Mourdock admits his comments were twisted.
I am bringing this from my diary at DailyKos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/25/1149841/-Mourdock-admits-his-comments-were-twisted
Yet, another Republican has come out and embraced the GOP platform. Mourdock explains how the product of a rape is a gift from God. This shouldn't be interpreted as him saying that the rape itself was a gift even though the pregnancy is. I guess the rape is just an unfortunate way of delivering the precious gift of life as God willed it.
I am beginning to think that this issue of pregnancy and rape isn't about either one. When a normal person hears the word rape they are horrified. When they hear that the woman became pregnant the horror is compounded. When a Republican hears the word rape somehow that word is translated to slut in their mind. The want positive proof there was a rape. They want details and bruises. Otherwise, it's not a legitimate rape and on some level the woman wanted it. Even without the additional trauma of becoming pregnant being raped is a life changing event. No one should have to live with the product of rape. It's not a gift from God it is a biological event forced on a woman. Women should be allowed to get an abortion so they can move on with their lives. There are millions of women who have gone on to have the child conceived by rape and that is also their choice. I wouldn't force a woman to have an abortion either, that is equally horrifying and some women would be extremely traumatized. But, the fact is there is still a stigma to being a rape victim, to being an unwed mother(if single when a rape occurs), the husband if the woman is married will also bear some of the stigma if they decide to keep the child, there is a heavy economic burden as well. It seems to me that Republicans applaud all of that.
These types want to outlaw abortions for rape victims and at the same time remove the safety net for victims of rape. They will cut funding for mental health services, food stamps, Aid to families with children (the program has many names in many states), Pell grants, child care cost assistance, bus services, and many many other programs that help the poor. But, even if a woman has a well paying job, having an child force on her via rape is going to have a huge financial impact. I have not heard one Republican that claims children conceived by rape should be cared for by the government. They never say that they should give women financial aid to care for the child. The seem to assume that the woman should bear all the mental, physical, financial costs, and social stigma on her own or her and her partner and family should bear the entire burden of this gift from God.
So, what is it really about then? I believe that Republicans truly want to roll back civil rights all of them. They don't want women to be equal, they don't want minorities to be equal, they don't want poor people to have economic opportunities, they want gay people to go back in the closet and to stop asking for marriage equality. But, this particular attack on civil rights is particularly odious. They bring God into the equation in a way that makes anyone who objects look like they are anti-God for objecting. They want to point to the woman and accuse her of not appreciating the precious gift of life. Of course if this same person got the gift of cancer, this person wouldn't be so fast to call it a gift, nor very inclined to keep the gift. In fact, they would probably very quickly seek treatment for cancer. Is it harsh to put pregnancy on the same level as cancer? A pregnancy by force is actually worse IMO. Cancer can happen to anyone male or female. Cancer is rarely criminally induced, however. We could talk about corporations and pollution, but that would be a digression I don't want to get into at this point. My point is that if a person gets treated for cancer they won't have to face picketers to go through to get treatment. They won't be told that the cancer is a gift from God. They won't have to face a choice on whether or not they should get treatment(assuming they can afford it), no one is going to introduce legislation questioning whether or not it is a legitimate cancer.
So, what it boils down to is that the choices a woman has after being raped can be controlled by law. The people that would force a woman to have a child even if it is a rapists child or from incest, would not introduce the same kind of legislation against getting treatment for cancer. They would look ridiculous if they did. But, they should look just as ridiculous and heartless for suggesting that rape shouldn't be a reason for getting an abortion. But, they don't this is the kind of thing that plays to a faction of their base. The same faction that translates rape to slut. The same faction that would turn back all progress on civil rights. For all these reasons Murdock's words are indeed twisted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
