This comment is freaking out the talking heads and leading to tepid denunciations across the Republican camp, but really what's so bad about this comment? It's a favourite rhetorical tactic of the pro-choice community to ask pro-lifers "what about rape and incest?" Assuming that this exception must exist doesn't really follow from the logic of pro-life though. If anyone pro-life says they only support abortion under these circumstances (and life of the mother), then you can't really trust them. They're either calculating cynically, aren't really pro-life, or haven't thought it out thoroughly.
If you believe that an unborn child has the right to life, then how does rape or incest negate that? There is no way to square it without special pleading.
And then there's the God intended it to happen comment, which Mourdock has oddly repudiated. If you believe in the omnipresent, omnipotent God with a plan for each and everyone, doesn't it follow that bad things are part of the plan as well? Admittedly that is a weaker argument, as the definition of God is elusive enough to be everything to everyone, but the point is that Richard Mourdock's comments are not shocking or surprising. They seem to follow logically from the worldview of many many people: God has a plan and unborn children are persons.
Should we be offended that he said this? Should Republicans distance themselves from him for espousing views they likely hold but don't have the courage to admit? He's being honest, and while I'd never vote for the man if I could, I can see clearly where he's coming from. If we can take anything from this, isn't it just proof that all of this is just an act, that politics is symphonic bull****, and the only reason why this man is being derided is because he played his own song?
