Replies

“What Akin said is true. If a woman is actually raped, the female body is less likely to conceive.”

Even if what you say is true (and certainly there are a lot of doctors out there who disagree with the theory), that is not what Akin said: there’s a difference between rape victims being “less likely to conceive” (what you said) and saying that “the body shuts down” making pregnancy “rare.” And that’s before we even get to his use of the phrase “legitimate rape” when he meant to say “forcible rape.”

I am a 100% pro-lifer, and I can explain my position in a way that a child could understand, without having to resort to quasi-scientific theories of the likelihood of conception during a rape:

“An unborn child is an innocent human being, and has the same right to life of any innocent human being, irrespective of how he was conceived. I support the death penalty for rapists (and hope that SCOTUS overrules its ahistorical jurisprudence limiting the use of capital punishment to murder), but I do not support the death penalty for the innocent child.

Our Constitution sets limits on the use of “Corruption of Blood,” since the Framers found it illegitimate to punish a child for the sins of his father. When the state permits the child who is a product of rape to be killed, the state is permitting the child to be killed as punishment for his father’s crime. An unborn child is no less human just because his father was a rapist.”

Had Akin stated the above, he would have been criticized by liberals but would still be on his way to beating McCaskill in November. Instead, he made an outrageous claim that was completely unnecessary, and will result in him losing in November if he stays on the ballot. As much as it pains me to say it, I think that he should step down and let another conservative Republican run.