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:
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.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
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: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.
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.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.
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