Babies Without the Rape


By now you’ve heard about Indiana state treasurer Richard Mourdock’s statement about abortion in the case of rape, made while debating his opponent for the position of Indiana’s junior U.S. senator.

Asked whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, Mourdock said, “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 happen.”

This received, rightfully, a great deal of scorn, upon which Mourdock tried to make things better.

After the debate, Mourdock tried to clarify his remarks, saying it was “sick” and “bizarre” that his comments would be interpreted as though he were saying God intended rape. “What I said is God creates life. As I person of faith, I believe that,” Mourdock is quoted as saying in The Indianapolis Star. “Does God want people raped? Of course not.”

While that raises theological problems (if an omnipotent God doesn’t want rape, why is there rape?), it doesn’t make anything the least bit better. That he thinks it does is telling.

Rape is an invasion. When you are raped, your privacy is violated. Your bodily intgegrity is violated. Your body is entered without your permission and held captive to another’s will. And yes, I’m talking about all kinds of rape, not just the legitimate, forcible, rape kind of rape.

Suggesting God would want this for anyone is abhorrent. Suggesting that God wouldn’t want that–but would want something with many commonalities with rape to happen right after someone has been raped and to continue for months is equally abhorrent.

Yes, an unwanted pregnancy has many commonalities with rape. When you’re pregnant, you lose your privacy and your bodily intergrity. Medical intervention, even of the preventive sort, is always intrusive. Coming after a rape, gynocological intervention takes on a particularly invasive character, especially when it’s unwanted.

Whether you consider an embryo or fetus to be human or not, it cannot be nurtured outside the body. In the case of rape, that means that one more person (using the most pro-life wording) is invading the victim’s body. In this case, however, the captivity goes on for most of a year.

An unwanted pregnancy is not rape, but it is like a rape in many ways. When a pregnancy follows a rape, it is an extension of the betrayal and the trauma of the rape itself. Any individual victim may decide for their own reasons that they want to carry that pregnancy to term, but none of them should ever be pressured to do so, much less forced.

Telling the world that your god wants rape babies may or may not be telling the world your god wants rape. People tie themselves into knots to believe stranger things. Telling the world you’re insisting a rape victim should be retraumatized because your god wants the baby is appalling.

More than that, it is telling the world that your god has no use for the person wrapped around that uterus except as a mobile incubator. “Oh,” said your god, “I don’t care about that rape thing. I don’t care if you’re scared or hurt or have PTSD or would rather die than have to deal with reminders of your rape for months and months. I want a baby.”

Even if that god existed, even if he weren’t just a handy excuse to believe what you already believe without taking responsibility for it, following such a god would be a grossly immoral act. That anyone seeking public office would stand up and say all this as though it were a good thing tells us how far we have to go as a country. We can start by telling Mourdock he doesn’t have the moral authority to make any decisions for the rest of us.

Comments

  1. kevinkirkpatrick says

    God is apparently working with a baby budget – he’s busily giving rape victims the gift of life, but coming up short of funds for thousands of infertile couples who have both the desire to bring children into the world and the capacity to raise those children in a happy/healthy environment.

  2. Stevarious, Public Health Problem says

    God is apparently working with a baby budget – he’s busily giving rape victims the gift of life, but coming up short of funds for thousands of infertile couples who have both the desire to bring children into the world and the capacity to raise those children in a happy/healthy environment.

    Well ya see.. God’s Plan™ is that the infertile couples should be adopting the rape babies!

    That God’s Plan™ doesn’t take into account the emotions, preferences, bodily integrity, or mental health of the humans involved seems entirely in character for him.

  3. says

    Personally, I’ve been defending Mourdock for at least being theologically consistent for believing that “God creates life” in all cases as opposed to people out there who may only believe that in cases of consensual sex without having anything other than a “‘cuz rape is shitty” argument for why that does not apply to rape. I don’t find such arguments sufficient when arguing theology. (Honestly, it doesn’t help these people that they have no evidence for their claims…but I’m cheering at the pep squad.)

    I don’t agree with his theology and I must say I also find this situation to be a good example for defending my anti-theistic viewpoint. Primarily, if we aren’t critical of the people who think their babies were crated by God out of consensual sex, then we’re going to continue to have people like Mourdock who recognize that there is no good reason not to extend such a belief to rape victims.

  4. says

    (let’s see if this gets through – I’m guessing no) – as a person who has been in both situations, I’m here to tell you an unwanted pregnancy is *NOTHING* like rape. Not even remotely. One is an inconvenience. The other is a complete and thorough violation of one’s body and mental stability. Please, do me a favor and never, ever compare the two ever again.

  5. explody says

    I think your wording is obscuring your point. Comparing an “unwanted pregnancy” to rape is absurd. The former is the direct or indirect result of our own consensual actions, the latter is the polar opposite.

    I’m fairly sure that you mean “unwanted pregnancy from rape”, but that’s not what is written, arguably not even implied.

    This is not pedantry. It’s brushes the surface of confusing “sex” and “sex via rape”. There is a chasm of difference.

  6. says

    Crikey, I don’t understand how Christians paint themselves into this corner. It’s one of the reasons I left the religion. Let’s parse the logic, shall we?

    1. A woman is being raped.
    2. You have the power to stop it. Prevent it, even.
    3. ?

  7. LicoriceAllsort says

    I’m here to tell you an unwanted pregnancy is *NOTHING* like rape. Not even remotely. One is an inconvenience. The other is a complete and thorough violation of one’s body and mental stability.

    The latter is exactly what my unwanted pregnancy felt like to me. Had I not had access to a safe abortion, I would have ended it through whatever means possible, self-harm included. Zvan’s comparison won’t resonate with every woman, but for my own self, the description was very apt.

  8. Forbidden Snowflake says

    I’m fairly sure that you mean “unwanted pregnancy from rape”, but that’s not what is written, arguably not even implied.

    I actually assumed that Stephanie meant “unwanted pregnancy one is being forced to continue”. I’m not sure how the fact that it’s a result of consensual actions is supposed to help in that case.

  9. Corvus illustris says

    Buzz saw @3:

    Personally, I’ve been defending Mourdock for at least being theologically consistent for believing that “God creates life” in all cases as opposed to people out there who may only believe that in cases of consensual sex without having anything other than a “‘cuz rape is shitty” argument for why that does not apply to rape. I don’t find such arguments sufficient when arguing theology …

    What you’re doing is reductio ad absurdum*: assumptions that lead to untenable conclusions must be rejected. Theology fails along with Mourdock.

    *Of course you knew that! Logicians use this method all the time, but Andy Schlafly doesn’t like it when they attack treat math at Conservapedia. One can see why.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>