Hat tip to Mock, Paper, Scissors for pointing out this post and providing the title for my post.
To the anti-abortion zealots and their defenders who are claiming that the mean old progressive bullies are twisting the meaning of your words, well Digby has an answer for you:
I’m not a religious person so I can’t speak to the theology here, but as a logical person I can only hold my head in my hands and moan. God doesn’t make mistakes but he didn’t intend for a rape to happen. It’s God’s will but sometimes bad things happen. All of this is supposed to be true simultaneously.
I’m sorry, if it’s God’s will and he doesn’t make mistakes then he must have intended the rape as well as the pregnancy. You can’t have it both ways and say he is omnipotent and all powerful and let him off the hook on that half that equation while you insist that the pregnancy is inviolable because God intended it.
This doesn’t matter to me because I am not a believer and I don’t care what “God’s will” is supposed to be. But for anyone who does believe, that logical inconsistency should require some deeper consideration before blurting it out in public and expecting people to accept it as an argument.
These people see women as an abstraction and blastocysts and fetuses as real, which makes it quite clear that they do devalue women and seek to control them. Their motivation for that is irrelevant to me. The fact that Mourdock doesn’t think about the living, breathing human being (aka gestation vessel) who is being told she must give birth to her rapist father’s child means that he is a complete and utter failure as a person and is totally unqualified to represent the 50% of the population he so blithely dismisses.