Skip to main content

Should people be shocked by Mourdock?

Pro-choice journalist Amy Sullivan, reviewing Richard Mourdock's statements about rape and abortion law, sees nothing new and wonders about the pro-choice outrage. She does not agree with Mourdock. Instead, "I was just shocked why anyone was shocked."

Sullivan, writing in The New Republic (she also gave an interview to NPR), essentially argues that what Mourdock said has always been a central part of pro-life thinking:
  1. God creates life and, if a life exists, then it is not our place to question the circumstances under which it is brought into being. 
  2. Therefore, while rape is evil, a life that is conceived of rape is still fully human, intended by God, valued by God, and entitled to life. 
What makes Mourdock novel, maybe, is not that he opposes a rape exception, but that he spelled out the reason why clearly:
Lots of Republican politicians oppose rape exceptions. Paul Ryan, for one, opposes abortion in the case of rape. Rarely does anyone bother to offer an explanation for why he holds that position. (Todd Akin famously did earlier this year, and that didn’t go so well for him.) I’m not sure what justifications people had imagined for opposing a rape exception that would be more acceptable than Mourdock’s. 
Sullivan also points out that the idea that God intends things to happen (and that it is not our place to get in the way) is embraced by many people:
This is a fairly common theological belief, the understanding of God as an active, interventionist deity. It’s also not limited to conservative Christians. There are liberal Christians who also argue that things work out the way they’re supposed to. Some of them are in my own family, and I disagree with them. But it is one way of grappling with the problem of theodicy, trying to understand why God would allow bad things to happen.
I really like Sullivan's analysis. I deviate just a bit from her analysis in that I think the outrage, where genuine (and not amplified for political effect), originates not so much from the theological principle itself but its bad application.

Sullivan notes that people across the political spectrum selectively apply the 'God intended' principle. Selective application suggests that, when used in a given situation-- in X case, don't mess with God's intent-- the principle is being invoked not just for a theological reason but for some additional reason.

The outrage, then, derives from seeing someone like Mourdock selectively choosing to apply the "God intends" principle in the case of rape despite the awful logic that it entails: God intended to compound the trauma of a sexual assault by using a rape victim's body as a vehicle for bringing another life into the world.

While many pro-life people embrace the 'lemonade out of lemons' argument when it comes to rape, pro-choice people-- and many pro-life people, too-- find it unacceptable. Mourdock unintentionally did us a service by reminding us why.
Links:

Link to National Public Radio interview of Amy Sullivan (and transcript) (October 26, 2012)

Original article in The New Republic (October 25, 2012): Why Liberals are Misreading Mourdock

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

Spontaneous miscarriage and the morality of abortion

Hello, everyone! I have been away from the blog for a while, during a period of great activity regarding reproductive politics. So let's get back to discussing this always-interesting topic.  In reading an essay by Gary Gutting (subject of a separate post), I followed a link to this blog post by philosopher Peter Smith.  He wonders why intentional termination of an early pregnancy is more morally consequential than a spontaneous early miscarriage (which occurs in roughly 30% of conceptions). What he is really doing is calling attention to a perceived hypocrisy by pro-life advocates: If unborn are valuable humans from the moment of conception, why isn't there more of an outcry over the heavy loss of human life by natural miscarriage? If the value of the unborn is equal across all situations, Smith suggests, then this apparent lack of concern over natural miscarriage indicates that opposition to abortion, at least early in pregnancy, is about something else.  ...