Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday when a woman is impregnated during a rape, “it’s something God intended.”
Mourdock was asked during the final minutes of a debate whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.
He replied: “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that’s something God intended to happen.”
Thankfully, Orthodox theology does not require that one believe that God intended for rape to happen. We do not believe in the one decree that governs everything such that Calvinists are constantly having to explain how the one decree also decrees evil. But, Mourdock was not talking directly about that, but rather about the idea that a woman who is impregnated during rape has a child whom God intended to be there. It is that statement about intention that causes the problem. Because, really, when one talks about intention, one has to include all the steps that led up to that pregnancy. Each step leading to the pregnancy is a necessary prequel and consequence for the intention. In effect, if God intends a baby, then God is responsible for the preceding steps. Lest you think I am exaggerating, look at the Westminster Confession of Faith and see how many lines it spends in explaining the concept of first cause, subsequent cause, etc. I am not making up some liberal argument, it is something with which the Westminster Divines had to deal and one that has been discussed in various forms of Calvinism ever since.
But, more than that, think back on the various statements that have been made about women in this campaign, from the various deliberate lies about what Sandra Fluke really testified about to the statements that God had created a defense mechanism such that women who are raped have a significantly lower chance of becoming pregnant. Think of how God’s name has been used to justify some absolutely awful and untrue medical statements. More than that, in defense of pro-life themes, think of how biology has been twisted beyond what research shows to support political ends. Both God’s intentions and medical research have been twisted in order to try to argue against abortion in the case of rape or incest.
Am I against abortion in cases of rape or incest? Absolutely! But, not at the cost of twisting theology nor at the cost of twisting medical research. I will willingly argue for the life of a child in the womb who is another victim of rape or incest, just like his/her mother is a victim. But never at the cost of twisting truth or sound theology. Sadly, that is what all too many conservative politicians are doing. And, even more sadly, that is what some Christians are doing.
Father, bless!
Thank-you, Father, for this thoughtful and nuanced post. It’s a very timely one. I am glad to have read it.
Kassiani
A very twisted view of Calvin!
I really loathe Calvin, and yes, this is one of the reasons why. It is high time the politicians in this country just shut their yap about rape, incest, and abortion. These decisions and conversations best left to the victims and their priests, pastors, etc. It makes it REALLY hard to be a pro-life Christian and have these jackasses running off at the lips like this. American Puritanism, its Calvinist legacy, and all the Protestant iterations in this country are doing more damage to actual constructive conversation and governance than just about everything.
Why haven’t you pointed out the equal absurdity that “Both God’s intentions and medical research have been twisted in order to try to argue” for “abortion in the case of rape or incest”?
Re-read my last paragraph, I clearly point out that I am against abortion even in the case of rape or incest. Second, that was not the point of the post. Third, sadly you are using the typical argumentation technique that if I am not dealing with every possible permutation of the issue, that I am somehow writing a misleading or inappropriate article. Since this would make every blog post impossibly long, this would make this blog unreadable. And, since I have a strong pro-life record on this blog, I would suggest that you read a little more of me before trying to make that claim.
Father, I am new to your blog and unfortunately do not have time to go back and read all of your postings. I fully recognize your pro-life stance; I believe we wish for the same outcome and if you feel I have misrepresented it as such, I apologize. However, my point isn’t where you stand on the issue as much as it is your approach to it. It appears to me that you seem to come at it with an anti-conservative bent. Go back and reread your second to last paragraph and you will notice that you only attack one side. In your words: “More than that, in defense of pro-life themes, think of how biology has been twisted beyond what research shows to support political ends.” Being balanced doesn’t mean having to cover “every possible permutation of the issue.” That is a mis-direction, a typical argumentation technique used to change the subject.
Maybe I’m missing the point, but you start out by addressing (what I would agree that) Calvinism is a difficult and rather extreme in its justification, but then you digress into the extremes of the pro-life argument. Were you meaning to critique one or the other primarily, or both?
Why is it guy’s like this are considered looney and extreme while still being representative of the conservative argument (which they are not), yet believing that a fetus isn’t a human being until has traversed the birth canal is viewed as rational and debatable?
If I’m misreading your political leanings, I would appreciate your pointing me in the direction of one of your less liberal (or progressive, if you like) blogs. I would be pleased to read it.
Thank you and God bless you.
Actually, I should have added, …and in the justification of all abortion.