The media and Democratic freakout continues over Richard Mourdock’s comments on rape, abortion, babies, and God’s will. The Obama campaign and the rest of the Democratic machine are turning Mourdock’s inartful comments into the centerpiece of their campaign.
The moral implications of this indignation are a bit odd.
Sure, Mourdock confused matters by bringing “God’s will,” into the discussion. But if you’re going to claim the freakout is anything more than opportunistic pouncing on a bad turn of phrase, then ask yourself what you’re really objecting to, in the substance of his comments.
It seems to me that any honest person should acknowledge that Mourdock’s point was this: All babies are gifts from God; even those conceived through rape.
Maybe you object to the theology at play here. But strip away the theology, and here’s what Mourdock is saying: All human beings, from the moment of their creation, deserve our love and protection.
Again, you might not agree with that, but it’s a standard pro-life view. The freakout towards Mourdock isn’t that he’s pro-life: his Democratic opponent calls himself pro-life, too. Mourdock’s supposed offense — again, if the offense was anything more than uncareful wording — was including the children conceived from rape in his view about the sanctity of life.
Back in August, for a column, I spent a day talking to women who had conceived or been conceived by rape. It was the most most emotionally exhausting day of my career. One woman I spoke to is now a mom. Her name is Jenni Maas. Jenni said her mother tells her “it was a horrible thing that happened, but this was a little light in her life.”
If you believe being pro-life like Donnelly is morally acceptable, but you find Mourdock’s comments to betray an unacceptable view, then what you find offensive or extreme is the notion that Jenni is as much a person as you are.
This is an interesting moral proposition on which the Democrats have chosen to run.