But since you apparently need a pat on the head... yes, you're so right. Rape is bad. Rapists shouldn't do that.
There, feel better? Now, do you care to comment on the actual content of the discussion - whether Mourdock's comment was actually insensitive and worth of the media's attack on him? Most rational folk believe that his comment indicates that he believes that God is the author of life in the womb, and if He chooses to start life inside a womb (even one that was violated), then He has a reason for it. (If you bother to read Mourdock's actual comment, his words were "in that horrible situation of rape".) Most hysterical folk seem to run with the notion that since he made a comment about rape, and it included God, then Mourdock must be a jackass. Which side do you take?
“Where exactly does anyone’s comment condone the rape?”
I’ve no idea - where have I said that anyone has “condoned” rape?
*Strawman Detector needle twitches*
“whether Mourdock’s comment was actually insensitive”
Since you’re asking a simple question: yes, massively so. It might - just possibly, maybe - seem somewhat insensitive / callous for someone to maintain that it was divine will for a woman to become pregnant after having been raped. Hence my “hey, every cloud!” comment.
If this is the case, then should the poor woman also ask herself whether the rape itself was also the result of divine will? Could that not cause err “some” emotional upset?
Bottom line, he’s a professional politician - and he should know better than to publically phrase his beliefs in such an utterly ham-fisted way. It’s going to be too easy for his (and Romney’s) opponents to spin this to their advantage.