Republican Senate Candidate: Pregnancy From Rape Is God’s Will
Via TPM:
Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock became the latest Republican to wander into eyebrow-raising territory when it came to the discussion of rape and abortion during a Senate debate Tuesday night.
Defending his stance that abortion should be illegal even in the case of rape, Mourdock explained that pregnancy resulting from nonconsensual sex is the will of God.
“I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
FYI: Todd “legitimate rape” Akin is not an outlier. Rep. Roger “some girls rape easy” Rivard is not an outlier. Sharron “make lemonade out of rape” Angle is not an outlier. Paul “I agree with Akin” Ryan is not an outlier.
As time goes on, I’m rapidly reaching the conclusion that Republicans view the act of rape as god’s will. It’s almost as if, and I hesitate to type this, but… it’s almost as if they are casting god as the rapist. It’s like these guys view god as a Zeus-like figure. It’s like they are saying that despite the woman’s wishes god has decided she should be pregnant so he sent a rapist to fulfill his will.
Tags: Rape, Republicans, Women Issues
Mourdock is one of two space alien lizards running for office as a Republican this year.
According to this logic… god intended that the guy who mugged you should have your wallet.
And it follows from that logic that muggers and rapists need not apologize or express remorse because they’re only doing God’s will.
The pro-life logic is actually quite simple. When a baby is aborted because it is the product of a rape, you now have two victims – the woman who was raped, and the baby who lost it’s life. The simple logic is that all life is sacred because we were created in the image of God. So that means that whether you were conceived by rape, a one-night-stand, or in a petri dish, you have just as much of a right to live as anyone else. Not a single one of us chose how we were conceived, nor had any say in the matter.
– Delaware Conservative
I’ll bet dollars to donuts that Paco is a man.
But he’s partly right… The whole “abortion is only OK if it’s rape or incest” is morally indefensible.
It is an offensive view in the extreme. Either abortion is OK, or it’s not. Any other position reeks of religious oppressing of women based on their actions. The old “let’s punish women who don’t behave” mentality. …wholly indefensible!
…and anyone espousing such views is faking their religious convictions.
That Senate race appears to be a dead heat. It will be interesting to see how it breaks… Does his comment rally the anti abortion movement, or have the opposite affect?
@G&O “That Senate race appears to be a dead heat.”
Not really. The Dems have a better than 85% chance to hold the Senate.
The Indiana race wasn’t all that competitive. It may become so if Donnelly can pick up 4 points or more.
I’m guessing that it wont have much of an effect… but maybe that’s colored by my lack of respect for people who hold the “It’s only OK if it’s rape or incest” pseudo-religious viewpoint.
wont seem to have any effect. We forget, here in sane delaware (most of it) that these bastards are the products of their electorate. Yes, take down the Akins and Murdochs….. but it is the inbred, awful people of Missouri and Indiana that give these guys their platforms. Oh what? you’re from Indiana and you dont like your state being generalized….. well gosh, i sure hope he doesnt win and prove me right.
Pacolips, have to point out the obvious, here.
No babies lose their lives during abortion.
None.
Now I have 5 children. They were all babies, once. I, myself, was once a baby. I also struggled with infertility, and lost some pregnancies. But I never lost a baby… frankly, I would consider losing a baby somewhat careless; I like babies. People who talk about ‘babies’ in the context of abortion just mystify me. It’s like saying you “lost a million dollars” because you didn’t buy a lottery ticket. There never WAS a million dollars, you idiot. At the very most, there was a potential, with an investment of time and energy and a lot of luck, for a million dollars to arrive. Possibly.
I can’t believe anyone wants me to take seriously policy based on this nonsense, and that’s a fact.
“I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
Sure, and many of these right wingers think that allowing a woman to die from a dangerous pregnancy is what “God intended to happen,” too. Republicans need to get out of their 50’s mentality, and I’m talking 1850’s.
Possibly 1650’s.
I am curious, though… if we extrapolate these mandatory births from rape-situation pregnancies, is it not also possible that we end up with at least some single mother families that then need government support to stay afloat? Does this tendency toward WIC, food stamps, etc then contradict with other Republican views on conservative spending? Or is it the assumption of these Senators/candidates that the impregnated rape victims will not endure financial hardships?
In any case, the conflicts of their views do not compare to the troublesome long term effects of such a unilateral decision. I suppose I am failing to see how mandatory births promote quality of life. Yes, they promote life… but do they promote quality of life?
If Richard Mourdock is right, God is one HUGE a-hole. h/t Attaturk
@R “I am curious, though… if we extrapolate… then need government support to stay afloat?”
The issue shouldn’t be about money.
If you truly believe that abortion is murder, as Mourdock claims, then his position is entirely correct and consistent. The sins of a father cannot be mete on his son.
If you don’t truly believe that abortion is murder, then you have no business trying to tell women what to do with their own bodies.
In neither case does the “compromise” position for rape and incest exceptions make any sense from a moral perspective. It cannot be justified.
Liberal elite has it right. Life begins at conception or it doesn’t. The circumstances of the conception are not relevant as to that point. It doesn’t begin at conception in case “a”, but not case ” b”. How about federal funding for flooding of birth control/morning after in every single market……..a reasonable compromise.
@T “Liberal elite has it right. Life begins at conception or it doesn’t.”
That’s not what I said. I certainly believe that life begins** at conception, but I also believe that aborting it is not wrong. I believe that a fertilized egg in a petri dish deserves no special protection, but it IS human life.
**actually, life changes from haploid to diploid human life. It doesn’t really begin, it just continues.
If you equate “life begins” with “has legal and moral rights”, then you go down an unfortunate and unnecessary path. That’s the folly of the right wing. And it isn’t even in the Bible. They just made it up.
“How about federal funding for flooding of birth control/morning after in every single market……..a reasonable compromise.”
I have a better idea. How about you stop trying to impose your groundless religious views on unwilling women who don’t share them?
The insane, fantastical ideas put forth and followed by GOPerheads about women’s bodies, and the exact moments of fertilization, are telling.
From these came Paul Ryan’s ‘legitimate rape’ and also the idea that in ‘true rape’, the woman’s body exerts its magical powers to reject and prevent fertilization and thus the preserves the meme that any ‘real’, ‘legitimate’ procreation shall be sacrosanct.
If god wanted women to know the exact moment of fertilization, god would have made that understanding and knowing a part of the process. It isn’t. Women don’t know they are pregnant for the first many, many weeks of gestation.
And no one else knows until she is ‘showing’.
God may be telling ya’ll something here. I don’t know.