Posted on 09/11/2012 5:54:21 PM PDT by shibumi
The furor over Todd Akin's remarks about rape and the low probability of a resulting pregnancy have died down for the time being. I hesitated to comment on the whole affair during the tumult because most of what was written or said during that time was sure to be lost in the whirlwind of hyperbole.
The accuracy of Representative Akin's comments, at least from a medical stand point may be shaky. Although it is true that the incidence of impregnation is probably lower just as the incidence of spontaneous miscarriage is higher, there certainly are cases of pregnancy resulting from rape.
But the outcry against Representative Akin's statement was not so much directed at his lack of medical erudition as it was toward his use of the term "legitimate rape." Here, he was clearly trying to distinguish between the forcible rape by a stranger and a crime of the same name that occurs when two people are acquainted, but one has misapprehended the nature of that acquaintance and the familiarity it infers.
What is striking and grossly hypocritical is that the Representative can be publicly pilloried for making such a distinction when it was first a liberal icon who brought this distinction into the public consciousness.
Flashback, if you will, to September of 2009. This is Whoopi Goldberg attempting to defend another pop culture darling Roman Polanski on a charge of raping a 13 year old girl:
""I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape."
All that is needed is to insert the word "legitimate" for the first "rape" in that bit of moral equivocation and you have a less eloquent, but just as obtuse view of a violent crime committed against a woman.
But whether Representative Akin's comments were sage wisdom, a reflection of Goldberg's pop culture views or simply a poor choice of words, the controversy over them obfuscates the real issue at hand.
That issue is, of course,the fate of the child.
While the liberal proponents of "choice" feel they are being beaten by the inescapable fact that there are innocent human lives at stake, they seem always to seek refuge in the harbor of "rape and incest." Their lines of reasoning in this regard are quite similar to the thinking behind the statement made by the occupant of The White House (in what was probably an unguarded and semi-honest moment) that unplanned children are a "punishment." The person that uttered that hateful statement is the one that should properly be hounded to drop out of the race for public office.
It is absolutely true that the victim of a rape faces untold trauma. The victim of incest as well, although trauma of perhaps a different sort. And of course there is trauma involved with unplanned, unexpected, or unwanted pregnancy at any time. Yet in all these situations, how is the child to blame?
The proponents of "choice" see abortion as a remedy for human action, whether it be the act of thoughtless cupidity, misdirected affection or the horrible violence of forced sex.
In which of these circumstances is the unborn child at fault? And why do we seek to inflict the harshest penalty of all - the death sentence - on the one person in all of these scenarios who did absolutely nothing?
I am by no means suggesting that the victim of rape should be forced to nurture and raise a constant reminder of her ordeal. I do however question whether her mental health can be improved by the certain knowledge that in response to that ordeal, she has taken an absolutely innocent human life.
Given the upside down priorities of today's courts, it is as likely as not that the actual perpetrator of such a crime could be sentenced to anger management counseling and probation.
This, while in clear defiance of the laws of God, man and nature that same court would sanction the killing of the one person in all of this whose greatest crime is simply the act of living.
Ping.
Akin’s statements were stupid. He’s admitted as much. He’s disowned his comments. He is not standing by them.
Politics is serious business. Loyalty and past service doesn’t matter a whit. It’s no different than a football player who’s injured a knee and lost a step. That player has to go. It’s sad, it sucks, but it is what it is. This isn’t about what’s fair, it’s about winning and putting forward the best candidates we can. Akin is no longer that candidate.
This senate seat is bigger than Akin. He screwed up bad and should have stepped aside. He’s got a big ego and can’t let go of his dream of being a Senator. As a consequence, we are not going to be able to win this seat. Because Akin won’t do the right thing, Claire McCaskill will get another 6 year term as Senator.
I’m not trying to be snarky (unlike my usual demeanor) but did you actually read what I wrote?
It has very little to do with Todd Akin’s election.
It has very little to do with Todd Akin’s election.
Yes, I already agree with your broader point about exceptions for rape and incest. Killing the baby is not the answer. I just don't think you should use anything to do with Akin to make your point is all.
I wish Akin had had it thought out this well. One would hope that within the time-span of his whole political career, he would have anticipated such a question and prepared a short but memorable sound-bite. Not easy, maybe, but here's one attempt:
"Think of the three parties involved: the rapist, the raped woman, and the newly-begotten baby. Which one committed a crime of violence? Which one deserves to forfeit life or liberty for this crime?"
Better yet, he should take 5 minutes to become acquainted with a person conceived by rape ---Youtube has a bunch of videos of people like this (Link) --- and lead off my saying, "I listen to women. I heard the testimony of Rebecca Keissling, who was conceived by rape. Yes, she was that baby. It's a terrible thing too be raped, but a baby is still a beautiful life. Ask a woman who knows. Ask Rebecca Keissling."
That way you're putting the focus on a person, a reality, and not just a "political opinion."
Point taken, and very well made.
Thanks!
Shibumi’s piece is spot-on, Longbow.
Shibumi is not talking about “politics,” nor should he be, in this case.
What Akin said is closer to the truth than you might care to believe. Conception is rare, as it is (if you understand how a woman’s body works), and there are statistics on rape that show conception occurs in less than five percent of cases, maybe even less than that.
There are some things more important than a Senate seat, and I would put innocent human life in that category.
Thanks for the ping to a well thought out and well written piece. The real issue is the sanctity of ALL human life. Rejection of inconvenient life is a rejection of the Creator. And that is not working out very well. And it will continue so.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.
I pinged you because I know you and the Mrs have strong opinions on this issue. Opinions which we share unequivocally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.