Choice forms a critical distinction there; small wonder Cornyn and Mourdock missed it. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 26/10/2012 12:50:01 AM
I merely wanted to make the point - as Cornyn did - that IF you believe that God "intends" for a very much wanted baby to be born in a loving family, then you cannot but accept that God must also "intend" for the unwanted babies conceived through rape to be born. If you don't, well, then it's a different story; but you seem to agree with me in your reply that Mourdock's comment is not problematic, except to the extent that it conveys his belief in a God who has a real influence on some things that happen in life. There's no reason for people sharing that belief to take umbrage at what he said.
You may recall one of my Pithy Pet Phrases is that "Christianity is the ultimate pro-choice position." It well complements the one in my sig, but also makes this issue (most issues, really) hard to separate from theodicy. Choice makes all the difference in the world between a desired and undesired child. To say God enabled the first and allowed the second is not to say both are Gods will.
Where pregnancy is not practically impossible (as in my mothers case,) I contend Gods role limited to having made sexual reproduction possible. That does not make all the forms in which we accomplish it Gods will any more than giving us brains makes the atom bomb Gods will. Where pregnancy is almost or even completely miraculous for those who want children, once again God enabling a choice is not the same as God allowing what no one chose. If Mr. Mourdock knows of a woman who:
1) Medical science declared incapable of conception, 2) did not want a child in the first place and 3) nonetheless got pregnant from rape,
THEN he might have a case on the grounds you cite, but only then.