So Richard (DIck) Mourdock has a big sad ("it has been one of the toughest days of my life") about the very suggestion that just because (he believes, after he "struggled with it myself for a long time") God intends a rapist to get his victim pregnant that he therefore intends for the rapist to actually, you know, rape his victim.

Because, you know, he and his ilk also claim even if the father is a sinner God says his child is completely innocent and just as precious as any other life.

Oh really?

Let's see what his part of the Bible say about God's attitudes towards the offspring of guilty people:

(Exodus 34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving kindness and truth; who keeps loving kindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

Uh oh!

Not that we really expect Mourdock, Aiken, Ryan, or other nominally Christian extremists to be authentic, let alone consistent, about their respect for the Bible -- after all their entire political agenda involves the repeal of the Sermon on the Mount!  But if we take them at their word then they're stuck with only a few very ugly choices:

If God meant what he said in Exodus 34:6-7 (and elsewhere around the Old Testament) then He doesn't think a rapist's baby is all that innocent or worthy of protection after all.  In which case Mourock et. al are seriously misinterpreting what God wants, Or.

If God meant what he said but a rapist's baby doesn't fall under the Exodus 34:6-7 clause then God sort of necessarily really doesnt think a rapist is guilty of iniquity.  In which case Mourdock et. al are seriously misinterpreting what God wants.

If God really didn't mean what he said in Exodus 34:6-7, or, worse from their claimed position, he meant it but it's not that big a deal to ignore Him, then they're throwing open the Biblical-interpretation cafeteria door, in which case they need to explain... well... why we have to listen to them pulling the God card on any number of other issues... where, after all, they're generally far more at odds with the black and white text than are, oh, say, most liberals and progressives.

Personally I think there are plenty of other positive, uplifting, and non-getting-into-other-people's-business versions of Christian theology that don't require literal interpetations of every line of text.  Which considering Jesus' absolute and unambiguous condemnations of hypocrisy and empty piety ought to comfort Mourdock, Akin, Ryan, and their ilk enormously. 

But!

If they're going to keep insisting we adopt their spiteful, narrow, supersticious and suspiciously self-serving interpretations then... one way or another Mourdock is wrong that God both doesn't intend for a rapist to commit his crime but does intend him to impregnate his victim.

Seriously, gang.  If you're going to be a Christian in the first place you've got to see the Bible as more than a magic rattle you can shake any time you want to feel good about being a self-serving dick.

Note: I've been using the words "rape" and "rapist" in these last few posts because that's the language Mourdock, Akin, Ryan, and the rest insist on using.

Speaking about his own daughter's unplanned, unwanted pregnancy Tom Smith is generally considered to have equated the serious matter of criminal sexual assault with unwed pregnancy. Believe it or not, the American Taliban Republican Senate candidate is an even bigger capital-P Patriarchal knuckle dragger than that! Check out Christine Roberts' succinct summary of Smith's remarks. (Emphasis mine.)

"Now don't get me wrong. It wasn't rape."

When pressed by another reporter, the 66-year-old reiterated the comparison of his daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy to becoming pregnant from rape.

"Put yourself in a father's position. Yes, it is similar," he said.

Source: Daily Kos

Never mind how the daughter might feel about an unwanted pregnancy with a lover vs. a criminal sexual assailant, to conservative Republicans (oh, and the Taliban) what's important is how her father feels about it! Contrary to the common interpretation he's not saying it's no difference to her! Just that it makes no difference to him!

As a father!

Either way in Tom Smith's old-fashioned Patriarchy all that matters is she's damaged goods and a burden on her family so what difference could it possibly make?

Basically these guys don't just want to repeal the Sermon on the Mount and the 14th - 24th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, they want to repeal the whole fucking 20th and 21st Centuries and get back to the good old days of English Common Law, which defines rape -- both statutory and "forcible," as property crimes with the father, husband, or other custodial male as the victim rather than, well, the actual victim.

Sweet Mother of Pearl!

Kaili Joy Gray asks yet another big WTF to what she calls Feminism™. The issue? What one would imagine to be the premier pro-choice/abortion-rights organization in America, NARAL/ProChoiceAmerica, waited till... the week before the election to comment on Mississippi Initiative 26, the so-called "Personhood Amendment" that would have outlawed not only abortion and stem-cell research but miscarriages and as many forms of non-barrier birth control as opponents could think of.

Seriously? Just a week before? Yeah, seriously, just a week before.

[T]hank god NARAL sweeps in, just days before the election, to educate us about something we apparently know nothing about. Excellent timing, isn't it? Because if we are really as ignorant as Nancy Keenan thinks we are, a few days is plenty of notice to launch an effective campaign to defeat the bill, isn't it?

Source: Daily Kos

What really seems to chap Gray's ass is the headline of NARAL president Nancy Keenan's press release at Huffington Post: "The War on Women You Haven't Heard of."

Seriously? Yes, seriously.

Just for the record, a) whereas Mississippi's "Personhood" amendment has been going wall to wall since roughly minutes after it was first introduced back in March of 2011, and b) whereas even the National Organization for Women, which can sometimes be, um, slow to respond was mentioning the the amendment last summer, and c) whereas even the NARAL branch Pro-Choice Ohio was all over the admendment, a fairly detailed search of the NARAL site suggests that, indeed, the organization that's nominally the premier pro-choice organization and certainly one of the biggest sources of pro-choice donations first mentioned Mississippi's "Personhood" amendment on November 1st! Seven days before the election.

Oops. Except Keenan mentioned it first in the Huffington Post. At NARAL/ProChoiceAmerica it was first mentioned... the day after the election!

Which kind of leaves me in the same camp as Kaily Joy Gray. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, if NARAL does not want to use its public platform and fundraising prowess to advance the cause of choice, I know some people who would like to borrow it for a time, provided they could see how it could be made to do something.

Because seven days before election night?!?!?! Sweet mother of pearl!

Lest you think NARAL/ProChoiceAmerica focuses only on choice at the national level, and prefers to leave minor issues like Initiative 26 to state an local chapters, Gray points out (correctly as far as I can tell) that the national organization has been equally mum on any of the several groups in Congress and the Senate who are currently circulating "Personhood" amendments to the Constitution.

Which leaves me wondering (as does Gray) whether NARAL intends to wait to start fundraising organizing till seven days before Congress tries to pass "personhood" Amendment, or perhaps till seven days before the 38th (and therefore last) state ratifies?

!#%*&%@!

Photo via TPMKaili Joy Gray of Daily Kos says

Thank god someone finally has the courage to stand up to the rape and incest cheats who, for too long, have been defrauding the system with their bogus allegations just to cash in on all the fabulous perks and benefits that come with being impregnated by a rapist.

Source: Daily Kos

You probably don't even need to guess, but follow the link if you're not sure. In a way it doesn't matter which state they try it in first, they'll try something worse in another state next week.

If there was ever any doubt that the current rash (and I do mean rash in numerous senses of the word) of various state's abortion restrictions is purely about fear and hatred of women and not even slightly about protecting the unborn, Matthew Yglesias reminds us

Meanwhile, from Andrea Nill I learn that at least five babies have died in Nebraska since they started denying prenatal care to undocumented mothers. Life, after all, begins at conception, ends at birth, and doesn’t count if you’re from Mexico.

Source: Center for American Progress

No wonder I've been feeling depressed lately.