Will Rape Comments Cost Richard Mourdock an Indiana Senate Seat?

Richard Mourdock, the Tea Party favorite who is running as a Republican for Senate in Indiana, has started a controversy related to his restrictionist views on abortion.

In a debate last night, Mourdock, who believes that abortion should only be legal in cases where the mother's life is at risk, said

"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."

Mourdock's opponent, Rep. Joe Donnelly responded:

The God I believe in and the God I know most Hoosiers believe in, does not intend for rape to happen - ever," Donnelly said in a statement after the debate, using the nickname for Indiana residents. "What Mr. Mourdock said is shocking, and it is stunning that he would be so disrespectful to survivors of rape."

Mourdock's position is not based on fake biology (as is that of Todd Akin, the Republican running for Senate in Missour, who asserted that "legitimate" rapes never result in pregnancy), but on extreme logical consistency that's heavily informed by religious thinking.

As someone who believes in very broad abortion rights, I disagree with him but can see the logic of his position: If you believe that life begins at the moment of conception (a much vaguer moment than commonly thought), then it is wrong to kill a fetus/child due to how it was conceived. That's not a difficult line of thought to follow but it is a genuinely unpopular one in America.

As Gallup shows, support for legal abortion under at least some circumstances comes in around 77 percent. Only 20 percent of Americans think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances. In a different set of questions, Gallup asks whether people think abortion should be legal under any circumstances (25 percent), legal under most (13 percent), or legal only in a few (39 percent). Given that Mourdock allows only one exception - when the life of the mother is at risk - it's not clear that he would even fit into the "only a few" category that carries a plurality of Americans. (There's plenty to question about Gallup's phrasing, to be sure.)

Mourdock's uncompromising stand certainly adds to a picture of Republicans as extremist on the abortion issue. Even Mitt Romney, who has endorsed Mourdock and started buying ads for the guy via various PACs, has distanced himself from Mourdock on this score. But Gallup also finds that only about 17 percent of voters insist that candidates share their views on abortion, with the vast majority of voters considering it either "one of many important issues" or "not a major issue" in how they decide to vote.

RealClearPolitics rates the race between Mourdock, who bumped off six-term GOP incumbent Richard Lugar in a primary, and Donnelly a toss-up as of today, but polls haven't yet captured what if any impact the debate might have.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    Why do these people feel the need to constantly talk about abortion? How did this come up?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    They are conservatives.

  • John||

    Just like liberals can't help but talk about the need to kill the unwanted?

  • Tman||

    The point is that whenever it is brought up it seems that lately conservative politicians have been tripping over themselves attempting to prove their pro-life bona fides, and have been sounding increasingly more and more ridiculous in the process.

  • Randian||

    That could not possibly have anything to do with the deliberate White House strategy to shift the focus onto social issues, could it?

  • John||

    Or media members constantly asking such questions in hopes of a gottcha moment.

    Just how many times has Obama been asked about partial birth abortion or parental notification for minors getting one?

    Odd that only conservatives are asked difficult questions about abortion.

  • $park¥||

    Odd that only conservatives are asked difficult questions about abortion.

    That might be because conservatives are the ones most stridently against it. That being said, the fact abortion needs to be raised at all in a political arena is wrong.

  • John||

    That might be because conservatives are the ones most stridently against it.

    And liberals are even more stidently for it. Liberals support things like partial birth abortion, federal funding, and minors getting abortions without parental consent or notification which are very unpopular. But they are almost never asked to defend these positions.

    When is the last time a pro choice liberal woman politician was asked "if you support abortion rights why would you be undcomfortable with having one yourself? What about abortion makes you uncomfortable?"

  • $park¥||

    The answers should be:

    "if you support abortion rights why would you be undcomfortable with having one yourself?

    I'm not uncomfortable having one and it's not my place to tell others how to live their lives.

    What about abortion makes you uncomfortable?"

