The Mourdock Controversy

In a debate for a seat representing Indiana in the U.S. Senate, Richard Mourdock made some comments that have caused the entire political world to erupt like Indiana is Pompeii.  The candidates were asked what their view regarding abortion was.  Richard Mourdock, the first to answer, said that he believed that life is a gift from God and should be protected, although he does make an exception when the mother’s life is in danger.  Well, there’s nothing new there, right?  The controversy came in what he said next.  “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”  This has been met with no end of criticism from Democrat and Republican alike.  Even Governor Romney (who has vowed to fight abortion when in office, mind you) criticized Mourdock’s comments, and President Obama said “I don’t think any male politicians should be making health care decisions for women.”

Now, there’s a lot to consider about all of this.  First, I want you to have an appreciation for the political climate regarding abortion.  Abortion has been legal on a federal level since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 1973.  The specifics are up to the states, but it is completely legal on a federal level due to that landmark case.  That has not kept more conservative politicians from fighting it.  There are several politicians that believe abortion is wrong.  However, until recently, I did not know of any politician (besides Rick Santorum, the man who really should be our president) who did not make the infamous three exceptions: rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger.  Governor Romney himself makes these exceptions.  Roe v Wade could possibly be overturned again (making abortion illegal unless individual states make it legal), but that depends on which Supreme Court Justices are selected, which will be done by the winner of the November election.  So the main point is this: abortion is legal on the federal level, those against abortion generally make exception for rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger, so those who don’t make these exceptions are seen as radical.

Now, back to Richard Mourdock’s comments.  These are his words that are being broadcasted all over the national news: “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”  Now, that sounds like he’s saying that God intended for rape to happen right?  That’s what I thought too.  Then I saw what the nation news isn’t telling you he said: “God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that He does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick.”  That pretty much clears up the controversy, doesn’t it? 

Here’s the point I want to make: Governor Romney and the other members of the pro-life crew would agree that a fetus is life right?  Even if they don’t believe that life is created by God, they admittedly believe that a fetus qualifies as life, so killing that life is wrong.  Why then does it matter how the life originated?  Joe Donnely, an opponent of Richard Mourdock’s, was quoted saying that rape is “is a heinous and violent crime in every instance.”  I agree.  Here’s the logic of most politicians: “as long as we’re at it, let’s tack another violent act onto it.  Kill two birds with one stone.”  I for one find it refreshing to see life being defended, regardless of how it began.  Life is life and murder is murder.  I do, however, want to go one step further than Richard Mourdock: why is the life of the mother more important than the life of the child?  When we make that distinction, are we not trying to play God?

Ultimately, we can take this as an example of a refreshing fact: the battle for undefended human life is not as lost as it may have seemed.