One of the major tenants of most protestant branches of Christianity is that God is in control of everything. The classic "why do bad things happen to good people?" problem of evil. Most modern practitioners seem to handle this by saying that God had some greater purpose in whatever horrible thing happened. Rape, disease, murder - all *somehow* fit into God's plan.

So, it was horribly phrased, but it's not that far philosophically from beliefs that most people don't consider to be that abhorrent... the idea of an all-powerful, all-seeing God.

Moreover, since God tends to be pretty much against murdering babies, even one produced under horrible circumstances would be under his protection. Just as, you know, that baby will be once it starts being dependent on its mother outside of the womb instead of inside of it.

I don't agree with *any* of those people I just talked about, but please don't sound so surprised and horrified. *If* you accept their basic assumptions (that an omnipotent, omniscient God exists, and that fetuses are human lives), the rest of the logic follows pretty directly without any particularly disturbing jumps. We just don't like to think about those implications when we think about religion most of the time.

Considering Mourdock and Akins' beliefs together doesn't make much sense to me unless you're trying to build up an anti-abortion strawman. One belief by one person is based on a poor understanding of science. The other by an entirely different person is based on a natural consequence of widely held religious beliefs.

Now, you may be an atheist, and say this is all a bunch of superstitious nonsense (and I agree with you) but even from a humanist standpoint it's hard to just dismiss the earnest and core religious beliefs of 50 million people.

Although the grammar of Murdock's statement is ambiguous, I would take bets that his meaning was the new life was the gift from God that he says God intended to happen.

In Christian theology, God does not will evil - which rape certainly is - but rather, because if free will, does not prevent human evil from occurring.

I'm all in favor of having vigorous debates about pro-life/pro-choice, but I think they go better when we assume the best rather than the worst about each others' comments.  To suggest that Murdock is a "rape enthusiast" is simply contrary to his own words, when he called rape "horrible."  

Please: disagree with his position on abortion in the case of rape, but don't portray him as pro-rape because of his pro-life stance. 

I am rather surprised that women are more likely than men to hold this view.

I really enjoy this blog, but I am disappointed in this post. There are so many flaws in the logic, which I would not expect from a PhD. I am in agreement with Yrro that throwing these two statements together arbitrarily feels very much like building a straw man, and this whole post feels a bit like an attack of a straw man because next, the author lumps together any GSS respondent who answered that abortion should be illegal in cases of rape with Mourdock and Akin. I'm sure there are plenty of those respondents who would resent being thrown in with these two just because they are in partial agreement about one aspect of the issue. Heldman continues stuffing the scarecrow by poorly representing the GSS data chart, stating: "Republicans with lower levels of education who identify as extremely conservative and believe the Bible is the word of God are more likely than other Americans to hold this belief." While this statement is not directly false, it is a bit misleading. What the data shows is that each of several independent variables is correlated to this view. For example, those who have less than a high school education are more likely to hold this view, regardless of political party / religion / etc. Also, those who identify as Strong Republican are more likely to hold this view, regardless of religion, education, etc. And so on. Obviously, the smaller part of the population who happens to fall into all of these independent variables is much more likely to hold these views, but to suggest that all that might hold this view are the same and that they are in cahoots with Mourdock and Akin is ridiculous. But it does make for a good straw man. Btw, no, I do not agree with this view. I just can't stand poor logic being presented as a sophisticated or thoughtful statement.

The whole "he's only sharing the 'usual' Christian belief, he's not pro-rape" argument is a very, very thin shield and I'm rather disappointed that someone with even the slightest ounce of empathy or compassion could honestly use it. I don't care what he or others feel they believe, a 'Good' person cannot expect to use religion or custom as excuses to dismiss the someone's (usually a woman's) suffering. The very fact that someone would not only believe it but also say it in public shows how horrible the whole idea of religion is.

Of all the strange things Akin, Walsh and Mourdock have recently said about abortion - none of them have really been in agreement.

Akin believes a woman can't get pregnant if she is really raped - so I guess that means he doesn't support exceptions for rape?,

Walsh believes in exceptions for rape and incest (so he must believe it is possible for a women to get pregnant from rape) but he doesn't believe that pregnancy can put a woman's life at risk, so doesn't support exceptions for health reasons.

And then this guy, who also believes a woman can get pregnant from rape but just doesn't believe it is a good enough reason for her to be allowed to terminate the pregnancy.

So while it all suggests a coordinated effort against abortion rights, when you look closely it indicates that each man has compensated for his total misunderstanding of female health by imagining various anatomical fantasies to be true. How did so many elected officials end up with such warped ideas? Did their parents keep them out of high school biology?