    Nothing, I just don't find myself in a circumstance where I find it necessary.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    Good thing nothing important is going on with Libya today, or this might seem like an unworthy distraction.

  • RBS||

    You'd think they would have learned by now to avoid saying stupid shit when they get asked those questions. They are politicians so they should be able to give a non answer.

  • Tman||

    That's still not an excuse though. I agree that the media pounces on this issue like a kitten on a ball of yarn, but when you say really fucking stupid things like "the female body has ways to shut that thing down" you deserve the scorn you've brought upon yourself.

    Mourdock is an idiot for expecting any less with these comments.

  • John||

    I agree Tman.

  • ||

    Abortions for some, little American flags for others.

  • Brandybuck||

    It came up because a liberal asked the question?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It came up because the debate moderator, reading questions from the voters, asked for the candidates views on abortion and contraception.

    The libertarian candidate went first, then the Dem, who called for banning abortion except in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. He also opposed the HHS mandate.

    Mourdock then differentiated himself from the Dem by saying he would only allow exceptions in cases of rape.

    http://www.wthr.com/story/1989.....2nd-debate

    So Mourdock didn't bring it up - the moderator asked about abortion, then the Dem took the prolife-except-for-rape position, in other words the Dem is under normal political definitinons a prolifer.

    Mourdock's crime was to actually be honest about the differences between himself and the pro-religious freedom, prolife Democrat.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Correction: "Mourdock then differentiated himself from the Dem by saying he would only allow exceptions for the life of the mother."

  • Tonio||

    Wow, John, you've outdone yourself in partisan hackery. To ask that question is to bring up the topic you pretend to want to avoid.

  • Randian||

    This doesn't even make sense.

    Liberals are obsessed! with abortion. That's a plain fact.

  • The Derider||

    Liberals are obsessed with a different government restriction on personal freedom than I am!

  • ||

    I disagree on this one. I think wondering how it comes up is a legitimate concern. I don't think it's particularly partisan of him.

  • Tonio||

    And SoCons aren't?

  • Ted Levy||

    Not only is it a"reasonable" position to defend from an anti-abortion perspective, but isn't it standard religious teaching that whatever happens is what God intended to happen? I mean, what's the point of being omnipotent if things keep happening that you didn't intend?

  • ||

    Yeah, if his position was examined closely, it is really the only possible position to take if you believe in an omnipotent god. Everything is intended.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    So the real headline here is that Joe Donnelly doesn't believe in the omnipotent Christian God and feels comfortable ascribing his belief to all Indianans.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Don't confuse conservatives with epistemology.

  • ||

    That would be either metaphysics or ontology. They are right about you here. You really are a stupid fuck.

  • Brandybuck||

    Pre-destination is a Calvinist philosophy, and only covers a small segment of Christianity. In a nutshell, since God is omniscient and omnipotent then everything that happens must be God's will. It's a Christian brand of fatalism.

    I'm a Christian and was raised Calvinist (Presbyterian), but the doctrine of pre-destination never took hold. Rape happens because of rapists. Period. Just because God does not actively intervene in our lives does not mean he intends for every bad thing to happen.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    Clarification of terminology: Predestination only applies to salvation. Otherwise, you're talking about sovereignty, and pretty much every major branch of Christianity takes a strong supporting position on that.

    There's a case to be made for openness theology, which says that omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are Greek concepts are foreign to the Bible, which would have some interesting new solutions, but it's still a fringe view.

  • Randian||

    A limited god is a lot more interesting, that's for sure.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    Open theology is the back-to-roots reboot that pisses off fanfic community.

  • AuH2O||

    Or Process theology, which emerged among Jews following the Holocaust, which teaches of a god of infinite power of moral suasion, etc.

  • Big 'Orra||

    If God wanted to stop X but chooses not to it can, in a sense be described as His will (passive.) That is quite different than saying He wants X to happen or He caused X to happen.

  • Tonio||

    But god is supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, etc. And the creator of everything. And a Kind Loving God(tm).

