Mourdock, Part 2

Some conservative writers are starting to hit back on behalf of Richard Mourdock. Here's a critique of attempts to compare Mourdock's comments to those of Todd "There is no pregnancy from legitimate rape" Akin, by  The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto :

Mourdock gave a straightforward and thoughtful answer, if an impolitic one, to the question that was posed, one that made clear he appreciates its (albeit only hypothetical) moral gravity. Akin, by contrast, attempted to avoid the question by arguing that it was irrelevant.

That argument was unsound because it was based on an unfounded empirical premise, one that is generally understood to be false--namely that rape never causes pregnancy, or does so with such infrequency as to constitute a negligible problem.

[. . .]

Donnelly, seeking to capitalize on the kerfuffle, "put out a statement attacking Mourdock," the Hill reports:

"I think rape is a heinous and violent crime in every instance," Donnelly said in the statement. "The God I believe in and the God I know most Hoosiers believe in does not intend for rape to happen--ever. What Mr. Mourdock said is shocking, and it is stunning that he would be so disrespectful to survivors of rape."

Donnelly is engaging in some sleazy innuendo here. Mourdock's assertion about what "God intended" clearly referred to conception ("when life begins"), not rape.

But what's interesting about Donnelly's statement is that he claims to agree with Mourdock's central premises: that God exists, and that unborn children are human beings worthy of legal protection (or, as the Hill puts it, Donnelly "is also against abortion rights"). Donnelly differs from Mourdock only in reaching the opposite conclusion on the specific question of a rape exception.

[. . .]

Donnelly, however, is as dismissive of the question as Akin. He professes a belief in God yet appears never to have grappled with the problem of evil. Surely "the God . . . most Hoosiers believe in" is omnipresent, yet he is somehow AWOL, in Donnelly's theodicy, anytime a woman is raped.

Taranto's analysis touches on something largely ignored by the rest of the commentariat: Donnelly is just as pro-life as Mourdock is. his efforts to capitalize on the "gaffe" notwithstanding. If you're seeking a pro-choice candidate in this race, good luck.

And here is Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post:

Reporters and pundits have no time for such concerns. Like red before a bull, they see “rape comment” and go charging off, seeing how much dust they can kick up. It is as predictable as it is tiresome.

They are transparently eager to help the president reverse the tide of the election. So any goof or any controversial statement is then seized upon, tied to Mitt Romney and converted into a “Mitt Romney has a problem” story line. This duet by anxious pols and willing spinners in the media assumes that voters are idiots. (It also assumes that people outside Indiana know who Richard Mourdock is.)

These same pundits and reporters are the ones (exactly the ones) who stopped writing and talking about Libya when it became a real national-security scandal and not a Romney “gaffe.” Their interest in topics and the degree of faux outrage is determined by one factor and one factor only: Will it help or hurt Obama?

[. . .]