no one in their right mind would make that arguement....we shouldn't allow abortion, even in the case of rape, because you are killing an innocent human being....that's arguement enough.
I think that was the point about Akin. And in fact, he didn't really want to make that argument, but that's what the logical conclusion of the supporting argument for Akin.
There's no reason to try to make the argument that women have some sort of protection from pregnancy if they are "legitimately raped". We would want to ban abortion in the case of rape whether there was ONE pregnancy a year, or a MILLION pregnancies a year, from rape. It makes absolutely no difference to the legitimate argument about not killing human beings because some other human being committed a crime.
But to defend Akin's comments, people have legitimately pointed out that women under stress self-abort. That is a sad fact of life. But it has no bearing at all on the argument against allowing abortion for rape victims. It WOULD be a valid argument if you were trying to say we don't have to abort them, because they can self-abort by being stressed. But that would be a stupid argument.
The logical conclusion is that you shouldn't bring up the rarity of rape pregnancies, or the rate of spontaneous abortion in stress cases, when your argument is that the death of a human being is a tragedy. The self-abortion of children of rape victims is a tragedy, just as if they were aborted by a doctor.
In fact, the pro-life argument here would be that we should increase the pregnancy rate for rape victims, because we should provide them counseling to relieve their stress and bring them to a peace about their child, to increase the chances of carrying to term.
But that argument is pretty much the opposite of the argument that banning abortion for rape isn't that big a deal since many women self-abort after a rape.