The contradictions in Richard Mourdock's position and remarks about rape and choice are too many to thoroughly explore. But here are a few:
If rape victims are forced to carry to term and give birth, shouldn't those who forced them to do so provide support until the child is an adult? Otherwise isn't it forcing economic hardship on someone who never chose the risk she was taking?
How can those who support forcing women to bear children do so without accounting for the simple fact that families with the financial means to fly their sister, daughter, wife, friend to Taiwan or SI Asia, or to Europe, live free of any constraints about a woman's control of her own body?
What in the world, or in heaven, are people like Mourdock thinking when they claim that their all-knowing, all-seeing God "intended" the result of the act, but that the act, the "horrible situation of rape" does not reflect on their almighty, all-loving creator?
Oh wait. These are hateful hurtful paranoids who believe in a deity who behaves as they do. Of course Romney's campaign supports this idiot, but the candidate himself disagrees with Mourdock's position on choice. Makes sense, considering.