And the GOP does it again!
It seems as though another Republican has been caught making offensive statements regarding women's reproductive issues. Here's a link.
In a nutshell, Indiana's Republican candidate for their senatorial seat tries to stick to the party line on abortion when he indicated that he did not support legal abortion in a case in which the fetus is the product of rape. "That's something God intended," he said. The "something" to which he referred was the child, not the rape. Many have taken his remarks to mean that the rape was what God intended. Mourdock rushed to insist that rape is a reprehensible crime and not intended by God. He did not mean to support or promote rape - just the children who are born from it.
I don't think it matters. I mean, it's a chicken-or-the-egg thing. If God intends for the child to be born, then he must also intend the rape that creates the child. In this case, you can't have one without the other. This guy can backpedal until his legs are stuck in reverse. He can spin it any way he wants. No matter how it is worded, his position on this matter is such that some rape victims should be forced to endure yet another violation: the occupancy of their womb by an unwanted baby who was put there against the woman's consent and during a violent crime. Adding God's intentions into the mix just makes it a worse sound byte. It doesn't change the essence of his position. He thinks the unborn child's right to life surpasses the rape victim's right to bodily autonomy. We get it. It's not that people don't understand. It's not that the comment was taken out of context. I think he just needs to grow up and own his position.
My reaction? I think it's easy for a man to stand up and say these things. I think it's very easy for a man, who by simple virtue of being a man will never conceivably find himself pregnant as a result of anything (let alone rape), to take a position that says life is good and anything else is bad and then wash his hands of it. I also think it is relatively easy for a man, whose sex makes him enormously less likely to suffer rape or sexual assault, to give that part of the issue a backseat. Neither the specters of rape nor unwanted pregnancy hang over the heads of men the way they do over women. For most women, the situation that he is describing is regarded as a remote but terrible possibility. It is always there in the back of one's mind. It is something that could happen to any of us. We fear it. And we think about it. For most men, it's a political issue. It's a moral issue. It's an exercise in setting social policy. It's never personal, though. It's never going to happen to them. They think about it. They don't feel it -- and they will certainly never have to live with the consequences if their policies are enacted. When I saw his backtracking blather on the news today, I actually scoffed aloud. "That's easy for a man to say," I said.
I think the Republicans need to stop letting their male candidates speak on women's reproductive issues. I think they need to let the women in their party take the lead on this and choose the way they're going to frame their answers to this question. If the Republicans want to be pro-life, I say sure. That's up to them. They might spend less time chewing on their toenails if the sound bytes came from party members who could actually end up living with the results. It isn't so easy for women to say these things.
In a nutshell, Indiana's Republican candidate for their senatorial seat tries to stick to the party line on abortion when he indicated that he did not support legal abortion in a case in which the fetus is the product of rape. "That's something God intended," he said. The "something" to which he referred was the child, not the rape. Many have taken his remarks to mean that the rape was what God intended. Mourdock rushed to insist that rape is a reprehensible crime and not intended by God. He did not mean to support or promote rape - just the children who are born from it.
I don't think it matters. I mean, it's a chicken-or-the-egg thing. If God intends for the child to be born, then he must also intend the rape that creates the child. In this case, you can't have one without the other. This guy can backpedal until his legs are stuck in reverse. He can spin it any way he wants. No matter how it is worded, his position on this matter is such that some rape victims should be forced to endure yet another violation: the occupancy of their womb by an unwanted baby who was put there against the woman's consent and during a violent crime. Adding God's intentions into the mix just makes it a worse sound byte. It doesn't change the essence of his position. He thinks the unborn child's right to life surpasses the rape victim's right to bodily autonomy. We get it. It's not that people don't understand. It's not that the comment was taken out of context. I think he just needs to grow up and own his position.
My reaction? I think it's easy for a man to stand up and say these things. I think it's very easy for a man, who by simple virtue of being a man will never conceivably find himself pregnant as a result of anything (let alone rape), to take a position that says life is good and anything else is bad and then wash his hands of it. I also think it is relatively easy for a man, whose sex makes him enormously less likely to suffer rape or sexual assault, to give that part of the issue a backseat. Neither the specters of rape nor unwanted pregnancy hang over the heads of men the way they do over women. For most women, the situation that he is describing is regarded as a remote but terrible possibility. It is always there in the back of one's mind. It is something that could happen to any of us. We fear it. And we think about it. For most men, it's a political issue. It's a moral issue. It's an exercise in setting social policy. It's never personal, though. It's never going to happen to them. They think about it. They don't feel it -- and they will certainly never have to live with the consequences if their policies are enacted. When I saw his backtracking blather on the news today, I actually scoffed aloud. "That's easy for a man to say," I said.
I think the Republicans need to stop letting their male candidates speak on women's reproductive issues. I think they need to let the women in their party take the lead on this and choose the way they're going to frame their answers to this question. If the Republicans want to be pro-life, I say sure. That's up to them. They might spend less time chewing on their toenails if the sound bytes came from party members who could actually end up living with the results. It isn't so easy for women to say these things.