In a debate Tuesday night for the Indiana Senate race, Mourdock (a Republican) was asked about abortion exceptions for rape and incest. He replied:
“I struggled with 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 is something God intended to happen.”
His statement has lit something of a firestorm (legit and exploited both), even with his quick correction post-debate that he didn't think that rape itself was something God intended.
A couple of thoughts of my own.
1. The idea of not granting a rape or incest exception is is a perfectly consistent and defensible position, if you grant the rights of "personhood" or humanity to a fetus (I don't, but many do). By law and by justice, we don't visit the crimes of the parent on the child. If you are staunchly anti-abortion, providing an escape clause for rape or incest makes no rational sense, since you are essentially saying it's okay to kill a baby if the father was a rapist.
(An exception or the life of the mother, yes, in that you must choose one life or another — though the direction for that choice is, itself, informative.)
2. Mourdock's thornier issue here was pulling God into the mix, but even here he's on hardly-radical grounds of parsing God's purpose and trying to reconsile the Problem of Evil — why an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God lets bad things (like rape) happen — or, put another way, if God knows all that will happen and can act and intervene according to His will, why does he enable a universe where that sort of thing occurs?
(And, yeah, that's one I struggle with, too. And I don't have any glib answers. Which is a big reason why I don't go around publicly attributing things, good or bad, to God's will.)
Mourdock runs into trouble here (at least one of the places he runs into trouble) because he tries to address just part of the equation. He's willing to say that a pregnancy from rape is something "God intended," but not that the rape itself is. And, yes, hand-wave, free will, all that, but that's just not a distinction that sits well (especially since I suspect a lot of women would consider no pregnancy from a rape to be a much greater "gift", if not a coincidentally nearby police officer or stray lightning bolt).
So, no, he didn't say that God intended rapes to occur, and it's not necessarily fair to suggest he thinks such a thing (let alone going down the road of "… so she must have deserved it") — but he opens the door to that interpretation by musing about a theological point that has engaged scholars for centuries and is hardly a topic that lends itself to easy or nuanced headline-based discussion.
Mind you, Mourdock would have been criticized anyway, either for his position on abortion exceptions or if he'd simply murmured about God's will, "Mysterious Ways", and all that — especially if he didn't follow on by saying "And here's how we're going to support the women and children who find themselves in this situation." Where he really erred was in trying to blend the two, mixing "God's plan" in with "rape" as a reason to restrict abortion, and playing directly into a set of issues (and expectations) where the GOP fringe has come across as anti-women, shame-based theocrats who are looking to incorporate A Handmaid's Tale into the party platform. That's beyond what Mourdock himself said, certainly — but not so far that his statements didn't resonate with those quite legimate concerns from the Left.
Embedded Link
Will Richard Mourdock’s rape remarks hurt Mitt Romney? (+video)
The Romney campaign immediately distanced itself from the remarks of Richard Mourdock, a Republican Senate candidate from Indiana. Democrats portrayed the remarks as evidence of an extreme view on abo…
Google+: View post on Google+