    Yet people give him a pass on the bad stuff as God's Mysterious Will(tm), and then turn around and thank him for all the good stuff.

    God is the ultimate "you didn't build that."

  • Big 'Orra||

    And transversely, people tend to want God to butt out of their lives, until they need help.

  • AuH2O||

    It's really a fault of believers. Most theologians simply do not hold the view of God as an active, intelligent agent.

    The whole "Old man in clouds looking down on us" is pop theology, not actual theology.

  • AuH2O||

    And this is why every person should be forced to read Thomas Aquinas. Because most Christians know shit about theology and look at God as "Magical Sky Daddy".

    For the record, I am a deist, the most lazy possibly way to be religious ever.

  • ||

    In a different set of questions, Gallup asks whether people think abortion should be legal under circumstances (25 percent), legal under most (13 percent), or legal only in a few (39 percent).

    Was that "legal under no circumstances (25 percent)" or "legal under any circumstances (25 percent)"?

  • Ice Nine||

    These people are idiots. This is Darwin Award material.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Um... the pro-lifers win the Darwin Award?

    Maybe you need to think that through a little more carefully?

  • Ice Nine||

    Don't be so literal and it will probably work for you. This guy essentially has done what Darwin Award winners do - he has probably self-selected himself out of the successful candidate pool by his own stupidity. (Yes, I know he didn't actually kill himself - just politically.

  • rts||

    Isn't it a logical consequence of believing in an omniscient, omnipotent being that *everything* that happens is that being's will?

  • some guy||

    Yes, so abortion should be illegal even when the mother's life is in danger. God must have intended for her to die with her baby.

    Or, alternatively, abortion should always be legal because if the doctor manages to successfully pull it off (out?) then God must have intended for that baby to be aborted.

    That's the great thing about God. You can use him to justify anything.

  • Tonio||

    ^This.

  • ||

    I was thinking that same thing.

    By his logic, abortion being legal must also be God's will.

  • Tonio||

    Burn the heretic!

  • Tonio||

    Yes, from an outside, rational POV. But religion is all about faith, which is the complete opposite of rationalism.

  • ||

    Here, look, I found a video of Richard Mourdock at the zoo.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    Did Akin say rapes "never" end in pregnancy? Or this this just a liberal talking point?

  • Rick Santorum||

    He said that he thought the body had "natural defenses" against rape pregnancy or somesuch.

    To be honest, I care less about his ignorance than I do the perpetual outrage machine screaming I AM DEEPLY OFFENDED constantly.

  • Tonio||

    And that's your right, Rick. However, for some of us it's not a perpetual outrage machine, it's honest disgust at the complete (willful) ignorance and superstition exhibited by a US congressman given current medical knowledge.

    But, hey, anything to turn the debate away from the actual issue, eh?

  • Randian||

    No sorry, but "Rick" is right. There is a certain segment of the population that is just dying to take to Twitter and Facebook and act like outraged little temper-tantrum having children.

    It's fucking tiresome.

  • Tonio||

    Even people who have temper tantrums sometimes have valid opinions. Mussolini made the trains run on time*, that doesn't make reliable railway schedules a bad thing.

    (*) Not really, but the PR machine said he did.

  • Rick Santorum||

    You're a child, Tony. Tell me again about your SKITTLES 'N' ICED TEA hoodie protests because of racist America.

  • ||

    Really, I think they're both issues. They're actually separate issues, but since they both came up at the same time, some people would have us believe we have to choose between them.

  • Tonio||

    Darius Johnson is right.

  • John||

    He said "rarely" which is true. I bet the total number is less than a hundred per year across the entire country. Not that many women are raped, not all of the women raped are of an age where they can get pregnant, and the chances of getting pregnant from a single sex act is around one or two percent.

  • Tonio||

    Citations needed, of course.

  • John||

    Since math, logic and common sense are beyond you, you must rely on appeals to athority.

