Mourdock Ain't Sorry, You Losers!

[Content Note: Rape culture; violent imagery.]

Well, he's sorry that we're such a bunch of stupid, oversensitive reactionaries who are just looking for things to get mad about, but he's sure not sorry for saying that if you get pregnant from rape, it's a gift from the Lord:
Mourdock said in a news conference that he abhors any sexual violence and regrets it if his comment during a debate Tuesday night left another impression. He said he firmly believes all life is precious and that he abhors violence of any kind.

"I spoke from my heart. And speaking from my heart, speaking from the deepest level of my faith, I would not apologize. I would be less than faithful if I said anything other than life is precious, I believe it's a gift from god," Mourdock said.

...Mourdock maintained at the news conference that he was misunderstood.

"I think that God can see beauty in every life," Mourdock said. "Certainly, I did not intend to suggest that God wants rape, that God pushes people to rape, that God wants to support or condone evil in any way."
Ha ha of course not. God just wants to turn your rape lemons into baby lemonade! God's a silver lining kinda fella that way.

Anyway, good for the very privileged Mr. Mourdock for believing that all life is precious. It must be difficult to travel for the campaign without using any fossil fuels, but it'll be cool to have a Jain in Congress if he wins!

Ha ha that is only half a shitty joke at Mourdock's expense, because, in all seriousness, not everyone shares his bullshit philosophy. Not even everyone in Indiana! (I heard there are even some nefarious feminist types there.) And since I am fresh out of new ways to say "I exist and I am an atheist and I do not share your garbage ideology and I would like agency over my own body, please," I am going to turn it over to Neil Steinberg, who had a good column yesterday about the problem with Mourdock "speaking for God."
Say that my entire family is eaten by wolves. In my grief, I insist, "I'm not grieving, I'm happy, because it's all part of God's plan. The Lord wanted this to happen. My family is in heaven now, eating ice cream."

Everyone nods, no decent person would argue. It's my right to spin my tragedy however I like, however brings me solace.

Now change the premise. My family is fine. The wolves rush past them to your family and eats your family instead. While you are grieving, I stroll over, drape my arm around your shoulder and say, "Don't grieve. Be happy, because it's part of God's plan. The Lord wanted this to happen. Your family is in heaven now, eating ice cream."

I'm a jerk to say that, right? Because I'm using my religious outlook to dismiss the tragedy that has torn your life apart. It's not my place. We have the right to interpret the universe in a way that makes sense to us. What we don't have a right to do is expect — never mind demand — that other people share our worldview.

This flies by some Republicans, and they trip over it. Particularly when it comes to abortion. They are so lost in their own religious belief — that a fetus is a baby, that God is against abortion, contraception, often sex itself — that the idea that other people get to form their own beliefs too on these issues, just like they do, flies by them. It boggles their minds.
And being raped, and needing abortion, are both, needless to say, a damn sight more common than one's entire family being devoured by wolves. It's a BIG DEAL that virtually an entire political party and its base "trip over...the idea that other people get to form their own beliefs." They are just certain that they are right (and/or don't care to extend people unlike them any rights of agency), and they endeavor to impose their will upon all the rest of us.

Meanwhile, large parts of the media helpfully abet this attempt at dominion by pretending that the anti-choice and pro-choice positions are two sides of the same coin, instead of emphasizing that the anti-choice position limits rights while the pro-choice position supports access to a full spectrum of options from which individual choices can be made by people empowered with information, agency, and consent.

This fight has never been Abortions for Nobody vs. Abortions for Everybody. It has always been, and always will be, Abortions for Nobody vs. Abortions for Whomever Needs and Wants Them.

That is not a semantic difference.

Back to Steinberg:
Mourdock felt compelled to clarify God's position: "God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that He does. Rape is a horrible thing."

Thanks for the update. So God is against rape, but he's for babies conceived by rape?

"I believe God controls the universe," said Mourdock, not bothering to add, "and I want to change the laws of the United States so you have to act as if you believe so too."

I can't speak for God, but nature sure wants women who are raped to sometimes give birth, just as nature, in its raw state, also wants humans to be filthy, hungry, scrambling mammals who die by the age of 35. Science nudges us beyond that on many fronts, including giving women the ability to end pregnancies. [Anti-choicers] intend to go down fighting. That is their misfortune, and ours.

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus