Richard Mourdock furnishes media with October Surprise

Richard Mourdock has used predictable language to explain that he doesn't see children as a disease to be cured, but rather sees God's hands in the creation of life no matter what the origin.  Not really a big surprise for people informed about religious belief.  But watching Obama's once sure victory slipping from their fingers, the media has jumped on this, hoping that our iPad generation doesn't have the time to think beyond the next iPad, and will simply lump this in with Todd Akin's statements about rape and pregnancy.

Fact is, Mourdock is expressing a common pro-life understanding of pregnancy and babies.  Just because a pregnancy happens from a rape does not suddenly make the baby therein a non-being.  The unborn baby is every bit an unborn baby.  The idea that God is at work is typical religious belief.  The journalists who act shocked about this might as well begin the conversation by stating 'I, for one, know absolutely nothing about religion or religious belief.'

On CNN, Roland Martin lashed out at this in a way that defines the pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion mentalities.  He asked if your daughter was raped, would you want her to keep the baby?  How you answer shows how you will see Mourdock's statement.  Of course I would.  A person in favor of abortion rights might not.  Therein lies the difference. But being outraged that Mourdock has said such a thing means you are simply outraged that 1) people don't  hold to your view of human life, 2) you are outraged that people have religious beliefs about God that you don't hold, or 3) a combination thereof.

FWIW, I suspect the committee to reelect Obama media will push this into the light to take attention away from the unfolding Libya debacle, and to press Romney into saying something stupid that could further alienate pro-life voters who are already suspicious about Romney's pro-life credentials.