I don't think Mourdock's statement would've raised too many angry replies in the absence of Akin's idiocy.
If we try to dig down and see what each man really meant, rather than seizing on their wording, it's clear that Akin's statement is far worse.
"If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
Two things here. First, the "legitimate rape" wording. This is meant to imply that some rape is not really rape, i.e. that women are quick to "cry rape" even when it really wasn't. A pernicious meme that is deeply harmful to victims of rape. Second, the thing about the female body, which betrays an incredible lack of understanding of basic biology, as well as feeding back into the "cry rape" meme: if a woman gets pregnant, then I guess we can conclude it wasn't really rape.
Mourdocks' statement:
"I came to realize that life is that gift from God and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
I think if we are a little charitable, it's clear that what he's trying to say is that pregnancy is always a gift from God, even if it happens from a horrific situation. That all life happens as a part of God's plan, and so we should never simply end it, even in these difficult edge cases. We might disagree with that, certainly, but it's not pernicious like Akin's statement. There's no specious science, no implied accusation that women are lying about being raped.
In the context of the post-Tea Party GOP, it's easy to assume the worst of Mourdock. But I don't think we really need to--I think he really just did put his foot in his mouth with a poorly-worded statement, and some of us are seizing on it because we don't agree with his conclusions.