    Why have you turned into such a douchebag lately. It is gettting increasingly pathetic.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Abortions in the case of rape comprise about 2% of total abortions per year, if I recall correctly.

  • 0073735963||

    "you must rely on appeals to athority."

    John proving he doesn't know what appeals to authority are.

    Never call John on anything Tonio, he'll either do what he did here (make a fool of himself incorrectly citing appeal to authority) or he'll say something profoundly stupid about hyperbole, or he'll just insult you.

    You are wasting your time with that idiot, it's not as though his positions are ever novel or interesting, so stop feeding him.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    According to Web MD, rape is the reason for 13,000 of 1.3 million annual abortions, or 1% of the total.

    A much larger number than the one offered by John, but also one that is much smaller relative to the total number of abortions than would be suggested by the tenor of the debate surrounding the issue.

  • Paleo-ConAvenger||

    He actually was mostly right. A woman's body does not conceive nearly as well when under extreme stress, such as when being raped.

  • Rick Santorum||

    No, women are as likely to conceive from rape as they are when having normal sexual intercourse.

  • Lord Humungus||

    ...If I wanted to re-read the AM Links...

  • jasno||

    Sure, his position is logically consistent with mainline 'protestant'(i.e. - not catholic) christianity in america... which is why so many people have summoned-up the courage to finally leave that horrible belief system behind.

    I think there's a good reason the older, established christian churches discourage their members from trying to apply simple reason and logic to the scriptures: it leads to bad outcomes like this.

  • John||

    What does religion have to do with it? You don't need religion to make a decision about when life begins. And once you do that, the consiquences fall in line. Since when do you have to believe in God to conclude life begins at conception and that just because someone is conceived in a rape doesn't mean they deserve to die?

  • Tonio||

    It's not about "life" John, it's about personhood.

    *cough* HACK *cough*

  • Randian||

    Another irrelevant 'criticism'. Substitute 'personhood' for 'life' and John's point remains. You can be a pro-life atheist.

  • ||

    Randian is absolutely right here. The belief that personhood starts at conception isn't limited to the religious.

  • The Derider||

    Yes, it is.

    The only scientific definition of personhood involves brain activity. Blastocysts do not have it.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    I find the start of brain activity to be the most useful starting point. That's early enough that I get to be an evul anti-chooice war on womenz fundamentalist.

    The idea that personhood doesn't begin until the birth certificate is filled out is not actually that intuitive, nor is it the only logically consistent point of view.

  • SugarFree||

    Yes, but to pretend that "religious" and "pro-life" don't heavily over-lap is disengenious. For every person that can make a principled argument based on self-ownership and personhood there are 5,000 who want to make abortion illegal cause their prescher told 'em.

    Your religion is not an argument I'm going to give any weight.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    Your religion is not an argument I'm going to give any weight.

    I wouldn't expect you to give arguments from popularity or authority any more weight in this issue than any other. But to acknowledge that the most popular defenses for an idea are bunk does not actually disprove the idea.

  • SugarFree||

    Secret, that was at darius. Stupid threading.

  • Tonio||

    And I never claimed that there couldn't be atheists who opposed abortions. John is still a hack, IMO.

  • Brandybuck||

    His view represents the Calvinist segment of protestantism (Presbyterians, Congregationalists, etc) but does not cover Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Pentacostals, etc, etc.

  • AuH2O||

    Actually, the Catholics are super interesting. They actually used to accept abortion, before the discovery of sperm, because of the homunculus theory. They believe that faith and reason are fully compatible, and the Jesuits spend ages to fit those together.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Yep. The repubs will never learn what Obama knows.

    You keep your trap shut when running, and then enact all of your insano-plans AFTER getting elected.

  • John||

    It makes it a lot easier when you have a media who only asks you softball questions and never presses you on anything.

  • some guy||

    That's why Obama has been by far the most successful president using this strategy. And that's one good thing about Romney. At least we know the press will be challenging him on everything down to and including his choice of socks.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Not really. From what I've seen any reporter anywhere could be duped by a 5 year old.

