Rape, abortion and Republicans

The highest source of authority to which those in a secular but mainly Christian society might refer is the word of God as scripture in the Holy Bible. However, the Bible is a product of its time and sometimes there is no direct reference to address a modern problem. Take abortion, for instance. We suppose that the commandment “thou shalt not kill” should conceivably cover the issue for those who claim to be pro-life, but this must be compromised somewhat if the life of the mother is also in danger.

Some of the more moderate pro-life advocates would also permit an exception in the circumstance where the conception is as a result of rape or incest. However, there are also those under the same pro-life umbrella who, in an effort to adhere as closely as possible to what they perceive to be scriptural injunction, seek to exclude even this as a valid justification for an abortion.

In some regional states, the debate has already been settled, at least legally, with legislation which permits a termination of pregnancy where its continuation would involve “risk to the life of the pregnant woman or grave injury to her physical or mental health”.

In the United States of America, however, the topic of abortion assumes significant electoral importance despite the definitive ruling of the Supreme Court that a woman has a constitutional right to privacy which encompasses her right to an abortion until the child becomes viable, usually at 28 weeks.

In recent weeks, therefore, two Republican candidates have tried to outdo each other in their attempts to justify the non-applicability of the rape exception. Unfortunately, they have both done so in less than precise or felicitous language, exposing themselves to ridicule and causing unwarranted embarrassment to former Presidential and other Republican candidates for congressional and senatorial office.

First, Mr Todd Akin, the Republican senatorial candidate for Missouri, declared that women’s bodies have “ways of preventing pregnancy in cases of legitimate rape”. Such a shockingly general expression should immediately be dismissed for what it may be worth, but it may seriously be questioned also why there is no similar device to prevent the contraction of HIV in such cases. However, it is the expression “legitimate rape” that causes most concern in this context. To apply the epithet “legitimate” to one of the most heinous crimes imaginable clearly betrays a twisted thinking. He later claimed that he misspoke.

The furore had scarcely abated when another Republican nominee for the Senate, Mr Robert Murdock, incurred further wrath with his observation that if a woman gets raped and pregnant as a result, “that’s something God intended…” The hostile reaction may be owed to his poor colocation of words which suggests that God intended the rape also, but taking Murdock’s statement de bene esse [in the best light], it could simply mean that since God is the creator of life, then he must have created the progeny of the rapist as well. This is not that far removed from conventional Christian doctrine.

Nevertheless, this is what happens when man attempts to create God in his own image. From his wry observations on the Sabbath, his reaction to the accusers of the woman caught in adultery, to his response to the crucified thief on the cross at Golgotha, we can deduce that the Son of God did not deal in absolutes. Murdock should perhaps look elsewhere for justification for his views.