In a strange sense, the abortion opponents who oppose a "rape exception" seem to be the most genuine.  After all, if these people really believe that they oppose abortion because "life is precious" they'd be just as eager to preserve "life" created by rape as by fornication.  It's the "pro-life" people who look the other way when a woman is impregnated by a violent crime who are clearly just interested in punishing women who they feel the need to judge.

Personally, I don't know why we're even having this discussion.  Abortion is legal, why are people debating exceptions to bans that don't even exist?

Since most pro-life people are very pro-traditional family (with a mother and a father) I don't know what type of life these people think that a child of a rape victim would have, it most likely would not include the child's biological father and I would imagine that the mother would have a very difficult time bonding with the child. 
Not every child is born into a world filled with butterflies and rainbows. If you want to force a woman to give birth to a child that she will not be able to take care of properly, then I don't think you can really call yourself "pro-life". 

The point that these views aren't very far from mainstream Christian viewpoints, albeit with their logical implications taken further than most are willing to, reminds me of a case where a man was ruled mentally fit to be executed because his delusions were "relatively normal Christian belief." So really, these sorts of distinctions can be very important!

Florida inmate found fit to be executed despite history of mental illness

The judge's reasoning, with sounds more like an anti-theist zinger than anything, is itself another example of taking common assumptions a step further in their logical implications than most people are willing to. It's not as though there isn't already a massive precedent for accepting obvious absurdity based on whether or not it's popular, but it's almost never admitted to so explicitly 

I think identifying low levels of education as a predictor of these values is both reinforcing harmful stereotypes and not a very scientific reading of that chart. Since the difference between having a graduate degree and having less than high school is barely a 10% gap, and there's an incredibly small gap between having only a high school degree and having a bachelor's degree, it doesn't seem particularly valid to say education level is a strong predictor.

Regardless of any of these individual's arguably questionable beliefs, the real issue here is not the actual beliefs but instead that in 2012 US, we shouldn't have religious ideology influencing political ideology. It's great if, in someone's personal life, (s)he believes that all life is a gift of God, but that person, in turn, shouldn't be allowing personal religious beliefs to influence policy. If you think pregnancy from rape is God giving someone a beautiful gift after trauma, wonderful... you don't have to have an abortion if ever faced with that situation. Writing that into law, though, prevents people who do not feel similarly from making decisions they should be allowed to make. 

God is kind of a dick, it seems.

if god intends all things to happen and has a plan, wouldn't a woman getting an abortion then be gods will? also what if god intends to take life away? is the health care industry playing god by keeping people alive?

I came across this article this morning- tread carefully, as it could definitely upset anyone who has been the victim of rape or sexual assault.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/

I still don't undertand why everyone else then the actual woman in question is the one for concern. First the zygote, then God. What about the person, who is alive an has a free will? What about her? What does SHE want? She didn't chose to be raped by a psycho. She didnt ask for a pregnancy because of it. She didn't chose to be born with a ovary, so that she was in danger of losing her own life because a fetus is growing inside of her - sometimes against her will. Then, let her decide what happends now - not you, old white heterosexual males, who never will try to experience neither!

Caroline Heldman lost me in the second paragraph when she completely misinterpreted Mourdock's comments. It was obvious he was referring to the gift of life -- not the gift of rape. 

I'd like to point out that the whole "Can you abort if you were raped?" line of discussion is an attempt to change the subject and avoid addressing the ethical and moral concerns of abortion itself. Sane pro-life people have as their main point that aborting a fetus is murder. Bringing up the exact circumstance of the fetus' creation is irrelevant at best.

It's frequently used as a false dichotomy  'If you don't support abortion you are in favor of rape.' This is a really reprehensible and manipulative line of argument.

I'd like to point out that the whole "Can you abort if you were raped?" line of discussion is an attempt to change the subject and avoid addressing the ethical and moral concerns of abortion itself. Sane pro-life people have as their main point that aborting a fetus is murder. Bringing up the exact circumstance of the fetus' creation is irrelevant at best.
It's frequently used as a false dichotomy  'If you don't support abortion you are in favor of rape.' This is a really reprehensible and manipulative line of argument.

I think it's a good time to point out that it is possible to be Christian and not hold the same veiws as most Republican politicians.  It is also possible to claim to be Christian, even to go to church, and not have a Christian worldveiw at all. Many of these 'Christian' politicians are far from showing the love a Christian is supposed to have for the people around them. I am a female Christian and I do not belive that pregnency as a result of rape is a gift.  I have never been in a situation where I would need to make a decision regarding abortion, so I don't want to judge anyone unfairly.