    Just say "Great question, Shawna." Then say whatever your pre-approved talking point that's unrelated to the question was anyway.

    Even the most 'tenacious' reporter will give up if you compliment them.

  • ||

    Except in this case the moderator asked it of all the candidates.

  • Drake||

    So is this his personal opinion? Or does he think the Federal Government should enforce this position as a law?

    Big difference.

  • sarcasmic||

    But, but, but didn't you know that he can single handedly overturn Roe vs Wade?

  • Drake||

    It's not clear that he would even try - unless it is to overturn based on Federalism and throw it back to the states.

    He does claim to be a Federalist, not clear if he is a consistent one.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_eMZj_kW-4
    If really wants to ban abortion, he exact words could be used against him.

  • Tonio||

    For me, it doesn't matter. I would not vote for someone who held those views, even for city council.

  • Drake||

    So you wouldn't vote for Ron Paul? Those are his views.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Why are you fuckwads attacking Mourdock? Isn't he actually demonstrating a basic tenet of Libertarianism-- you don't make non-involved parties pay for other's crimes/problems.

    The fetus (aka that clump of cells which may or may not turn out to be a bicycle) committed no crime, so why is he/she/it(in the case of Leftists) suffering the ultimate fate? Don't see how the politician is being insane to at least offer up a defense here.

    But whatever, gotta fill up this digital rag with something. And I guess John Scalzi wasn't available this time of year to lecture me on what being a True Libertarian really is.

    Anyway, drone attacks on mass murdering terrorists is bad. Killing the unborn just because Ezra Klein thought he heard someone say it was in the Constitution or some shit is awesome....

  • John||

    That is a great rant.

  • ||

    Not really. When politicians say stupid shit that affects their chances, it's an interesting issue. The stupid shit, by the way, ISN'T his moral consistency, but the idea that some women who have been raped are somehow "meant" to bear the children of their rapists.

    The REAL issue Reason's reporting on though is again whether or not this will keep Mourdock from being elected. Reporting on it isn't an "attack" on Mourdock. And if you don't think personhood begins at conception, allowing abortion isn't inconsistent at all with libertarianism.

  • ant1sthenes||

    He worships a divine rape baby, why is this surprising?

  • some guy||

    What is the mother, chopped liver? Does she have any rights?

  • Brandybuck||

    Yes she does. As the owner of the hot air balloon she as the moral right to forcibly evict her passengers at high altitude.

    p.s. I prefer instead the Shakespearian legal doctrine that the mother has the right to abort her baby, so long as it does not harm the baby. That we do not yet have that technology is beside the point.

  • some guy||

    What's so special about a fertilized egg that it counts as a "baby"?

    Also, if you pay for a balloon trip you are paying for the whole thing, not just the part where it goes up.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    What if the passenger is a stowaway? Or if someone drugged them and put them on the balloon?

    PLEASE don't say that balloons have ways to protect themselves from that.

  • some guy||

    If you're a stowaway you can refuse to leave and be charged with trespassing. (There's a limit to how far you can escalate an encounter, even if you are the victim.)

    If you were drugged, then, once again you refuse to leave and then get acquitted of trespassing because you were forced onto the balloon.

    Regardless, why does a fertilized egg cell get the same rights as an infant?

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    I believe traditionally a captain could eject a stowaway at sea lawfully if they endangered the crew by their presence, including by depleting supplies, and if marooning them wasn't an option.

    In any case, summary execution is not on the table except in extreme cases where the mother's crew's life is in danger, and even then all other options have to be exhausted. Property rights have nothing to do with it. And that's in a case where culpability is not in question.

    Regardless, why does a fertilized egg cell get the same rights as an infant?

    Here's my system:

    All persons have the same rights, whether they're adults or fetuses or coma patients or relic homo erectus or AIs or sentient dolphins or extraterrestrials. There is no minimum mass threshold. Intelligence tests collectively and brain activity individually should establish presumption of sentience, which establishes personhood. The onus is on anyone who wishes to establish personhood in the absence of these factors.

