Politics, Religion

Rewarding The Rapists

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

Richard Mourdock, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Indiana, made the following statement during a debate: “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 that God intended to happen.” Mourdock later explained that he doesn’t believe that God “pre-ordains” rape.

Mourdock’s view of God attempts to deal with the conflicting concepts of the goodness of pregnancy and the evil of rape. His view is incoherent.

The conflicting concepts of evil and an omnipotent God have been noted by Epicurus (circa 300 BC):

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Mourdock believes the pregnancy is preordained even if the rape was not the intention of God. How does Mourdock account for the rape and still maintain a belief in God’s omnipotence? Today, a Sophisticated Theologian™ would claim that the rape was an expression of the rapist’s free will. While that argument may let God off the hook as far as the preordination of rape, it raises other problems.

The vicim, by her own free will, may decide to take an emergency contraceptive preventing fertilization or implantation. If the rape was not preordained by God due to the free will of the rapist, then the pregnancy could not have been preordained due to free will of the victim.

The Republican Party’s solution to that problem is to remove all forms of contraception so that women have no other choice but to carry to term. When there are no choices, there is no free will.

While many view the passing of genes to their offspring as a gift, it also fulfills a biological imperative to perpetuate their existence. If a rape victim exercises her free will and decides to reward her rapist by passing along his genes to the next generation, that is her choice. However, the state has no business rewarding the rapist with the gift of a child.

H/T: Mike LaBossiere, Jerry Coyne, Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, Sally Quinn.

107 thoughts on “Rewarding The Rapists”

  1. Koster wouldn’t exactly define “the rape thing” as rape.

    Notice he said incest is rare? See where he gets HIS statistics from?

  5. GOP Candidate Opposes Abortion Exception In Cases Of ‘The Rape Thing’
    By Aviva Shen
    Oct 31, 2012
    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10/31/1120251/gop-candidate-opposes-abortion-exceptions-in-cases-of-the-rape-thing/

    Excerpt;
    John Koster, a Republican running for Congress in Washington, became the latest candidate to opine on abortion exceptions in cases of rape and incest over the weekend at a fundraiser with Rep. Tom Price (R-GA). Koster said he would support abortion only if the woman’s life was in danger, but would not extend the same right to women who are survivors of incest or “the rape thing,” as he casually termed it. To justify his opposition, Koster insisted that incest is rare and argued that abortion would only further hurt rape survivors:

    Incest is so rare, I mean, it’s so rare. But the rape thing…you know, I know a woman who was raped and kept her child, gave it up for adoption, she doesn’t regret it. In fact, she’s a big pro-life proponent. But on the rape thing, it’s like, how does putting more violence onto a woman’s body and taking the life of an innocent child that’s the consequence of this crime, how does that make it better? You know what I mean?

  6. These person-hood bills and no-exception bills are all mis-named; they should be named “The Rapist’s Right to Procreate Bill #XXXX”. This is an existential question, it needs a title that reflects that. A proper name would clear up a lot of ambiguity.

  7. “Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly has established a clear lead over Republican Richard Mourdock in the Indiana Senate race, according to a poll taken for Donnelly’s campaign in the wake of Mourdock’s damaging comments about abortion and rape.

    In a Global Strategy Group poll shared with POLITICO, Donnelly now leads Mourdock by 9 points in a two-way race, 47 percent to 38 percent. When a third candidate, libertarian Andrew Horning, is added to the poll, Donnelly leads by 7 points — 43 percent to 36 percent to Horning’s 9 percent.” Politico

  9. Mourdock isn’t on GOP fringe
    By William Saletan
    http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20121029_Mourdock_isn_t_on_GOP_fringe.html

    Excerpt:
    First it was Todd Akin. Then Steve King. Then Joe Walsh. Then Richard Mourdock. One after another, Republican congressional nominees have opened their mouths and embarrassed their party.

    Akin, a congressman running for U.S. Senate in Missouri, said rape survivors don’t need abortions because “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

    King, an Iowa congressman up for reelection, deflected a question about abortions for 12-year-old rape victims by saying, “I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way.”

    Walsh, a House incumbent in Illinois, asserted that “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” where abortion is necessary to protect a woman’s life or health. “There is no such exception as life of the mother,” Walsh concluded. “And as far as health of the mother, same thing.”

    Mourdock, the Indiana state treasurer and a Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, opined “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

    For Mitt Romney, these episodes have been a two-month headache. First, he had to override Paul Ryan’s opposition to abortions for rape victims. Then he had to apologize for Akin’s comment. Then he had to apologize for Mourdock’s.

    It could be that the apology tour is just getting started, because Akin and Mourdock are hardly alone. Their view – that abortion should be prohibited even in cases of sexual assault – isn’t just the party’s official position. It’s the most commonly held position on the issue among new Republican nominees for the U.S. Senate.

  11. Oklahoma ‘Personhood’ Ballot Amendment Appeal Rejected By Supreme Court
    Reuters
    Posted: 10/29/2012
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/oklahoma-personhood-supreme-court_n_2040290.html

    Excerpt:
    * Order issued without comment by court

    * Oklahoma top court had struck measure from ballot

    Oct 29 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an attempt by anti-abortion activists to place what they call a “personhood amendment” on the Oklahoma ballot to define an embryo as a human being from the moment of conception.

    The anti-abortion group Personhood Oklahoma had appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision in April to strike down the ballot initiative.

    The ballot question would have asked Oklahoma voters to amend the state constitution to expand the definition of a human being to include a fertilized egg. The state’s highest court said the proposed constitutional amendment was “clearly unconstitutional” because the U.S. Supreme Court already had decided the issue.

    Passage of a personhood law or constitutional amendment would have the effect of banning abortion in the state, both supporters and critics have said.

    The Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union and local abortion rights groups sued in March to keep the proposed initiative off the November election ballot.

    On appeal to the country’s highest court, Personhood Oklahoma argued that the state court’s decision to block the initiative took away their supporters’ rights to free speech and to participate in the democratic process. But the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, refused to hear the case, according to an order issued Monday.

  13. Elaine,
    I have come to the conclusion that when Dr. Harris-Perry or Dr. Rachel Maddow walk into any room, no matter where it is, the average IQ in the room goes up.

  15. Bruce,

    Mourdock said the following at the debate:
    “I believe life begins at conception. The only exception I have for to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with myself for a long time but I came to realize life is that gift from God, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape. It is something that God intended to happen.”

    Mourdock’s statement is unclear. I’d say it implies that he believes that a child conceived as the result of a rape is something God intended. A rape victim who is impregnated by her rapist may not think of her pregnancy as a “gift from God.”

  16. Mourdocks statements were taken out of context in the liberal media. He didn’t say rape was an act of god, He said the birth of a child was a gift of god and it didn’t matter how it was concieved.

    1. “He said the birth of a child was a gift of god and it didn’t matter how it was concieved”

      Ah Brucie,

      But he said it in the context of rape and abortion. Though by your drive-by comments it doesn’t seem that context matters to someone who is as un-American as you are..

  18. You’ve got to admire this Imaginary ‘ghod’s’ sense of humor…. He saw fit to fill our world with an awful lot of stupid people.

Comments are closed.