Two More Takes on Richard Mourdock

(Yes, I’m getting sucked into talking about it too. I am but a lonely piece of driftwood upon the currents of the news cycle.)

First, from James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal:

As an analytical matter, however, Mourdock’s statement is entirely defensible, whereas Akin’s is sophistry. And it turns out that Mourdock’s Democratic opponent, in seeking to capitalize on the remark, is engaging in Akin-style sophistry. 

Mourdock gave a straightforward and thoughtful answer, if an impolitic one, to the question that was posed, one that made clear he appreciates its (albeit only hypothetical) moral gravity. Akin, by contrast, attempted to avoid the question by arguing that it was irrelevant.

Then from our friends at The New Republic (liberals who can be reasoned with), wherein a liberal writer accomplishes the astonishing and almost unheard of feat of stating a conservative position accuately:

Immediately, Twitter lit up with incensed and indignant comments characterizing Mourdock’s words as saying that God makes rape happen or that God intends for rape to result in pregnancy, along with all manner of dark humor about other things God intends. Liberals seemed shocked by Mourdock’s statement and his beliefs.  

I was just shocked that anyone was shocked. 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. 

Leave a Reply