GOP senate candidate Richard Mourdock (Indiana) believes in God’s will, and because he believes in God’s will what he said about pregnancy through rape isn’t the outrage that his opponents say it is.
What candidate Mourdock said was that he opposes abortion even if a woman becomes pregnant via rape because “it is something that God intended.” Mourdock issued a clarifying statement saying that he didn’t mean to imply that the rape was God’s will, only that the pregnancy was God’s will. But this is a false distinction. If God intended the pregnancy, then God must have intended the rape since there would have been no pregnancy without the rape.
Honestly, there should be no controversy here. If you believe that God runs the universe, then everything that happens is God’s will. If you win the lottery—God’s will. If you develop cancer—God’s will. If you are raped—God’s will. If you become pregnant because of that rape—God’s will. If God doesn’t will something, how can it happen?
Of course you might object, and say that the rapist had free will and could have chosen not to rape, but is this true? Again if the pregnancy is part of God’s plan, then the rape must be part of the plan as well. You can’t have one without the other. So the rapist had to rape, and the egg had to fertilize, and the fetus has to be born.
You may not like this theology, but it is fairly main stream. Mr. Mourdock isn’t saying anything that millions of Americans don’t already believe. If you don’t like this theology, offer an alternative.
Here are two: 1) There is no God and things happen for no divine reason whatsoever; or 2) God’s will is capricious, allowing the free will of rapists who want to rape to trump the free will of women who don’t want to be raped.
If you have other alternatives, please post them in the comments section.