First, I must make the important, up-front statement that I am not religious and believe very, very, very (I don't know if I can emphasize that enough) strongly that religion, politics, government, and public policy should not, under any circumstances, mix. Period. Any argument on public policy should be based on sound science, sound social science, and/or sound research on a given policy's effects on all of society. Once someone's only argument for regulating a given behavior becomes "{God/Allah/The Bible/Jesus/Mohammad/The Talmud/The Quoran/Buddha} said...," the discussion ends and they no longer get to be considered the legitimate "other side" of the debate. Any society that contains a heterogeneous people with heterogeneous personal and religious beliefs cannot maintain legitimate government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" when laws and policies prioritizes the religious beliefs of one group of people above the beliefs, customs, practices, and lifestyles of other groups of people. Debates on policy should reflect the acknowledgement and acceptance that, since all must live under and abide by these policies, the policies must be built on how they affect society as a whole. Consequently, I do not believe that Mourdock's statements should be engaged by using religious counter-arguments. NOTE: This does not mean basic human values (e.g. justice, equity, fairness, etc.) do not serve as legitimate considerations for policy design.
However, in the name of fun thoughts, it did occur to me that, beyond providing logic for "God intends for women to be raped," Mourdock provided a Tea Party JesusTM rationalization for abortions, too. After all, if an unwanted pregnancy is terminated by the mother, whatever her reason, is that not also what "God" (Read: the voices in Mourdock's head) intended?