you know to be true and link to a prove that does not make an unfounded assumptions?

          • Sorry. I am not on trial here. I wrote the article. If you are defending the point of view of the people I am writing about, then YOU provide the link. Otherwise, good day.

            • Thaddeus,
              If you were on trial, the burden of proof would lie with the accuser, but you are not on trial, you are accusing other people and demanding a change. That is why the burden lies with you to prove that your stance makes sense.
              I can not provide you a link, as I don’t think we can know what is objectively true, or if an objective truth even exists.
              Moral judgements are never solely based on facts.

          • Valter Viglietti says:

            @Alberich: “Could you tell me one fact, which you know to be true and link to a prove that does not make an unfounded assumptions?”

            Well, for one, God existence cannot be proved. Nobody ever did that. Thus God is a theory, not a fact (by “fact” I mean unmistakable proof, like 2+2=4 or water is composed by hydrogen and oxygen).
            Hence, no practical public decision should ever be based on the “God said this, God wants that”. That would be akin to basing decisions on Santa Clause or the tooth fairy. :roll:
            Government’s decisions should only be based on facts, not faith or personal opinions.

            BTW, I believe God does exists, but it’s still a theory (or a faith), not a fact.

            • Thank you for the answer Valter.
              “(by “fact” I mean unmistakable proof, like 2+2=4″…
              Well if I wanted to prove that 2+2=4 I would use the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms (unfounded assumptions), and then it is just a tautology (like 1=1).
              “or water is composed by hydrogen and oxygen).”
              Isn’t this (more or less) the definition of water., but there is another problem with scientific facts: they rely on unfounded assumptions, like that our senses see the real world, but people also assumed more problematic things like locality, see Quantum Entanglement (i am not really knowledgable in physics I just heard a lecture about this phenomenon). Another problem is that theories in natural scienses regularly turn out to be wrong, hence scientific theories are not true or fact, but established or falsified.
              And then there are moral truths like
              “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
              Those things are unprovable, what makes us believe in them is our decency and sometimes our answer to those vquestions is derived from our belief system.
              So to come back to the topic, the question which people deserve to be protected by the state is a moral not a scientific or logical question. Should black people be protected? Obviously yes. Should children be protected from their parents? Nowadays yes, 100 years ago maybe no. Should Chimpanzees be protected? What about fetuses?
              If we do not make any assumptions we can not answer these questions.

            • Addition:
              I don’t see a problem with where people get their morality, be it religion or family and friends, but I believe that society needs some common moral values which almost everybody holds. And I think that it is unreasonable to expect everybody to agree with an argument, which uses beliefs like God exists.

            • I don’t know what else we would agree on but this:
              __________________________________________________________
              And then there are moral truths like
              “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
              Those things are unprovable, what makes us believe in them is our decency and sometimes our answer to those vquestions is derived from our belief system.
              So to come back to the topic, the question which people deserve to be protected by the state is a moral not a scientific or logical question.
              ______________________________________________________

              is pure gold. Slow Clap

            • You’re getting quite bogged down in semantics their buddy. I really don’t give a rats about Quantum Entanglement or theories that turn out to be wrong, we should still be governing based on data. And I’ll be clear here when I say I don’t necessarily mean 100% incontrovertible data because that’s almost non-existent even in the scientific community.

              What we do have is a multitude of historical events to draw from and plenty of information on how to run a country economically etc. This information can be used to make the decisions relating to the everyday running of the country, whilst ethical and moral issues should be dealt with based on the majority view of the population (They certainly do enough surveys already). You know, like a democracy.

            • “What we do have is a multitude of historical events to draw from and plenty of information on how to run a country economically etc. This information can be used to make the decisions relating to the everyday running of the country, whilst ethical and moral issues should be dealt with based on the majority view of the population (They certainly do enough surveys already). You know, like a democracy.”
              You seem to want a different political system, definitely not a democracy. For one you propose a technocracy (or at least a technocratic veto) for economic questions. How is this supposed to work. And, as I understand it, you propose a plebiscite for moral questions. How would you want to implement this? Obviously the current American system cannot satisfy you as the elected politicians can make choices based on their minds and those minds can be influenced by religious beliefs. Even worse we don’t know how somebody has come to a conclusion, so to effectively be able to strip religious beliefs using politicians of their jobs, we would need some kind of thought police.
              “You’re getting quite bogged down in semantics their buddy.”
              No, I point to the poblem that we can not know, if something is objectively true, or if the term “objectively true” even makes sense. From what I learned about history, I have become wary o people who think to know the “objective truth”, the next step is too often slavery and murder.

        • What is up the emotionality and the supercillious replies to everyone who disagrees with you?

          Adherence to a 100% rational, testable, data based Government is impossible whether you are on the right, the left, the center, athiest, agnostic or religious. The minute you make a choice based on anything less than statistically valid data you’ve broken your model and therefore are governing by “faith”.

          Basically, due to the dearth of valid, incontrovertable data you’d be in governmental gridlock so fast your head would spin.

          All you guys are advocating for is “If you disagree with me then you shouldnt govern.” My pro life stance comes strictly from a rational thought process- am I still not allowed a say? I would guess no…

          • Valter Viglietti says:

            @Textpat: “My pro life stance comes strictly from a rational thought process- am I still not allowed a say?”

            I’d say “pro-life” (but it should really be called “pro-fetus”) stance is pretty emotional.
            Rationally, there’s no point in absolutely wanting another human life born: with 7 billions here, there’s more than enough. ;)
            But, funnily enough, everybody thinks their own stances are always rational – even when they’re NOT (see “Emotional Intelligence” by Daniel Goleman about this).

            Of course you’re allowed your say. :-)
            But that doesn’t mean your say is based on facts. A fact is, women have aborted since the dawn of time (we have proofs millennia old, at least), so you cannot avoid abortion – at most you can regulate it.
            Anything opposing this is just wishful thinking. And calling wishful thinking “rational” doesn’t make it any more real. :roll:

            • Logical Fallacies abound!

              I see Tu Quoque, Teleological Arguments, as well as the good old- “Everybody does it…”

          • Firstly, we already incorporate studies, data and research into our governing process all the time so the argument that it would cripple us is somewhat unfounded. I’m not asking that every level of bureaucracy suddenly become scientists, merely that they listen to the evidence provided from observation of what occurs.

            Everyone has their own moral systems and beliefs, personally I’m rather Utilitarian in this respect but to each his own. All I was advocating for was the proper separation of church and state which I was pretty sure we’d already agreed to do.

      • More inefficient than the current system which deadlocked the senate with filibusters based essentially on childish prattle between the two parties?

        In all honesty we’re screwed, I was just presenting my view of the ideal governance.

  11. John Schtoll says:

    I think the Democrats have been absolutely brilliant this election season, after all, they have a president who by all accounts have been pretty poor in managing the country, it appears people are much worse off then they were when he took office. YET, they have single handley focused on gaffs the Repubs have made on abortion and women to the extent no one cares about the economy.

    Think about this, this is a site for men by men, yet I haven’t seen a single article on how bad the economy is and how during this term men have lost jobs, lives etc from this presidents decisions, instead we get tons of articles on how THIS or THAT has effected women.

Speak Your Mind

*