  • some guy||

    Fertilized eggs have no brains and certainly are not sentient.

    My system goes like this:

    The only difference between a 9-month old fetus and a 1-minute old infant is location. So you can't abort in the final trimester.

    The only difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg is whether a sperm came along at the right time. But there is a huge difference between a fertilized egg and a baby. A great deal of time, energy and nutrients are needed before a brain develops. Until that happens, the zygote/fetus is more a part of the mother than it is its own autonomous being. So, the mother gets to decide what to do with it.

    In other words, first trimester abortions are ok. After that, sorry, it's not your call anymore.

  • some guy||

    Besides, if you want to say personhood begins at conception then you have to be against hormone-based birth control because it prevents implantation. Are you willing to do that? Does this mean women can't have sex while using hormone therapy for other health issues?

  • some guy||

    Finally, what about the stance that a fertilized egg is special because it has a complete genetic code and the potential to grow into an adult human?

    Well, most of the cells in your body have a complete genetic code, and I wouldn't be surprised if 50 years from now scientists can clone a person from genetic material taken from any cell in their body. Do we then treat every cell as a person?

    You might argue that such cloning doesn't count because it involves a huge amount of external intervention. To that I would counter that it takes a huge amount of external intervention (from the mother) to turn a zygote into an infant.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "The only difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg is whether a sperm came along at the right time. "

    There is the rather significant difference that the fertilized egg is a distinct organism, biologically (and genetically), whereas the gamete is only a piece of the parent organism used to create new organisms.

    It's a little ironic (to me) that the nominally religious side bases its line in the sand around more or less objective, scientific definitions, while the allegedly secular side bases it on a vaguely defined notion of sentience.

  • rho||

    Why do midgets with Down's have the same rights as I do?

    You may disagree with the position that a fertilized egg is as much a person as an embryo, a fetus, a baby at 7 months gestation, an infant, a child, a teenager, an adult, or a Tom Selleck, but it's not a ridiculous position.

  • some guy||

    rho, I never said it was a ridiculous position. I implied that it was a logically inconsistent position. And I have been giving my reasons for why I think that.

    Midgets with Down's probably do not have the same rights as you. They probably have the same rights as a young child. (For example: Can a young child enter into a contract? Can a young child own property independent of his parents/guardians? Can a young child consent to sex?)

  • ||

    As the owner of the hot air balloon she as the moral right to forcibly evict her passengers at high altitude.

    I personally happen to believe this is true. If you go up in a hot air balloon, you're accepting that risk. So I wouldn't recommend it unless you trust that person.

  • Calidissident||

    "Anyway, drone attacks on mass murdering terrorists is bad."

    And we know they're terrorists cause the government says so! It's not like they'd ever lie about something like that!

  • ||

    The debate is at what point does the fetus become a "party" with rights.

  • ||

    Bingo! Depending on the answer to that issue, either 1) completely allowing abortion, 2) completely disallowing abortion, or 3) somewhere in between are all compatible with libertarian positions on human rights.

  • Paleo-ConAvenger||

    +100 Thank youz.

  • sarcasmic||

    What does it fucking matter?
    It's not like abortion laws are going to change anytime soon.

  • BarryD||

    The only thing anyone is REALLY fighting over is money. Planned Parenthood wants our tax money.

  • sarcasmic||

    Planned Parenthood wants our tax money.

    Yeah. They want government funded abortions and want to block vouchers.

    It's as if they want to kill the kid before it is born, and on the chance that it is born they want to make sure it gets the worst education possible.

    It's for the children!

  • Robert||

    Sarcasmic hit the key point that's operating prominently in all political posturing on abortions in the USA now. Paradoxically, politicians y activists would say much less about abortions if they weren't relieved by court decisions of the responsibility for the consequences.

  • BarryD||

    Keep abortion legal, fun and free!

