From the editors, National Review: "Mourdock was not saying that God intended for the rape to happen."
Of course he was. There's no other conceivable interpretation. "[E]ven when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
Are the editors suggesting that an omniscient God could be unaware of "events" leading to the pregnancy? Are the editors suggesting that an omnipotent God could be rendered helpless when confronting an imminent rape, from which would proceed the pregnancy which God "intended"? Indeed, are the editors suggesting that God could not have foreseen and thus prevented, say, the unspeakable slaughter of the First and Second and Third World Wars (if one counts the first one that George Washington fecklessly triggered in 1754) as well as the Holocaust and assorted other genocides and famines and wretched world poverty and human plagues and motherless children?
Sorry, boys, but once you argue divine omnipotence, the divine becomes wholly responsible.