His name should be Richard Morecock. What this worm uttered:
Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday when a woman is impregnated during a rape, "it's something God intended."
Mourdock, who's been locked in a tight race with Democratic challenger Rep. Joe Donnelly, was asked during the final minutes of a debate whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, 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 happened," Mourdock said.Did he struggle as much as he would have in the claws of a rapist? Did his arid and theoretical ponderings ever make him feel at all guilty? Did he ask himself why he is the person to whom God has transmitted His (and it's always He in these deranged theories) theory of how a male god gives life, all alone? Such as by using the penis of a rapist as the pen that writes the Word on the canvas that is the body of a frightened and suffering woman?
This is not about gods at all. This is about who has the right to decide when a woman is to give birth. That "who" are people who look astonishingly like Richard Mourdock. It is those people who have decided that the penis of a rapist is God's golden pen, writing life, beautifully.
I wish to know if God also uses the murderer's gun to write death, when needed, if every death is His intention. If that is so, who are we to intervene in the processes of dying? After all, cancer cells are alive.
Mourdock then clarified his disgusting assertion:
Mourdock further explained after the debate he did not believe God intended the rape, but that God is the only one who can create life.
"Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don't think that," Mourdock said. "Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that's not even close to what I said."
So what does Mourdock's god do? Cruise around, looking for convenient rapes that just happen to be happening, so that he can insert New Life into the outcome? Isn't that worse than the suggestion that god preordained rape? Couldn't he have prevented the rape altogether? Or at least the conception? Mourdock's god comes across as an opportunist here.
But that's because Mourdock is an asshole of the highest caliber. All this is about his right to decide on the fate of women who have been raped, and he doesn't care about those women. He cares about power over them.
Still, Mourdock's religious background is not irrelevant here. The three Abrahamic religions all pretend that life comes only from a male god, all by himself, and that the role of women is to be as fields under cultivation. To be plowed and seeded, as the farmers will.
Once those religions erased the female power in procreation altogether (while making sure that women continue to do most of the actual work involved with children), it's pretty obvious that the access to abortion is the work of the devil. It negates the very essence of the male-god-alone-theory.
Josh Marshall refers to an earlier comment by yet another Republican politician on the question of rape. I reproduce the comment because it ties into the general fairy tale told by fundamentalists all over this globe:
Commenting on the horror of rape, Smith said he knew how bad it was since he experienced something similar.
“I lived something similar to that with my own family,” Smith said. He then described his daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy — from consensual sex. “She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views but fortunately for me … she chose the way I thought. Now don’t get me wrong. It wasn’t rape.”
Smith affirmed that he believed his daughter’s pregnancy from consensual sex was similar to a rape. “Put yourself in a father’s position, yes, I mean it is similar.”
Those who make the point that Smith equates consensual sex with rape miss the godly boat. Smith sees his daughter's vagina as his property. Anyone using his property without his consent is guilty of a crime. It doesn't matter whether his daughter consented or not, because it's not her vagina we are talking about here: it's Smith's property, and he wasn't consulted. That's the "father's position" he means and that's why he doesn't get why anyone wouldn't agree with him about the common aspects of the two cases.
That's it. Fertility comes only from god but the fertility of women is the property of the oldest male in the family. It's up to him to decide how those vaginas are used or not.