  • sarcasmic||

    Abort early, abort often!

  • John||

    Ruth Bader Ginsberg said it. We need to have abortion to keep the number of the wrong kinds of kids down.

    Eugenics, it is not just Germans anymore.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    In all seriousness, where do you think the Germans got it? The U.S.A. was a pioneer.

  • sarcasmic||

    Margaret Sanger FTW!

  • NoVAHockey||

    Did she really? I guess someone needed to take Holmes seat.

  • Tonio||

    John, the depth of your (selective) ignorance never ceases to amaze. Virginia had an active eugenics policy, sterilization of mentally retarded and "promiscuous" women that the Nazi's copied and expanded upon. See Plecker, Walter.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Hey! Trump just announced his major new find on Obama!

    Its some more Birther bullshit.

    Who could see that one coming?

  • some guy||

    I think we can all agree that Trump is a clown, a buffoon, and worthy of ridicule.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Nope. Disagree.

    I think Trump is an erudite scholar of American society and history mixed with equal parts people whisperer, spiritual shaman and physical holistic healer.

    He is truly a Man for All Times.

  • $park¥||

    Obviously, after all he is The Donald.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    A salient reminder to both sides of this debate:

    Due to a glitch in a time machine, Warty is his own rape baby.

    No known contraceptives could have prevented it, and there's no way that God ever intended for him to exist.

  • ||

    "I did do the nasty in the past-y!"

  • Anonymous Coward||

    That's because Warty is a nascent Great Old One, a monstrous seed sent by the Outer Gods to sow madness and discord among humans until we devour ourselves in an global orgy of blood and lust.

  • ||

    You should have thought twice before you woke me from my long repose with the Heart of Ahriman, shouldn't you have?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    It seemed like a good idea at the time.

  • Tonio||

    Warty's existence is proof that there is no god.

  • ||

    No, it's proof that God exists. AND HE HATES US.

  • SugarFree||

    No... Warty means there is a God. And He hates us.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    What the poll numbers indicate is that a majority of voters are *against the status quo on abortion.* They *don't* want to legalize "elective" abortion - that is, abortion of babies conceived in voluntary (non-incestuous) sex. In other words, the majority of the public opposes most of the legal abortions being done today. The public also seems to approve abortion for rape and incest.

    (In other words, if Mourdock's Dem opponent is telling the truth, he is with the majority and against the status quo, and for that matter with Mitt Romney and against the leadership of his own party, in that he wants most abortions illegal. He and Mourdock disagree over the small minority of rape-related abortions.)

    The media is aware of the polling data, which explains why they don't want the debate to be over the majority of actual abortions - which the public opposes - and instead want to focus debate on the rare exceptions, which the public supports.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And with all that said, the Dem didn't think the truth was enough to sink Mourdock, but found it necessary to misstate his position - falsely paraphrasing him as saying rape is God's will.

  • Tonio||

    So, rights should be subject to the whim of the majority, eh?

  • Rick Santorum||

    There is no right to murder an unwanted child, just as there is no right to murder a braindead man.

  • ||

    There is no right to murder a fertilized egg, just as there is no right to murder a corpse with a pulse. ZOMBIE CHICKENS FOR ALL!

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Reason-Rupe should do a poll:

    Dear True Libertarian idiots:

    If you were the product of rape, during which trimester would you like to have your brains sucked into a vacuum machine?

    I pick the 3rd trimester. I mean, gotta show the social conservatives how small minded they are, amirite?

    Nothing shows how open-minded and caring you are than allowing an unborn child to be ripped apart limb from limb.... you know, for the children!

  • sarcasmic||

    On the other hand, would you want to go through life knowing your father was a rapist and your mother wished you were never born?

  • sarcasmic||

    I suppose I should have rephrased the question and directed it to Warty.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    In his case, I think that was the goal all along.

  • $park¥||

    Gotta be able to fuel the rage somehow.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Dear PB:

    You gotta be one of the nastiest slimeballs on Reason. And that's saying a lot.

    Anyway, I'm sure Gloria Allred's bs charge against Romney lying under should be taken just as seriously as Trump's Obama claim.

    I mean, after all, lying under oath=vast right-wing conspiracy.

  • ||

    The right-wing/left-wing paradigm is a false one. The real struggle is between the front wing and the back wing, they just don't want you to know it.

  • Lewisite||

    Actually,...its the Buffalo wing vs. the teriyaki wing. I vote Buffalo out of conscience, but secretly long for a strong teriyaki to cut taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule me like a king!

    Teriyaki 2012

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Well, it's not like he was talking about RAPE rape.

    /The Whoopster

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    Just to be clear, it's two weeks until election day, and the main political issue is the problem of evil?

    Greatest country in the world.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Dear Sarcasmic:

    100% of all people born since the beginning of time, at one time or another, their parents thought: I should have never have birthed you.

    As for knowing your father was a rapist: WHO GIVES A FUCK! At least you'd be alive.

    What if you found out your father was a gay Log Cabin republican who only had sex with your mother because she could get him in free to Atlas Shrugged 3: Galt vs. Skeletor?

  • The Craig||

    I don't think you quite get his handle...

  • $park¥||

    100% of all people born since the beginning of time, at one time or another, their parents thought: I should have never have birthed you.

    I'm sure this would be a surprise to 95% of humanity. Don't speak for me in any case. I have two children whom I've never thought that about.

    As for knowing your father was a rapist: WHO GIVES A FUCK! At least you'd be alive.

    Who said torture was worse than assassination?

    What if you found out your father was a gay Log Cabin republican who only had sex with your mother because she could get him in free to Atlas Shrugged 3: Galt vs. Skeletor?

    That's an interesting, and wholly pointless, question.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    If you never made your parents regret their decision to birth you, even for a minute, your childhood was squandered.

  • ||

    What if you found out your father was a gay Log Cabin republican who only had sex with your mother because she could get him in free to Atlas Shrugged 3: Galt vs. Skeletor?

    Actually, this sounds like a pretty kick-ass libertarian origin story. I call film rights.

  • mr simple||

    the Republican running for Senate in Missour,

    It's spelled Misery.

  • The Derider||

    If libertarians aren't willing to give the same fervent defense of a woman's right to choose as they are on every other issue of personal freedom, they shouldn't be surprised when women reject their philosophy as thinly veiled bullshit.

  • ||

    When people realize that libertarianism doesn't have an official position on when personhood begins, they'll realize you're full of shit. Oh wait, that's already happened.

    No to mention that the Libertarian Party platform AND candidate currently AREN'T against abortion. So you're REALLY full of shit.

  • The Derider||

    Gary Johnson is perfectly fine with states outlawing abortion.

    That's not the same fervent defense of personal liberty you see him voice on marijuana policy, for example.

    Try again.

  • Rick Santorum||

    As someone who is not a libertarian, I'll simply say that abortion sickens me on a deep, personal level. When I see leftists worshipping abortion and sterilization, it only confirms my feeling that progressivism is a death cult.

  • Jordan||

    That was a whole new level of derp. Well done.

  • John||

    He even surpassed Tonio.

  • robc||

    extreme logical consistency

    Apparently Nick read my comments this morning.

  • some guy||

    Way to make logical consistency sound like a bad thing...

  • Fatty Bolger||

    David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog
    Your 12 day extended News Cycle forecast: high pressure abortion front with heavy rapes, followed by birth control. Chance of economy: 0%.

  • Cyto||

    That's some brilliant stuff right there.... :)

    (that's right. I broke out the smiley. If you guys can have an idiotic abortion debate, I can break out the smiley emoticon.)

  • ||

    The most surprising thing about this poll is that attitudes appear to have not changes at all in over 20 years.

  • BigT||

    Yes, that struck me as well. I wonder how this would look if you went back before Roe?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement