I wasn't sure if I was going to "go here". But I don't know how I can't.
“...even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape,
that is something God intended to happen.” So said Richard Mourdock in a debate for the Senate. He lost.
"First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. Let's assume that maybe that didn't work, or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child." So said Todd Akin to a reporter in his run for the Senate. He lost.
I don't know how to express my anger at what they said. I am so disgusted. Yet at the same time, I believe these gentlemen are being honest about their feelings and their positions on the question of abortion. I don't admire them for that. I expect honesty from those people that would seek votes. I know, how naive am I? But I expect it. And they received the results that I would expect for making comments like that, they lost.
Consider their words. First, Mr. Mourdock: God intends for a life to begin in rape, even the "horrible situation" of rape. So, God intends the rape, God intends the rapist, God intends the attack, God intends the life of the woman to be shredded, God intends all of that. The abstract phrase says something like "God authors evil". But this puts the intention of God for the most horrible crime to happen to my wife or my daughter?
I am a pastor and I tell you no God I believe in works that way.
Now, Mr Akin. Legitimate rape? And the female body has ways to try and shut the whole process down? What are you talking about? The victim committing suicide? Or maybe a d & c? I read that and I come away with the twisted perception that Mr. Akin is putting the responsibility for the pregnancy and the rape back on the woman. It was somehow "legitimate", she can "fix it".
I am a man and I tell you that "no" means "no". The moment the man ignores that, the crime has begun-inside marriage, outside marriage, wherever. And, insult to injury, the woman is raped and she is responsible for birth control too? Really? Can such ignorance really exist?
You want a better perspective? You want a more pastoral perspective? Andrew Solomon spoke extensively about the children born to women who have been raped in an interview with Terry Gross on NPR's program "Fresh Air" as part of a discussion of his book "Far From the Tree". You can find the interview at http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/. I heard the interview on Nov. 12.
As a member of my church, I am called upon to take time for my neighbor, to pray for my neighbor, to serve my neighbor. Andrew Solomon gives insight on what that is like far more
1 comment:
Akin was most certainly an idiot. I think that you are misreading Mourdock however. As a Calvinist, you surely must be aware of the whole issue of God's sovereignty - that somehow God "intended" everything both good and evil, and that to deny this is to deny God's sovereignty. In our common way of talking we conflate "intend" with "desire" but I think that Mourdock was speaking in a theological sense.
I believe that speaking in this way is very unhelpful. I am sure that there are issues of God's omniscience and omnipotence that must be worked out logically, but I don't believe that God "purposes" evil. When little children are killed, I think it stupid to say "well, God called them home" or "God needed another angel". There is much in this area that is simply way beyond our pay grade but I just can't ever imagine suggesting that God purposed evil.
But having said that, I think that it is very unfair and deceptive to suggest that Mourdock was saying that God desires rape. I think that Mourdock was trying to express a view honestly (i.e. that even in the midst of great evil, God is still sovereign), but he expressed it in an extremely unhelpful way, and too many people played crass politics with it.
Post a Comment