Comments about ‘Romney, other GOP candidates in close races disavow rape remark by Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Oct. 24 2012 3:46 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

What is it that these republican men don't understand about rape?
Oh yeah, the woman or girl.

Dennis
Harwich, MA

They've lost their sense of morality.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Why,
He's just touting the official Republican Party line:

"Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed"

"We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

=======

In other words;

No abortions,
Ever,
Not for any reason,
Not under ANY circumstance.
No exceptions.

Just like his thoughts of God intended.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

You personally endorsed this guy mitt. I saw the ad run this morning on tv. I don't imagine you would have done it knowing what he would say, but now it's the albatross around your neck. It's rather pungent, and you can't run away from it.

David King
Layton, UT

I ask those offended by Richard Murdock's comments a question: If a woman is raped and chooses to carry the baby and deliver it, what is the value of that life? To be sure, any decision made at that point is tragic and terribly difficult, and I have no idea what I would do personally, but what if the woman decides to have the baby? At what point are you willing to tell that child his or her life is offensive and only a result of sexist thinking, and it was never God's will that he or she lived?

It's a sad state of society we're in, when someone says that life born out tragedy is still of value (although they express it poorly) and they are immediately dismissed as kooky or off the wall. What if ALL human life has value, and we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss that value because the circumstances of their conception was tragic, or they are a civilian living in the range of a drone strike, or because they are elderly or sick?

xscribe
Colorado Springs, CO

David King: I would agree with you, if that's what he meant. And, frankly, I give him, and you if you believe the same, more respect than those who believe that abortion is not okay unless there is rape, incest, or the health of the mother is involved. I have invited a couple posters whom I believe to be conservative to explain why "murder," as I believe those posters have called abortion in the past, is okay when a child is conceived by rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake. Strangely, I haven't gotten that explanation. The invitation still exists for anyone who wants to defend that position. But as I suspected, I didn't get a response from "you know who you are."

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

If Mourdock loses the election, he can take comfort in knowing it was all part of God's plan.

The problem with that rationale is that every thing that happens becomes part of God's plan. Mourdock fails to consider that if a woman has an abortion, thst, too, is God's plan (so his opposition to abortion is unfounded). It's the universal excuse that absolves us of any responsibility for anything.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments